2009, September: In-Depth Wetland Restoration Studies WRIA 55 & 57IN-DEPTH WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES
WRIA 55 & 57
Spokane County, Washington
Prepared for:
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
1026 W. BROADWAY AVE.
SPOKANE WA 99260
Prepared by:
PBSI
1120 Cedar Street
Missoula, MT 59802-3911
PBSJ
15320 East Marietta Ave, Suite 9A
Spokane Valley, WA 99216-1870
September 2009 Project No. 100004720.03
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Goals and Objectives 1
1.2 Study Sites 1
1.3 Methodology 3
1.3.1 History and Land Use 3
1.3.2 Topography 3
1.3.3 Geology and Soils 3
1.3.4 Hydrogeology 3
1.3.5 Water Quality 3
1.3.6 Water Rights 3
1.3.7 Wetland and Vegetation 4
1.3.8 Wildlife Habitat and TES Species 4
1.3.9 Wetland Restoration and Success Potential 4
1.3.10 Costs and Timelines 5
1.3.11 Permits 5
2.0 NEWMAN NORTH 6
2.1 Land Use 6
2.2 Topography 6
2.3 Soils 9
2.4 Groundwater Hydrogeology and Stream Hydrology 9
2.5 Water Quality 10
2.6 Water Rights 10
2.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation 12
2.8 Wildlife Habitat 12
2.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential 14
2.10 Costs and Timelines 20
2.11 Permits 22
2.12 Summary 22
3.0 ELOIKA SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST 23
3.1 Land Use 23
3.2 Topography 23
3.3 Soils 23
3.4 Hydrogeology 26
3.5 Water Quality 26
3.6 Water Rights 26
3.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation 27
3.8 Wildlife Habitat 30
3.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential 31
3.10 Costs and Timelines 33
3.11 Permits 38
September 2009 ii
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
3.12 Summary 38
4.0 DIAMOND NORTH 39
4.1 Land Use 39
4.2 Topography 39
4.3 Soils 39
4.4 Hydrogeology and Hydrology 42
4.5 Water Quality 43
4.6 Water Rights 43
4.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation 43
4.8 Wildlife Habitat 43
4.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential 46
4.10 Costs and Timelines 48
4.11 Permits 51
4.12 Summary 51
5.0 CHESTER CREEK 52
5.1 Land Use 52
5.2 Topography 52
5.3 Soils 52
5.4 Hydrogeology and Hydrology 55
5.5 Water Quality 55
5.6 Water Rights 55
5.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation 57
5.8 Wildlife Habitat 57
5.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential 57
5.10 Costs and Timelines 63
5.11 Permits 65
5.12 Summary 65
6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 66
7.0 REFERENCES 67
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
APPENDICES
Newman North Additional Information
Eloika South and Southeast Additional Information
Diamond North Additional Information
Chester Creek Additional Information
Permit Information
TABLES
September 2009 iii
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Table 1-1. In -Depth Wetland Study Sites 1
Table 2-1. Soils at the Newman North Potential Wetland Project Site 9
Table 2-2. Cost Estimates for Example Newman North Wetland and Stream Projects 21
Table 2-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Newman North Wetland Projects 22
Table 3-1. Soils at the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast Potential Wetland Project Sites 26
Table 3-2. Bird Species at Eloika Lake (From SCCD, 1992) 30
Table 3-3. Cost Estimates for Eloika Wetland Project 37
Table 3-4. Potential Permit Requirements for Eloika Wetland Projects 38
Table 4-1. Soils at the Newman North Potential Wetland Project Site 42
Table 4-2. Cost Estimates for Example Diamond North Wetland Projects 50
Table 4-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Diamond North Wetland Projects 51
Table 5-1. Soils at the Chester Creek Potential Wetland Project Site 55
Table 5-2. Cost Estimates for Example Chester Creek Wetland and Stream Projects 64
Table 5-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Chester Creek Projects 65
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. WRIA 55 and 57 In -Depth Study Sites 2
Figure 2-1. Newman North Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map 7
Figure 2-2. Newman North Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map 8
Figure 2-3. Newman North Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey 11
Figure 2-4. Newman North Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory 13
Figure 2-5. Newman North: Example Wetland Restoration to Emergent Wetland Conditions. 17
Figure 2-6. Newman North: Example Shallow Water and Emergent Wetland Restoration Incorporating
Intermittent Streams. 18
Figure 2-7. Newman North: Example Stream Restoration Segments 19
Figure 3-1. Eloika Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map 24
Figure 3-2. Eloika Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map 25
Figure 3-3. Eloika Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey 28
Figure 3-4. Eloika Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory 29
Figure 3-5. Eloika Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Areas 35
Figure 3-6. Eloika Potential Shallow Water Wetland Areas 36
Figure 4-1. Diamond North Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map 40
Figure 4-2. Diamond North Topography Based on the County Five -Foot Contour Map 41
Figure 4-3. Diamond North Soils Based on NRCS Soil Survey Data 44
Figure 4-4. Diamond North Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory 45
Figure 4-5. Diamond North Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Areas 49
Figure 5-1. Chester Creek Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map 53
Figure 5-2. Chester Creek Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map 54
Figure 5-3. Chester Creek Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey 56
Figure 5-4. Chester Creek Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory 58
Figure 5-5. Chester Creek Example Wetland Design #1 61
Figure 5-6. Chester Creek Example Wetland Design #2 62
September 2009 iv
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document summarizes in-depth evaluations of four potential wetland project sites in Water Resource
Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 55&57. These four sites were chosen for further study from the 130 potential
wetland projects identified in Task 2 of this project and summarized in the report Potential Wetland
Project Sites: WRIAs 55 and 57 (PBSJ, 2009a). This report is available on the Spokane County Division
of Utilities website.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to assemble additional information on each potential wetland
project site useful for evaluating the feasibility of wetland restoration. This information is listed in Sec-
tion 1.2 below and includes physical, biological, and administrative data. These data are then used to
evaluate feasibility and to identify examples of potential wetland restoration project design, costs and
timelines. This effort was largely completed without on-site investigation using existing information
sources. Additional information needed to proceed with restoration projects is summarized for each site.
The next step in moving towards project implementation would be to complete on-site investigations, fi-
nal designs and to negotiate permit and review processes with the appropriate agencies. Funding sources
would then be secured to complete projects. A separate report is being completed to complement this
effort which identifies potential funding options for wetland restoration projects.
1.2 Study Sites
The four sites selected for in-depth evaluation are listed in Table 1-1. The locations of these four sites, as
well as the other 126 potential wetland sites identified in the previous task, are illustrated on Figure 1-1.
Table 1-1. In -Depth Wetland Study Sites
Site Acreage
Diamond North 295
Eloika Southeast+South 99
Newman North 586
Chester Creek 107
Two sites are located in WRIA 55 and two in WRIA 57. The Eloika site is actually a combination of two
adjacent sites identified in the previous study. These sites were evaluated together as described in Sec-
tion 3.0 of this report due to their close proximity and due to their potential integration into a combined
surface water storage and wetland restoration project. The potential surface water storage project is de-
scribed in a separate document titled Eloika Lake In -Depth Surface Water Storage and Wetland Restora-
tion Feasibility (PBS&J, 2009b), and produced under a separate task for this project. This report also
includes the same wetland information presented here and is available on the Spokane County website.
September 2009 1
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Legend
III In -Depth Project Wetland Sites
OP Potential Project Wetland Sites
eo-..Creek
Photo Da[F: 2 OOu
Miles
Fr•hrrvr Lrry
lines and photo uu r•••, ,11.ro%inlatp.
Figure 1-1. WRIA 55 and 57 In -Depth Study Sites
September 2009
2
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
1.3 Methodology
This section describes methods and sources of information used to evaluate each subject area discussed in
this report including:
• History and Land Use
• Topography
• Geology and Soils
• Hydrogeology
• Water Rights
• Wetlands and Vegetation
• Wildlife Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species (TES)
• Water Quality
• Wetland Restoration and Success Potential
• Costs and Timelines
• Permits
Information was mainly collected from existing data sources. Each site was viewed to the extent possible
from nearby public roads. A small portion of only one site (Newman North) was visited on -the -ground.
