Meeting Summary
|
MEMBERS & ALTERNATES
PRESENT |
|
|
Bonnie Canaday, Chair,
Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Chanele Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen,
Bob Macleod, Debbie Carneveli,
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Alternate) Kahle Jennings, City of Lee Napier, Terry Harris, City of Richard Graham, |
Ann Wick, Department of
Agriculture Ron Schillinger, City of Mark White, Confederated
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (Alternate) Bill Schulte, Farm Bureau Bob Beerbower, Chris Hempleman, Department
of Ecology Mark Swartout, |
OTHERS PRESENT
|
|
|
Valerie Gow, Randy Lehr, Joel Massman, Quinault
Indian Nation Ron
Maul, Farm Bureau Patrick
Wiltzius, City of Dave
Rountry, Department of Ecology (DOE) Samuel
Iwenofu, Quinault Indian Tribe ( |
John Penberth, Citizen J Roach, Citizen, Corinne Tobeck, Theressa Julius, Jerry Louthain, HDR Steve Hallstrom, Citizen Nadine Romero, Brett DeMond, LWC
Consulting |
Chair Canaday called the meeting to order at
Discuss and
adopt draft-meeting summaries for
The Chehalis Basin Partnership approved the minutes
of the
SPECIAL PROJECTS AND
PRESENTATIONS
Hydrogeology
Analysis by Joel Massman for the Quinault Indian Nation
Ms.
Napier introduced Joel Massman, presented a Quinault Indian Nation (QIN)
project. Mr. Massman has completed some
work for the Tribe on analyzing water quantity.
The presentation is one of three the Partnership has received for
assisting members in understanding the continuity issue between groundwater and
surface water. Ms. Nadine Romeo,
Mr.
Massman reported he completed a study for the QIN to estimate the impacts of
groundwater extraction from wells on stream flows. The study included the
development of a sophisticated computer model examining flows over the
subbasins of focus to quantitatively describe the impact of wells on
streams. The study identified wells in
the focus area, how much water is pumped from the wells, when the wells might
affect stream flow, and whether the amount of water pumped from the wells
compared to the stream flow is significant or insignificant. Some limitations were also identified that
could be addressed by the USGS in their proposed study.
The
study centered on identifying the groundwater flow system of the upper
Chehalis. Many features of the system
are unique and likely played a role in the recent flooding in December. The system involves relatively small aquifers
residing inside small bedrock valleys.
There is little storage capacity in the system resulting in the system
filling up quickly when high precipitation occurs causing flooding as well as
stream levels lowering when little precipitation occurs and the amount of
pumping is high. Conversely, the system
is particularly sensitive to water input and water output.
Mr.
Massman displayed a schematic illustration of the basin from the eastern
bedrock to the ocean. The schematic
shows the features of the Chehalis with bedrock outcrops to the east where more
precipitation occurs. The water flows
and feeds rivers and streams and wetlands and eventually discharges into the
ocean. The water as it falls upon the
bedrock to the east and as it flows to the west part of it goes very deep and
feeds these large-scale regional systems.
That water might go hundreds of feet deep, and eventually discharge into
the ocean. Another component is the
smaller systems where the water can go down to approximately hundred feet deep
and then comes back up and feed wetlands and streams. This is the water system of the most concern,
because it supports the streams and rivers during the summer months.
Mr.
Massman reviewed gaining and losing streams.
Most of the streams in the watershed are gaining streams. Another type of stream not seen much in the
Chehalis is a losing stream, where the water is flowing out of the stream and
into the aquifer. The more normal case –
in the Chehalis - are streams that pick up groundwater as it flows through the
system. The question is how much wells
capture from gaining streams. There are
three things to consider - where’s the well, how deep is the well, and what is
the geology in the vicinity of the well.
Many people believe that the impact of wells to water is a reduction of
water from the stream. However, in most
cases that doesn’t occur. What occurs
under most scenarios is the reduction in the amount of water that is going into
the stream. The stream may be gaining
water as it moves down lower elevations, but it is gaining less water because
of the presence of wells. There are very
few instances where wells are responsible for pulling water out of the
stream. Because the stream is gaining,
it’s difficult to ascertain how much the wells are pulling from the streams. The only way to quantify the impact is
through modeling. In most cases it’s
very difficult and it only works in extreme cases where the stream flow can be
measured to ascertain the impact of a well.
There are just too many other variables occurring, such as rainfall and
other effects.
