Nisqually Watershed Response to the 2018 Streamflow ... · Tom Kantz – Pierce County Lee Napier – Lewis County Russell Olsen – Thurston Public Utility District Allison Osterberg

i

Nisqually Watershed Response to the 2018 Streamflow Restoration Act

(RCW 90.94)

Addendum to the Nisqually Watershed Management Plan

Prepared for the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Nisqually Watershed Planning Unit

January 16, 2019

With Assistance from: Ecology Grant No. WRSRPPG-2018-NisqIT-00014

RecommendedCitation:NisquallyWatershedPlanningUnit(2019).NisquallyWatershedResponsetothe2018StreamflowRestorationAct(RCW90.94):AddendumtotheNisquallyWatershedManagementPlan.Olympia,WA.

WRIA11StreamflowRestorationAddendum

ii

Acknowledgements ThisAddendumtotheNisquallyWatershedPlanwasdevelopedthroughtheparticipationandinputofnumerous

stakeholdersfromtheNisquallyWatershedoverthepastyearinarapidresponsetothemandateofthe

StreamflowRestorationAct(chapter90.94RCW).Wearegratefulfortheexpertiseandresponsivenessofthese

PlanningUnitmembers:

PLANNING UNIT: GaryBahr–DepartmentofAgricultureJesseBarham–CityofOlympiaGrantBeck–CityofYelmDanCardwell–PierceCountyTomCulhane–DepartmentofEcologyMatthewCurtis–DepartmentofFish&WildlifeJoshuaCummings–ThurstonCountyJeffDickison–SquaxinIslandTribeFredEvander–LewisCountyWillieFrankIII–NisquallyIndianTribeMikeGallagher–DepartmentofEcologyKizaGates–DepartmentofFish&WildlifeMichaelGrayum–CityofYelmAbbyGribi–TownofEatonvilleJessicaGwilt–PierceCountyDennisHanberg–PierceCountyKevinHansen–ThurstonCountyJustinHall–NisquallyRiverFoundationAndyHaub–CityofOlympiaTomKantz–PierceCountyLeeNapier–LewisCountyRussellOlsen–ThurstonPublicUtilityDistrictAllisonOsterberg–ThurstonCountyJulieRector–CityofLaceyJoeRoush–CityofOlympiaJamesSlape–NisquallyIndianTribeRanceSmith–PierceCountyBarbaraAnnSmolko–PierceCountyGaryStamper–LewisCountyDavidTroutt–NisquallyIndianTribeGeorgeWalter-NisquallyIndianTribeLoisWard–NisquallyRiverCouncilCACJohnWeidenfeller–ThurstonPublicUtilityDistrictCynthiaWilson–ThurstonCounty

WORK GROUPS: WATERFORECASTWORKGROUP:DanCardwell–PierceCountyTomCulhane–DepartmentofEcologyLisaDallyWilson–DallyEnvironmentalFredEvander–LewisCountyMikeGallagher–DepartmentofEcologyAllisonOsterberg–ThurstonCountyRanceSmith–PierceCountyGeorgeWalter–NisquallyIndianTribeJohnWeidenfeller–ThurstonPublicUtilityDistrictHABITATPROJECTWORKGROUP:MattBarnhart–PierceCountyLisaDallyWilson–DallyEnvironmentalChrisEllings–NisquallyIndianTribeJustinHall–NisquallyRiverFoundationKevinHansen–ThurstonCountySayreHodgson–NisquallyIndianTribeTomKantz–PierceCountyEmilyMcCartan–NisquallyRiverFoundationAllisonOsterberg–ThurstonCountyDavidTroutt–NisquallyIndianTribeAshleyVonEssen–NisquallyIndianTribeOTHERSTRATEGIESWORKGROUPGrantBeck–CityofYelmLisaDallyWilson–DallyEnvironmentalAbbyGribi–TownofEatonvilleKevinHansen–ThurstonCountyTomKantz–PierceCountyEmilyMcCartan–NisquallyRiverFoundationDaveNazy–EAEngineering,Science,&Technology,Inc.AllisonOsterberg–ThurstonCountyRanceSmith–PierceCountyBarbaraAnnSmolko–PierceCountyGaryStamper–LewisCountyGeorgeWalter–NisquallyIndianTribeJohnWeidenfeller–ThurstonPublicUtilityDistrict

PLANNINGUNITSUPPORTGeorgeWalter,NisquallyIndianTribe–PlanningUnitLead

LisaDallyWilson,DallyEnvironmental–FacilitatorandProjectManager

EmilyMcCartan,NisquallyRiverCouncil–HabitatWorkGroupLiaisonandStaffingSupport


iii

Contents

ListofTables................................................................................................................................................................viiListofFigures................................................................................................................................................................ixListofAppendices..........................................................................................................................................................xListofAcronyms...........................................................................................................................................................xiExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................................................................xii

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................xiiPlanAddendumOrganization.................................................................................................................................xiiiSummaryofResults................................................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter1 IntroductionandBackground...............................................................................................................1-11.1 NisquallyWatershedPlanningandtheHirstResponse...............................................................................1-11.2 ScopeofthisAddendumandAgreements..................................................................................................1-11.3 Sub-BasinDelineation..................................................................................................................................1-31.4 EstablishedInstreamFlowsinWRIA11.......................................................................................................1-41.5 NisquallyApproachtoMitigation................................................................................................................1-41.6 FundingforMitigation.................................................................................................................................1-5

Chapter2 WatershedFeaturesthatInfluenceMitigationAlternatives................................................................2-62.1 WatershedOverviewintheContextofMitigation......................................................................................2-62.2 WatershedHydrologyandGeology.............................................................................................................2-62.3 Sub-BasinCharacteristics.............................................................................................................................2-7

2.3.1 McAllisterSub-Basin–ThurstonCounty..............................................................................................2-72.3.2 Thompson/YelmSub-Basin–ThurstonCounty....................................................................................2-92.3.3 Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-Basin–ThurstonCounty..................................................................2-112.3.4 LowerNisquallyRiverSub-Basin–PierceCounty...............................................................................2-12


iv

2.3.5 PrairieTributariesSub-Basin–PierceCounty....................................................................................2-132.3.6 OhopCreekSub-Basin–PierceCounty..............................................................................................2-142.3.7 MashelRiverSub-Basin–PierceCounty............................................................................................2-152.3.8 UpperNisquallySub-Basin–Lewis,Pierce,andThurstonCounties...................................................2-16

Chapter3 WaterUseForecasts...........................................................................................................................3-183.1 LandandWaterUseBackground..............................................................................................................3-18

3.1.1 ThurstonCounty.................................................................................................................................3-183.1.2 LewisCounty.......................................................................................................................................3-193.1.3 PierceCounty......................................................................................................................................3-19

3.2 ForecastofFutureDomesticPermit-ExemptWellConnections/WellsinWRIA11..................................3-193.2.1 ThurstonCounty.................................................................................................................................3-203.2.2 LewisCounty.......................................................................................................................................3-243.2.3 PierceCounty......................................................................................................................................3-243.2.4 Three-CountySummaryofResults–TotalForecastConnectionsinWRIA11...................................3-29

3.3 WaterUseEstimates–DomesticPermit-ExemptConnections2018-2040..............................................3-293.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................................3-293.3.2 EstimatedActualConsumptiveWaterUse.........................................................................................3-303.3.3 ConsumptivePortionoftheLegalRighttoWater..............................................................................3-323.3.4 ConsumptiveUseResults...................................................................................................................3-32

Chapter4 SalmonHabitatProjectswithInstreamFlowandNetEcologicalBenefits.........................................4-354.1 NetEcologicalBenefitandSalmonRecoveryGoals..................................................................................4-35

4.1.1 DefiningNetEcologicalBenefitfortheNisquallyWatershed............................................................4-354.1.2 AligningSalmonRecoveryHabitatInitiativeswithStreamflowRestorationPlanning.......................4-364.1.3 ApproachtoQuantifyingImpactsofSalmonRecoveryInitiatives......................................................4-38

4.2 NisquallyWatershedMacro-Mitigations...................................................................................................4-394.2.1 CommunityForestAcquisitionforConservationManagement.........................................................4-394.2.2 EatonvilleWaterSystemImprovementsforMashelBaseFlow.........................................................4-41


v

4.2.3 OhopValleyFloodplainRestoration...................................................................................................4-434.2.4 MashelRiverIn-StreamHabitatImprovementProjects.....................................................................4-45

Chapter5 MitigationStrategiesintheNisquallyWatershed..............................................................................5-475.1 SpecificMicro-MitigationStrategies..........................................................................................................5-47

5.1.1 MitigationApproachinPrairieEnvironments....................................................................................5-475.1.2 WaterRightAcquisition......................................................................................................................5-535.1.3 AquiferRecharge................................................................................................................................5-545.1.4 LocalHabitatStrategies......................................................................................................................5-55

5.2 SummaryofSub-BasinMitigationOptions................................................................................................5-58Chapter6 CountyStrategies................................................................................................................................6-59

6.1 ThurstonCounty........................................................................................................................................6-596.1.1 ThurstonCountyWaterAvailabilityPermittingProcessReview........................................................6-606.1.2 RevolvingLoanandGrantFundforSmallPublicWaterSystems.......................................................6-616.1.3 StormwaterManagement..................................................................................................................6-62

6.2 PierceCounty.............................................................................................................................................6-626.2.1 “Cafeteria”MenuApproach...............................................................................................................6-636.2.2 OtherPotentialMitigationStrategies.................................................................................................6-64

6.3 LewisCounty..............................................................................................................................................6-64Chapter7 MitigationOffsetsbySub-Basin..........................................................................................................7-65

7.1 ProjectedConsumptiveWaterUseforMicroandMacroMitigation........................................................7-657.2 SummaryofWatershedMitigationOptions..............................................................................................7-65

7.2.1 DemandReduction.............................................................................................................................7-677.3 WaterUseandMitigationOptionsbySub-Basin......................................................................................7-67

7.3.1 McAllisterSub-Basin...........................................................................................................................7-677.3.2 Thompson/YelmSub-Basin.................................................................................................................7-687.3.3 Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-Basin................................................................................................7-697.3.4 LowerNisquallySub-Basin..................................................................................................................7-70


vi

7.3.5 PrairieTributariesSub-Basin...............................................................................................................7-717.3.6 OhopSub-Basin..................................................................................................................................7-717.3.7 MashelSub-Basin................................................................................................................................7-727.3.8 UpperNisquallySub-Basin..................................................................................................................7-73

7.4 LimitationsandUncertainty......................................................................................................................7-74Chapter8 ImplementationandAdaptiveManagement......................................................................................8-85

8.1 Implementation.........................................................................................................................................8-858.2 AdaptiveManagement..............................................................................................................................8-88

8.2.1 HabitatProjects..................................................................................................................................8-888.2.2 Sub-BasinMitigationStrategies..........................................................................................................8-89

References...............................................................................................................................................................8-90


vii

List of Tables

TableES-1:ActualForecastConsumptiveUsein2040(EcologyMethod)ComparedtoMinimumandMaximum

EstimatedMitigation..........................................................................................................................................xivTable1-1:WRIA11AggregatedSub-Basins..............................................................................................................1-3Table3-1:Population&DwellingUnitChangebySub-Basin,2018-2040,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11..3-20Table3-2:Permit-exemptConnections,UrbanGrowthAreas,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11...................3-22Table3-3:Permit-exemptConnections,RuralAreas,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11..................................3-22Table3-4:TotalEstimatedPermit-exemptConnections,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11,2018-2040.........3-23Table3-5:DwellingUnitChange,bySub-basin2018-2040,inUpperNisquallySub-basin,LewisCountyportionof

WRIA11...........................................................................................................................................................3-24Table3-6:ProjectedPopulationGrowth,PierceCountyportionofWRIA11(2018-2040)....................................3-25Table3-7:PercentPermit-ExemptWells,PierceCountyportionofWRIA11–26-YearHistoricTrend(1991-2016)

.........................................................................................................................................................................3-26Table3-8:ProjectedIndividualPermit-ExemptWells(2018–2040),PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–Low

Projectionusing26-YearHistoricTrend..........................................................................................................3-26Table3-9:PercentPermit-exemptWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–10-YearHistoricTrend(2007-2016)

.........................................................................................................................................................................3-26Table3-10:ProjectedIndividualPermit-ExemptWells(2018–2040),PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–High

ProjectionUsing10YearHistoricTrend..........................................................................................................3-27Table3-11:ExistingConnectionstoPermit-ExemptGroupBWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11...............3-27Table3-12:FutureConnectionstoPermit-ExemptGroupBWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11.................3-28Table3-13:FutureConnections,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–LowProjection...........................................3-28Table3-14:FutureConnections,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–HighProjection..........................................3-29Table3-15:TotalProjectedNewDomesticPermit-ExemptConnectionsbyAggregatedSub-basin,WRIA11(2018-

2040)................................................................................................................................................................3-29Table3-16:NisquallyWatershed:ActualWaterUsageAssumptions.....................................................................3-32Table3-17:NisquallyWatershed:LegalLimitWaterUsageAssumptions..............................................................3-32


viii

Table3-18:ProjectedActualAnnualAverageConsumptiveUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,Nisqually

Watershed,WRIA11(2018-2040)–ThurstonPUDDataSource....................................................................3-32Table3-19:ProjectedActualAnnualAverageConsumptiveUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,Nisqually

Watershed,WRIA11(2018-2040)–EcologyGuidanceMethod.....................................................................3-33Table3-20:ProjectedLegalConsumptiveWaterUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,NisquallyWatershed,WRIA

11(2018-2040)................................................................................................................................................3-33Table4-1:SalmonRecoveryHabitatInitiativeswithStreamflowandNetEcologicalBenefit................................4-37Table4-2:AcquiredAcresandAnnualStreamflowGainforCommunityForestLands–MinimumScenario(based

onacquisitionratetodate).............................................................................................................................4-41Table4-3:AcquiredAcresandAnnualStreamflowGainforCommunityForestLands–MaximumScenario

(acquiringallparcelsaveraging40yearsorolderin2019;UpperNisquallyparcelsnotincludedinthistable)

.........................................................................................................................................................................4-41Table4-4:TownofEatonvilleStormwaterProjects(AppendicesHandI)..............................................................4-43Table4-5:Per-MileBenefitsfromOhopRestorationTemplate(AppendixE)........................................................4-44Table4-6:OhopRestorationPhaseIVStreamflowBenefit.....................................................................................4-44Table5-1:ReducingImpactfromPEWellsbyApprovalofYelm’sWaterRightforDeeperMunicipalWell..........5-50Table5-2:WaterUseOffsetbyExistingPermit-ExemptWellsinYelmUGAConnectedtoExpandedYelmWater

Service.............................................................................................................................................................5-51Table5-3:PotentialMitigationBenefitofYelm’sReclaimedWaterProgramtoShallowAquifer..........................5-52Table5-4:PreliminaryWaterRightsAssessmentofPrairieTributariesSub-basin.................................................5-54Table5-5:Per-MileBenefitsfromOhopRestorationTemplate(AppendixE)........................................................5-55Table5-6:FloodplainRestorationStreamflowBenefitEstimates–PotentialProjects(AppendixE)*...................5-57Table7-1:ComparisonofConsumptiveUseEstimatesinWRIA11(2018-2040)....................................................7-65Table7-2:SummaryofWatershedMitigationOptions(seeendofchapterandFigure5forlarge-scaleversion)7-66Table7-3:ActualConsumptiveUse(EcologyMethod)ComparedtoMinimumandMaximumEstimatedMitigation*

.........................................................................................................................................................................7-66Table7-4:LegalConsumptiveUseComparedtoMinimumandMaximumEstimateMitigation*.........................7-67Table7-5:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–McAllisterSub-basin...............................................................................7-68Table7-7:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–Thompson/YelmSub-basin....................................................................7-68Table7-9:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-basin.....................................................7-69


ix

Table7-11:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–LowerNisquallyRiverSub-basin..........................................................7-70Table7-13:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–PrairieTributariesSub-basin................................................................7-71Table7-15:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–OhopSub-basin....................................................................................7-71Table7-17:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–MashelSub-basin.................................................................................7-72Table7-19:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–UpperNisquallySub-basin...................................................................7-73Table7-6:McAllisterSub-BasinMitigation.............................................................................................................7-77Table7-8:Thompson/YelmSub-BasinMitigation...................................................................................................7-78Table7-10:Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-BasinMitigation.................................................................................7-79Table7-12:LowerNisquallySub-BasinMitigation..................................................................................................7-80Table7-14:PrairieTributariesSub-BasinMitigation...............................................................................................7-81Table7-16:OhopSub-BasinMitigation...................................................................................................................7-82Table7-18:MashelSub-BasinMitigation................................................................................................................7-83Table7-20:UpperNisquallySub-BasinMitigation..................................................................................................7-84Table8-1:SummaryofPlannedImplementationActionsforWRIA11..................................................................8-86

List of Figures

Figure1:2018NisquallyWatershedPlanning-Sub-Basins

Figure2:2018NisquallyWatershedPlanning-NisquallyRiverReaches,InstreamFlowControlPoints,and

AdministrativeActions

Figure3:GeohydraulicCrossSection:LakeSt.ClairtoNisquallyReach

Figure4:2018NisquallyWatershedPlanning-GeneralLandUse

Figure5:Table7-2,SummaryofWatershedMitigationOptions


x

List of Appendices

AppendixA–NisquallyPlanningUnit2018WorkingAgreement

AppendixB–WAC173-511,NisquallyInstreamFlowRule

AppendixC–ThurstonCountyForecastingMethodsMemo

AppendixD–ThurstonPUDGroupAandBSystemData

AppendixE–StreamflowMitigationusingFloodplainRestoration(OhopTemplate)

AppendixF–NisquallySalmonRecoveryInitiatives

F-1–NisquallyPriorityNetEcologicalBenefitHabitatInitiatives

F-2–NisquallySalmonHabitatInitiativesandWaterQuantityPrioritizationCrosswalk

F-3–NisquallyHabitatProjectRankingGuidance

AppendixG–NisquallyCommunityForest

G-1–ManagedForestryNisquallyCommunityForestTemplate

G-2–NisquallyCommunityForestVELMAmodelingtoevaluateeffectsofforestmanagementscenariosonstreamflowandsalmonhabitat(Halletal.,2018)

AppendixH–EatonvilleCapitalImprovementProjectsandAquiferStorage&RecoveryMitigationMemo

AppendixI–EatonvilleWaterConservationMemo

AppendixJ–ThurstonPUDDeepeningWellsMemo

AppendixK–WashingtonWaterTrustMemo

K-1–Summary

K-2–WashingtonWaterTrustFullReport

AppendixL–YelmWaterRight

AppendixM–PotentialManagedAquiferRechargeMitigationFacilitiesinWRIA11

AppendixN–PierceCountyGroundwaterHabitatProjects


xi

List of Acronyms

AFY–AcreFeetperYear

ASR–AquiferStorageandRecovery

BoCC–BoardofCountyCommissioners

BoH–BoardofHealth

CFS–CubicFeetperSecond

CIP–CapitalImprovementProject

EDT–EcosystemDiagnosisandTreatment

ESA–EndangeredSpeciesAct

FERC–FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission

GIS–GeographicInformationSystem

GMA–GrowthManagementAct

GPD–GallonsPerDay

IRPP–InstreamResourceProtectionProgram

JBLM–JointBaseLewis-McChord

LAMIRD–LimitedAreaofMoreIntensiveRuralDevelopment

MAR–ManagedAquiferRecharge

MGSA–McAllisterGeologicSensitiveArea

NEB–NetEcologicalBenefit

NIT–NisquallyIndianTribe

OFM–OfficeofFinancialManagement

PSRC–PugetSoundRegionalCouncil

PUD–PublicUtilityDistrict

RCW–RevisedCodeofWashington

RM–RiverMile

SFR–Single-FamilyResidential

TRPC–ThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncil

UGA–UrbanGrowthArea

USGS–UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey

WAC–WashingtonAdministrativeCode

WRIA–WaterResourceInventoryArea

WWT–WashingtonWaterTrust


xii

Executive Summary

Introduction UndertheleadershipoftheNisquallyIndianTribe,theNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnitreconvenedinJulyof

2018toaddresstherequirementsoftheStreamflowRestorationAct(RCW90.94.020)withanAddendumtothe

2003NisquallyWatershedManagementPlan.TheActrequiresthePlanningUnittoprovideestimatesof

consumptivewaterusefromdomesticpermit-exemptwellconnectionsinthewatershedoverthenext20years

andidentifymitigationactionstooffsetthepotentialimpactsofforecastedpermit-exemptwateruseoninstream

flowsandseniorwaterrightholders.OverallmitigationisexpectedtoprovideaNetEcologicalBenefit(NEB)to

theentirewatershed.TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(Ecology)istaskedwithmakingafinal

determinationofNEB.

ThewatershedincludespartsofThurston,PierceandLewisCounties.TheCountiesandPlanningUnithave

forecastruralgrowthandwaterusethrough2040(2018–2040)inordertobettermatchgrowthprojectionsused

inthecounties’comprehensiveplanningwork.Therefore,theconsumptiveusemitigationoffsetsproposedinthis

documentactuallyaddress22ratherthan20yearsofpermit-exemptwelluseassociatedwithruralgrowthin

WRIA11.

DuetotheveryshorttimeframetheNisquallyPlanningUnithadtoprovidearesponsetotheHirstlegislation,this

Addendumoffersconceptualframeworksandquantificationforpriorityhabitatandothermitigationprojectsthat

canbothsupplystreamflowbenefitsandforwardthegoalsofsalmonrecoveryandsustainablecommunity

development.TheImplementingGovernments(Thurston,Pierce,andLewisCountiesandtheNisquallyIndian

Tribe)willundergoapublicoutreachandadoptionprocessaftersubmittaltoEcologyonFebruary1,2019.The

PlanningUnitintendstocontinuetomeettoaddressfundingandimplementationoftheprojectsidentifiedinthis

Addendum,toworkwithEcologytotrackmitigationandensureitiskeepingpacewithruraldevelopment,andto

adaptivelymanagemitigationneedsastheyevolve.

RCW90.94.020doesnotaddressimplementation,fundingoradaptivemanagementassociatedwiththisprocess.

Itsimplyrequiresthatpotentialprojectsandotherassociatedmitigationstrategiesthatwilloffsetforecastimpacts

ofpermit-exemptwellconnectionsbeidentified.However,theintentofthelegislationwasthatimplementation

oftheprojectsidentifiedhereinwouldfulfillcounties’obligationsundertheGrowthManagementActtoensure

thatwaterisavailableforruralgrowth.WhiletheNisquallyPlanningUnit’saggressivetimeframedidnotallow

developmentofadetailedfundingstrategy,thePlanningUnitnotesthattheintentisforstrategiesinthisplanto

befundedinlargepartbystatefundingmechanisms,includingfundingprovidedundertheStreamflow

RestorationAct.Countypermittingmitigationfeesmaybeapartialsourceoffundingformitigationstrategiesin

thefuture;however,thePlanningUnitdoesnotexpectcountypermittingfeestofinanciallysupporttheambitious

recoveryapproachsetoutinthisplan.


xiii

Plan Addendum Organization ThisPlanAddendumincludesthefollowingChapters:

1. IntroductionandBackground:AddressingPlanningUnitAgreement,contextfortheHirstResponsebythe

WRIA11PU,explanationofthecomplexregulatoryflowregimeinWRIA11,Sub-basindelineationand

summaryoftheNisquallyPlanningUnit’soverallapproachtomitigation.

2. WatershedFeaturesthatInfluenceMitigationAlternatives:Addressingphysicalandregulatoryfeaturesof

thewatershedandsub-basinsthatwereconsideredinthecontextofwateruseforecastsandmitigation.

3. WaterUseForecasts:Bycounty,bysub-basinandforthefullwatershed.Threedifferentwateruse

forecastsweregenerated;1)actualannualaverageconsumptiveusebasedonThurstonPUDdata,2)

actualannualaverageconsumptiveusebasedonEcologymethodology,and3)anestimateofthe

consumptiveportionofthelegalrighttothewater(3000gpd).

4. SalmonHabitatProjects:Addressinglargerscalesalmonrecoveryinitiativesandtheprojectswithinthem

thatprovideinstreamflowandnetecologicalbenefits(macro-mitigation).

5. MitigationStrategiesintheNisquallyWatershed:Addressingsub-basinscalemitigationstrategiestailored

foreachsub-basininWRIA11.

6. CountyStrategies:Includingoverviewsofthepermittingprocessandpossibleimplementationstrategies

forthethreecounties.

7. MitigationOffsetsbySub-basin:Providingaquantitativesummaryofthemitigationoffsets,identifiedfor

eachprojectbysub-basinandbyfullwatershed.Table7-2summarizesalloftheproposedmitigation

strategiesthathavebeenquantifiedandTable7-3comparesthosemitigationoffsetstoactual

consumptiveuseestimatedforeachsub-basininWRIA11.

8. ImplementationandAdaptiveManagement:Identifyingimplementationresponsibilitiesasunderstoodby

thePlanningUnitandanapproachtoadaptivemanagementthatrecognizesthatthePlanningUnitwill

continuetoworktowardimplementation.

ThisAddendumisacompaniondocumenttothe2003NisquallyWatershedManagementPlanand2007PhaseIV

ImplementationPlan.Relevantbackgroundinformationandassociatedfiguresfromthe2003planarereferenced

and,unlessofspecificbenefit,arenotrepeatedintheAddendum.

Summary of Results Table7-2inChapter7(seeFigure5)presentsasummaryofthemitigationstrategiesandassociatedwateroffsets

consideredforthisPlanAddendum.TableES-1,below,providesanestimatedminimumandmaximumflow

benefitassociatedwiththeapplicationofeachofthosestrategiestothesub-basinsinwhichtheyareapplicable.

Thetablealsoprovidesacomparisonofproposedmitigationoffsetstothemoreconservativeoftwoannual

averageconsumptiveuseforecastsfor2040bybothsub-basinandfortheentirewatershed.Onawatershed

scale,theminimumidentifiedmitigationoffsets(4.22cfs)aresignificantlygreaterthanthetotalforecast

consumptiveuse(1.03cfs).FlowbenefitsrealizedfromsalmonrecoveryeffortsintheMashelsub-basinprovide

82%oftheminimummitigationoffsetfortheentirewatershed,althoughtheconsumptivewateruseinthe

Mashelisforecasttobeonly0.1%ofthetotalwatershed.Ontheotherhand,sub-basinspecificoffsetswill

requiremorethantheminimummitigationinThompson/YelmandLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basinsin

ThurstonCounty,andthePrairieTributariessub-basininPierceCounty.

Plannedmitigationactionsincludeseveralkeyelementsthatimpactthedemandformitigationoffset.Mitigation

estimatesintheThompson/Yelmsub-basinincludetheremovalof95%oftheforecastpermit-exemptwell

connectionswithintheYelmUGA(240.5AFY),whichwouldbeservicedbycitywaterifYelm’swaterrightis


xiv

approved.AsidefromtheflowbenefitsassociatedwiththeMashelforestacquisition,thisYelmwaterright

strategyprovidesthegreatestflowbenefitforasinglemitigationstrategyinthewatershed.Alsoviewedasa

demandoffset,thePlanningUnit’sregulatoryinterpretationoftheUpperNisquallysub-watershedisthatthe

uppersub-basinisnotclosed.Theprojectedconsumptivedemandof49AFYintheUpperNisquallytherefore

doesnotrequiremitigationoffset.

InaddressingNetEcologicalBenefit(NEB),thePlanningUnithasprioritizeditsrecommendationsbasedonalong-

termapproachthatbalancesdevelopment,agriculturalandindustrialneedswiththegoalofrestoringaself-

sustaining,salmon-supportingwatershedecosystem.ThehighestprioritymitigationactionsinthisAddendumare

majorinvestmentsinsalmonrecoveryeffortsthatwillrestoreseasonalstreamflowandsafeguardhabitatand

waterqualityinsystemsmostcriticaltolistedsalmonidpopulations.ImplementingGovernmentsmaychooseto

pursuemorelocalmitigationactions,includingpossiblebuildingpermitprocesschanges,asneeded,tooffset

permit-exemptwellimpactswithinsub-basins.ThePlanningUnit’sgoal,however,istosatisfyNEBatthe

watershedscaletoachievethedesiredoutcomeforsalmonrecoverywiththeminimumnecessaryimpactonrural

development.

TableES-1:ActualForecastConsumptiveUsein2040(EcologyMethod)ComparedtoMinimumandMaximumEstimatedMitigation

Sub-basin

ECYMethodAnnualPE

ConsumptiveUse(AFY)

ECYMethodAnnualPE

ConsumptiveUse(cfs)

MitigationActions

Identified-annualAF

(MIN)

MitigationActions

Identified-annualAF

(MAX)

MitigationActions(cfs)

MIN

MitigationActions

(cfs)MAX

McAllister 39 0.054 TBD TBD TBD TBD

Thompson/Yelm 390 0.539 349.02 762.1 0.47936 1.0496Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 107 0.148 84.17 504.57 0.116208 0.69708

LowerNisqually 0.5 0.001 0 200 0 0.552

MashelRiver 5 0.007 1922 4281 3.48 7.27

PrairieTributaries 149 0.206 41.7 1290 0.0576 2.058

OhopCreek 7 0.009 24 1336 0.017 2.105UpperNisqually(Pierce,

Lewis,Thurston) 49 0.067 49 249 0.067 0.619

TOTAL 747 1.03 2470 8623 4.22 14.35


1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Nisqually Watershed Planning and the Hirst Response TheNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnitcontinuestoworkcollaborativelytoaddresswaterresourceissueswithin

theNisquallyWatershed(WaterResourceInventoryArea[WRIA]11).Actingunderauthorityofthe1998

WatershedManagementAct(chapter90.82RCW),withtheNisquallyIndianTribeastheLeadAgency,the

NisquallyPlanningUnitadoptedinOctober2003theNisquallyWatershedManagementPlan(Golder,2003).

ActingatajointmeetingheldApril13,2004,Lewis,PierceandThurstoncountiesunanimouslyapprovedthatplan.

Continuingitscollaborativework,theNisquallyPlanningUnitinFebruary2007adoptedthePhaseIVNisqually

ImplementationPlan(Golder,2007),furtheridentifyingactionstobetakentoimplementthe2003Plan.

InJanuary2018,theWashingtonStateLegislatureadoptedEngrossedSubstituteSenateBill6091(latercodifiedas

chapter90.94RCW,theStreamflowRestorationAct)toaddressa2016WashingtonSupremeCourtdecision

(WhatcomCountyvs.WesternWashingtonGrowthManagementHearingsBoard;commonlyreferredtoasthe

“HirstDecision”).TheHirstDecisionrequiredcountiestoindependentlyverify,whenissuingabuildingpermit,that

impactsfromproposednewdomesticpermit-exemptwellsrequiredfordevelopmentapplicationswouldnot

impairseniorwaterrights,includingestablishedminimuminstreamflows.TheLegislatureadoptedchapter90.94

RCWtoprovideclaritytocountiesandapathforwardforallowingruraldomesticdevelopmentthatrelieson

permit-exemptwellconnectionsforawatersource.

TheStreamflowRestorationActdirectstheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(Ecology)toworkwith

InitiatingGovernmentsandPlanningUnitstoidentifypotentialimpactsofpermit-exemptwelluse,identify

evidence-basedconservationmeasuresandidentifyprojectsandactionstoimprovewatershedhealthandoffset

potentialimpactstoinstreamflowsassociatedwithpermit-exemptdomesticwateruse.Thelawalsorequiresthat

eachcountyinWRIA11recordrestrictionsorlimitationsassociatedwithwatersupplywiththepropertytitle,

collectafeeof$500fromeachbuildingpermitapplicant($350ofwhichistransmittedtoEcology),recordthe

numberofbuildingpermitsandtransmitanaccountofbuildingpermitsandsubdivisionapprovalssubjecttothe

lawannually,andlimitthewithdrawalexemptionforanapplicanttoamaximumannualaverageof3000

gpd/connection.

1.2 Scope of this Addendum and Agreements TheStreamflowRestorationAct(theAct)mandatedthattheNisquallyPlanningUnit,actingunderauthorityof

RCW90.82,updatetheNisquallyWatershedManagementPlantoexplicitlyaddressfuturepermit-exempt

domesticgroundwaterwithdrawalsoverthenext20years,thepotentialimpactsofthoseforecastedwithdrawals

onminimumstreamflowsandotherseniorwaterrights,andstrategiestomitigateforthoseimpacts.The

mandateddeadlineforthisactivityisFebruary1,2019.TheNisquallyPlanningUnitreconvenedinJulyof2018,

andundertheleadershipoftheNisquallyIndianTribe,craftedaformalWorkingAgreementunderwhichto

operatewhileaddressingtherequirementsoftheAct.TheWorkingAgreement,includedasAppendixA,describes

thedecisionframeworkforapprovalofthisWatershedPlanAddendumbythePlanningUnit.

WhilemostwatershedssubjecttotherequirementsoftheRCW90.94haveovertwoyearstorespondtothe

requirementsoftheAct,theNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnithadlessthanoneyear.Therearethreecounties

locatedwithinthewatershed,allofwhichmayconsiderimplementingchangestotheircurrentbuilding


1-2

applicationprocesstoaddressruralwateruse.Duetotheshorttimeframe,somemitigationstrategiesthatare

beingdevelopedtooffsetpotentialstreamflowimpactsfrompermit-exemptwellwithdrawalsneedfurther

developmentandquantificationafterthemandatedFebruary1,2019planupdate.

Thurston,PierceandLewisCountiesarelayingthegroundworkformitigationstrategiesthatmaybeappliedand

furtherdevelopedforotherwatershedsintheirresponsestochapter90.94RCW.ThurstonCountyisinvolvedin

StreamflowRestorationActprocessesinWRIAs13,14,22and23;PierceCountyinWRIAs10,12and15;andLewis

CountyinWRIAs13and23.ThePlanningUnithasstructuredanadaptivemanagementapproachthatwillcontinue

afterFebruary1,2019toenableImplementingGovernmentstofullydevelopmitigationactionsandimplement

potentialcodeorordinancechangestoenableoffsetsifneeded.Detailedevaluationofhabitatprojectsand

technologiesthatwillmorespecificallyquantifystreamflowbenefitswillalsooccurduringthisadaptive

managementperiod.Chapter8addressesthePlanningUnit’sadaptivemanagementapproach.

ThePlanningUnitrecognizesthattheprocesssetupbythelegislationandthestrategiesoftheplanaddressonlya

smallportionofwateruseinthewatershed;thatattributedtofuturedomesticpermit-exemptwells.Theplan

doesnotaddresshistoricimpacts,nordoesitattempttoquantifyoraddresspotentiallylargerimpactsto

streamflowsfromfactorssuchasnon-domesticuses,climatechange,andchangestolandcover.Adaptive

managementisanimportantprincipleinensuringthatmanagingfortheimpactsofpermit-exemptwellstakes

placeinthecontextoflargerwateruseandenvironmentalissuesinthewatershed.

ThisdocumentservesasanAddendumtothe2003PhaseIIINisquallyWatershedManagementPlan(Golder,

2003)andthe2007PhaseIVNisquallyImplementationPlan(Golder,2007)andisnarrowlyfocusedspecificallyto

addresstherequirementsoftheStreamflowRestorationAct.TheActrequirestheNisquallyWatershedPlanning

Unittoprepareaplanupdatethatprovidesmitigationfortheprojectedimpactsofdomesticuseofnewpermit-

exemptwellsoninstreamflowsoccurringbetween2018and2040.ThisAddendumprovidesforecastsof

consumptivewaterusefromdomesticpermit-exemptgroundwaterconnectionsinthewatershedand

recommendsactionstooffsetthoseimpacts.Theactionshavebeendevelopedsuchthattheyprovideanet

ecologicalbenefit(NEB)toinstreamresourceswithintheentireNisquallyWatershed(WRIA11).

ThisAddendumisconsideredacompaniondocumenttothe2003NisquallyWatershedManagementPlanand

2007PhaseIVImplementationPlan.Relevantbackgroundinformationandassociatedfiguresfromthe2003plan

arereferencedand,unlessofspecificbenefit,arenotrepeatedherein.

TheoriginalNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnitdefinedfivekeychallengesintheir2003WatershedManagement

Plan(Golder,2003).Threeofthosechallengesdirectlyaddressthenexusbetweengrowthmanagementandrural

watersupply.The2007NisquallyImplementationPlanprovidedfourrecommendationstotheDepartmentof

Ecologytoaddresspermit-exemptwelluseandtheconsumptiveimpactsofthatuseonlocalinstreamresources

(Golder,2007,p.15).Theseincluded:

GW-7(EW) ThisplanrecommendsthatEcologyprovidemorethoroughoversightofexemptwells(seeWAC173-

511-070).Theissuanceofastartcard(noticeofintenttodrill)foranexemptwellbywelldrillersand

Ecology’sdatabaseofstartcardsshouldbeconsistentwithavailableinformationonCoordinated

WaterSystemPlanserviceareaboundaries,availablehydrogeologicinformationonlocalaquifers,

andcumulativeeffectsofexemptwells.

GW-7a(EW) TheDepartmentofEcologyshouldstudythecumulativeimpactsofexemptwellsandconsider

settingabasin-widestandardforthenumberofhousesallowableperexemptwell.Thisplan


1-3

recommendsthatEcologyincreasetheirenforcementoftheexemptwellstatute1anddevelopan

ExemptWellActionPlantoachievecompliancewiththeintentoftheexemptwellwithdrawal

statute.(Seepage43inthePlanfordetails.)ThePlanningUnitwillidentifyareasfor

characterizationinthisstudyasa2006worktask.

GW-7b(EW)OncesufficientinformationisgatheredonthecumulativeimpactsofexemptwellsasdirectedinGW-7a(EW), thePlanningUnitmaywishtoconsideravenuestoaddressthedrillingofexemptwells inareas where technical data indicate theymay have impact on surface water systems. In sensitiveareas,thismightincludetheoptionofdrillingindeeperaquifersthataremoreprotectiveofsurfacewater,ifavailable.

GW-8(EW) Developapolicytotransferexemptwellwaterrightswithinawaterserviceareaorurbangrowth

areatoawaterpurveyorandsubmittoEcologyforwaterrightcredit.Definehowmuchcreditshould

begrantedfortakingexemptwellsofflineaspartofthispolicy.

Thefourrecommendations(above)madebytheNisquallyPlanningUnitintheirWatershedImplementationPlan

recognizedtheneedtoaccountfortheimpactsofpermit-exemptgroundwaterusesonstreamflow,particularlyin

sub-basinswithadoptedinstreamflowrules.However,implementationofthoserecommendationswasdirected

totheDepartmentofEcology(Ecology).TheHirstdecisionandsubsequentlegislationinterpretstheGrowth

ManagementAct(GMA)asrequiringthatthecountiesexercisetheirownindependentstatutoryresponsibilityto

makeadeterminationaboutthephysicalavailabilityandlegalavailabilityofwater.Itisthecounties’dutyunder

GMAtoprotectwateravailability,particularlyinwater-shortareas.Thisincludesensuringthatthecumulative

impactsofoneormorenewpermit-exemptwellsdonotimpairminimuminstreamflowsorotherseniorwater

rights.

1.3 Sub-Basin Delineation ConsistentwithEcologyguidancefordevelopingwateruseestimatestodelineatetheWRIAinto“suitablysized

[areas]toallowmeaningfuldeterminations”(Ecology,2018a),WRIA11wasdividedintoeightareasreferredtoas

aggregatedsub-basins.Theaggregatedsub-basinsarebasedonpreviouswatershedplanningdelineations,an

understandingofdifferinghydrogeologicregimes,andpoliticalboundariesthatdelineatespecificcounties.

Watershedhydrogeologyisdescribedbysub-watershedinSection4.2ofthe2003WatershedPlan(Golder,2003).

Abriefsummaryofphysicalsub-basincharacteristicsrelatedtomitigationstrategiesisprovidedforeachsub-basin

inChapter2ofthisAddendum.Theaggregatedsub-basinsarelistedinTable1-1andshownonFigure1.

Table1-1:WRIA11AggregatedSub-BasinsAggregatedSub-Basin County

McAllister ThurstonThompson/Yelm Thurston

Lackamas/Toboton/Powell ThurstonLowerNisqually PierceMashelRiver Pierce

PrairieTributaries PierceOhopCreek Pierce

UpperNisqually(Lewis,Pierce,Thurston) PortionsofLewis,PierceandThurston

12007Ecologycommentsstatedthattheyhaveselectivelyenforcedthepermit-exemptwelllawsasresourceshavepermitted.


1-4

1.4 Established Instream Flows in WRIA 11 MinimuminstreamflowregulationshavebeenestablishedinWRIA11byEcologyundertheInstreamResource

ProtectionProgram(IRPP)andaredescribedinChapter173-511oftheWashingtonAdministrativeCode(WAC).

InstreamFlowsandclosuresintheNisquallyWatershedhaveaprioritydateofFebruary1981,whentheywere

adoptedasadministrativerule.WAC173-511wasthenrevisedin1988.Thefulltextoftheadministrativecodeis

includedasAppendixB.WaterbodiesaffectedbyinstreamflowregulationsareshownonFigure2.

FlowregulationsinWRIA11consistofminimuminstreamflowlevelsandsub-basinclosurestofurther

consumptiveuse.InWAC173-511,instreamflowlevelsweresetforfoursegmentsoftheNisquallyRiver,each

withaspecificflowcontrolormeasuringsite(aboveAlderreservoir,belowtheLaGrandePowerhouse,thebypass

reachandbelowtheCentraliaPowerhouse)andfortheMashelRiver,measuredattheUSGSgaugeontheMashel

River(Figure2).Additionalminimuminstreamflowrequirementsareinplaceyear-roundforthebypassreach,the

reachbelowLaGrandePowerhouse,andthereachbelowtheLaGrandeDam,establishedbytheFederalEnergy

RegulatoryCommission(FERC)aslicenserequirementsfortheTacomaPublicUtilitiesNisquallyHydroelectric

ProjectandtheCityofCentralia’sYelmHydroelectricProject.

