Page 1
WRIA 1 Planning Unit/GFC Meeting
Thursday, October 11, 2018, 2:10 - 4:10 PM
Garden Room, Civic Center Building, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham
Topic Time # Subtopic Action Needed? Handout or Homework?
Co-Lead
Introductions; Agenda Review and Approval
2:10 1. Call to Order/Introductions No No Shannon/Dick
2:15 2. Review and approve agenda; approve 9/26 meeting summary
Yes – Approval sought
10/11/2018 Agenda
9/26/2018 Draft Summary
All
Planning Unit Topics
2:20 3. Suite of Projects for Watershed Management Plan Update
a. review Watershed Staff Team recommendation for suite of projects
b. identify project(s) from the suite of projects for Planning Unit support for early grant application (due 10/31)
Yes –
a. Approval, if possible
b. Support project application for early grant, if possible
a. Suite of Projects for Watershed Plan Update and supporting documents
a. Gary
b. Henry
3:20 4. NGWS Policy Proposal
Review and discuss NGWS proposal regarding policy issues quantity, fees, and monitoring
Discussion NGWS policy proposal
John
GFC Topics 3:40 5 Process and Procedural Agreement (PPA)
Discuss sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the PPA for the Watershed Plan update, and approval process for update components.
Discussion; recommendation to Planning Unit
Section 4.0 and 4.1 of the Process and Procedural Agreement
Paul
Public Comments
3:55 6. Public Comment Period, conclude meeting
No No Public
Agenda Handouts:
1. October 11, 2018 Agenda
2. September 26, 2018 Draft Meeting Summary
3. Watershed Staff Team Suite of Projects and Visual of Locations
4. NGWS Policy Proposal
5. Process and Procedural Agreement
Links:
1. RH2 Final Task 2 Memo
2. WRIA 1 Project Dropbox (location for viewing and downloading the most current files)
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
1
WRIA 1 Planning Unit Meeting 1
September 26, 2018 2
Meeting Summary 3
4 This summary captures key decisions and next steps from the September 26, 2018 meeting. 5 Digital recordings of the Planning Unit meetings can be found at the Planning Unit website at 6 www.wria1project.whatcomcounty.org. 7 8
Caucus Attendees: 9 Agriculture – Henry Bierlink 10 City of Bellingham –Inactive 11 Diking/Drainage – Fred Likkel 12 Environmental – Ander Russell 13 Federal Government – Not Represented 14 Fishers – Shannon Moore 15 Forestry – Dick Whitmore 16 Land Development – Dave Onkels 17 Non-Government Water systems – John Mercer 18 Port of Bellingham – Not Present 19 Private Well Owners – Paul Isaacson 20 Public Utility District # 1 of Whatcom County – Rebecca Schlotterback 21 Small Cities – Mike Martin 22 State Government – Kasey Cykler 23 Water Districts – Richard Banel 24 Whatcom County – Gary Stoyka 25
Others Present 26 Molly Crocker Skip Richards Loren Vander Yacht 27 Carole Perry Max Perry Karlee Deatherage 28 Cathy Watson Ellen Baker Kathy Sabel 29 J. Fowler Mike Murphy Heather Good 30 Perry Rice Chet Dow Cliff Langley 31 Dan Eisses Mike Curtiss Rebecca Cayen 32 Alan Chapman 33 34 35 Shannon Moore called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. 36
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
2
Planning Unit Motions That Passed1 37
Motion (Motion #1) by Richard Banel and seconded by Ander Russell to approve the September 38
12, 2018 meeting summary with Planning Unit acceptance of the Fishers Caucus changing their 39
vote from “abstain” to “favor” for the September 12, 2018, Motion #7 of the September 12, 40
2018 meeting. 41
Vote: 42
13 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land 43
Development, Non-Government Water Systems, Private Well Owners, PUD #1, Small 44
Cities, State Government, Water Districts, Whatcom County) 45
0 abstain 46
0 opposed 47
Motion passes 48
Motion (Motion #2) by Paul Isaacson and seconded by Dick Whitmore to convert Agenda Item 49 #6 to a recorded vote and have more discussion about voting to the next meeting2. 50
Vote: 51
12 in favor (Agriculture, Environmental, Fishers, Land Development, Non-Government 52
Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well Owners, PUD #1, Small Cities, State 53
Government, Water Districts, Whatcom County) 54
0 abstain 55
1 opposed (Forestry) 56
Motion passes 57
Motion (Motion #3) by Ander Russell and seconded by Dick Whitmore to approve Ad Hoc 58 Committee recommendation from their September 4, 2018 meeting. 59
Vote: 60
9 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land 61
Development, Non-Government Water Systems, Private Well-Owners, Water Districts) 62
4 abstain (PUD #1, Small Cities, Whatcom County, State Government) 63
0 opposed 64
Motion passes 65
1 Note that motions (passed and not passed) are numbered in the order they were presented during the meeting. 2 Reference to deferring discussion of voting is related to implementation of Sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit Process and Procedural Agreement.
