wria 1 planning unit thursday, october 24, 2018, 5:30 - 8

WRIA 1 Planning Unit

Thursday, October 24, 2018, 5:30 - 8:30 PM

Garden Room, Civic Center Building, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham

Topic Time # Subtopic Action Needed? Handout or Homework? Co-Lead

Introductions; Agenda Review and Approval

5:30 1. Call to Order/Introductions No No Shannon

5:35 2. Review and approve agenda Yes – Approval 10/24/2018 Agenda All

5:40 3. Housekeeping and misc. Review and approve 10/11

meeting summary Consider modification to Nov

14 meeting time (1:00-3:00)

Yes – Approval 10/11 draft summary All

Planning Unit Topics

5:45 4. Timeline through January 2019 Review projected timeline for

completing update

No No Gary

6:15 5. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Status update on Monitoring

and Adaptive Management

No - Information No Gary

6:45 6. NGWS Policy Proposal

Review and discuss NGWS proposal

Yes – approval, if possible

NGWS policy proposal John

6:55 7. Suite of Projects for Watershed Management Plan Update

Continue discussion from 10/4

Yes – Approval

Suite of Projects for Watershed Plan Update (continued from 10/11)

Gary

7:25 8. Early Grant Applications

Planning Unit members requested an opportunity for applicants to the Streamflow Restoration Grant to present their project information

Yes – Support for grant applications supporting WMP update projects

Information will be sent separately as it becomes available.

Applicants

Lead Agency Update

8:15 9. Lead Agency Update No- Informational

Lead Agency Update Gary

Next Steps 8:20 10. Review action items; call for agenda items for Nov. meetings

Yes- agree on agenda items

No All

Public Comments

8:25 11. Public Comment Period, conclude meeting

No No Public

Agenda Handouts/Links:

1. 10/24/18 Planning Unit Agenda

2. 10/11/18 Draft Planning Unit Meeting Summary

3. NGWS Caucus Policy Proposal (resending from 10/11)

4. Suite of Projects for Watershed Plan Update (resending from 10/11; includes references to RH2 Technical Memo #2 information)

http://wria.rh2.com/public/Tech%20Memo%20re%20WRIA%201%20ESSB%206091%20Projects%20w%20ST%20changes%20FINAL%2010-02-2018.pdf

October 24, 2018 WRIA 1 Planning Unit Meeting

HANDOUT #2

Draft Meeting Summaries 10/11/18 Planning Unit Meeting

Draft October 11, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary Prepared by: Geneva Consulting

1

WRIA 1 Planning Unit Meeting 1

October 11, 2018 2

Meeting Summary 3

This summary captures key decisions and next steps from the October 11, 2018 meeting. Digital 4 recordings of the Planning Unit meetings can be found at the Planning Unit website at 5 www.wria1project.whatcomcounty.org. 6 7

Caucus Attendees: 8 Agriculture – Henry Bierlink 9 City of Bellingham –Inactive 10 Diking/Drainage – Fred Likkel 11 Environmental – Ander Russell 12 Federal Government – Not Represented 13 Fishers – Shannon Moore 14 Forestry – Dick Whitmore 15 Land Development – Dave Onkels 16 Non-Government Water Systems – John Mercer 17 Port of Bellingham – Kurt Baumgarten 18 Private Well Owners – Paul Isaacson 19 Public Utility District # 1 of Whatcom County – Rebecca Schlotterback 20 Small Cities – Mike Martin 21 State Government – Not Present 22 Water Districts – Dan Eisses 23 Whatcom County – Gary Stoyka 24

Others Present (based on sign-in sheets) 25 Alan Chapman Skip Richards Marian Beddill 26 Carole Perry Max Perry Karlee Deatherage 27 Dave Beatty Ellen Baker Kathy Sabel 28 Oliver Grah Tyler Schroeder Heather Good 29 Cliff Strong Chet Dow Rick Maricle 30 Molly Crocker 31 32 Shannon Moore called the meeting to order at 2:10 pm. 33

Planning Unit Motions That Passed1 34

Motion (Motion #1) by Alan Chapman with second by Skip Richards and amended by Ander 35