1.3.1 History and Land Use
History and land use information was assembled from past reports identified in the sources of information
section for each site. It was also interpreted from aerial photographs. Parcel ownership information was
obtained from Spokane and Pend Oreille counties.
1.3.2 Topography
Topographic information was obtained from five-foot contour data available from Spokane and Pend
Oreille counties.
1.3.3 Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils information was assembled from past reports identified in the sources of information
section for each site. Soils information was also derived from the Spokane County and Pend Oreille
county soil surveys, available on-line.
1.3.4 Hydrogeology
Hydrogeology information was assembled from past reports identified in the sources of information sec-
tion for each site. It was also interpreted from site visits and aerial photo interpretation.
1.3.5 Water Quality
Water Quality information was assembled from past reports identified in the sources of information sec-
tion for each site.
1.3.6 Water Rights
Water right information was obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in emails
and discussions. Kevin Brown with the Ecology Permitting Section provided many useful comments on
this subject including:
September 2009 3
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
• If a project does not involve the construction of an impoundment, then a water right is not likely
to be required. For example, if a wetland development could be achieved solely by filling in
drain ditches and no berms, dikes or dams are involved, no water right is needed. Impoundments
of water less than 10 acre-feet in capacity are exempt from the permitting process.
• Most agricultural water rights that were established after 1977 cannot be changed to any other
type of use.
• Local conservancy boards have been established and given the authority to process changes (aka
transfers) of existing water rights to new uses. These boards can expedite the processing of these
applications. The cost associated with going through a conservancy board varies and is set by
each board.
• Base flow requirements and stream closures in WRIA 55 would likely make it difficult if not im-
possible to obtain new water rights in the Little Spokane River basin. However, water is theoret-
ically available for new uses during the non -irrigation season. WRIAs 57 and 62 have not yet
established base flow requirements and apparently do not have any closed streams.
Water rights are essential for wetland projects to protect their long-term integrity and are usually required
if mitigation credit is a project goal. They are also often required by funding sources to protect their in-
vestment. Part of the challenge is that water rights have not been adjudicated in most watersheds so there
is no information about which rights are valid and which are not. Many existing water rights appear to be
"paper rights" that no longer have the infrastructure to actual use the water claimed. This is especially the
case in urbanized or suburbanized watersheds such as WRIA 55 and 57.
It appears that there is a need for high-level discussions between the Wetland and Water Right Programs
within Ecology to provide guidance for wetland restoration and mitigation projects. The Department ap-
pears committed to wetland restoration as a mechanism to increase water storage and provide late season
stream flows. However, there also appear to be significant roadblocks to obtaining water rights for these
projects. One goal of the Ecology effort to restore wetlands is to increase late season stream flows which
would actually benefit most or all water right holders downstream. This goal cannot be realized without a
means to provide water rights for wetland projects.
1.3.7 Wetland and Vegetation
Wetland information was obtained from National Wetland Inventory Maps and from Spokane County
Critical Area Ordinance Maps. Additional wetland and vegetation information was assembled from past
reports identified in the sources of information section for each site. It was also obtained during site visits
and from aerial photograph interpretation.
1.3.8 Wildlife Habitat and TES Species
Wildlife Habitat and TES Species information was assembled from past reports identified in the sources
of information section for each site. It was also obtained from Spokane County Critical areas ordinance
maps and from site visits.
1.3.9 Wetland Restoration and Success Potential
Example wetland restoration designs were assembled by PBS&J using experience from other projects and
information assembled for this report. Success potential was estimated by PBS&J based on site characte-
ristics and experience with similar projects.
September 2009 4
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
1.3.10 Costs and Timelines
Cost estimates and timelines were estimated by PBS&J using experience from other projects and informa-
tion assembled for this report. Most of these other projects are located in Montana and costs in Washing-
ton may be slightly higher.
1.3.11 Permits
Potential permits requirements were identified by reviewing permitting web sites, contacting permitting
agencies, reviewing permit processes at similar projects and experience with similar projects elsewhere.
September 2009 5
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.0 NEWMAN NORTH
Newman North is located in eastern Spokane County near the eastern border of WRIA 57 (Figure 1-1).
Information sources used to complete this evaluation of wetland restoration opportunities include:
1. Newman Lake Watershed Plan Committee. 1992. Newman Lake Watershed Plan. 26p;
2. Funk, W., B. Moore, S. Burkett and S. Juul. 1998. Newman Lake Restoration Phase II. 85p;
3. Southerland, B. 2000. Thompson Creek Stream Inventory, Assessment and Geomorphic Stream
Classification. 10p;
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Thompson Creek Watershed Analy-
sis;
5. Robbinson, D. and W. Funk. 1997. Comprehensive Plan of Development for Stormwater Con-
trol in the Newman Lake Watershed. 95p; and
6. Moore, D. 2003. A Survey of Newman Lake Property Owners About Lake Water Quality Issues.
Social Economic Sciences Research Center, WSU, Pullman, WA. 66p.
Additional information was obtained from site visits, interviews and other sources.
2.1 Land Use
Land use at the Newman North site is dominated by agriculture including hay production and livestock
grazing. No residences are present within the site but many are located around the perimeter. County plat
maps list thirty-six parcel and eighteen owners for the Newman North site (Figure 2-1). Some owners
have multiple parcels. A significant area on the west side of the site is owned by Spokane County
(McKenzie Conservation Area). This conservation area provides an opportunity for wetland restoration
without the cost of purchasing land or a conservation easement. For that reason, wetland design examples
discussed in Section 2.9 below are focused on the northeast portion of the McKenzie Conservation Area.
2.2 Topography
Figure 2-2 illustrates topography at the Newman North site according to the Spokane County five-foot
contour data. This figure indicates that the site is relatively level with less than 5 feet of elevation varia-
tion across most of the site. The remainder of the site shows as much as 25 feet of elevation variation.
The flat topography indicated by existing topographic data combined with the expectation of a shallow
groundwater system related to the lake suggests wetland restoration should have a high probability of
success. These topographic data however, are not sufficient for final wetland evaluation and design pur-
poses. More detailed survey information, in combination with groundwater level monitoring, would be
needed to establish critical design elevations.
September 2009 6
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
(Z Wetland Project Site
in Parcel Ownership 8oundary
121 McKenzie Conservation Area (Spokan?
Figure 2-1. Newman North Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map
September 2009
7
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Re !eine Incmmi cf fe.re in bounds,
lines and phsev is.ry arc eppaMmen.
C3 Wetland Project Site
5 -Foot Contour Lines
Figure 2-2. Newman North Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map
September 2009
8
pBsi
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.3 Soils
Soils at the Newman North site are mainly formed in lakebed sediments and organic materials deposited
since the last ice age. A few soils on the fringe of the site are formed in colluvial and residual materials
derived from bedrock. Figure 2-3 illustrates the locations of soils across the site. Table 2-1 lists soils
present according to the Spokane County Soil Survey (USDA, 1968). Many of these soils have silt loam
or silty clay loam textures which are ideal for wetland construction. A large area of drained soils domi-
nated by organic materials (Sk) is present in the southern portion of the site. The organic nature of these
soils is often not ideal for constructing wetland berms to impound water since they are usually quite por-
ous. However, the presence of many silty soils on the site suggests that there may be a mixture of mate-
rials that would make berm construction feasible. Soil characteristics at the site would need to be
confirmed during final wetland design.
Table 2-1. Soils
Map Symbol
BvB
Cy
Fm
MmC
NcA
Se
Sk
SpC and SpD
StC
at the Newman North Potential Wetland Project Site
Soil Mapping Unit
Bonner Loam
Cocollala Silty Clay Loam, Drained
Freshwater Marsh
Moscow Silt Loam
Narcisse Silt Loam
Semiahmoo Muck
Semiahmoo Muck, Drained
Spokane Loam
Spokane — Rocky Complex
2.4 Groundwater Hydrogeology and Stream Hydrology
Groundwater Hvdrogeologv
Hydrogeology at this site is related to shallow groundwater associated with Newman Lake. Moving away
from the lake, especially to the north, hydrogeology is also related to groundwater and surface water in-
puts from higher elevation areas. Groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate in direct relation to lake le-
vels in the southern portion of the site. Groundwater levels may be more influenced by surface water
inputs and their effect on the shallow groundwater system away from the lake, especially to the north.
