Shoreline plan stirs concern in Jefferson County

The following article appeared in the February 24, 2009 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Shoreline plan stirs concern in Jefferson County

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND -- Jefferson County has received 472 written and verbal comments on the proposed shoreline master program update, which have been divided into issues for Planning Commission consideration, a county planner told county commissioners Monday.

The Planning Commission will continue deliberations on the matter when it convenes at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at WSU Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock.

An update of the shoreline master program, required under state law, must be done by Dec. 1, 2011, which includes the state Department of Ecology's approval.

"We have worked long and hard without a consultant team and for public involvement," county Associate Planner Michelle McConnell told the commissioners, focusing on "busting the myths" that she said were circulating about the proposal.

Proposed in the update are buffers of 100 feet on lakes and 150-foot setbacks on saltwater bodies and streams, with a 10-foot building setback from the buffer or setback.

The existing Shoreline Master Program requires waterfront buffers and setbacks of between 30 and 100 feet.

The proposal affects about 6,200 shoreline parcels and about 3,200 property owners, said McConnell, and could take two years to make final.

The county has more than 250 miles of marine shore, 22 miles of lake shoreline and more than 238 miles of river frontage property, mostly on the county's West End.

Myth busting

McConnell said contrary to the myths:

• Homeowners whose homes are more than 75 percent damaged by fire can rebuild their homes on the same sites if they can't relocate under new buffer requirement
• The new buffers will not make lots unbuildable.
• Buffers are based on science, including a "massive" study that includes a shoreline inventory.
• The proposal is not too broad and merely meets Washington law.
• The proposal does not allow mining on Hood Canal.

Noting that the city of Port Townsend is requiring similar buffers, McConnell said, "We are not out of line with the buffers we are proposing."

County Administrator Philip Morley said it was likely that another Planning Commission public hearing would be conducted.

"The public involvement process has been intense and will continue," Morley told the commissioners Monday.

"A public dialogue is necessary, but we have to meet the state legal requirement. That's a balancing act.

"We can't keep with the existing program. Flat out legally, we don't have that option."

Jefferson County planners said the final draft from Jefferson County lawmakers would be sent to Ecology for review, and final adoption would likely take place sometime in 2010.

The new regulations will get final approval from Ecology, but not until 2011, county officials have said.

________
Port Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com .

Jefferson PUD eyes city water

The following article appeared in the February 20, 2009 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Jefferson PUD eyes city water

By Erik Hidle
Peninsula Daily News

The Jefferson County Public Utility District wants to buy some of the city of Port Townsend's water, but city officials aren't sure they want to sell.

Jefferson County PUD Commissioner Wayne King has long said that the utility, as the provider of water and sewer services to county residents, is interested in the city's seemingly abundant water supply.

The city operates its own water and sewer utility, separate from the PUD.

"Our deal is to look for water for the people," King said. "That's what we do.

"We are working to find more water by raising the levels of lakes and investigating reverse osmosis [from sea water].

"One thing we want to do is to purchase city water and test an aquifer storage and recharge in the area."

King explained that an aquifer storage and recharge meant pumping water back into the ground of a watershed in an effort to improve long-term water availability.

"What we're trying to do with the study is see if it will work and if it is feasible," King said.

"This would not just help the county. This could help the city residents as well."

King said the city's water supply is the obvious place to get the water from because of the availability.

Difficulties

Port Townsend Mayor Michelle Sandoval said that the city was willing to discuss such an idea, but that the city's water asset comes with a few twists that might make such a deal difficult.

"Our water comes from the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers," Sandoval said. "It has forever — since the town first got water."

Sandoval said the supply has been abundant in the past, but that the situation could change because withdrawals of the water are being monitored by federal agencies.

Historically, the city has operated under a special use easement from the U.S. Forest Service to run pipes across the forest land from the rivers to the city.

However, when the agreement was up for renegotiation 10 years ago, the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service became concerned about summer-run chum habitat.

The fisheries service issued an opinion in 2006 recommending water withdrawals be cut off between August and October each year to help the chum.

"If this shutdown were implemented, it would lead to the closure of the Port Townsend Paper Corp. mill," Sandoval said.

The city takes approximately two million gallons of water from the system daily and the mill — Jefferson County's largest employer with about 300 workers — takes between 11 million and 15 million each day, she said.

The city and the mill pull water from different lakes, but the water is from the same source.

"The mill helped with getting the pipes in for that, and so they too get a part of that water," Sandoval said.

"The problem is if we lose the rights to the water, then we're in trouble."

Temporary solution

As a way of temporarily solving the problem, an agreement was reached between the city and the federal agencies in May 2008 that the city and the mill could continue to withdraw water from the rivers for five years while the situation was monitored.

After the five-year period, the situation would be re-evaluated.

Sandoval said that because the city's water withdrawal is being monitored so closely, any deals could potentially put the city — and the mill — in a dangerous position.

"At this point we don't have the full permit yet," Sandoval said.

"We have to continually monitor our water usage for five years to make sure there is enough water coming out of the stream for the fish.

"We want to keep the same level as we're at right now, because if they say we are creating biological issues for the chum, they might pull our permit.

"They will be looking at the data and we have to be very cautious."

Still, Sandoval said, she would like to hear the PUD's proposal for an aquifer recharge and was willing to discuss other possible partnerships with the PUD.

"This discussion will continue," she said.

"The council will continue to be briefed about the water issues."