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
3
Planning Unit Motions That Did Not Pass 66
Motion (Motion #4) by Henry Bierlink and seconded by Ander Russell to approve the 67 Watershed Management Plan update outline presented with feedback provided on Section 1.3. 68
Vote: 69
6 in favor (Agriculture, Environmental, Fishers, PUD #1, Small Cities, State Government) 70
4 abstain (Diking/Drainage, Forestry, Water Districts, Whatcom County) 71
3 opposed (Land Development, Non-Government Water Systems, Private Well-Owners) 72
Motion does not pass3 73
Other Items Considered (or Announced) By Planning Unit 74
The Fishers Caucus requested that they be allowed to change their vote on Motion #7 from 75
the September 12th Planning Unit meeting. They inadvertently raised their hand indicating 76
the caucus was abstaining but the intent was to vote in favor of the motion. Planning Unit 77
members accepted the Fishers Caucus request to change their September 12th vote and 78
reflect it in the minutes (Motion #1). Non-Government Water Systems asked for a 79
clarification on a reference to the Power Point presented by Gary Stoyka; clarification was 80
provided and accepted with no further discussion necessary. 81
Kasey Cykler reported that Kurt Baumgarten, Port of Bellingham representative, would be 82
willing to serve as co-chair. Richard Banel suggested the vice chair be elected by 83
acclamation for the next three meetings; Planning Unit agreed. Kurt Baumgarten will 84
serve as co-chair. 85
The October 10th Planning Unit/GFC meeting was moved to October 11th; neither the State 86
Government or Whatcom County representatives were available on October 10th. State 87
Government representative is not available on October 11th but the Whatcom County 88
representative will be in attendance. 89
Gary Stoyka and Whatcom County IT Manager provided a status report on the technical 90
issues related to the WRIA 1 project website. An interim solution is that the website 91
address (http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org) will redirect to the Whatcom County 92
website where meeting notices and agendas will be posted. There is also a link on that 93
page for an online file sharing site (Dropbox) where the most recent documents associated 94
with on WRIA 1 meetings, Planning Unit documents, and the Plan update for ESSB 6091 can 95
be downloaded (https://tinyurl.com/wria1project-dropbox). 96
An agenda item was added to the agenda under Housekeeping by the Private Well-Owners 97
Caucus. Their caucus is concerned about having “head nods” associated with the Planning 98
3 The vote was noted as not passing because the interpretation is that 6 in favor does not represent a majority of members present (i.e., 4 abstaining plus the 3 votes in opposition constitutes the majority of members present)
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
4
Unit agenda topics because it does not provide a record of caucuses’ positions on the 99
different elements of the Plan update, and therefore does not provide a clear indication 100
where the non-government caucuses are in terms of a final approval when the update is 101
completed. The relevant sections of the Planning Unit Process and Procedural Agreement 102
that were referenced as part of the discussion involving approvals were Sections 4.0 and 103
4.1. Since one of the concerns identified was use of “head nods”, the short-term solution 104
suggested was to change the outcome of one of the 9/26 agenda items to an approval 105
rather than “head nod” and to move the item to the next meeting for discussion (Motion 106
#2). 107
Ander and Dan Eisses attended the County Council’s Sept. 25 meeting and reminded them 108
of the 2017 Planning Unit memo with recommendations for the Council to consider related 109
to tracking progress on the Watershed Management Plan as they enter their budgeting 110
process, and as they talk about the bigger picture of water resource management. 111
Skip Richards reviewed the recommendations from the Sept. 4 Ad Hoc Committee meeting. 112
Caucuses interested in providing detailed input on the WRIA 1 Watershed Management 113
Board Work Plan could submit their comments to Skip and the NGWS will collate the 114
information and consolidate comments. The Ad Hoc Committee could then meet to 115
reconcile the comments received. Gary Stoyka provided a reminder of the comments from 116
the August 1 Board meeting at which the work plan was approved, which included staff 117
clarifying where water quality is being addressed and clarifying where the Planning Unit is 118
involved and the opportunity for input. Skip requested caucuses that are interested in 119
providing comments, provide them by the October 11th Planning Unit/GFC meeting. A 120
decision for whether to convene another Ad Hoc Committee meeting will be made after 121
comments are received. 122
The Watershed Management Plan update outline was distributed at the Sept. 12 meeting as 123
information. Gary asked the Planning Unit if the outline represents what should be 124
included in the update. Given passage of Motion #2 at the start of the meeting, approval 125
