Chehalis Basin Plan, October 31, 2001

Discussion of Recommendations

SUBSECTION: HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY

Issue statement: It is not known how directly the water in the ground connects to the water in the Chehalis Basin rivers and streams. This connection, called "hydraulic continuity," means that groundwater wells affect stream flow levels. We need to know how great this effect is in different places to know if we can drill wells to supply water for homes and businesses without impacting our natural resources.

Recommendation: The CBP recommends giving further consideration to conducting a ground water study that will provide the information necessary to address the hydraulic continuity issue. This study would provide specific information about the character of the groundwater throughout the Chehalis basin that would allow decision-makers to better evaluate whether an individual water right application would impact stream flows.

Suggested actions related to hydraulic continuity:

1. - - Not agreed to yet: Recommend to Ecology that the agency develop a new hydraulic

continuity policy (statewide or for the Chehalis) that allows water right applicants to employ more flexible strategies for meeting their water needs given that hydraulic continuity is an issue.

1.13 - - Conduct a groundwater study that provides the information necessary to address the hydraulic continuity issue. This study would provide specific information about the character of the groundwater throughout the Chehalis basin that would allow decision-makers to better evaluate whether:

• An individual water right application would impact stream flows
• A strategic groundwater pumping schedule could be developed for a particular site that would delay the impact on the river until the high flow peri od

SUBSECTION: WATER RIGHTS

Issue statement: Given the number of water rights and claims in the Chehalis basin, it is apparent that a significant effort is necessary to identify, quantify, prioritize, and manage those water rights to protect senior water rights, better manage water for human and fish needs, and to track water.

Recommendation: The CBP recommends that streamlined adjudication, establishing a "toolbox" of alternative approaches for those seeking water supply, water rights data and tracking, and enforcement be evaluated and considered for the basin.

Suggested actions related to water rights:

1.2 - - Address requirements of Phase 4 watershed planning related to municipal water rights by estimating quantity of water represented by inchoate rights

Suggested new wording from Governor's Salmon Recovery Office: Address requirements of Phase 4 watershed planning related to municipal water rights by estimating quantity of water represented by inchoate rights and by clarifying how such rights can be reconciled with protecting instream flow needs and can be affected by water conservation programs."

1.3 - - Regional Water Supply, or coordinated water system planning.

1.4 - - Not agreed to yet: Allow out-of-kind mitigation (watershed mitigation) for new or changed water rights, e.g. using baseflow restoration as mitigation for new right

1.5 - - Not agreed to yet: Request a streamlined adjudication for the Chehalis Basin

1.6 - - Not agreed to -yet: Establish a water master program

1.7 - - Recommend adequate funding level for water resources management (source to be determined; funding to be distributed to those entities involved in water resources management).

1.8 - - Continue to collect data pertaining to water resources.

1.9 - - Not agreed to -yet: Increased enforcement of existing laws and regulations to support voluntary efforts.

1.10 Not agreed to yet: Investigate the magnitude of impact from exempt wells.

1.11 Develop and implement water conservation programs.

1. - - 12 Develop a toolbox for municipal water purveyors (see sidebar) to assist them in meeting their water supply responsibilities while also contributing to protection of instream base flows.

SIDEBAR: "Toolbox for Cities to Address Water Right & Streamflow Issues (See "Municipal Supply " Issue Paper for more information) a . Transfer of surface water rights to ground water rights b. - - Implementation of a water master program c. - - Use of interruptible water rights for a portion of water supply d. - - Water conservation programs e. - - Water rights trust program f. - - integration of the use of reclaimed water g. - - Encouraging a return of water to the rivers and streams h. - - Implementation of water storage projects to serve municipal water supply needs without impacting instream flows i. - - Watershed mitigation j. - - Regional water supply or coordinated water system planning k. - - Connecting water supply planning to growth management or comprehensive planning 1. - - Pay to have Ecology hire a consultant to process their water right, along with every application ahead of them in the same water source (risk: even after paying the decision may be a denial)

Issue statement: It is important to support and monitor high quality waters that presently exist in the basin and to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an overall water quality monitoring program.