Joint meet coming up

Water in Jefferson County — including the PUD's interest in city water — was the topic of a Jan. 29 meeting at the Olympia office of Rep. Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, House majority leader and a representative of the 24th District, which includes Jefferson, Clallam and part of Grays Harbor counties.

Attending were Sandoval, King, Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan and private citizen Norm MacLeod.

King and Sandoval said they will discuss it again at a joint meeting between the City Council and the PUD commissioners some time in the next month.

"We will continue talking," Sandoval said, "but we're going to be cautious to protect the city's interests."

__________________________
Reporter Erik Hidle can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at
erik.hidle@peninsuladailynews.com

Proposed water well curbs draw fire in Sequim forum

The following article appeared in the February 19, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Proposed water well curbs draw fire in Sequim forum

SEQUIM — A plan to limit new wells in the Dungeness Valley drew a torrent of people to John Wayne Marina on Wednesday night.

The state Department of Ecology hosted "Water for People, Farms and Fish," a public workshop on how and why water from the Dungeness River must now be managed instead of allowed to flow freely into an unlimited number of households, lawns, gardens and fields.

The marina's meeting room filled up fast, until the crowd numbered nearly 150; among the most vociferous were longtime Dungeness Valley residents and real estate agents.

Cynthia Nelson, Ecology's watershed planner, sought to explain what's called the in-stream flow rule, a proposal intended to keep enough water in the Dungeness and surrounding streams for fish, other wildlife and recreational pursuits, while also allowing existing-well users to draw what they need.

To do this, the Sequim area now needs a "water exchange," a system of fees paid for water rights, said Ecology's Sarah Ferguson, lead writer of the in-stream flow rule.

And, Ferguson added, there may be periods when no new wells are permitted.

In some areas of the Dungeness Valley, these closed periods could stretch from spring into fall.

The development that has engulfed Sequim in recent years has produced the need for limits, Ferguson said, adding that in recent years, some 200 wells have been dug annually in the Dungeness watershed.

Are limits necessary?

But many in the crowd didn't believe that limits are necessary yet.

"Are you talking about shutting the Peninsula down?" asked Paul Burgess, who lives off of Palo Alto Road outside Sequim.

He also asked Nelson whether people growing their own food in small gardens, or farmers working larger parcels, will face limits on their water.

"People who are using their existing wells are not going to be affected," Nelson replied.

Future users "will have access to water. It's just that it's going to come with some strings attached to it, whereas before it has not."

Nelson didn't, however, explain how those strings will work or how much their attached price tags might be.

Instead, she and Ferguson took a long series of questions about why the strings are appearing now.

Ferguson sought to boil down the answer by saying that since many thousands of wells have been drilled in the past few decades, the flow of water in the Dungeness River now dwindles too low during summer and fall, making it an unhealthy habitat for threatened and critical species of salmon.

River 'over-appropriated'

The river is "over-appropriated," according to one of several Ecology posters displayed at the meeting.

So the state must establish a water bank, or exchange, a system that requires people to pay for new water rights.

This will ensure that there's enough water to go around, according to the poster.

Yet a long line of skeptics formed after Nelson and Ferguson spoke.

"Fundamentally I don't trust you," Bob Forde of Sequim told the Ecology officials. He also challenged their premise that the water supply is a finite resource.

Ferguson, meantime, stressed that the limits on future well drilling and activation are still under discussion, and that the proposed in-stream flow rule will appear on Ecology's Web site before any limits and fees are finalized.

She urged the audience to send feedback to her and to Nelson now and during the 180-day formal public comment period that will begin this spring, but she gave no start date.

According to an Ecology brochure, a public hearing will be held in early summer before the rule is adopted this fall.

Nelson told the crowd that Ecology has data on the demand that would result from continued development around Sequim.

If, for example, 10,000 people move into the Dungeness watershed and enjoy unlimited well and water rights, the river could dry up, Nelson said.

She then said she could "put that data together," on Ecology's Web site.

Karen Pritchard, a real estate agent who's worked in Sequim for 18 years, was among the last to address the officials.

"This is a noble effort ... to honor our earth, our fish," she said.

Then she asked whether the in-stream flow rule, with its limits on water use, would be discontinued if they don't save the salmon after all. "If we're not successful, we should quit punishing the people."

Ecology planner Brian Walsh said that the state has a far broader responsibility than only protecting fish.

"There are lots of benefits of keeping water in the river," he said, though he didn't elaborate.

Ferguson, for her part, urged Sequim area residents to send comments to her at ser461@ec.wa.gov, or to Nelson at cyne461@ec.wa.gov. Ecology's Web page outlining the in-stream flow rule, with its charges for new wells, is:

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/dngeness.html.

_________

Sequim-Dungeness Valley Editor Diane Urbani de la Paz can be reached at 360-681-2391 or at diane.urbani@peninsuladailynews.com

Proposal sparks fears for Chimacum farms

The following article appeared in the February 16, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Proposal sparks fears for Chimacum farms

By Paul Gottlieb
Peninsula Daily News

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second of a two-part series on a new water rule proposed by the state Department of Ecology that would affect new wells. Today's story looks more closely at the response to the proposal in the Quilcene River-Snow Creek watershed in East Jefferson County.

It's hard to believe that water would be an issue in the rainy Pacific Northwest.

But it is.

The state Department of Ecology is proposing a rule, called an instream flow rule, that restricts new well use in the Dungeness River watershed in the east end of Clallam County and in the Quilcene River-Snow Creek watershed in East Jefferson County.

This concerns property owners, real estate agents and those interested in development in both counties.