Information on groundwater conditions was not included in previous investigation reports reviewed for
this study. It is likely that domestic wells in the area would be completed in deep formations and that in-
formation on shallow groundwater conditions does not exist.
Additional site hydrogeology data would be required for final wetland evaluation and design including
seasonal variations in groundwater elevations. This is usually accomplished by installation and monitor-
ing of shallow wells through at least one spring high water period.
Stream Hydrology
Thompson Creek bisects the Newman North site flowing from north to south into Newman Lake. This
creek is described in several past studies and is reported to have a bank -full flow of approximately 50 cfs.
Thompson Creek has been impacted by agriculture, forestry and other land uses. In the southern portion
of the Newman North site, the channel has been straightened and deepened. It appears to now act as a
drain in this area which lowers the water table sufficiently for crop production and causes it to no longer
meet wetland criteria of saturation to the surface. Thompson Creek has very little woody riparian vegeta-
tion along its banks. Alder is the only shrub species that remains where there were likely to have been
September 2009 9
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
dogwood, cottonwood, aspen and several willow species under natural conditions. When alder is present
alone, it is generally considered as an indicator of degraded riparian conditions. Little or no woody debris
is present in this section of Thompson Creek.
Approximately eight intermittent streams also enter the Newman North site, generally from the north,
northwest and northeast. Two streams enter the northeastern portion of the McKenzie Conservation Area
proposed for wetland restoration in Section 2.9 below. Both of these streams were flowing during an
April 2009 site visit by PBS&J but neither was flowing during site visits in May and June 2009. Since
2009 was a relatively normal year for precipitation we assume that both are intermittent streams. Both
streams have a narrow channel bottom of sandy material and low banks dominated mainly by reed cana-
rygrass. Neither has an obvious floodplain. They appear to simply flood the adjacent lands during high
water events. No woody vegetation or woody debris is present along these stream channels within the
McKenzie Conservation Area.
2.5 Water Quality
Water quality is cited as a concern in past studies of both Thompson Creek and Newman Lake. The ef-
fect of potential wetland projects on water quality would require evaluation based on the specific wetland
design. Wetland projects could be designed to reduce sediment and phosphorous input to the lake, two of
the main concerns in past studies.
2.6 Water Rights
Water right information was obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology. Water rights at spe-
cific sites are difficult to evaluate since listings are only available by Section and not by specific proper-
ties. Appendix A lists water rights for the Newman North site and also for the area south of Newman
Lake where the majority of water right filings are located in the drainage. These areas include Sections
27, 28 and 34 in T27N, R45E (Newman North Site) and Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 T26N, R45E
(Newman South Site). It is not always clear from the record if these rights are appurtenant to the project
site or to lands outside the site. There appear to be two water rights for irrigation in Sections 22 and 27,
twp 27N, Rge 45E. Both list Thompson Creek as the primary source. One is for 60 acres of irrigation
and the other is for 20. The person listed on the 20 acre irrigation certificate is Robert Takai who is listed
as a property owner on county plat maps. It is possible that these water rights represent water use that
could be changed for the purposes of wetland restoration. The other water rights listed in this area are for
domestic, stock and recreation/beautification. These are not likely to provide potential restoration water
though they are water rights that could be impacted by wetland development.
Very few water rights are filed for the area downstream of the lake so the potential for water right con-
flicts appears to be small. Two entities listed in the water right records claim significant amounts of irri-
gation. These are, Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District and Moab Irrigation District 20. The water
right record for Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District lists 800 acres of irrigation with a point of
diversion in Section 10, Twp 26N, Rge 45E which is mainly north and east of the project site. The Moab
Irrigation District 20 lists over 900 acres of irrigation with a point of diversion from a well or wells in
Section 25, Twp 26N, Rge 45E which is southwest of the project site. These entities could potentially
have water available for sale. If water rights are needed for this project, it may be worthwhile to investi-
gate these two entities and their water rights.
September 2009 10
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Newman. North
586 ac
'5 tland Project Site Kd. Kanner silty clay loam. drained Sm. Semiahmoo muck. mod. shallow. drained
MmC. Moscow s iIt loam, 0-30% slopes cz SpC, Spokane loam- O-30% slopes
C3UvB. Bonner loam. 0-20% slopes W NcA. Narcisse silt loam. 0-5% slopes SpD. Spokane loam. 30-55% slopes
C3Cy. Cocolalla silty clay loam. drained S. Semiahmoo muck cz StC. Spokane v. rocky complex. 0-30% slopes
a3Fm. Fresh water marsh
Soil Map Unit Symbol, Name:
Sk.. Semiahmoo rnr_I. ,,tamed
Figure 2-3. Newman North Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey
September 2009
11
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation
Figure 2-4 illustrates the distribution of wetland types at Newman North according to the National Wet-
land Inventory (NWI) maps. This map suggests that the dominate wetland type is Freshwater Emergent
Wetland with a smaller area of Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland. The Spokane County Critical Areas
Ordinance mapping identifies the same areas of wetland as the NWI maps since the county maps were
developed from the NWI maps. However, the NWI maps were created using aerial photograph interpre-
tation techniques with little or no on -the -ground verification. Sites like Newman North are often difficult
to evaluate by aerial photograph interpretation, or even on -the -ground unless groundwater monitoring
data is available. The soil maps of the same area identify most of the Newman North site as being
drained for agricultural uses (Semiahmoo muck, drained). These soil maps were made with on -the -
ground verification and are generally more accurate than the NWI mapping. Site visits made by PBS&J
staff to portions of the Newman North site confirmed that much of the site is drained and likely does not
currently meet wetland criteria. This would suggest that there is excellent potential for wetland restora-
tion projects at this site. A formal wetland delineation, including groundwater monitoring, would be
needed for final wetland evaluation and design.
2.8 Wildlife Habitat
A wide variety of wildlife species use the Newman North site and surrounding area as reported in the
Newman Lake Watershed Plan (1992). This plan indicated the lake is a stopover point for about 5,500
waterfowl of various species, mostly pintails, mallards and Canada geese. Canada geese, mallards and
pintails were observed by PBS&J personnel at the Newman North site in 2009. Canada geese were ob-
served nesting at this time. Bald eagles, osprey and great blue herons have also been reported in past stu-
dies and were also observed by PBS&J in 2009. The lake is managed primarily as a warm water fishery
focusing on large -mouth bass. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has planted 15,000-
20,000 German brown trout annually in the past with plans to reduce this number. A variety of mammals
are also likely to use the site including whitetail deer, coyote and other small mammals. The Spokane
County Critical Area Ordinance maps list the Newman North site as habitat for moose, elk and white tail
deer. The ordinance maps also list the site as riparian and wetland habitat.
September 2009 12
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Newman North
586 ac
( Wetland Project Site
National Wetland Invento. T. I:
• 1. Freshwater Emergent 1=tI. ir.•:I
C.3 2, Upland
• 3. Freshwater Forest.:.
C3 4, Lake
Figure 2-4. Newman North Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory
September 2009
13
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential
Wetland projects may be designed in a variety of ways to achieve various goals. This section describes
example designs that could be altered or refined as more information is obtained. Other potential designs
may also be identified with further discussion, new data or experience from an initial project. Wetland
restoration at the Newman North site has a high potential for success due to dependable water sources and
other favorable conditions. These sources include Newman Lake and its associated groundwater system
as well as Thompson Creek and several intermittent streams at the site.
It is important to note that two of the most important site characteristics for wetland design are detailed
topography and seasonal groundwater depths. These data are not currently available for the Newman
North potential wetland project site; consequently, we have had to make assumptions from available data.
The resulting evaluation provides a general framework for how wetland and stream restoration projects
may be implemented, the potential for success, the potential for increased water storage and other related
concerns. However, they should be viewed as examples of what may be done and not as a final proposal
until additional evaluation is completed.
