wria 1 planning unit/gfc meeting thursday, october 11

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)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u0jchn7kh4v09uv/AABa5HB7Wzgty4uW6ipsuFcva/WRIA%201%20Plan%20Update%20for%20ESSB%206091/Consultant%20Final%20Work%20Products?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

https://tinyurl.com/wria1project-dropbox

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


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.


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)

http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/

https://tinyurl.com/wria1project-dropbox


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


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


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


185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23

Project

No.

RH2





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.




185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23

Project

No.

RH2





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.



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

wria 1 planning unit/gfc meeting thursday, october 11

Documents