In both watersheds, the proposed new water-use regulations would both limit daily use of a new, permitted well to 500 gallons -- while owners of existing wells could continue to draw up to 5,000 gallons daily -- and place meters on new wells, with possible fines for exceeding the daily limit.

Additional restrictions are proposed for the Chimacum Valley.

"The demand for water in the Chimacum has been so high in recent years that what we're actually proposing is an even more restrictive standard for the sub-basin," said Dan Partridge, communications manager with Ecology's Water Resources Program.

"We're proposing that future water use be limited to indoor use only, until an alternative water supply is available for the sub-basin.

"Once another water source is available, the indoor-only restriction should be lifted."

The additional restriction for the Chimacum Valley would limit the water-reserve to 1,940 gallons per day for 109 new homes, which would be allowed only indoor water use.

At meetings on the proposal, hundreds have worried about the future of small farms in the Chimacum Valley.

"The impacts for new farmers are really huge," Kate Dean, who leads the Washington State University LandWorks Collaborative Outreach at the Port Hadlock Extension office, has said.

"Obviously, nothing can be grown on 500 gallons per day."

Ecology officials have been revising an original instream flow rule since 2005, when Jefferson County residents came out en masse against the proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.

The proposed rule is for the watershed that Ecology calls Water Resource Inventory Area 17, or WRIA 17.

The WRIA planning unit could not meet the state's deadline to write a locally composed rule, so Ecology took over the reins.

Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.

Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in late summer and early fall, Ecology said.

Increases in water use can reduce water needed by already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife that depend on adequate flow, officials say.

Driven by fish

The new rule proposals were sparked by federal regulators, Ecology watershed planner Cynthia Nelson said.

The process is being driven by the federal government's listing of chinook, chum, steelhead and bull trout as endangered, though the paucity of chinook is a major factor, she said.

"The feds drew a line around the Puget Sound and said, 'This is the area where the population of chinook are bad enough to be threatened, an area where we think we need to manage the fish to restore it," Nelson said.

Chinook, for example, spawn in August and September, when stream flows are at their worst, rainfall is at its lowest and water for agricultural and domestic use is in highest demand, she said.

"If we keep issuing water rights and people keep drilling 5,000-gallon wells close to a stream, [the wells] will go dry.

"This is all about trying to balance things a bit more. When people make water-allocation decisions, they will have to consider fish in the equation.

"People are going to get water, but the process is going to be a bit different than how it used to be.

"As a rule, people don't like [the restrictions], because it's a change in the status quo," said Nelson.

Public comment ended Friday for the instream flow rule for the Quilcene-Snow watershed.

The rule could be in its final draft form -- and ready to be considered for adoption -- by summer 2009, Ecology officials said.

The next meeting of the steering committee for the watershed will be from 10 a.m. to noon Feb. 24 at the Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port Hadlock.

The next meeting of the planning unit for WRIA 17 will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. March 10 at the Tri-Area Community Center. 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum.

For more information on WRIA 17, check http://www.wria17.org/.

The Elwha-Dungeness rivers watershed is WRIA 18. The proposed rule affects only the part of the area that is fed by the Dungeness River.

The next meeting on the proposed new rule will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Wednesday at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road.

The public can comment on the rule by writing to Ann E. Wessel, instream flow rules coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 or by e-mail to awes461@ecy.wa.gov.

Information about the rule, and about Water Resource Inventory Area 18, can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/planning/18.html.

________

Staff writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 and
paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew contributed to this report.

Water limits raise fears about development; rule puts 500-gallon curb on new wells

The following article appeared in the February 15 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Water limits raise fears about development; rule puts 500-gallon curb on new wells

By Paul Gottlieb
Peninsula Daily News

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series on proposed state water conservation rules and their effect on wells and water rights in the Dungeness and Chimacum basins.

A new limit on land development is coming our way: State water conservation rules that limit the amount of water that can be drawn from new wells.

Fish will be part of the equation, as the state Department of Ecology proposes restrictions to conserve water in rivers and streams that constitute salmon habitat, as well as underground water in aquifers.

The regulations would not affect owners of existing, permitted wells, but only those with undeveloped property who want to drill a well, including those who already have applied for one.

New water-use regulations proposed for both the Dungeness Valley in the east end of Clallam County and the Quilcene and Chimacum areas in Jefferson County would:

• Limit daily use of a new well to 500 gallons. It's estimated a family of four uses about 300 gallons a day for personal use such as bathing, drinking and doing laundry, Ecology watershed planner Cynthia Nelson said.
• Owners of existing wells could continue to draw down up to 5,000 gallons daily.
• Place meters on new wells to monitor usage -- with possible fines for exceeding the daily limit.

In the Chimacum Valley, water demand has been so high that Ecology is proposing that only indoor water use for new wells be permitted until an additional water supply is found.

In the Dungeness River watershed, the regulations could lead to new permit fees that Nelson said could exceed $2,000 per new well.

The far-reaching measure would affect any undeveloped property in the areas covered by the restrictions, including parcels inside the Sequim city limit where wells can be dug, Mayor Laura Dubois said last week.

Purpose, questions

Ecology says that wells in the Chimacum and Dungeness areas are sucking water out of aquifers at dangerous rates.

Regulations are necessary to protect salmon and safely manage development for future population growth, Nelson said.

Ecology has proposed instream flow rules -- regulations intended to guarantee enough water to support fish and wildlife and human use -- for both watershed areas, with some variation between them.

