CHEHALIS BASIN PARTNERSHIP
Facilitated Storage Workshop
Department of Ecology
Lacey, Washington
November 2, 2007
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Workshop Summary
MEMBERS PRESENTTerry Willis, Citizen, Grays Harbor Kernen Lien, Lewis County Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County Dave Rountry, Department of Ecology John Kliem, Facilitator, Creative Solutions Jessica Tate, Recording Secretary, Puget Sound Meeting Services |
Debbie Carnevali, Department of Fish and Wildlife Chanele Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen, Thurston County Glen Connelly, Confederate Tribes of the Chehalis Kahle Jennings, City of Centralia Debbie Holden, Facilitator, Creative Solutions Nadine Romero, Hydrogeologist, Thurston County Lisa Dilley, Citizen, City of Chehalis
|
Mr. Kliem reported the purpose of the workshop is to select three projects for further feasibility analysis. The workshop will include review of the Executive Summary of the Storage Report, brainstorm criteria for selecting projects, and individual and group selection of projects.
The group spent approximately 10 minutes reviewing the Executive Summary.
Ms. Carneveli reported the Executive Summary indicates the final determination of projects will not be established until the analysis of the basin’s overall water requirements and where water is needed is completed. She asked about a possible timeline. Ms. Napier replied that the report was written in 2003, so it’s not necessary to wait.
Ms. Romero shared the following observations about the executive summary:
§ The Scatter Creek Aquifer has storage room and should be added to the list of potential reservoir sites, as it is qualified for further study. It’s critical to determine the seepage study results, hydrologic budgets, and whether there are more accessible aquifers that can serve a greater populous.
§ It hasn’t been determined why there are drops in the summer from 225 cfs to 165 cfs in certain years. Aquifer decreases must be explored with USGS to determine potential trends.
§ Wetland restoration is important, but aquifer storage recovery can be done with more than just the Newaukum artesian aquifer system.
§ Hydrograph exploration is warranted to determine at which point the hydrograph will be tapped for storage.
§ A mini-project for exploration of areas where sandstone is dry is warranted.
Ms. Willis said she noticed changes in the Executive Summary compared to the 2003 report because of discussions over the years. Further changes might be warranted, specifically in terms of agriculture tiles. The Executive Summary indicates removal of tiles would be beneficial. Currently, under consideration is storing water within the wetland and removing water from the wetland with drainage tiles to supplement subsurface irrigation that wouldn’t draw down creeks. It likely wouldn’t be beneficial to remain totally confined to the report or the conclusions at that time.
Mr. Jennings referred to page 8 and asked whether there is a real concern that increasing agricultural irrigation efficiency could reduce the amount of withdrawal from surface water and groundwater sources, leading to higher instream flows. He asked if there are efficiencies to be gained. Ms. Willis affirmed there are as science is constantly developing new ways and equipment to increase efficiencies. The downside is that it threatens water rights, as water law revisions have not been made to recognize efficiencies. Reviewing situations in eastern Washington might be beneficial.
Ms. Carneveli said she prefers restoration of existing wetlands, rather than creating wetlands because they have not been as functional as envisioned
Mr. Jennings referred to pages 6 and 7. Beaver reintroduction could introduce fecal coliform problems. There are also advantages and disadvantages for farmers. Currently, there is no adequate mechanism to absorb potential impacts on agriculture.
Ms. Dilley said potential impacts of beaver reintroduction can also impact homeowners in terms of encouraging other types of wildlife species. Another issue affecting homeowners is wildlife displacement.
Ms. Carneveli suggested an educational public outreach component with beaver reintroduction would be very beneficial. Ms. Holbrook-Shaw agreed because benefits of beaver reintroduction go beyond their ecosystem. Many people believe that every beaver dam must be removed, which is not always warranted.
Ms. Carneveli recommended the CBP remain updated on the Skookumchuck Dam relicensing to provide input and the potential for involvement with mitigation.
Ms. Romero referred to the reference of cold clean water in the report, which is the biggest factor for an ecosystem. Beaver dams tend to store water. If there is also a lack of trees, the system becomes heated causing impacts to fish migration. One issue missing from the report is water storage from a global climate change perspective. Emergency water storage for trees might be another potential project. Additionally, it’s important to determine the types of water and investment priorities of the CBP.
Ms. Carneveli referred to page 6. Creating a staff position of “forest watershed steward” might not be a good use of funding. It might be better to utilize DNR, DOE, and WDFW resources.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw reported the new Carbon Crediting Programs assist landowners in retaining forest on their land.
Mr. Jennings noted aquifer storage could cause additional flooding problems during certain years. Ms. Romero acknowledged that it’s a definite concern. Groundwater basin flooding occurs approximately every 15 years. Ms. Dilley recommended identifying the various aquifers in terms of where the levels of concern are located.
Mr. Jennings suggested detailed documentation for all projects is critical.