Inadditiontotheseminimumflows,20tributariesandlakesandtwosegmentsoftheNisquallymainstemhave

beenclosed,atleastseasonally,tofurtherallocation.TheclosuresareshownonFigure2.Somestreamclosures

identifiedintheIRPPwereestablishedbyearlieradministrativeactionsdatingbackasfaras1944.Theseclosures

alsohaveaprioritydateof1981,whentheywere“re-adopted”asadministrativerule.Sincetheseolderclosures

donotspecifyaperiodofclosure,itisassumedthattheclosureisappliedyear-round.

Theseinstreamflowrulesprovideawaterrightforeachsubjectstreamorriversegmentwithanassociateddate

thatisseniortoanypermit-exemptwelluseinitiatedsubsequenttothatdate.MuchoftheNisquallyWatershedis

administrativelyclosedtonewwaterappropriationduetotheestablishmentofinstreamflowsunderWAC173-

511-030andclosuresestablishedunderWAC173-511-040.Waterbodiesimpactedbytheserulesareshownin

Figure2.TheNisquallyRiversegmentaboveTacoma’shydroelectricprojectandtributariestothatsegment(the

UpperNisquallysub-basinofthisplan)werenotclosedtofurtherappropriationbytheIRPP.

Althoughthe2003NisquallyWatershedPlanrecognizedtheimpactsofpermit-exemptwelluseonlocal

streamflowandrecommendedthatactionsbetakenbyEcologytoaddressthoseimpacts,thePlandidnotcreatea

waterreservationforruralgrowthtoaddresstheminimumstreamflowsandclosurespreviouslyadoptedunder

Chapter173-511WACforthewatershed.HenceWRIA11issubjecttotherequirementsofthe2018Streamflow

RestorationAct(Chapter90.94RCW)andmustaddresspotentialimpairmenttoaninstreamflowfromfuture

domesticpermit-exemptwelluse.

1.5 Nisqually Approach to Mitigation TheNisquallyPlanningUnitistakingatwo-partapproachtomitigatingtheimpactsoffutureruralgrowthon

streamflowsinthewatershed.Sub-basinspecificoffsetsor“micro-mitigation”willtaketheformofprojects

involvingaquiferrecharge,useofdeeperaquiferstominimizeimpactstolocalsurfacewaterbodiesandwater

rightacquisition,andpoliciesthatreduceruralwateruseandtrackmitigationcreditsaspartofCountybuilding

permitapproval.Thesesub-basinspecificmicro-mitigationstrategiesareintendedtorestorestreamflows

impactedbypermit-exemptgroundwaterusewithinsub-basinsoverthenext20years.Micro-mitigationactions

can,inmostcases,beimplementedasspecificoffsetswithinsub-basins,viaamitigationcreditbankorother

accountingsystemavailabletonewdevelopmentapplicants.Somesub-basin-specificoffsetsarealsogeneratedby


1-5

localhabitatprojects.Theseprojectsarestrategicallylinkedtolarge-scalehabitatinitiativesaddressingNet

EcologicalBenefitforthewatershed,butthestreamflowbenefitstheyprovideareappliedatasub-basinscale.

Larger,watershed-scalehabitatprojectsthatprovideaNetEcologicalBenefit(NEB)fortheentirewatershedarereferredtoas“macro-mitigation”andprovidebothflowbenefitsandecologicalbenefitsessentialtonativesalmonpopulations.ThePlanningUnitviewsthesewatershed-scalemacro-mitigationgoalsasessentialtothebroadergoalsoftheStreamflowRestorationActtoprotectinstreamflowsandsalmonpopulationsinaneraofincreasingdevelopmentandchangingclimate.Withdrawalsfromdomesticpermit-exemptwellsareonerelativelysmallcomponentofthewaterusechallengesfacingtheNisquallyWatershedinthecomingdecades.Asclimatechangeimpactsprecipitationandhydrologicpatterns,meetingthewaterneedsofthegrowingcommunitiesofthemiddleandlowerwatershedbasinswilldependonlong-termconservationactionstakenthroughoutthewatershed.ThisAddendumdiscussesmacro-mitigationstreamflowactionsinthecontextofmajorsalmonrecoveryhabitatinitiativesandprovidingsustainableNEBthatsupportsthiscentralgoaloftheNisquallyWatershedcommunity.

Macro-mitigationprojectsandtheNEBtheyprovideatawatershedscalearediscussedinthecontextofSalmon

RecoveryinChapter4.Micro-mitigationprojectsandpoliciesandthemitigationtheyprovidetooffsetthedirect

impactofpermit-exemptwellsonlocalstreamflowatasub-basinscalearediscussedinChapters5and6.

1.6 Funding for Mitigation WhiletheNisquallyPlanningUnit’slegislatively-directedaggressivetimeframedidnotallowdevelopmentofadetailedfundingstrategy,thePlanningUnitnotesthattheintentisforstrategiesinthisplantobefundedinlargepartbystatefundingmechanisms,includingfundingprovidedundertheStreamflowRestorationAct.Thisisparticularlytrueforthemacro-mitigationstrategies.Countypermittingmitigationfeesmaybeapartialsourceoffundingforbothmacroandmicrostrategiesinthefuture;however,thePlanningUnitwishestomakeclearthatapplicablefeesdirectedbytheStreamflowRestorationActintheirpresentformcannotandshouldinnowaybeexpectedtofinanciallysupporttheambitiousrecoveryapproachsetoutinthisplan.


2-6

Chapter 2 Watershed Features that Influence

Mitigation Alternatives

2.1 Watershed Overview in the Context of Mitigation TheNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnithasdividedthewatershedintoeightsub-basinsinwhichtoaddresssub-

basinspecificmitigationstrategies(Figure1).ThegoalofthisplanAddendumistoidentifythelikelyimpactsof

newpermit-exemptwellconnectionsonstreamflowsineachsub-basinoverthenext20years,andtoidentify

actionsthatwillmitigatethoseimpacts.Mitigationoptionsarenot“onesizefitsall”withintheWRIA.The

hydrologiccharacteranddevelopmenttrendsineachsub-basinspeaktothetypeofmitigationthatwillmost

appropriatelyprovideinstreamflowbenefitstooffsetimpactsfromforecastdomesticpermit-exemptwell

withdrawals,aswellasnon-streamflownetecologicalbenefitstosalmon.

Thischapterdescribesthephysicalcharacteristicsofthewatershedandspecificsub-basinsinthecontextof

appropriatemitigationalternatives.Eachsub-basindiscussionincludesthecurrentstateofknowledgeaboutthe

sub-basinincludingbasichydrogeology,streamandaquiferflows,salmonusage,historiclandusetrendsandthe

regulatoryinstreamflowstatus.

2.2 Watershed Hydrology and Geology ThegeologyandstreamflowsofvariousNisquallysub-basinshavebeendescribedindetailinthe2003Watershed

Planandnumerousotherstudies(Golder,2003;Pringle,2008).Thissectionprovidesageneralsummaryofthe

watershed’shydrogeologyasbackgroundtoidentifyingviablestrategiestomitigatethestreamflowimpactsof

newpermit-exemptwellsfordomesticuse.Chapter4.2ofthe2003WatershedPlanprovidesin-depthbackground

andreferencesforspecificsub-basingeology,hydrogeology,andhydrologiccontinuity.Figure8ofthe2003

WatershedPlan(includedasFigure3inthisAddendum)providesahydrogeologiccrosssectionshowingthe

alternatinggeologicunitsthatcreatethemultipleaquifersandaquitardsunderlyingthewatershed.Theunderlying

geologyofasub-basininfluencestoalargeextentthemovementandavailabilityofgroundwaterinthearea.It

alsohasalargeinfluenceonthehydrauliccontinuitybetweenstreamsandgroundwater,andhence,betweenwell

withdrawalsandgroundwater.BecausethisAddendumisacompaniondocumenttothe2003Plan,thissection

summarizesthismaterialbrieflyasneededtoaddresstheimpactsofpermit-exemptwellwateruse.

TheNisquallyWatershedhastwoprimarybroadgeologicalstructuresand,asaresult,twotypesofstreams.The

first,locatedintheOhop,MashelandUpperNisquallysub-basinsintheupperpartofWRIA11,consistsofhills,

lowmountainsandMountRainierunderlainprimarilybybedrock.Inmostyearseventhelowerelevationsofthese

uplandsreceivesnow,withsignificantsnowaccumulationsinupperelevations.Streamsintheupperwatershed

canflowwithhighvolumeandvelocity,especiallyfollowingrainonsnowevents.

Thereisatotalblockagetosalmonmigrationatapproximatelyrivermile40oftheNisquallyRiveratAlderDam.

Thus,thePlanningUnithasdividedthiseasternareaintotheUpperNisqually(theareaabovesalmonaccess)and

twosub-basinswithsalmonaccessandupperelevationgeology–theMashelandOhopsub-basins.Regardlessof

location,theprimarylanduseintheeasternareaofthewatershediscommercialtimber,withalmostallofthe

landbeingforested.VirtuallyallofthisareaisinPierceandLewiscounties.

ThesecondbroadgeologicalareaiswestoftheEatonville/Route161lineandincludesalmostalloftheThurston

CountyportionofthewatershedandpartsofPierceCounty.Thisistheareaofthecountythatwasimpactedby


2-7

theContinentalglaciers,commencingover100,000yearsagountilthemostrecentVashonStageoftheFraser

Glaciationbeganapproximately15,000yearsago.Astheglaciersadvancedandthenretreated,manytimesover

thousandsofyears,theyleftgeologicallayersofalternatingoutwashsandandgravel,andlayersofthickglacialtill

andotherlow-hydraulicconductivity.Thesandandgravellayerscontainwaterandtheselayersaregenerally

referredtoasaquifers.Theglacialtilllayerswhollyorpartiallyconfineportionsoftheaquifers.However,thereis

typicallysomedegreepfhydraulicconnection(continuity)betweentheaquifers.Thesedepositsdifferdramatically

incompositionandthicknessineachofthesub-basins,resultinginsomeareaswithprolificsuppliesof

groundwaterwhileothershaveminimalsupply.TheUSGSandothershaveconductedextensivestudies

characterizingthehydrogeologyofsouthernPierceCountyandNorthwestThurstonCounty(Jonesetal,1999;

Dionetal,1994;Drostetal,1999;CDM,2001;CDM,2002).ThesestudiesaresummarizedintheNisqually

ManagementWatershedPlan(Golder,2003;seeSection4.2).

Withintheseareasinthewesternpartofthewatershed,rainfallpercolatesintothegroundveryrapidly.

Therefore,streamsinthisareaaresmallrelativetothesizeofthedrainageareaandmanystreamsare

intermittentinthattheyonlyflowatsometimesduringtheyear.Beforebeingotherwisedeveloped,theseareas

werevastprairieswithsignificanttreegrowthfoundonlyinwetlandareasandalongstreamcorridors.

Mostofthestreamsinthewesternpartofthewatershed,characterizedbyruralresidentialdevelopment

(includingLackamas/Toboton/Powell,Yelm/ThompsonandPrairieTributariessub-basins),areintermittent

streams–streamsthatareinclosecontactwiththeupper,ornear-surface,aquifer.Thesestreamsloseflowasthe

aquiferwaterlevelsdiminishindrymonthsandgainflowastheaquiferisrechargedwiththefallandwinterrains.

Section4.2.1ofthe2003WatershedPlandescribessub-basingroundwateravailabilityindetail.Becauseofthis

intermittentflowpattern,thesestreamsexhibitlowflowsthatareexpectedtobeexacerbatedbynewpermit-

exemptwellsintheshallow,orsurface,aquifer.Therefore,thisplanAddendumincludesafocuseddiscussionof

mitigationoptionsfortheseprairiestreams(seeChapter5).

Itisimportanttonotethatmajorstreamflowchangesoccurbecauseofbothseasonaleffectsanddiversionsor

withdrawalsofsurface/groundwater.InWRIA11inThurstonCountyalone,atleast3,655wellsarecurrently

pumping,withacombinedestimatedactualgroundwaterwithdrawalof17,502AFY.Existingwells’effectsarenot

consideredinthisplanAddendumbecausetheyarenotpartofStreamflowRestorationActrequirements.Existing

diversionsandwithdrawals,however,formthecontextforprioreffectsonstreamflow.

2.3 Sub-Basin Characteristics Thefollowingsectionsprovidebackgroundonphysicalandregulatorycharacteristicsofeachsub-basininthe

Nisquallywatershed.

2.3.1 McAllister Sub-Basin – Thurston County ThemajorpartoftheMcAllisterSub-Basin,locatedinThurstonCounty,consistsprimarilyofthelowerNisqually

Valley,downstreamoftheNisquallyIndianReservation.OtherthantheNisquallyRiveritself,themajorstreamin

theareaisMcAllisterCreek,anindependentstreamthatdischargesdirectlyintotheNisquallyEstuary.Thissub-

basinalsoincludestheLakeSaintClairwatershed,asmallindependentwatershedofonestream,EatonCreek,

whichdischargesintothelake.Thelakeitselfdischargestotheaquifer.

Geology

TheunderlyinggeologyoftheMcAllisterSub-Basinisentirelyglacialandpost-glacial.ThebroadlowerNisqually

Valley,carvedbythecontinentalglacier,consistsofriverinesandandsedimentdepositedoverthepast10,000


2-8

yearsbytheNisquallyRiver.Thebluffssurroundingthevalleyconsistofsand,gravelandclaydepositsleftbythe

glacierasitretreated.Astheyretreated,theglaciersleftextensiveoutwashareasofsandandgravel,somenear

thesurfaceandothersburiedmoredeeply.Theglacieralsodepositedthicklayersofsedimentthat,when

compressed,becomehardclay(glacialtill).

Water

Themajorstreamofthissub-basinistheNisquallyRiver,whichdrainsthe786-squaremilewatershedandbrings

abundantsedimenttothelowerNisquallyValley.Therearetwoindependentstreams,McAllisterandEaton

creeks,thatderiveflowfromspringsdischargingfromaquifersasthestreamcourseandaquiferintersect.

Mostoftherainfalllandinginthissub-basindischargesnotassurfaceflowinstreamsbutrathertoPugetSound

throughtheseveraldeeperaquifersunderlyingthesub-basin.Asignificantquantityofgroundwaterflowinthe

Qva(Vashonadvanceoutwash)andQc(pre-Vashonglacialunit)aquifersappeartoconvergetoward

McAllister/AbbotSpringsandMcAllisterCreekinthenorthernportionoftheMcAllistersub-basin.The2003

WatershedPlandescribesthishighlyproductiveaquiferasthe“NisquallyAquifer”.Becausetheseaquifersare

importantregionalsourcesofdrinkingwater,theyhavebeenstudiedextensively(Dionetal,1994;Drostetal,

1999;CityofOlympiaandNisquallyIndianTribe,2008).Allthesestudiesindicatethatthereareseveralaquifer

layers,usuallyatleastthree:theshallowQva,andintermediateanddeepaquifers;theQcaquiferandtheTQu

depositsthatareconsideredundifferentiateddepositsunderlyingtheunderlyingtheQc.Inthissub-basin,theQc

aquiferandTQuareconsideredpartofthe“NisquallyAquifer”andarebelowsealevelanddischargeprimarilyto

PugetSound.

SalmonUsage

TheNisquallyRiveristhemajormigrationcorridorforallsalmonspeciesenteringorleavingtheNisqually

Watershed.McAllisterCreekanditstributaries,asanindependentdrainage,receivesomesalmonspawningof

variousspecieseveryyear.However,thesespawningrunsarerelativelyminorandarenotmanagedseparately.

EatonCreekhasnoconnectionwithPugetSound.

LandUseandDevelopment

TheMcAllistersub-basinhasthemostvariedlanduseinthewatershed,includinghighlyurbanizedareas,rural

areas,andlargeopenspaceandrecreation.Thewesternportionofthesub-basinlieswithintheLaceyUrban

GrowthArea(UGA)ortheincorporatedCityofLacey.DevelopmentintheLaceyUGA,whichincludesmoderate-

densityresidentialuseandtheMartinWayCorridor,willlikelydependontheCityofLaceyformunicipalwater

service.Newlow-densityruralresidentialdevelopmentthatusespermit-exemptwellsasawatersourceismost

likelytobedevelopedinareaszonedasRuralResidential1/5orRuralResidentialResource1/5.However,manyof

theseareasmayalsobewithintheboundaryofoneofthe21existingGroupBpublicwatersystemsinthesub-

basin(personalcommunication,ThurstonPUD).

Onefifthofthesub-basiniszonedasMcAllisterGeologicSensitiveArea(MGSA),alow-impactzoningdesignation

createdtoprotecttheCityofOlympia’swatersource,whichhasrestrictivedevelopmentregulations.

Approximately1,000acresiszonedforlong-termagriculture;manyoftheavailabledevelopmentrightsassociated

withparcelsintheNisquallyAgriculturezoningdistrictwerepurchasedandretiredinthelate1990s,andthuswill

notexperiencefurtherdevelopment.Thesouthernportionofthesub-basinfallswithinJointBaseLewis-McChord

andiszonedasaMilitaryReservation–noadditionalresidentialdevelopmentisanticipatedinthisarea.Because

oftheextensiveglacial-origindeposits,thereareandlikelywillcontinuetoberelativelylargesandandgravel

miningoperationsinthissub-basin.


2-9

RegulatoryHistory

TheNisquallyRiverinthissub-basinhasaminimumflowrequirementbutisnotclosedforfutureout-of-stream

waterappropriations(seetheInstreamResourcesProtectionProgram[IRPP]fortheNisquallyWatershed,adopted

in1981,Chapter173-511WAC)(AppendixB).Therefore,becauseoftheirveryminorflowimpacts,newdomestic

permit-exemptwellsadjacenttotheNisquallyRivercanlikelybepermittedwithoutexplicitmitigationoffsets.

Becauseofthesubstantialout-of-streamirrigationinthevalley,astreamclosureofEatonCreekbyadministrative

actionwasputinplacein1953.ThisclosurewasconfirmedbytheIRPPin1981.Neitherthe1952closurenorthe

IRPPplacedanyexplicitrestrictionsonfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.LakeSaintClairwasalsoclosedtofuture

waterappropriationsbythis1981program.ForMcAllisterCreek,the1981IRPPclosesthestreamtoout-of-stream

waterallocations.

2.3.2 Thompson/Yelm Sub-Basin – Thurston County TheThompson/Yelmsub-basin,locatedinThurstonCounty,includestheCityofYelmanditsUGA,andsurrounding

ruralareas.Therearetwoindependentstreamsinthissub-basinbuttheyaremergedintoonesub-basinbecause

oftheirunitywithinthegeneralYelmareaandtherelativelyhighgrowthratetheyhaveexperiencedinrecent

years.

Geology

Understandingthegeologyandgeologicalhistoryofthissub-basinisessentialtounderstandingandaddressingits

streamflowpatterns,possibleimpactsofpermit-exemptwellsandpossibleapproachestomitigatingthose

impacts.Overthepast100,000yearsthispartofThurstonCountywassubjecttomultipleglacialadvancesand

retreats,themostrecentofwhichendedalittleover10,000yearsago.Astheyadvancedandthenretreated,the

glaciersleftextensiveoutwashareasofsandandgravel,somenearthesurfaceandothersburiedmoredeeply.

Theglacieralsodepositedthicklayersofsedimentthat,whencompressed,becomeglacialtillor“hardpan”.Thus,

wehavesurficialandburiedlayersofsandandgravelthatholdwater(theselayersaretermed“aquifers”)and

glacialtilllayersthathinderconnectionsbetweentheaquiferlayers(theselayersarecalled“aquitards”).

Water

Thestreamsinthissub-basin(withtheexceptionoftheNisquallyRiveritself)arerelativelysmall.Mostofthe

rainfallinthissub-basinactuallypercolatesintotheaquiferratherthanrunningoffthelandandformingstreams.

Verycommonlytheseso-calledprairiestreamsflowacrossthelandonaclaylayer,onlytoinfiltrateintothe

aquiferwhenthestreamcrossesovercoarsermaterial.Mostofthestreamsinthesub-basinarecharacterizedas

intermittent.Itisnotclearwhethertheseprairiestreamswerehistoricallyintermittentorwereaffectedby

diversionsandwithdrawalsbypermittedandpermit-exemptwaterusers.Theseintermittentstreamsareindirect

contactwiththesurfaceaquifer(recessionaloutwashdepositsorQvr)andtheirflowdependsdirectlyonthe

conditionofthisaquifer.Whentheupperaquiferisfull,thestreamsflowthroughouttheirlengthandevengather

flowatsitesalongtheirlengthfromsprings,placeswheretheaquiferdischargesintosurfacestreams(Ericksen,

1998).

TheThompson/Yelmsub-basinisdominatedbyglacialtill,undifferentiatedglacialdriftandVashonadvance

outwashdeposits(Qva).TheQvaandQc(water-bearingSalmonSpringsDrift,penultimatedepositsandother

coarse-graineddeposits)areusedextensivelyasasourceofgroundwaterintheYelmsub-basin.Groundwaterin

theQcunitisfoundprimarilyunderconfinedconditions.ThedeeperTQuundifferentiateddepositsunderliethe

QcandaretheproposedsourceoftheCityofYelm’scurrentwaterrightapplication.


2-10

Mostoftherainfalllandinginthissub-basin,afterenteringtheground,dischargesasbothsurfaceflowinstreams

anddirectlytoPugetSoundthroughtheseveraldeeperaquifersunderlyingthesub-basin.Becausetheseaquifers

areimportantregionalsourcesofdrinkingwater,theyhavebeenstudiedextensivelyandadditionalstudiesare

ongoing(Dionetal,1994;Drostetal,1999).Allthesestudiesindicatethattherearethreeprimaryaquiferlayers,

shallow(orunconfinedsurface),intermediateanddeepaquifers.

Yelm’swastewatertreatmentsystemisdesignedtoproducetreatedwastewaterofsufficientqualitytopermitits

useforirrigationandaquiferinfiltration.Thus,aportionofYelm’streatedwastewater,originallydrawnfromthe

aquiferunderlyingthecity,isreturnedtothataquifer.Thisoffersmitigationpotentialforwastewaterdrawnfrom

thedeeperaquiferandreturnedviainfiltrationtotheshallowaquifer(seeSection5.1.1fordiscussionofYelm’s

waterrightapplicationandmitigationoptionsarisingfromit).

SalmonUsage

Thelargeststreaminthissub-basinisYelmCreek.Althoughitisanintermittentstreamatseveralplacesinits

upperreaches,thelowesthalfmileofstreamreceiveswaterfromSilverSpringsandhassomeflowyear-around.

ThatpartofYelmCreekannuallyreceiveshundredsandsomeyearsthousandsofspawningsalmonofseveral

species.Itisavitalstreamforchumspawninginearlywinterandservesasoneoftheindexareastodetermine

chumsalmonspawningescapement.ThompsonCreekhaslittlesalmonspawninghabitatandhasanimpassible

waterfallataboutrivermile0.2.


Becauseitexhibitedopennaturalprairies,thissub-basinwasoneofthefirsttobedevelopedasfarmlandin

ThurstonCounty.AnumberofDonationLandClaimswerefiledinthisareabeginninginthe1850sandithasalong

historyofagriculturaldevelopment.In1912anirrigationsystemwasdevelopedfortheYelmareawithwater

withdrawnfromtheNisquallyRiveranddistributedbyditchthroughoutthearea.Thesystemwasabandonedin

1952duetofinancialdifficulties.Tracesofitsditchsystemarestillvisibleinplaces.

Thissub-basinconsistsoftheCityofYelmandtheruralareasurroundingit.Mostofthewaterconnectionswithin

Yelmareservedbyitswaterutility.CurrentlyYelm’sUGAisdesignatedatalowerdensityresidential(Rural

Residential1/5andUrbanReserve)withtheexpectationthattheseareaswillberezonedathigherdensitiesafter

theyareannexedbytheCityandconnectedtourbanservices.Densityforthesezonesislimitedtooneunitper

fiveacres,andmostdevelopment(70%)reliesonapermit-exemptwellbecausetheexistingmunicipalwater

utilitydoesnothavethecapacitytoextendservicetomuchofitsUGA.

Themajorityofthesub-basiniszonedasRuralResidentialResource1unitper5acres.TherearetwoLimited

AreasofMoreIntenseRuralDevelopment(LAMIRDs)neartheNisquallyRiver,whereapatternofhigherdensity

developmentpredatestheGrowthManagementAct.Theseruralareashavepermitteddensitieshigherthan1/5,

butarelargelybuiltout.TherearealsoanumberofareaszonedasLong-termAgriculture,wheredensityislimited

toaminimum20acres.Anadditional5%ofthesub-basiniswithinJointBaseLewis-McChord,wherefuture

residentialdevelopmentisnotexpected.

RegulatoryHistory

Becauseoflowflowconditions,streamclosuresforfutureout-of-streamwaterappropriationswereestablishedby

administrativeactionforbothThompsonCreek(in1951)andYelmCreek(in1953).Theseclosureswereconfirmed

bytheIRPPin1981.Neitherthe1950sclosuresnortheIRPPplacedanyrestrictionsonfuturegroundwater

withdrawals.


2-11

2.3.3 Lackamas/Toboton/Powell Sub-Basin – Thurston County TheLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basin,locatedinThurstonCounty,includesthreesmallindependenttributaries

totheNisquallyRiver.Sincethesestreamsandtheirunderlyinggeologyaresimilar,theyaremergedintoonesub-

basinforthisplan.

Geology

AswithmostotherareasofThurstonCounty,thegeologyofthissub-basinwasdeterminedprimarilybyglacial

processes.Theglacierstoppeditssouthwardmigrationonthemarginofthisareaandthehillsimmediatelytothe

south.Thewesternportionofthissub-basin,generallydrainedbyLackamasCreek,hascharacteristicsincommon

withtheprairiestreamsandislikelyunderlainbyaquifersatseveraldepths.

Water

Thissub-basinanditsstreamsarerelativelyshort.Streamflowisderivedfromgroundwaterdischargeasbaseflow,

fromspringsandfromlakedischarge.Hydraulicandgeologicstudiessuggestthatisthissub-basinreceives

groundwaterdischargefromtheneighboringwatershedtothesouth,theDeschutesRiver.Theheadwatersofthe

Deschutesislocatedinlow,un-glaciatedhillstothesouth.WhentheflowfromtheupperDeschutesencounters

theglacialoutwashmaterials,aportionoftheflowentersthegroundwater,thenflowsnorthtowardtheNisqually

River.

Theaquifersintheeasternareaofthesub-basinarelimitedtosmallareasnearthefracturesandjointsinbedrock.

Thewesternendofthesub-basinhasareasofcoarse-graineddepositsthatcansupporthighlyproductivewells.

Detailedhydrogeologicstudieshavenotbeencompletedforthissub-basin.ThePowellCreekwatershed,

specifically,doesnotexhibitasmuchgroundwaterflowastheotherstreamsinthissub-basin.Itsbaseflowwas

measuredthisautumnas1.7cfs(personalcommunication,NisquallyIndianTribeNaturalResources).Therefore,it

isvulnerabletodiminishedflowfromup-gradientlanduseactivitiesandnewpermit-exemptwelldevelopment.

SalmonUsage

Astheirsizesuggests,thesestreamsthemselvesarenotmajorsalmonspawningandrearingstreams.Theprimary

speciesutilizingthemarecohosalmonandsteelhead.However,becausetheirflowcomesfromgroundwater

dischargefromuplandsources,theydoflowyear-round(incontrasttotheintermittentprairiestreams).Powell

CreekfeedsalargewetlandcomplexnearitsconfluencewiththeNisquallyRiverthatisofhighimportancefor

cohoandsteelheadrearing.


Thissub-basinisentirelyruralanddividedbetweenlow-densityresidentialandtimberuses.Thereareveryfew

existingGroupAorBwatersystemsinthissub-basin,somostnewresidentialdevelopmentwouldbelikelytorely

onapermit-exemptwell.Nearlyhalfthesub-basiniszonedforLong-TermForestrywhichlimitsdevelopmentto

oneunitper80acres.Anadditional40%iszonedasRural/Residential/Resourceoneunitperfiveacres,including

theareasaroundLackamasandTobotonCreeks.Thehigher-densitydevelopedareaaroundClearLake(called

Clearwood)attheheadwatersofTobotonCreekisdesignatedasaLAMIRD,withanunderlyingdensityoftwo

unitsperacre.FuturedevelopmentintheClearLakeareaislikelytobelimitedand,whendeveloped,wouldbe

servedbythelargeexistingGroupAwatersystem(personalcommunication,ThurstonCountyPlanning).

RegulatoryHistory

TheIRPPclosedtwostreams,TobotonandLackamascreeks,tofuturesurfacewaterappropriationsfromApril1to

November30.TheIRPPplacednoexplicitrestrictiononfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.Noregulatoryaction


2-12

concerningclosureorminimumflowsisinplaceforPowellCreekandthereforewaterrightsareavailableforthis

stream,atleastunderthecurrentregulatoryregime.

2.3.4 Lower Nisqually River Sub-Basin – Pierce County Virtuallyallofthissub-basiniswithintheboundaryofJointBaseLewis-McChord(JBLM).Thelandisusedfor

militarytrainingpurposesand,fromthepointofviewofwaterusage,isessentiallyundevelopedandexpectedto

remainthatwayfortheforeseeablefuture.AverysmallareanorthofInterstate-5(I-5)isdevelopedasarural

residentialarea.

Geology

Thisentiresub-basinwasglaciatedduringthelastglacialperiodanditsgeologywasdeterminedbyglacialactivity.

MuchofthisareaisprairieandcontainsgeologicalfeaturessimilartothatdescribedfortheYelm/Thompsonand

Lackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basins.

Water

OtherthantheNisquallyRiveritselftherearevirtuallynostreamswithinthissub-basin.Alltheprecipitationfalling

inthesub-basinpercolatesintotheaquiferanddischargeseithertosprings,shallowaquifers,ortoPugetSound

forthedeeperaquifers.Springswithvariousflowcharacteristicsarisealongthebluffwheretheuplandintersects

withtheNisquallyRiver.Oneofthesespringcomplexes,calledClearCreek,locatedontheNisquallyIndian

ReservationandJBLM,hasbeendevelopedasafederalsalmonhatchery,operatedbytheNisquallyIndianTribe.

Onestream,calledRedSalmonCreek,arisesfromseveralspringslocatedjustnorthofI-5anddischargestothe

NisquallyDelta.Thecreek’sfreshwatercourseislessthanonemile.Althoughestuarineandnotsubjecttofuture

waterrightsappropriations,thisplannotesthatthelowerportionoftheRedSalmonCreekwatershediswithin

theBillyFrankJr.NisquallyNationalWildlifeRefugeandisofregionalimportanceforprotectingsalmonand

wildlifehabitatvalues.

SalmonUsage

MostyearsRedSalmonCreekreceivessmallnumbersofcohoandchumsalmonspawning.Thestreamissosmall

thatitreceivesnospecificsalmonmanagementattention.Itsprimarycontributiontosalmonproductionis

throughitsflowintotheNisquallyEstuaryitself.

SpringsdischargeatvariousplacesalongtheNisquallyRiverinthissub-basin.Someofthesespringsmayreceive

salmonspawningand,intotal,theyprovidesomesalmonrearingsiteswhentheyareponded,suchasadjacentto

I-5.


Approximately98%ofthissub-basiniswithintheboundaryofJBLMandisessentiallyundeveloped.Theremainder

ofthesub-basin,northofI-5,isdividedintoaseriesof5-acrelots,mostofwhicharedeveloped.Thereisone

remainingfarm,nowownedbytheNisquallyIndianTribe,andonesmallsub-divisionservedbyaprivateGroupA

watersystem.TheheadwatersoftheRedSalmonCreekdrainagearewithintheCityofDuPontandwaterfor

developmentisprovidedbyalargeGroupAsystemwithitssourceoutsideoftheNisquallyWatershed.

RegulatoryHistory

TheIRPPclosedRedSalmonCreekforfuturesurfacewaterappropriationsfromApril1toOctober31.TheIRPP

placednorestrictiononfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.


2-13

2.3.5 Prairie Tributaries Sub-Basin – Pierce County Becauseofsimilarunderlyinggeology,severalindependentwatershedsinthispartofPierceCountyfromTanwax

CreekinthesouthtoMuckCreekinthenorthhavebeencombinedintoonesub-basin,thePrairieTributariesSub-

basin.Thesestreamsaretreatedasasinglesub-basinprimarilybecausetheyareconnectedthroughthe

underlyingaquifers,andbecausethestreamflowissuesareessentiallyidenticalthroughoutthearea.

Geology

Thegeologyofthissub-basinissimilartothatdescribedfortheThompson/YelmSub-basinabove.Botharenatural

prairieenvironments.

Water

ThedescriptionoftheintermittentnatureoftheprairiestreamsandtheregionalhydrogeologyinthePrairie

TributariesSub-basinissimilartothatdescribedfortheThompson/YelmSub-basininSection2.3.2above.The

sub-basinisgenerallyunderlainbyglacialdepositsofsubstantialthickness.Onesuchhydrogeologicunit,referred

toasQc1inSinclair(2001),isgenerallyconfinedadvancedoutwashmaterialandusedextensivelyasasourceof

groundwaterthatisfoundprimarilyunderconfinedconditionsinthissub-basin.

In2001,theWashingtonDepartmentofEcologyconductedastudyofthesurfaceandgroundwaterinterchangein

theMuckCreekwatershed(Sinclair,2001).GroundwaterintheQc1,oradvancedoutwashmaterial(Qva),inthis

sub-basinisgenerallyconfinedexceptwheretheunitoutcropsalongthesouthernmarginofMuckCreekchannel

andprovideswatertoseepsandsprings.Itisnotclearwhethertheseprairiestreamswerehistorically

intermittentorwereaffectedbydiversionsandwithdrawalsbypermittedandpermit-exemptusers.

SalmonUsage

MuckCreekisanintermittentstream.InmostyearsitbeginsflowinginNovemberandprovidesimportant

spawninghabitatforalargeportionoftheNisquallyRiverchumsalmonrun.Nisquallychumreturnlaterinthe

seasonthananyotherPacificCoastchumrunandseemtobeadaptedtothelate-flowingintermittentstreams.

WintersteelheadalsospawninMuckCreek,rearinginareaswithyear-roundflowandthenmigratingoutduring

subsequenthighflows.

Thereareseveralsmallerintermittentspring-fedstreamsinthissub-basinthat,insomeyears,receivespawning

salmon.WiththeexceptionofTanwaxCreek,theyareofminorimportance.TanwaxCreekreceivesspawning

primarilyfromCohosalmonandsteelhead.TanwaxCreekhasseverallakesasitsheadwatersandhasyear-around

flow.Inmanyplacesalongthisstreamtherearebeaverdamsthatcreatepools,idealforjuvenilesalmonand

steelheadrearing.


Becauseitexhibitedopennaturalprairies,thissub-basinwasoneofthefirstdevelopedasfarmlandinPierce

County.AnumberofDonationLandClaimswerefiledinthisareabeginninginthe1850sandagricultural

developmentisstillcommoninthesub-basin.In1917aportionoftheMuckCreekarea,including3,300acresof

theNisquallyIndianReservation,wascondemnedanddonatedtotheUnitedStatesforcreationofFortLewis(now

JointBaseLewis-McChord[JBLM]).TheportionofJBLMintheNisquallyWatershedisentirelyundeveloped.

Thereisonlyonemunicipalareainthesub-basin,theCityofRoy.OtherthanRoy,therearenoUrbanGrowth

Areasinthesub-basin.However,overtheyearsvarioussmallruralcommunitieshavedeveloped,manyservedby

aprivatelyownedClassAwatersystem.Inthepast20years,moreandmoresmallranchesorruralhomeshave


2-14

alsobeenpermittedinthesub-basin.Becauseofthisrelativelyslowbutsteadydevelopmentpattern,thissub-

basinhasthelargestprojecteddemandfornewpermit-exemptconnectionsinPierceCountyinWRIA11.

RegulatoryHistory

ForTanwaxCreek:TheInstreamResourcesProtectionProgram(IRPP)fortheNisquallyWatershedwasadoptedin

1981(WAC-173-511).Inaddition,variousstreamsinthissub-basinwereclosedbyadministrativeactiontofuture

outofstreamwaterallocations:HornCreek(1974);unnamedtributarystreamstotheNisquallyRiver(1944);Harts

Lakeandoutletstreams(1944,minimumflowbypassestablished).Thesevariousactionswereconfirmedbythe

IRPPfortheNisquallyWatershed.NeitherthevariousadministrativeclosuresnortheIRPPplacedanyrestrictions

onfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.

AttherequestoftheWashingtonDepartmentofFisheries,MuckCreekandalltributarieswereclosedby

administrativeactiontofutureoutofstreamwaterallocationsin1948.Thisclosurewasconfirmedbythe

NisquallyIRPP(adoptedin1981,WACChapter173-511).Neitherthe1948closurenortheIRPPplacedanyexplicit

restrictionsonfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.

2.3.6 Ohop Creek Sub-Basin – Pierce County TheOhopCreekSub-basin,inPierceCounty,isuniquewithintheNisquallyWatershed.Muchofitsupperreaches

arelong-termforestlandswithsalmonaccessblockedbyimpassiblewaterfalls.Thestreamitselfoccupiesawide

floodplaincarvedbytheprehistoricstreamdrainingthefrontoftheVashonGlaciersome11,000yearsago.

Geology

OhopCreekgainsallitsflowfromuplandtributariesingeologysimilartothatdescribedfortheMashelsub-basin

below.OhopCreek,arelativelysmallstream,occupiesalargevalley,muchlargerthatitcouldhavecreatedonits

own.Duringglacialtimesthisvalleycontainedalargeglacialmeltwaterstreamthatflowedsouthwestthroughthe

valley,thenwestalongthebaseoftheBaldHills,ultimatelydischargingintothePacificOcean.OhopCreekin

generalmarksthedividewithinthewatershedseparatingtheglacial-influencedgeologyfromthevolcanic-origin

uplands.

Water

AUSGSstreamflowgaugewasplacedinserviceonOhopCreekin1993andhasbeenincontinuoususesince.In

addition,theUSGSrecordcontainsvariousmiscellaneousrecordsfromearlieryears.AlongthebluffaboveOhop

Creek,thecontinentalglacierdepositedanoutwashridgethatdirectsmostsurfacewaterawayfromthestream.

OhopCreek,throughatributary,alsoreceivesstormwaterrunofffromtheTownofEatonville.Eatonvilleis

consideringstormwaterprojectsthatwouldredirectthisflowbacktotheMashelRiverthroughpassiveinfiltration

(seeSection4.2.2).Since2009,whentheNisquallyIndianTribe’sSalmonRecoveryProgrambeganmajorhabitat

restorationonOhopCreek,groundwatermonitoringwellshavebeenrecordingdataatlocationsacrossthe

restoredfloodplain,providingarobustdatabasebywhichtoassessstreamflowbenefits(seeAppendixE).

SalmonUsage

OhopCreekisamajorspawningandrearingtributarystreamfortheNisquallyRiver,providinghabitatforcoho,

pinkandfallChinooksalmonandsteelhead,twoofwhichareEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)listedspecies.The

NisquallyFallChinookandSteelheadrecoveryplansidentifyanumberoflimitingfactorsaffectingtherecoveryof

ecosystemfunctionstosupportself-sustainingsalmonrunsinindividualtributaries(seeChapter4).Onelimiting

factorforOhopCreekisthelimitedgood-qualityinstreamhabitatinthelowerfiverivermiles,duetostraightening

andditchingofthechanneltodrainfieldsforagriculturalproduction.Since2009,theNisquallyIndianTribe’s

SalmonRecoveryProgramhasledmajorinvestmentsinhabitatprotectionandrestorationactionsinthissub-


2-15

basin.Therestorationplanrestoresthecreektoitsmeanderingfloodplainforatotalofaboutfourstreammiles.

Thefirststepwastheacquisitionofsoon-to-be-abandonedfarmland.Then,inphases,thestreamhasbeenre-

meanderedandinstreamhabitatfeaturesaddedtothechannel.Thisworkisplannedinfourphases,withthefirst

twoalreadybeingcompleted,PhaseIIIunderway,andPhaseIVpreparingforimplementation(seeChapter4).


TheOhopsub-basinisabout40squaremiles,with80%managedascommercialforestland.Oftheremainingarea,

OhopLakeoccupiesaboutthreemiles,andmuchoftheremainderconsistsofruralfarmland,ruralresidentialand

aportionoftheTownofEatonville.Inthepast20yearsmanyoftheactivecommercialfarmsintheOhopValley

havebeenabandoned.SomefarmsarestillusedforpasturebutasubstantialportionoftheOhopCreekValleyhas

beenreclaimedtoitsnaturalstateanditschannelrestoredthroughthesalmonrecoveryhabitatprojects

discussedabove.

RegulatoryHistory

Becauseofthesubstantialout-of-streamirrigationinthevalley,theWashingtonDepartmentofFisheries

requestedastreamclosureandin1952OhopCreekandalltributarieswereclosedbyadministrativeactionto

futureoutofstreamwaterallocations.Thisclosurewasconfirmedbythe1981IRPP.Neitherthe1952closurenor

theIRPPplacedanyexplicitrestrictionsonfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.In1966,astheresultof

administrativeaction,thelakelevelforOhopLakewassetat523feet,implementedbyastoplogdam.