The public comment period for the rule in the Quilcene River and Snow Creek watershed ended Friday.

No end-date has been set for public comment on the Dungeness version of the rule.

The new rules are the result of an ongoing water management process, Nelson said, that began in 2005 with two goals in mind:

• Protect endangered salmon that find it difficult to survive and spawn in low-water-flow streams and rivers.
• Better manage land development that is drawing down water from aquifers.

But the proposal has the North Olympic Peninsula real estate industry and property owners up in arms.

Dungeness

The rules pose an onerous prospect for landowners not on current water systems, those in the real estate industry say.

"There's a sense that this is a taxation process that our government is going through, that there really isn't science behind this," said Dan Erickson of Coldwell Town & Country, which has offices in Sequim, Port Townsend and Port Ludlow.

"That doesn't mean we don't have any concern for the environment."

Doug Hale, one of Erickson's real estate agents, estimated hundreds of property owners could be affected by the regulations.

"There is a lot of undeveloped land out there that people have been sitting on for years," Hale said, adding that the state "already threw us a double whammy" about 18 months ago by prohibiting development on 1-acre parcels in rural areas, limiting such development to minimum 5-acre parcels.

It's important that the public participate now in meetings having to do with the instream flow rule, said Marguerite Glover, who serves on the Water Working Group for the Dungeness Instream Flow Rule process, and who is also the co-chairman of the government affairs committee of the Sequim Association of Realtors.

In an e-mail urging attendance at a workshop on the proposed rule for the Dungeness Valley, which will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, she said, "The instream flow rule will affect all new water well users, including those who have a well that has not been used yet, on a piece of property.

"Ecology plans on publishing the draft rule late in March, or early in April, with an adoption date of May (hopefully).

"Once the rule is published, there can be no substantive changes. That is why it is very important to give Ecology input now."

Frank Roach, 80, intends to preserve his 101 acres outside of Sequim for wildlife, but believes the pain should be spread around more.

"This loss of water in the Dungeness River, the solution to that should involve everybody, not just the people who own houses," he said. "The solution should be far-reaching."

The Sequim area is being singled out because that's where most of the growth is, he said.

He has "deep concerns," he said, that fresh water is used by gas stations for industrial-type uses and by car-wash businesses and school districts for washing vehicles. Roach said Class A, non-drinkable water or rain water would be just as effective for such purposes.

"Go green," he said.

_______

Staff writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 and paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew contributed to this report.

THE NEXT MEETING about a new instream flow rule to provide adequate water for salmon habitat and human use in the Dungeness Valley will be Wednesday.

The workshop will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road.

Ecology wants at least the water draw-down rules for new, unpermitted wells ready for 180-day public review by May, so that they can be in force by November, said Cynthia Nelson, Ecology watershed planner.

No time limit has been set for public comment for the Dungeness proposal.

The public can comment on the rule by writing to Ann E. Wessel, instream flow rules coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 or by e-mail to awes461@ecy.wa.gov.

Information about the rule, and about Water Resource Inventory Area 18, can be found at http://olysteward.org/cgi-bin/cblog/www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/planning/18.html.

---

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

Sunday, February 01, 2009

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

We now have a preliminary draft rule for WRIA 17's instream flows and other water management considerations. While far from perfect, we have something to work with, and we are developing new ways of working that will actually be capable of providing additional water for farms, fish, and people.

(Before we go any further, we need to understand that "farms, fish, and people" is phrased in alphabetical order. So long as these three primary user group classifications are discussed on an even keel, we can have a productive conversation. As soon as one of the groups is elevated above the other two, though, the conversation has a rather nasty tendency to dissolve into a confrontational mess.)

So . . . into the discussion steps the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Habitat Conservation Division with their "informal early comments" on the Department of Ecology's on the preliminary draft of Chapter 173-517 WAC, Water Resources Management Program, Quilcene-Snow Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA 17), otherwise known as the WRIA 17 instream flow rule. (The preliminary draft is open for public comment until February 13, 2009, so please go to this page, download a copy for yourself, and make as many constructive comments as you can, so that you can help Ecology make edits that will be helpful to those of us who live in WRIA 17.)

What does NMFS ask Ecology to do? Hold onto your seat . . .

In an email sent to the Department of Ecology, and obtained by the Peninsula Daily News and others at a public meeting we see:

"NMFS has identified several of the streams described in the Preliminary Draft Rule as important for conservation of summer-chum (listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act). Specifically, Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Chimacum, Salmon, and Snow creeks are key for recovery of the summer-chum, and are each flow limited. Therefore, NMFS recommends the Preliminary Draft Rule be revised to Not allow any additional water withdrawals from these streams."

. . .

"NMFS recommends that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene (15 cfs) and Chimacum (3 cfs) be revised to 0. In addition, NMFS recommends that additional water proposed for withdrawal, termed "reserves," be revised to 0 for Chimacum, Little Quilcene, Salmon, and Snow creeks. We note that Big Quilcene has a larger watershed and different hydrology from the other streams and may be able to accommodate a small amount additional water withdrawal, but much less than the proposed reserve of 200,400 gpd or 0.31 cfs. A reserve amount close to 20,000 gpd (0.03 cfs) would be an acceptable withdrawal for summer-chum salmon conservation in the Big Quilcene."

So, there you have it . . . NMFS has most certainly elevated the fish primary user group way, way above the farms and people groups. (We understand that, while NMFS generally responds to Ecology's requests for review and comment, this level of detail is unprecedented.) This makes discussion toward an improved way of managing our local water resources a more difficult task, even though we are going to need to have that discussion.