Recommendation: A basin-wide water quality monitoring program is needed. The CBP recommends that further evaluation be made for implementing such a water quality monitoring program in the basin.

Suggested actions:

2.1 - - Protect healthy waters of the basin so they do not become impaired or need TMDLs.

2.2 - - Not agreed to yet: Implement the basin-wide water quality monitoring program developed as part of this planning process, including hiring a water quality monitoring coordinator.

2.3 - - Develop a program to clean up water quality impairments before TMDLs need to be implemented.

2.4 - - Develop programs to address nonpoint sources of pollution in the Chehalis Basin so there can be a -more equitable system for improving water quality.

2.5 - - Propose a "package" of improvements to the State to address nonpoint pollution (not a single approach).

2.6 - - Not agreed to yet: Develop approaches to keep forestry and agriculture on the land. This will reduce future impairments caused by more intensive forms of land use.

2.7 - - Not agreed to yet: Develop standards for "reasonable assurance" for nonpoint source reduction so local communities know what the standard is if they want to produce programs that will take the pressure off of point sources.

2.8 - - Not agreed to yet: Set up a regional water quality board to manage water to prevent future TMDLs.

2.9 - - Not agreed to yet. Look at opportunities for pollution trading in the Chehalis Basin.

2.10 - - Develop sources for funding water quality improvements.

2.11 - - Not agreed to yet suggested new wording from Lewis County Farm Bureau): Control or eliminate non-native problem weeds and use extreme care not to introduce problem species

Alternate wording as suggested by USFWS: Prevent the introduction and or eliminate aquatic non-native invasive species from the riparian area and water bodies.

2.12 - - Develop and distribute public information on inspection and care of septic systems,

2.13 - - Develop a prioritized list of TMDL projects where 303(d) impairment listings already exist.

2.14 - - Not agreed to yet: Recommend that the Department of Ecology adopt "use-based " water quality standards for the Chehalis River basin.

2.15 - - Not agreed to yet: Reject the status quo approach because it does not provide sufficient focus on the protection of high quality waters, and reject the additional regulatory approach as inconsistent with the Partnership's goals and objectives, too costly, lacking in public acceptance, inconsistent with Ecology's current revision of their anti-degradation policy, and politically unrealistic.

2.16 - - Not agreed to Vet : Implement the proactive voluntary approach outlined above in Alternatives and as discussed further below.

2.17 - - Not agreed to yet: Create an inventory of high quality waters -- we must know where such waters are located if we are to be able to protect them.

2.18 - - Determine which governmental entities (local, state or federal) are responsible for and best able to provide the required protection for identified high quality waters.

2.19 - - Expand the scope of Partnership Water Quality Committee to add a "Good Water Initiative." The Water Quality Committee would be an ideal group to assist in developing and carrying out such an initiative.

2.20 - - Not agreed to. yet. Raise public consciousness regarding the importance of protecting high quality waters, and to increase its priority among governments at all levels Local, state, and federal).

Issue statement: Over the last 150 years, human use of the Chehalis Basin and its resources (agricultural, timber, etc.) has had unforeseen, often negative, impacts on the habitat that fish and wildlife need for survival. Today, restoration efforts are underway. However these restoration efforts need more basinwide coordination to be efficient and effective at preserving and restoring habitat.

Recommendation: The CBP recommends exploring a range of approaches to improve communication, coordination and consolidation of all habitat efforts in the basin.

Suggested actions: These are the methods or processes required in total or in some combination to achieve the Recommendations of the CBP.

3.1 - - Develop a better communication and coordination structure among the various groups involved in habitat restoration within the Chehalis basin

3.2 - - The Chehalis Basin Partnership will be instrumental in the creation a local

organization capable of planning, coordinating, and implementing local habitat restoration efforts in WRIA's 22 and 23.

3.3 - - Suggested new wording from USFWS: Support implementation of a coordinated habitat restoration strategy (e.g., Chehalis Basin Plan for Habitat Restoration along with other applicable plans).