Initially,
when turning on a well, the water is coming directly from the aquifer
surrounding the well. As the well
continues to pump, it is water that would have eventually flowed into the
stream. The question is how long it
takes before it impacts the stream flow.
Variables include the location of the well, how far from the stream,
depth of the well, and the geology of the area.
In extreme cases where there might be a well located 500 feet from a
stream that is 50 feet deep, the impact may occur within several weeks. In other cases, where the well is located
thousands of feet from a stream and the depth is hundreds of feet, the impact
may not occur for several months or several years. It’s important to consider the different
factors to determine the effect and the degree of the effect.
Mr.
Massman said field work involved identifying all the wells, an estimate of the
well usage, pumping amount, and how much recharge is from precipitation. In the study, six subbasins were
studied.
Mr.
Massman displayed a graph depicting the average stream flow on a monthly basis
for each of the subbasins. Subbasins 1 –
4 are upstream of the area of focus. The
study focused on what occurs during the dry years, a year where the flow is
less than the value of the average flow over 10 years. During the summer months the average flows
and the one in ten flows are not much different. That’s because most of the variability in
flows occurs during the winter months and not in the summer months.
Mr.
Massman explained how the various factors were fed into the model from
inputting all streams of various sizes, adding precipitation, and factoring
areas where groundwater can leave the system.
One important fact about the Chehalis system is that no inflow occurs
from the east. All the water that leaves
the system comes from precipitation.
There are no deep aquifers feeding the Chehalis system.
The
model calculates the precipitation and how much is lost through plants and
evaporation. The model calculates how
fast water moves down and how fast it moves laterally to the streams and what
the water levels are in the aquifer. The
modeling exercise is based on no wells.
Calculations are made based on no wells pumping in the system. The next step includes adding existing
pumping wells. There are approximately
270 wells with water rights in the basin.
Another piece is wells without water rights, or exempt wells. There are approximately 4,000 in the
basin. Those wells are located and then
an estimate is added to the model reflecting how much water the wells
pump. In many cases, many of the wells
are clustered around streams because in many locations there is bedrock that
produces very little water. The valleys
are filled with gravel and are where the productive aquifers are located.
Mr.
Massman reviewed different types of wells and their usage. Two municipal wells include the City of
Other
wells include wells for fish propagation, agriculture, commercial, and domestic
uses. Most of the wells are not used to
the maximum value throughout the year.
Exempt
wells were examined as well as the streams that might be most impacted by
exempt wells. Exempt wells are limited
to pumping 5,000 gallons a day and they require no water rights. Some of the watersheds have 50 to 60 exempt
wells per square mile. The small streams
located higher in the watershed where there is a high concentration of exempt
wells appear to have the most relevance.
Mr.
Massman answered questions on how the figure for exempt wells was
obtained. Another contractor for the
Tribe used population estimates throughout the watershed as well as customer
lists showing areas served by public water systems. He noted that some people may obtain their
water from public water systems but have smaller wells for other applications,
which are not factored in the model. In
terms of impact there are exempt wells high in the watershed that may be
relevant and there are larger municipal water rights in the lower part of the
basin that may be relevant. Exempt wells
located in the lower part of the basin near the Chehalis are likely not
relevant because of the amount of stream flow.
Mr.
Massman said the model calculated the amount of water usage during various
times of the year and how much of the water is consumptive use. The model
calculated 80% of the municipal wells as consumptive uses. The modeling shows that the cumulative
decrease in stream flows in cubic feet per second (cfs) range from a few tenths
cfs to tens of cfs for the larger systems.
The impact on stream flows during the wetter months is less than a
percent while the impact is approximately 10% during July, August, and
September. During a dry year, which occurs
once every 10 years, shutting off all wells in the system would result in an
increase in stream flows by 10%.
Mr.
Massman commented that the model is not entirely technically defensible because
the field work did not include measuring water levels throughout the system and
then comparing the modeling predictions to what was observed. There were insufficient resources to
undertake that work. The study included
using as much data that was available and running the model based on best
guesses and not on observed water levels.
The USGS effort would include that observation factor. The USGS model will be calibrated and
predications will be more reliable.
However the effort is far more expensive that that undertaken by the
Tribe. However, the effort reveals a good understanding of how much water is
coming out of the groundwater system.
Commissioner
Macleod asked about the potential impact in terms of the relationship between
population and availability of water.