Future information that could affect final design includes:
• Improved topographic survey
• Onsite groundwater evaluation
• Onsite soil evaluation
• Wetland delineation
• Additional water rights analysis
• Landowner goals
• Funding organization goals
• Permitting agency views
• Other information
The Newman North site is very large by wetland restoration standards (586 acres). For this reason we
have provided examples of wetland restoration and stream reconstruction for a portion of the site that
could be applied across the entire site. We have assumed the entire site has had the water table lowered
such that it does not meet current wetland criteria and therefore all work would qualify as wetland restora-
tion. It is possible that some portions of the site do still meet wetland criteria and would be identified dur-
ing future evaluation, design and construction activities. The portion of the site we have selected for
example wetland designs is the northeastern portion of the McKenzie Conservation Area.
Design and Construction Elements Common to All Wetland Designs
Some elements needed to complete wetland design and construction at the McKenzie Conservation Area
are common to all designs. These common elements include:
1. Wetland delineation and functional evaluation
2. Site survey at a 1 foot contour interval and survey of groundwater monitoring wells and wetland
boundaries
3. Shallow groundwater well installation and monitoring through one high water season
4. Soil investigation to confirm soil characteristics
5. Final design and construction documents
6. Permitting and environmental review as described in Section 2.11
September 2009 14
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Example costs for wetland restoration are also summarized in Section 2.11 focused on the McKenzie
Conservation Area. There is the potential for applying these same wetland restoration techniques across
the entire Newman North site. These designs would increase water storage by 32 to 128 acre-feet in the
McKenzie Conservation Area of the Newman North site.
Example Wetland Project Design #1
This example design would restore approximately 16 acres to emergent wetlands by excavating several
areas of the site to a depth of two feet (Figure 2-5). This design assumes that groundwater monitoring
will reveal water depths during the early growing season to be approximately two feet. The excavated
material would be placed elsewhere on the site and shaped to blend with the surrounding topography.
This area is assumed to not meet wetland criteria at this time and so would not constitute fill in a wetland.
The alternative is to haul this material to another site at an increased cost.
This design would leave the existing intermittent streams in their current condition. Stream flows during
spring runoff would not be routed into the emergent wetlands but would continue to flow directly to
Newman Lake.
Under this design, the remaining area outside the emergent wetlands would not be likely to achieve wet-
land hydrology and would remain upland since the water table elevations would not be altered. En-
hancement of the upland area could be undertaken if desired including shrub and tree planting.
Revegetation would include seeding wetland grass and sedge species across the emergent wetland areas.
Wetland tree and shrub species would be planted across 10% of the area on a 4 x 4 foot spacing to pro-
vide diversity. Excavated materials would be seeded with an upland grass species mix. Weed control
would likely be necessary for a period of at least 3-5 years and re -seeding may be required depending on
the success of the initial seeding effort.
This design would increase water storage at the site by 32 acre-feet (16 ac x 2 ft).
Example Wetland Project Design #2
This example design would restore approximately 28 acres to shallow water wetlands by excavating to a
depth of 2-4 feet (Figure 2-6). A portion of the excavated material would be used to construct shallow
berms 2-4 feet high along the southern (downhill) border of each shallow water wetland. The average
depth of the shallow water wetlands would be 4 feet. The remainder of the excavated material not used in
berms would be placed along the eastern and western border of the site and shaped to blend with the sur-
rounding topography. Water elevation control structures such as culverts or armored spillways would be
used to control water levels behind berms. Berm construction may be problematic on this site due to the
dominance of organic soils. However, the northwestern portion of the site is mapped as silty clay loam
soils so it may be that there is a sufficient mixture of soil materials across the entire site that would make
berm construction feasible. Berms could also be augmented with silty clay loam soils from the northwes-
tern portion of the site.
This design would incorporate the existing intermittent streams. Streams would be routed into the upper
shallow water wetland and connection made to each successive shallow wetland downhill. Flow from the
lowest cell would be routed back to the existing stream channel.
Due to the use of water from the intermittent streams and due to berm construction, this design is likely to
raise the water table under the entire site south of the first shallow water wetland. This may also raise the
September 2009 15
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
water table on the property to the south towards Newman Lake. If that property owner did not agree with
this higher groundwater level, a drain ditch would be required along the east -west property line draining
westward to the stream channel.
Revegetation would include seeding wetland grass, sedge and bulrush species across the shallow water
wetland area in a sequence related to water depths. Wetland tree and shrub species would be planted
across the area in clumps to provide diversity. Excavated materials would be seeded with an upland grass
species mix. Weed control would likely be necessary, especially on the berms and excavated materials,
for a period of at least 3-5 years. Re -seeding may be required depending on the success of the initial
seeding effort. Additional shrub and tree plantings could be used on a portion of the excavated materials
if desired.
This design would provide approximately 28 acres of shallow water wetlands and 20 acres of emergent
wetlands. It would increase water storage at the site by approximately 112 acre-feet due to shallow water
area excavation and berm construction (28ac x 4ft) plus 16 acre-feet by raising the water table two feet
across the remaining site (20ac x 2ft x .4). This water would be released slowly to the stream, groundwa-
ter system and lake by seepage depending on final design details. Costs for this design option are summa-
rized in Section 2.10 below.
Example Stream Reconstruction or Rehabilitation Projects
The Newman North site also presents opportunities for stream reconstruction or restoration projects.
These are beyond the scope of the current wetland restoration evaluation but are mentioned here briefly
due to their potential for coordinated stream/wetland projects. Reconstruction of the Thompson Creek
channel has been discussed in other reports. Figure 2-7 illustrates an example of a reconstruction project
for Thompson Creek which would create a new channel east of the existing one. Reconstruction of a sep-
arate channel instead of rehabilitation of the existing one would allow new channel vegetation to mature
before diverting water to it. The existing channel could also be rehabilitated by constructing meanders
and floodplain features, introducing woody debris, introducing gravel substrates and planting woody spe-
cies. It may also be feasible to rehabilitate or reconstruct the Thompson Creek Channel in a manner that
would raise the channel elevation and also raise the adjacent groundwater table. In this case, the creek
would no longer act as a drain but as a water source to adjacent wetlands. This could return much of the
area between the county road and Newman Lake to wetland conditions.
Figure 2-7 also illustrates the intermittent streams at the McKenzie Conservation Area. These streams
could be rehabilitated by constructing meanders and floodplain features, introducing woody debris, intro-
ducing gravel substrates and planting woody species.
Example costs for completing stream reconstruction are summarized in Section 2.10. These costs could
also be applied to stream segments other than those shown depending on landowner interest and agency
priorities.
September 2009 16
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
nMcKenzie Conservation Area
Wetland Project Site
13 Emergent Wetlands
C Fill
Figure 2-5. Newman North: Example Wetland Restoration to Emergent Wetland Conditions.
September 2009
17
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
-
rn McKenzie Conservation Area
Wetland Project Site
C) Shallow Water Wetland
Stream Re-route
Berm
>000.0< Fill
la„ xsa 500 I.C40
Figure 2-6. Newman North: Example Shallow Water and Emergent Wetland Restoration Incorpo-
rating Intermittent Streams.
September 2009
18
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
c--3 Wetland Project Site
nMcKenzie Conservation Area
"N.• Stream Channel Restoration
Stream Channel Reconstruction
nnry
• ,d phc.c:....e, a2 ecrc,nart .
Figure 2-7. Newman North: Example Stream Restoration Segments
September 2009
19
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.10 Costs and Timelines
Table 2-2 lists potential costs for completing options for the three designs discussed in Section 2.9 above.
All cost estimates were made using unit values from similar projects in Montana. Costs may be slightly
different in Washington, but the results are considered useful for the purpose of making an initial evalua-
tion. Costs can be further refined upon completion of the additional studies summarized in Section 2.9
and required for all options.
Note that this cost estimate does not include purchase of the property or an easement for a wetland
project. The McKenzie Conservation Area is already in county ownership. This estimate also does not
include fencing since livestock grazing is not apparent on adjacent lands. It also does not include main-
tenance activities such as weed control which will likely be needed at least throughout vegetation estab-
lishment. This estimate also does not include temporary erosion control measures during construction
such as silt fence. Cost estimates for these measures would become clear during the design and permit
phases.
The estimate for permits for this project is difficult to make without agency consultation. Estimates for
design are dependent on the final design selected. Each design cost can be reduced by reducing the area
treated. For instance, emergent wetland and shallow water wetlands could be built smaller. Stream re-
construction could be completed in sections as funding becomes available or landowner interests change.