2.3.7 Mashel River Sub-Basin – Pierce County TheMashelSub-Basin,locatedinPierceCounty,consistsoftheMashelRiveranditstributaries.Itisthelargest

tributarytotheNisquallyRiveranditsmajorsalmonspawningtributary.TheheadwatersoftheMashelarein

upperelevation(over4,000feet)hills.Theseuplandsreceivesnowmostwinters.

Geology

ThegeologyoftheMashelsub-basinisvolcanicinorigin,containingtheremnantsofancientvolcanoes.Overthe

last40millionyears,therehavebeenvolcaniceruptions,followedbyerosionandthenfurthereruptions.

RemnantsofthesevolcanoesarethedominantrockorsedimentthatunderliesmostoftheMashelsub-basin.The

youngesterosiondepositsaretermedtheMashelFormationandconsistofdenseclaylayersandmoreloosely

consolidatedlayersofrockandsand.Thedownstreamportionofthesub-basinalsowereimpactedbycontinental

glaciers.

Water

ThereisaverylongperiodofrecorddocumentingMashelRiverflows.ThefirstUSGSstreamflowgaugewas

establishedin1940.Afterabreakintherecordin1957,thegaugewasreinstalledin1991andhasbeenrecording

flowscontinuouslysincethatdate.Thewatershedis80.7squaremilesanditsaveragedischargeisabout220cfs;

minimumflow,recordedin1992,was2.3cfs.

BecauseofconcernsaboutlowflowsintheMashelRiverandpossibleconflictsbetweenmeetingEatonville’s

futuredrinkingwaterneedsandsummerminimumstreamflows,theNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnit

contractedin2005fortwotechnicalreports(NisquallyIndianTribe,MashelRiverInstreamFlowStudy,April2006;

NisquallyIndianTribe,MashelRiverHydraulicContinuityStudy,April2006).

SalmonUsage

TheMashelRiverisamajorspawningandrearingtributarystreamfortheNisquallyRiver,providinghabitatforFall

Chinookandsteelhead,twoESA-listedspecies,aswellasothersalmonspecies.TheNisquallyFallChinookand


2-16

Steelheadrecoveryplansidentifyvariouslimitingfactorsthatneedtobeaddressedtorestoreproperlyfunction

conditionsandrecoverthesespecies.OnelimitingfactorfortheMashelisitslowflowconditioninthesummer

months.Inrecentyearsseveralmilliondollarshavebeeninvestedinhabitatprotectionandrestorationactionsin

thissub-basin,includingengineeredlogjamsandripariantreeplantingstorestorelong-termecosystemfunctions

disruptedbyacenturyofheavylogging.Onemajorprotection/restorationactionistheacquisitionoflargetracts

ofcommercialtimberlandandtheimpositiononthoselandsofalong-rotationforestmanagementregimethat,

accordingtoresearchmodels,willprovidesubstantiallyimprovedbasestreamflowsovertime(Halletal,2018).


Over70%oftheMashelwatershedisforestedandmanagedprimarilyascommercialforestland.Theremaining

areaconsistsofruralfarmlands,ruralresidentialdevelopment,andtheTownofEatonville.Eatonvillesitsonthe

crestbetweentheMashelandOhopsub-basins.However,ittakesitsdrinkingwatersupplyfromwellsindirect

contactwiththeMashelRiver.Italsohasawastewatertreatmentplantanddischargesitstreatedwastewater

backtotheMashel.

RegulatoryHistory

The1981IRPPestablishedminimuminstreamflowsfortheMashelRiverandclosedittofuturesurfacewater

appropriationsfromJune1toOctober31eachyear.TheIRPPplacednoexplicitrestrictiononfuturegroundwater

withdrawals.

2.3.8 Upper Nisqually Sub-Basin – Lewis, Pierce, and Thurston Counties ThisistheportionoftheNisquallyWatershedabovetheTacomaPower’sHydroelectricProjectandabove

anadromousfishaccess.ItincludesalloftheLewisCountyportionofthewatershed,asignificantpartofthePierce

countyportion,andaverysmallpartofThurstonCounty.Becausethewatershedissuesaresimilar,thethree

countiesaremergedintoonesub-basin.

Geology

ThegeologyoftheUpperNisquallysub-basinisvolcanicinorigin,containingtheremnantsofancientvolcanoes.

Allthetributarystreamsinitiateinupperelevationsandgenerallyreceivesnowfall.TheNisquallyRiveritselfhasits

origininglacierfieldsonthesouthwestflankofMountRainier.

Water

BecauseTacomaPowerislocatedattheterminusofthissub-basin,thereisaverylongperiodofrecord

documentingstreamflowsanddownstreamdischarge.ThefirstUSGSstreamflowgaugewasestablishedin1910.In

1942TacomaobtainedwaterrightstoimpoundtheflowoftheNisquallyRiveratrivermile44(AlderDam).

Becauseofitswaterrightsandstorageabilities,AlderReservoiressentiallyre-regulatesthedownstreamflowof

theNisquallyRiver,storingwaterduringsomeperiodsandreleasinggreater-than-naturalflowsduringothers.

SalmonUsage

TacomaPower’shydroelectricdamsblocksalmonaccesstotheUpperNisquallysub-basin.Accesswaslikely

blockedpriortothedamsbyanimpassiblewaterfallthatisnolongervisible.TacomaPowerhassupported

KokaneesalmonpopulationsforsportfishinginAlderReservoirwithsomeKokaneespawningdocumentedfor

varioustributarystreamsintheuppersub-basin.


Over90%oftheUpperNisquallysub-basinisforestedand,forthemostpart,managedascommercialforestland.

MuchoftheuppermostpartoftheareaiswithinMountRainierNationalPark.Majortimberlandownersinclude


2-17

theWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandtheU.S.ForestService.AsmallportionoftheUpper

Nisquallyisruralresidential,withafewscatteredsmallfarms,andsomecommercialdevelopmentalongthe

highwayleadingtothenationalpark.

LewisCounty’sportionoftheNisquallywatershedisentirelyintheUpperNisquallysub-basin,andisprimarily

characterizedbyforestrylanduses.SmallsettlementsarelocatedatMineralandatParadiseEstates,withalarge

numberofthehomesusedforseasonalorvacationpurposes.Vacationhomesandseasonalresidencesare

expectedtocontinueasthepredominantnon-forestrylanduseinthefuture,andoutdoorwateruseincluding

gardensandlawnsforthesestructureswillbeminimal.Theareacontainsapproximately722single-family

residences,twoduplexes,onemulti-familystructureandonemobilehomepark.

ThePierceCountyportionoftheUpperNisquallysub-basinincludeslandwithintheMountRainierNationalPark,

designatedForestLands,ruralresidential(R10,R40),ruralfarm,parksandrecreation,TouristCommercial,Village

ResidentialandVillageCenter,andAgriculturalResourcelands.AlthoughmostisclassifiedasvacantbyPierce

CountyAssessor-TreasurerDepartment,abouteightypercentofthe26,880ruralacresinthesub-basincould

theoreticallybesubdividedwithamaximumof2,314additionallots.Twentypercentoftherurallandinthesub-

basinisservedbyaGroupAwatersystem,covering1,161parcelson5,336acreswithamaximumof1,344

additionallots(58percentoftotal).

TheThurstonCountyportionoftheUpperNisquallysub-basinisentirelyzonedasLong-TermForestry.Very

limitedadditionaldevelopmentisanticipatedinthisareawithanunderlyingdensitylimitedtooneunitper80

acres.

RegulatoryHistory

The1981IRPPestablishedinstreamminimumflowsfortheUpperNisquallyRiverbutdidnotcloseitforfuture

surfacewaterappropriations.Italsocommemoratedthe1964closureofallAlderLaketributariestofutureout-of-

streamappropriations.TheIRPPplacednoexplicitrestrictiononfuturegroundwaterwithdrawals.Because

regulatoryinstreamflowsaresetontheupperreachoftheNisqually,anynewfuturepermit-exemptwelluseor

waterrightappropriationwouldbesubjecttointerruptioninthecasethatactualflowsfallbelowregulatoryflows.


3-18

Chapter 3 Water Use Forecasts

Chapter90.94.020RCWrequiresanassessmentoftheanticipatednumberofdomesticpermit-exemptwellsand

associatedconnectionsintheNisquallyWatershedoverthenext20yearsandtheexpectedconsumptiveimpacts

ofthosewells.ThisinformationwasdevelopedtomeettherequirementssetforthinRCW90.94.020,andfor

developmentandplanningofactionstooffsetestimatedfutureconsumptivewateruseassociatedwiththese

forecastedwellsbysub-basin.Similarly,theinformationinthischapteraddressesthefirstelementofEcology’s

InterimGuidanceforDeterminingNetEcologicalBenefit(June2018b)inthatit“characterizesandquantifies

potentialimpactstoinstreamresourcesfromproposed20-yearnewdomesticpermit-exemptwateruseatascale

thatallowsmeaningfuldeterminationsofwhetherproposedoffsetswillbein-timeand/orinthesamesub-basin.”

Thischapterpresentsestimatesofpotentialconsumptivewateruseassociatedwithpermit-exemptwells

forecastedtobeinstalledfordomesticindoorandoutdooruseinWRIA11between2018and2040,bysub-basin.

Amapofthesub-basinsispresentedinFigure1.Section3.1providesanoverviewoflanduseconsiderations

affectingruralgrowthandassociatedpermit-exemptwateruseforeachcountywithinthewatershed.Methods

usedtoforecastruralgrowthandthecorrespondingnumberofdomesticpermit-exemptwellsandconnections

differforLewis,ThurstonandPierceCounties,andareoutlinedbyCountyinSection3.2.Assumptionsandresults

associatedwiththecalculationofboththeactualexpectedandtheupperlegallimitconsumptivewateruseby

permit-exemptconnectionsbetween2018and2040arepresentedinSection3.3.

3.1 Land and Water Use Background Ruralgrowthanddevelopmentandassociatedpermit-exemptwellusearedrivenbymanyfactorsincludingland

useandzoningpracticesbylocalgovernments.Asummaryofthegrowthtrendsinruralareasastheyimpact

wateruseisprovidedbelowbyCounty.Chapter2providesamorein-depthdiscussionofeachsub-basinincluding

landuseconsiderationsastheypertaintoruralgrowthandwateruse.Figure4presentsthegenerallanduseinthe

watershed.

3.1.1 Thurston County ThurstonCountywasthethirdfastest-growingcountyinWashingtonStateoverthepasttenyears,andlooking

ahead,ThurstonCountyisprojectedtogrowby42%between2018and2040,increasinginpopulationbymore

than100,000peoplecountywide.WithintheNisquallyWatershedportionofthecounty,populationisprojectedto

grow71%,from42,000to72,000(TRPCPopulationsEstimatesWorkProgram,2018).Thevastmajorityofthat

growthislikelytobeinurbanareas,withonly11%ofpopulationgrowthpredictedtobelocatedinruralareas,

wherenewhomeswouldbemorelikelytorelyonpermit-exemptwells.Thisisaslightlylowerproportionofrural

growththanseencountywide(14%);however,developmentwithinYelm,thefastestgrowingurbanareawithin

thewatershed,islikelytodependheavilyontheavailabilityofwater,eitherthroughpermit-exemptdomestic

wellsoramunicipalutility.

FuturelanduseandzoningdesignationsforareasunderThurstonCountyjurisdictiongenerallyaresetbythe

ThurstonCountyComprehensivePlan.SpecificareaswithintheNisquallyWatershedaregovernedbytheJoint

PlanfortheLaceyUrbanGrowthArea,theJointPlanfortheYelmUrbanGrowthArea,ortheNisquallySubarea

Plan.DevelopmentwithinanurbangrowthareaispermittedthroughThurstonCounty,butlanduseintheseareas

isgovernedbyJointPlanningagreementsbetweenthecountyandrespectivecity.


3-19

TheNisquallySubareaPlansetsthelandusevisionandpoliciesforaportionoftheNisquallywatershedthatis

generallyeastofLacey,westoftheNisquallyRiver,andnorthofJointBaseLewis-McChord.Thisruralareais

characterizedbyagriculture,lowdensityresidential,andresourceuse,includingseveralgravelmines.TheSubarea

Planwasadoptedin1992andisbeingupdatedin2018and2019.PopulationwithintheSubareaisprojectedto

growby20%between2018and2040.

3.1.2 Lewis County TheUpperNisquallysub-basininLewisCountyisprimarilycomposedofforestlands,thoughtwosettlements,

MineralandParadiseEstates,andsomedispersedhomesarepresent.Thevastmajorityofthesub-basinis

situatedintheGiffordPinchotNationalForest,oriszonedforlong-termforestrywith80-acreminimumlotsizes.

Thelargerequiredlotsizesanddistancefrommajorpopulationcenterslimitsthedevelopmentofthearea.

GrowthintheUpperNisquallysub-basinisexpectedtocontinuetobeslowthrough2040.

Wherehomesdoexistwithinthesub-basin,manyareforseasonal/vacationuse.Theseasonalnatureofthese

habitationslikelycontributestoloweroverallwaterusethanatypicalresidence,becauseseasonalresidents

typicallyuselesswaterinsidethehome(onanannualbasis)andtaplesswaterforoutdooractivitiessuchas

gardeningandtheirrigationoflawns.Theforestednatureofthesub-basinsimilarlylimitsthewaterdemand

associatedwiththeirrigationoflawns.

3.1.3 Pierce County ThepopulationgrowthprojectedfortheruralareasinthePierceCountyComprehensivePlanisapproximately

18,000peopleduringthe2010-203020-yearplanninghorizon.Growthhasnotyetbeenprojectedoutto2040.

RuralareasinthePierceCountyportionoftheNisquallyWatershedarecharacterizedbylowdensitieswith

scatteredresidentialsitesandmoderatetolargeopenacreagesforfarmorforestuse.Commercialandnon-

commercialagriculturalandforestryandothernaturalresource-basedpracticesareconsistentwithruralareas.

Ruralareasarecharacterizedbyhavingindividualservicesand/orbydistrictservicesandhavingminimalroads.

AlloweddensitiesintheruralareasoftheNisquallyWatershedrangefromalowofoneunitper80acresinthe

ForestLandsdesignationtooneunitperfiveacresintheRural5designation.ThereisaverylimitedareaofVillage

CenterzoninginAshfordandElbeareasoftheUpperNisquallySub-basinthatallowsfor3unitsperacre.

SincetheadoptionoftheWashingtonStateGrowthManagementAct(GMA)in1990,ruralareasincrementally

experiencedlessgrowth.The2014PierceCountyBuildableLandsReportshowsthatbetween2006and2012only

9%ofcountywideplattedlotsand25%ofcountywidepermittedhousingunitswereintheruralarea.Thepercent

ofpermittedunitstendstobehigherduetolotsthatwerevestedpre-GMA.Incontrast,the2002PierceCounty

BuildableLandsReportshowsacountywideaverageof34%plattedlotsand31%permittedunitsintheruralarea.

Lessgrowthintheruralareaequatestodecreasedwateruse.Futureincreasesinwaterusewouldprimarilybe

relatedtonewsingle-familyresidencesandresourceusessuchasforestry.

3.2 Forecast of Future Domestic Permit-Exempt Well Connections/Wells in WRIA

11 ThefollowingthreesectionspresenteachCounty’smethodologyandforecastsofruralpopulationgrowthand

associatedpermit-exemptwelluseinruralareasinWRIA11aggregatedbysub-basin.Considerationwasgivento

existingpublicwatersystemsandprivateGroupAandBsystemswithavailableconnections.


3-20

3.2.1 Thurston County

Methodology

ThurstonCountyusedthefollowingmethodologytocalculatethenumberofnewconnectionstopermit-exempt

wellsfordomesticwateruseovertheperiod2018-2040:

1. Estimatetotalnumberofnewhouseholds(dwellingunits)2. Estimatenumberofnewhouseholdslikelytorelyonpermit-exemptwaterconnection

a. Urbanareas–calculateproportionofnewdevelopmentonpermit-exemptwells,basedonpastdevelopmentpatterns

b. Ruralareas–subtractnumberofavailableconnectionstoexistinglargerGroupAandBwatersystemsfromtheestimatednumberofnewhouseholds(dwellingunits)

Asummaryofthemethodologyusedtoestimatedomesticpermit-exemptconnectionsinThurstonCountyis

presentedinthischapter.Adetaileddescriptionofthemethodsusedtoestimatehouseholdgrowthandfuture

permit-exemptwelluseinThurstonCountycanbefoundinAppendixC.

1. Estimatetotalnumberofnewhouseholds

ThurstonCountycalculatedthechangeinpopulationanddwellingunitsbetween2018and2040usingestimates

developedbyThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncil(TRPC).TRPC,apublicagencygovernedbya22-membercouncil,

developspopulationandemploymentforecastsfortheThurstonRegiontomeetthemonitoringandevaluation

provisionsoftheGrowthManagementActthroughaBuildableLandsProgram.TRPCdevelopscountywide

forecastsconsistentwiththosepreparedbytheWashingtonStateOfficeofFinancialManagement(OFM);their

populationandhouseholdsforecastisbasedondemographictrends,laborforceparticipation,migrationpatterns,

zoningregulations,andbuildablelandsupply.

AsshowninTable3-1,populationanddwellingunitforecastswereestimatedbysub-basin(ThurstonCounty

portionofwatershedonly),andbyjurisdiction:city,urbangrowtharea(UGA),IndianReservation,ruralcounty.

Dwellingunitestimateswerealsobrokenintotypeofhousehold:singlefamily,multifamily,ormanufactured

homes.Estimateswererounded.

Table3-1:Population&DwellingUnitChangebySub-Basin,2018-2040,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11Sub-basin Jurisdiction Pop.change,

2018-2040DwellingUnitsChange,2018-2040

Total Single-Family Multi-family Man.HomesMcAllister

Lacey(City) 150 100 10 90 0 LaceyUGA 5,350 2,280 1,940 340 0 Reservation 520 125 123 0 2 Rural 690 315 410 20 -115

Thompson/Yelm

Yelm(City) 16,130 6,620 4,391 2,231 -2 YelmUGA 4,220 1,720 1,480 242 -2 Rural 1,740 650 1,110 40 -500

Lackamas/Toboton/Powell

Rural 970 470 500 10 -40

UpperBasin(ThurstonCounty)

Rural 0 0 0 0 0Total 29,770 12,280 9,964 2,973 -657Source:TRPC,2015.AnalysisconductedJuly2018.


3-21

AssumptionsandConsiderations

TRPC’spopulationforecastmodelincludesthefollowingassumptions:

• Zoningdensitiesachievedinthefutureareassumedtobesimilartothoseforprojectsthatarecurrentlyinthedevelopmentpipeline.

• Criticalareasandassociatedbuffersaredeductedfromcalculationsofavailablelandsupplyanddensityofprojecteddevelopment.Inurbanareas,deductionsarealsomadebasedonrequirementsforopenspace,stormwater,androadrights-of-way.

• Incorporatedcitieswillbeabletoprovidewaterandothercapitalfacilitiesservicestomostoftheareasdesignatedasurbangrowthareas,unlessconstrainedbytopography,existinglandusepatterns,orenvironmentalbarriers.Asdiscussedinmoredetailbelow,thisassumptionmayleadtoahigherestimateofprojectedgrowthintheYelmUGAthanmaybeservicedbythemunicipalwaterutilitycurrently.

• Multifamilydevelopmentsincludeduplexesandtriplexes,aswellashigherdensitydevelopments.• Manufacturedhomesshowadeclineovertheplanningperiod,especiallyintheThompson/Yelmsub-

basin.Thenegativenumbersreflectaprojectedchangeinhousingdemandovertimethatisbuiltintotheestimatesasapercentageofmanufacturedhomesbeingconvertedintosingle-familyhomes.ThispatternismostnoticeableintheruralportionoftheThompson/Yelmsub-basinbecauseseveralMobileHomeParksareinthisarea.Manufacturedhomesthatconverttosingle-familyhomeswerepresumedtonotrequireanewwaterconnectioninfuturestepsoftheanalysis.

• AdditionalinformationonthemethodsandassumptionsofTRPC’sdataprogramcanbefoundinthefollowingreports,availableathttps://www.trpc.org/480/Population-Housing-Employment-Data:

• PopulationandEmploymentLandSupplyAssumptionsforThurstonCounty,November2012• AssumptionsforTypeofHousingbyZoningDistrict• ZoningAssumptionsbyJurisdiction• CalibrationReports2. Estimatenumberofnewhouseholdslikelytorelyonpermit-exemptwaterconnectionThurstonCountyuseddifferentmethodologiesforestimatingthenumberofnewdomesticpermit-exempt

connectionsinurbanareasandruralareastobetteraddressdifferentdevelopmentpatternsandregulatory

requirementsbetweenurbanandruralareas.

a) UrbanareasWithinincorporatedcityboundaries,ThurstonCountyassumedthatallfuturegrowthwillbeservedbyamunicipal

waterutility.ThissameassumptioncouldbemadeforUrbanGrowthAreas(UGAs),whichareidentifiedforfuture

annexationbythecitieswithintheplanningperiodandareoftenservedbymunicipalutilitiesevenbeforetheyare

annexed.However,developmentthatreliesonpermit-exemptwellsispermittedintheUGAs,providedthatthe

applicantcandemonstratethatapublicutilityisnotavailable.Theextentofthisavailableinfrastructurevaries

considerablyamongthedifferentUGAsinThurstonCounty.

WithinUGAs,ThurstonCountylookedatthenumberofestimatednewsingle-familyunitsforeachsub-basin,and

calculatedapercentagethatlikelywouldrelyonapermit-exemptwell.Thisratewascalculatedbylookingat

patternsamongpastdevelopmentasanalyzedusingthecounty’spermittingsystem.Moredetailedinformation

regardingthisanalysiscanbefoundinAppendixC.

Basedonthisanalysis,averylowproportionofdevelopmentintheLaceyUGAhistoricallyhasreliedonpermit-

exemptwells(2%).AmuchhigherproportionofdevelopmentintheYelmUGA(70%)reliesonpermit-exempt

wells.Table3-2appliestheseproportionstofutureprojecteddevelopmentforeachUGAwithintheWRIA11

watershed.


3-22

Table3-2:Permit-exemptConnections,UrbanGrowthAreas,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11

Sub-basin UGASingle-Family

Units,2018-2040%Permit-Exempt

UGAPEConnections

McAllister LaceyUGA 1,940 2% 39

Thompson/Yelm YelmUGA 1,480 70% 1,036

Total 3,420 1,075


• Allunitswithintheincorporatedboundariesofacitywillbeservedbyapublicwatersystem.• MultifamilyunitsinaUGAwillbeservedbyapublicwatersystem.• Theproportionofdevelopmentusingapermit-exemptwellwascalculatedforthefullareaofeachUGA,

ratherthanonlyfortheportionwithintheNisquallywatershedorwithineachsub-basin.Thiswasdonebothtoaccountforthesmallnumberofdevelopmentsinsomeareas,whichmightnotberepresentative,andtoenablethesamepercentagetobeusedinotherwatershedplanningprocesses.

• ForadditionalbackgroundonthewateruseandpumpingratesusedtogeneratetheequivalentwaterserviceconnectionsinTable3-2,referto:

o ThurstonCountyWaterResources,TechnicalMemorandum#1:WaterUseandWastewater

GenerationinRural/SuburbanAreasofThurstonCounty,Washington(November2018;updatedAugust2018).

o ThurstonCountyWaterResources,TechnicalMemorandum#8:MethodsUsedtoCalculatethe

PumpingRates,Locations,andOpenIntervalsofActiveGroundwaterWellsinThurstonCounty,

Washington(July2018).

b) RuralareasOutsideUGAs,newhouseholdsarelikelytorelyonapermit-exemptwellforadomesticwatersource,unlessthe

newdevelopmentiswithintheboundaryofawatersystemthathasavailableconnectionstoitsservice.Thurston

Countyidentified81publicwatersystems(GroupAandlargerGroupB)thatareatleastpartiallywithintheWRIA

11watershedandreviewedtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofHealth’sSentrydatabasetocalculatethe

numberofavailableconnectionsforeachsystem.Morethanathirdofthesystems(n=29)didnothaveaspecified

numberofapprovedconnections;becauseofthis,forthesesystems,nonumberofavailableconnectionscouldbe

calculated.Anotherthirdofthesystems(n=25)haveavailable,approvedconnections.Forwatersystemswith

boundariesthatwerepartiallyoutsidethewatershed,thenumberofavailableconnectionswasadjustedaccording

totheproportionofareawithinthewatershed.DataforGroupAandBsystemsusedinthisanalysisispresented

inAppendixC.

Tocalculatethenumberofpermit-exemptdomesticconnectionsforruralareas,thenumberofadjustedavailable

connectionsfromGroupAandBsystemswassubtractedfromtheprojecteddwellingunitsineachsub-basin

(Table3-1).Table3-3presentstheresultingestimateofruralpermit-exemptdomesticconnectionsforecastto

occurthrough2040intheThurstonCountyportionoftheNisquallyWatershed.

Table3-3:Permit-exemptConnections,RuralAreas,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11

Sub-basinTotalNewRuralDwellingUnits

AvailableWaterSystemConnections

(Adjusted)NewRuralPEConnections

McAllister 315 199 116

Thompson/Yelm 650 124 526

Lackamas,Toboton,Powell 470 40 430

UpperNisqually 0 0 0

Total 1,435 363 1,072


3-23


• Thisanalysisdoesnotconsiderthenumberofpotentialconnectionstowatersystemswithan“unspecified”numberofavailableconnectionsintheWashingtonDepartmentofHealthSentryDatabase.DOHgivesan“unspecified”designationwhenthereisenoughsourceandsystemcapacity,andwaterrights,toaddconnectionswithintheirapprovedservicearea.Thesesystemsarelikelytohavethemostexistingcapacitytoservenewconnections,and,becausetheyarenotincluded,thisanalysisunderestimatestheamountofavailablewatersystemconnections.

• AssumesnonewGroupAorlargerGroupBsystemswillbepermittedoverthe20-yearplanningperiod.• Assumesnoexistingsystemswillbepermittedtoexpandtheirserviceareaboundariesoverthe20-year

planningperiod,andnoadditionalconnectionswillbeavailablebeyondthecurrentlyspecified“availableconnections”withintheDOHSentrydatabase.Asnotedabove,thisislikelyanunderestimateofthenumberofavailableconnections,giventhehighproportionofsystemsthatdidnothaveinformationonapprovedconnections(“unspecified”).Inaddition,somewatersystemsmayhavewaterrightsthatexceedthenumberofconnectionsthatarecurrentlyapproved,andthusmaybeabletoexpandwithoutneedingtoapplyforadditionalwaterrights.

• Newdevelopmentwillconnecttoexistingpublicwatersystemswhenconnectionsareavailable.Thisassumptionisonlylikelyifnewdevelopmentislocatedwithinwatersystemboundaries,andifallavailableconnectionsaremadeavailabletonewdomesticuses.

Results

Insummary,ThurstonCountyestimatesabaselinedemandforslightlymorethan2,000newpermit-exempt

connectionsintheNisquallywatershedthrough2040(Table3-4).Averagedoverthe22-yearplanningperiod,this

equatestoapproximately100newpermit-exemptconnectionsperyear.

Table3-4:TotalEstimatedPermit-exemptConnections,ThurstonCountyportionofWRIA11,2018-2040

Sub-basinUGAPE

ConnectionsRuralPE

ConnectionsTotalPE

Connections

McAllister 39 116 155

Thompson/Yelm 1,036 526 1,562

Lackamas/Toboton/Powell - 430 430

UpperNisqually - 0 0

Total 1,075 1,072 2,147

DiscussionofResults

Thenumberofestimatedpermit-exemptconnectionsinThurstonCountyisalmostevenlysplitbetweenrural

areasandUGAs,withthelargestproportionintheThompson/Yelmsub-basin.Thelargenumberofpermit-exempt

connectionsinurbanareasisduetothelimitationsoftheCityofYelm’swaterutility,whichatthistimedoesnot

havetheserviceareaoravailableconnectionstoprovidewatertomuchoftheUGA.WereYelm’sutilityableto

providewaterserviceatthesameproportionastheCityofLacey(i.e.,were98%ofnewhousingunitsabletohook

uptoawaterutilityratherthanonly30%),thiswouldaddressnearlyhalfoftheprojectednewconnectionsforthe

ThurstonCountyportionofthewatershed.

Evenconsideringonlynewruralconnections,however,theThompson/Yelmsub-basinstandsoutastheareawith

thegreatestforecasteddemandongroundwater,withmorethan500projectednewpermit-exemptconnections.

TheLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basinhasthesecondhighestnumberofprojectedpermit-exemptconnections,

howeverthisestimateislikelyhighconsideringthatavailableconnectionstothelargestwatersysteminthesub-

basin,Clearwood,couldnotbecalculated.Clearwood’sGroupAsystemwouldlikelyservenewdevelopment

aroundClearLake,whichisthemostdenselydevelopedportionofthesub-basin.


3-24

3.2.2 Lewis County

Methodology

Todeterminethelikelyamountofdevelopmentthrough2040,LewisCountycomparedthreedifferentprojections

forthegrowthofthearea:theTRPCTransportationModelto2040(TRPC,2017),andtwostraight-lineprojections

thatusedhistoricgrowthtrendstoestimatepotentialgrowth.LewisCountyassumedthatthegrowthwouldfall

somewherewithintherangeofthethreeprojections.

Theuseofstraight-lineprojectionsintheanalysispresumedthatfuturegrowthwillmirrorpreviousgrowth

patterns.Absentfactorsdrivingsignificantgrowthwithinthesurroundingareas,thestraight-lineprojections

shouldtendtoholdfairlytrue.Asafetyfactorof11%wasalsoaddedtoconsideranypotentialmappingerrors.2

TheuseofTRPCTransportationModeldata(TRPC,2017)presumedthat,ratherthannecessarilyfollowinghistoric

trends,futuregrowthwillrespondtoavarietyoffactorsincludingtherelativeproportionoftheexistinghousingin

thecounty,zoningrestrictions,andproximitytoemploymentcenters.

Basedonthelimitedamountofcapacityavailableonexistingcommunitywatersystemsandtherelativelylarge

lotsrequired,LewisCountyassumedthatallthenewresidentialdevelopmentwithinthesub-basinwouldoccuron

permit-exemptwells.

Results

Ofthethreeprojections,thehighgrowthstraight-lineprojection,basedontherateofdevelopmentfrom2000to

2008,forecastedthegreatestamountofnewdevelopment–181newunits(orroughly7.4newhousingunitsper

yearwhenincludingthesafetyfactor).Theslowgrowthstraight-lineprojection,basedondevelopmentfrom2008

to2018,forecastedthelowestamountofgrowth–138newhousingunits.TheTRPCTransportationModelfell

betweenthetwostraight-lineprojections(Table3-5).

Table3-5:DwellingUnitChange,bySub-basin2018-2040,inUpperNisquallySub-basin,LewisCountyportionofWRIA11ProposedRangeofProjectedDevelopment NewHousingUnits

High–Straight-Line,HighGrowthProjection(BasedonGrowthfrom2000to2008) 181

Medium(BasedonTRPCTransportationModel,2017) 145

Low–Straight-Line,SlowGrowthProjection(BasedonGrowthfrom2008to2018) 138

DiscussionofResults

Therangeof138to181newunitsprojectsalimitedamountofdevelopmentoverallfortheLewisCountyportion

oftheUpperNisquallysub-basin.

3.2.3 Pierce County

Methodology

PierceCountyusedacombinationofmethods,asdescribedbelow,toprojectthenumberofpermit-exempt

domesticwellconnectionsthroughtheyear2040.Twotypesofconnectionswereestimated:a)individualpermit-

exemptwellconnections;andb)GroupBpermit-exemptwellconnections.Alowandhighprojectionofindividual

2LewisCountyutilizedan11percentsafetyfactortoreflectthedifferenceintotalpermitswithinthepermitsystemandthenumberofpermits

mappedintheanalysis.Lookingatthediscrepancybetweenthenumbers,itwasclearthatseveralmappedpermitswereaccountedforinthe

permittingsoftwaremultipletimes.


3-25

permit-exemptwellconnectionswasdevelopedbasedonhistorictrends.GroupBpermit-exemptwellconnections

wereprojectedbasedonexistingdata,andthencombinedwiththelowandhighindividualpermit-exempt

connectionsprojections.

The2018populationforeachsub-basinwasestimatedusingEsriGISdatadevelopedfrom2010CensusData(Esri,

2018).Thepopulationgrowthratewasestimatedusingtheannualpopulationgrowthratebetween2010and

2030,basedonthe2010censuspopulationestimatesandthe2030populationtargetsadoptedinPierceCounty

Ordinance#2017-24s.The2030targetswerebasedonthePugetSoundRegionalCouncil(PSRC)VISION2040

RegionalGrowthStrategy.Theannualgrowthratewasmultipliedby22yearstorepresentthepercentgrowth

from2018to2040andusedtodeterminethetotalprojectedpopulationgrowthforthefivesub-basins,asshown

inTable3-6.

Table3-6:ProjectedPopulationGrowth,PierceCountyportionofWRIA11(2018-2040)

Sub-basin Jurisdiction2018Population

EstimatePercentPopulationGrowth2018-2040

ProjectedPopulationGrowth2018-2040

LowerNisqually Rural 80 12.5% 10.0 DuPont 7,394 34.2% 2,528.7 JBLM 7,625 0.0% -MashelRiver Rural 2,384 12.5% 298.0 Eatonville 1,488 12.8% 190.5PrairieTributaries

Rural 40,314 12.5% 5,039.25 Roy 817 28.5% 232.85 JBLM 2 0.0% -OhopCreek Rural 2,764 12.5% 345.50 Eatonville 1,488 12.8% 190.46UpperNisquallyRiver Rural 1,179 12.5% 147.38 Incorp - 0.0% -Total 65,535 8,982.6

IndividualPermit-ExemptWellConnections

1. LowProjection

Thenumberofindividualpermit-exemptwellconnectionsbetween2018and2040wasprojectedbyassessing26

yearsofhistoricdevelopmentdata.Thedevelopmentdatacomparedthenumberofnewindividualpermit-exempt

wellconnectionstothetotalnumberofbuildingpermitsineachofthesub-basinsbetween1991and2016.The

resultwasusedtoestimatethepercentageofsingle-familyresidential(SFR)permit-exemptwellspertotalbuilding

permitsforeachofthesub-basinsasshowninTable3-7.ThePierceCountyportionoftheNisquallyRiverBasinis

primarilyrural,andmostindividualpermit-exemptwellsserveSFRstructures.


3-26

Table3-7:PercentPermit-ExemptWells,PierceCountyportionofWRIA11–26-YearHistoricTrend(1991-2016)

Sub-basin

IndividualPermit-ExemptWells

1991-2016BuildingPermits

1991-2016

PercentIndividualPermit-ExemptWells/Total

BuildingPermitsLowerNisqually 2 1,890 0.1%

MashelRiver 78 536 14.6%

PrairieTributaries 1,599 8,347 19.2%

OhopCreek 89 446 20.0%

UpperNisquallyRiver 39 242 16.1%

Total 1,807 11,461 15.8%Theprojectedpopulationgrowthfrom2018to2040foreachofthesub-basinsshowninTable3-6wasconvertedtothenumberofSFRsusinga2.5persons-per-SFRconversionfactorperEcologyguidance(Ecology,June2018a),thenmultipliedbythepercentofpermit-exemptwells-per-totalbuildingpermitsshowninTable3-7.Theresultingnumberofdomesticpermit-exemptwellsforecastbetween2018and2040isshownbysub-basininTable3-8.Notethattheruralpopulationgrowthwillaccountforalmostallofthenewpermit-exemptwells,butafewadditionalpermit-exemptwellswereaddedfortherarecasetheymaybeutilizedwithinamunicipalservicearea.Table3-8:ProjectedIndividualPermit-ExemptWells(2018–2040),PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–LowProjectionusing26-YearHistoricTrend

Sub-basin

ProjectedSFRGrowth

2018-2040PercentIndividualPEWells/BuildingPermit

IndividualPEWellsLowProjection

2018-2040LowerNisqually 4 0.1% 2.0

MashelRiver 119.2 14.6% 18.4

PrairieTributaries 2,015.7 19.2% 388.0

OhopCreek 138.2 20.0% 28.6

UpperNisquallyRiver 59.0 16.1% 9.5

Total 2,336.1 446.6

2. HighProjection

Todeterminethehigh-rangeprojectionforindividualpermit-exemptwellconnections,10yearsofpermit-exempt

welldatafrom2007to2016wasanalyzedwithinthesub-basinstodetermineanannualgrowthrate,asshownin

Table3-9.

Table3-9:PercentPermit-exemptWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–10-YearHistoricTrend(2007-2016)

Sub-basin

IndividualPEWells2007-2016 Years IndividualPEWells/Year

LowerNisqually - 10 -

MashelRiver 8 10 0.80

PrairieTributaries 222 10 22.20

OhopCreek 11 10 1.10

UpperNisquallyRiver 5 10 0.50

Total 246 10 24.6


3-27

Thenumberofannualindividualpermit-exemptwellconnectionsfromTable3-9wasmultipliedby22yearstoestimatethenumberofindividualpermit-exemptwellconnectionsbetween2018and2040foreachofthesub-basins,asshowninTable3-10.Notethatruralpopulationgrowthwillaccountforalmostallofthenewpermit-exemptwells,butafewadditionalpermit-exemptwellswereaddedfortherarecasetheymaybeinstalledwithinamunicipalservicearea.

Table3-10:ProjectedIndividualPermit-ExemptWells(2018–2040),PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–HighProjectionUsing10YearHistoricTrendSub-basin 10YearTrendPEWells/Year Years IPEWells-HighProjectionLowerNisqually - 22 2.00

MashelRiver 0.8 22 18.60

PrairieTributaries 22.2 22 489.40

OhopCreek 1.1 22 25.20UpperNisquallyRiver 0.5 22 11.00

Total 546.20

ThismethodwassimplisticbutbasedonobservedtrendsratherthantheaspirationaltargetsinVISION2040and

producedperhapsamorerealisticresult.Thismethodalsoconsidersinstallationofnewpermit-exemptwellsfor

existingSFRsthatreplaceoldernon-conformingwells.

GroupBPermit-ExemptWellConnections

GroupBpermit-exemptwellconnectionswereprojectedusingdatafromtheTacoma-PierceCountyHealth

DepartmentforthefivePierceCountysub-basins.Thecurrentnumberofactiveconnectionswascomparedtothe

2018populationestimateineachofthesub-basins,asshowninTable3-11.

Table3-11:ExistingConnectionstoPermit-ExemptGroupBWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11

Sub-basin JurisdictionCurrentGroupBPEWellConnections

2018PopulationEstimate

PercentGroupBPEConnections

LowerNisqually Rural 4 80 5.0% DuPont 0 7,394 0.0% JBLM 0 7,625 0.0%MashelRiver Rural 12 2,384 0.5% Eatonville 0 1,488 0.0%PrairieTributaries Rural 851 40,314 2.1% Roy 0 817 0.0% JBLM 0 2 0.0%OhopCreek Rural 12 2,764 0.4% Eatonville 0 1,488 0.0%UpperNisquallyRiver Rural 26 1,179 2.2% Incorp 0 - Total 905 65,535 1.4%

ThepercentofGroupBpermit-exemptwellconnectionswasthenappliedtotheprojectedruralpopulation

growthpresentedinTable3-6.TheprojectedGroupBpermit-exemptwellconnectionsareshowninTable3-12.


3-28

Table3-12:FutureConnectionstoPermit-ExemptGroupBWells,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11

Sub-basin

ProjectedPopulationGrowth

2018-2040PercentofGroupB

PEConnections

NumberofGroupBPEConnections2018-2040

LowerNisqually 10 5.0% 0.5

MashelRiver 298.0 0.5% 1.5

PrairieTributaries 5,039.3 2.11% 106.3

OhopCreek 345.5 0.43% 1.5

UpperNisquallyRiver 147.4 2.21% 3.3

Total 5,840.2 113.1


• ItisassumedthatJBLMhasnopermit-exemptwellsperdiscussionswiththeTacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartment.

• Newpermit-exemptwellsarenotallowedwithinGroupAwatersystemboundarieswithoutwrittenpermissionfromthepurveyor,soitwasestimatedthatminimalpermit-exemptwellswouldbeallowedintheincorporatedareasoftheNisquallyRiverBasinwithinthecitiesofDuPont,Eatonville,andRoy.

• Itisassumedtherewillbeanaverageof2.5peopleperSFR.• ItisassumedthatallcurrentGroupBpermit-exemptwellconnectionsoccurredoutsidethecities.The

citieswithinthestudiedareawereentirelyincludedinGroupAwatersystemboundaries.• Althoughmoredataexists,theprevious10yearsofnewwelldataversustotalbuildingpermitsforthe

individualpermit-exemptwellhighprojectionwasused.UsingthisdataeliminatedahighertrendthatexistedwithinthebasinpriortotheadoptionoftheWashingtonStateGrowthManagementActin1990.Thepast10yearsofdataincludedtherecession;however,peaksandvalleyswithintheindustryarecommon.The10yearsofdataalsoincludedthelastpeakandstartofthecurrentupsurgeinconstruction.

• Assumethewelldatausedrepresentsindividualresidentialwellswithasingleconnection.

Results

Thetotallowandhighprojectionsofindividualpermit-exemptwellconnectionsthrough2040foreachsub-basin

arepresentedinTables2-13and2-14.ThenumberofGroupBpermit-exemptwellconnectionswascombined

withthelowandhighindividualpermit-exemptwellsprojectionstodevelopalowandhighforecast,respectively.