Russell to approve the minutes pending a correction to Motion #4 in the minutes based on 36

discussion of Agenda Item #5. 37

1 Note that motions (passed and not passed) are numbered in the order they were presented during the meeting.


2

Vote: 38

13 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land 39

Development, Non-Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well 40

Owners, PUD #1, Small Cities, Water Districts, Whatcom County) 41

0 abstain 42

0 opposed 43

Motion passes 44

Motion (Motion #2) by Paul Isaacson to move agenda item #5 up as #3 and seconded by Alan 45 Chapman. The order of agenda items was switched so the NGWS Policy Proposal remains item 46 #4 and the Suite of Projects becomes agenda item #5. 47

Vote: 48

13 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land 49

Development, Non-Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well 50

Owners, PUD #1, Small Cities, Water Districts, Whatcom County) 51

0 abstain 52

0 opposed 53

Motion passes 54

Planning Unit Motions That Did Not Pass 55

None 56

Other Items Considered (or Announced) By Planning Unit 57

The Private Well Owner Caucus reviewed their proposal regarding the Process and 58

Procedural Agreement (PPA), Section 4.1 decision-making process. The Caucus would like 59

to see Section 4.1 applied to all components of the Plan update and not have it limited to 60

the final Plan update. Calling for a formal vote on each component using Section 4.1 would 61

have the outcome of knowing where each caucus and government stands on each issue and 62

identify the areas that are non-negotiable. The difference between using Section 4.0 and 63

4.1 is the formal consensus process involving the Initiating Governments. The vote in 64

Section 4.1 also requires that if someone votes no, it requires the caucus voting to state the 65

reason, explain why it affects their interests, and propose an alternative. Section 4.0 can 66

call for a vote for individual components with the outcomes being based on a majority of 67

members present. It was noted that with Section 4.0 when there is a motion and a vote, 68

the minutes currently report how each of the caucuses voted (yea, nay, or abstain). The 69

Planning Unit members agreed that there will not be requests for a “head nod” to move 70

plan elements forward; votes will be taken and recorded using Section 4.0 of the PPA. 71

The other topic associated with voting was clarification on tallying abstentions in Planning 72

Unit votes. Planning Unit uses a process for passing motions based on a majority of 73


3

members present. Clarification was provided that if a motion is made it requires a 74

majority of members present to vote “yea” in order to pass since members abstaining are 75

counted as members present. 76

The Non-Government Water System (NGWS) Caucus introduced a revised policy proposal 77

related to topics of fees, water use allocation, and monitoring. The NGWS provided a 78

rationale for a proposal that supports maintaining the fee and water use metrics that are 79

identified in the legislation. The NGWS proposal supports the Planning Unit making the 80

intentional decision to not change the metrics rather than to not change them due to 81

indecision or the inability to reach consensus. There was brief discussion of the water use 82

and fee topics in the context of the NGWS proposal. In response to a call for members to 83

indicate their general support, some members said they support it, some generally support 84

but have questions and need to discuss with their caucus, and some appreciated the NGWS 85

taking a first step to provide the proposal but need to talk with their caucus before 86

discussing since they just received the proposal at the meeting. The NGWS proposal will be 87

added to the October 24 Planning Unit meeting. 88

Gary Stoyka reviewed the process that the Watershed Staff Team used to identify the suite 89

of projects being recommended to the Planning Unit for the Plan update per the Planning 90

Unit’s request. The projects in the suite of projects are primarily from the RH2 technical 91

memo #2 with the exception of one project that is new and a couple of modifications to 92

other projects. The new project is a Purchase of Development Right (PDR) program that has 93

site specific attributes because landowners apply to Whatcom County Planning and 94

Development Services to participate in the program. The PDR program is being 95

recommended by the Watershed Staff Team for inclusion in the suite of projects for the 96

Plan update as a WRIA-wide program. The Watershed Staff Team also recommended 97

consolidating all of the Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) projects that are listed in the RH2 98

appendices of Memo #2 into a single WRIA-wide MAR feasibility project. The final 99

modification is to the outdoor conservation program, which in the RH2 memo is focused on 100

agricultural outdoor use. The Watershed Staff Team recommendation for the suite of 101

projects is a domestic outdoor water conservation program. The summary table identifies 102

the aggregated sub-basin that the project would be located in and the offset amount 103

provided. 104

A motion was made by the Small Cities Caucus representative to support the suite of 105

projects and later tabled because some Planning Unit members did not feel like they had 106

enough information on the projects to support or reject the motion. One suggestion was 107

that those initiating the projects provide a one page summary of their projects. It was also 108

suggested that the Planning Unit look at existing projects that support mitigation that are 109

already moving forward such as the Middle Fork Passage Project. With regard to the Middle 110