Mr. Kliem led members through a brainstorming process:
Project Categories:
§ Surface Water Storage
§ Wetland Restoration
§ Aquifer Storage and Recovery
§ Programmatic Projects
§ Non-Storage Projects
Surface Water Storage:
§ Construct New Reservoirs:
- Alpha Creek, Newaukum River
- Above Hanlon, S. Fork Chehalis River
- Lake Creek, S. Fork Chehalis River
- Lost Creek, S. Fork Chehalis River
- Charlie’s Hump, Chehalis River
- Little Elk Creek, Elk Creek
- Bunker Creek, Deep Creek
- Upper Deep Creek, Deep Creek
§ Modify Existing Reservoirs:
- Wynoochee Reservoir
- Skookumchuck Reservoir
Wetland restoration:
§ Main Stem Scheuber Ditch
§ SF Chehalis, RM 0-5
§ SF Chehalis, Chehalis Confluence
§ Newaukum, Chehalis Confluence
§ Newaukum, Stan Hedwall Park
§ NF/SF Newaukum Confluence
§ Salzer Creek, Chehalis Confluence
§ Salzer Creek, Frozen Foods Site
§ Salzer Creek, RM 3.1
§ Salzer Creek, RM 4.5
Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Newaukum Artesian Aquifer
Programmatic Projects:
§ Provide Forest Conservation and Restoration
§ Beaver Reintroduction
§ Block Agricultural Drainages
§ Low-Impact Development
Decisional Criteria - What criteria would you consider for selecting 2 projects for feasibility studies?
§ Long-term/Short-term Cost Impact
§ Measurable Outcome
§ High Yield/Low Yield – seepage measurable outcome
§ Landowner Willingness
§ Public Acceptability
§ Probability of Success
§ Ability to Predict Success in Terms of Complexity
§ Types of Water Desired – cold clean, high density build out, critically deplete water areas, reclaimed water, safety water
§ Willing Sponsor
§ Implementing Agency – private versus public
§ Pilot Study to estimate acheivablity and success
§ Long-term Sustainability
§ Consider multiple benefits to the types of water
Ms. Willis clarified that the group must first identify an issue to determine the appropriate criteria to utilize.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw suggested each project will require prioritization of criteria as well.
Mr. Kliem asked the group to take a few minutes to decide upon three projects of choice and state reasons for each choice:
- Proven Technology
- Measurable
- Multiple Benefits
- Potential for flow augmentation
- Potential for mitigation
- Better education when reviewing areas with deficit
- Depends on cost benefit and landowner willingness
- Proven mechanism with a higher rate of success
- Smaller-scale multiple sites throughout the Basin
- Leverage success with CBP support
- Smaller scale surface water storage, rather than large dams
- Potential for large impacts
- High technology way to have large measurable impacts
- Benefits for Napavine
- Feasible
- Opportunity to assist with regional needs
- Benefit to people and resources
- Naturally self-sustaining
- Do in low-impact ways
- Schools are a potential resource for further studies
- Intriguing concept
- Limit future degradation
- Measurable
- Long-term could be costly
- Potential for Water Rights trades
- Critical
- Salability is obtainable
- Need to construct developments correctly the first time
- Encourage developers to take stewardship of developments
- Implementing practices could be fairly centralized; some by virtual policy
- Limit future degradation
- Measurable or not?
- Best way to allocate funding; utilize established resources from larger entities?
§ Modify Skookumchuck Reservoir:
- Significant quantity of water
- Benefits for fish, flooding, and drinking water
- Permanent and sustainable
- Existing public support
- Won’t create inundated lands
- Municipal benefits
- Cold clear water
- Extensive and lengthy project
- Naturally effective
- Public education and outreach critical
- Wasting water is not an option anymore
- Provide mechanisms and back-up to achieve irrigation efficiency, and bank water for future agricultural use
- Utilize savings from achieving efficiency for expansion
- Within river itself
- Restore and utilize deep pools in the tributaries
- See off-channel habitat, as rivers are no longer braided, due to manmade impacts
- New concept
- Have heard successes
Mr. Rountry clarified that he has not been involved with development of the priority action. However, the group deserves to have a DOE advocate. He indicated he considered what outcome is desired of the project when determining criteria and prefers wetland enhancement and aquifer recharge in a priority low-flow, temperature impaired subbasin, where the project will provide relatively quick results to benefit people. Long-term results shall benefit natural resources and other multiple functions. The benefits or desired outcomes that the different projects can provide are not mutually exclusive. Projects should also have the desired outcome to be self-sustaining, due to reliance on natural process more than continual investments of human processes, and that the project is fairly easily transferable to other places and communities.
Ms. Napier advised that the project list can be expanded in terms of off-channel habitat with further assessment. She said she didn’t select surface water storage because of political sensitivity and it being more of a short-term solution; although, there seems to be adequate public support.
Mr. Jennings said the Skookumchuck Reservoir is tribally owned and any modification project will have a significant level of controversy.
Discussion followed regarding the current and upcoming status of the Skookumchuck Reservoir.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw said it appears that wetland restoration, low-impact development, and aquifer storage and recovery are the higher priorities. However, she said she will support whatever the group decides on.