What we are trying to accomplish is the development of a local water resource management program that will make more water available for all uses. The folks in the Walla Walla Basin are having remarkable success with this approach, to the level of being able to provide water to streams that used to go dry every year. Salmon are now returning to those streams. With broad local support from the full range of water using interests, we can do the same here, and have already been asked to give it a try. We are not going to be able to go far enough down that road if NMFS digs in its heels and insists on their recommendation becoming law in WRIA 17.

Have you noticed that things have changed a tad since last summer, when the global, national, and regional economy was still ticking along more or less as usual? Would you say that the time for "business as usual" is well and truly over? With our national leaders and a growing number of leading economists accepting that we are in a recession that isn't going to be over any time soon . . . and that may, indeed, come to resemble a replay of the 1930s, we really need to take a reality check and plan for and prepare ourselves and our local region for some pretty tough times. If it doesn't happen, at least we will be further down the road toward meeting the demand for locally grown produce. If it does, then we will be better able to feed ourselves and our neighbors.

How did people around here make it through the Great Depression? Well, several long-time residents say there were few, if any lawns in Port Townsend, because everyone had vegetable gardens. The following decade those gardens gained the moniker of "Victory Gardens". Many families moved out of cities and towns and onto farms. Those who did managed to get through the hard times better than many of those who didn't have a farm to go to.

We need to increase agricultural production on existing farms and other suitable parcels. We should also make greater use of greenhouses. The use of higher efficiency watering practices will need to be a given. While we're at it, we need to make sure there's additional water in our streams when it's needed, because until we satisfy that basic condition, we're not going to be able to have additional water for growing food.

We can accomplish this and more, providing we have reasonable access to our water resources. With water banking, the ability to actually put additional water into our streams when they need it, and a locally-driven water management program, we can do it. If NMFS persists in insisting that the water in WRIA 17 is going to be a "no touch" resource in terms of supporting those needs, then it's going to be a much harder task than what we are already looking at.

What we need now is for NMFS to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see what we can do. Better yet, NMFS could even help us accomplish the dream. How about we ask that they not only give us a chance, but also help by becoming a part of the solution, rather than maintain their current position as a barrier to success?

State water proposal growing fears

The following article appeared in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News on Friday, January 30, 2009.

---

State water proposal growing fears

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND -- A National Marine Fisheries official has recommended to the state that no additional water allocations from the Big Quilcene River or Chimacum Creek be permitted.

If the recommendation -- one of many comments sent to the state Department of Ecology on its proposed Jefferson County in-stream rule -- were adopted, it would mean that while present allocations would be preserved, no more water allocations would be allowed for new homeowners or farmers from those two waterways.

That prospect has stirred fears for the future of agriculture in the Chimacum Valley.

'We can't produce'

"If we regulate to that point, we can't produce our own food because of the water situation," said Roger Short, a longtime Chimacum Valley farmer.

"I don't know what's going to end up for the final rule," said Matt Longenbaugh, Central Puget Sound branch chief with National Marine Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division Washington State Habitat Office, on Thursday.

Ecology is accepting public comments on its in-stream flow rule proposal through Feb. 13.

Ecology's rule proposal targets the Chimacum sub-basin's low summer-fall creek flows, limiting new individual permit-exempt well uses, such as for individual homes, to 500 gallons per day per new household and setting a water reserve supply for 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin.

The Quilcene-Snow watershed, known as Watershed Source Inventory Area 17, is facing increasing water demand for new residents and local agriculture, Ecology officials have said.

Threaten wildlife

Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in the late summer and early fall, and increases in water use can affect already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife, according to the state agency.

After years of working closely with local and state governments and the local community, Ecology proposed a rule that will help manage water to meet the current and future needs of people, farms and fish, officials said.

Longenbaugh said that the National Marine Fisheries' focus is on protecting fish.

In a Jan. 23 e-mail to Ann Wessel, Ecology's in-stream flow rules coordinator, Longenbaugh recommended that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek "be revised to O."

"Any withdrawals that contribute to summer base flows are contrary to conservation of summer chum," Longenbaugh said in the e-mail.

"Ecology has asked for a reserve amount dedicated to endangered species. What we're concerned about are those fish with [Endangered Species Act] listings, especially summer chum. We focus on the federally protected fish."

Longenbaugh also recommended that additional water proposed for withdrawal, or reserves, be reduced to zero for Chimacum, the Little Quilcene River and Salmon and Snow creeks.

Ecology officials have revised an in-stream flow rule presented in 2005, when several Jefferson County residents objected to the original proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.

Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.

In the revised plan, 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin would be allocated a total of 1,940 gallons per day, with no outdoor use.

Short said that, while he has adequate water rights on his property, he is concerned about others who might need water for agriculture in the future.

"At the moment, I feel that personally I am OK, but I am going to fight like hell for my neighbors," he said.

He said there was plenty of water in the Quilcene River, with 2 million gallons a day flowing to Quilcene Bay.

PUD concerns

Jefferson County Public Utility District Commissioners Dana Roberts and Wayne King said they were surprised by Longenbaugh's recommendation.

"I think it really almost has to hurt" agriculture, Roberts said, adding that he believed the state will probably review the in-stream flow rule in light of Longenbaugh's comments.

King said National Marine Fisheries has never been this detailed in its recommendations to Ecology in the past.