Fork Project, several Planning Unit members noted that it is not a project that will provide 111

offset. The suite of projects will be added for continued discussion on the October 24 112


4

Planning Unit meeting. It was suggested that Planning Unit members needing more 113

information about the projects contact Gary in advance of the October 24 meeting. 114

Planning Unit members discussed the Streamflow Restoration Grant that opened for 115

applications on October 1. Applications are due October 31. The Ag Caucus expressed 116

interest in presenting their application to the Planning Unit for endorsement. It was noted 117

that other entities may also be considering an application. Planning Unit members would 118

like sponsors of applications to present an overview of their project application at the 119

October 24 Planning Unit meeting. Some Planning Unit members requested that a draft of 120

the application be provided to the Planning Unit in advance. 121

Planning Unit members briefly discussed meeting duration and that it may be necessary to 122

plan for three hour meetings. 123

Actions and Follow Up 124

The Planning Unit members agreed that there will not be requests for a “head nod” to move 125

plan elements forward; votes will be taken and recorded using Section 4.0 of the PPA. 126

Clarification was provided that if a motion is made it requires a majority of members 127

present to vote “yea” in order to pass since members abstaining are counted as members 128

present. 129

The NGWS proposal will be added to the October 24 Planning Unit meeting. 130

The suite of projects will be added for continued discussion on the October 24 Planning Unit 131

meeting. 132

Planning Unit members would like sponsors of applications to present an overview of their 133

project application at the October 24 Planning Unit meeting. 134

Public Comment 135

Kathy Sabel comments on the October 2 RH2 Task 2 Memo, reference in Watershed Staff 136

Team meeting summary to adaptive management flow chart, and whether the Planning 137

Unit needs to request funding for next year’s County budget. 138

Rick Maricle commented on fees associated with wells and that any fee should apply to all 139

wells regardless of use (e.g., domestic, commercial, municipal, etc.) 140

Meeting adjourned 4:15 pm. 141


HANDOUT #3

Non-Government Water Systems (NGWS) Policy Proposal

of 2

NGWSC proposal regarding policy issues quantity, fees, and monitoring revised 10/9/2018 1 2 The following policy proposal has been updated based on the generous feedback from caucus and 3

community members since the submittal of previous versions. Please note, no voting is required to 4

implement the proposed course of action contained within. The purpose of this proposal is to gain clarity 5

on where we are at on policy issues in a concise manner and support the momentum of the planning 6

unit’s efforts toward completion of 6091 related objectives by the impending deadlines. 7

8

Whereas: 9 10 The planning unit has recently received a request to consider a number of policy decisions; and 11 12

Of these policy decisions, some that have been presented are divisive and pose a very real and 13

disproportionate risk related to our cumulative goal of successfully meeting imposed deadlines; and 14 15 ESSB 6091 the “Water Availability” Act, later codified as RCW 90.94 “Streamflow Restoration”, Identifies 2 16

“policies” that may be modified in WRIA 1: (1) Fees, & (2) water use quantities; and 17 18

Groundwater and streamflow monitoring are critical components of adaptive management and plan 19

implementation; and 20 21 With respect to WRIA 1, 90.94 is categorically silent regarding the policy of metering, specifically on any 22

requirements to individually meter any new permit exempt well; and 23 24

Metering is not contemplated in the Law, and further contemplation of individual well metering at this 25

point in our planning process is both pre-mature and counter-productive; and 26 27 The policies we adopt may, per RCW 90.94.020 (6) (c) include updates to fees based on the planning unit's 28

determination of the costs for offsetting consumptive water use; and 29 30 It is our understanding that the principal intent of fees collected from new permit exempt well owners is 31

to proportionately fund the administrative costs of the offset and net ecological benefit projects; and 32

33

Grant funding has been made available, to fund capital and ongoing maintenance costs for consumptive 34

use offset and net ecological benefit projects; and 35

36

The current maximum annual average withdrawal of three thousand gallons per day per connection is 37

sufficient for the use of new permit exempt well owners based on reports received by the Planning Unit; 38

and 39

40

The likely annual average number of new wells based on the RH2 tech memo is something like 125 per 41

year, which will be consumptively using approx. 35 acre-feet per year (0.0483 CFS) across the entire 42

WRIA; and 43 44 There does not seem to be much adverse feedback from the current codified metrics of 3000 gpd and 45