Mr. Jennings said it might be more beneficial to choose two projects given the amount of funding available. In that case it seems wetland restoration and aquifer storage and recovery are the high priorities.
Mr. Jennings indicated he prefers lumping irrigation efficiency, water right trades or loans, and agricultural drainages to show how the items contribute to the future of agriculture.
Ms. Willis suggested finding ways to take pressures off agriculture during restoration projects.
Mr. Kliem said wetland restoration, aquifer storage and restoration, low-impact development, and agriculture appear to be the high priorities. Perhaps the beaver reintroduction project could be integrated into wetland restoration.
Ms. Willis said she’s not necessarily opposed to beaver reintroduction, but they do cause damage. Further education regarding the project is warranted.
Ms. Dilley suggested a potential feasibility study should include analysis of what types and how much water agricultural uses currently utilize. Farmers will be motivated to participate because they want to remain in operation. Keeping farmers well informed will also allow them to assist with the problem.
The group agreed to focus on Wetland Restoration and Aquifer Storage and Recovery projects.
Ms. Napier reported the group must now begin identifying specifics of each project by utilizing resources such as Ms. Romero’s expertise.
Mr. Jennings commented that low impact development will be considered and will occur throughout the basin as time goes on.
Ms. Napier clarified that all CBP members were invited to attend the workshop. She advised that she’ll provide a report on the workshop at the next regular CBP meeting.
There being no further business, Ms. Napier adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.m.
Prepared by: Jessica Tate, Recording Secretary
Puget Sound Meeting Services
Workshop Summary Attachment-Notes prepared by the Facilitator-John Kliem
Creative Community Solutions
Planning – Facilitation – Community Development
CHEHALIS BASIN WATER STORAGE WORKSHOP
November 2, 2007
In attendance: Lee Napier, Glen Connelly, Kernen Lien, Debbie Carnevali, Kahle Jennings, Dave Rountry, Terry Willis, Lisa Dilley, Nadine Romero, and Chanele Holbrook-Shaw. Meeting facilitated by John Kliem and Debbie Holden.
1. Agenda
Purpose:
· Select three projects for further feasibility analysis
Process:
· Individually review Executive Summary of Storage Report
· Brainstorm criteria for selecting projects
· Individual and group selection of process
2. Discussion on the Executive Summary of Storage Report:
· Regional differences in water needs
· Growth in rural areas – wells
o Scatter Creek Aquifer
· Some further areas needed for study
o Scatter Creek
· Going to need further exploration
· Don’t have a complete picture of the hydrograph
· Drainage Tiles: Remove or Keep?
· Lots of new information since 2003
· Irrigation – efficiency, study the Eastern Washington Water Rights project
· Beaver
o Fecal coliform
o Problems with farming
o Population impacts
o Ponding of water and lack of trees heats water
o Education / ongoing outreach
· Focus on short term / long term
· Stay “in the loop” on Skookumchuck Dam
· Type of water we want to change
· Global Climate
· Small land owner forest restoration / conversation
· Be aware of natural cycles of flooding / groundwater
3. Focus Question:
What criteria would you consider for selecting 3 projects for feasibility studies?
· Long term / Short term
· Cost / Impact
· Measurable Outcome
· High Yield / Low Yield
· Landowner Willingness
· Public Acceptability
· Probability of Success
· Ability to Predict Success
· Types of Water:
o Cold clean water
o Reclaimed water
o High density build-out water
o Critically depleted areas
o Safety water
· Having a Willing Sponsor
· Implementation Private / Public
· Small Scale Project – Achievable, Lends to Success
· Identify the Problem
· Consider Multiple Benefits
· Long Term Sustainability
3. Selecting Projects
1. Individually select projects based on criteria
2. Report y our choices round-robin style
· Explain why you made your choices
3. Review group results
· Determine if folks want to change given reasons by others
· Further discussion to achieve consensus
4. Results
After reviewing the report, discussing the recommended projects in the report, and brainstorming prioritization criteria, the group identified two projects for requesting feasibility money. These two projects were Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Wetland Restoration.
A. Reasons Stated for Choosing Aquifer Storage and Recovery
· Do within river itself – deep pools / off channel habitat – put these back – impress with folks this is a good idea
· Economically feasible
· Significant quantity of water
· Benefits for fish, flood, and drinking water
· Cool, clear water
· Long-term benefits
· Sustainability
· Municipal benefits
· Public support
· Won’t create inundated lands
· Add storage capacity
· Has had a lot of discussion
· Potential for big impact
· Benefits for Napavine
B. Reasons Stated for Choosing Wetland Restoration
· Small scale / multiple sites throughout basin
· Proven short term
· Willingness
· Cost-benefit
· Multiple benefits
· Potential for mitigation
· Low flows basins
· Self-sustaining naturally
· Able to replicate elsewhere
· Able to support others (habitat)
· Looking at an area with deficit, includes beaver education
· Proven technology with multiple benefits
· Short-term-use as wetland mitigation bank