"Zero is zero. What are we going to do?" King said, adding that PUD is studying possible alternative water sources such as Peterson Lake, which the utility bought two years ago, and reverse osmosis of seawater.

He said the PUD commissioners would be willing to discuss the future of water supplies with Jefferson County and city of Port Townsend leaders.

Bill Graham, PUD water resource manager, said he hopes that the recommendation is not adopted, because it would make "us the last game in town and in the Chimacum basin for new connections.

"Our concern is, there will be a run on water" before the rule is put into effect.

The proposed Ecology's in-stream flow rule for 13 Jefferson County streams sets a conservation standard for new permit-exempt well uses in all WRIA 17 reserves -- except Chimacum.

Some elements of the proposal are:

· New individual permit-exempt well uses, typically single-family homes, would be allotted a maximum of 500 gallons per day and an average of 350 gallons per day.

· Water use on all new withdrawals would be metered, but the measurement would not be used to charge a fee for water use.

· Rooftop rainwater collection would be allowed.

· Those living within a public water system would be ineligible to draw from reserve supplies.

· Seasonal withdrawals, authorized by new water rights, would be possible on the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek during high flow months only.

Approximate number of new households the reserve could supply under the present proposed rule: Big Quilcene River, 756; Chimacum Creek, 109; Donavan Creek, 8; Little Quilcene River, Leland and Howe creeks, 146; Ludlow Creek, 73; Piddling Creek, 7; Salmon Creek, 34; Snow Creek, 34; Spencer Creek, 8; Tarboo Creek, 26; Thorndyke Creek, 119.

Miller Peninsula in Jefferson County, Quimper Peninsula and Oak Bay would be allowed 5,000 gallons per day for commercial agriculture uses in certain withdrawal locations, and the number of households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Mats Mats Bay, Squamish Harbor, Toandos Peninsula, Bolton Peninsula, Devils Lake, Marple, Marrowstone and other islands would not be limited by a reserve, and the number of new households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Comments can be e-mailed to awes461@ecy.wa.gov or mailed to Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

______

Port Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

We now have a preliminary draft rule for WRIA 17's instream flows and other water management considerations. While far from perfect, we have something to work with, and we are developing new ways of working that will actually be capable of providing additional water for farms, fish, and people.

(Before we go any further, we need to understand that "farms, fish, and people" is phrased in alphabetical order. So long as these three primary user group classifications are discussed on an even keel, we can have a productive conversation. As soon as one of the groups is elevated above the other two, though, the conversation has a rather nasty tendency to dissolve into a confrontational mess.)

So . . . into the discussion steps the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Habitat Conservation Division with their "informal early comments" on the Department of Ecology's on the preliminary draft of Chapter 173-517 WAC, Water Resources Management Program, Quilcene-Snow Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA 17), otherwise known as the WRIA 17 instream flow rule. (The preliminary draft is open for public comment until February 13, 2009, so please go to this page, download a copy for yourself, and make as many constructive comments as you can, so that you can help Ecology make edits that will be helpful to those of us who live in WRIA 17.)

What does NMFS ask Ecology to do? Hold onto your seat . . .

In an email sent to the Department of Ecology, and obtained by the Peninsula Daily News and others at a public meeting we see:

"NMFS has identified several of the streams described in the Preliminary Draft Rule as important for conservation of summer-chum (listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act). Specifically, Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Chimacum, Salmon, and Snow creeks are key for recovery of the summer-chum, and are each flow limited. Therefore, NMFS recommends the Preliminary Draft Rule be revised to Not allow any additional water withdrawals from these streams."

. . .

"NMFS recommends that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene (15 cfs) and Chimacum (3 cfs) be revised to 0. In addition, NMFS recommends that additional water proposed for withdrawal, termed "reserves," be revised to 0 for Chimacum, Little Quilcene, Salmon, and Snow creeks. We note that Big Quilcene has a larger watershed and different hydrology from the other streams and may be able to accommodate a small amount additional water withdrawal, but much less than the proposed reserve of 200,400 gpd or 0.31 cfs. A reserve amount close to 20,000 gpd (0.03 cfs) would be an acceptable withdrawal for summer-chum salmon conservation in the Big Quilcene."

So, there you have it . . . NMFS has most certainly elevated the fish primary user group way, way above the farms and people groups. (We understand that, while NMFS generally responds to Ecology's requests for review and comment, this level of detail is unprecedented.) This makes discussion toward an improved way of managing our local water resources a more difficult task, even though we are going to need to have that discussion.

What we are trying to accomplish is the development of a local water resource management program that will make more water available for all uses. The folks in the Walla Walla Basin are having remarkable success with this approach, to the level of being able to provide water to streams that used to go dry every year. Salmon are now returning to those streams. With broad local support from the full range of water using interests, we can do the same here, and have already been asked to give it a try. We are not going to be able to go far enough down that road if NMFS digs in its heels and insists on their recommendation becoming law in WRIA 17.

Have you noticed that things have changed a tad since last summer, when the global, national, and regional economy was still ticking along more or less as usual? Would you say that the time for "business as usual" is well and truly over? With our national leaders and a growing number of leading economists accepting that we are in a recession that isn't going to be over any time soon . . . and that may, indeed, come to resemble a replay of the 1930s, we really need to take a reality check and plan for and prepare ourselves and our local region for some pretty tough times. If it doesn't happen, at least we will be further down the road toward meeting the demand for locally grown produce. If it does, then we will be better able to feed ourselves and our neighbors.