In general, costs for a potential project at these sites are high, mainly due to the cost of excavation. We
have used a unit cost of $6 per cubic yard for excavation, which is based on excavation in wet areas in
Montana. Our unit cost for areas that are not wet is typically $4 per cubic yard. These excavation costs
assume a short haul distance to a disposal/use site. Costs for excavation might be offset somewhat by
selling the excavated material as topsoil if a soil investigation determines it is suitable. It is possible that
the actual cost for excavation would be 25-50% of the indicated costs if site conditions are favorable for
equipment. Excavation costs can also be reduced by reducing the area or depth of excavation if site con-
ditions confirm feasibility.
The timeline for potential wetland projects at these sites would be dependent on interest, available fund-
ing, permitting and other factors. The additional site information including shallow groundwater monitor-
ing, wetland delineation, soil evaluation and topographic survey is generally conducted within a 6-12
month period. Initial design would then require 3-6 months although it may occur coincident with data
collection. Permitting and environmental review timelines are difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of
agency and public requirements and comment but would likely require 6-12 months.
September 2009 20
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Table 2-2. Cost Estimates for Example Newman North Wetland and Stream Projects
Cost Estimate (Dollars)
Unit Prices Total I
Additional Onsite Information
o
o
kr)
l-
.,a
1000`5$
O
O
O
O_
69
O
O
kt9,,
69
o
0
0
el
N
b04
0
0
0
el
N
br4
0
0
0
V'1
N
br4
Wetland Design Example #1 I
.o
a,
.0
01
O
M
69
O
O
O
00
69
O
O
vi
69
69
0
a
.-i
N
M
bio
Wetland Design Example #2 I
00
o
a,
V'
kr)69
69
69
O
O
M
69
O
O
O
v1
O
O
O
N
69
TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS $562,568 I
Stream Reconstruction/Restoration I
O
0
O
O
0
69
69
O
0
O
v1
M
69
o
0
0
Q1
M
rl
bio
TOTAL -ADDITIONAL INFO
TOTAL -FINAL DESIGN
TOTAL -PERMITS
69en
O
69
PLANTS $3
1 TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS
69
05$
69
O
0
n
69
O
N
69
w
FT $5
TOTAL -STREAM TASKS
linDescription Quantities Unit
Final Design 1
Permits 1
Q
Q
PLANTS
Q
.-.
.-,
.-,
.--i
2500
00
M
O
01
O
00
V1
5,200
7,000
Wetland delineation / functional assessment
Site survey at 1 foot contours
Well installation and monitoring
Soil investigation
Excavate 2 feet over 16 Acres
Seed 16 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 2500 acres with a 4 x 4 spacing of wetland shrubs
Excavate and construct shallow basins and berms for 28 Acres of shal-
low water wetlands
Seed 10 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 5,000 wetland trees and shrubs
Plant 5 acres with upland grasses
Reconstruct 5,200 feet of Thompson Creek
Enhance 7,000 feet of Intermittent Creeks
0
N
M
�.
01
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2.11 Permits
Permits, approvals and review processes that may be required for completing a wetland project at these
Newman North sites are listed in Table 2-3. A description of each permit is presented in Appendix E
along with timelines and permits fees. Some of these may not be required at Newman North and would
be determined during review and discussion with the permitting agencies.
Table 2-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Newman North Wetland Projects
JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application — includes several permits listed below)
Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Into Waters of the United States (Section 404 Permit)
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Noxious Aquatic and Emergent Weed Transport Permit
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Section 106 Review
401 Water Quality Certification
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Floodplain Development Permit
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NPDES General Permit Coverage
Water Right, New (Permit to Withdraw or Divert Surface or Ground Water)
NPDES Aquatic Pesticides General Permit
Dam Construction Permit
Reservoir Permit
Spokane County Critical Area Ordinance Compatibility Review
2.12 Summary
Wetland project design and cost estimating at this site is difficult at this time due to the lack of precise
topographic, groundwater and soil data. This preliminary evaluation suggests that wetland and stream
restoration is highly feasible at the Newman North site and a wide variety of projects are possible. The
next step is to conduct the additional onsite investigations needed for a more accurate evaluation and de-
sign. Design options can then be finalized and more accurate cost estimates, permit requirements and
schedules can be developed. The example designs presented here would increase water storage by 32 to
128 acre-feet.
September 2009 22
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
3.0 ELOIKA SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST
The Eloika South and Southeast Potential Wetland Restoration sites are located in northern Spokane
County in the north -central portion of WRIA 57 (Figure 1-1 and Figure 3-1). These two sites were com-
bined for this evaluation due to their close proximity to each other and due to their relationship to a sur-
face water storage project under consideration at Eloika Lake. The potential surface water storage project
is described in a separate document titled Eloika Lake In -Depth Surface Water Storage and Wetland Res-
toration Feasibility (PBS&J, 2009b), and produced under a separate task for this project. This report also
includes the same wetland information presented here and is available on the Spokane County website.
3.1 Land Use
Land use at the Eloika South and Southeast sites is dominated by agriculture including hay production
and livestock grazing. One residence is present between the two sites. County plat maps list four differ-
ent owners for the Eloika South site and two for the Eloika Southeast site.
3.2 Topography
Current topographic data for the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast potential wetland sites is limited and
somewhat confused by datum issues. These issues were described in described in a separate document
titled Eloika Lake In -Depth Surface Water Storage and Wetland Restoration Feasibility (PBS&J, 2009b),
produced under a separate task for this project. The existing topographic data is not sufficient for wetland
design purposes and more detailed survey information would be needed for final wetland evaluation and
design. Figure 3-2 illustrates topography according to the Spokane County five-foot contour data. This
figure indicates that both sites are relatively level with 5-10 feet of elevation variation. Observations dur-
ing the April 2009 field visit revealed that the southern portion of the Eloika Southeast site is significantly
higher topographically than the remainder of the site and that wetland development would be difficult.
For this reason, the boundary of Eloika Southeast was altered to eliminate this higher area. This higher
area was not revealed on the county five-foot contour topography map, reinforcing the need for additional
survey information for final evaluation and wetland design.
3.3 Soils
Soils at the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites are mainly formed in lakebed sediments and organic
materials deposited since the last ice age. Figure 3-3 illustrates the locations of soils across the two sites.
Table 3-1 lists soils present according to the Spokane County Soil Survey (USDA, 1968). Although
some of these soils have a thin surface layer of silt loam or silty clay loam, the majority of each soil pro-
file is dominated by sandy or organic materials. The properties of these soils do not appear to be appro-
priate for constructing wetland berms to impound water since the soils are either organic or have sandy
textures. However, the proposed wetland restoration and enhancement measures described in Section 3.9
do not require berms and are appropriate based on the existing soil properties. Soil characteristics at the
site would need to be confirmed during final wetland design.
September 2009 23
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Figure 3-1. Eloika Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map
,
September 2009
oration & Recharge Opportunities
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Re
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Figure 3-2. Eloika Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map
N
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Table 3-1. Soils at the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast Potential Wetland Project Sites
Map Symbol Soil Mapping Unit
Cw Cocollala Silty Clay Loam
EkB Eloika Silt Loam
EIC Eloika Very Stony Silt Loam
HmA Hardesty Silt Loam, moderately shallow
NcA Narcisse Silt Loam
PeA Peone Silt Loam
Se Semiahmoo muck
3.4 Hydrogeology
Hydrogeology at these two sites is related to shallow groundwater associated with Eloika Lake. Ground-
water levels are likely to fluctuate in direct relation to lake levels. The lake outlet and outlet stream sepa-
rates the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites.
Information on groundwater conditions was not included in any of the previous investigation reports re-
viewed for this study. It is likely that wells in the area would be completed in deep formations and that
information on shallow groundwater conditions does not exist.
Additional site hydrogeology data would be required for final wetland evaluation and design including
seasonal variations in groundwater elevations. This is usually accomplished by installation and monitor-
ing of shallow wells through at least one spring high water period.
3.5 Water Quality
Water quality is cited as a concern in past studies of both the West Branch of the Little Spokane River and
Eloika Lake. The effect of potential wetland projects on water quality would require evaluation based on
the specific wetland design. Wetland projects near the outlet may not have much effect on water quality
in Eloika Lake but could be designed to reduce sediment and phosphorous input to the river system
downstream.