Mr. Massman said in terms of the impact on flows, adding a number of
exempt wells per square miles will reduce flows to a larger percentage.
Ms.
Holbrook-Shaw commented that the Town of
Ms.
Romero commented on some trend analysis she has undertaken on the Grand Mound
gauge. The trend analysis of the USGS
Scatter Creek well reveals that levels are rising despite heavier development.
Mr.
Jennings asked whether data exists on the number of acres of irrigated
agriculture in the past versus the present.
There may be a significant change, which might be an explanation for the
increase. When the Nisqually quake occurred
in 2001, the water level in
Post Flood
Update/Feedback – Role of the CBP with Respect to Flooding
Mr.
Swartout reported at the last meeting, members shared stories and information
about the December flood. Some members
questioned the possible role of the Partnership regarding the flood event. The Steering Technical Committee (STC) discussed
the issue as well as members agreeing it’s an important discussion for the
Partnership to consider. In terms of
history, the Partnership loosely organized after the 1996 flood, before
watershed planning and salmon recovery acts were passed. The initial group provided a forum for
discussion of water resource issues that all jurisdictions in the basin shared
in common. At the onset, the role of the
Partnership was a place to become informed about what was occurring in another
setting such as the US Army Corps of Engineers and other jurisdictions that
were preparing proposals to mitigate the impacts of I-5 flooding.
Mr.
Swartout said it’s important for the Partnership to discuss the role of the
Partnership in the future.
Mr.
Schulte said he’s considered the role of the CBP as his home flooded with over
seven feet of water. He recommended the
CBP develop a proposal because every group that was affected by the flood is
developing proposals and plans on how to deal with flood mitigation. If the Partnership
wants to participate rather than criticize and lose creditability later on,
then the Partnership will benefit from making some recommendations because it
will be helpful to the overall response to flood mitigation.
Mr.
Penberth said the comments by Mr. Swartout are incorrect because when the
Partnership was first formed, it involved local leaders, department heads, and
elected officials who could make decisions.
At the first meeting, the former Mayor of the City of
Ms.
Holbrook-Shaw commented on the importance of collecting data. There have been some members who have begun
collecting data on what occurred. At a
minimum, the Partnership should follow up on data collection efforts and ensure
data is consolidated to provide a snapshot of the event to ensure factual
information is used in making future decisions.
There are many members that have technical expertise who can assist the
Partnership. It’s important not to lose
sight of that.
Chair
Canaday said she’s been attending Partnership meetings for quite awhile and
doesn’t believe any member would not want to become involved and continue to be
out front on the issue
Mr.
Schillinger said the Partnership is not a revenue-generating body or a
permitting body. The Partnership also
doesn’t have the authority to create regulations. There are members within the Partnership that
have certain authorities. The concerns,
issues, and heartbreak associated with flooding are the reasons the City of
Mr.
Jennings said as a staff person reporting to the City Manager who reports to
Mayor Canaday, he has some insight because of the number of meetings recently attended
on transportation and flooding. He said
he’s immersed in the local flooding situation in
Mr.
Penberth complimented Mr. Schillinger for his comments regarding his comments
about the Corps. He suggested the
Partnership is a group of people who don’t have much horsepower to do many
things. In the past, he’s recommended
abolishing the Partnership after the county commissioners signed the watershed
plan because there is nothing to carry it forward and there are no teeth in
moving forward. It’s a good group to
meet to spend salmon recovery funds. At
this point, it’s a futile attempt. The
Partnership is a good group to meet monthly and share information. He suggested taking the Partnership to
Mr.
Jennings clarified that WSDOT and CTED are only involved in that portion of the
flood issue related to I-5 and protecting the communities of Chehalis and
Mr.
Harris said first and foremost that just because everyone is in the same room, not
everyone will agree on the same solution.
The fact that members meet, communicate, and share information about
what’s occurring in other cities and towns is important. The plans that CTED and WSDOT may develop may
not agree with what the communities believe are best. The City of
Mr.
Schulte agreed and suggested the CBP could give a conceptual proposal on what
should be done for the flooding in the basin and why because the Partnership
represents the basin. The problem is
that a small group of people can disrupt and stop the progress. It takes everybody working together to
determine measures that benefit all communities. The group covers the area and a sufficient
cross section of the basin to conceptually develop some steps to mitigate
flooding. It will be easier for the
counties and cities to develop flood control plans knowing they have support
across the basin.
Mr.