was being solicited for the outline. Kasey noted that she ran the outline by Ecology 126
reviewers for an initial review, and they are ok with the outline. The Environmental Caucus 127
suggested Section 1.3 include information from the Watershed Management Plan Status 128
Report completed in 2017 and the August 1, 2018 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board 129
Work Plan. The Fishers Caucus suggested incorporating SMART goals in the monitoring and 130
adaptive management section. Several Planning Unit members stated that they would not 131
be able to support the motion to approve because the outline did not provide sufficient 132
information regarding the content. Motion #4 to approve the outline did not pass (6 133
favored, 3 opposed, and 4 abstained). 134
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
5
Kasey Cykler reminded the Planning Unit that the grant window for the Stream Restoration 135
Grant will be opening soon. Public comments are currently being accepted on the rule 136
making for the grant funding and the process for administering it. 137
Gary Stoyka reviewed that at the September 12 Planning Unit meeting, the Planning Unit 138
requested that the Watershed Staff Team draft a proposal for the suite of projects to 139
include in the update for the Planning Unit to discuss. The Staff Team is meeting on 140
September 27 and will be using an updated version of the summary table of projects that 141
the Planning Unit has previously reviewed. The updates will incorporate information from 142
RH2 Technical Memo #2 that includes the more detailed evaluation of the 20 projects 143
previously reviewed by Planning Unit. The approach Staff Team will use is to move down 144
the list of projects until the consumptive use calculated by RH2 in Technical Memo #1 is 145
met, which is 647 acre-feet. There were a few comments provided by some Planning Unit 146
members including: 147
o Suggestion to recommend projects that result in more than 647 acre-feet in offsets 148
(e.g., provide enough projects to meet 150% of the 647 acre feet). 149
o Discussion of John Covert’s May 3 presentation and suggestions he identified for 150
offset projects, and 151
o Comments that the best projects are to mitigate at the place and time of impact. 152
The Watershed Staff Team should have a suite of projects for discussion at the October 11 153
Planning Unit/GFC meeting. It was suggested and agreed that as part of the Planning Unit 154
discussion, there be consideration of projects that can utilize the early grant funding and 155
whether Planning Unit would be able to endorse those applications. 156
The Private Well-Owners Caucus raised questions regarding monitoring of streams and 157
salmon in the context of the previous meeting discussions involving fees and water use 158
allocation. The impact to the stream and fish resulting from future consumptive use should 159
be measured. It was noted that the Net Ecological Benefit (NEB) interim guidance includes 160
monitoring for stream flow and some Planning Unit members felt that all projects should 161
include a monitoring element to measure effectiveness of the project. 162
The Non-Government Water System Caucus submitted a proposal for addressing the policy 163
topics. The proposal will be discussed at the October 11th Planning Unit/GFC meeting. 164
Gary Stoyka distributed a memo to the Management Team from the Nooksack Tribe 165
representative on the Management Team. While the memo does not represent statements 166
of Tribal policy and specific Tribal policy positions, the memo does communicate the Tribes 167
concerns. 168
Heather Good with Whatcom County Public Works provided high-level context for the 169
Monitoring and Adaptive Management (MAM) approach being considered by the 170
Draft September 26, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
6
Watershed Staff Team. Some Planning Unit members had questions about how the 171
uncertainties associated with the population and water use calculations will be addressed, 172
the timing and frequency of reviewing the assumptions, and engagement of the Planning 173
Unit in the process. 174
Gary Stoyka distributed the Lead Agency Update. 175
Actions and Follow Up 176
Richard Banel suggested the vice chair be elected by acclamation for the next three 177
meetings; Planning Unit agreed. Kurt Baumgarten will serve as co-chair. 178
The October 10th Planning Unit/GFC meeting was moved to October 11th. 179
Skip Richards requested caucuses that are interested in providing comments on the WRIA 1 180
Watershed Management Board Work Plan, provide them by the October 11th Planning 181
Unit/GFC meeting. 182
Public Comment 183
Alan Chapman provided comments on separating the concepts of the Plan Update 184 addendum and the 2005 Watershed Management Plan. 185
Kathy Sabel commented on the need to resolve the policy issues, and noted that Gary 186 Stoyka is speaking at a conference on October 16th on the ESSB 6091 plan update process. 187
Meeting adjourned 8:22 pm. 188
CN CW CS LN NF MF SF S LW
185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23
Project
No.