3.6 Water Rights
Water right information was obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology. Water rights at spe-
cific sites are difficult to evaluate since listings are only available by Section and not by specific proper-
ties. Appendix B lists water rights for Section 15, Twp 29N, 43E where the potential project sites are
located. It is not clear from the record if these rights are appurtenant to the project sites or to lands out-
side these sites. None of the names listed on the water rights appear on the current Spokane County plat
map for the project site locations. It is likely that there are no water rights associated with the Eloika
South and Eloika Southeast sites.
There are several water right filings on the West Branch of the Little Spokane River below the project site
in Section 15. It appears from the 2006 aerial photo that at least some of these water rights may currently
be in use in the northeast portion of the section. There are a great many water rights filings downstream
of these potential project sites along the west branch and main branch of the Little Spokane River. It is
likely that the proposed project could affect downstream water users and may create the potential for wa-
ter right conflicts and for objections from other water users.
A more detailed water rights evaluation would be needed in the future to evaluate the potential to affect
downstream water rights. It may be that a water right is not needed for this project but based on past
comments on preserving lake levels later in the season, it is likely that a water right is needed. If a water
September 2009 26
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
right is needed for wetland projects at Eloika South and Eloika Southeast, it would be necessary to pur-
chase a right elsewhere and move it to these project sites since the basin is closed.
3.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation
Wetlands at the southern end of Eloika Lake were previously described in the Lake Management Plan
(SCCD, 1992) based upon the existing NWI mapping. Figure 3-4 illustrates the distribution of wetland
types identified at the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites.
The SCCD document describes these wetlands as follows:
The outlet of the lake is a sedge dominated floodplain with a narrow band of Drummond's willow on the
waters edge at low watermark. Dominant species include slender sedge (Carex lasiocarpa), beaked
sedge (Carex rostrata), Hood's sedge (Carex hoodii), small fruited rush (Scirpus microcarpus), and reed
canarygrass. Ten other sedge and rush species were also found in this area.
This area has been used on and off for years as pasture and hayland. Haying and grazing are limited to
about 6 to 10 weeks a year due to flooding. Water covers the whole area in the spring but recedes to the
row of willows at the edge of the lake by the end of July. Drainage and cultivation of the area was at-
tempted sometime in the past as evidenced by the presence of drainage ditches. Drainage was unsuccess-
ful however and the area has reverted back to sedges and reed canarygrass. The sedges and reed
canarygrass have oriented themselves according to water depth which is influenced by minor topographic
differences. Reed canarygrass has encroached into one third of the wetland area but is prevented from
dominating the rest of the area due to high water during the growing season.
The management plan also summarized an analysis of wetlands functions and values, conducted using the
US Army Corps of Engineers WET 2.0 Program as an index of social significance and the DOE draft of
the Washington State Wetlands Rating System to rate the resource value. The report concluded the fol-
lowing:
The wetlands associated with Eloika Lake were rated high in social significance for nutrient remov-
al/transformation, wildlife diversity/abundance, and uniqueness/heritage. Recreation was rated low and
all other factors were rated moderate in social significance (the document listed what those other factors
were). Effectiveness was rated low for ground water recharge and discharge, sediment/toxicant reten-
tion, and nutrient removal/transformation. All other factors were rated as moderate in effectiveness.
September 2009 27
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Figure 3-3. Eloika Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey
C4
N
September 2009
cn
Q.)
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Figure 3-4. Eloika Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory
I
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
All of the wetlands were classified as category II wetlands by the Draft Washington State Wetlands Rat-
ing System. The most significant factor which seemed to determine this rating for all wetland areas was
the significant wildlife habitat value.
It appears that the SCCD wetland evaluation provided additional onsite information to augment the origi-
nal NWI Wetland Mapping, but that a formal wetland delineation was not completed. A formal delinea-
tion would require completion of US Army Corps of Engineer wetland forms documenting vegetation,
hydrology and soils. Since wetland hydrology is critical to this evaluation, monitoring wells would be
needed to confirm wetland hydrology. Portions of the area designated as wetland on the NWI/SCCD map
do not appear to be wetland on current aerial photographs of the site. This includes the southeast portion
of the Eloika South site and the central portion of the Eloika Southeast site. Conversely, portions of the
area that appear to be wetland on current aerial photos do not appear as wetland on the NWI map, includ-
ing the northwest corner of the Eloika South site. The southern portion of the Eloika Southeast site also
appears as potential wetland on current aerial photos but is not listed as wetland on the NWI map. These
sites are often difficult to evaluate by aerial photograph interpretation or even on the ground. A formal
wetland delineation including groundwater monitoring would be needed for final wetland evaluation and
design. The Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance identifies the same areas of wetland as the NWI
maps.
3.8 Wildlife Habitat
A wide variety of wildlife species have been documented at Eloika Lake (SCCD, 1992). Although this
data is not specific to the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites, it is probably applicable. Major spe-
cies likely to use these sites include whitetail deer, mule deer, coyote, black bear, moose, ruffed grouse,
ring -neck pheasant, morning dove, California quail, various songbirds, and small mammals. Species spe-
cifically related to wetlands include beaver, muskrat, bullfrog, painted turtle, common garter snake and
various salamanders. The SCCD study also documented 61 bird species at Eloika Lake, many of which
were associated with wetland and riparian habitats or shorelines (Table 3-2). Four raptor species were
identified including bald eagle. No federally listed animal species are documented in the Eloika Lake
area.
The Spokane County critical areas maps list the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites as Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas for whitetail deer, waterfowl, tundra swan and riparian habitat.
Table 3-2. Bird Species at Eloika Lake (From SCCD, 1992)
Waterbirds
ruddy duck
Wetland and Riparian Birds
redneck grebe
pintail
barn swallows
mallard
wigeon
great blue heron
wood duck
canvasback
mourning dove
coot
scaup
song sparrow
Canada goose
wood pewee
golden eye
Shorebirds and Gulls
rough -winged swallow
bufflehead
ring -billed gull
catbird
common merganser
herring gull
yellow warbler
ring -neck duck
spotted sandpiper
cedar waxwing
pied -billed grebe
killdeer
eastern kingbird
blue -winged teal
common snipe
kingfisher
green -winged teal
red -necked phalarope
black tern
cinnamon teal
least sandpiper
arctic tern
common loon
wood sandpiper
yellow -headed blackbird
shoveler
lesser yellowlegs
northern flicker
tundra swan
red -winged blackbird
eared grebe
Raptors
pileated woodpecker
western grebe
golden eagle
raven
redhead
bald eagle
horned lark
domestic duck
osprey
violet -green swallow
hooded merganser
red -tail hawk
robin
September 2009
30
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
3.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential
Wetland projects may be designed in a variety of ways to achieve various goals. The first design simply
assumes the area is already wetland but will be flooded longer in the year as a result of lake storage mani-
pulation. The other two example designs described may be altered or refined as more information is ob-
tained. Other potential designs may also be identified with further discussion and new data. Both designs
presented here could be implemented either with or without the lake level control structure discussed
elsewhere in this report. Both designs have a high potential for success due to the presence of a dependa-
ble water source (Eloika Lake and its associated groundwater system).
It is important to note that two of the most important site characteristics for wetland design are detailed
topography and seasonal groundwater depths. These data are not currently available for the Eloika Lake
potential wetland project sites; consequently, we have had to make assumptions from available data. The
resulting evaluation provides a general framework for how a wetland project in these areas might look,
the potential for success, the potential for increased water storage and other related concerns. However, it
should be viewed as an example of what may be done and not as a final proposal until additional evalua-
tion is completed.
Future information that could affect final design includes:
• Improved topographic survey
• Onsite groundwater evaluation
• Onsite soil evaluation
• Additional water rights analysis
• Landowner goals
• Funding organization goals
• Lake level adjustments
• Other information
The combined acreage of the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast sites is 99 acres. We have assumed that
approximately half of this acreage is currently wetland (45 acres) and work on this portion would be con-
sidered wetland enhancement. We have assumed that approximately half of these sites (45 acres) is for-
mer wetland that has been affected by lowering the lake level and/or by drainage ditches. This portion
would be considered wetland restoration. We have assumed the remaining 9 acres is upland and this
portion would be considered wetland creation.