How did people around here make it through the Great Depression? Well, several long-time residents say there were few, if any lawns in Port Townsend, because everyone had vegetable gardens. The following decade those gardens gained the moniker of "Victory Gardens". Many families moved out of cities and towns and onto farms. Those who did managed to get through the hard times better than many of those who didn't have a farm to go to.

We need to increase agricultural production on existing farms and other suitable parcels. We should also make greater use of greenhouses. The use of higher efficiency watering practices will need to be a given. While we're at it, we need to make sure there's additional water in our streams when it's needed, because until we satisfy that basic condition, we're not going to be able to have additional water for growing food.

We can accomplish this and more, providing we have reasonable access to our water resources. With water banking, the ability to actually put additional water into our streams when they need it, and a locally-driven water management program, we can do it. If NMFS persists in insisting that the water in WRIA 17 is going to be a "no touch" resource in terms of supporting those needs, then it's going to be a much harder task than what we are already looking at.

What we need now is for NMFS to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see what we can do. Better yet, NMFS could even help us accomplish the dream. How about we ask that they not only give us a chance, but also help by becoming a part of the solution, rather than maintain their current position as a barrier to success?

---

State water proposal growing fears

The following article appeared in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News on Friday, January 30, 2009.

---

State water proposal growing fears

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND -- A National Marine Fisheries official has recommended to the state that no additional water allocations from the Big Quilcene River or Chimacum Creek be permitted.

If the recommendation -- one of many comments sent to the state Department of Ecology on its proposed Jefferson County in-stream rule -- were adopted, it would mean that while present allocations would be preserved, no more water allocations would be allowed for new homeowners or farmers from those two waterways.

That prospect has stirred fears for the future of agriculture in the Chimacum Valley.

'We can't produce'

"If we regulate to that point, we can't produce our own food because of the water situation," said Roger Short, a longtime Chimacum Valley farmer.

"I don't know what's going to end up for the final rule," said Matt Longenbaugh, Central Puget Sound branch chief with National Marine Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division Washington State Habitat Office, on Thursday.

Ecology is accepting public comments on its in-stream flow rule proposal through Feb. 13.

Ecology's rule proposal targets the Chimacum sub-basin's low summer-fall creek flows, limiting new individual permit-exempt well uses, such as for individual homes, to 500 gallons per day per new household and setting a water reserve supply for 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin.

The Quilcene-Snow watershed, known as Watershed Source Inventory Area 17, is facing increasing water demand for new residents and local agriculture, Ecology officials have said.

Threaten wildlife

Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in the late summer and early fall, and increases in water use can affect already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife, according to the state agency.

After years of working closely with local and state governments and the local community, Ecology proposed a rule that will help manage water to meet the current and future needs of people, farms and fish, officials said.

Longenbaugh said that the National Marine Fisheries' focus is on protecting fish.

In a Jan. 23 e-mail to Ann Wessel, Ecology's in-stream flow rules coordinator, Longenbaugh recommended that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek "be revised to O."

"Any withdrawals that contribute to summer base flows are contrary to conservation of summer chum," Longenbaugh said in the e-mail.

"Ecology has asked for a reserve amount dedicated to endangered species. What we're concerned about are those fish with [Endangered Species Act] listings, especially summer chum. We focus on the federally protected fish."

Longenbaugh also recommended that additional water proposed for withdrawal, or reserves, be reduced to zero for Chimacum, the Little Quilcene River and Salmon and Snow creeks.

Ecology officials have revised an in-stream flow rule presented in 2005, when several Jefferson County residents objected to the original proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.

Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.

In the revised plan, 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin would be allocated a total of 1,940 gallons per day, with no outdoor use.

Short said that, while he has adequate water rights on his property, he is concerned about others who might need water for agriculture in the future.

"At the moment, I feel that personally I am OK, but I am going to fight like hell for my neighbors," he said.

He said there was plenty of water in the Quilcene River, with 2 million gallons a day flowing to Quilcene Bay.

PUD concerns

Jefferson County Public Utility District Commissioners Dana Roberts and Wayne King said they were surprised by Longenbaugh's recommendation.

"I think it really almost has to hurt" agriculture, Roberts said, adding that he believed the state will probably review the in-stream flow rule in light of Longenbaugh's comments.

King said National Marine Fisheries has never been this detailed in its recommendations to Ecology in the past.

"Zero is zero. What are we going to do?" King said, adding that PUD is studying possible alternative water sources such as Peterson Lake, which the utility bought two years ago, and reverse osmosis of seawater.

He said the PUD commissioners would be willing to discuss the future of water supplies with Jefferson County and city of Port Townsend leaders.

Bill Graham, PUD water resource manager, said he hopes that the recommendation is not adopted, because it would make "us the last game in town and in the Chimacum basin for new connections.

"Our concern is, there will be a run on water" before the rule is put into effect.

The proposed Ecology's in-stream flow rule for 13 Jefferson County streams sets a conservation standard for new permit-exempt well uses in all WRIA 17 reserves -- except Chimacum.

Some elements of the proposal are:

· New individual permit-exempt well uses, typically single-family homes, would be allotted a maximum of 500 gallons per day and an average of 350 gallons per day.

· Water use on all new withdrawals would be metered, but the measurement would not be used to charge a fee for water use.

· Rooftop rainwater collection would be allowed.

· Those living within a public water system would be ineligible to draw from reserve supplies.

· Seasonal withdrawals, authorized by new water rights, would be possible on the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek during high flow months only.