RH2
AssessmentProject Name Est. Offset RH2 Rationale for Assessment Potential Negative Side Effects Staff Team Member Comments
2 High Bertrand WID Ground Water Augmentation of
Tributaries170.7 171 Bertrand WID had recent success for two wells and
received temporary permit to continue. Could expand to
original vision of more wells if funding is provided. Year-
round closure of Bertrand Creek could pose a problem.
Timing of flow augmentation should coincide with
fishery needs.
Potential negative impacts on
salmonids.
Moving people off surface water
diversion preferred over gw
augmentation. Needs to be further
fleshed out; there are homing issues,
temporal issues (only provides water
August to November), and water
quality concerns to address.
24 High Birch Bay Water & Sewer District Deep Wells 880.0 440 440 Preliminary results from deep well drilling look
encouraging. New source of water could be used to
meet future growth and also to replace local sources. If
water from the District, imported from this well field, is
able to replace water used under an existing water right,
that water right can be placed into the Trust Water
Rights Program and could be used to offset consumptive
impacts in the Lower Nooksack Aggregated Sub-Basin.
Water quality differences in
municipal systems.
440 per basin split so can do the
assesment. May have water quality
issues. At this time the project is only
scoped to provide water to water
systems.
1 High Dairy Waste Processing/Treatment 13.4 13.4 Fully funded project will provide offset water and, as a
pilot project, may foster similar projects elsewhere in
WRIA 1. An NPDES permit is needed. There is a
mechanical system to operate and maintain. Water can
reduce irrigation need or benefit instream flows as
offset water.
Could degrade water quality,
especially if discharged water has
lower water quality (especially
temperature) than receiving water;
NPDES permit should address
quality, including temperature.
27 Med-High Coastal North-Convert Surface Use to Groundwater Use 7.3 7.3 Similar projects have been approved in WRIA 1. They
can be effective in reducing impacts on instream flows
but Foster decision limits flexibility under current
conditions. Stream gaging recommended to assess and
document benefits and the need for any changes or
adjustments. Offset will be approx. 10% of the full water
right quantities. Very low costs both initially and long
term.
Additional GW impacts due to
more direct withdrawal from the
acquifer.
Good project and spatial distribution
project. Same with project #26. RH2
assumed a 10% benefit- need to know
how solid the offset amounts are.
26 Med-High Lower Nooksack-Convert Surface Use to Groundwater
Use158 158 Similar projects have been approved in WRIA 1. They
can be effective in reducing impacts on instream flows
and creating higher flows during the irrigation season
but Foster decision limits flexibility under current
conditions. NO negative impact on instream flows is
allowed. Offset will be approx. 10% of the full water
right quantities. Very low costs both initially and long
term.
Additional GW impacts Same comments as project #27
Consumptive Use Calculations AFY (RH2 Tech Memo #1, August 21, 2018) [Note, these
values have not been subject to uncertainty analysis, a margin of safety, and may
change for other reasons)
Except where noted, the suite of projects identified below are from the RH2 Task 2 Memorandum, Appendix A Matrix for Evaluation of Early Action and Preliminary Projects. The suite of projects represent the
Watershed Staff Team's recommendation for the Watershed Plan update pending completion of the NEB evaluation.