$500 fee; and 46 47

Changes to the current codified metrics of 3000 gpd and $500 fee are likely to adversely affect the 48

Planning Unit’s ability to complete the collaborative process it began when 6091 was passed. 49 50 51

of 2

Therefore: 52

53

We offer this base case policy proposal: 54

55

Maintain the existing codified metrics of: 56

90.94.020 (5) (f) (i) An applicant shall pay a fee of five hundred dollars to the permitting 57

authority; 58

90.94.020 (5) (f) (ii) An applicant may obtain approval for a withdrawal exempt from 59

permitting under RCW 90.44.050 for domestic use only, with a maximum annual average 60

withdrawal of three thousand gallons per day per connection. 61

62

Rationale: 63 64 In support of the proposal we offer the following: 65 66 Quantity: The RH2 technical investigation has shown that the amount of water that will be consumptively 67

used over the next twenty years is far less than the one percent of the total that all the existing domestic 68

permit-exempt wells are using. Leaving the quantity at 3000 gpd and offsetting for the consumptive use of 69

the same serves to build in an exponential excess of offset input given that 3000 gpd is roughly ten times 70

the calculated actual average day demand of rural service connections. Limiting new permit-exempt wells 71

to less than that, and subsequently reducing offsets to match, will do nothing to improve streamflow. 72

Streamflow improvements require massive capital and effort to make noticeable improvements. The 73

focus should be in that direction. The Hirst decision only highlights our greater streamflow challenges. 74 75 Fees: The August staff team policy memo outlined many of the issues surrounding fees. If in fact the 76

intent of the legislature is to fully fund 6091 “Water Availability” projects through the grant program 77

made available by the same, then the $500 fee for administrative and permit processing costs seems 78

reasonable. 79 80 Monitoring: Monitoring is a necessary component of adaptive management. With limited resources, we 81

should endeavor to be mindful of which monitoring exercises have the greatest cost benefit ratio. We 82

have received a technical memo stating that if a new well was put to full beneficial use under current law, 83

the resulting use will fall short of the 3000 gpd limit that we are currently contemplating. Exceedances of 84

the 3000 gpd limit would be very difficult if not impossible to attain and most likely be caused by activities 85

that are already governed and enforced by law. 86

87

Therefore, if we maintain the 3000 gpd limit, individual well metering is no longer needed or the best use 88

of resources or focus. Knowing that we have assigned an exponentially high value to permit exempt well 89

use, we can shift our much-needed focus and efforts to stream gauging, groundwater monitoring, and 90

offset/NEB project performance monitoring. 91

92

Decision Making 93

Please note that an intentional decision to not change codified metrics is the preferred alternative to not 94

changing the same due to indecision or the inability to come to a decision by consensus. Review of the 95

facts at hand do not support changing codified metrics. The scope and authority afforded to the planning 96

unit by the 6091 “water availability” legislation is very limited and any attempts to reach beyond our 97

scope and authority are counterproductive and endanger our ability to meet 6091 deadlines. 98

99


HANDOUT #4

Suite of Projects for Watershed Plan Update (continued discussion from 10/11/18)

CN CW CS LN NF MF SF S LW

185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23

Project

No.

RH2

AssessmentProject Name Est. Offset RH2 Rationale for Assessment Potential Negative Side Effects Staff Team Member Comments

Capital Est.

Cost

O & M Est.

Annual Costs

Project Description- location within RH2

Memo. 2 High Bertrand WID Ground Water Augmentation of

Tributaries

170.7 171 Bertrand WID had recent success for two wells and

received temporary permit to continue. Could expand to

original vision of more wells if funding is provided. Year-

round closure of Bertrand Creek could pose a problem.

Timing of flow augmentation should coincide with

fishery needs.

Potential negative impacts on

salmonids.

Moving people off surface water

diversion preferred over gw

augmentation. Needs to be further

fleshed out; there are homing issues,

temporal issues (only provides water

August to November), and water

quality concerns to address.

$917,000 $0 Appendix B

24 High Birch Bay Water & Sewer District Deep Wells 880.0 440 440 Preliminary results from deep well drilling look

encouraging. New source of water could be used to

meet future growth and also to replace local sources. If

water from the District, imported from this well field, is

able to replace water used under an existing water right,

that water right can be placed into the Trust Water

Rights Program and could be used to offset consumptive

impacts in the Lower Nooksack Aggregated Sub-Basin.

Water quality differences in

municipal systems.