Hallstrom said it appears that
Mr.
Schillinger supported the idea of flood reduction impact and capturing more
water in the aquifers for use and dispersal during times of low flows. The storage idea that the Corps developed is
something that should be explored. He commented that building homes and
businesses in the basin could be compared to building in a sink. There are
choices that people make that don’t appear to be impacted regardless of the
consequences.
Mr.
Schulte said many people build homes near fault lines or volcanoes or other
areas. He said he built his home 20 feet
above and 500 feet away from the high water mark from the 1996 flood. It’s not possible to predict the next
event. The only thing people can do is
to consider the risk analysis and take steps to best deal with it. There are many people in the area that
flooded out in the December flood who have never experienced a flood in
recorded history. The “safe line” is
unknown. People can make reasonable,
logical choices. The goal is to develop
a conceptual idea of the steps necessary to take and then implement that into a
flood mitigation plan that everyone can agreed with.
Mr.
Harris said it will be a multi-pointed plan that somebody will dislike. But, officials will have to step up to the
plate and acknowledge there will be some impacts but if no action is taken, the
impacts will be greater during the next event.
Ms.
DeMond said it will involve mitigating the impacts of the flood but it will also
involve land use planning, such as prevention by altering the removal of
timber. That’s a prevention aspect that should be considered as well.
Chair
Canaday said she owns several houses in the City of
Mr.
Penberth reported one of the conditions that occurred in the upper Chehalis was
the loss of 10 Weyerhaeuser bridges. It
began with a major slide that plugged up one bridge, which caused its collapse
causing pressure along the river and destruction of subsequent bridges causing
water and debris to spread along the upper Chehalis. He offered an unlikely mitigation suggestion of
installing draw bridges because once obstruction occurs; it causes water to
back up creating pressure on the river.
Mr.
White suggested there are two courses the Partnership can pursue. He asked why the Governor’s Office and WSDOT
has not attended one single community meeting.
There is the defensive course and an offensive course. The Partnership should pursue an offensive
course because it’s impossible to beat the river. There’s no way to dam it, dike it, dredge it,
or any other action. The soils in the
basin are not conducive to stabilizing the river. He suggested looking at building
practices. Places like
Ms.
DeMond contended that the slide caused the mud.
Chair Canaday said it confirms her point that every flood is different.
Mr.
White said the Partnership should set its own offensive. The counties and cities need to consider
building practices. He an advocate for
property owner rights, but if it affects his neighbor, then maybe the practice
needs to be examined.
Mr.
Harris said it will require the jurisdictions to step up and make choices on
what is best for the greater good, which will mean sacrifices on all
parts. Using dikes, dams, gates, and
science needs to be considered.
Ms.
Hempleman said the Partnership is working on many important issues. She asked how the Partnership will take on an
additional giant task structurally.
Ms.
DeMond reported Representative Gary Alexander said during a
Mr. Graham
departed the meeting at
Commissioner
Macleod commented that out of respect for members, the CBP is one of the best
kept secrets. With this being a major
disaster in the last 10 years, the CBP has a reason to move in mass to both
make an appointment with the Governor’s Office or a legislative committee and
move to a higher visibility because of the significance of the event. Some body of some mass needs to meet with
state officials.
Chair
Canaday said she’s offered a solution for I-5 by adding a second story freeway
for trucks to use during flood events.
She’s been advocating for that particular solution for the last six
years.
Mr.
Schillinger said the solution is not a one-dimensional solution based on the
specifics of each subbasin’s individual needs.
He suggested the STC is the body to develop a recommendation for the CBP
to consider.
Mr.
Swartout said the STC tries to offer choices for the CBP’s consideration.
Mr.
Schillinger said it appears members are advocating for moving forth with some
kind of action.
Commissioner
Beerbower referred to the 1996 flood and his involvement after the flood to
determine a solution. For years, the
Corps worked on studies. He said he’s
been in office for 13 years and nothing has been done other than gathering
information. The problem with the
previous efforts was that the public was not involved. The CBP has public involvement, which is what
he likes about the group. He said he was
hoping that enough information was generated for the Partnership to examine the
material to determine what’s occurred in the past for moving forward to solve
the problems. He disagreed with Mr.
Penberth that the Partnership needs to disband.
Communities need the river and exist because of it. Everyone needs to work with the river and try
to solve some of the problems. He had
hoped the previous effort would resolve some of the problems, however nobody
wanted to be responsible and everyone was afraid of being sued. It doesn’t do any good to attend all the
meetings and not make some decisions.