Other factors that have been identified by some Staff Team members:
a. The distribution of offsets does/may not align with the distribution of projected impacts
b. Three aggregated subbasins do not have specific projects identified. WRIA 1 wide projects and programs are proposed that could/would address those aggregated subbasins.
c. The timing of offsets will/may be an issue in places.
Watershed Staff Team Suite of Projects Pending Net Ecological Benefit (NEB) Evaluation
Compiled by Geneva Consulting
September 30, 2018 1 of 3
CN CW CS LN NF MF SF S LW
185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23
Project
No.
RH2
AssessmentProject Name Est. Offset RH2 Rationale for Assessment Potential Negative Side Effects Staff Team Member Comments
Consumptive Use Calculations AFY (RH2 Tech Memo #1, August 21, 2018) [Note, these
values have not been subject to uncertainty analysis, a margin of safety, and may
change for other reasons)
23 Med-High Middle Fork Porter Creek Alluvial Fan Project 11.2 11.2 This project increases groundwater storage according
the project sponsor. It needs to be determined whether
the increased storage results in actual increased
groundwater flow to the river. If this project reliably
provides an increase in instream flows it deserves a high
rating. If the flow component is uncertain,
unquantifiable, or less than anticipated, the project
seems likely to provide environmental benefits.
None Seasonal creek and dries up during the
critical instream flow season
19NG Med-High Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and/or Creation
on Ecology-Approved NEP Parcels2-5 2-5 Potential for water supply benefits and fishery
enhancements exists. Large amount of uncertainty
regarding effectiveness. The project will eliminate
agricultural activities on 30 acres and decommission
drainage ditches and retain excess moisture during the
winter which could be released to stream in the late
season. Provides shade to promote cooler water
temperatures. Additional study likely required.
Reduced ag land.
28 Low-Med-High Storage Projects including Gravel Pits 365 365 This type of project has potential to be an effective
means of augmenting late season stream flows with
cooler water. However, the degree of effectiveness will
depend on local conditions including such
considerations as land ownership, elevations (is
pumping required?), the impact of the level of the water
table (will an increase flood basements or septic drain
fields?), the nature of the aquifer (does the water drain
to the stream too quickly or too slowly?), the volume of
water that can realistically be stored, etc. Design needs
to ensure that the project does not impair floodplain
function. Project currently contains a large amount of
uncertainty and therefore should be assumed to be low
with the potential to increase in rating
Increase GW levels and flooding,
potential for capture and stranding
of fish, potential for negative
impacts to floodplain habitat
connectivity, availability, and
formation.
PUD is looking at six potential locations-
end of oct should have two prioritized.
3 of the 6 would directly contribute to
tributaries
44 Med-High PUD #1: Vista Road Project 194 (this
value can be
greater than
194 afy)
194 Requires domestic well new construction to purchase
water from the PUD for offset (O&M costs). This would
introduce new water into the watershed, providing
100% offset. The importation of foreign water to the
drainage may impair homing of anadromous fish.
Concerns about interbasin
transfers negatively affecting
salmon homing
PUD will work with DFW and Tribes to
address oncerns associated w/ water
transfer
45 Med-High PUD #1: Lake Terrell 324 (this
value can be
greater than
324 afy)
185 139 Pipeline already existing, just needs to provide a tap and
potentially an energy dispersion structure. The
importation of foreign water to the drainage may impair
homing of anadromous fish.
Concerns about interbasin
transfers negatively affecting
salmon homing
PUD will work with DFW and Tribes to
address oncerns associated w/ water
transfer
43 Med-High PUD #1: Pipeline from Mainstem to Tributaries
(Previously "Pipe from Plant 2 to Tributaries"1,452 1,452 Project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and
the PUD has sufficient water rights to provide this
water. Costs are a big issue. The issue of discharge in a
manner than does not impair homing of anadromous
fish is critical to success. Potential impacts of reduced
flows in the Lower Nooksack should also be considered.
New permit exempt wells could offset some of the O&M
costs.
Increasing diversions would reduce
flows in the Lower Nooksack below
the PUD's Plant 2 plus concerns
about interbasin transfers
negatively affecting salmon
homing.
Compiled by Geneva Consulting
September 30, 2018 2 of 3
CN CW CS LN NF MF SF S LW
185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23
Project
No.