Approximate number of new households the reserve could supply under the present proposed rule: Big Quilcene River, 756; Chimacum Creek, 109; Donavan Creek, 8; Little Quilcene River, Leland and Howe creeks, 146; Ludlow Creek, 73; Piddling Creek, 7; Salmon Creek, 34; Snow Creek, 34; Spencer Creek, 8; Tarboo Creek, 26; Thorndyke Creek, 119.

Miller Peninsula in Jefferson County, Quimper Peninsula and Oak Bay would be allowed 5,000 gallons per day for commercial agriculture uses in certain withdrawal locations, and the number of households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Mats Mats Bay, Squamish Harbor, Toandos Peninsula, Bolton Peninsula, Devils Lake, Marple, Marrowstone and other islands would not be limited by a reserve, and the number of new households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Comments can be e-mailed to awes461@ecy.wa.gov or mailed to Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

______

Port Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Ecology tackles watershed management

The following article appeared in the August 15, 2007 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader. 

---

Ecology tackles watershed management

By Lyndie Browning, Leader Staff Writer

The name of the game: People, Farms and Fish. The object: to involve the community as the state Department of Ecology (DOE) moves forward in developing an instream flow rule for a water management plan.

The game board, in this case, is Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 - an area that covers much of East Jefferson County.
Oh, and don't forget the main rule of the game. If at all possible, make sure there is enough water for everybody - people, farms and fish - while also considering future development needs.

As a key player in this game, Special Assistant to the Director for Water Policy Joe Stohr took the microphone in hand to start the July 31 community forum at Chimacum High School.

"Tonight is a sort of combination platter," Stohr said. "You're going to learn some new information and be allowed to ask questions or make comments on the material."

Thus the game began.

The basics

Over the course of his presentation, Stohr discussed a wealth of watershed-related information. He started out with basic questions: Why do we need this instream flow rule? Why do we need to manage our watershed at all?

According to Stohr, water management is necessary to protect senior rights and instream resources, to meet demand for new uses and to address reliability and flexibility of water supply. Instream resources - a term which makes most people think "salmon" - are officially defined as fish and wildlife, navigation, aesthetics, water quality and livestock watering. All of these needs must be considered as part of the new instream flow rule.
Also pressing is the issue of future development. Jefferson County has seen considerable development in the past 25 years - and expects continued growth. Since 1980, more than 1,000 building permits were issued in the Quimper sub-basin. Nearly 1,400 permits were issued in the Hadlock sub-basin. Vacant lots, ready for development, are abundant.

The instream flow rule hopes to meet the needs of future residents and industry while still respecting senior water rights.

Quimper, Chimacum

These, clearly, are high goals - but what about the nitty-gritty? Stohr recognized that Jefferson County residents are most concerned about how the instream flow rule might impact them.

WRIA 17 is divided into 10 sub-basins. Each sub-basin has a distinct set of management challenges and possibilities - a fact that Stohr emphasized repeatedly, although he did not specifically state that each basin would be managed differently. It remains to be seen whether the instream flow rule will be a nuanced, region-specific plan, or general to all of WRIA 17.

The Quimper sub-basin is an area of past rapid growth and high future growth potential. (The high future growth estimate is based on extent of vacant lots.) Because of Quimper's large amount of coastline - and concentration of development along the coast - exempt wells are especially susceptible to seawater intrusion.

The area served by municipal water in Quimper is considerable. This water is drawn from the Quilcene sub-basin - which, if Quimper continues its rapid growth patterns, might raise issues of priority in the future.

The Chimacum sub-basin faces different concerns. Chimacum Creek is a naturally low-flow system, and it appears at this point that water rights have been over-allocated. In other words, more rights have been issued than there is water to supply them.

However, since there is still water in the creek, documented water rights clearly do not reflect actual use. They are inaccurate and must be revisited. By law, if a water right is not being used, it becomes invalid. Reviewing the validity of water rights would lead to a more accurate estimate of water use and might even open up water rights for junior users.

The Ludlow sub-basin, like Quimper, has seen rapid growth. Like Quimper, it also contains a number of coastal wells that might face danger of saltwater intrusion. Because of a high vacant lot capacity, there is concern that the public system may lack sufficient water rights to meet demand. This high demand might endanger senior water rights.

The Quilcene sub-basin has experienced low population growth but high demand for water due to diversion to Quimper.
Global warming

After Stohr's presentation, audience members voiced concerns about the status and future of WRIA 17. One of the most frequently commented upon topics was global warming.

Since the DOE has not yet reviewed some of the instream flow rules put in place 20 years ago - the department is still trying to get instream flow rules in place in the 60-plus WRIAs across the state - audience members recognized that a long-term plan is vital.

Norm MacLeod later voiced this concern to the county commissioners at the Aug. 6 meeting.

"If you don't have snowpack for three to four years in a row and you don't have storage, you don't have fish," MacLeod said. "You're not going to survive in the long run."

Stohr will no longer be spearheading the development of the WRIA 17 instream flow rule. He is taking a position as deputy director, chief of operations at Fish and Wildlife. Southwest Regional Director Dick Wallace and Southwest Region Supervisor Tom Loranger will be taking Stohr's place in the WRIA 17 project.

DOE welcomes citizen comments and concerns. Stohr stated, "We're available to meet with citizen groups - or to meet one-on-one, have coffee, whatever."

There will be another public meeting in the fall.

"We want to work together to build solutions," Stohr said.
For more information, visit water.jefferson.wsu.edu.

(Contact Lyndie Browning at lynda.browning@gmail.com)