440 per basin split so can do the

assesment. May have water quality

issues. At this time the project is only

scoped to provide water to water

systems.

$27,695,000 $0 Appendix B

1 High Dairy Waste Processing/Treatment 13.4 13.4 Fully funded project will provide offset water and, as a

pilot project, may foster similar projects elsewhere in

WRIA 1. An NPDES permit is needed. There is a

mechanical system to operate and maintain. Water can

reduce irrigation need or benefit instream flows as

offset water.

Could degrade water quality,

especially if discharged water has

lower water quality (especially

temperature) than receiving water;

NPDES permit should address

quality, including temperature.

$903,305 $0 (farmer

supplies)

Appendix B

27 Med-High Coastal North-Convert Surface Use to Groundwater Use 7.3 7.3 Similar projects have been approved in WRIA 1. They

can be effective in reducing impacts on instream flows

but Foster decision limits flexibility under current

conditions. Stream gaging recommended to assess and

document benefits and the need for any changes or

adjustments. Offset will be approx. 10% of the full water

right quantities. Very low costs both initially and long

term.

Additional GW impacts due to

more direct withdrawal from the

acquifer.

Good project and spatial distribution

project. Same with project #26. RH2

assumed a 10% benefit- need to know

how solid the offset amounts are.


26 Med-High Lower Nooksack-Convert Surface Use to Groundwater

Use

158 158 Similar projects have been approved in WRIA 1. They

can be effective in reducing impacts on instream flows

and creating higher flows during the irrigation season

but Foster decision limits flexibility under current

conditions. NO negative impact on instream flows is

allowed. Offset will be approx. 10% of the full water

right quantities. Very low costs both initially and long

term.

Additional GW impacts Same comments as project #27 $2,566,000 $0 Appendix B

23 Med-High Middle Fork Porter Creek Alluvial Fan Project 11.2 11.2 This project increases groundwater storage according

the project sponsor. It needs to be determined whether

the increased storage results in actual increased

groundwater flow to the river. If this project reliably

provides an increase in instream flows it deserves a high

rating. If the flow component is uncertain,

unquantifiable, or less than anticipated, the project

seems likely to provide environmental benefits.

None Seasonal creek and dries up during the

critical instream flow season


Consumptive Use Calculations AFY (RH2 Tech Memo #1, August 21, 2018) [Note, these

values have not been subject to uncertainty analysis, a margin of safety, and may

change for other reasons)

Except where noted, the suite of projects identified below are from the RH2 Task 2 Memorandum, Appendix A Matrix for Evaluation of Early Action and Preliminary Projects. The suite of projects represent the

Watershed Staff Team's recommendation for the Watershed Plan update pending completion of the NEB evaluation.

Other factors that have been identified by some Staff Team members:

a. The distribution of offsets does/may not align with the distribution of projected impacts

b. Three aggregated subbasins do not have specific projects identified. WRIA 1 wide projects and programs are proposed that could/would address those aggregated subbasins.

c. The timing of offsets will/may be an issue in places.

Watershed Staff Team Suite of Projects Pending Net Ecological Benefit (NEB) Evaluation

The information in these three columns was added 10/17/18 to assist

Planning Unit members with their review. The information is taken from

the October 2, RH2 Technical Memo #2. Projects that list "appendix B"

have a one page description of the project in the appendix. Projects in

"Appendix C" are in a matrix

Link to October 2, RH2 Technical Memo #2 Referenced Below

Compiled by Geneva Consulting

October 4, 2018 1 of 3

http://wria.rh2.com/public/Tech Memo re WRIA 1 ESSB 6091 Projects w ST changes FINAL 10-02-2018.pdf


185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23

Project

No.

RH2


Capital Est.

Cost

O & M Est.

Annual Costs


Memo.










19NG Med-High Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and/or Creation on

Ecology-Approved NEP Parcels

2-5 2-5 Potential for water supply benefits and fishery

enhancements exists. Large amount of uncertainty

regarding effectiveness. The project will eliminate

agricultural activities on 30 acres and decommission

drainage ditches and retain excess moisture during the

winter which could be released to stream in the late

season. Provides shade to promote cooler water

temperatures. Additional study likely required.