RH2
AssessmentProject Name Est. Offset RH2 Rationale for Assessment Potential Negative Side Effects Staff Team Member Comments
Consumptive Use Calculations AFY (RH2 Tech Memo #1, August 21, 2018) [Note, these
values have not been subject to uncertainty analysis, a margin of safety, and may
change for other reasons)
19 Med-Low Skookum Creek Restoration 1,449 1,449 Medium-Low rating selected due to positive
environmental benefits but the uncertainty of the
quantity of offset water provided.
None
21 Med-Low Stewart Mountain/SF Nooksack Conservation Sale 7,245-14,490 x x x Medium-Low rating selected due to positive
environmental benefits but the uncertainty of the
quantity of offset water provided. The potential for
benefits to instream flow due to changes in forest
management exists although the benefits, if they occur,
may be slow to accrue.
None
22 Not Assessed North Fork Maple Reach Restoration Phase 1 Unknown Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for North Fork
habitat46 Not Assessed Glacier WD Groundwater Study and Augmentation Unknown need
23
Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for North Fork
offset; project needs to provide at
least 23 afyModification of
Project #47WRIA 1-Wide Conservation Program Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for outdoor
domestic water conservationModification of
MAR ProjectsMAR Feasibility Study Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added a MAR Feasibility
Study that would evaluate feasibility
including locations and costs for MAR
Not Assessed Purchase of Development Rights Program Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added the PDR program,
which has geographically specific
program applications. The specific
parcels for which applications have
been submitted is as of 10/4/2018 and
provided by Whatcom County
Planning. In addition to the site
specific parcels, the PDR program
could be a WRIA 1 wide tool that
supports other actions, projects, and
programs. NOTE: This is a new project
that was not included in the RH2
project matrices.
Compiled by Geneva Consulting
September 30, 2018 3 of 3
Visual Representation of Watershed Staff Team Suite of Projects by Aggregated Sub-basins_10-04-2018. The RH2 Task 2 Memo, Figure 2 provides a more specific location for each project.
Project #21***
WRIA 1 Wide - modified outdoor conservation programWRIA 1 Wide - modified MARS projects - MARS FeasibilityWRIA 1 Wide - Purchase of Development Rights - ADDED
Project #22- offset unknownProject #46- need 23 afy
Project #45- 139 afy**
Project #23- 11.2 afy
Project #1- 13.4 afyProject #19NG- 2 to 5 afyProject #19 - 1,449 afyProject #21***
*Project offset was split between two basins for purposes of conducting the analysis.**Project has potential to provide greater offset than listed.***Project identifies a range of 7,245-14,490 afy; the afy per aggregated subbasin has not been estimated.
Project #24- 440 afy*Project #27- 7.3 afyProject #44- 194 afy**Project #45- 185 afy**
Project #2- 170.7 afyProject #24- 440 afy*Project #26- 158 afyProject #28- 365 afyProject #43- 1,452 afyProject #21***
NGWS proposal regarding policy issues quantity, fees, and monitoring 2018 09 25 1
2
Whereas: 3
4
The planning unit has recently received a request to consider a number of policy decisions; and 5
6
Of these policy decisions, some that have been presented are divisive and pose very real and 7
disproportionate risk related to our cumulative goal of successfully meeting imposed deadlines; and 8
9
ESSB 6091 the “Water Availability” Act, later codified as RCW 90.94 “Streamflow Restoration”, 10
Identifies 2 “policies” that may be modified in WRIA 1: (1) Fees, & (2) water use quantities; and 11
12
With respect to WRIA 1, 90.94 is categorically silent regarding the policy of metering, and specifically on 13
any requirements to individually meter any new permit exempt well; and 14
15
The policies we adopt may, per RCW 90.94.020 (6) (c) include updates to fees based on the planning unit's 16
determination of the costs for offsetting consumptive water use; and 17
18
It is our understanding that the principal intent of fees collected from new permit exempt well owners is to 19
proportionately fund the administrative, capital, and ongoing maintenance costs of the offset projects; and 20
21
Funding has been made available, but is not guaranteed to help offset costs; and 22
23
We currently do not have enough data regarding capital and ongoing maintenance costs; and 24
25
Common sense dictates such fee setting cannot be properly administered until proposed projects and related 26
costs have been further developed; and 27
28
Groundwater and streamflow monitoring is a critical component of adaptive management and plan 29
implementation; and 30
31
The current limit of 3000 gallons per day is sufficient for the use of new permit exempt well owners based 32
on reports received by the Planning Unit; and 33
34