And as suggested by Governor's Salmon Recovery Office: Rely upon implementation of the habitat restoration strategy as developed by the Chehalis Basin Partnership, the lead entity under RCW 77.85, as the single habitat restoration strategy for the Chehalis Basin.

3.4 - - Develop a data, inventory and monitoring strategy for determining how effective habitat enhancement efforts have been

3.5 - - Inform the public about how they can best protect habitat on their own land

3.6 - - Identify or create a funding source for small habitat projects

3.7 - - New from USFWS), not agreed to yet: Identify applicable funding sources for habitat protection and restoration projects.

3.8 - - New (From WDFW), not agreed to yet: Explore the need to develop a Salmonid Plan. This plan would be similar to the recovery plans being developed elsewhere in the state, in areas with ESA listings. The intent of the plan would be to keep the stocks with in the basin from becoming listed.

Issue statement: Technical studies and data indicate that low flow conditions are a concern in many streams and rivers in the Chehalis Basin. Data, including data collected during the planning process, indicate that stream flows during the low-flow period (July through October) sometimes do not reach the regulatory flows set on 31 streams in the basin. Additional studies and data collection efforts are underway that should contribute to further evaluation of instrearn flows in the basin.

Recommendation: The CBP recommends continuing with the existing regulatory flows at this time. Because some important data and study results were not available for the CBP to recommend specific changes to the regulatory flows, the CBP developed and recommends an approach to work toward evaluating and determining what, if any, changes to the regulatory flows should be considered.

Suggested actions:

4.1 - - Current regulatory flows should be retained; the Partnership wishes to preserve the 1976 priority date for those flow levels.

4.2 - - Not agreed to yet: After analysis of new and existing information (see #5 below), the Partnership will consider recommending flow levels for streams with no regulatory

minimums or adding incremental flows to existing regulatory minimums. Any new recommendations adopted by the State that are higher would carry a 1998 priority date for the additional flow increment.

4.3 - - Not agreed to yet: Request that WDFW/Ecology, in consultation with tribes and Partnership members, recommend instream flow levels for all control stations (added language from WDFW) if funding permits. In addition to current stream hydrology and IFIM results, both the historic, "natural " stream flow level and flow levels less than I 00% Weighted Usable Area (WUA) for fish should be considered. Those agencies should consider the strategy of dry-year and wet-year flow numbers, as well as the possibility of "target "flows.

4.4 - - Not agreed to yet (First reference to pre-European flows removed; second reference left for informational purposes: The Partnership adopts the following philosophy (possibly as an expansion of its existing mission, goals and objectives) for how to approach setting stream flow levels:

• Recommended new regulatory minimum instream flows in the Chehalis Basin should represent flows that provide a healthy environment for fish and other aquatic life (related to flow conditions) and that are hydrologically achievable. Definitions for the two components in this statement (healthy environment for fish, and pre-European hydrologically achievable flows) need to be formulated.
• Based on Tribal, or federally-reserved, water rights, the Chehalis Tribe and Quinault Nation retain an instream flow right necessary to protect fishing and hunting rights. The tribal right to instream flows will likely be adjudicated or settled using the IFIM methodology.
• New wording from USFWS: Provide adequate instream flows (both minimum and flood) to maintain healthy populations of salmonids and other aquatic species, and also to restore those species that are depressed or already on the endangered species list.
• These flows should be measured and monitored. The results will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make necessary adjustments.
• A focus should be placed on gauging and increasing summertime flows into the streams and rivers of the basin. Questions to consider (documented responses from agencies/tribes would be beneficial):
  • What is a healthy environment for fish?
  • What flows are hydrologically achievable to meet the needs of people and fish?
  • What flows occurred prior to European settlement?
• Enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations would assist greatly in achieving flow levels that are adequate for fish and people.

4.5 - - Not agreed to yet: In the implementation stages of the watershed planning process, the Partnership will consider recommending flow levels for streams with no regulatory minimums, or adding incremental flows to existing regulatory minimums, using information from the following:

• Partnership goals and objectives and the above instream flow philosophy
• Existing flow data
• Out-of-stream uses
• IFIM flow study results
• Estimates of pre-European flows
• Recommendations from Ecology/WDFW, in consultation with tribes
• Possible strategy of dry-year and wet-year flow numbers

4.6 - - Not agreed to yet: Ecology/EPA/USGS should monitor flows at all sites

4.7 - - Not agreed to yet: The Chehalis Basin Partnership prefers voluntary approaches to regulatory in attempts to make water available for streamflows.