Table3-13:FutureConnections,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–LowProjection

Sub-basin

IndividualPEWellsLowProjection

2018-2040

GroupBPEConnections2018-

2040

TotalPEConnectionsLowProjection

2018-2040LowerNisqually 2 0.50 2.5MashelRiver 18.4 1.50 19.9PrairieTributaries

388.0 106.40 494.4

OhopCreek 28.6 1.50 30.1UpperNisquallyRiver 9.5 3.30 12.8Total 446.5 113.2 559.7


3-29

Table3-14:FutureConnections,PierceCountyPortionofWRIA11–HighProjectionSub-basin IndividualPEWells

HighProjection2018-2040

GroupBPEConnections2018-

2040

TotalPEConnectionsHighProjection

2018-2040LowerNisqually 2 0.50 2.5

MashelRiver 18.6 1.50 20.1

PrairieTributaries

489.4 106.40 595.8

OhopCreek 25.2 1.50 26.7

UpperNisquallyRiver 11.0 3.30 14.3

Total 546.2 113.2 659.4

DiscussionofResults

Thelowprojectionfortotalpermit-exemptwellconnectionswithintheNisquallyRiverBasinwas559.7versusthe

highprojectionof659.4.Mostpermit-exemptwellconnectionsinPierceCountyarelikelytooccurinruralareas

withinthePrairieTributariesSub-basin.Table3-14showsthat595.8ofthetotalhighprojectionof659.4permit-

exemptwellconnections,or90.3%,willoccurwithinthePrairieTributaries.

3.2.4 Three-County Summary of Results – Total Forecast Connections in WRIA 11 Table3-15summarizesthetotalnumberofconnectionstodomesticpermit-exemptwellsforecasttooccur

between2018and2040bysub-basinfortheentireWRIA11.Table3-15alsosummarizesthebreakoutbetween

anticipatedconnectionsintheurbangrowthareas(UGAs)ofthewatershedandruralareas.Thisforecastincludes

estimatesfromThurston(Section3.2.1),thehighforecastfromLewisCounty(Section3.2.2)andthehighforecast

forPierceCounty(Section3.2.3).

Table3-15:TotalProjectedNewDomesticPermit-ExemptConnectionsbyAggregatedSub-basin,WRIA11(2018-2040)Sub-basin UGAConnections RuralConnections TotalConnectionsMcAllister 39 116 155Thompson/Yelm 1,036 526 1,562Lackamas/Toboton/Powell - 430 430LowerNisqually 2 2MashelRiver 20 20PrairieTributaries 596 596OhopCreek 27 27UpperNisqually(Lewis,Pierce,Thurston)

195 195

Total 1,075 1,912 2,987

3.3 Water Use Estimates – Domestic Permit-Exempt Connections 2018-2040

3.3.1 Overview TheDepartmentofEcology(Ecology)hasprovidedrecommendationsforestimatingwaterusefrompermit-

exemptwellconnectionsforpurposesofcomplyingwiththeprovisionsinESSB6091,codifiedas90.94.020RCW

(Ecology,June2018a).Theserecommendationsinvolvetheestimationofactualindoorandoutdoorwateruseby


3-30

eachpermit-exemptwellconnectionanticipatedbetween2018and2040.However,ESSB6091andtheassociated

90.94.020RCWrestrictthemaximumannualaveragewithdrawalfromaconnectiontoapermit-exemptwellin

WRIA11to3,000gallonsperday(gpd)averagedovertheentireyear.Thislegallimitof3,000gpdislikelymuch

greaterthanactualannualaverageindoorandoutdoordomesticwateruse.TheNisquallyPlanningUnithas

chosentoestimateboththeactualannualaveragewateruseassociatedwithapermit-exemptwellconnection

andthelegalrighttothefullwateruseasspecifiedunder90.94.020RCW.Thisapproachquantifiesarangeof

potentialimpactstoinstreamflowsthatcanbeaddressedbyacombinationofsub-basinspecificoffsetsandlarger

scaleprojectsthatprovideanetecologicalbenefitfortheentirewatershed.Furthermore,twomethodswereused

toestimateactualwateruse.OneusedEcologyguidancetoestimateoutdoorusebasedonirrigation

requirements(Ecology,2018a)andtheotherwasbasedonactualdatafrom58GroupAandBwatersystems

managedbytheThurstonPUD(AppendixD).

Estimatesofwaterusebyfuturepermit-exemptdomesticwellsunder90.94.020RCWarerequiredtoaccountfor

theportionofwaterthatis“consumptively”used.Becausemostconnectionstopermit-exemptdomesticwells

relyonindividualsepticsystemsandmostindoorwaterthatisdischargedviasepticsystemsisreturnedtothe

groundwatersystem,(Ecology,June2018a)statesthatitisreasonabletoassumethat10percentofindoor

domesticwateruseisconsumed.Mostoutdoorwaterislosttoevapotranspiration;andalthoughthepercentage

ofoutdoorwaterthatisconsumed(losttotheatmosphere)isvariablebasedonclimate,soiltype,etc.,itcanbe

assumedthatapproximately80%ofoutdoordomesticwaterisconsumedinWRIA11(e.g.,notreturnedtothe

localgroundwatersystemandnotavailableforrechargetolocalstreams).ThisAddendumtotheWRIA11

WatershedPlanaddressesmitigationfortheimpactsoftheconsumptiveportionofindoorandoutdoordomestic

waterusebypermit-exemptwellsonlocalstreamflows.

Estimatesofconsumptivedomesticgroundwaterusebypermit-exemptwellsforecastfortheThurston,Lewisand

PierceCountyportionsoftheNisquallyWatershedwereevaluatedbysub-basin.Itshouldbenotedthatsub-basins

representsurfacewaterdivides,whichmaynotnecessarilyparallelgroundwaterdivides.Permit-exemptwells

drawfromgroundwatersources,andcanthereforeimpactareasthatextendbeyondsub-basinboundariesthat

aredefinedbysurfacewaterfeatures.Forthisanalysis,itisassumedthatanypermit-exemptwelllocatedwithina

sub-basinwillimpacttributarieswithinthatsub-basin.

3.3.2 Estimated Actual Consumptive Water Use IndoorWaterUse:Averageannualindoorusewasassumedtobe150gallonsperday(gpd)perconnectionfor

newhouseholdsinthewatershed(Thurston,LewisandPierceCounties).PerDepartmentofEcologyguidance

(Ecology,June2018a),itwasassumedthat10%ofallindoorwateruseisconsumptiveand90%isnon-

consumptive,inthatitreturnstothesubsurfacehydrologicsystemviasepticsystemdischarge.The150gallons

perdayassumption(perEcologyguidance)wascomparedtotheactualindoorwateruseof58groupAandB

systemsmanagedbytheThurstonPublicUtilityDistrict(PUD).Indoorwateruseaveraged129gallonsperdayper

connectionforthePUD’sgroupAandBsystemsoverthemonthofFebruaryof2017(personalcommunication,

ThurstonPUD,October2018).Permit-exemptwellsownersarenotsubjecttowatersystemratestructures

designedtoincentivizeconservationandmaythereforeconsumemoreindoorandoutdoorwater.Therefore,the

150gallonsperdayassumptionwasfoundtoberelevantandjustifiable.ForthepurposesofthisAddendum,

actualindoor,consumptivewateruseisassumedtobe10%of150gallonsperday,or15gallonsperday.

OutdoorWaterUse:Twomethodswereusedtoestimateoutdoorwateruse,Method1wasbasedonactualdata

from58GroupAandBwatersystemsmanagedbytheThurstonPUD(AppendixD),andMethod2usedEcology


3-31

guidance(Ecology,June2018a)toestimateoutdoorusebasedonbasin-specificirrigationrequirementsand

monthlyprecipitation.

Method1:Toestimateaverageannualoutdoorwateruse,thePlanningUnitassessedactualwaterusage

dataforGroupAandBwatersystemsoperatedbytheThurstonPUDin2015,2016and2017(see

AppendixD).Onaverage,thosewatersystemsusedatotalof183gpd/householdconnectionperyear

overthethree-yeartimeperiod.AftersubtractingthePUD’sestimatedindoorwateruse,annualoutdoor

wateruseis,onaverage,approximately50gpd/householdfortheGroupAandBSystemsmanagedby

theThurstonPUDbetween2015and2017.Droughtconditionsoccurredin2015andcouldhaveimpacted

estimatesofwateruseinoneoftwoways:summerwaterusecouldhavebeenhigherthanusual,ormore

stringentconservationratesappliedbyThurstonPUDmayhaveincentivizedconservation.PlanningUnit

membersfeltthatitwasimportanttoconsiderexcessusebypermit-exemptwellownerswhoarenot

subjecttoPUDrates,butaresubjecttothecostsofpumping.ThePlanningUnitassumedaverageannual

outdoorwateruseassociatedwithpermit-exemptwellsisdoublethatobservedbythePUD.Therefore,

forthisanalysis,itisassumedthateachhouseholdutilizes100gpd/householdconnectionforoutdoor

usesonanannualaverage(100%morethantheirGroupAandBcounterparts).PerEcologyguidance

(Ecology,June2018a),80%ofthatoutdooruseisconsideredconsumptive,asthatwaterisnotdirectly

returnedtothegroundwatersystem.

Method2:ThePlanningUnitalsoappliedEcologyguidance(Ecology,June2018a)toprovideasecondestimateofoutdoorconsumptiveusebasedonstandardcropirrigationrequirements.Assumptionsfor

thismethodincludedaverageirrigatedacreage,irrigationefficiencyandirrigationrequirementsusing

informationfromtheOlympiaclimatestation(NaturalResourceConservationService,1997).Application

ofthismethodologytoWRIA11assumedthatanaverageof0.2acresofturforpasturewereirrigatedper

permit-exemptwellconnection,andthatirrigationefficiencyinruralareasofWRIA11was90%.The

estimateof0.2irrigatedacresperparcelisdrawnfromastudydoneforWhatcomCountyusingsatellite

imagerytoestimatearealextentofirrigation(RH2Engineering,August2018).Thisstudyfoundthatthe

averageirrigatedlawn/gardensizeforahomeservedbyapermit-exemptwellfordomesticpurposesin

WhatcomCountywas0.2acres.

Rationaleforthe90%irrigationapplicationrateefficiencyinclude:

• Forrurallanduses,therearegenerallylessimpermeablesurfaces.

• Notallthewaterlandingonasidewalkisevaporated,somewillrunoffandinfiltrate.

• TemperaturesinWRIA11aregenerallylowerthaneasternWashingtonareassuchasSpokanewhere75%applicationefficiencyhasbeenused.

• ThereisgenerallylesswindinWRIA11thaninareasineasternWashingtonresultinginlessevaporation.

• Manypermit-exemptwellusersuserainbird-typesprinklersordripirrigationratherthanthepop-uptypeonautomaticirrigationsystemsthatresultinmorespray,resultinginlessoverallevapotranspiration.

Perconnectionindooruse,andoutdoorusecalculatedusingbothmethodsdescribedabovearesummarizedin

Table3-16.


3-32

Table3-16:NisquallyWatershed:ActualWaterUsageAssumptions AverageAnnual

IndoorUsePerconnection

AverageAnnualOutdoorUseperconnectionMethod1Method2

ThurstonPUDdataEcologyIrrigationGuidance AF/Year gpd AF/Year gpd AF/Year gpd

TotalUse 0.170 150 0.112 100 0.292 261

ConsumptiveUse 0.0168 15 0.0896 80 0.233 208

3.3.3 Consumptive Portion of the Legal Right to Water Tobeconservativeandtoaccountforanypotentialfutureactivityorsituationwhereone’slegalrighttowateris

maximized,consumptivewateruseassociatedwiththelegallimitof3,000gpdforapermitexemptwellas

establishedunderRCW90.94wasalsoconsideredaspartofthisWatershedPlanAddendumaddressingpermit-

exemptwellimpactsoninstreamflows.

UsingthedataprovidedbyThurstonPUD,thePlanningUnitassumedthatasimilarproportionofindoorand

outdoorusewouldoccurasoccurredinJuly2017forthePUD’sGroupAandBSystems(approximately36percent

ofthewaterwouldbeusedinsideahouseand64percentofthewaterwouldbeusedoutside).Thisresultsinan

estimated1,920gpdofthe3,000gpdusedforoutdooruseand1080gpdforindooruse.Thesameconsumptive

usefactorswereapplied(10%consumptiveindoorsand80%consumptiveoutdoors).Theassumptionsand

quantitiesusedtoevaluatethelegallimitofconsumptiveuseinWRIA11areshowninTable3-17.

Table3-17:NisquallyWatershed:LegalLimitWaterUsageAssumptions LegalIndoorUseper

connectionLegalOutdoorUseper

connection

AF/Year gpd AF/Year gpdTotalUse 1.210 1,080 2.15 1920

ConsumptiveUse 0.121 108 1.72 1536

3.3.4 Consumptive Use Results Estimatesofactualannualaverageconsumptivewaterusebydomesticpermit-exemptconnectionsforecastedto

beinstalledbetween2018and2040toserviceruralgrowthintheNisquallyWatershedissummarizedbysub-

basinusingMethod1(outdoorusebasedonobservedThurstonPUDdata)inTable3-18andMethod2(outdoor

usebasedonEcologyguidanceonirrigationrequirements)inTable3-19.

Table3-18:ProjectedActualAnnualAverageConsumptiveUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,NisquallyWatershed,WRIA11(2018-2040)–ThurstonPUDDataSource

Sub-BasinTotalPE

Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)CubicFeet/

Second(CFS)CFSper

connectionAFYper

connectionMcAllister 155 16 0.023 Thompson/Yelm 1,562 166 0.230 Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 430 46 0.063 LowerNisquallyRiver 2 0 0.000 MashelRiver 20 2 0.003 PrairieTributaries 596 63 0.088 OhopCreek 27 3 0.004 UpperNisqually(allcounties) 195 21 0.029 Total 2,987 318 0.439 0.000147 0.1064


3-33

Table3-19:ProjectedActualAnnualAverageConsumptiveUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,NisquallyWatershed,WRIA11(2018-2040)–EcologyGuidanceMethod

Sub-BasinTotalPE

Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

CubicFeet/Second

(CFS)CFSper

connectionAFYper

connectionMcAllister 155 39 0.054 Thompson/Yelm 1,562 390 0.539 Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 430 107 0.148 LowerNisquallyRiver 2 0 0.001 MashelRiver 20 5 0.007 PrairieTributaries 596 149 0.206 OhopCreek 27 7 0.009 UpperNisqually(allcounties) 195 49 0.067 Total 2,987 747 1.032 0.000345 0.25

Estimatesoftheconsumptiveportionofthelegalrighttowaterfromapermit-exemptwell(assumingone

connectionperwell)areindicatedbysub-basininTable3-20.

Table3-20:ProjectedLegalConsumptiveWaterUseofDomesticPermit-ExemptWells,NisquallyWatershed,WRIA11(2018-2040)

Sub-BasinTotalPE

Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)CubicFeet/

Second(CFS)CFSper

connectionAFYper

connectionMcAllister 155 285 0.394 Thompson/Yelm 1,562 2,876 3.973 Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 430 792 1.094 LowerNisquallyRiver 2 4 0.005 MashelRiver 20 37 0.051 PrairieTributaries 596 1,098 1.516 OhopCreek 27 50 0.069 UpperNisqually(allcounties) 195 359 0.496 Total 2,987 5,501 7.598 0.002544 1.84

DiscussionofResults

Tables2-18,2-19and2-20indicatethatpotentialimpactstostreamflowfromfuturedomesticpermit-exemptwell

usearelikelytobegreatestintheThompsonandYelmCreektributariesinThurstonCountyandthePrairieStream

TributariesinPierceCounty.Theseestimatesreliedontheforecastingmethodsthatyieldedthehighest,ormost

conservative,estimatesofruralpopulationgrowthinPierceandLewisCounty.LewisCountyalsoincludedan11

percentsafetyfactortoaccountforuncertaintyduetomappingerrors.ThurstonCountyestimatesofnewexempt-

wellconnectionswerealsoconservativebasedonassumptionsmaderegardingavailabilityofruralGroupAandB

waterconnectionswhenactualdatawereunavailable.Intotal,theactualnumberofforecastruralpermit-exempt

connectionsinallthreecountiesinWRIA11through2040arelikelytobelessthanthatshowninTables2-18,2-19

and2-20.


3-34

Forecastedaverageannualwaterusebypermit-exemptwellsinallofWRIA11isexpectedtorangebetween318

and747AF/Yearor0.44and1.03cfsbasedonthetwomethodsusedforestimatingoutdoorconsumptivewater

use.Actualaverageannualwateruseisestimatedtobe0.000147to0.000345cfsor0.106to0.25AFYper

connection.Itshouldbenotedthatactualusefluctuatesovertheyearandishighestinthewarmsummermonths

andlowestinwintermonthswhenlittletonooutdoorirrigationoccurs.


4-35

Chapter 4 Salmon Habitat Projects with Instream Flow

and Net Ecological Benefits

4.1 Net Ecological Benefit and Salmon Recovery Goals

4.1.1 Defining Net Ecological Benefit for the Nisqually Watershed InitsInterimGuidanceforDeterminingNetEcologicalBenefit(Publication18-11-009,Ecology2018b),the

DepartmentofEcologyestablishedcriteriafordeterminingif“anticipatedbenefitstoinstreamresourcesfrom

actionsdesignedtorestorestreamflowwilloffsetandexceedtheprojectedimpactstoinstreamresourcesfrom

newwateruse”.Theguidancefurtherspecifiesthatnetecologicalbenefit(NEB)maybeachievedbya

combinationofwateroffsetprojectswithdirectflowbenefits,andnon-wateroffsetprojects,providing“ecological

benefitsbyenhancingaquaticsystemstoimprovecapacitytosupportviablepopulationsofnativespecies.”Water

offsetprojectsandpoliciesarediscussedinChapters5and6throughsub-basin-specificmicro-mitigation

strategiestorestorestreamflowsimpactedbynewpermit-exemptwelldevelopmentwithinsub-basinsoverthe

next20years.ThischapteraddressesthebroaderquestionofNEBthrough“macro”orwatershed-scalehabitat

projectswithbothflowbenefitsandecologicalbenefitsessentialtonativesalmonpopulations.

GiventhecriticalstateofsalmonrecoveryintheNisqually,thePlanningUnitunderstandstheStreamflow

RestorationAct’sNEBrequirementasamandateforalong-termapproachtowaterplanningthatbalances

development,agriculturalandindustrialneedswiththeimperativeofrestoringaself-sustaining,salmon-

supportingwatershedecosystem.AddressingthiscentralissuerequiredthePlanningUnittothinkaboutNEBata

watershed-widescalebeyondthetwenty-yeartimeframe.Permit-exemptwelluseisonerelativelysmall

componentofthechallengetheNisquallyWatershedwillfaceinbalancingitswaterbudgetforsalmonandhuman

usesoverthecomingdecades,asclimatechangealtersprecipitation,storage,andflowpatternsfortheentire

basin.Asinpreviouswatershedplanningefforts,themacro-mitigationstrategiesinthisAddendumarealigned

withlonger-termeffortstomanagewaterresourceseffectivelyinthefaceofthesegrowingchallenges,including

theForestandWaterClimateAdaptationPlanfortheNisquallyWatershed(Greene,2014)andtheNisqually

CommunityForest’sUpperBusyWildUnitForestManagementPlan(NisquallyCommunityForest,2016),along

withtheNisquallyChinookRecoveryPlan(NisquallyChinookRecoveryTeam,2001)andDraftNisquallySteelhead

RecoveryPlan(NisquallySteelheadRecoveryTeam,2014).Ofthese,theChinookandSteelheadRecoveryPlans

providethemostcomprehensivescientificframework,aswellastheunderlyingrationale,forwatershed-wideand

basin-specificactionsnecessarytorestoreandsustainfunctioningriparianecosystemsforsalmon.

TheNisquallyIndianTribeissignatorytotheMedicineCreekTreatyof1854,inwhichtheyreservedtherightto

fish,hunt,andgatherforever.ThepromisemadetotheTribewasthatsalmonandsalmonfishingwouldcontinue

tobeavailableintothefutureasithadbeeninthepast.Butoverthepast160yearstheregionhaschanged

dramatically,includinglossandimpactstothefreshandmarinehabitatsthatarecriticaltothesurvivalofsalmon,

tothepointwheretherunsofsalmonarelessthan10%ofhistoriclevels.ThedeclineofwildChinookand

steelheadhasbeensoprecipitousthattheyarebothlistedasThreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.

TheTribe’sfishingseasonshavedecreasedalongwiththedemiseofthevariousrunsofsalmonintheNisqually

River.IntheyearsimmediatelyfollowingthefederalcourtdecisionupholdingtreatyrightsinUnitedStatesv.

Washington(1974),knownastheBoldtdecision,theNisquallyTribefishedsustainablyforeightmonthsofthe


4-36

yearonthevariousrunsofsalmonreturningtotheNisquallyRiver.Thefisheryreacheditsalltimelowintermsof

timeontheriverin2015,whentheTribefishedatotalofeightdays.

TheNisquallyTribehasledtheefforttodevelopandimplementrecoveryplansforFallChinookandsteelhead.

Therearenumberofactionableelementsintheseplansthatfocusonhabitatprotectionandrestorationfromthe

NisquallyestuarytotheheadwatersoftheMashelRiver.Theseplanshaveidentifiedsummerstreamflowin

severalcriticaltributariesinthewatershed(theMashelRiverandOhop,Muck,andYelmCreeks)thatarevitalto

therecoveryofbothlistedspecies.TheTribeisinterestedindefiningnetecologicalbenefitatascaleandfocus

thatwillhelpresolvetheissuesaroundsalmonrecoverywhichseverelyconstraintheirtreatyfishingrights,and

thePlanningUnitconcurswiththisapproach.

4.1.2 Aligning Salmon Recovery Habitat Initiatives with Streamflow Restoration Planning Thebenefitsassociatedwiththemacro-scaleprojectsdescribedinthischaptercontributetothemitigationof

futurepermit-exemptwells.However,recoveringsalmonidpopulationsandtheecosystemfunctionsnecessaryto

supportthemisaneffortthatgoesbeyondmanagingfortheeffectsofnewpermit-exemptwaterwithdrawals

through2040.ThePlanningUnit’sintentistoaddressNEBbyintegratingtherequirementsoftheStreamflow

RestorationActwithexistingwatershedandEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)recoveryplans,namelytheNisqually

ChinookRecoveryPlan(NisquallyChinookRecoveryTeam,2001)andDraftNisquallySteelheadRecoveryPlan

(NisquallySteelheadRecoveryTeam,2014).TheNisquallyIndianTribeistheLeadEntityforsalmonrecoveryinthe

watershedandhasworkedcloselywithpartnerstodevelopcomprehensiveandholisticapproachestoachieving

salmonidpopulationswithlong-termviability.Thisisconsistentwiththe2003NisquallyWatershedManagement

Plan,whichdeferredtotheNisquallyChinookRecoveryPlanforaddressingthemajorityofhabitatcomponentsin

thePlan(seeGolder,2003,Section11.2.2).

TheTribe’sstrategyisbasedontheEcosystemDiagnosisandTreatment(EDT)model,whichidentifieskeyfactors

limitingsalmonpopulations,includingabundance,spatialdiversity,geneticdiversity,andproductivity,ineach

reachofthewatershed.Recoveryprojectsaredevelopedandrankedatthereachandsub-basinlevelwhereEDT

indicatesthegreatestpossiblereturnoninvestmentforthetwoESA-listedsalmonpopulations.Thehighest

priorityhabitateffortsintheNisquallyWatershedarecurrentlyfocusedonitsmajorsalmon-bearingtributaries.

ThemainstemNisquallyRiverisoflessconcernforstreamflowandsalmonidhabitatthanarethetributaries.

MainstemflowsbelowTacomaPower’sNisquallyHydroelectricProject(AlderandLaGrandedams)aresetby

federallicenserequirementsandmanagedseasontoseasonbytheNisquallyRiverCoordinatingCommittee.

Reachesabovethedamsdonotsupportanadromousfishpopulations.Likewise,mainstemhabitatiswell-

protected,with75%ofshorelineintheanadromouszone(belowLaGrandeDam)inpermanentstewardship.

Majortributaries,incontrast,containcriticalsalmonhabitatinsignificantneedofongoingprotectionand

restorationtoenhancestreamflow,waterquality,andhabitatdiversity.TheMashelRiverandOhop,Tanwax,Yelm

andMuckCreekbasinsareallhistoricallyimportantsalmon-bearingsystemsandcontinuetofacechallengesfrom

historicalandongoinggroundwaterwithdrawals,logging,channelmodifications,andstormwaterrunoff,with

basin-wideeffectsonsalmonpopulations.AchievingNEBfortheNisquallyWatershedmustaddresshabitat

availabilityandaccesschallengesinthesesub-basins,insomecasesasahigherprioritythanprojectsinsub-basins

thatmayexperiencemoregrowthinpermit-exemptwelldemandbutarelesscriticalforsalmonrecovery.

TheSalmonRecoveryProgram’scurrentHabitatProjectRankingGuidanceoutlines17recoveryinitiativesfocused

onecosystem-levelfunctions(NITSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).ThePlanningUnitidentifiedandrankednine

oftheseinitiativeslikelytoprovideeithersignificantstreamflowbenefittotributarybasins,and/orhabitat


4-37

benefitstosalmoninareasaffectedbyloworintermittentseasonalflows.ThesearesummarizedinTable4-1and

attachedasamoredetailedsummaryinAppendixF-1.

Thefourtop-rankedstreamflowinitiativesaddressforestry,baseflow,instreamhabitat,andriparianfloodplain

objectivesintheMashelandOhopsub-basins.TheSalmonRecoveryProgramhasinvested15yearsofongoing

workinthesewatersheds,aimedatfullrestorationofecosystemfunctionscriticaltosalmon.Thesefourinitiatives

areexpectedtoreturnlarge-scaleflowbenefitsatfullimplementationandhaveprojectsreadytoimplementnow.

BecausetheyofferthemostsignificantmethodfordeliveringNEBatthewatershedscale,theseprojects(andtwo

associatedprojectsexpandingcommunityforestconservationmanagementintotheOhopand

Lackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basins)areaddressedasmacro-mitigationstrategiesinthischapter.

Smaller-scalestreamflowprojectsundertheremainingthreeinitiatives(MuckCreekRecovery,PrairieTributaries

Recovery3,andBarrierRemoval)arebeingconsideredaslocalmitigationoptionswithinsub-basinsinThurstonand

PierceCounty.Theinitiativesareincludedheretodemonstratethealignmentwithsalmonrecoveryplanning,and

potentialprojectsarediscussedandquantifiedinChapter5ascounty-ledmicro-mitigation.

Table4-1:SalmonRecoveryHabitatInitiativeswithStreamflowandNetEcologicalBenefitSalmonRecoveryInitiative

Priority Sub-Basin KeyActions

MashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest

1 Mashel Acquirecommercialforestlandtoplaceinconservationmanagementforstreamflowenhancement

OhopWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest

7 Ohop Acquirecommercialforestlandtoplaceinconservationmanagementforstreamflowenhancement

BaldHillsWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest

8 Lack/Tob/Powell Acquirecommercialforestlandtoplaceinconservationmanagementforstreamflowenhancement

MashelBaseFlow 2 Mashel ImplementTownofEatonvillestormwaterandinfrastructureimprovements

OhopValleyFloodplainRestoration

3 Ohop Restore3.1milesofchannelizedstreamand710acresofriparianandfloodplainhabitat

MashelRiverRiparianCorridorProtectionandRestoration

4 Mashel Protectripariancorridorandrestorehabitatcomplexitythroughlogjamsandriparianplantings

MuckCreekRecovery* 5 PrairieTributaries

Restoreupto60milesofimpairedstreamsandsurroundingfloodplain/wetlandhabitat;maintainhydrologicfunctionofprairieecosystemthroughprescribedburns

PrairieTributariesRecovery*

6 PrairieTributaries,Thom/Yelm,Lack/Tob/Powell

Restoreupto20milesofimpairedstreamsandsurroundingfloodplain/wetlandhabitat;maintainhydrologicfunctionofprairieecosystemthroughprescribedburns

BarrierRemoval* 9 Multiple Removefishpassagebarriers

*ProjectsandquantificationestimatesdiscussedinSection5.1.4undercounty-ledmitigationstrategies.

AligningstreamflowNEBobjectiveswithsalmonrecoveryinitiativesgivesthePlanningUnitafeasibleandadaptive

frameworktoensurethatinstreamflowimpactsareoffsetinwaysbesttargetedtoachieveNEBforsalmon

recovery.Thestreamflowbenefitsestimatedtooccurasaresultoftheprojectslistedaboveareaddressedin

Section7andTable7.2).Duetothelimitedtimeavailabletodevelopsite-specificquantitativemodelsforthis

Addendum,andtherisksofdrivingupacquisitioncostsfromlistingpotentialmitigationsites,thisapproachoffers

3TheSalmonRecoveryPrograminitiativesarecategorizedusingdifferentsub-basingroupingsthanthoseusedinthisAddendum.ThePrairie

TributariesSalmonRecoveryInitiativeincludesprairie-typestreamsinbothPierceandThurstonCounties,whileMuckCreekRecoveryisa

separateinitiative.


4-38

amoreconsistentbenchmarkandavoidsthehighdegreeofuncertaintyforanylistofprojectsoveradecades-long

implementationhorizon.TheinitiativesandtemplateprojectsdescribedbelowwillallowEcologyandthe

ImplementingGovernmentstotrackprogresstowardsmaximumNEB,whilepreservingflexibilitytomanage

adaptivelyandactonemergentopportunities.Thisapproachisalsoconsistentwithtypicalsalmonrecovery

projectplanning,inwhichdetailedsite-specificmodelingandprojectdesignsarenotgenerallydevelopedin

advanceofsecuredfundingforimplementation.UsingthesameinitiativeframeworkwillallowGovernmentsto

dovetailfundingrequestsforstreamflowrestorationunderESSB6091withresourcesfromtheSalmonRecovery

FundingBoardandothersources,maximizingthelikelihoodthattheseinitiativescanbefullyimplemented.

Finally,theinitiativeframeworkinformsthePlanningUnit’sprioritizationofprojectsbytakingalong-termviewof

salmonrecoveryandsustainableecologicalbenefits.Whiletheywillprovidesubstantialmitigationforpermit-

exemptwellswithinsub-basins,theprojectsthatfallunderthesemacro-mitigationinitiativesareprioritizedwithin

theWRIAasawhole,targetingbroaderecologicalimpactsbyenhancingflowsandimprovingecologicalprocesses

inupper-watershedbasins,withmoresubstantialbenefitsrealizedonalongertimeframe.ThePlanningUnit’stop

priorityinitiativeinthiscategoryistheMashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest.Atfullimplementation,

thisinitiativewillgeneratebetween2and5cfsinaveragelatesummerstreamflowintheMashelRiver,morethan

offsettingtheforecastedactualwaterusefrompermit-exemptwells,usingeithercalculationmethod(seeChapter

3),intheentirewatershed(Halletal.,2018[AppendixG-2]).EDTanalysisalsoranksthisinitiativeasthehighest

priorityoutsideofestuarinerestorationforfurtheringsalmonrecovery(NITSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).This

initiativerequiresdecadesofmanagingforestlandsforlongerharvestrotationsandstreamflowenhancement,

meaningthattheseeffortsmustbegintodayinordertorealizethosebenefitsassoonaspossible.Likewise,the

processofrestoringthechannel,reconnectingfloodplains,andrebuildingriparianforestsintheOhopsub-basin,

thePlanningUnit’ssecondhighestpriority,hasbeenongoingsince2009andisapproximatelyhalfcompleted(NIT

SalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).

Thislong-rangeandwatershed-widefocusunderliesthePlanningUnit’sdecisiontoprioritizeurgentactionon

CommunityForestacquisitionsintheMashelsub-basinandcontinuedrestorationworkintheOhopValley,where

currentinvestmentswillyieldthegreatestreturninbenefitsforsalmonpopulationsandflowenhancement

throughoutthewatershed.InitiativesdiscussedinChapter5addresssimilarpossibleflowandhabitatrestoration

activitiesintheYelm/Thompson,PrairieTributaries,andLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basins,wheregreater

impactsfrompermit-exemptwellsareexpectedtooccur.ThePlanningUnitanticipatesthattheImplementing

Governmentsandotherpartnerswillidentifyactionableprojectsforfurtherrefinementandquantificationwithin

alllistedinitiatives,withongoingcollaborationtoprioritizethosewiththehighestNEBimpacts.

4.1.3 Approach to Quantifying Impacts of Salmon Recovery Initiatives TheSalmonRecoverystrategydefinesquantitativegeospatialmetricsforeachinitiative:shorelinemilesprotected,

feetofditchedchanneltreated,acresoffloodplainconnected,acresofforestlandprotected,etc.(NITSalmon

RecoveryProgram,2018).Existingmodeling,andresultsfrompreviousrestorationwork,reliablydemonstrate

attainablepositivestreamflowimpactsfromimplementingtheseselectedhabitatinitiatives(Halletal,2018;Perry

andJones,2016;Pollocketal,2003).ThePlanningUnithasalsoconductedpreliminarymodelingforstream

restorationinitiativesbasedongroundwaterdatacollectedfollowingditchremovalandfloodplainreconnectionin

theOhopValley(AppendixE).Thismodelisusedasatemplatetoestimatestreamflowbenefitsforanupcoming

shovel-readyOhopprojectdiscussedinthischapter,andisalsoappliedtoestimateflowbenefitsforcounty-led

projectsinsimilarprairie-typestreamsdiscussedinChapter5.


4-39

ThePlanningUnitexpectstocontinuerefiningquantitativestreamflowbenefitestimatesthroughthe

implementationprocessandadaptivemanagementfollowingAddendumadoption(seeChapter8).Forthose

initiativeswheredetailedlocalstreamflowmodelshavenotyetbeendeveloped,therestorationmetricsinthe

salmonrecoverystrategyprovideabasisforquantifyingNEBresultscorrelatedtorestorationactivities.Salmon

recoveryEDTmetrics,includingaccesstohabitat,presenceoflogjams,habitatdiversity,andwaterquality,are

expectedtoshowquantifiableimprovementasaresultofimplementingtheinitiatives.

4.2 Nisqually Watershed Macro-Mitigations

4.2.1 Community Forest Acquisition for Conservation Management AlignedSalmonRecoveryInitiatives:MashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest,OhopWatershed

Recovery/CommunityForest,BaldHillsWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest

FlowRestorationPriority:1(Mashel)

Sub-Basins:Mashel(active),OhopandLackamas/Toboton/Powell(anticipated)

FlowBenefit:2.5-7.5cfs(1,779.5-5,396AFY)NetEcologicalBenefit:Communityforestmanagementwillincreasethequantityandqualityofcriticalsalmon

habitatforESA-listedChinookandsteelhead.

MashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForestInitiative

TheupperMashelRiverwatershedexperiencedmassiveclear-cutlogginginthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,andhasbeendamagedbyextensivesedimentloadsfillingpoolsandspawninggravel,reducedwaterretention,elevatedstreamtemperatures,andpoorlarge-woody-debrisrecruitment(NITSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).Muchoftheupperbasin,particularlytheBusyWildsub-basin,remainsinintensivecommercialforestry,withcontinuednegativeimpactsonstreamflowandhabitat.ProjectstoimplementthisinitiativewillconsistprimarilyofacquiringparcelsofcommercialforestlandintheupperMashelWatershedfortheNisquallyCommunityForest,withamediumtermgoalofowning30,000totalacresofforestlandunderaconservationmanagementregimetomaximizeflowandotherecologicalbenefits.StreamflowenhancementisaprimarygoalofNisquallyCommunityForestmanagement(NisquallyCommunityForest,2016).TheCommunityForestpartnershaveconductedmanagementsimulationsusingtheVisualizingEcosystemLandManagementAssessments(VELMA)ecohydrologicalmodel,whichdynamicallysimulatestheinteractionofhydrologicalandbiogeochemicalprocessesatplot,hillslope,andwatershedscales(seeAppendixG-2,Halletal,2018).BasedonVELMAmodeling,increasingstandagebylengtheningharvestrotationsfrom40yearsto100yearswouldraisebaseflowsintheMashelwatershedbyupto9cfs(Halletal,2018).Todate,justover1,920acresofforestlandintheMashelwatershed(4%ofatotalofapproximately60,000acres)arecurrentlyprotectedandmanagedbytheNisquallyCommunityForest.Approximately22,140acresareownedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofNaturalResources,leavingapproximately30,821acres,or57%,currentlyheldascommercialtimberlandspotentiallyavailableforacquisitionandconservationmanagement(JustinHall,NisquallyCommunityForest,personalcommunication,January2019).ForthisAddendum,theVELMAmodelwasusedtoestimatethestreamflowimpactsfromexpandingtheNisquallyCommunityForesttargetingparcelswithanaveragestandageofatleast40years.Themodelindicatesthatthecriticalthresholdforforeststandageforstreamflowbenefitisat40years:younger,fastgrowingtreestakeupgroundwaterathigherrates(onereasonthatregularclearcuttingandreplantingonshortschedulesnegatively


4-40

impactsstreamflow)(PerryandJones,2016).Conversely,flowbenefitscontinuetocompoundeachyearformaturestandsover40years’averageage.Tworatesofacquisitionwereassumed,describedinTables4-2and4-3below:aminimumscenariobasedontherateofpastacquisitions,andaveryaggressiveratethatassumesacquiringallparcelsoveranaverageof40yearsoldintheMashelandothersub-basins.Theprioritytargetforacquisitionarestandsthatarecurrentlyanaverageofatleast40yearsold,whichwillmaximizetheflowbenefitthatcanberealizedfrompurchasesoverthe20-yearplanninghorizonoftheStreamflowRestorationAct(Halletal,2018andAppendixG-2).However,thePlanningUnitalsoendorsespurchasesofyoungerstandswheneveropportunitiespresentthemselves.ItistheNisquallyIndianTribe’spositionthatacquisitionofanystandforconservationmanagementwillpreventongoingflowlossesfromscheduledclear-cutsandcontinuetoshortentheleadtimetoincreasestandageacrosstheMashelbasin.Themorerapidlyforestlandisacquired,themorerapidlyflowandecologicalbenefitswillaccrue.OhopWatershedandBaldHillsWatershedRecovery/CommunityForestInthelongterm,theCommunityForest’sgoalistoplace70,000-100,000acresofforestlandinconservationmanagement,comprisingalmostallofthecommercialforestlandintheentireNisquallywatershed.PlannedactionsincludeworkingwiththeWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResourcesregardingmanagementoftheElbeandMineralStateForests(32,600acrestotal),aswellasdirectacquisitionsandsecuringconservationmanagementthroughdeedofrightorotherbindingagreements.Ultimately,thetargetedareaforconservationmanagementincludesapproximately16,402acresintheOhopWatershed,9,393acresintheBaldHillsWatershed,and36,522acresintheUpperNisquallybasin.4Asforestlandsareacquired,additionalprojectsmayalsoincludeactiveforestlandrestorationefforts,includingriparianenhancementstoimprovesalmonspawninghabitat,withpotentialbenefitstostreamflowandstorage.ExpandingtheNisquallyCommunityForest’sholdingstotimberlandsintheOhopandLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basinswillhavesimilarsubstantiallong-termbenefitstobaseflowsinthesebasins.WhileafullVELMAmodelhasnotyetbeencreatedforthesesub-basins,ThurstonCountyhasestimatedflowbenefitsforconservationmanagementofforestlandsinthesesub-basinsusingcomparablestandagesbasedontheVELMAmodelfortheMashelwatershed(seeAppendixG-1forfullanalysis).ImplementingthisinitiativewillinvolvefurthermodelingandtargetedpriorityparcelsforacquisitionandmanagementundertheCommunityForest’slongerharvestrotations.Aninitialparcelof240acres(withaveragestandageover80years)inthePowellCreekdrainage,currentlyscheduledforclearcutting,isahighpriorityforacquisitiontoavoidthelossofupto3cfsinstreamflowbyretainingmatureforests.Table4-2and4-3summarizestreamflowbenefitsaccruingoverthenext20yearsofimplementation,assumingaveryconservativeminimumacquisitionscenarioandaverybroadmaximumscenarioofparcelsaveragingatleast40yearsold.Theminimumscenarioassumesratesofacquisitionbasedonpastacquisitions,whichhavebeenconcentratedintheMashel.ThemaximumwascalculatedbasedonassumingtheCommunityForestacquireseveryparcelat40years’averagestandageorolder,includingparcelsintheOhopandLackamas-Toboton-Powellbasins.5Forbothscenarios,therateofpurchasewasassumedtobelinearbeginninginyearone,withflowbenefitsaccruingandcompoundingbasedonthenumberof40+year-oldparcelsinconservationmanagement(seeAppendixG-1).Whileachievingthemaximumscenarioisunlikely,duetouncertaintiesinfundingandopportunitytopurchaseeveryparcelabove40yearsaverageage,itisincludedtorepresenttheupperboundofflowbenefitsattainablethroughforestmanagementintheNisqually’ssubstantialtimberlands.ThePlanningUnitexpectstoupdatebenefitmodelstoreflectactualconditionsasthisplanmovesintoimplementation,and

4AcreagesgivenareapproximatebasedonLandTrendrparceldata,accessedJanuary2019.

5ParcelsintheUpperNisquallysub-basinwerealsoincludedintheanalysisinAppendixG-1,whichalmostdoublesthepotentialacreage.The

UpperNisquallyisnotincludedhereorinthetotalsummaryofmitigationinChapter7(Table7-2andsub-basin-specificsummaries),becauseit

doesnotsupportanadromousfishpopulationsandisinlessneedofmitigationatthistime.