The most common and least expensive method for wetland creation and restoration is to construct berms
to raise water levels to or above the current ground surface. This method is not applicable due to the
small elevation change across the Eloika sites, their location in relation to the lake and outlet stream, in-
compatibility of site soil materials with berm construction, and because of concerns for affecting the
county road.
Design and Construction Elements Common to All Wetland Designs
Some elements needed to complete the design and construction of potential wetland projects at Eloika
South and Eloika Southeast are common to all designs. These common elements include:
1. Wetland delineation and functional evaluation
2. Site survey at a 1 foot contour interval and survey of wells and wetland boundaries
3. Shallow well installation and monitoring through one high water season
4. Soil investigation to confirm soil characteristics
5. Permitting as described in Section 3.11
September 2009 31
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Costs for completing these tasks are summarized in Section 3.10. Three example designs are summarized
below. Each design would increase diversity and improve functions and values. Each design would re-
duce reed canarygrass coverage. These designs would increase water storage by 0 to 100 acre-feet.
Example Wetland Project Desi2n #1
This example project design assumes that the 45 acres of Wetland Restoration (Figure 3-5) do currently
meet wetland criteria. A formal wetland delineation is needed to confirm the wetland status of this area.
This example also assumes that the high water conditions viewed during our April 2009 field visit
represent the approximate lake level that would be prolonged if the surface water storage project were
implemented. Concern was expressed in past reviews of the potential surface water project that it might
adversely affect wetlands at the south end of the lake. The effects of this potential project cannot be accu-
rately evaluated until a stabilized lake level is determined and a precise survey is completed.
This Design would implement Option 1 in Table 3-3. Our initial evaluation is that stabilizing the lake
level for an extended period may actually improve wetland conditions, functions and values for at least a
portion of the south -shore wetlands. This would result from conversion of the areas labeled Wetland Res-
toration on Figure 3-5 from a dominance of reed canarygrass to a more diverse vegetation dominated by
wetland grasses, sedges, rushes and shrubs. Reed canarygrass has a competitive advantage on wetland
sites that are only briefly inundated but can be eliminated by prolonged flooding. The longer period of
flooding that would result from the Eloika surface water project would give more valuable and diverse
wetland vegetation a competitive advantage. The SCCD report suggested that these areas of reed canary -
grass also include sedges. If the sedges are a significant component of the current vegetation and if they
are well -distributed across the area, planting additional wetland plants may be unnecessary. Costs for
vegetation are listed in Option 1 on Table 3-3 but may not be needed except as optional enhancements. If
desired wetland vegetation does not develop just by the increased flooding period, wetland plantings
would be implemented. These plantings could include either woody wetland vegetation (shrubs) or non -
woody vegetation or a combination.
If this example is implemented and is effective as described here, it would increase wetland values and
functions on approximately 45 acres. The amount of increase would be determined by the final vegeta-
tion. If other wetlands are negatively affected by the surface storage project, increasing wetland values
may be a requirement by permitting agencies. Although net storage would not increase dramatically, the
period of water storage would be increased if a lake level control structure is installed as discussed in the
Eloika Lake storage report (PBSJ, 2009b). This project would contribute slightly to late -season flow
conditions in the river downstream. Costs to complete tasks common to all designs and costs for each
option of these designs are listed in Section 3.10 below.
Example Wetland Project Desi2n #2
This example design assumes that the 45 acres of Wetland Restoration (Figure 3-5) do not currently meet
wetland criteria due to past lowering of the lake level. We assume that lowering the topography by two
feet will result in re-establishment of wetland hydrology and wetland status. The goal of Design #2 is
therefore to restore the former wetlands to wetland condition and improve the function and values of ex-
isting wetlands.
This design would implement Options 1- 4 (Table 3-3) which includes excavation of the 45 acre area by
two feet (Option 2), then seeding wetland grass and sedge species across the entire area (Optionl). Wet -
September 2009 32
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
land shrubs would be planted across 10% of the area on a 4 x 4 foot spacing to provide diversity. Wet-
land shrubs would be planted as 10 cubic inch containerized plants.
Option 3 would increase diversity across the area of potential wetland enhancement (Figure 3-5). These
sites are assumed to currently meet wetland criteria but have little diversity. Under Option 3, two feet
would be excavated across 25% of the area (11 acres) and wetland grasses and sedges would be seeded.
A portion of the excavated material would be used to adjust topography across 3 acres to establish wet-
land shrub vegetation. Wetland shrubs would be planted as 10 cubic inch containerized plants.
This design could also implement Option 4 which would convert the estimated 9 acres of upland to wet-
land (Figure 3-5). This conversion would be achieved by excavating approximately 3 feet of material
from the surface to lower the topography. The 9 acre area would then be seeded with wetland grass and
sedge species. Wetland shrubs would be planted across 25% of the area on a 4 x 4 foot spacing.
If all options in this design were implemented, the area of wetland would be increased by 54 acres. The
amount of water storage would increase only slightly — on the 11 acres excavated to two feet. Conversion
from saturated soil to water increases the volume of water stored by approximately 40 percent. This
would result in a net storage increase of approximately 8.8 acre feet. Although net storage would not in-
crease dramatically, the period of water storage would be increased if a lake level control structure is in-
stalled as discussed elsewhere in this report. This project would contribute slightly to late -season flow
conditions in the river downstream. Costs to complete tasks common to all designs and costs for each
option of this design are listed in Section 3.10 below.
Example Wetland Project Design #3
The goal of Design #3 is to provide an example wetland design that is feasible on this site and would in-
crease water storage significantly (Figure 3-6). Under this option, 50% of the Eloika South and Eloika
Southeast potential wetland project sites would be excavated as shallow water areas 5 feet deep. Conver-
sion from saturated soil to water increases the volume of water stored by approximately 40 percent.
These areas would be planted to hardstem bulrush and/or similar species. The depth of 5 feet was chosen
to reduce the potential for cattail invasion, to give bulrush a competitive advantage and to not exceed the
regulatory definition of deepwater habitat (6.6 feet).
Under this option, the area of wetland would be increased by approximately 25 acres. The amount of wa-
ter storage would increase by approximately 100 acre-feet by converting saturated soils to shallow water.
The period of water storage would be increased if a control structure is installed as discussed elsewhere in
this report. This project would contribute to late -season flow conditions in the river downstream. Costs
to complete this option in addition to those common to all designs are listed as Option 4 in Table 3-3.
3.10 Costs and Timelines
Table 3-3 lists potential costs for completing options for the three designs discussed in Section 3.9 above.
A particular design may include one or more of the options listed in the table, as described in Section 3.9.
Breaking out costs in this manner illustrates how the three designs differ and makes it easier to revise
costs if modifications to these potential designs are envisioned.
All cost estimates were made using unit values from similar projects in Montana. Costs may be slightly
different in Washington, but the results are considered useful for the purpose of making an initial evalua-
September 2009 33
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
tion. Costs can be further refined upon completion of the additional studies summarized in Section 3.9
and required for all options.
Note that this cost estimate does not include purchase of the property or an easement for a wetland
project. This estimate also does not include fencing of the site since livestock grazing is not apparent on
adjacent lands. This estimate also does not include temporary erosion control measures during construc-
tion such as silt fence. Cost estimates for these measures would become clear during the permit phase.
The estimate for permits for this project is difficult to make without agency consultation. Costs may be
shared if permitting were coordinated with the surface storage project. Estimates for design are depen-
dent on the final design selected. We have combined these two estimates since both are dependent on
factors not now know.
In general, costs for a potential project at these sites are very high, mainly due to the need to construct by
excavating to the water table instead of raising water levels with berms. We have used a unit cost of $6
per cubic yard for excavation, which is based on excavation in wet areas in Montana. Our unit cost for
areas that are not wet is typically $4 per cubic yard. These excavation costs assume a short haul distance
to a disposal/use site. Increasing water storage at this site is especially costly due to excavation costs.
Costs for excavation might be offset somewhat by selling the excavated material as topsoil if a soil inves-
tigation determines it is suitable. These costs seem high compared with the potential benefits and water
storage.