Adaptive management in respect to policies is likely required; (1) intensely in the first years of plan 35
implementation (2) periodically throughout the 20-year planning period; and 36
37
The likely annual average number of new wells based on the RH2 tech memo is something like 125 per 38
year, which will be consumptively using approx. 35 acre-feet per year (xx CFS, xx GPM) across the 39
entire WRIA; and 40
41
There does not seem to be much adverse feedback from the current codified metrics of 3k gpd and $500 42
fee; and 43
44
Metering is not contemplated in the Law, and further contemplation of individual well metering at this 45
point in our planning process is both pre-mature and counter-productive; and 46
47
Any proposals to change any of these policy matters are likely to adversely affect the Planning Unit’s 48
ability to complete the collaborative process it began when 6091 was passed. 49
50
Therefore, we offer this base case policy proposal: leave everything as is for now, and re-consider all 51
policies at the first adaptive management checkpoint. 52
Rationale: 53
Given the tiny amount of water that new wells will consumptively use over the next year, or two, or 54
three, there is no need to rush into any major policy changes right now. With the right adaptive 55
management process, we will be able to reconsider, in a timely manner, every policy in light of future 56
developments regarding the streamflow restoration efforts initiated by this effort, and by others that might 57
be initiated outside this process. 58
59
In support of that position we offer the following. 60
61
Quantity: The Hirst decision was based on a set of political agendas, not on water use facts. The RH2 62
technical investigation has shown that the amount of water that will be consumptively used over the next 63
twenty years is exactly what we and others have been saying all along: far less than the one percent of the 64
total that all the existing domestic permit-exempt wells are using. Therefore there is no harm in leaving the 65
quantity at 3k gpd, or even in returning it to 5k gpd. Limiting new permit-exempt wells to less than that 66
will do nothing to improve streamflow. Streamflow improvements require massive capital and effort to 67
make noticeable improvements. The focus should be in that direction. Hirst is only a diversion of our 68
attention from meeting the real streamflow challenge. 69
The well-reasoned staff team memo released in early August raised questions that we are unlikely to 70
resolve in a timely manner: 71
“Do we want to change the amount allowed for new DWGWPE wells in WRIA 1 under RCW 90.94 [ie 72 modify the 3,000 gpd maximum annual average]? 73 If no, do we adjust (increase) our offsets for the 3,000 gpd MAA? How? 74 If yes, how? 75
Should there be variable use amounts available for various fees (similar to the Dungeness Model)? 76 Should water quantities be an average daily demand, or a flat/set daily maximum? 77 Should there be different amounts allowed in different aggregated subbasins? This would be more 78
confusing/difficult to administer.” 79
80
While we tackle these thorny issues over the next few years, we can live with 3k gpd. 81 82 Fees: Once again the August staff team policy memo outlined many of the issues surrounding fees. They 83
are as numerous as they are thorny. We gain nothing by engaging in a debate over the fee issue until we 84
arrive at reasonable answers to larger policy questions regarding the entire streamflow restoration and the 85
equity issues surrounding the treatment of new well owners versus existing well owners. To find those 86
answers we need, among other things, to see a 6091 plan update in action for a while. 87 88 Monitoring: Monitoring is a necessary component of adaptive management. With limited resources, we 89
should endeavor to be mindful of which monitoring exercises have the greatest cost benefit ratio. We have 90
received a technical memo stating that if a new well was put to full beneficial use under current law, the 91
resulting use will fall short of the 3000 gpd limit that we are currently contemplating. Therefore, if we 92
maintain the 3000 gpd limit, individual well metering is no longer relevant. Exceedances of the limit would 93
be most likely caused by irrigation of more than 1/2 acre which is most efficiently monitored by aerial 94
photography. 95 96 Unresolved questions: Meanwhile, there are bigger issues to deal with. For example, if a project in a given 97
sub-basin results in a reduction of consumptive water use that in effect would provide the type of offset that 98
this effort under 6091 is seeking, will that offset count toward the target that we are trying to achieve? 99
Asked another way, will DOE track all changes to streamflow impacts holistically in order to determine if 100
streamflow improvements are in fact taking place, and, if so, whether the goals of 6091 have been achieved 101
regardless of the manner in which they are achieved? 102
103