4-41

encouragesadaptivemanagementdecisionstodiversifypurchasingprioritiesaccordingtoreal-timeneedsandopportunities.Realacquisitionsmayincludeparcelswithstandsaveraginglessthan40yearstoavoidfurtherflowlossfromcontinuedshort-rotationharvestintervalsandthenegativeecologicalandstreamflowimpactsofclearcutting.Whileacquiringrecentlyclear-cutparcelsmaydecreasestreamflowinthenearterm,itwillavoidthecontinuedimpactsthatwouldoccurifforestlandsremaininintensive40-yearharvestrotations.Thesescenariosestablishbroadparametersforestimatingstreamflowbenefits,withthepossibilityofmorerefinedestimatesavailablegivenadditionaltimeformodeling.TheCommunityForestinitiativeisthehighestpriorityfortheTribeineffectingNetEcologicalBenefitandmakingrealprogresstowardsprotectingsalmonintothelong-termfuture.TheTribehasencouragedthePlanningUnittomakeforestmanagementaprimarymitigationandNEBstrategyandexpectsthisinitiativetoplayalargeroleinadaptivemanagement,adjustingacquisitionratesandtargetstandstochangingmitigationneeds.

Table4-2:AcquiredAcresandAnnualStreamflowGainforCommunityForestLands–MinimumScenario(basedonacquisitionratetodate)Sub-Basin Mashel Ohop Lackamas-Toboton-PowellForestryArea(acres) 13,440 0 640

Mitigation(AFY) 1,698.6 0 80.9

TotalAnnualMitigationat20years(AFY):

1,779.5 TotalAnnualMitigationat20years(cfs)

2.456

Table4-3:AcquiredAcresandAnnualStreamflowGainforCommunityForestLands–MaximumScenario(acquiringallparcelsaveraging40yearsorolderin2019;UpperNisquallyparcelsnotincludedinthistable)Sub-Basin Mashel Ohop Lackamas-Toboton-PowellForestryParcelAreas(acres)

24,725 7,591 2,756

Mitigation(AFY) 3,797.8 1,112 486.5

TotalAnnualMitigationat20years(AFY):

5,396 TotalAnnualMitigationat20years(cfs)

7.448

TheimplementationmetrictrackedbytheNisquallySalmonRecoveryTeamforprogressonthisinitiativeisacres

ofcommercialforestlandplacedinconservationmanagement.Monitoringofstreamgaugesandadaptive

modelingwillallowforadaptivemanagementdecisionsbythePlanningUnitandSalmonRecoverypartners.

4.2.2 Eatonville Water System Improvements for Mashel Base Flow AlignedSalmonRecoveryInitiative:MashelBaseFlow

Sub-Basin:MashelandOhop

FlowRestorationPriority:2

FlowBenefit:1.133-1.473cfsenhancedsummerbaseflows;222.5-283.038.5AFYaverageyear-roundbenefit.

Stormwaterandotherinfrastructureprojectswillincreasesummerbaseflowby0.333-0.673cfsbyrecharging

groundwaterthroughstormwaterinfiltration.SubstitutingsurfacewaterwithdrawalfortheTown’sdrinkingwater

fromMashelRiverwithanalternativesourcewillresultinanadditional0.8cfsincreaseinsummerbaseflows(see

AppendicesHandI).


4-42

NetEcologicalBenefit:ImplementingtheEatonvilleComprehensiveStormwaterPlanwilladdresswaterquality

concernsaswellaslowsummerstreamflowsaffectinglistedandnon-listedsalmonpopulationsintheOhopand

Mashelsub-basins.SomeprojectsmayreduceMashelRiverflowsduringthewintermonthstosupplyadditional

waterforsummermonthswhenbaseflowsarecriticallylow,resultinginoverallecologicalbenefitforsalmon.

ImplementationProjects

StormwaterCapitalImprovementProjectsandConservationEfficienciesTheTownofEatonville,locatedbetweentheMashelRiverandLynchCreekinsouthPierceCounty,producedan

updatedComprehensiveStormwaterPlaninconsultationwiththeNisquallyIndianTribein2013(AHBL,2013).The

Planincludessixcapitalimprovementprojects(CIPs)toaddresswaterqualityanddrainageissuesinEatonville

negativelyaffectingsalmonhabitatintheMashelRiverandOhopCreek,thehighestprioritysalmon-bearing

tributariestotheNisquallyRiver.Currently,mostofEatonville’sstormwaterisdirectedawayfromtheMashel

RiverandsentuntreatedintoOhopCreek,viaLynchCreek.LynchCreekhasbeenlistedbytheDepartmentof

Ecologyforfecalcoliformexceedance,andflaggedbyPierceCountymonitoringforhightotalnitrates,phosphorus,

fecalcoliform,andturbidityandlowdissolvedoxygen(NITSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).Meanwhile,the

MashelRiverislistedfortemperatureexceedanceinthesummermonths,whencriticallylowflowsandhigh

temperaturesposeadangerforyoungsalmonandimpedeadultmigrationtospawninggrounds.TheseCIPs

includebioretentiontrenches,infiltrationponds,anddrywellstoenablegradualinfiltrationofstormwaterintothe

MashelRiver,improvingwaterqualityinbothsub-basinsandboostingcriticallow-flowperiodsinthesummerby

0.128cfs(38.7AFY).Inaddition,a2012reportidentifiedsignificantlossfromleakagesinEatonville’swatersystem

andWaterTreatmentPlant.ProjectstoimprovewaterconservationinEatonville’ssystemcouldrestoreupto

0.096cfs(69.6AFY)totheMashelRiver.

AquiferStorageandRecoveryEatonvillehasalsoconductedapreliminarystudyofaquiferstorageandrecovery(ASR)tosupplementsummer

wateruse,potentiallyincreasingsummerflowsintheMashelRiverbetween0.11-0.45cfs(Golder,2010).While

aquiferstoragewouldreducewinterflowsintheMashelby0.07-0.25cfs,thenetecologicalbenefitobtainedfor

salmonsurvivalduringthelowflowperiodinthesummermeritsseriousconsideration(seeAppendixH).

AdditionalstudyisneededtoassessthecostandfeasibilityofimplementingASRforNEB.

AlternateWaterSupplyInadditiontocompletingtheComprehensiveStormwaterPlan,thisinitiativeaimstodevelopanalternatewater

supplyfortheTownofEatonvillethatdoesnotderivefromgroundwaterdepletingbaseflowsintheMashelRiver.

TheTown’s400,000gallonperdaydrinkingwatercomesfromtheMashelRiverandfouradjacentgroundwater

wells,whichputsastrainonthebaseflowsoftheriver.Thisisespeciallytrueinsummermonthswhenflowsare

lowduringcriticalspawningandrearingperiodsforlistedsalmonids.AreporttotheTownofEatonvillein2012

estimatedthatrelocatingtheTown’ssurfacewaterdiversiontoAlderLakeortheNisquallyRiverwouldincrease

MashelRiverflowsby0.8cfsduringthelow-flowsummerperiod,withbenefitslikelyexceedingtheimpactsof

withdrawingfromanalternatelocation(RH2,2012).Specificproposalsforanalternatewatersupplyhavenot

beendevelopedatthistime.Table4-4summarizesflowbenefitsfromimplementationoftheseprojects.See

AppendicesHandI(StreamflowMitigationresultingfromtheTownofEatonville’sProjectsandWater

ConservationintheTownofEatonville).


4-43

Table4-4:TownofEatonvilleStormwaterProjects(AppendicesHandI)

ActionCalculatedseasonalstreamflowbenefit(cfs)

Calculatedyear-roundaveragestreamflowbenefit(AFY)

CIP#1(400-ftbioretentiontrench) 0.046* 13.843

CIP#2(infiltrationpondatsewagelagoon)

0.002* 0.659



CIP#5(drywellforinfiltration) 0.013* 3.870


CIPTotalbenefit 0.128* 38.683

TreatmentPlantEfficiency 0.079** 57.695

WaterSystemEfficiency 0.016** 11.66

ConservationEfficienciesTotalBenefit 0.096** 69.355

AquiferStorageandRecovery 0.11-0.45*** 20-80

AlternateWaterSupply(conceptual) 0.8** 95

AllProjectsTotal 1.133–1.473 223.038–283.038

*AssumesincreasedbaseflowfrominfiltrationandrechargebetweenMayandSeptemberonly(6months).**Assumesyear-roundbenefit.

***AssumesincreasedbaseflowfromstoredwaterusebetweenJuneandOctober(5months),withreducedbaseflowsfromwatercapturedbetweenNovemberandMay.

4.2.3 Ohop Valley Floodplain Restoration AlignedSalmonRecoveryInitiative:OhopValleyFloodplainRestoration

Sub-Basin:Ohop


FlowBenefit:0.0173cfs;24.4AFY.Fullyrestoring710acresoffloodplainintheOhopValley(approximately50%

complete)willpromotegroundwaterrechargeandwetlandformation,contributingtoincreasedbaseflows.

NetEcologicalBenefit:OhopCreekrestorationwillincreasethequantityandqualityofcriticalsalmonhabitat,

includingESA-listedChinookandsteelhead.

ProjectBackgroundandTemplateforBenefitAnalysis

OhopValleywasfarmedintensively,includingchannelizationof3.5milesofthecreekinthe1930s(Liddle,1998).

Duetochannelization,ditching,andagriculturalpractices,thechannellackeddiversityofhabitattypesand

experiencedhighsummertimestreamtemperatures,andotherwaterqualityimpacts,andwasphysically

disconnectedfromthefloodplainandadjacentwetlandhabitats.

TherestorationofOhopCreekbeganin2009withthere-meanderingof1mileofstream(PhaseIandII),6

restoringaportionofthechannelizedOhopCreek.LowerOhopCreekRestorationPhaseIIIrestoredanadditional

6OhopCreekrestorationprojectsarereferredtobytheirphasetitlesintheSalmonRecoveryHabitatWorkSchedulethroughtheWashington

StateRecreationandConservationOffice.PhasesI,II,andIIIhaverestored2.4streammilesofOhopCreek,withanadditional1.8streammiles

plannedforPhaseIV.


4-44

1.4milesofstreamsuitableforsalmon.Finalimplementationofthesefirstthreeprojectphasesisongoingwith

continuedriparianplantings,butarenotcountedtowardtheexpectedoffsetsforthisplan.Groundwater

monitoringwellswereinstalledalongtherestoredareaduringPhasesI-III,withdatacollectedfrom2008-2018

(beginningpriortoconstructionofPhaseI).AnalysisofthegroundwaterdatawasconductedbyThurstonCounty

fortheNisquallyPlanningUnitandfoundanestimated9.8AFYincreaseinstreamflowattributabletoditch

removalintherestoredareas,alongwithanadditional2.5AFYflowincreasefrombeaverintroduction.AppendixE

describesthisimpactanalysis,andappliestheresultsfromthesepreviousOhopprojectsasatemplatetoestimate

flowbenefitsexpectedfromfutureditchremoval,floodplainreconnection,andbeaverintroductionprojectsin

similarstreams.

Table4-5:Per-MileBenefitsfromOhopRestorationTemplate(AppendixE)Averagebenefitpermile: DitchRemoval BeaverIntroductionAdditionalstreamflow 0.0096cfs 0.0009cfsAdditionalRecharge 13.57AFY N/A

ProjectsquantifiedusingthisOhopTemplateincludeOhopPhaseIV(below),MuckCreekRecoveryandPrairie

TributariesRecoveryinthischapter,andsmallhabitatprojectsinThurstonandPierceCountiesinChapter5.

OhopPhaseIVProject

Thenextimplementationproject,OhopPhaseIV,isshovel-readyandwillrestoreafurther1.8milesofditched

channelandprotect360acresoffloodplain,upstreamfromrestorationPhasesI-III.Usingthemodeldeveloped

usingpriorOhoprestorationgroundwaterdata(seeAppendixE),anestimated0.0173cfs/24.4AFYinadditional

streamflowisestimatedfromimplementingPhaseIV.

Table4-6:OhopRestorationPhaseIVStreamflowBenefit

Sub-Basin StreamDitchremoval(ft)

Ditchremoval(miles)

Calculatedstreamflowbenefit(AFY)

Calculatedstreamflowbenefit(cfs)

Ohop OhopCreek 9,504 1.80 24.4 0.0173

JuvenileChinookutilizelowerOhopCreekforrearingandrefugefromNisquallyRiverfloodflows,taking

advantageofavailablesidechannelsandadjacentwetlands.Juvenilecohoandsteelheadwouldusethishabitat

year-round,whilepinkandchumsalmontypicallymovedownstreamsoonafteremergencetorearinestuarine

areas.BasedontheEDTmodel,thelifestagesthataremostaffectedbyimpactstoOhopCreekareeggincubation,

rearing,andpre-spawningholding.Theimpactsincludechangesinchannelstability,flow,habitatdiversity,

sedimentloadingandkeyhabitatquantity.

Thegoalofthisinitiativeistotreat100%percentoftheremainingditchedchannel,reconnectingthefloodplain

andrestoringnativevegetationthroughoutthevalley.ImplementationmetricstrackedbytheSalmonRecovery

Teamarefloodplainacresprotected(currently,312acres/44%protected),milesofditchedchanneltreated(1.9

miles/56%treated),andacresofimpairedfloodplainrestoredwithnativeplantings(currently,212acres/35%

planted).

ApplicationofOhopTemplatetoOtherPrairieStreamProjects

Inthenearterm,countiesareexpectedtoleadrestorationprojectsonprairie-typestreams(inthePrairie

Tributaries,Lackamas/Toboton/Powell,andThompson/Yelmsub-basins)withsimilaractionsandimpactstothe

Ohopinitiative.ConceptualexamplesoftheseprojectsareanalyzedinChapter5,usingthetemplatedevelopedfor

OhopCreek.AnyimplementedprojectswillalsobetrackedthroughtheSalmonRecoveryProgram’sMuckCreek


4-45

RecoveryandPrairieTributariesRecoveryinitiatives,usingmetricsincludingshorelinemilesandfloodplainacres

protectedandrestored(NITSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).

Anadditionalactionrecommendedinthesalmonrecoverystrategyforintermittentorlow-flowprairiesystemsis

maintenanceofprairieecosystemconditionsthroughregularprescribedburns.Researchonthecolonizationof

PugetSoundprairiesbyDouglasfirs,resultingfromdecreaseinthefrequencyoffiresanddisruptionofnatural

prairieecosystems,indicatesthatyoungfirtreesdrawuplargequantitiesofwaterotherwiseavailablefor

instreamflows(PeterandHarrington,2014).Maintainingprairiehabitatthroughprescribedburnsandother

managementstrategiesisalsorecommendedasamethodtomaintainandenhanceflowsinthesebasins.While

notaddressedasaquantitativestrategyinthisAddendum,thePlanningUnitencouragesmonitoringof

prairielandsandpossiblemaintenancestrategiesthroughadaptivemanagement.

4.2.4 Mashel River In-Stream Habitat Improvement Projects AlignedSalmonRecoveryInitiative:MashelRiverRiparianCorridorProtectionandRestoration

Sub-Basin:Mashel


FlowBenefit:Notyetquantified.In-channelstorageandincreasedinfiltrationopportunitiesfromconstructionof

EngineeredLogJams(ELJs)arelikelytoprovidesmallflowincreases.

NetEcologicalBenefit:ELJswillcreateincreasedpoolhabitat,providingpreferredspawningareasforESA-listedsalmon,habitatcomplexity,andincreasedchannelvolumeduringlowsummerflowperiodscriticalforjuvenile

salmon.

ProjectBackgroundandTemplateforBenefitAnalysis

LoggingactivitiesintheMashelsub-basinhavesignificantlyimpactedthehabitatqualityandinstreamflow

patternsintheMashelRiver.Extensivetimberharvestingoverthelast100yearshasgreatlydecreasedtheinputof

largewoodintotheMashelBasin.Thereachdesignatedfortreatmentinthisinitiativehaslost50%ofitspool

habitat.Inaddition,destabilizingslopesandincreasingerosioncontributetohighlevelsofsedimentationand

flashyflowpatterns,bothdetrimentaltoChinooksalmonandsteelhead(WatershedProfessionalsNetwork,2004).

Since2006,watershedpartnershaveinstalled52ELJsintheMashelRiver,accompaniedbyriparianplantingsto

improvechannelstabilityandcomplexity.Atotalof75ELJsareplannedfortheMashelRiverbytheSalmon

RecoveryTeam(MashelEatonvilleRestorationProjectPhaseIII,2015).Long-termstreamflowimpactsfromELJs

havenotbeenthoroughlystudied,butincreasingpoolhabitatwillalsoincreasechannelvolume,promoting

groundwaterinfiltration,andprovidecriticaldeeperhabitatforjuvenileChinookandsteelheadduringsummer

periodsoflowbaseflows(Pollocketal,2015;Beechieetal,2010).

Importantly,monitoringoftheinstalledELJsintheMashelRiverhasrevealedthattheyarenotrecruitingnew

woodasquicklyaspredicted,meaningtheyarenotyetself-sustainingwithnaturalecosystemresourcesand

requireongoingmaintenance.Untilprotectionofupstreamhabitatcanbeguaranteedandforestsaregiventhe

opportunitytomature,therewillbeaconstantneedtointroducewoodintothesystem.Thisinitiativeworksin

concertwiththeMashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForestInitiative(Section4.2.1),providingimmediate

criticalhabitatbenefitsforlistedsalmonpopulationsthatwillrequirelesscontinuedmaintenanceasupper

watershedforestsmatureandbeginsupplyingnaturalwoodydebrisinlargerquantities.


4-46

Groundwaterandinstreamflowmonitoringmaybeimplementedalongwithfutureprojectstoquantifythe

streamflowimpactofELJsintheMashelRiver.ThemainmetricforinitiativeimplementationisthenumberofELJs

inplaceandfunctionalintheMashelRiver(currently52outof75planned).Inaddition,theSalmonRecovery

TeamtracksmilesofshorelineandacresoffloodplainunderprotectioninthelowerreachesoftheMashel


5-47

Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategies in the Nisqually

Watershed

MitigationstrategiesandrecommendationsinthisplanAddendumfollowthe“actualconsumptive”versus“legal

consumptive”distinction,adistinctionwearetermingmicroandmacro.Themacro-mitigationapproachdiscussed

inChapter4involveslarge-scaleinitiativestoprovidemitigationandNetEcologicalBenefitwithinexistingsalmon

recoverystrategies.Themicro-mitigationstrategiesoutlinedinthischapterprovideapproachestomitigating

withinsub-basinsasneededtooffsetpermit-exemptwelluse.Atleastsomeofthesestrategiesaresitespecific

andallaresub-basinspecific.Themicro-mitigationstrategiesdiscussedbelowwillrequirefurtherworktoanalyze

benefitsanddevelopimplementationstrategiesatthecountyormunicipallevel.Thequantityofmitigation

necessaryunderthemicro-mitigationstrategywillalsodependuponfurtheranalysisofecologicalbenefitsthatare

realizedasmacro-mitigationprojectsarefundedandimplemented.

5.1 Specific Micro-Mitigation Strategies Thesameglacialgeologythatresultsinhydrauliccontinuitybetweenshallowgroundwaterandstreamflow(and

explicitmitigationneed)alsoprovidespotentialmitigationoptionsthat,eitheraloneorintandem,wouldmitigate

someimpactsofwellwithdrawalsonstreamflow.Someoftheoptionsdiscussedbelowcouldactuallybenefit

streamflowinsub-basinsinthewesternpartofthewatershedbecausewithdrawalofgroundwaterfromdeeper

aquifersystemswillintroducemoresurfaceflowbeyondsimplymitigatingforthewellwithdrawal.

5.1.1 Mitigation Approach in Prairie Environments Throughoutsub-basinscharacterizedbyprairiestreams(Thompson/Yelm,Lackamas/Toboton/Powell,andPrairie

Tributariessub-basins),thereareseveralaquifers,eachsomewhatconfinedandeachdeeperthanthenext(Figure

3).Theuppermostwaterbearingunit,Qvr,isunconfinedandinteractswiththestreamflowsoftheprairie

tributaries.UnderlyingQvrisaconfininglayerofglacialtillandbelowthat,anaquiferreferredtoasQva.Adeeper

aquifer,Qc,(referredtoastheSeaLevelaquifer)underliestheprairiesatanevengreaterdepthandbeneaththat,

theUndifferentiateddepositsreferredtoasTQu.TheQcandTQuarebelowsealevelanddischargetothePuget

Sound.Becausetheyaremajorsourcesofdrinkingwater,thedeeperaquifershavebeenwellstudied.Figure3

presentsacrosssectionfromDrostet.al.,1999thatillustratestheaquiferlayersunderlyingprairieareasof

ThurstonCounty.AsimilaraquifersystemunderliesthePierceCountyaquifers.

Thus,iffuturewellsarefinishedindeeperaquifers,theynotonlyavoidthedirectimpacttotheunconfined

outwashdepositsoftheupperaquifersandassociatedtributaries,butactuallymaycontributewatertothe

uppermostwaterbearingunits.ThisplanAddendumproposesseveralapproachestoaccomplishingmitigationby

drawingwaterfromthedeeperaquifers.Theseapproachesarequantifiedonaper-wellbasis,ratherthanawater

usequantification,witheverynewindividualpermit-exemptwellinashallowaquiferbeingoffsetbyremovingan

existingpermit-exemptwellfromshallowaquiferwithdrawalsorbyfinishingthenewpermit-exemptwellina

deeperaquifer.Itshouldbenotedthatthisproposedmethodofmitigationdependsonafeasibilitystudyto

ensurethatspecificwellwithdrawalsindeepersystemswillhaveadequatewaterqualityandquantity.

ThePlanningUnit’srationaleforthisper-wellquantificationapproachisasfollows:UsingEcologyguidance,each

newpermit-exemptwellthatisfinishedintheupperorunconfinedaquifermaybeassumedtoremoveanaverage


5-48

of382gpdfromthataquiferandreturn159netgallons(non-consumptiveportionofthedomesticuse),resulting

inanetuse,andthusmitigationneed,of223gpd/0.249AFYperconnection(seeChapter3fordetailed

discussion).WateruseestimatesusingThurstonPUDdatacouldalsobeusedinthisexample).Finishingthatsame

exemptwellinadeeperaquiferresultsintheremovalofthesame382gallons,butfromadeeperaquiferthatis

otherwisedischargingtoPugetSound.Givenmodelingdonetodateontheaquifersunderlyingtheprairieareasof

theNisquallywatershed,itisreasonabletoconcludethatnotonlyistheuseofwater(223gpd)fullymitigated,but

thatsomeportionofthereturnwater(159gal/day)willberetainedintheupperaquiferandprovideanetbenefit

tostreamflows(CityofOlympiaandNisquallyIndianTribe,2008).ForpurposesofthisAddendum,theNisqually

PlanningUnitproposesthateverypermit-exemptwellremovedfromtheshallowaquiferprovidesa223gpd

mitigationoffset.Althoughthereislikelyanadditionalstreamflowbenefitfromutilizinggroundwaterfromdeeper

systems,thePlanningUnitisnotproposingthatbenefitbecountedasoffset.

ThisapproachissupportedbydatadevelopedforYelm’swaterrightsapplicationandsystemexpansion(discussed

below)andresearchconductedbytheUSGSfortheKitsapPeninsula,anareawithmultiplehydrogeologicunits

similartothosefoundinthelower(glaciated)portionoftheNisquallyWatershed(FransandOlsen,2016).In

summary,thisUSGSmodelingeffortdeterminedthatmovingwellwithdrawaltoadeeperaquiferresultedinanet

gaintotheupperaquiferandstreamflows.

DeepGroundwaterOption1–Finishnewpermit-exemptwellsindeeperaquifer

Ifcountieschoosetopursuethisoption,anindividualpermit-exemptwellproponentwhofinishesanewwellinaloweraquifercouldbecreditedforoffsettingalargeportionoftheprojectedconsumptiveuseforthatconnection,dependingonlocationanddepth.Enforcementofthecommitmentmaybeaccomplishedthroughpermittingreviewcoordinatedbythecountyissuingthebuildingpermitandthecertifyinggovernmentofthewelldrillingrecord(seeChapter6formoredetaileddescriptionofthisprocess).Enforcementandotherspecificsofthatpermittingprocessaretobedeterminedbythecountyinimplementationthroughitsownrequiredpublicprocess.

DeepGroundwaterOption2–Retireexistingpermit-exemptwellsfromupperaquifer

Anothermitigationopportunityistoretirewellsthatcurrentlydrawfromthesurfaceaquiferincontinuitywith

localstreams.Thesimplestapproachisretiringanexistingpermit-exemptwellwhenthewellownerhas

opportunitytoconnecttoaGroupAorBsystem.Theretirementofoneexistingwellwouldconstitutemitigation

creditforonenewpermit-exemptwellinthesamesub-basin.Thismitigationstrategywouldbeespecially

effectiveintheThompson/Yelmsub-basin,andisexplainedbelowinthediscussionoftheCityofYelm’swater

rightapplication.

DeepGroundwaterOption3–DeepenorupgradeGroupAsystemstooffsetindividualpermit-exemptwells

AnotherapproachrecommendedbythePlanningUnitistoworkwithexistingGroupAwatersystemstoinvestin

systemupgrades,suchasadeeperwellormoreefficientconveyanceinfrastructure,expandtomoreconnections,

orotherdesignupgradesorstrategiestoreduceandoffsetimpactstostreamflows.Investmentinsmallwater

systemsfirstrequiresinvestigationtodeterminefeasibilityofcompletingoneormorenewGroupAwellsina

deeperaquifer.InitialinquirysuggeststhatthisapproachmightbeofinterestforoneormoreoftheGroupA

systems,especiallyonesthatarecurrentlyexperiencingwatersystemissues.Atechnicalfeasibilitystudyforeach

system,includinganalysisofmitigation,iscurrentlybeyondthefinancialcapabilityofanindividualGroupAsystem

andthereforesometypeofgrantorloanprogramwilllikelybeneededforinvestigationandimplementation.The

PlanningUnitrecommendsthattheImplementingGovernmentsworkwiththeThurstonPUDandotherentitiesas

appropriatetoinvestigatethefeasibilityofthisapproach,includingexploringgrantorloanprogramstosupport

systemimprovements(implementationisaddressedinChapter8).Iffeasible,thisapproachwouldoffermitigation

offsetsformultiplenewpermit-exemptwells.


5-49

AvariationofthisoptioninvolvesoldersystemsandwouldtargetsmallerpublicwatersystemsinThurstonCounty

establishedpriortoMay1,1994thatareconsideredprovisionallyadequate,butdonotmeetthecurrentdesign

standardsoftheThurstonCountySanitaryCode(ArticleIII),WAC246-290orWAC246-291.Thistypeofprogram

couldalsobemadeavailabletootherwatersystemsthatcouldbenefitfromefficiencyupgradesandcouldbe

funded,inpart,bythefeescollectedthroughthepermittingstrategydescribedinSection6.1.Upgradingthese

antiquatedsystemswouldnotonlyprovidepossiblemitigationcreditstooffsettheimpactsofnewpermit-exempt

wellsbutcouldalsobenefittheusersoftheseoldersystemsbyimprovingwaterqualityandreliability.

TheThurstonPUDhasidentifiedthreeGroupAwatersystemsthatcouldbecandidatesforpotentialinfrastructure

improvements(oneinPierceCountyinthePrairieTributariessub-basin,oneinThurstonCountyinthe

Thompson/Yelmsub-basin,andoneinThurstonCountyintheuppermostpartofLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-

basin).Combined,thethreesystemscurrentlyhave45activeconnectionsoutof84authorizedconnections.

However,priortodrilling,thePUDrequiresinitialfundingassistanceforahydrogeologicassessmenttodetermine

theprobabilitythatthewaterwouldbeavailableinsufficientqualityandquantityindeeperaquifers,andtoassess

impactsonstreamflow.ThePUDisrequestingfundingbeavailabletoconductthehydrogeologicalanalysispriorto

commencementofanydrillingactivities.AletterfromtheThurstonPUDprovidingdetailsregardingthethree

watersystemsisincludedasAppendixJ.

Drillingtoadeeperaquiferwouldresultinachangeinthe“watersource”associatedwiththeexistingGroupA

waterright.Therefore,iffoundtobetechnicallyfeasibleforasmallGroupAsystem,implementingthisaction

wouldrequireamodificationtotheGroupA’sexistingwaterrightoranewwaterright,supportedbystudiesto

evaluatetheimpactsofthesechanges.

ExamplesofDeepGroundwaterOffsets

TheCityofYelmcurrentlyprovidesdrinkingwaterwithinitsservicearea,whichincludesYelm’sUrbanGrowth

Area(UGA),fromtheshallowVashonAdvance(Qva)aquifer.Withalimitednumberofnewconnectionsavailable

withoutadditionalwaterrights,itisYelm’spolicytoreserveitsexistingwaterconnectionstoservevacant

propertieswithinthecurrentcitylimits.Consequently,mostnewresidentialdevelopmentintheYelmUGArelies

onpermit-exemptwells(70%,asdetailedinthewaterforecastChapter3).

Yelmisintheprocessofapplyingforwaterrights(underWaterRightControlNumberG2-29085)thatwould

supportanewwelldrilleddeepinthelower(TQu)aquifer.TheYelmwaterrightisawaterresourcemitigation

pilotprojectidentifiedinRCW90.94.090,andwillbeprocessedunderthispilotprojectauthority.Ifapproved,

Yelm’scapacitytoprovidewaterservicewouldincrease950AFY,fromaround700AFYto1650AFY.Thissingle

actionwouldprovidemultiplepotentialbenefitstostreamflowintheNisquallyWatershed:

1. ConnectingnewdevelopmenttoCityWaterServicethatotherwisewouldhavereliedonapermit-exemptwell–shiftingthewaterusefromtheshallowaquifertothedeeperaquifer.ThissingleactionreducestheprojectedconsumptiveusefortheentireThompson/Yelmsub-basinby62%.

2. Connectingexistingdevelopmentonapermit-exemptwellwithintheUGAandCityboundarytoCityWaterService–shiftingwaterusefromtheshallowaquifertothedeeperaquifer.

3. Enablingreclaimedwaterthatinfiltratesintotheshallowaquifer–currentlyusedtomitigateforimpactsoftheshallowwell–tooffsetimpactstotheshallowaquiferofpermit-exemptwells.

Thebenefitsthateachoftheseactionsprovidearefurtherdescribedbelow.ThePlanningUnitstronglysupports

approvalofYelm’swaterrightapplicationsubsequenttomeetingfullmitigationrequirements.


5-50

YelmAction1–ConnectNewDevelopmentinYelmUGAtoCityWaterService(DeepWell)

Thisactiondoesnotoffsetforecastedpermit-exemptwelluse,butratherreducesconsumptivedemandrequiring

offset.FuturegrowthintheCity(andUGA)couldbeservedbyanewwelldrilleddeepinthelower(TQu)aquifer.

Yelm’sproposedmitigationfortheirwaterrightapplicationincludesreclaimedwaterdischargedintotheshallow

aquifer.Whenthesenewwaterrightsareapproved,Yelmwillbeinthepositiontoservepropertieswithexisting

wellslocatedwithinbothitsretailservicearea(thecurrentcitylimits)andfuturewaterservicearea(theUGA).

Table3-2oftheWaterForecastChapterestimatesthat1,036newdomesticpermit-exemptwellconnectionsin

theYelmUGAwouldbeneededtosupportpredictedresidentialgrowthbetween2018and2040,shouldthe

currentstatusofYelm’swaterserviceareanotchangeoverthatperiod.

Alternatively,shouldYelm’swaterrightbeapproved,andadeeperwellpermittedtoservenewconnectionsinthe

UGA,itisfeasiblethatonly5%ofthosenewsingle-familyunitswouldrelyonapermit-exemptwell(for

comparison,only2%ofunitsintheLaceyUGArelyonapermit-exemptwell,becauseLacey’swaterserviceareais

abletoserveitsentireUGA).Thiswouldmeanonly74newdomesticpermit-exemptconnectionspredictedforthe

YelmUGAbetween2018and2040;962fewerconnectionsthanunderthecurrentconditionscalculatedinChapter

3,or62%ofallthenewpermit-exemptconnectionsestimatedfortheThompson/Yelmsub-basin.

Dependingonthewaterusemethodologyused,thisactionwouldresultinadecreaseintherequiredconsumptive

useoffsetsoriginallyforecastedinChapter3by103-240AFY,dependingonthewaterusemethodology(seeTable

5-1below).Thisoffsetisnotintheformofmitigationforpermit-exemptwells,butreducestheoriginalimpactby

62%.ThiswateruseisinsteadmitigatedthroughYelm’smunicipalwatersystemanditsapprovedwaterright.

Table5-1:ReducingImpactfromPEWellsbyApprovalofYelm’sWaterRightforDeeperMunicipalWell

Thompson/YelmSub-basin

EstimatednewUnits,2018-2040

%Permit-Exempt

PEConnections

ActualWaterUseLegalWater

UsePUMethod EcologyMethod AFY CFS AFY CFS AFY CFS

TotalSub-basin n/a 1,562 166 0.23 390 0.59 2,876 3.97YelmUGA–Currentforecast 1,480 70% 1,036 110.85 0.15 259 0.36 1,907 2.63YelmUGA–NewWR/well 1,480 5% 74 7.92 0.01 18.50 0.03 136 0.19YelmUGA–Offset7 n/a 962 102.93 0.14 240.50 0.33 1,771 2.45

YelmAction2(Offset)–ConnectExistingDevelopmentonPermit-exemptWellsinYelmUGAtoCityWater

ServiceandAbandonpermit-exemptWells

Inadditiontoservingnewdevelopment,existingpermit-exemptwellsinthecityandUGAcouldberemovedfrom

serviceaspropertieswithintheYelmserviceareaconnecttocitywater.TheCitywouldreceivecreditforthe

permit-exemptwellcomingoffline.ThiscreditcouldbeheldintrustbytheCityorappropriateagencyandusedfor

fullmitigationofanewpermit-exemptwellintheThompson/YelmCreekbasins.Implementationofacredit

systemiscurrentlybeingexploredandisdiscussedinChapter8addressingImplementationandAdaptive

Management.

7Offsethereisthecalculateddifferencebetweentheconsumptivewateruseundercurrent,predictedconditionsforecastinChapter3and

consumptivewateruseifahighproportionofnewdevelopmentintheYelmUGAisconnectedtothecity’swaterservice.Thisaction’soffsetis

notintheformofmitigation,butreducestheoriginalimpactby62%.ThiswaterusewouldinsteadbemitigatedthroughYelm’smunicipalwater

systemanditsapprovedwaterright.


5-51

ThurstonCountyestimatestherearecurrentlyapproximately450domesticconnectionstopermit-exemptwellsin

theYelmUGA.Transferfromexistingpermit-exemptwellstoCitywaterservicewithintheUGAwouldbe

voluntary.ThenumberofexistingconnectionsthatcouldbetransferredtotheYelmmunicipalwaterservice

withintheplanningperiodwilldependonmanyfactors,includingtheconstructionofwaterinfrastructurein

relationtothelocationofexistingdevelopmentandincentivestopropertyowners.Foreverypermit-exemptwell

connectionreplacedbyCityservice,therewillbeamitigationoffsetof223gpd(0.249AFY)(Ecology

methodology).Aconservativeestimateisthat10%ofexistingconnectionswouldbeconvertedinthe22-year

planningperiod–ifusedtomitigate42newpermit-exemptwellsintheruralareasoftheThompson/Yelmsub-

basin,thisactionwouldresultinanoffsetof4.4-10AFY,dependingonthemethodologyusedtocalculatewater

use(seeTable5-2below).

Table5-2:WaterUseOffsetbyExistingPermit-ExemptWellsinYelmUGAConnectedtoExpandedYelmWaterService

YelmUGAEst.existingPermit-exemptconnections

%ConnectedtoYelmwaterservice

PEConnectionsOffset

ActualWaterUseOffset LegalWaterUse

PUMethod EcologyMethod

AFY CFS AFY CFS AFY CFS

415 10% 42 4.44 0.0061 10.38 0.014 76.4 0.11

YelmAction3(Offset)–UseaPortionoftheCity’sInfiltratedReclaimedClassAWastewaterasMitigation

TheCityofYelmisintheprocessofexpandingitsabilitytore-usehighly-treatedwastewaterasClassAreclaimed

water.AppendixLdescribesthecurrentunderstandingofClassAReclaimedWateravailability.Reclaimedwater

infiltratedtoavoidimpactstoYelmCreekasidentifiedinYelm’swaterrightsmitigationplanwouldnotbeeligible

tooffsetimpactsofpermit-exemptwells,asitwillberequiredtooffsetimpactsfrompumpingthewaterinthe

firstplace.TheCityanticipatesinitsconceptualwaterrightsmitigationplantheneedtoinfiltrateupto70acre

feetinordertomitigateimpactstoYelmCreekfrompumping942acrefeetfromthedeepaquifer.However,

additionalreclaimedwaterinfiltratedabovethisrequirementcouldpotentiallybeusedasanoffsetforwateruse

frompermit-exemptwellsintheThompson/Yelmsub-basin.

In2016,Yelmpumpedatotalgroundwatervolumeof714AF(DOHSentrydatabaseWaterUseEfficiencyReport

for2016).CityofYelmrecordsreportatotalreclaimedwaterre-usein2016of406AF.Thismeansthatupto57%

ofYelm’stotalgroundwaterpumpedwaseventuallyreclaimed.

Accordingto2016totals,thisreclaimedwateris:

• Soldforirrigatingparksandplayfields:71AFin2016

• RechargedintotheQva(Vashonadvance)aquifer,slightlyupgradientfromthepointofwithdrawalatCochranePark:62AFin2016

• DischargedtotheCentraliaPowerCanal(primarypointofdischarge)ortheNisquallyRiver(secondarypoint):273AFin2016

• TotalClassAReclaimedwaterusedin2016:406AF

OncetheCityobtainsadditionalwaterrightsandplacesitsdeeperwellinproduction,thisinfiltratedreclaimed

watercouldprovideadirectnetbenefittotheshallowaquiferthatmostaffectsstreamflowinthewatershed.

Assumingtheproportionofwaterreclaimedremainsthesame,theamountofannualreclaimedwateravailable

forusewouldincreaseto537AFY–57%ofthenewwellpumpingrateof942AFY.Ofthis,70AFYwillbeneeded

asmitigationforthenew,deeperwell.Thisleaves466AFY.Table5-3belowcalculatesthepotentialoffsetofthis


5-52

reclaimedwaterforpermit-exemptwells,usingthesameproportionsofusesfrom2016.Theportionofreclaimed

waterusedforirrigationwouldbereducedbyan80%consumptionfactorduetoevapotranspiration.Itshouldbe

notedthat,underthenewpumpingscenario,313AFYoftheestimatedstreamflowbenefitisdischargeddirectlyto

theNisquallyRiverandCentraliaPowerCanalatthedownstreamendofthesub-basin(seeassumption5below).

71AFYisinfiltratedtogroundwaterand16AFYfromirrigationrechargesgroundwater(totalof87AFYoflocal

recharge)inthevicinityoftheYelmCreekandwillhavemoredirectbenefittotributaryflow.

Table5-3:PotentialMitigationBenefitofYelm’sReclaimedWaterProgramtoShallowAquifer

ReclaimedWaterUse

%ofTotalReclaimedWaterUse8

CURRENTWELLNewWaterRight(DeepAquifer)

AFYStreamflowBenefit9(AFY) AFY

StreamflowBenefit(AFY)

Irrigationofparksandplayfields 17% 71 14 81 16

DirectrechargetoQva(inYelm) 15% 62 62 71 71

Dischargedtocanal/river 67% 273 273 313.5 313.5TOTAL 100% 406 349 466 401

Thispotentialoffsetiscalculatedwiththefollowingassumptions:

• Assumption#1:100%mitigationwillberequiredfortheCityofYelm’sexpandedwaterright.DepartmentofEcologywaterrightspermitnegotiationsfortheexpansionoftheCityofYelm’swaterrightpermits(theso-called‘YelmPilotProject’)outcomewillresultina‘100%mitigation’requirementoftheCityofYelm’spumpedgroundwater.Yelmanticipatesthisneedtobeapproximately70acrefeetperyear.

• Assumption#2:TheCityofYelm’sproportionofClassAreclaimedwaterremainsthesame.Datafor2016indicatethatapproximately57%ofYelm’scurrentpumpedwaterreturnsaswastewater.Thisisbasedonatotalpumpedgroundwatervolumeof714AFfor2016(DOHSentrydatabaseWaterUseEfficiencyReportfor2016)andatotalreclaimedwaterre-useof406AFin2016fromCityofYelmrecordsnotedabove.

• Assumption#3:Engineering,permitting,costandotherfeasibilityquestionscanestablishameansforexpandinguseofthiswaterformitigation.Significantlyexpandedaquiferrechargewouldberequired,withunansweredquestionsregardingitsfeasibility.

• Assumption#4:Current(2016)Class-AReclaimedWaterproductionisanindicatoroffutureavailabilityandproportionsofuse.

• Assumption#5:ReclaimedwaterdischargedtotheCentraliaPowerCanalortotheNisquallyRiverbenefitsstreamflows.MinimummitigationestimatesforYelmAction3(offset)assumesthatthereclaimedwaterdischargedtotheNisquallyRiverandCentraliaPowerCanaldoesnotqualifyasmitigation,maximummitigationestimatesassumethatthiswaterdoesqualifyasanoffsetfortheThompson/Yelmsub-basin(seeTable7-2).

• Alternatively,theCityofYelmcouldceaseusingreclaimedwaterforirrigationandsurfacedischarge.Underthisalternative,all466AFYofreclaimedwatercouldbeusedforoffsettingpermit-exemptwells’consumption.

8BasedonCityofYelmreportof2016wateruse.