The Partnership needs to expand as well as involve more of the
public.
Mr.
Harris reiterated the need for everyone to give and take. It will mean people will have to give in on
certain things. In 1990, there was no
state or federal help. In 1996, there
were no federal or state politicians helping.
Today, there is help and there is funding offered. If anything, the CBP should be taking
advantage of that by welcoming them and offering them the group to be welcomed
into – not turning over the reins to somebody else who’s only concerned about asphalt. The Partnership needs to figure out how to
get those organizations into the Partnership.
If it’s in the basin he questioned why the groups are not at the Partnership
table. He agreed with approaching them
and inviting them to the table.
Mr.
Louthain said he’s been involved in flooding issues for years. The basin is similar to what occurred in
Mr.
Louthain said the flood was unique in that flood stage was not attained on the
Skookumchuck. If flood stage had been
reached, it would have been even more devastating. He suggested moving forward as a group and
obtaining funding. The effort should
move forward to expand the Corps project to the point where all stakeholders
can agree. He suggested the Partnership
should contact
Mr.
Roach commented on the camaraderie of the group and the number of people
represented at the table. He agreed the
CBP should move forward and become more involved.
Mr.
Schulte reported on
Mr.
Penberth reported many years ago a flood meeting was held in Pe Ell. Approximately 400 people attended the meeting
on a presentation for creating a flood district for
Mr.
Swartout said there appears to be general agreement on some concepts. What has been pointed out is the need to
bring WSDOT and CTED to the table and have them inform the Partnership about
what they are proposing. State agencies
usually include some public outreach component of the proposal, which should be
shared with the Partnership. Mr.
Swartout said there are also concerns about the scale of the state’s proposal
pertaining to whether the focus is only protecting the I-5 corridor and the
cities of Chehalis and
Mr.
Louthain suggested contacting Keith Phillips from the Governor’s Office. He suggested inviting him to the next
meeting. Mr. Swartout offered a
suggestion of both a letter and telephone call from Chair Canaday or Mark White
as Co-chair and as a tribal employee.
Mr. White offered to hand deliver a letter next week as he has a meeting
scheduled with Mr. Phillips.
Members authorized Chair Canaday and Mr. White
to develop the letter with Mr. White delivering the letter next week to Mr.
Phillips.
Ms.
Tobeck asked whether representatives from WSDOT or CTED have been invited to
attend meetings. Mr. Swartout explained
that during the early meetings, there was some attendance by
representatives. Ms. Napier has recently
called and left messages with the Corps Project Manager, but no one has
returned her calls. Commissioner Beerbower said he is experiencing the same
problem with calls not being returned.
Mr.
Harris referred to the Partnership’s capacity issue and suggested the more
people that attend the meetings; it’s an opportunity to bring some of the
organizations to help facilitate some of the Partnership’s tasks.
Mr.
Swartout advised that if the state wants the Partnership to take on a role or a
capacity, the state needs to provide some funds and capacity to assist the Partnership
in the work.
Mr.
White asked Mr. Lehr whether there is any additional capacity at the college
that can be tapped. Mr. Lehr said he
doesn’t believe so but can check about the possibility.
Mr.
Swartout said if the role of the CBP crosses over as a facilitator to help
attain a consensus around the basin, it will be important to use a neutral
third party, who is not involved in the basin.
Mr. Iwenofu
arrived at
Ms.
Holbrook-Shaw suggested publishing the CBP’s meeting dates in local
newspapers. Ms. Napier asked members to
notify her of free advertising opportunities.
Commissioner
Macleod underscored the timing of the effort as the basin is coming off one of
the most dramatic events in western
Mr.
Jennings reported the US Army Corps of Engineers Reevaluation Report and Final Environmental
Impact Statement are available on the Corps’ website. It does not include all the information
Pacific International Engineering completed through their contract with
Mr.
Mauel reported on a meeting
Mr.
White noted much of the debris is good stream restoration material. Ms. Holbrook-Shaw advised that large wood
debris is a tax deduction if donated for restoration activities.
Ms.
Napier thanked Ms. Carneveli for attending the meetings on behalf of Chad
Stussy.
Next Meeting
The next meeting of the CBP
is
Adjournment
There being no further
business, Chair Canaday adjourned the meeting at
Prepared by Valerie Gow,
Recording Secretary/President