Reduced ag land. $354,500 $32,500 Appendix B

28 Low-Med-High Storage Projects including Gravel Pits 365 365 This type of project has potential to be an effective

means of augmenting late season stream flows with

cooler water. However, the degree of effectiveness will

depend on local conditions including such

considerations as land ownership, elevations (is

pumping required?), the impact of the level of the water

table (will an increase flood basements or septic drain

fields?), the nature of the aquifer (does the water drain

to the stream too quickly or too slowly?), the volume of

water that can realistically be stored, etc. Design needs

to ensure that the project does not impair floodplain

function. Project currently contains a large amount of

uncertainty and therefore should be assumed to be low

with the potential to increase in rating

Increase GW levels and flooding,

potential for capture and stranding

of fish, potential for negative

impacts to floodplain habitat

connectivity, availability, and

formation.

PUD is looking at six potential locations-

end of oct should have two prioritized.

3 of the 6 would directly contribute to

tributaries

$1,946,000 $66,000 Appendix C

44 Med-High PUD #1: Vista Road Project 194 (this

value can be

greater than

194 afy)

194 Requires domestic well new construction to purchase

water from the PUD for offset (O&M costs). This would

introduce new water into the watershed, providing

100% offset. The importation of foreign water to the

drainage may impair homing of anadromous fish.

Concerns about interbasin

transfers negatively affecting

salmon homing

PUD will work with DFW and Tribes to

address oncerns associated w/ water

transfer

$1,000,000 $82,000 Appendix C

45 Med-High PUD #1: Lake Terrell 324 (this

value can be

greater than

324 afy)

185 139 Pipeline already existing, just needs to provide a tap and

potentially an energy dispersion structure. The

importation of foreign water to the drainage may impair

homing of anadromous fish.

Concerns about interbasin

transfers negatively affecting

salmon homing

PUD will work with DFW and Tribes to

address oncerns associated w/ water

transfer

$500,000 $82,000 Appendix C

43 Med-High PUD #1: Pipeline from Mainstem to Tributaries

(Previously "Pipe from Plant 2 to Tributaries"

1,452 1,452 Project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and

the PUD has sufficient water rights to provide this water.

Costs are a big issue. The issue of discharge in a manner

than does not impair homing of anadromous fish is

critical to success. Potential impacts of reduced flows in

the Lower Nooksack should also be considered. New

permit exempt wells could offset some of the O&M

costs.

Increasing diversions would reduce

flows in the Lower Nooksack below

the PUD's Plant 2 plus concerns

about interbasin transfers

negatively affecting salmon

homing.

$39,800,000 $549,000 Appendix C

19 Med-Low Skookum Creek Restoration 1,449 1,449 Medium-Low rating selected due to positive

environmental benefits but the uncertainty of the

quantity of offset water provided.

None $4,000,000 $0 Appendix C

21 Med-Low Stewart Mountain/SF Nooksack Conservation Sale 7,245-14,490 x x x Medium-Low rating selected due to positive

environmental benefits but the uncertainty of the

quantity of offset water provided. The potential for

benefits to instream flow due to changes in forest

management exists although the benefits, if they occur,

may be slow to accrue.

None $4,000,000 $0 Appendix C

22 Not Assessed North Fork Maple Reach Restoration Phase 1 Unknown Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for North Fork

habitat

not available Appendix D

46 Not Assessed Glacier WD Groundwater Study and Augmentation Unknown need

23

Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for North Fork offset;

project needs to provide at least 23 afy

not available

Modification of

Project #47

WRIA 1-Wide Conservation Program Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added for outdoor domestic

water conservation

not available Staff Team recommendation is for

domestic water conservation; project

description in RH2 matrices is for

agricultural conservation.





185 139 41 194 23 1 5 38 23

Project

No.

RH2


Capital Est.

Cost

O & M Est.

Annual Costs


Memo.










Modification of

MAR Projects

MAR Feasibility Study Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added a MAR Feasibility

Study that would evaluate feasibility

including locations and costs for MAR

not available Appendix D - consolidation of MAR

projects into single WRIA-wide feasibility

study

Not Assessed Purchase of Development Rights Program Unknown x x x x x x x x x Not assessed Not assessed Staff Team added the PDR program,

which has geographically specific

program applications. The specific

parcels for which applications have

been submitted is as of 10/4/2018 and

provided by Whatcom County

Planning. In addition to the site

specific parcels, the PDR program

could be a WRIA 1 wide tool that

supports other actions, projects, and

programs. NOTE: This is a new project

that was not included in the RH2

project matrices.

not available This program was not included in the

RH2 project matrices.




wria 1 planning unit thursday, october 24, 2018, 5:30 - 8

Documents