9Rechargedtotheaquiferordischargeddirectly(notevaporatedthroughoutdoorirrigation)


5-53

Despitetheseassumptions,thereisstrongpotentialfortheCityofYelm’sClassAreclaimedwatertoforma

significantpartofthemitigationrequirementforpermit-exemptwellsintheThompson/Yelmsub-basin.Irrigation

andotherusesofreclaimedwaterclaimedforstreamflowbenefitapplyonlywithinYelmcitylimits.Thurston

County’sCriticalAreasOrdinancecurrentlydoesnotpermitlarge-scaleinfiltrationofreclaimedwater(definedas

“applicationtotheland'ssurfaceaboveagronomicrates”)(TCC24.10.190),untiladditionalinformationfromthe

RegionalGroundwaterRechargeScientificStudyandothersourcescanbeconsidered.ThurstonCountycould

reconsiderthislimitationinlightofinformationthatmayhavecomeavailablesincetheadoptionofthatpolicy,in

ordertoincreaseoptionsformitigatingstreamflowsinunincorporatedThurstonCounty.Anyproposedchangesto

ThurstonCountydevelopmentregulationswouldrequirealegislativedecisionbythecountythatfollowsthe

requirementsoftheGrowthManagementActandtheCounty’spublicreviewprocess.

5.1.2 Water Right Acquisition Acquiringexistingcertificatedwaterrightsisalsoastrategytooffsetstreamflowimpactsfrompermit-exemptwell

use.A2010FeasibilityAnalysisforaNisquallyWaterBank(WashingtonWaterTrustandEcosystemEconomics,

2010)addressedwaterrightsasapotentialsourceofsupplyformitigationandrestoration.Atthetime,itwas

determinedthat,whiletherewascleardemandformitigationandrestoration,drivingforcesforawaterbankin

WRIA11werenotpresentbecausetherewasnoneedtomitigateforpermit-exemptwells.Thestudyidentifieda

numberofruralfarmingareasthatwerelikelyusingirrigationwaterdrawnfromwellsandstreams.

AttherequestoftheWRIA11PlanningUnitinlate2018,theWashingtonWaterTrust(WWT)expandedupontheir

2010work,andconductedarapidwaterrightsassessmenttoidentifyandprovisionallyrankpotentialwaterrights

withinthePrairieTributariessub-basininPierceCountyaccordingtotheirlikelihoodofbeneficialuseand

seasonality.TheseprairiestreamsincludeMuck-Murray,UpperTanwaxCreek,LowerTanwaxCreekandKreger

Creek.Theprojectsidentifiedcouldrangefromfullseasonpermanentacquisitiontochangedirrigationpractices

thatmayprovemoreefficient,requirelesswithdrawalandfocusagriculturaloperationsonthemostproductive

land.Somechangedirrigationpracticesmaybeaccompaniedbyanactualsourceswitchfromasmalltributarytoa

mainstemriverorsurfacetogroundwater,whichwouldnotonlyprovidemitigationbutalsorestorationbenefit.

WWTbuiltupontheanalysisofwaterrightsidentifiedin2010andreviewed362non-duplicatewaterright

documentswithasourceoriginatingwithinthePrairieTributariessub-basin,identifiedareasfrom2013,2015,and

2017NAIP(USDA)photoswithatleast10acresofcultivationandpotentialirrigation,andsubsequentlyranked

themaccordingtoestimatedacresandannualquantitiesofpotentialbeneficialuse.ThePrairieTributariesportion

oftheNisquallywatershedhasnotbeenadjudicatedandtherightsarerepresentedbyamixtureofclaims,

certificates,andpermitsfromsourcesbothgroundandsurface(AppendixK).

Twenty-twowaterrightshavebeenidentifiedinthisrapidassessment,comprisedofanestimated1,508

beneficiallyusedacreswithanapproximate2,283acre-feetperyear(AFY)ofwater.Thesewaterrightshavebeen

prioritized1-4,with1beingthemostconfidentofhavingbeenbeneficiallyusedintheperiodevaluated,and4

beingtheleastconfidentofarobustbeneficialuserecord(seeTable5-4).Tier1iscomprisedofsixwaterrights

withanestimated705beneficiallyusedacreswith673AFY,595AFYofwhichisgroundwater.Tier2hasfourwater

rightswithanestimated304beneficiallyusedacreswith632AFY,with312AFYfromgroundwatersources.Tier3

hasninewaterrightswithanestimated409beneficiallyusedacreswith802AFY,267AFYfromgroundwater.Tier

4hasthreewaterrightswithanestimated90acreswith176AFY,137AFYfromgroundwater.


5-54

Table5-4:PreliminaryWaterRightsAssessmentofPrairieTributariesSub-basinWaterRightPriority*

NumberofWaterRights

EstimatedBeneficiallyUsedAcreage

(Acres)

EstimatedBeneficialUseGroundwater

(AFY)

EstimatedBeneficialUseSurfaceWater

(AFY)

TotalEstimatedBeneficialUse(AFY)

Tier1 6 705 595 78 673Tier2 4 304 312 320 632Tier3 9 409 267 535 802Tier4 3 90 137 39 176TOTAL 22 1508 1311 972 2283*Confidenceinhavingbeenputtobeneficialuse(Tier1beingthemostconfidence,Tier4,theleast).

Allpotentialprojectsrequirefurthersubstantialinvestigationpriortoprojectdevelopmentandultimately

landowner/waterrightholderwillingnesstoparticipateinaproject.Itwillrequiresubstantialandcostlyfurther

investigationtodeterminewhetherthisamountofirrigation(orevenaportionofit)mightbeavailablefor

acquisition.However,iffoundtobefeasible,thisapproachcouldmeetasignificantportionofthemitigationneed

forthePrairieTributariessub-basin,offeringmitigationcertificationformultiplenewpermit-exemptwellsand

possiblyleadingtoamitigation“bank”ofsometype.Table7-2providesaminimumandmaximumestimated

mitigationoffsetassociatedwithwaterrightacquisition.Theminimumassumesthatnowaterrightsareacquired

forthePrairieTributarysub-basinandthemaximumassumesthatallTier1waterrightsidentifiedinTable5-4are

acquired.

5.1.3 Aquifer Recharge

CityofYelmGroundwaterRechargeUsingReclaimedWater

TheCityofYelmwillbeusingaportionoftheirreclaimedClassAwastewatertoinfiltratetheQvashallowaquifer.

Theuseofthisinfiltrationassub-basinmitigationisdescribedaboveinSection5.1.1,YelmAction3(Offset).

ManagedAquiferRechargeProjects

Ecology’sWaterResourcesProgramhastentativelyidentifiedninepotentialopportunitiesfordevelopingmanaged

aquiferrecharge(MAR)projectsinWRIA11(seeAppendixM).MARprojectstypicallyinvolveadiversionofhigh-

flowseasonstreamflowtospreadingbasinsorotherinfiltrationfacilitiesintheadjacentfloodplainoruplands.

Theseprojectsareintendedtoaugmentstreamflowsbyincreasingsurficialaquiferdischargestostreamsduring

low-flowtimesoftheyear.Theycanserveasrelativelylowtech,lowmaintenanceandmonitoringmethodsto

capturewatertobenefitstreamsduringlowflowtimes.

TherearemorethanadozenMARprojectscurrentlyoperatinginWashington,annuallystoringover7,000acre-

feetofwater.DevelopingMARprojectsrequiresgainingaccesstolandinsuitableMARlocationsfroma

hydrogeologicperspective.Propertythatispubliclyownedmayhavethebestpotentialfordevelopmentof

mitigationopportunitiesinWRIA11tooffsetconsumptivewaterusefrompermit-exemptwells.

ThepotentialMARprojectsidentifiedbyEcologycanbeconsideredpossiblesitesintheNisquallyWatershed.All

ofthemareinthefloodplainsoftheNisquallyRiver,theMashelRiver,OhopCreek,andMuckCreek.Nofield

investigationshavebeenconductedandnodiscussionswiththepropertyownershaveoccurred.Theseare

conceptualprojectsandincludedasaplaceholdertobeincludedintheportfolioofprojectsneededtooffsetthe

consumptivedomesticuseslikelytobedevelopedinthecomingtwentyyears.


5-55

Individualprojectscouldpotentiallystoreseveralhundredtoafewthousandacre-feetperyear.Theactualvolume

availableforrecharge,storageandmitigationwilldependonsite-specificfactors.Forthepurposesofthis

Addendumitwasassumedthateachof5sub-basinscouldstoreupto200AFYthroughmanagedaquiferrecharge,

henceeachsub-basinwouldhavea0-200AFMARbenefitoccurringoverasix-monthperiod(summer-fall).This

equatestoafullwatershedbenefitof1000AFperyear,occurringoverasix-monthperiod,yieldinga2.7626cfs

benefitduringthosemonths.

5.1.4 Local Habitat Strategies

FloodplainRestorationProjects–PrairieStreamRestorationTemplates

Severaltypesofprojectsthatcouldimproveinstreamflows,habitat,andripariancorridorsareaggregatedunder

theumbrellaterm“FloodplainRestoration.”Theelementsoftheseprojectsoftenincludeoneormoreofthe

following:

1. Ditchremovalwithrelatedoff-channelstorage2. Beaverre-introduction3. Floodplainreconnectionandchannelre-meandering4. EngineeredLog-jams5. Re-vegetation

FloodplainrestorationprojectsinprairiestreambasinsarerecommendedasimplementationactionsunderseveralNisquallySalmonRecoveryHabitatInitiativesdiscussedinChapter4ofthisAddendum(MuckCreekRecoveryandPrairieTributaries10RecoveryInitiativesspecifically).WhiletheseinitiativesarecurrentlyrankedaslowerpriorityforrecoveringESA-listedChinookandsteelheadpopulationsanddonothavesignificantactiveprojectsthroughsalmonrecoveryfundsatthistime,theyofferstreamflowenhancementpotentialforsub-basinspecificmitigation.ThurstonandPierceCountieshavedevelopedconceptualprojectframeworksforsmall-scalehabitatrestorationactivitiesalignedwithsalmonrecoverystrategyinprairie-typestreamsthataddressthesemicro-mitigationneeds.

TheOhopRestorationtemplatedevelopedfromgroundwaterdatainpreviousphasesofOhopCreekstream

corridorrestorationisusedheretoanticipatepotentialbenefitsfromsimilarprairiestreamrestorationprojects

(AppendixE).TheOhopprojectsiteshadalonghistoryofgroundwaterdatacollectionthatallowedamore

extensiveanalysisofbenefitsthanispossiblewiththelimitedlocaldatainothertargetedsub-basins.Basedon

thesegroundwaterdata,floodplainrestorationprojectsareassumedtogenerateanaverageof13.57AFYof

additionalgroundwaterrechargepermileofditchremoved,or0.0096cfsofadditionalstreamflow.AppendixE

(TableA3)calculatesflowbenefitsinacrefeetperyearbasedonthefulllengthofrestoredstreamchannels,and

incubicfeetpersecondbasedonhalfthelengthofrestoredchannel,toaccountforthepotentialone-sided

benefitsofditchremoval.TheestimatespresentedinTable5-5andinestimatingtotalmitigationoptionsin

Chapter7usethehalvedrateforbothAFYandcfstoprovidethemostconservativebenefit.Anadditional0.0009

cfsofstreamflowiscalculatedforbeaverintroductionpertreatedstreammile(AppendixE).

Table5-5:Per-MileBenefitsfromOhopRestorationTemplate(AppendixE)Averagebenefitpermile: DitchRemoval BeaverIntroductionAdditionalstreamflow 0.0096cfs 0.0009cfsAdditionalRecharge 13.57AFY N/A

10TheSalmonRecoveryPrograminitiativesarecategorizedusingdifferentsub-basingroupingsthanthoseusedinthisAddendum.ThePrairie

TributariesSalmonRecoveryInitiativeincludesprairie-typestreamsinbothPierceandThurstonCounties,whileMuckCreekRecoveryisa

separateinitiative.Forthepurposesofthissectionaddressingcounty-ledstreamflowmitigationprojectsareorganizedbyPlanningUnitsub-

basins.


5-56

TheselectedprojectconceptsinThurstonandPierceCountiesmeetthefollowingcriteriaforapplicabilitytothe

Ohoptemplate:

1. Similarhydrology:knownorprobableditchingofthestreamtostraighten/movethestreambed.Thisistypicallyassociatedwitha‘compressed’meanderwidthandanincisedstreambed;

2. Similarvegetation;3. Similargeology;4. Similarprecipitation;5. Uplandstreamreaches,wherenewrechargewouldwetalongerstreamreach;6. Mappedpresenceofwetlands,hydricsoilsorseasonalpondedwater;7. Locatedonlargelandparcels,witheitheroneownerorasmallnumberofowners.

BecausetheseprojectsarestilllargelyconceptualandmayvaryfromtheOhoptemplatemodel,thequantified

flowbenefitsfromimplementationareapproximateandwillbefurtherrefinedasspecificprojectsmoveforward.

Additionally,substantialliteratureexiststodemonstratetheeffectivenessoftheserestorationapproachesfor

salmonidrecovery.Evenwhenthestreamflowbenefitsmaybenon-quantifiableataparticularprojectsite,these

projectssupporttheoverallnetecologicalbenefitgoalsforsalmonrecoveryinthewatershed.Thesesub-basin-

scaleprojectscouldbefunded,inpart,bythefeescollectedthroughthepermittingstrategydescribedhereinand

byStreamflowRestorationGrantfunds.

ThurstonCountyHabitatRestorationProjects

ThurstonCountyhasidentified19candidatestreamreachestotaling18.2streammileswithintheThurstonCounty

portionofWRIA11wherefloodplainrestoration-typeprojectscouldbeconsidered.Somecandidatestream

reachesarealready-plannedprojects;othersarenewly-identifiedprojects.Specificlocationsforthesereachesare

notpresentedatthistime,pendingfundingavailabilityandfurtherproject-specificevaluations.Targetedreaches

fallintheThompson/YelmandLackamas/Toboton/Powellsub-basins.

Inpracticalterms,itislikelythatonlyaportionofthe19candidateprojectsinThurstonCountywillactuallybe

constructed.ThurstonCountyestimatedthebenefitifonlyasmallnumberofthesecandidateswillresultin

constructedprojectsbenefittingstreamflow–limitedbyfundingavailability,sitefeasibility,andlandowner

willingness,amongotherfactors.Flowbenefitsestimatedfromimplementing100%,30%,and10%ofThurston

CountyrestorationprojectsaresummarizedinTable5-6.

PierceCountyHabitatRestorationProjects

ThestreamsinthePrairieTributariessub-basininPierceCountyareknowntohaveahighproportionofdegraded

habitat,butthebasiniscurrentlyunderstudied(NisquallySteelheadRecoveryTeam,2014).Itisbelievedthat

thesesystemshistoricallyhadalargepercentageofbeaverpondsandcomplexoff-channelpools,providingwater

storageandjuvenilesalmonhabitatduringtheportionoftheyearwhenintermittentprairiestreamsdonotflow

(Pollocketal,2003).Ditchingandotheragriculturalimpactshaveleftsignificantportionsofprairiestreams

disconnectedfromhistoricalfloodplains.PierceCountyhasnotyetidentifiedspecificcandidatereachesforproject

implementation,butisexploringareaswherebeaverintroductionorbeaverdamanalogs,logjams,and

groundwaterchannelsmaybepursuedtoimprovestreamflowsandfloodplainconnectivity(seeAppendixN).The

OhopRestorationtemplatewasappliedtotheentirestreamlengthofMuckCreek,itsmaintributaryLacamas

Creek,andTanwaxCreekasapreliminaryestimateofpotentiallyachievablestreamflowbenefits.Becauseofthe

lackofproject-specificinformationandlocaldata,theseestimateshaveahighdegreeofuncertainty.Inaddition

touncertaintyaboutthenumberandscaleofpotentialprojectsonprivately-heldorprotectedlandsinPierce

County,substantialreachesofMuckCreekfallwithinJointBaseLewis-McChord,whichmayaffectrestoration


5-57

plans.Table5-6showsarangeofestimatedflowimpactsforPierceCountystreams,assumingrestorationprojects

couldbeimplementedtreating10%,30%,and100%ofstreammilesinthesetributaries.

Table5-6:FloodplainRestorationStreamflowBenefitEstimates–PotentialProjects(AppendixE)*Sub-Basin Potential

treatablestreammiles

CalculatedStreamflowbenefits(AFY)

Calculatedstreamflowbenefits(cfs)

100% 30% 10% 100% 30% 10%

PrairieTributaries 60 417 124.5 41.7 0.573 0.172 0.057

Thompson/Yelm 16 111.2 33.3 11.1 0.153 0.046 0.015

Lackamas/Toboton/Powell

2.3 15.9 5.0 1.6

0.022 0.007 0.002

*Assumesone-sided(50%)benefitfromditchremovalandfloodplainreconnection.

BarrierRemovalProjects

TheWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife’sBarrierAssessmentlists203knownhuman-madebarriersinthe

Nisquallywatershed.Projectidentificationandimplementationwillbeprimarilyledbycountygovernmentsorthe

NisquallyIndianTribe,withsmallstreamflowbenefitsexpectedinsub-basinsasaresultofculvertandditch

upgradesimprovingfloodplainconnectivity.TheOhopProjectTemplateisusedasabasisforestimatingthe

impactofditchremovalandculvertreplacementonaper-footbasisintheThurstonCountyPeissnerRoadproject

below,andcanbeappliedtosimilarprojectsastheyaredeveloped.

BarrierRemovalisincludedasaninitiativeintheNisquallySalmonRecoverystrategy(seeChapter4),with

potentialprojectsalsoprovidingnetecologicalbenefittoanysalmon-bearingstreaminthewatershed.Removing

fishpassagebarrierswillprovideimmediateaccesstoavailablesalmonhabitatandincreaseecosystem

connectivity.Accesstohabitatisvitaltorealizingtheecologicalbenefitstosalmonidsfromflowenhancementand

habitatrestorationefforts.Habitatconnectivitytofloodplainsandwetlandsisalsoessentialforsalmon

populationsinsystemsexperiencingloworintermittentstreamflows.Quantifiablestreamflowbenefitsfrom

barrierremovalprojectswillbeappliedtosub-basinmitigationtotals,whiletheadditionalecologicalbenefits

supportsalmonrecoveryinitiativegoals.

TobotonCreekatPeissnerRoadThisprojectwouldreplacethreeparallelculvertsatPeissnerRoadthatareacurrentfishbarrierandcontributeto

lowsummerflowsinTobotonCreek.Replacingthecurrentculvertswitha16-footboxculvertwouldopen

upstreamhabitattofishuse.Becausethisprojectwillre-opentheupperreachesofTobotonCreektohabitat,

futurephasesofthisprojectcouldcontinuestreamrestorationupstream(southwest)ofPeissnerRoadSEtoBald

HillsRoadSE.Thiswillre-openapproximately1,283feetoflargelyditchedstreamchannel.

ThurstonCountyforecastsastreamflowimprovementof0.0023cfs(or1.7AFY)inTobotonCreekusingtheOhop

Restorationtemplate.Theseimprovementscomeprimarilyfromre-connectionoftheentirefloodplainfrom

removalofthecurrentditchedandover-steepenedpresentchannel.Weexpectthatthefloodplainre-connection

andditchremovalwillincrementallyraisethegroundwaterlevelsalongthisreachandincreasebaseflowseepage

indry-seasonmonths.Beaverre-introductionmaybeanoption,afterfurtherstudy,andconsultationwithprivate

landowners,forsomeadditionalstreamflowbenefit.


5-58

5.2 Summary of Sub-Basin Mitigation Options Insummary,thisplanproposestomitigatestreamflowimpactswithacombinationofmitigationalternatives:

i. Finishingnewpermit-exemptwell(s)inadeeperaquiferii. Retiringoneormoreexistingpermit-exemptwellsiii. Re-drillingexistingGroupAwell(s),orothergrandfatheredsystems,tofinishthemtodrawfromdeeper

aquifersiv. Retiringallorpartofanexistingwaterrightcurrentlydrawingwaterfromtheupperaquiferordirectly

fromflowimpairedtributaries.v. AquiferRechargevi. Smallscalehabitatrestorationprojectswithinspecifictributariesthatprovidelocalflowbenefits.

Inaddition,theabilityoftheCityofYelmtoacquireanewwaterrightandextendtheirwatersystemtoservicethe

YelmUGAwillreducethe22-yearconsumptiveuseforecastfortheThompson/YelmSub-basinby962connections

or62%.

Manyoftheapproachestooffsetstreamflowimpactsofpermit-exemptwelluseinPrairieenvironmentswould

requirethetrackingofmitigationresultingfromwellreplacementwithGroupAorBwatersystemhook-up,well

rehabilitationefforts,waterrightacquisition,andbenefitsfromaquiferrechargeandsmallhabitatprojects,as

describedabove.Thisneedfortrackingcouldbemetwithamitigationcreditsystemor”bank”ofsometype.The

PlanningUnitexpectstoworkwithEcologyandImplementingGovernmentstodeveloptrackingand

implementationforamitigationcreditsystemasneeded.County-specificstrategiesarediscussedinChapter6.

ThenextstepstowardimplementingWRIA-widemitigationtrackingareaddressedinChapter8.


6-59

Chapter 6 County Strategies

InadditiontotheDepartmentofEcology,theNisquallyIndianTribe,andotherpartners,thethreecounties

(Thurston,PierceandLewis)willberesponsibleforimplementingsomeaspectsofthemitigationstrategies

developedinthePlanAddendumthroughtheirprocessesforissuingbuildingpermits.Thischaptersummarizesthe

existingregulatoryframeworkofthecountiesandinitialapproachestoimplementation.

RCW90.94.020currentlyrequiresCountiestodothefollowing:

(a)Recordrelevantrestrictionsorlimitationsassociatedwithwatersupplywiththepropertytitle;(b)Collectapplicablefees,asdescribedunderthissection;(c)Recordthenumberofbuildingpermitsissuedunderchapter19.27RCWorsubdivisionapprovalsissuedunderchapter58.17RCWsubjecttotheprovisionsofthissection;(d)Annuallytransmittothedepartmentthreehundredfiftydollarsofeachfeecollectedunderthissubsection;(e)Annuallytransmitanaccountingofbuildingpermitsandsubdivisionapprovalssubjecttotheprovisionsofthissectiontothedepartment;(f)Untilruleshavebeenadoptedthatspecifyotherwise,requirethefollowingmeasuresforeachnewdomesticusethatreliesonawithdrawalexemptfrompermittingunderRCW90.44.050:

(i)Anapplicantshallpayafeeoffivehundreddollarstothepermittingauthority;(ii)AnapplicantmayobtainapprovalforawithdrawalexemptfrompermittingunderRCW90.44.050fordomesticuseonly,withamaximumannualaveragewithdrawalofthreethousandgallonsperdayperconnection.

Section6.1addressesdevelopmentofThurstonCountypolicy.MuchofThurstonCountyhassimilarhydrogeology

astheportionoftheCountylocatedintheNisquallyWatershed.Therefore,ThurstonCountyhasdevoted

considerablestafftimetodevelopingitsimplementationstrategyanditsdraftstrategymightserveasasuitable

modelforothercountiesastheymoveforwardinimplementingstrategiesdevelopedthroughthestreamflow

restorationandenhancementprocess.

Section6.2and6.3ofthischaptersummarizeregulatoryandimplementationinformationfromPierceandLewis

Counties,respectively.PierceandLewisCountyplansarelessdetailedatthistime,pendingfurtherassessmentof

needsintheNisquallyandotherwatershedsinthesecounties.

ThePlanningUnithasreviewedtheimplementationstrategiesdevelopedbythecountiesandendorsesthemfor

inclusioninthisWatershedPlanAddendum,recognizingthatthisPlanAddendumdoesnotsupplantthelegislative

authorityoflocalgovernmentsandthatanyspecificobligationsorchangestocountycodes,fees,orprocesseswill

bedeterminedduringfutureimplementationphasesthatincludeanyrequiredpublicreviewprocess.

6.1 Thurston County ThurstonCountyregulatesnewdevelopmentthroughtheThurstonCountyCode(Titles14-26),adoptedbythe

BoardofCountyCommissioners(BoCC),andregulateswatersuppliesunderArticleIIIoftheThurstonCounty

SanitaryCode,adoptedbytheBoardofHealth(BoH).

ApplicantsforanewresidentialstructurearerequiredtocompleteaCertificateofWaterAvailability(COWA)

beforethecountywillissueabuildingpermit.TheCOWAisusedtoassesswhethertheapplicanthasapotable

watersupplythatmeetstherequirementsofchapter19.27RCWandtheThurstonCountySanitaryCode.


6-60

Applicantswhowishtorelyonapermit-exemptwellmustattachawelldriller’sreportshowingthatthewellcan

pumpenoughcapacitytomeettheirwaterneeds(e.g.,400gallonsperdayforasingle-familyresidence)andthat

thewatercomingfromthewellmeetswaterqualitystandards.TheCountydoesnotcurrentlyreviewhowthe

proposedwaterusewouldaffectothernearbywaterrightholders.

Withfewexceptions,applicantscannotchoosetouseapermit-exemptwellastheirwatersourceiftheyarewithin

theserviceareaofanexistingwatersystem.Section5.2.3ofArticleIIIoftheThurstonCountySanitaryCodestates

that:

“Nonewwatersourceshallbelocatedinareaswherewaterisavailablefromanexistingpublicwatersystem.The

healthofficermayexemptanapplicantfromthisrequirementiftheapplicantdemonstratesallofthefollowing:

(a)Thewatersourcemeetsallstandardsforisolationandconstructionwithoutvariancesorwaivers;and

(b)Thelocationofthenewsourceisconsistentwithallotherapplicablewatersupplyrequirements,land

useplans,andgroundwatermanagementplans;and

(c)TheapplicantreceivesapprovalfromthejurisdictionalHearingsExamineronanappealorvariance

fromthepriorityofservicepertheapplicableThurstonCountyCoordinatedWaterSystemPlan.”

Inmanycases,awellhasbeendrilledbeforetheapplicantapproachesthecountyforabuildingpermit–

sometimesmanyyearsprior.Thecountyistypicallynotifiedwhenanewwellisconstructedbywelldrillersand

theDepartmentofEcologyissuesastartcard;however,thewellatthistimeisnotnecessarilyassociatedwithany

developmentthatmightrequireacountypermit.

ThefollowingareregulatorystrategiesthatarebeingconsideredordevelopedbyThurstonCountyatthistime.

TheywillbefullydevelopedasThurstonCountyparticipatesintheotherWRIAsaddressingRCW90.94.030.

6.1.1 Thurston County Water Availability Permitting Process Review Underthisstrategy,ThurstonCountywouldconsideramendingitsreviewprocessforbuildingpermitsand

establishingafeeandcreditsystemfornewresidentialdevelopmentthatreliesonapermit-exemptwell.

Inadditiontolegislativeactionbythecounty,thisstrategywouldrequireEcologytoconductrulemaking,as

specifiedinRCW90.94(2)(e),toreplacethe$500feeestablishedbyRCW90.94(5)(f)(i)withasystemofcharges

basedontheestimatedimpactofthedevelopmentdeterminedthroughassessmentoftheactualannualaverage

consumptiveuse,basedonavailablelocalwateruseinformation(suchasthatprovidedbyThurstonPUD).Aswith

thecurrentfeestructure,applicantsthatconnecttoanexistingpublicwatersystem(GroupAorstate-permitted

GroupB)orthatotherwiseprovideevidenceofawaterrightwouldnotbesubjecttothisfee.

Theapplicantwouldpayareducedfeebysubmittingahydrogeologicreportthatmeetscountystandardsand

demonstratesimpacttostreamflowsfromtheproposeddevelopmentbelowtheaverageannualstandardsetby

thecounty.Alternatively,theapplicantwouldpayareducedfeeiftheycommittocertainmeasuresintheir

buildingapplication,suchas:

• Attendingapre-submissionconferencetoreviewrequirementswithcountystaff• Submittingahydrogeologicreportthatmeetsdepartmentstandardsanddemonstrateslimitedorno

impact• Finishingwellinadeeperaquiferwithlessconnectiontosurfacewaterflows• Installingwaterconservingfixturesorotherinfrastructuretominimizewateruse,asapprovedbycounty

standards


6-61

• InstallinginfiltrationfacilitiesabovewhatisrequiredthroughtheDrainageDesignandErosionControlManual(TCC15.05.010)

• Userainwaterharvesting/cisternstoaugmentwatersupply,aspermittedbycountystandards• OtherstrategiesasdeterminedappropriatebytheThurstonCountyreviewingauthority

Feeswouldbeusedtofundstreamflowrestorationprojectsinthebasinswheretheyarecollected(suchasthose

describedinChapters4and5)andadministrationofthewateravailabilityprogram.Additionaldetails,including

theappropriatefeestructure,programadministration,andnecessarychangestotheThurstonCounty

developmentcodeandSanitaryCodewillbedeterminedafteradditionalinvestigation.

AnychangestoThurstonCountycodewouldbereviewedthroughthecounty’sstandardpublicprocessandbe

subjecttoadoptionbyitslegislativeauthority(BoardofCountyCommissioners/BoardofHealth),asappropriate.

Thequantitativebenefitofthisactiononstreamflowswilldependonthenumberofpermit-exemptwellconnectionsthatareprocessedunderthenewrules.Chapter3estimates2,147futurepermit-exemptwellconnectionsforThurstonCountyoverthe22-yearplanningperiod(seeSection3.2.1),withanActualannualconsumptivewateruseestimatedat230acrefeetperyear(seeSection3.3.2).Thisistheestimatedmaximumamountofbenefit.However,thistotaldependsontheoutcomesofotheractionsidentifiedthroughoutthisAddendumandwouldbeaffectedbyseveralfactors:

• Thelengthoftimeittakestodevelopandimplementarevisedpermittingandfeesystem.Developmentapplicationssubmittedintheinterimwouldcontinuetobesubjecttothestate-mandatedwellfee,requiredbyRCW90.94.

• WhethertheCityofYelmisabletoprovidewaterservicetonewresidentialdevelopmentinitsUrbanGrowthArea(UGA).AsoutlinedinSection5.1.1,ifYelm’sdeeperwellisapproved,theamountofwaterusefrompermit-exemptwellscouldbereducedbynearly1,000connections.

• Whetherotherpublicwatersystemsareabletoexpandand/orservemoreconnectionsthanpredicted,duetoincentivesorupgrades.

• Whetherdevelopmentpatternschange,duetoeconomicorsocialdrivers,includingthefeessetthroughthisprogram.

Thequantitativebenefitforthisactionwillbeindirectproportiontothenumberofresidentialbuildingpermitsapprovedundertherevisedpermittingprocess,andonthedetailsofthatprocess.Inaddition,thisactioncouldhelptofundsomelocalfloodplainrestorationprojectsidentifiedandquantifiedinSection5.1.4.

6.1.2 Revolving Loan and Grant Fund for Small Public Water Systems ThurstonCountywouldinvestigatethefeasibilityofestablishingandoperatingarevolvingloanfundforpublic

watersystemstoincreasetheefficiencyofsuchsystemsandreduceimpactstostreamflows.Thefundwouldbe

usedtoenablesmallwatersystemstoinvestinsystemupgrades,suchasadeeperwellormoreefficient

conveyanceinfrastructure,establishatieredratesystem,expandtomoreconnections,establishprofessional

management,minimizeconnectionfees,orotherdesignupgradesorstrategiestoreduceandoffsetimpactsto

streamflows(seeChapter5.1.1).ThefundwouldprimarilytargetsmallerpublicwatersystemsinThurstonCounty

establishedpriortoMay1,1994thatareconsideredprovisionallyadequate,butdonotmeetthecurrentdesign

standardsoftheThurstonCountySanitaryCode(ArticleIII),WAC246-290orWAC246-291.Theprogrammayalso

bemadeavailabletootherwatersystemsthatcouldbenefitfromefficiencyupgrades.Thisprogramcouldbe

funded,inpart,bythefeescollectedthroughthepermittingstrategydescribedabove.

ThequantitativebenefitofthisactiononstreamflowsintheNisquallywatersheddependsonthenumberandtype

ofimprovementsfunded,andtheamountoffundinggeneratedbypermittingfeesorotherfundingsources.

BenefitsfundedbypermittingfeesaloneareincludedinthecalculatedbenefitforSection6.1.1.


6-62

ThePlanningUnitendorsesThurstonCounty’sproposedapproachasmeetingtheintentofRCW90.94.020

recognizingthatitrequiresEcologyrulemaking,countylegislation,andfurtherevaluationasitproceedsthrough

otherwatershedplanningprocesses.ThePlanningUniturgestheothercountiestoconsideradoptingasimilar

countyregulatoryapproach.

6.1.3 Stormwater Management UnderthiselementofthePlanAddendum,ThurstonCountywouldcontinuetoexplorewaystoaccountforconsumptivewateruseacrosstypicaldevelopment,includingquantifyingbenefitsofexistingandexpandedstormwatermanagementpoliciesthatincreaseonsiteinfiltrationandresultingroundwaterrecharge.InitialestimatesindicatethatcertaintypesofdevelopmentintheNisquallyWatershedcanresultinanetbenefittogroundwaterrechargewhenconsideringstormwatermanagementrequirementsunderstateguidelinesandtheThurstonCountyDrainageDesignandErosionControlManual,includingcorerequirementsforlowimpactdevelopmentandflowcontrol(ThurstonCountyStormwaterUtilityMemorandum,2018).StormwaterfacilitiesapprovedthroughThurstonCounty’sdevelopmentpermittingprocess,includingthosethatpromoteincreasedinfiltrationthroughlowimpactdevelopment,mustmeetthespecificationsoftheDrainageDesignandErosionControlManual(TCC15.05.010),whichincludelong-termoperationandmaintenance(CoreRequirement#9).Formanyfacilities,acceptanceofamaintenanceplanisrequiredpriortofinalprojectapproval,andsuchfacilitiesareregularlymonitoredandinspectedunderThurstonCounty’sStormwaterUtilityprogramsinordertomeettheCounty’sobligationsunderthePhaseIIMunicipalstormwaterpermitforWesternWashington.

Thequantitativebenefitofthisactiononstreamflowsdependsonadditionalresearchandpolicydevelopment–anybenefitsfromthisactionwouldberolledintothecalculatedbenefitforSection6.1.1.

6.2 Pierce County TheTacomaPierceCountyHealthDepartmentregulatesthedrillingofnewindividualwellswithinPierceCounty

underChapter3oftheTacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartmentEnvironmentalHealthCode(Tacoma-Pierce

CountyBoardofHealthResolutionNo.2010-4221).ThePierceCountyComprehensivePlancontainsapolicythat

nonewindividualwellsareallowedintheUrbanGrowthAreaexceptforspecialcircumstances.Inorderto

implementthatpolicy,PierceCountylanduseregulationsrequiredanapplicantwishingtoconstructanindividual

wellwithinanurbangrowthareatoobtainwrittenconsentfortheconstructionofthewellfromPierceCounty

PlanningandlandServicesDepartmentpriortoapprovalofthewellbytheTacomaPierceCountyHealth

Department.However,mostofWRIA11inPierceCountyisoutsidetheUrbanGrowthArea.

OtherTacomaPierceCountyHealthDepartmentregulationsandpoliciespertainingtoindividualwellsincludethe

following:

• Anindividualwellmustproduceatleast400gallonsofwaterperdaytobeconsideredadequatewithrespecttoquantity,and;

• Ifaparcelispartofasubdivisionorshortsubdivisionthatgainedapprovalsubjecttotheprovisionofpublicwater,oriftheparcel’sbuildingpermitwasconditionedupontheuseofpublicwater,thenanewindividualwellontheparcelmaynotbeapproved.(TacomaPierceCountyBoardofHealthResolutionNo.2010-4221).

• Tacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartmentrequiresnotification48hourspriortoanywellconstructionfromawelldriller.ThisnotificationmustincludeaNotice-of-IntentnumberprovidedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.

• TheHealthDepartmentmaynotgrantapprovalfornewwellsthatdemonstrateanadverseimpactonothernearbywellsortotheresource.


6-63

TheTacomaPierceCountyHealthDepartmentregulatesGroupBwatersystemsoperatingwithinPierceCounty.In

regardstonewdevelopmentsproposingtoutilizeaGroupBwatersystemasthesourceofwater,thefollowing

regulationsapply:

• IftheproponentofaprojectproposesthecreationofanewGroupBWaterSystemtoservetheproject,thentheproponentshallassignandrecordanallocationofwaterofatleast750gallonsperdayforeachnewlycreatedlot;

• NonewlyformedGroupBWaterSystemmayhavemorethansixconnectionswithoutdemonstratingapprovalofwaterrightsbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyand;

• Maximumnumberoflotsforaproposedsubdivisioncannotexceedthefollowingcriteria:ProposedGroupBwatersystem–6lots.Proposedindividualwells–12lots.

PierceCountyregulatestheissuanceofbuildingpermitsandsentoutanIndustryNoticeonJanuary22,2018in

responsetoESSB6091withthefollowingchanges:

• Thecountywillnolongerrequireahydrogeologicstudyassociatedwithpermit-exemptwellapplications(CountyPolicyDW2016-02:BuildingPermits/SubdivisionsonNewPermit-ExemptWellsisnolongerineffect)

• Building/SubdivisionPermitsintheNisquallyWaterResourceInventoryArea(WRIA11)proposingtousepermit-exemptwells:

o Limitedto3,000gallonsperday(maximumannualaverageuseandnometeringrequired)o Newfeeof$500($350toEcology,$150toCountyforreportingrequirements)o Requiresrecordingofrestrictionsontitle(additionalrecordingfee)

• Building/SubdivisionPermitsinthe#10Puyallup-White,#12Chambers-Clover,and#15KitsapWRIAsproposingtousepermit-exemptwells:

o Limitedto950gallonsperday(maximumannualaverageuseandnometeringrequired)o Newfeeof$500($350toEcology,$150toCountyforreportingrequirements)o Requiresrecordingofrestrictionsontitle(additionalrecordingfee)

Thenewfeewillberequiredforthefollowingactivitieswithdrilled“permit-exempt”wells:

• Allnewresidentialbuildingpermitapplications,includingaccessorydwellingunits

• Commercialbuildingpermitapplications(historicalwaterestimatesreviewedandacceptedpriortopermitissuance)

• Subdivisionsofland

Positiononproposedpermit-exemptwellsitespecificmitigationapproaches/strategies

Giventheshortamountoftimetoreviewthemitigationapproachesandstrategies,andwithuncertaintyasto

whetherornottheyarenecessary,PierceCountycanonlycommittoworkingwithstakeholdersandinvestigating

thefollowingasoptionalapproaches/strategies.Itmustbeunderstoodthatsite-specificmitigationmaynotbe

necessaryifotherwatershedprojectshavesufficientbenefittooffsettheimpactsoffuturepermit-exemptwells.

6.2.1 “Cafeteria” Menu Approach Ifitisdeterminedthatidentifiedprojectsdonotmeetnecessaryoffsets,PierceCountycouldfurtherinvestigatean

incentivebased“cafeteria”mitigationcreditconcept.Thisconceptmayentailamenuofpossiblechoicesthatthe

propertyownermaypursue,includingtheoptiontopurchaseashareinalargersub-basinwidemitigationproject.

Ifthisconceptispursued,itneedsrefinementtoaddressthetotalcreditsneedsandcreditsassociatedwith

individualmenuitems.Themenumayinclude,butisnotlimitedto:


6-64

• Drillingnewwellsinadeeperaquifer.• Decommissioningexistingpermit-exemptwellsinthesamegeneralsub-basin.• Installingmeteronnewwelltomonitorwaterusage.• Agreementtolimitdailywateruse.• Agreementtoreportmeteredwateruse

Ifnecessary,furtherdevelopmentofthis“CafeteriaMenu”approachwillbeaddressedaspartoftheAdaptiveManagementProcess(seeChapter8).

6.2.2 Other Potential Mitigation Strategies Ifadditionalprojectsarenecessarytomitigatepermit-exemptwells,otherpotentialmitigationprojectsmaybe

investigatedtodeterminethebenefitsandcosts.Theseprojectsmaybethoseinwhichindividualpropertyowners

may,throughthe“Cafeteria”approach,purchaseashareoftheproject.Thetypeofprojectsmayinclude,butare

notlimitedto:

• Near-stream“storage-and-release”projects• MovepumpingofGroupAorGroupBwatersystem(s)intodeeperaquifer(s)• PurchasingConservationEasements/EstablishmentofWaterBank• Retiringexistingwaterrights.

Itshouldberecognizedthatthesetypesofprojectsmayhaveunintentionalconsequencesifnotfullyevaluated.

“Storage-and-release”projectsmustbedesignedtoavoidwarmingthestream’swatertemperature.Thepotential

impactstopromotinganeconomicallyviableagriculturalindustrymustberecognizedifpursuingtheretirementof

waterrightsorpurchasingwatereasements.

6.3 Lewis County GiventhefactthatasmallamountofdevelopmentisprojectedinLewisCounty’sportionoftheUpperNisqually

watershed,andthefactthatnoneofthestreamsintheareaareclosedtofurtherappropriation,LewisCounty

doesnotproposeanysetmitigationapproachesforthearea.Futuredevelopmentthatdoesoccurwilllikelybe

seasonallyoccupiedbyvisitorsandwillrequirelimitedwaterforconsumptiveuse.Theforestedlandscapeand

seasonalnatureofthehomeswilllimittheneedforirrigationandtheassociatedwaterthatislostto

evapotranspiration.Overall,theimpactstostreamflowassociatedwithdevelopmentintheareaareanticipatedto

beminimal.

AsLewisCountyparticipatesintheplanningforotherwatersheds(particularlyWRIA23–theUpperChehalis

watershed),theCountywillconsiderchangestothecountywidebuildingand/ordevelopmentstandardsto

addresswaterusageandpoliciesforpermit-exemptwells.Asthepoliciesareimplementedintheotherbasins,

LewisCountymayalsoelecttohavethepoliciesappliedtoLewisCounty’sportionoftheUpperNisquallybasin.