4.8 - - Not agreed to yet: An important focus of watershed plan recommendations and implementation should be to make more water available for instream uses, especially in the time period from roughly April through October (most important are the months from July through October)

4.9 - - Not agreed to yet: The new flows that should be established by rule will be specified when information becomes available.

4. - - 10 Not agreed to yet: The Partnership may recommend that Ecology close certain basins from further surface water withdrawals at certain times during the year. The Partnership does desire, however, that water rights be issued for groundwater applications if the applicant can show that their withdrawals would not impact stream flows from August through October, through timing or consumptive use.

Issue statement: Exempt wells are critical for rural development in the Chehalis Basin. At the same time, there is some concern that exempt wells may impact stream flows now or in the future in specific subbasins of the Chehalis Basin. It is also apparent that exempt wells are an unresolved issue across Washington State.

Recommendation: Because of these findings, the CBP recommends that further evaluation of exempt wells be conducted to assess their real impact statewide as well as in the Chehalis Basin as a whole and in specific subbasins.

Suggested actions:

Statewide:

9.1 - - Not Agreed to Yet: Maintain status quo, until steps below are taken

9.2 - - Not Agreed to Yet: Legislature/Ecology should address exempt well use on a statewide basis following existing laws, rules & opinions

9.3 - - State should enforce current regulations

9.4 - - Evaluate current regulations on exempt wells for adequacy in protecting surface waters (quantity and quality)

9.5 - - Clarify science around impacts of exempt wells on surface water

9.6 - - Not Agreed to Yet: State must allocate resources if local governments are to help manage exempt well use

9.7 - - Not Agreed to Yet: Ecology should conduct statewide evaluation of exempt well use, using the following guidelines:

• Ecology should conduct its evaluation in an open process involving stakeholders.
• Ecology should sponsor subregional and regional workshops on exempt wells, leading to a statewide workshop/forum/task force on exempt wells to better quantify technical aspects and to identify policy and cost factors.
• Ecology should develop an educational program related to the use of exempt wells and their potential impact on instream flows and water quality.
• Ecology should develop criteria for when it will require use of deeper aquifers as a source of exempt well water. If deeper aquifers are used for household use, shallow aquifers would be available to supplement streamflows.

9.8 - - Not Agreed to Yet : The Department of Health should prepare a white paper that compares use of exempt wells per parcel to the use of community systems (Class B). In particular, it should address the benefits that Class B community systems have for water quality.

9.9 - - The Partnership believes that a conflict exists among the 1945 Groundwater Law, the Attorney General's opinion, and the Chehalis Instream Resource Protection Program (IRPP) as to whether small withdrawals can affect surface water rights and whether they are subject to the same system of priorities as all other appropriators. The Partnership recommends that Ecology or the Attorney General's office address this conflict in the Chehalis basin.

9.10 - - Not Agreed to Yet: The Partnership has discussed exempt wells and its members have widely divergent opinions on whether or not exempt wells are a concern in the Chehalis basin. Some believe that exempt wells have minimal impact while others believe that exempt wells have, or will have, an impact, especially on streamflows. Based on the data evaluation that shows that there may be concerns with exempt wells in certain sub-basins, the Partnership has agreed to recommend the following specific statement and actions regarding exempt wells in the Chehalis basin:

Statement of Concern Related to Exempt Wells in the Chehalis basin:

1. - - The Partnership believes that exempt wells may be a problem in specific sub-basins of the Chehalis basin where rural development and/or hydrogeologic and/or streamflow conditions create cause for concern.

2. - - The Partnership further believes that exempt wells may be a potential future problem in other sub-basins where future rural development, combined with existing hydrogeologic and/or existing or future streamflow conditions, may create cause for concern.

Recommended Actions Related to Exempt Wells in the Chehalis basin