7-65

Chapter 7 Mitigation Offsets by Sub-Basin

7.1 Projected Consumptive Water Use for Micro and Macro Mitigation Chapter3ofthisAddendumpresentstheprojectedaverageannualwaterusefromdomesticwellsbetween2018

and2040bysub-basin.Waterusewasprojectedforthreedifferentsetsofforecasts:

(1) TheactualaverageannualconsumptiveuseestimatedusingamultiplieronThurstonPUDdataforGroup

AandBsystemsinWRIA11;

(2) TheaverageannualconsumptiveusecalculatedusingEcologyguidancebasedontheassumptionthat

everypermit-exemptconnectionirrigates0.2acresoflawnorgarden;and

(3) Theconsumptiveportionofthelegalwateruseallowedundercurrentstatelaw(i.e.3,000gal/day)for

eachpermit-exemptwell.

Tables3-18,3-19and3-20inChapter3presentforecastedconsumptiveuseforeachoftheseapproaches,

respectively,bysub-basin.

Thesethreeuseprojectionsprovidearangeoftargetsformitigation.Theactualconsumptiveusecalculatedboth

usingamultiplieronactualThurstonPUDdataandusingEcologyguidanceinformsthe“micro”mitigationneeded

withineachsub-basintooffsetprojectedstreamflowimpacts.Thelegalconsumptiveuseinforms“macro”

mitigationneededtomeetNetEcologicalBenefit(NEB)fortheNisquallyWatershedasawhole.Awatershed-wide

comparisonofthethreeapproachesispresentedbelowinTable7-1.Tables7-2,7-6,7-8,7-10,7-12,7-14,7-16,7-

18,and7-20,summarizingmitigationoptionsforeachsub-basin,followattheendofthissection.Alarge-format

versionofTable7-2,summarizingallmitigationfortheentireNisquallyWatershed,isincludedasFigure5.

Table7-1:ComparisonofConsumptiveUseEstimatesinWRIA11(2018-2040)

MethodTotalPE

Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)CubicFeet/

Second(CFS)CFSper

connectionAFYper

connectionActualPEWellUse(ThurstonPUDDataSource) 2,987 318 0.439 0.000147 0.106ActualPEWellUse(EcologyMethodology) 2,987 747 1.032 0.000345 0.249ConsumptivePortionofLegalRighttoWater 2,987 5501 7.598 0.002544 1.842

AllcomparisonsofactualconsumptiveusetomitigationstrategiesinthischapterutilizetheEcologyMethodology

showninTable7-1andassumethateachnewpermit-exemptconnectionconsumptivelyutilizes0.249AFYand

eachpermit-exemptwellconnectionabandonedprovidesa0.249AFYoffset.

7.2 Summary of Watershed Mitigation Options Table7-2summarizesthreetypesofmitigationoptionsorstrategiesproposedfortheNisquallyWatershed;

projectsorregulatorysituationsthatreducetheconsumptivedemandforecast,micro-mitigationstrategiesthat

areappliedonasub-watershedscale(Chapter5),andlargerscalesalmonrecoveryprojectsassociatedwith

specificsalmonrecoveryinitiatives(Chapter4).Thetotalminimumandmaximummitigationexpectedfromeach

ofthesestrategiesandfortheentirewatershedarealsoshowninTable7-2.Thetimingofsomemitigation

benefitsisyear-round,whileothersaretargetedsummerandfallbenefits.


7-66

Table7-2:SummaryofWatershedMitigationOptions(seeendofchapterandFigure5forlarge-scaleversion)

County-widepoliciesaffectingwateravailabilityforruralresidentialdevelopmentcontinuetobeconsideredas

partofotherWRIAprocessesandarenotyetavailabletobeincludedinthesesub-basinandwatershedwide

totalsofmitigationoffsets.DeepGroundwaterOptions1through3willbequantifiedonaprojectspecificand

well-specificbasisandarealsonotincludedinthetotalmitigationoffsetshowninTable7-2.Itisexpectedthat

0.249AFYperwellwillbecreditedforeachwellassociatedwithmostprojects.ThePlanningUnitexpectsthatthe

currentprojectsthathavebeenquantifiedinTable7-2willachievefullmitigationofdomesticconsumptiveuseby

forecastpermit-exemptwellconnectionsinthewatershed.

Table7-3providesacomparisonoftheconsumptiveuseestimatesusingtheEcologymethodandtheminimum

andmaximumestimatedmitigationoffsetbysub-basin.Table7-4summarizesthecomparisonofthelegal

consumptiveuse(theconsumptiveportionof3,000gpd/connection)andestimatedmitigationoffsetbysub-basin.

Asdiscussedabove,thisisnotthetotalestimatedmitigationforthewatershedasitdoesnotconsiderfuture

countyregulatorypolicythatmayrequirepermitapplicantstoassistwithmitigation,nordoesitincludeanyofthe

DeepGroundwateroffsetoptions.Becausemanyofthemitigationoptionsarepreliminaryandconceptualin

nature,arangeofvaluesisshownbetweentheminimumandmaximumamountofmitigationpotentially

available.

Table7-3:ActualConsumptiveUse(EcologyMethod)ComparedtoMinimumandMaximumEstimatedMitigation*

Sub-basin

ECYMethodAnnualPEConsumptiveUse(AFY)

ECYMethodAnnualPEConsumptiveUse(cfs)

MitigationActionsIdentified-annualAF(MIN)

MitigationActionsIdentified-annualAF(MAX)

MitigationActions(cfs)MIN

MitigationActions(cfs)MAX


Thompson/Yelm 390 0.539 349.02 762.1 0.479 1.050Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 107 0.148 84.17 504.57 0.116 0.697

LowerNisqually 0.5 0.001 0 200 0 0.552

MashelRiver 5 0.007 1922 4281 3.48 7.27

PrairieTributaries 149 0.206 41.7 1290 0.058 2.058

OhopCreek 7 0.009 24 1336 0.017 2.105UpperNisqually(Pierce,Lewis,Thurston) 49 0.067 49 249 0.067 0.619

TOTAL 747 1.03 2470 8623 4.22 14.35*Figuresareroundedandmaynotcalculatecorrectlyinconversions.Fullvaluesareavailablebyrequestfromthe

PlanningUnit.


7-67

Table7-4:LegalConsumptiveUseComparedtoMinimumandMaximumEstimateMitigation*

Sub-basin

LegalAnnualPEConsumptiveUse(AFY)

LegalAnnualPEConsumptiveUse(cfs)

MitigationActionsIdentified-annualAF(MIN)

MitigationActionsIdentified-annualAF(MAX)

MitigationActions(cfs)MIN

MitigationActions(cfs)MAX


Thompson/Yelm 2,876 3.973 1946 2359 2.7 3.3Lackamas/Toboton/Powell 792 1.094 84.2 504.6 0.116 0.697

LowerNisqually 4 0.005 0.00 200 0.00 0.552

MashelRiver 37 0.051 1922 4281 3.48 7.27

PrairieTributaries 1,098 1.516 41.7 1290 0.058 2.058

OhopCreek 50 0.069 24 1336 0.017 2.10UpperNisqually(Pierce,Lewis,Thurston) 359 0.496 359 559 0.496 1.048

TOTAL 5,501 7.60 4377 10530 6.86 16.99*Figuresareroundedandmaynotcalculatecorrectlyinconversions.Fullvaluesareavailablebyrequestfromthe

PlanningUnit.

7.2.1 Demand Reduction TherearetwofactorsthatcanbeusedtoadjustconsumptionandreducedemandinWRIA11:TheCityofYelm’s

waterrightandtheregulatorystatusoftheUpperNisquallySub-basin.

Afterapprovaloftheirpendingwaterrightpermitapplication,theCityofYelmintendstoservenewdomesticuses

withintheirwaterserviceareathatwouldotherwisebeservedbypermit-exemptwells.ApprovaloftheCity’s

waterrightwillincludeadequatemitigation,thereforedomesticusesthatareservedbytheCity’swaterrightwill

befullymitigated.RemovingtheestimateddemandforthedomesticusestobeservedbytheCityreducesthe

totalconsumptiveuseintheThompson/Yelmsub-basinandtheentirewatershedby240.5AFYor0.33cfsusing

theEcologymethodologyforcalculatingactualconsumptiveusefordomesticpermit-exemptwellconnections.

TheregulatorystatusoftheUpperNisquallysub-basinincludesinstreamflowvaluesbutitisnotclosed.Because

thissub-basinisabovereservoirsthatreleaseflowtomeetinstreamflows,permit-exemptusesintheUpper

Nisquallywillnotimpairinstreamflows.Therefore,consumptiveuseestimatesfortheupperNisqually(49AFY,

0.067cfsperEcologymethodology)canalsobeviewedasmitigationdemandreduction.

7.3 Water Use and Mitigation Options by Sub-Basin Resultsforindividualsub-basinsareprovidedinthissection,alongwithmitigationoptionsforoffsetting

consumptiveuses.AsCountypoliciesaredevelopedtoaddressruralwaterusethroughthebuildingpermit

applicationprocess,additionalconsumptiveuseoffsetisexpected.Tablesofmitigationbysub-basinareincluded

attheendofthischapter.

7.3.1 McAllister Sub-Basin

ProjectedWaterDemandfromPermit-ExemptWells

Becauseofthevariedlandscapeofthesub-basin,itisuncertainexactlywherethenewconnectionswouldbe

located.AportionareexpectedtobewithintheEatonCreekdrainage.


7-68

Table7-5:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–McAllisterSub-basin

ForecastMethodTotalPE

ConnectionsAnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)AnnualConsumptive

Use(CFS)ActualPEWellUse(ThurstonPUDDataSource) 155 16 0.023ActualPEWellUse(EcologyMethodology) 155 39 0.054ConsumptivePortionofLegalRighttoWater 155 285 0.394

MitigationOptions

Table7-6(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheMcAllisterSub-basin.Noneofthe

mitigationoptionsarequantifiedatthistime.

Discussion

AsnotedinChapter2,becausethisportionoftheNisquallyRiverisnotclosedforfutureout-of-streamwater

appropriations,itispossiblethatnewpermit-exemptwellsthattapgroundwaterinconnectionwiththeNisqually

Rivermaybepermittedwithouttheexpectationofoffsetmitigation.FortheMcAllisterCreekarea,virtuallyallthe

landintheNisquallyValleyiszonedlong-termagricultural,withdevelopmentrightspurchasedthrough

conservationeasements.ThetributarytoMcAllisterCreekiswithintheLaceyUGAandthewatersupplyforany

futuredevelopmentwillbemetbyconnectiontoaGroupAwatersystem.

FortheEatonCreekareaandLakeSt.Clair,thereisthepossibilityforasmallnumberoffuturepermit-exempt

wells.Forimpactmitigation,thisplanrecommendsthatpermitapplicantsconsideroffsetoptionsthroughthe

ThurstonCountyBuildingpermitprocess.ThethreeDeepGroundwatermitigationoptionsthatapplytoprairie

streamenvironmentsasdescribedinSection5.1.1areapplicableandarequantifiedonaper-wellbasis.

7.3.2 Thompson/Yelm Sub-Basin


Table7-7:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–Thompson/YelmSub-basin

ForecastMethod

PEConnections(UGA)

PEConnections(Rural)

TotalPEConnections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptiveUse

(CFS)ActualPEWellUse

(ThurstonPUDData) 1,036 526 1,562 165.6 0.2287ActualPEWellUse(EcologyMethod) 1,036 526 1,562 388.9 0.5372

ConsumptivePortionofLegalRightto

Water 1,036 526 1,562 2877.2 3.9742

MitigationOptions

Table7-8(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheThompson/YelmSub-basin.

Discussion

TheThompson/Yelmsub-basinhasthepotentialforsignificantoffsetofmitigationdemandthroughtheexpansion

oftheCityofYelm’spublicwatersystem.TheCityofYelm,alargeGroupAsystem,hasappliedforwaterrightsin

thedeeperTQuaquifertoexpanditssystemcapabilities.Finalapprovalofthisnewwaterrightandsystem

expansionhasbeendelayedbylitigationconcerningtheadequacyofthemitigationofferedbyYelm.TheCityis


7-69

addressingthismitigationissueandexpectstogaininitialre-approvalforitswaterrightpermitapplicationin2019.

Onceapproved,thewaterusedbythisdeepermunicipalsystemwillbefullymitigated,withadditionalmitigation

benefitsavailabletoapplytostreamflowrestoration.TreatedwastewaterdischargeddirectlyintotheNisqually

RivermainstemortheCentraliaPowerCanalmaynotbeeligibleformitigationcredit,whereaswaterinfiltrated

higherinthesub-basiniseligibleasabenefit;furtherstudyandevaluationisnecessary.Theminimumstreamflow

benefitassociatedwiththisstrategyincludesonlyirrigationfromparksandplayfieldsanddirectrechargetothe

QvainYelm.ThemaximumalsoincludesreclaimedwaterdischargedtotheNisquallyRiverandCentraliaPower

Canal.

Approvalofthiswaterrightandinitiatingitswellanddeliverysystemwillhavemultiplemitigationbenefits.First,

becauseofexpandedwateravailability,aportionofthedemandfornewpermit-exemptwellsprojectedforthis

sub-basinwillbemetinsteadbytheexpandedYelmsystem.Thus,overalldemandwillbesignificantlyreduced.

Second,somenumberofexistingpermit-exemptwellswithinthecity’swaterdeliveryareamaybeaddedtothe

GroupAsystemandtheexistingwellretired(assumedtobe10%forpurposesofthisAddendum).Eachexisting

exemptwellretiredoffersmitigationforanewpermit-exemptwellwithintheThompson/YelmSub-basin(see

Chapter5.1.1).

TheCityofYelmwillalsobeinfiltratingreclaimedwaterfromthedeeperaquifersystem.Thenon-consumptive

componentofthisrechargethatisnotalreadyallocatedtomitigationtoYelm’swaterrightisalsoavailableasa

mitigationoffsetintheThompson/Yelmsub-basin.

Insummary,thesinglelargestmitigationactiontobetakenforthissub-basin(intheformofademandreduction

ratherthananoffset)istheapprovalofYelm’swaterrightforitsnewwell.Toaccomplishthis,thisplanAddendum

encouragesYelmtoidentifyandimplementsufficientadditionalmitigationforitsnewwellandsystemandthat

theDepartmentofEcology,uponreceiptofYelm’sadditionalmitigationinformation,proceedimmediatelywith

reviewoftheYelmwaterrightapplication.TheplanalsorecommendsthatYelmproceedtoimplementallprior

mitigationagreementsthatitnegotiatedconcerningexpansionofitswaterrights.

Othersub-basinmitigationrecommendationsfollowthosespecifictoprairiestreamenvironmentsasspecifiedin

Chapter5.1.1.AseachofthethreeCountiesdeveloparegulatoryapproachtowateravailabilitycertificationand

mitigation,weexpectthoseapproacheswillbeintegratedintocountypolicyasneeded.

7.3.3 Lackamas/Toboton/Powell Sub-Basin


Table7-9:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-basin


ConnectionsAnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)AnnualConsumptive



7-70

MitigationOptions

Table7-10(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheLackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-

basin.

Discussion

PowellCreekhasnoassociatedwaterrightsnorisitencumberedbyastreamclosure,meaningthatnewpermit-

exemptwellslikelycouldbepermittedinthisdrainagewithoutfurthermitigation.Inaddition,thisplan

recommendsacquisitionforpermanentprotectionandlong-termforestmanagementa240-acrecommercial

forestparcellocatedattheconfluenceofPowellCreekanditsmajortributary,theElbowLakeoutletstream.This

acquisition,whenimplemented,willprotectthestreamfromnegativeforestpracticeharvestandreplanting

impacts,andwillbettermaintainandenhanceassociatedwetlands.Averagestandageinthisparcelisover80

years,placingitinthehighest-prioritycategoryforprotectiontomaintainandenhancestreamflowbenefits(see

Chapter4).Protectingitwillavoidanimmediatelossofflowfromthescheduledclear-cutoftheparcel,abenefit

thatcanbemaintainedinthelongtermbymanagingitthroughtheNisquallyCommunityForestforflow

enhancement.Thisprojectwillprovidesufficientwatermitigationforanyfuturepermit-exemptwelldevelopment

intheaggregatedsub-basin.

Additionalsmallhabitatprojectswithflowandecologicalbenefitsmaybeidentifiedthroughtheprairiestream

restorationtemplatesdescribedinChapter5.ThurstonCountyhasidentifiedthePeissnerRoadfishpassage

barrierremovalonTobotonCreekasaninitialoption,andmayimplementfutureprojectsusingthisframework.

7.3.4 Lower Nisqually Sub-Basin


Table7-11:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–LowerNisquallyRiverSub-basin


Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptive


AnalysisperformedforthisplanAddendumdeterminedthatthrough2040theexpecteddemandforonlytwonew

wellsinthissub-basin.

MitigationOptions

Table7-12(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheLowerNisquallySub-basin.

Discussion

FortheRedSalmonCreekthereisthepossibilityofsmallstreamflowimpactsoffuturepermit-exemptwells.Also,

sincetheRedSalmonCreekareaisdirectlyadjacenttotheBillyFrankJr.NisquallyNationalWildlifeRefuge,it

mightbefeasibletoavoidstreamflowimpactsbypurchasingundevelopedlotsinfeeorthroughnon-development

easements.TheLowerNisquallyalsohasgoodpotentialformanagedaquiferrecharge(AppendixM).


7-71

7.3.5 Prairie Tributaries Sub-Basin


Table7-13:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–PrairieTributariesSub-basin


Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptive

Use(CFS)ActualPEWellUse(ThurstonPUDDataSource) 596 63 0.088ActualPEWellUse(EcologyMethodology) 596 149 0.206ConsumptivePortionofLegalRighttoWater 596 1,098 1.516

MitigationOptions

Table7-14(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsforthePrairieTributariesSub-basin.

Discussion

Thissub-basinisoneofprairiestreamsandmitigationforfuturepermit-exemptwellshereshouldfollowoneor

moreofthemitigationstrategiesfoundinChapter5.1.1specifictothehydrogeologiccharacteristicsofPrairie

streamsystems(Deepaquiferoptions1through3).Inaddition,PierceCountywillconsiderexploringhabitat

restorationprojects(ditchremoval,beaverintroduction,revegetation,andrelatedstrategies)toimplementin

Muck,Lacamas,andTanwaxCreeks.TheWashingtonWaterTrusthasalsoexploredpotentialforacquisitionof

agriculturalwaterrightsinthissub-basin.

AsestimatesforhabitatandothermitigationprojectsinPierceCountysub-basinsarefurtherrefined,theCounty

mayconsideradditionalapproachesasneededtoaddressmitigationneeds.

7.3.6 Ohop Sub-Basin


Table7-15:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–OhopSub-basin


Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptive


MitigationOptions

Table7-16(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheOhopSub-basin.

Discussion

HydrogeologicanalysisoftheflowimpactsoftherestoredOhopCreekchannelindicatethattherestoration

activitiesthemselveshavesubstantialinstreamflowbenefit.Forthelowerarea,about60%ofthetotalrestoration

lengthproposed,thestreamflowbenefithasbeen49.5AFYand0.0351cfs.Assumingtheseflowbenefit

calculationsholdtruefortheremaining1.8milesofrestoration,theadditionalstreamflowbenefitfrom


7-72

completingtherestorationprojectupstreamshouldbeapproximately24.4AFYand0.0173cfs,easilyexceeding

theprojectedwaterdemand,above.Therefore,theplanrecommendsthatthesmallflowimpactstoOhopCreek

instreamflowsbemitigatedthroughthefundingandimplementationofPhase4oftheOhopCreeksalmonhabitat

recoveryplan.Withthisandothersalmonrecoveryprojectsbeingimplementedsteadilyoverthenext20years,

therewillbeasubstantialnetecologicalbenefittotheNisquallyWatershed.

Inaddition,streamflowinOhopCreekhasimprovedoverthepast20yearswiththeacquisitionofformer

agriculturallandforconservationandstreamhabitatrestoration.Therewasnoefforttoplacethewaterrightsina

waterbank;thelandusechangeisincludedheresimplytodocumentthatthelanduseandirrigationpatternsthat

producedthestreamclosuresinearlierdecadeshavechangedconsiderably.

7.3.7 Mashel Sub-Basin


Table7-17:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–MashelSub-basin


Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptive


MitigationOptions

Table7-18(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheMashelSub-basin.

Discussion

SummerlowflowsarethecriticalenvironmentalandwatersupplyissuefortheMashelsub-basin.Althoughthe

projectedflowimpactsfromfuturepermit-exemptwellsisrelativelymodest,becauseofthecurrentcriticallow

flowsandtheimportanceofthissub-basinforsalmonhabitat,mitigatingtheflowimpactsandactuallyenhancing

summerlowflowsiscriticallyimportanttomeettheNetEcologicalBenefitrequiredatawatershedscaleforthe

NisquallyWRIA.

Therearetwosubstantialmitigationprojectsproposedforimplementationinthissub-basin,discussedindetailin

Chapter4.Becausetheseprojectsbenefittherecoveryofendangeredsalmonspecies,theyarelikelytobe

implementedthroughstreamflowrestorationandsalmonrecoveryfunding.Whenimplemented,theseprojects

areexpectedtomitigateallfuturenewpermit-exemptwellimpactsand,inaddition,willofferasubstantialNEB

fortheNisquallyWatershedbysupportingcornerstonesalmonrecoveryefforts.Inaddition,CommunityForest

managementofferslocaleconomicbenefits,supportingsustainablecommunitydevelopmentgoalsinruralareas

ofthewatershed(NisquallyCommunityForest,2013).

ThefirstisimplementingtheTownofEatonville’sstormwatermanagementplan.Currentlymuchoftherainfallin

thetownisdivertedintoacollectionsystemandthenchanneledtowardLynchCreek,anOhopCreektributary.

Thenewplanwouldreversethis,infiltratingstormwaterandultimatelyprovidingflowenhancementforthe

MashelRiver.ThePlanningUnitrecommendsthattheTownofEatonvilleandtheNisquallyIndianTribe,aslead


7-73

agencyforwatershedplanningandsalmonrecovery,pursuefundingtostudythefeasibilityofaddingwaterfrom

anothersub-basintosupplementstreamflowsandmeetEatonville’sfuturewaterneeds.

Thesecondprojectinvolvesforestmanagementintheupperreachesofthesub-basin.Researchindicatesthat

whencommercialforestsaremanagedonlongerrotations(60to80yearsratherthanthecurrent30-40years),

thereisanewbenefittostreamflow.Acquiringandmanagingforestlandsinthissub-basinwillrequiresubstantial

investmentoveranumberofyearsbutwillresultinalong-termimprovementofstreamflows.

Eitherorbothoftheseprojectswillmitigatetherelativelysmallimpactsprojectedforfuturepermit-exemptwells.

Also,acquiringforestlandforlong-termrotationmanagementisscalable,meaningaportionofthelarger

conservationforestcouldbeacquiredusingstreamflowrestorationfundingandthereforeoffsettheanticipated

impactsofnewpermit-exemptwellsinthesub-basin.

Asnotedabove,theTownofEatonvillegetitswatersupplyfromgroundwaterundertheinfluenceofsurface

water–theMashelRiver.Eatonvillehasnoviableplan,atpresent,tomeetitslong-termdemandforwater.

Shouldanout-of-sub-basinwatersourcebeidentifiedandmadeavailable,thatactionwouldpotentiallybenefit

bothEatonvilleandtheMashelRiver’sstreamflows.

7.3.8 Upper Nisqually Sub-Basin


Table7-19:ConsumptiveUseEstimates–UpperNisquallySub-basin


Connections

AnnualConsumptive

Use(AFY)

AnnualConsumptive


WateruseforecastsdevelopedfortheUpperNisquallySub-Basinutilizedthesameassumptionsregardingindoor

andoutdoorconsumptiveuseaswasappliedtotherestofthewatershed.However,forreasonsdiscussedin

Chapters2and3(e.g.,highlyforested,seasonandvacationuseofhomes),theoutdoorwateruseintheUpper

Nisquallyisanticipatedtobesignificantlysmallerthanforothersub-basins.

MitigationOptions

Table7-20(seeendofchapter)providesasummaryofmitigationoptionsfortheUpperNisquallySub-basin.

Discussion

NeithertheNisquallyRivernoranyofthenamedtributarystreamsintheUpperwatershedareclosedforout-of-

streamwaterappropriationandtheimpactsthemselvesareextremelysmall.Instreamflowshavebeensetforthis

reachoftheNisquallyandaretypicallymet,however,anynewusescouldbesubjecttointerruptionifactualflows

fallbelowregulatoryflows.Furthermore,streamflowbelowthisreachoftheNisquallyiscontrolledbyoperations

attheNisquallyHydroelectricProjectunderTacomaPower’sFERClicenseandnotbyactivitiesoccurringinthe

UpperNisquallyWatershed.Becauseofthesmallprojectedstreamflowimpactsandbecausethestreamsinthe

upperNisquallyaboveAlderreservoirarenotclosedtoout-of-streamappropriations,thePlanningUnithas


7-74

determinedthereisnoneedformitigationtooffsetfuturepermit-exemptwelluseintheUpperNisquallysub-

basinbeyondanyLewisandPierceCountypoliciesiftheyarefurtherdevelopedasLewisCountyparticipatesin

StreamflowRestorationandEnhancementprocessesinotherwatersheds,particularlyWRIA23,theUpper

ChehalisandPierceCountyparticipatesinWRIAs10,12and15.

7.4 Limitations and Uncertainty Scheduleandresourceconstraintslimitedtheabilitytoconductdetailedanalysesofmanyoftheidentified

mitigationopportunitiesinWRIA11,whichledtoincreaseduncertainty.RCW90.94.020requiresastrict

timeframe(February1,2019)foradoptionoftheWRIA11WatershedPlanupdate,leavingonlyafewmonthsto

identifyprojectsandconductthetechnicalanalysestoquantifynetecologicalbenefitsusedtodevelopthe

preliminarydraftoftheWRIA11WatershedPlanupdate.

Severalsourcesofuncertaintyaffectthequantificationofconsumptiveusefrompermit-exemptwellsaswellas

theabilityofprojectsandactionsintendedtomitigatethoseimpacts,including:

• Uncertaintyinnumber,spatialdistribution,andtimingofconsumptiveuseassociatedwithfuturepermit-exemptwellsandtheiractualimpactonstreamflow

• Uncertaintyinmagnitude,spatialdistribution,andtimingofoffsetsfrommitigationactions

• Uncertaintyregardinglandacquisitionandaccesstobuildprojects

• Uncertaintyregardingpermittingandregulatoryactions

• Uncertaintyinobtainingfunding,implementation,effectivenessandpermanenceofmitigationactions

• Uncertaintyregardingtheunderlyingassumptionsandanalysismethodsusedtoquantifyconsumptiveuseandtheeffectivenessofmitigationactions.

Totheextentthatmitigationactionshavebeenquantified,mostoftheoffsetsareassociatedwithprojectsthat

areinconceptualorpreliminarystatusandthusofferalowerlevelofimplementationandeffectivenesscertainty.

Theprojectlisthasbeenrecentlydeveloped,thelevelofdetailavailablevariesbyproject,andinformationabout

projectbenefitsisespeciallylimitedforconceptualprojects.

Severaloftheprojectsarenon-wateroffsetthatprovideecologicalbenefitsthatarequalitativeratherthan

quantitative.Severalofthewater-offsetprojects,suchasreplacingshallowwellswithdeeperwellsormanaged

aquiferrechargearedependentonhydrogeologyandsite-specificcharacteristicsthatcannotbeevaluatedwithout

site-specificinformationataprojectlevel.Thereisuncertaintyinprojectlocationsandwhentheycouldbebuilt.

Finally,thereisahighdegreeofuncertaintythatmitigationoffsetswillbesuccessful,especiallyforconceptual

projects,duetouncertainfundingsourcesandfeasibility.

Analysismethodsalsointroduceuncertaintiesintothecalculationofthevolume,locationandmagnitudeof

consumptiveuseimpactsandoffsets.Valuesforconsumptionandmitigationweredeterminedusingassumptions

andmodelsandarebasedonannualaverageswhicharelikelydifferentthanseasonalvalues.Althoughthevalues

generatedcanbeconsideredreasonableestimates,modelresultshavelimitationsandpotentiallyahighdegreeof

uncertainty.Anotherpotentialsourceofuncertaintyistheassumptionthatgroundwaterwithdrawalswillonly

impactstreamsinthesub-basintheyoccur.Althoughthisisgenerallysupported,impactscouldpropagateacross

sub-basins,orevenwatersheddivides.

Becauseoftheuncertaintyassociatedwithestimatingbothstreamflowimpactsandmitigationoffsets,consumptiveuseestimatescanbeconsideredmitigationtargets.Asprojectsarefundedandimplemented,this


7-75

uncertaintywillbereducedthroughpermittracking,projectimplementation,sitecharacterization,datacollectionandmonitoring.Measurestodecreaseuncertaintyinclude:

• Buildingpermittrackingregardingnewpermit-exemptuses;• Monitoringtoassesspermit-exemptwateruse,climate,groundwaterlevelsandstreamflow;• Continuingtoidentifymitigationprojectsandopportunitiesthattotalmorethantheestimated

consumptiveusemitigationtargettocreateabuffertoensurethatmitigationprojectsareadequatetocoveractualconsumptiveuses;

• Adoptingpoliciesandmanagementprogramsthat:o Adequatelytracknewpermit-exemptuses;o Secureadequatefundingforbuilding,monitoringandmaintainingprojects;o Avoidorminimizeconsumptiveuseimpactssuchasreducingwithdrawalsandwater

conservation;o Conductingadequatesitecharacterizationatprojectlocations;o Meteringasneeded,andmonitoringwhereappropriate;o Reduceuncertaintyinprojectimplementationandeffectivenessbyusingadaptivemanagement

programsthatadjusttofutureconditionsandfactorsthroughpotentialtrackingandmonitoring.

TrackingandmonitoringofmitigationoffsetsareaddressedinChapter8andwillbefurtherexploredbythe

PlanningUnitinconcertwiththeDepartmentofEcologyaspartoftheAdaptiveManagementprocess.

MitigationStrategy Description Sub-Basin(s)TimingofBenefits ProjectAssumptions

AnnualAFBenefit(AF)

MIN

AnnualAFBenefit(AF)

MAX

StreamflowBenefit(cfs)

MIN

StreamflowBenefit(cfs)

MAXEcologicalBenefits Uncertainties Reference

YelmOffsetAction1

ConnectnewdevelopmentinYelmUGAtoCitywaterserviceusing

deepwell

Thompson/Yelm Year-Round

TheconsumptiveuseportionforeachnewP-Eusewouldbereduced,dependingonlocationanddepth(upto0.249AFperconnection).

240.5 240.5 0.33 0.33Streamflowincreasesequal

totheamountofconsumptivewatersaved.

Waterrightpermitting Section5.1.1AppendixL

UpperNisquallySub-basinregulatorystatus

Mitigationnotrequiredbecausesub-basinisnot

closedandISFsarenormallymet

UpperNisqually Year-Round 49Acre-Feet 49 49 0.067 0.067Droughtconditions

couldresultinISFsnotbeingmet

Section3.3.8AppendixB

DeepGroundwaterOption1

CompletenewP-Ewellsonlyindeeperaquifers

AllSubBasins Year-round

TheconsumptiveuseportionforeachnewP-Eusewouldbereduced,dependingonlocationanddepth(upto0.249AFperconnection).

Streamflowincreasesequaltotheamountof

consumptivewatersaved.

Funding,regulations,quantifyingvolumeand

timingofactualbenefits

Section5.1.1


ReplaceshallowP-Ewellwithdrawalswith

withdrawalsfromdeeperaquifers

PrairieTributariesThompson/Yelm

Lackamas/Toboton/PowellYear-round

TheconsumptiveuseportionforeachP-Eusethatisreplaced(0.249AFper

connection).



Permitting,quantificationof

impactsandbenefitsSection5.1.1


DeepenPUD-managedGroupAwatersystem

groundwaterwithdrawals.

PrairieTributariesThompson/Yelm

Lackamas/Toboton/PowellYear-round

TheconsumptiveuseportionfortheGroupAusewouldbe

reduced,dependingonlocationanddepth(upto0.249AF/connection).



Funding,hydrologicconditions

Section5.1.1

WaterRightAcquisition Purchaseandretirewaterrights

PrairieTributaries IrrigationseasonWaterrightspecific-Tier1

only 0 673 0 0.93Streamflowincreasesequal

totheamountofconsumptivewatersaved.

Fundingforanalysesandpurchases,consumptiveuse

volumes,waterrightownerwillingnessto

sell.

Section5.1.2AppendixK

YelmOffsetAction2ConnectingexistingPermit-ExemptusestoYelm's

waterserviceThompson/Yelm Year-round

10%ofexistingwellsreplaced,consumptiveuseportioniscredited(0.249AF

perconnection).10.4 10.4 0.014 0.014



Assume10%ofexistingwellsinservicearea,fundingpermitting

Section5.1.1

YelmOffsetAction3InfiltrationofreclaimedClassAwatertoprovide

mitigationThompson/Yelm Year-round

Additionalrechargeofreclaimedwater 87 400 0.12 0.552

Streamflowincreasesequaltotheamountofreclaimedwaterdischargedtothe

shallowaquifer.

Funding,permitting,reclaimedwater

volume,site-specificfactors

Section5.1.1

PierceCountyStreamRestoration

Ditchremovalwithoffchannelstorage,Beaverreintroduction,floodplainreconnetionandstream

meandering,re-vegetation

PrairieTributaries Year-round Assume0.0096cfs/mileoflinearchanneland6-60miles 41.7 417 0.0576 0.576

Increasegroundwaterstorageinfloodplain,

increasedin-streamhabitat,waterqualityimprovements,increasedstreamflowduringlowflow/intermittentflow

season.

Funding,landavailabilityandaccess,

limiteddataonpotentiallyrestorableareasandhydrologic

conditions

Section5.1.4Table5-6AppendixE

ThurstonCountyStreamRestoration-Thompson/Yelm



Thompson/Yelm Year-roundAssume0.0096cfs/mileoflinearchanneland1.6-16

miles11.12 111.2 0.01536 0.1536



season.



conditions


ThurstonCountyStreamRestoration-Lackamas/Toboton/

Powell



Lackamas/Toboton/Powell Year-roundAssume0.0096cfs/mileoflinearchanneland.23-2.3

miles1.6 15.9 0.002208 0.02208



season.



conditions


ManagedAquiferRecharge

Diversionofhigherwinterstreamflowforinfiltration

andstorage

Mashel,Ohop,PrairieTribs,UpperNisqually,Lower

NisquallySummer-Fall

ProjectSpecific-assume0-5projectsin5sub-basins@200AFperprojectand6

monthbenefit

0 1000 0 2.7626 Reductioninhighflows,increasesinlowflows

Landavailability,funding,permitting,waterquality,sitespecificfactors

Secton5.1.3AppendixM

BarrierRemovalProjects

CulvertReplacement Lackamas/Toboton/Powell Year-roundPeissnerRoadProject

3.03Acre-Feet(0.0023cfs) 1.67 1.67 0.0023 0.0023 Re-openstreamreaches&habitat,increaselowflows

Funding,analyses,permitting

Section5.1.4Table5-6

MashelWatershedCommunityForest

ForestManagement,protection,acquisition,

restorationMashel Year-round

rateofpurchaseislinearandbeginsinyear1-and

compounds1699 3798 2.347 5.246

Streamflow,habitat,ecosystembenefits,woodydebrisandsedimentsupply,

erosioncontrol

Funding,modelinguncertainties

Section4.2.1Tables4-2and4-3

AppendixG

EatonvilleCapitalImprovementProjects

Implementationofhighestprioritystormwatercomprehensiveplan

projects

Mashel/Ohop(1) Summer-Fall 0.659-1.843AFY(2) 38.7 38.7 0.128 0.128 Increasedstreamflow,improvedwaterquality


Section4.2.2Table4-4AppendixH

EatonvilleWaterSystemConservation

Leakdetectionandrepair Mashel Year-round N/A 69.35 69.35 0.096 0.096 Increasedstreamflow Funding,unauthorizedwateruses

Section4.2.2Table4-4AppendixI

EatonvilleASR

Capturehighwinterflows,rechargeandstoreinthe

volcanicaquiferforrecoveryduringhigh-

demandseason

Mashel Summer-Fall 20-80Acre-Feet(2) 20 80 0.11 0.45 Increasedstreamflow

Funding,aquiferhydraulicproperties,groundwaterquality,abilitytostorewater,

impactsduringrecovery

Section4.2.2Table4-4AppendixH

EatonvilleAlternativeWaterSupply

RelocateEatonville'swaterintakefromMashelRiverneartowntomouthof

MashelRiverorAlderLake

Mashel Summer 95Acre-Feet(0.8cfs) 95 95 0.8 0.8 IncreasedstreamflowFunding,property

ownership,right-of-wayaccess,waterquality

Section4.2.2Table4-4

(Golder,2010)

OhopPhaseIVFloodplainRestoration

&Protection

Floodplainreconnectionandstreammeandering,engineeredlogjams,re-

vegetation

Ohop Year-round 24.4Acre-Feet/yr 24.4 24.4 0.0173 0.0173


increasedin-streamhabitat,waterqualityimprovements,increasedstreamflowduring

lowflowseason.

Projectfundingandlandsecured-low

uncertainty


OhopWatershedRecovery/Community

Forest


restorationOhop Year-round

rateofpurchaseislinear,benefitsarenon-linear-beginsinyear1-and

compounds

0 1112 0 1.5356Streamflow,habitat,

ecosystembenefits,woodydebrisandsedimentsupply,

erosioncontrol



AppendixG

BaldHillsWatershedRecovery/Community

Forest


restorationToboton/Lackamas/Powell Year-round


compounds

80.9 487 0.1117 0.6727Streamflow,habitat,


erosioncontrol



AppendixG

UpperNisquallyRecovery/Community

Forest


restorationUpperNisqually Year-round


compounds

0 0Streamflow,habitat,


erosioncontrol



AppendixG

2470 8623 4.22 14.361AllEatonvilleCIPProjectsareaccountedforinMashelSub-basin(InactualityCIP1&2areinMashel;3&4areinOhop;5&6areonthedividebetweenthetwosub-basins)2Seasonalflowbenefitonly.CFSshowsmaximumseasonalbenefit;AnnualAFshowstotalbenefitaveragedoveroneyear.SeeChapter4andAppendicesforassumptions.

Table7-2:SummaryofWRIA11WatershedMitigationOptions

MicroM

itigatio

nSub-Ba

sinStrategies

Salmon

RecoveryStrategies

Deman

dRe

duction

TOTAL


7-77

Table7-6:McAllisterSub-BasinMitigation

MitigationStrategy Description

TimingofBenefits ProjectAssumptions

AnnualBenefit(AF)MIN

AnnualBenefit(AF)MAX

FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN

FlowBenefit(cfs)MAX EcologicalBenefits Uncertainties


CompletenewP-E

wellsonlyindeeper

aquifers

Year-round

Theconsumptiveuseportionfor

eachnewP-Eusewouldbe

reduced,dependingonlocation

anddepth(upto0.249AFper

connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof

consumptivewater

saved.

Funding,regulations,

quantifyingvolumeand



ReplaceshallowP-E

wellwithdrawals

withwithdrawals

fromdeeper

aquifers

Year-round


eachP-Eusethatisreplaced

(0.249AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof

consumptivewater

saved.

Permitting,

quantificationof

impactsandbenefits


DeepenPUD-

managedGroupA

watersystem

groundwater

withdrawals.

Year-round


theGroupAusewouldbe


anddepth(upto0.249

AF/connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof

consumptivewater

saved.

Funding,hydrologic

conditions

TOTALMitigation TBD TBD TBD TBD ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):39


7-78

Table7-8:Thompson/YelmSub-BasinMitigation





FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


YelmOffset

Action1

Connectnew

developmentinYelm

UGAtoCitywater

serviceusingdeepwell

Year-

Round


eachnewP-Eusewouldbereduced,

dependingonlocationanddepth(up

to0.249AFperconnection).

240.5 240.5 0.33 0.33

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof


Waterright

permitting

Deep

Groundwater

Option1

CompletenewP-Ewells

onlyindeeperaquifers

Year-

round




to0.249AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof


Funding,

regulations,

quantifyingvolume

andtimingofactual

benefits

Deep

Groundwater

Option2

ReplaceshallowP-Ewell

withdrawalswith

withdrawalsfrom

deeperaquifers

Year-

round


eachP-Eusethatisreplaced(0.249

AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof


Permitting,

quantificationof

impactsandbenefits

Deep

Groundwater

Option3

DeepenPUD-managed

GroupAwatersystem

groundwater

withdrawals.

Year-

round

Theconsumptiveuseportionforthe

GroupAusewouldbereduced,


to0.249AF/connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof


Funding,hydrologic

conditions

YelmOffset

Action2

Connectingexisting

Permit-Exemptusesto

Yelm'swaterservice

Year-

round

10%ofexistingwellsreplaced,

consumptiveuseportioniscredited


10.4 10.4 0.014 0.014

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof


Assume10%of

existingwellsin

servicearea,funding

permitting

YelmOffset

Action3

Infiltrationofreclaimed

ClassAwatertoprovide

mitigation

Year-

round

Additionalrechargeofreclaimed

water87 400 0.12 0.552

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamountof

reclaimedwater

dischargedtotheshallow

aquifer.

Funding,permitting,

reclaimedwater

volume,site-specific

factors

ThurstonCounty

Stream

Restoration-

Thompson/Yelm

Ditchremovalwithoff

channelstorage,Beaver

reintroduction,

floodplainreconnection

andstreammeandering,

re-vegetation

Year-

round

Assume0.0096cfs/mileoflinear

channeland1.6-16miles11.12 111.2 0.01536 0.1536

Increasegroundwater

storageinfloodplain,

increasedin-stream

habitat,waterquality

improvements,increased

streamflowduringlow

flow/intermittentflow

season.

Funding,land

availabilityand

access,limiteddata

onpotentially

restorableareasand

hydrologic

conditions

TOTALMitigation 349.02 762.1 0.47936 1.0496 ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):390


7-79

Table7-10:Lackamas/Toboton/PowellSub-BasinMitigation

MitigationStrategy DescriptionTimingofBenefits ProjectAssumptions



FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


DeepGroundwater

Option1

CompletenewP-E

wellsonlyindeeper

aquifers

Year-

round

Theconsumptiveuseportion

foreachnewP-Eusewouldbe

reduced,dependingon

locationanddepth(upto

0.249AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.




DeepGroundwater

Option2

ReplaceshallowP-E

wellwithdrawalswith

withdrawalsfrom

deeperaquifers

Year-

round


foreachP-Eusethatis

replaced(0.249AFper

connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Permitting,

quantificationofimpacts

andbenefits

DeepGroundwater

Option3

DeepenPUD-managed

GroupAwatersystem

groundwater

withdrawals.

Year-

round


fortheGroupAusewouldbe

reduced,dependingon

locationanddepth(upto

0.249AF/connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Funding,hydrologic

conditions

ThurstonCounty

StreamRestoration-

Lackamas/

Toboton/Powell

Ditchremovalwithoff

channelstorage,

Beaverreintroduction,

floodplain

reconnectionand

streammeandering,

re-vegetation

Year-

round

Assume0.0096cfs/mileof

linearchanneland.23-2.3

miles(seeAppendixE)

1.6 15.9 0.002208 0.02208

Increased

groundwaterstorage

infloodplain,in-

streamhabitat,water

qualityimprovements,

streamflowduringlow


season

Funding,landavailability

andaccess,limiteddata

onpotentiallyrestorable

areasandhydrologic

conditions

BaldHillsWatershed

Recovery/Community

Forest

ForestManagement,

protection,

acquisition,

restoration

Year-

round

Rateofpurchaseisassumed

linear,benefitsarenon-linear-

beginsinyear1-and

compounds(seeAppendixG)

80.9 487 0.1117 0.6727

Streamflow,habitat,

ecosystembenefits,

woodydebrisand

sedimentsupply,

erosioncontrol

Funding,modeling

uncertainties

BarrierRemoval

Projects CulvertReplacementYear-

round

PeissnerRoadProject

(seeSection5.1.4and

AppendixE)

3.03Acre-Feet(0.0023cfs)

1.67 1.67 0.0023 0.0023

Re-openstream

reaches&habitat,

increaselowflows

Funding,analyses,

permitting

TOTALMitigation 84.17 504.57 0.116208 0.69708 ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):107


7-80

Table7-12:LowerNisquallySub-BasinMitigation





FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN

FlowBenefit

(cfs)MAX EcologicalBenefits Uncertainties

Deep

Groundwater

Option1

CompletenewP-E

wellsonlyindeeper

aquifers

Year-

round


eachnewP-Eusewouldbe


anddepth(upto0.249AFper

connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.


quantifyingvolume

andtimingofactual

benefits

Deep

Groundwater

Option2

ReplaceshallowP-E

wellwithdrawalswith

withdrawalsfrom

deeperaquifers

Year-

round


eachP-Eusethatisreplaced


TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Permitting,

quantificationof

impactsandbenefits

Deep

Groundwater

Option3

DeepenPUD-managed

GroupAwatersystem

groundwater

withdrawals.

Year-

round


theGroupAusewouldbe


anddepth(upto0.249

AF/connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Funding,hydrologic

conditions

Managed

Aquifer

Recharge

Diversionofhigher

winterstreamflowfor

infiltrationandstorage

Summer-

Fall

ProjectSpecific-assume0-5

projectsin5sub-basins@200AF

perprojectand6monthbenefit

(SeeSection5.1.3andAppendix

M)

0 200 0 0.552

Reductioninhigh

flows,increasesin

lowflows

Landavailability,

funding,permitting,

waterquality,site

specificfactors

TOTALMitigation 0 200 0 0.552 ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):0.5


7-81

Table7-14:PrairieTributariesSub-BasinMitigation





FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


Deep

Groundwater

Option1

CompletenewP-E

wellsonlyin

deeperaquifers

Year-round



dependingonlocationanddepth

(upto0.249AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.




Deep

Groundwater

Option2

ReplaceshallowP-

Ewellwithdrawals

withwithdrawals

fromdeeper

aquifers

Year-round


eachP-Eusethatisreplaced(0.249

AFperconnection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Permitting,quantificationof

impactsandbenefits

Deep

Groundwater

Option3

DeepenPUD-

managedGroupA

watersystem

groundwater

withdrawals.

Year-round

Theconsumptiveuseportionforthe

GroupAusewouldbereduced,

dependingonlocationanddepth

(upto0.249AF/connection).

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Funding,hydrologic

conditions

WaterRight

AcquisitionPurchaseand

retirewaterrights

Irrigation

season

Waterrightspecific-Tier1only

(SeeSection5.1.2)0 673 0 0.93

Streamflowincreases

equaltotheamount

ofconsumptivewater

saved.

Fundingforanalysesand

purchases,consumptiveuse

volumes,waterrightowner

willingnesstosell.

Managed

Aquifer

Recharge

Diversionof

higherwinter

streamflowfor

infiltrationand

storage

Summer-Fall


projectsin5sub-basins@200AF

perprojectand6monthbenefit

(SeeSection5.1.3andAppendixM)

0 200 0 0.552

Reductioninhigh

flows,increasesinlow

flows

Landavailability,funding,

permitting,waterquality,

sitespecificfactors

PierceCounty

Stream

Restoration

Ditchremoval

withoffchannel

storage,Beaver

reintroduction,

floodplain

reconnectionand

stream

meandering,re-

vegetation

Year-round

Assume0.0096cfs/mileoflinear

channeland6-60miles(see

AppendixE)

41.7 417 0.0576 0.576

Increasegroundwater

storageinfloodplain,

increasedin-stream

habitat,waterquality

improvements,

increasedstreamflow

duringlow


season.

Funding,landavailabilityand

access,limiteddataon

potentiallyrestorableareas

andhydrologicconditions

TOTALMitigation 41.7 1290 0.0576 2.058 ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):149


7-82

Table7-16:OhopSub-BasinMitigation

MitigationStrategy DescriptionTimingofBenefits ProjectAssumptions



FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


ManagedAquifer

Recharge

Diversionofhigher

winterstreamflow

forinfiltrationand

storage

Summer-Fall


projectsin5sub-basins@

200AFperprojectand6

monthbenefit

(SeeSection5.1.3and

AppendixM)

0 200 0 0.552

Reductioninhigh

flows,increasesin

lowflows

Landavailability,funding,

permitting,waterquality,

sitespecificfactors

OhopPhaseIV

Floodplain

Restoration&

Protection

Floodplain

reconnectionand

stream

meandering,

engineeredlog

jams,re-vegetation

Year-round24.4Acre-Feet/yr

(seeAppendixE)24.4 24.4 0.0173 0.0173

Increase

groundwater

storagein

floodplain,

increasedin-stream

habitat,water

quality

improvements,

increased

streamflowduring

lowflowseason.

Projectfundingandland

secured-lowuncertainty

OhopWatershed

Recovery/Community

Forest

Forest

Management,

protection,

acquisition,

restoration

Year-round

rateofpurchaseislinear,

benefitsarenon-linear-

beginsinyear1-and

compounds(seeAppendixG)

0 1112 0 1.5356

Streamflow,habitat,

ecosystembenefits,

woodydebrisand

sedimentsupply,

erosioncontrol

Funding,modeling

uncertainties

TOTALMitigation 24 1336 0.017 2.105 ActualConsumptiveUse(ECYmethod,AFY):7


7-83

Table7-18:MashelSub-BasinMitigation





FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


ManagedAquifer

Recharge

Diversionofhigher

winterstreamflow

forinfiltrationand

storage

Summer-Fall


projectsin5sub-basins@200

AFperprojectand6month

benefit

0 200 0 0.552

Reductioninhigh

flows,increasesin

lowflows

Landavailability,

funding,

permitting,water

quality,sitespecific

factors

Mashel

Watershed

CommunityForest

ForestManagement,

protection,

acquisition,

restoration

Year-round

rateofpurchaseislinearand

beginsinyear1-and

compounds

1699 3798 2.35 5.25

Streamflow,

habitat,ecosystem

benefits,woody

debrisand

sedimentsupply,

erosioncontrol

Funding,modeling

uncertainties

EatonvilleCapital

Improvement

Projects

Implementationof

highestpriority

stormwater

comprehensiveplan

projects

Summer-Fall 0.659-1.843AFY 38.7 38.7 0.128 0.128

Increased

streamflow,

improvedwater

quality

Funding,modeling

uncertainties

EatonvilleWater

System

Conservation

Leakdetectionand

repairYear-round N/A 69.35 69.35 0.096 0.096

Increased

streamflow

Funding,

unauthorizedwater

uses

EatonvilleASR

Capturehighwinter

flows,rechargeand

storeinthevolcanic

aquiferforrecovery

duringhigh-demand

season

Summer-Fall 20-80Acre-Feet 20 80 0.11 0.45Increased

streamflow

Funding,aquifer

hydraulic

properties,

groundwater

quality,abilityto

storewater,

impactsduring

recovery

Eatonville

AlternativeWater

Supply

RelocateEatonville's

waterintakefrom

MashelRivernear

towntomouthof

MashelRiveror

AlderLake

Summer95Acre-Feet(0.8cfs)

SeeGolder(2010)95 95 0.8 0.8

Increased

streamflow

Funding,property

ownership,right-

of-wayaccess,

waterquality



7-84

Table7-20:UpperNisquallySub-BasinMitigation





FlowBenefit(cfs)MIN


UpperNisqually

Sub-basin

regulatorystatus

Mitigationnot

requiredbecause

sub-basinisnot

closedandISFsare

normallymet

Year-Round 49Acre-Feet 49 49 0.067 0.067N/A(demand

reduction)

Droughtconditions

couldresultinISFs

notbeingmet

ManagedAquifer

Recharge

Diversionofhigher

winterstreamflow

forinfiltrationand

storage

Summer-Fall

ProjectSpecific-

assume0-5projects

in5sub-basins@200

AFperprojectand6

monthbenefit

(SeeSection5.1.3and

AppendixM)

0 200 0 0.552

Reductioninhigh

flows,increasesin

lowflows

Landavailability,

funding,permitting,

waterquality,site

specificfactors



8-85

Chapter 8 Implementation and Adaptive Management

8.1 Implementation AlthoughactionfundingandimplementationisnotaddressedunderRCW90.94.020,itisincludedinthisAddendumintheformofnextsteps.ThissectionaddressesimplementationofthisWatershedPlanAddendumincludingpolicyrecommendationsandprojectactions;detailedimplementationofindividualactionswillbeaddressedthroughimplementationplansandimplementationmonitoring.

ImplementationoftheactivitiesspecifiedinthisNisquallyWatershedManagementPlanAddendum(Addendum)willcommencefollowingitsadoptionbyEcology.ThedeadlineforadoptionbyEcologyisFebruary1,2019,assetforthinRCW90.94.020(7)(b).TheprojectsandregulatoryprocessesconsideredinthisAddendumareinvariousstagesofdevelopment.AspartofImplementation,theNisquallyPlanningUnitwillcontinuetoworktogethertofurtherdevelopprojects(includingfeasibilitystudiesandadditionalstreamflowmodeling),assistCountygovernmentsasnecessaryinevaluatingpotentialchangestoregulatorypolicy,andgarnerfundingforimplementationafterthestatutorydeadlineforsubmittal.ItisassumedtheproposedprojectswillbefundedunderEcology’sStreamflowRestorationgrantsorSalmonRecoveryfunding.

WhilemostwatershedssubjecttotherequirementsoftheRCW90.94.020haveovertwoyearstorespondtotherequirementsoftheAct,theNisquallyWatershedPlanningUnithashadlessthaneightmonths.Therearethreecountieslocatedwithinthewatershedthatwillreviewandcouldpotentiallyimplementchangestotheircurrentbuildingapplicationprocesstoaddressruralwateruse.Duetotheshorttimeframe,somemitigationstrategiesthatarebeingdevelopedtooffsetpotentialstreamflowimpactsfrompermit-exemptwellwithdrawalsneedfurtherdevelopmentandquantificationafterthemandatedFebruary1,2019planupdate.Duringimplementation,thePlanningUnitmayrequestrule-makingtoaddressmodificationstothedomesticpermit-exemptwellconnectionfeesand/orthewaterusequantitiessetforthinRCW90.04.020(5)(f)thatareenactedthroughEcology.

Thurston,PierceandLewisCountiesarecontinuingtoexploreregulatorystrategiestooffsetpermit-exemptwellimpacts,ifadditionalmitigationbeyondstreamflowandhabitatprojectsisdeterminedtobenecessary.ThesestrategieswillbeappliedandfurtherdevelopedforotherwatershedsintheirresponsestoRCW90.94.020andRCW90.94.030.ThurstonCountywillbeapplyingmethodologyfromtheNisquallyprocesstoWRIAs13,14,22and23;PierceCountytoWRIAs10,12and15;andLewisCountytoWRIAs13and23.ThePlanningUnithasstructuredanadaptivemanagementapproachthatwillcontinueafterFebruary1,2019toenableImplementingGovernmentstofullydevelopmitigationactionsandimplementpotentialcodeorordinancechangesinparallelwithotherwatersheds.Detailedevaluationofhabitatprojectsandtechnologiesthatwillmorespecificallyquantifystreamflowbenefitswillalsooccurduringthisadaptivemanagementperiod.Section8.2belowaddressesthePlanningUnit’sadaptivemanagementapproach.

ThePlanningUnitiscurrentlydiscussingseveralactionsthatwouldrequirefuturerule-making.AtthistimethereisconsensusonthePlanningUnittomaintainflexibilityuntiltheseoptionscanbefurtherexplored.Potentialfuturerule-makingcouldinclude:

• Areductioninwaterusequantities(3,000gpdperconnection)perRCW90.94.020(5)(f).• Considerationofmeteringaspartofavoluntaryprogramassociatedwithabuildingpermitapplication

process(meteringtoqualifyasmitigationcreditorreductioninfees)


8-86

• AmendmentofwellconnectionfeessetforthinRCW90.04.020(5)(f)orimplementationofafeesystemaccountingforspecificmitigation(seeChapter6).

ThePlanningUnit’snextstepstowardimplementationofthestrategiestooffsetruralwateruseandachievenetecologicalbenefitinWRIA11areoutlinedbelow:

Table8-1:SummaryofPlannedImplementationActionsforWRIA11Entity ImplementationAction FundingSourceNisquallyIndianTribe

1. ExtendEcologycontractpastMarch31,2019toenablePlanningUnittocontinueimplementation

2. ManagefutureeffortsoftheNisquallyPlanningUnittofurtherdevelopandimplementactionsinthisWatershedPlanAddendum.

Ecology

NisquallyPlanningUnit

3. Continuediscussionsregardingareductioninwaterusequantities(3000gpdperconnection)perRCW90.94.020(5)(f).

4. Considermeteringaspartofavoluntaryprogramassociatedwithbuildingpermitapplicationprocess(meteringtoqualifyasmitigationcreditorreductioninfees)

5. Furtherexplorewaterrightacquisitionorpartialacquisitionasafollow-ontotheworkperformedforthePUinDec2018.

6. Consideralternativemethodsfortrackingabandonmentofpermit-exemptwells,replacementofpermit-exemptwellswithwaterservicefromawatersystemdrawingfromadeeperaquifer,andmitigationcreditsforanumberofotherstrategiesaspresentedinChapters5and6(permit-exemptwellmitigationcreditsystemorbank).

7. SupportThurstonPUDbywayofgrantfundingapplicationeffortstoexplorefeasibilityofrehabilitatingseveralGroupAwatersystems

8. ExplorepotentialfordevelopmentofoneormoreofnineManagedAquiferRechargesitesthatEcologyhasidentifiedintheWatershed

Ecologyandin-kindfromPlanningUnitmembers

NisquallyIndianTribe,NisquallyCommunityForest,andSalmonRecoveryHabitatWorkgrouppartners

9. CommunityForest(basin-wide):developadditionalmodelingwithmorerefinedestimatesofstreamflowbenefitsatvariousacquisitionratesandaveragestandages.

10. MashelWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest:acquiretimberlandtoshiftintoflowenhancementmanagementregime

11. MashelBaseFlow:implementsixCapitalImprovementProjectsfromEatonville’sComprehensiveStormwaterPlan;furtherexplorewatersystemefficiencies,ASRandalternatewatersourceoptionsforTownofEatonville

12. OhopValleyFloodplainRestoration:implementPhaseIVofOhoprestorationfromNisquallySalmonRecovery’sFourYearWorkPlan

13. MashelRiverRiparianCorridorProtectionandRestoration:installandmaintainatleast30additionalEngineeredLogJamsintheMashelRiver;monitorstorageandflowimpacts

14. MuckCreekRecovery:identifyrestorablestreamreachesanddesignandimplementrestorationprojects;furtherstudyintermittentflowdynamicsandimpactonsalmonids

15. PrairieTributariesRecovery:identifyrestorablestreamreachesanddesignandimplementrestorationprojects;furtherstudyintermittentflowdynamicsandimpactonsalmonids

16. OhopWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest:acquiretimberlandtoshiftintoflowenhancementmanagementregime

17. BaldHillsWatershedRecovery/CommunityForest:acquiretimberlandtoshiftintoflowenhancementmanagementregime

Ecology(StreamflowRestoration,CleanWaterStateRevolvingFund)SalmonRecoveryFundingBoardPugetSoundAcquisitionandRecoveryFundThurstonandPierceCountyConservationFuturesFunds


8-87

18. BarrierRemoval:identifyprioritybarriersblockingaccesstoavailablerestoredornaturalsalmonidhabitatandremoveorupgrade

ThurstonCounty

19. BoardofCountyCommissionersapprovePlanAddendumandcommittosupportimplementation.

20. ContinuetodevelopbuildingpermitprocesstoensureandaccountforruralwateroffsetswhileworkinginWRIAs13,14,22and23.

21. Reviewofregulatoryprocessandconsiderrequesttoamendfeesystem.AnyproposedchangestotheThurstonCountydevelopmentcodewouldfollowthefollowingprocess:

a. Backgroundresearch–internalstaffandstakeholderreviewthatleadstothedevelopmentofaproposalandoptions.

b. PlanningCommissionreviewandpublichearing.PlanningCommissionmakesarecommendationtotheBoardofCountyCommissioners.

c. BoardofCountyCommissioners/BoardofHealthreview.BoCCholdsapublichearingandmakesafinaldecision.

22. Developadministrativeandfinancialstructuretoimplementfee-basedmitigationasdeterminedbythecodereviewandupdate(Step3above).

23. Applyforfundingandimplementlocalhabitatrestorationprojectsinlowersub-basins(floodplainrestoration,barrierremoval)

ThurstonCounty

Dept.ofEcology

24. SupportadditionaldevelopmentandimplementationofthePlanAddendumthroughanextensionofparticipationfundingtothePlanningUnitleadandparticipatingentitiesbeyondFebruary1,2019.

25. PrioritizefundingproposalsthataddressstrategiesidentifiedinthisapprovedPlanAddendum(includingfutureroundsofStreamflowRestorationfunding).

26. ConductrulemakingifspecifiedbythePlanningUnitduringimplementation–thiscouldincludeamendmentsrelatedtofeesandwateruserestrictionsestablishedinRCW90.94.

27. WorkwiththePlanningUnittomonitorandreportonprogressinimplementationofthestrategiesinthisplanAddendum

Ecology

LewisCounty 28. ContinuetodevelopbuildingpermitprocesstoensureandaccountforruralwateroffsetswhileworkinginWRIAs13and23.

LewisCounty

PierceCounty 29. Continuetorecordandreportpermit-exemptwellconnectionsassociatedwiththebuildingpermitprocesstoaccountforruralwateroffsetsperRCW90.94.020(5).

30. ContinuereviewofregulatoryprocessandconsiderationoffeesystemamendmentsaspartofWRIA10,12,and15processes.

31. Identify,applyforfundingandimplementlocalhabitatrestorationprojectsinPrairieTributariesSub-basin

PierceCounty

CityofYelm 32. Developatrackingsystemtotrackthenumberofpermit-exemptwellsthatarereplacedbywatersystemhookuponcenewmunicipalwellisonlinewithwaterrights.Includetrackingofthequantityofnon-consumptiveportionofreclaimedwaterinfiltratedbytheCityintotheshallowQvaaquifer.

CityofYelm


8-88

ThurstonPUD 33. WorkwithWRIA11PlanningUnitongrantapplicationeffortstofundafeasibilitystudytorehabilitateand/orenhancewatersysteminfrastructureforseveralGroupAwatersystemsinthelowerwatershed.

RevolvingLoanandGrantFundforSmallWaterSystems,Ecologystreamflowrestoration

ToBeDetermined

34. Projecttracking,permit-exemptwelloffsettracking,mitigationcredittracking

ToBeDetermined

8.2 Adaptive Management ThisAddendumtotheNisquallyWatershedPlanidentifiesmitigationstrategiesandpreliminarypolicyrecommendationsdesignedtooffsettheimpactsthatnewpermit-exemptwellsmayhaveonstreamflowsorotherseniorwaterrights.Italso,incoordinationwiththeNisquallySalmonRecoverystrategy,makesrecommendationsforhabitatprojectsthatwill,incombinationwiththemitigationstrategies,provideaNetEcologicalBenefit(NEB)forstreamflowsintheNisquallyWatershed.

ThePlanningUnit,inadoptingtheserecommendations,hasgoodconfidencethattheywillmeettheirmitigationoffsetandNEB/salmonrecoverygoals.However,theyalsorecognizethatestimatesofruralgrowthandsubsequentconsumptiveusemayneedtobemodifiedandthatsomemitigationrecommendationsmayyielddifferentstreamflowbenefitsthanexpected.Toaddresstheseuncertainties,thePlanningUnitsupportsadaptivemanagement:short-andlong-termevaluationofthesuccessoftherecommendationsandacommitmenttomodify,replaceorsupplementasneeded,overthe20-yearplanninghorizon,tomeetthemitigationandNEBgoalsestablishedinthisplanAddendum.AdaptivemanagementrecommendationsfromthePlanningUnittoImplementingGovernments,EcologyorotherentitiesaresubjecttopublicreviewandapprovalthroughCountylegislativeprocesses.

ThisplanAddendumiscomposedofbothSalmonRecoverystrategiesandstreamflowmitigationstrategiesthatwerespecificallydevelopedtoaddresstheStreamflowRestorationAct(RCW90.94.020).ThereisarobustadaptivemanagementprotocoldevelopedandadministeredbytheNisquallyLeadEntityforlarge-scalesalmonrecoveryprojectsidentifiedinthisAddendum(NisquallyIndianTribeSalmonRecoveryProgram,2018).TheLeadEntityprocessforadaptivemanagementasrelatedtohabitatprojectsisdiscussedbelowinSection8.2.1.AdaptiveManagementofthemitigationstrategiesandpoliciesaddressingRCW90.94.020isaddressedbelowinSection8.2.2.

8.2.1 Habitat Projects ThePlanningUnit’scorestrategyofmajorhabitatprojectsprovidingNEBmitigationisstructuredwithbuilt-inflexibilityandexpectationsforongoingadaptivemanagement.Thisisbecauseitisalignedwithsalmonrecoverygoalsovertheimplementationperiod,specificallythroughtheNisquallySalmonRecoveryHabitatProjectRankingGuidance(2018;seeAppendixF-3).

Salmonrecoveryprojectproposals,includingthosewithstreamflowbenefitsdiscussedinChapter4ofthisAddendum,aresubmittedannuallytotheNisquallyIndianTribe’sSalmonRecoveryProgram(theNisquallyLeadEntity).TheLeadEntitygiveseachprojectatechnicalanalysisscorebasedonitsexpectedimpactonChinookandsteelheadpopulations,includingbenefittostreamflows.TheNisquallyHabitatProjectRankingGuidance(2018)detailstheEcosystemDiagnosisandTreatmentmodelusedtoidentifyreacheswithmaximumhabitatbenefitfor


8-89

listedsalmon,andfromtheretodevelopmeasurableimplementationmetricsforthelarge-scaleinitiativesadvancedbyeachproject.Thehighestscoringprojectsarethosewiththegreatestexpectedpercentchangetothekeyimplementationmetric.Projectsarethenscoredbasedonreadiness,cost-effectiveness,andtiming/sequencingbytheNisquallySalmonRecoveryHabitatWorkGroupandrankedforfundingandimplementationpriorityaccordingly.

RankingisbasedonthetwocurrentESA-listedspeciesinthewatershed(Chinookandsteelhead).Theselistingsdrivetheprioritizationofprojectsexpectedtodelivermaximumbenefittothesespecies,withprimaryfocusonhabitatintheMashelRiverandOhopCreek.NisquallywinterchumsalmonarenotcurrentlylistedundertheESA,butbecauseoftherun’suniquetiming,itmaybeconsideredforlistingatafuturedate.ESAlistingofchumorotherspeciescouldcreateadaptivemanagementchangestotheprioritizationofhabitatrestorationinitiativesandprojects.ThePlanningUnit’sgoalforNEBistosupporttheNisquallyLeadEntityinmanagingcurrentlistedpopulationsandanyfuturelistedspeciesaccordingtothebestavailablescienceatthewatershedscale.

8.2.2 Sub-Basin Mitigation Strategies Oftenadaptivemanagementprogramsaredesignedtodirectlymonitorimpactsasameasureofsuccess.Inthecaseofmitigation,theestimatedper-connectionconsumptiveuseimpactsareverysmallanditmaynotbepossibletomeasuresuccessdirectly(e.g.,bymeasuringtributarystreamflow).Therefore,thePlanningUnitrecommendsasystemofcompliancemonitoring.

ThePlanningUnit’sfirstprioritymitigationstrategyistofullyimplementsalmonrecoveryprojectswithstreamflowbenefits.Ithasalsooutlinedarangeoflocalmicro-mitigationstrategiesthatwouldworkinconcertwithwatershed-scalehabitatinitiativestoprovideoffsetsfornewpermit-exemptwellswithinspecificsub-basins.ThePlanningUnitexpectstoworkwiththeDepartmentofEcologythroughouttheimplementationperiodtotrackandadjustbothdemandforecastsandmitigationestimates,andtosupportEcologyandImplementingGovernmentsinaddressingachanginglandscape.

Someofthesemicro-mitigationstrategiesmaydependonpolicydevelopmentandimplementationactionsbythethreecounties.TheNisquallyPlanningUnitacknowledgesthatourearlierdeadlinemeanssomeoftheseactionswillbefurtherdevelopedincoordinationStreamflowRestorationActprocessesinotherWRIAs.ItislikelythatthecountiesmayadoptanapproachtomitigationthatdiffersfromthisplanAddendum.ApproachesidentifiedthroughtheseotherWRIAprocessesthatmeetthesamemitigationgoalsandoffsettargetsidentifiedinthisplanAddendumwouldfallwithinthePlanningUnit’sunderstandingofadaptivemanagement.Asthesecounty-levelapproachestakeshape,theNisquallyPlanningUnitsupportstheinclusionofmonitoringprotocolsandbenchmarkstoinformadaptivedecision-making.


8-90

References

Abdelnour,A.,Stieglitz,M.,Pan,F.,&McKane,R.(2011).Catchmenthydrologicalresponsestoforestharvestamountandspatialpattern.WaterResourcesResearch,47(9).

Abdelnour,A.,McKane,R.,Stieglitz,M.,Pan,F.,&Cheng,Y.(2013).EffectsofharvestoncarbonandnitrogendynamicsinaPacificNorthwestforestcatchment.WaterResourcesResearch,49(3),1292-1313.

AHBL(October2013).TownofEatonvilleComprehensiveStormwaterPlanUpdate.Eatonville,WA.

AnchorQEA,LLC(October2010).InitialAcquisitionandRestorationAssessmentoftheSmithRanch.PreparedforCitiesofLacey,Olympia,andYelm.Seattle,WA.

Beechie,TimothyJ.;Sear,DavidA.;Olden,JulianD.;Pess,GeorgeR.;Buffington,JohnM.;Moir,Hamish;Roni,Philip;Pollock,MichaelM.(2010).Process-basedprinciplesforrestoringriverecosystems.BioScience.60(3):209-222.

Borgen,E.,Cronin,A.,andAylward,B.(June2010).FeasibilityAnalysisforaNisquallyWaterBank.Seattle:WashingtonWaterTrustandEcosystemEconomics.Documentinpreparation.

CDM(2001).McAllisterBaselineMonitoringProgram:FinalReport.Vol.1-3.PreparedfortheCityofOlympiaPublicWorksDepartmentby:Camp,Dresser,andMcKee,WaterResourcesGroup.GigHarbor,WA.

CDM(April2002).InterimReport,ModelConstruction,andSteady-StateCalibration,McAllisterWellfieldNumericalModel.PreparedfortheCityofOlympiaPublicWorksDepartmentby:Camp,Dresser,andMcKee,WaterResourcesGroup.GigHarbor,WA.

CityofOlympiaandNisquallyIndianTribe(September2008).McAllisterWellfieldMitigationPlan.Olympia,WA.

CityofYelm(2001).YelmComprehensiveFloodManagementPlan.Yelm,WA.

Dion,N.P.,Turney,G.L.,andJones,M.A.(1994).HydrologyandQualityofGroundWaterinNorthernThurstonCounty,Washington.USGSWaterResourcesInvestigationReport92-4109.

Drost,B.W.,Ely,D.M.,andLum,W.E.(1999).ConceptualModelandNumericalSimulationoftheGround-Water-FlowSystemintheUnconsolidatedSedimentsofThurstonCounty,Washington.USGSWaterResourcesInvestigationReport99-4165.

Erickson,D.(1998).YelmGroundwaterBaselineSampling.WashingtonDepartmentofEcology,WaterBodyNo.WA-11-1010GW.PublicationNo.98-301.

Esri(2018).UpdatedDemographics,2018Population,households,andhousing.Retrievedfromhttp://doc.arcgis.com/en/business-analyst/web/data.htm.

Frans,L.M.andOlsen,T.D.(2016).Numericalsimulationofthegroundwater-flowsystemoftheKitsapPeninsula,west-centralWashington(ver.1.1,October2016):U.S.GeologicalSurveyScientificInvestigationsReport2016–5052,63p.,http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165052

GolderAssociates(October2003).NisquallyWatershedManagementPlan.Olympia,WA:NisquallyIndianTribe.Retrievedfromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0311018.pdf.


8-91

GolderAssociates(February2007).NisquallyWatershedDetailedImplementationPlan.Olympia,WA:NisquallyIndianTribe.Retrievedfromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0711054.pdf.

GolderAssociates(March2010).PhaseIStorageEvaluation,TownofEatonville.Eatonville,WA.

GolderAssociates(March2011)CityofYelmSouthwestWell1ADevelopmentReport.Yelm,WA.

Greene,M.&Thaler,T.,Griffith,G.,Crossett,T.,Perry,J.A.;(Eds)(2014).ForestandWaterClimateAdaptation:APlanfortheNisquallyWatershed.ModelForestPolicyPrograminassociationwiththeNisquallyRiverFoundationandtheCumberlandRiverCompact;Sagle,ID.

Hall,J.,Kane,J.,Swedeen,P.,Blair,G.,Webster,M.,Hodgson,S.,Ellings,C.,Benson,L.,Stonington,D.,McKane,R.,Barnhart,B.,Brookes,A.,Halama,J.,Pettus,P.,andDjang,K.(May2018).NisquallyCommunityForestVELMAmodelingtoevaluateeffectsofforestmanagementscenariosonstreamflowandsalmonhabitat.Manuscriptinpreparation.

Hoenig,L.(2012).McAllisterWellfieldMitigationPlan(December2010).2012AnnualReporttotheDepartmentofEcology.Olympia,WA:SubmittedbyCityofOlympiaandNisquallyIndianTribe.

Jones,M.A.,Orr,L.A.,Ebbert,J.C.andSumiola,S.S.(1999).Ground-WaterHydrologyoftheTacoma-PuyallupArea,PierceCounty,Washington.USGSWaterResourcesInvestigationReport99-4013.

Kennedy,R.E.,etal.(2018).Anempirical,integratedforestbiomassmonitoringsystem.EnvironmentalResearchLetters,13(2),025004.

Kennedy,R.E.,Yang,Z.,Braaten,J.,Thompson,C.,Antonova,N.,Jordan,C.,andNelson,P.2015.AttributionofdisturbancechangeagentfromLandsattime-seriesinsupportofhabitatmonitoringinthePugetSoundregion,USA.RemoteSensingofEnvironment166:271-285.

Liddle,JanetA.(1998).OhopValley,CelebrationoftheNaturalandCulturalResourcesofOhopValley.Eatonville,WA.

LOTTWastewaterAlliance(January2004).HawksPrairieReclaimedWaterSatellite.FinalGroundwaterFlowModelingResults.Retrievedfromhttps://lottcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/hpGroundwater.pdf

May,C.W.(July2002).MeasuresofEcologicalIntegrityforSalmonidStreamsonDepartmentofDefenseFacilitiesinthePacificNorthwest:CurrentWatershedConditionsandManagementRecommendations(TechnicalReportAPL-UWTR0104).Seattle:AppliedPhysicsLaboratory,UniversityofWashington.Retrievedfromhttps://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADM001435.

McKane,R.,Halama,J.,Pettus,P.,Barnhart,B.,Brookes,A,.Djang,K.,Blair,G.,Hall,J.,Kane,J.,Swedeen,P.,andBenson.,L.(May2018).HowVisualizingEcosystemLandManagementAssessments(VELMA)modelingquantifiesco-benefitsandtradeoffsinCommunityForestManagement.Presentationat2018NorthwestCommunityForestForum,Astoria,OR.

Moore,G.W.,Bond,B.J.,Jones,J.A.,Phillips,N.,&Meinzer,F.C.(2004).Structuralandcompositionalcontrolsontranspirationin40-and450-year-oldriparianforestsinwesternOregon,USA.Treephysiology,24(5),481-491.

NisquallyChinookRecoveryTeam(August2001).NisquallyChinookRecoveryPlan.Olympia,WA.

NisquallyCommunityForest(February2016).UpperBusyWildUnitForestManagementPlan.


8-92

NisquallyCommunityForest(May2013).NisquallyCommunityForestPhaseOneProjectSummary.Retrievedfromhttp://nisquallylandtrust.org/nisqually-wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NisquallyCommunityForestPhaseISummaryReportLarge.pdf

NisquallyIndianTribe(April2006a).MashelRiverInstreamFlowStudy.

NisquallyIndianTribe(April2006b).MashelRiverHydrologicContinuityStudy.

NisquallyIndianTribeSalmonRecoveryProgram(2018).NisquallyHabitatProjectRankingGuidance.Developedfor2018SalmonRecoveryFundingBoard/PugetSoundAcquisitionandRestorationGrantRound.

NisquallySteelheadRecoveryTeam(July2014).NisquallyRiverSteelheadRecoveryPlan.Seattle,WA.Documentinpreparation.

NaturalResourceConservationService(1997).WashingtonIrrigationGuide(WAIG).U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.Retrievedfromhttps://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wa/technical/engineering/?cid=nrcs144p2_036314

Perry,T.D.andJones,J.A.(August2016).SummerstreamflowdeficitsfromregeneratingDouglas-firforestinthePacificNorthwest,USA.Ecohydrology,doi:10.1002/eco.1790.

Peter,D.H.andHarrington,T.B.(2014).HistoricalColonizationofSouthPugetSoundPrairiesbyDouglas-FiratJointBaseLewis-McChord.WashingtonNorthwestScience,88(3):186-205.

PierceCounty(June2014).PierceCounty2014BuildableLandsReport.Retrievedfromhttps://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30444/Final-Draft-2014-Pierce-County-Buildable-Lands-Report.

PierceCounty(September2018).PierceCountyComprehensivePlan.Ordinance#2015-40asamendedbyOrdinances2016-34s,2017-23,and2018-39s.Retrievedfromhttps://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38483/ADOPTED-Comprehensive-Plan-with-no-Community-Plans-Effective-9-1-2018.

PierceCounty(July2017).PierceCountyCountywidePlanningPoliciesAppendixA-Adopted2030Housing,Population,EmploymentTargetsforPierceCountyanditsCitiesandTowns.Ordinance#2017-24s.Retrievedfromhttps://www.co.pierce.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/23902/Appendix-A-CPPs.

Pollock,M.,Heim,M.andWerner,D.(2003).HydrologicandGeomorphicEffectsofBeaverDamsandTheirInfluenceonFishes.AmericanFisheriesSocietySymposium.

Pollock,M.M.,G.Lewallen,K.Woodruff,C.E.JordanandJ.M.Castro(Editors)2015.TheBeaverRestorationGuidebook:WorkingwithBeavertoRestoreStreams,Wetlands,andFloodplains.Version1.02.Portland,OR:UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService.Pringle,P.(2008).RoadsideGeologyofMountRainierNationalParkandVicinity.Olympia,WA:WashingtonDivisionofGeologyandEarthResources,InformationCircular107.

RH2Engineering,Inc.(November2012).TownofEatonvilleAlternativeWaterSourceInvestigationReport.Eatonville,WA.

RH2Engineering,Inc(August2018).TechnicalMemorandum:PotentialConsumptiveUseImpactsofDomesticGroundwaterPermit-ExemptWellsOvertheNext20YearsinWRIA1–FINALUPDATED.PreparedfortheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.August21,2018.

Shannon&WilsonInc(February2011).GroundwaterModellingtoSupportRevisedWaterRightsMitigationPlanning.CityofYelm,WA.


8-93

Sinclair,K.(December2001).AssessmentofSurfaceWaterandGroundwaterInterchangewithintheMuckCreekWatershed,PierceCounty.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyPublicationNo.01-03-037.Olympia,WA.

Tacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartment(March2018).GroupAWells.GIS(SDE)Database.

Tacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartment(March2018).GroupBWells.GIS(SDE)Database.

Tacoma-PierceCountyHealthDepartment(March2018).IndividualWells.GIS(SDE)Database.

ThurstonCounty(November2004).ThurstonCountyComprehensivePlan.ResolutionNo.13224asamendedbyResolutions13833(2007),13885(2007),14034(2008),14180(2008),14254(2009),14401(2010),14739(2012),14845(2013),14847(2013),and15019(2014).Retrievedfromhttps://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/planning/Pages/comp-plan-current.aspx

ThurstonCounty(November2018).StormwaterUtilityMemorandum:AquiferRechargeComparisonBetweenPredevelopedandDevelopedLotsinThurstonCounty.Documentinpreparation.

ThurstonCountyWaterResources(November2017;updatedAugust2018).TechnicalMemorandum#1:WaterUseandWastewaterGenerationinRural/SuburbanAreasofThurstonCounty,Washington.

ThurstonCountyWaterResources(July2018).TechnicalMemorandum#8:MethodsUsedtoCalculatethePumpingRates,Locations,andOpenIntervalsofActiveGroundwaterWellsinThurstonCounty,Washington.

ThurstonPublicUtilityDistrict(October2018).WaterUseRecordsforGroupAandBWaterSystemCustomersfrom2015-2017.

ThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncilPopulation(July2018).EstimatesWorkProgram.Retrievedfromhttps://www.trpc.org/480/Population-Housing-Employment-Data

ThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncil(2015).PopulationandEmploymentForecast.Retrievedfromhttps://www.trpc.org/480/Population-Housing-Employment-Data

ThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncil(2017).2040RegionalTransportationPlan.Retrievedfromhttps://www.trpc.org/662/2040-RTP

UnitedStatesv.StateofWashington,384F.Supp.312(W.D.Wash.1974).

WatershedProfessionalsNetwork,LLC(June2004).MashelRiverRestorationDesignTechnicalMemorandum.Puyallup,WA:PierceConservationDistrict.

WashingtonAdministrativeCodeChapter173-511.InstreamResourcesProtectionProgram–NisquallyRiverBasin,WaterResourceInventoryArea(WRIA)11.

WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(June2018a).ESSB6091StreamflowRestoration–RecommendationsforWaterUseEstimates.Publication18-11-007.Retrievedfromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1811007.pdf

WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(June2018b).InterimGuidanceforDeterminingNetEcologicalBenefitforstreamflowrestorationplanningandwaterpermitmitigationpilotsunderthe2018StreamflowRestorationAct.Publication18-11-009.Retrievedfromhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1811009.html


8-94

WashingtonWaterTrustandEcosystemEconomics.June2010.FeasibilityAnalysisforaNisquallyWaterBank,FinalDraft.Preparedby:ErikBorgen,EcosystemEconomics,AmandaCronin,WashingtonWaterTrust,BruceAylward,EcosystemEconomics.

Weber,N.,Bouwes,N.,Pollock,M.M.,Volk,C.,Wheaton,J.M.,Wathen,G.,Wirtz,J.,&Jordan,C.E.(2017).Alterationofstreamtemperaturebynaturalandartificialbeaverdams.PloSone,12(5),e0176313.

Documents

Nisqually Watershed Response to the 2018 Streamflow ... · Tom Kantz – Pierce County Lee Napier – Lewis County Russell Olsen – Thurston Public Utility District Allison Osterberg