The timeline for potential wetland projects at these sites would be dependent on interest, available fund-
ing, permitting and other factors. The additional site information including shallow groundwater monitor-
ing, wetland delineation, soil evaluation and topographic survey is generally conducted within a 6-12
month period. Initial design would then require 3-6 months. Permitting and environmental review time-
lines are difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of agency and public requirements and comment but
would likely require 6-12 months.
September 2009 34
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
N E
Q)
a E
U) O C .9
co fE
V N )
0 cs OC W 0
c 137 c • c c
CS
cu c c c
C N N fU
Figure 3-5. Eloika Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Areas
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Figure 3-6. Eloika Potential Shallow Water Wetland Areas
��
M
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Table 3-3. Cost Estimates for Eloika Wetland Project
Cost Estimate (Dollars)
Unit Prices Total
Additional Onsite Information
O
O
O
O
69
1000`5$
O
O
O
V1
69
O
O
kr)
C•1"
69
O
O
tr,
N
M
H4
O
O
O
O
O
,—I
E04
Option 1 (Design 1 &2)
O
O
O
o0
69
O
O
O
V1
.7h
69
O
O
O
M
VO
fa4
O
d-
Vl
d-
O
69
O
7
Vi
7
O
.-.1
64
Option — 3 (Design 2) I
$210,000
O
O
'F'
`F'
69
O
O
\D
'Zh
N
69
O
O
O
01
M
N
fs4
Option - 4 (Design 2)
O
VD
M
,-.
VD
N
69
O
O
\D
M
69
O
O
O
o0
ti
69
TOTAL -OPTION 4 TASKS $282,960 I
Option - 5 (Design 3)
D,
D,
D1
a1
<h
fl"
69
O
O
O
o
O
,:t-
:hfs4
69
$2,827,998
TOTAL -ADDITIONAL INFO
AC $400
PLANTS $3
TOTAL -OPTION 1 TASKS
,D
f•
TOTAL -OPTION 2 TASKS
\D
69
AC $400
PLANTS $3
TOTAL -OPTION 3 TASKS
\D
69
AC $400
PLANTS $3
\D
69
Q
PLANTS $3
TOTAL -OPTION 5 TASKS
Item No. Description Quantities Unit
1 5 Permits and Final Design 1
45
OO
kr)
174,240
000`5£
""^
8200
M
O
M
M
O
\D
,M -i
Wetland delineation / functional assessment
Site survey at 1 foot contours
Well installation and monitoring
Soil investigation
Seed 45 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 10% of 45 acres (4.5 ac.) with 4 x 4 spacing of wetland shrubs
Option — 2 (Design 2)
Excavate 2 feet over 45 Acres
Excavate 2 feet over 11 Acres
Seed 11 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 3 acres with a 4 x 4 spacing of wetland shrubs
Excavate 9 Acres of upland to a depth of 3 feet
Seed 9 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 25% of 9 acres (2.25 ac.) with 4 x 4 spacing of wetland shrubs
Excavate 50 Acres of the entire area to a depth of 5 feet
Plant 4 x 4 spacing of bullrush
00
,--i
N
M
<1'
o0
a1
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
3.11 Permits
Permits, approvals and review processes that may be required for completing a wetland project at these
Eloika Lake sites are listed in Table 3-4. A description of each permit is presented in Appendix E along
with timelines and permits fees. Some of these may not be required at Eloika Lake and would be deter-
mined during review and discussion with the permitting agencies.
Table 3-4. Potential Permit Requirements for Eloika Wetland Projects
JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application — includes several permits listed below)
Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Into Waters of the United States (Section 404 Permit)
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Noxious Aquatic and Emergent Weed Transport Permit
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Section 106 Review
401 Water Quality Certification
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Floodplain Development Permit
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NPDES General Permit Coverage
Water Right, New (Permit to Withdraw or Divert Surface or Ground Water)
NPDES Aquatic Pesticides General Permit
Reservoir Permit
Spokane County Critical Area Ordinance Compatibility Review
3.12 Summary
Wetland project design and cost estimating at these sites is difficult at this time due to the lack of precise
topographic and groundwater data. Design estimates based on our current information suggest very high
costs, especially for wetland restoration, creation and for increasing water storage. One option for pro-
ceeding is to conduct the additional onsite investigation needed for a more accurate evaluation and design.
Another option is to complete the lake level stabilization project described in the Eloika Lake storage re-
port (PBSJ, 2009b) and evaluate the effect it has on the Eloika South and Eloika Southeast potential wet-
land project sites. This may make wetland project options more clear, especially the status of areas we
consider to have restoration potential. It may then be possible to complete relatively low cost enhance-
ments of the existing wetland areas with more stable lake levels. If the surface water project affects wet-
lands, some form of wetland mitigation may be required. The example designs presented here would
increase water storage by 0 to 100 acre-feet.
September 2009 38
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
4.0 DIAMOND NORTH
Diamond North is located in southeast Pend Oreille County near the northeastern border of WRIA 55
(Figure 1-1). Few information sources were found for this site other than basic climate, topographic,
wetland and soil data as discussed below. The site was only partially visible from public roads.
4.1 Land Use
Land use at the Newman North site appears to be dominated by agriculture including hay production and
livestock grazing. No residences are present within the site but several are located around the perimeter.
County plat maps list ten parcels and seven owners for the Diamond North site (Figure 4-1). Some own-
ers have multiple parcels.
4.2 Topography
Figure 4-2 illustrates topography at the Diamond North site according to the county five-foot contour
data. This figure indicates that the southern portion of the site is relatively level with less than 5 feet of
elevation variation. The remainder of the site shows as much as 15 feet of elevation variation. Views
from adjacent public roads suggest that there are actually some small higher elevation islands in the mid-
dle of the site that appear much drier than the surrounding gentle terrain. The flat topography suggests
wetland restoration should be feasible. This topographic data however, is not sufficient for final wetland
evaluation and design purposes. More detailed survey information, in combination with groundwater lev-
el monitoring, would be needed to establish critical design elevations.
A unique and intriguing topographic factor at this site is its location near the top of the West Branch of
the Little Spokane River drainage. This is also near the northeast border of WRIA 55 (Figure 1-1). It is
approximately 7 miles west of Newport, Washington and the Pend Oreille River. This location combined
with site characteristics favorable for wetland development and water storage provides an opportunity to
consider a basin transfer of water from the Pend Oreille River. This opportunity is discussed further in
Section 4.4.
4.3 Soils
Soils at the Diamond North site are mainly formed in lakebed sediments and organic materials deposited
since the last ice age. A few soils are formed in alluvium (stream deposits) and residuum derived from
bedrock. Figure 4-3 illustrates the locations of soils across the site. Table 4-1 lists soils present accord-
ing to the County Soil Survey.
Almost the entire Diamond North site is mapped as organic soils (Uncal Muck and Pywell Muck). It is
interesting to note that although there are obvious drainage ditches across the site, these soils were not
mapped as "drained" in a manner similar to other nearby soil surveys. It may be that drainage was not
obvious at the time of the soil survey or that the area of drained soils was too small across the county to
warrant a separate soil mapping unit for these areas. It may also be that the survey was completed during
a period where drained soil units were not mapped separately by administrative decision.
The organic nature of these soils is often not ideal for constructing wetland berms to impound water since
they are usually quite porous. However, these materials often include layers or areas of mineral soils that
are suitable for berm construction. Special techniques are also available for berm and impoundment con-
struction in organic soils. Soil characteristics at the site would need to be confirmed during final wetland
design.
September 2009 39
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Diamond North
295 ac
ce Feenort.. lander,
!mei e,CI Melo ert.
Wetland Project Site
in Parcel Ownership Boundary
Figure 4-1. Diamond North Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map
September 2009
40
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
yr
Diamond North
295 ac
Wetland Project Site
7" 5 -Foot Contour Lines
Figure 4-2. Diamond North Topography Based on the County Five -Foot Contour Map
September 2009
41
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Table 4-1. Soils at the Newman North Potential Wetland Project Site
Map Symbol Soil Mapping Unit
78 Mobate-Rock Outcrop Complex
80 Moscow Silt Loam
104 Pywell Muck
125 Sacheen Loamy fine sand
146 Uncas Muck
4.4 Hydrogeology and Hydrology
Groundwater hydrogeology at this site appears to be related to shallow groundwater that collects from
uphill sources and from precipitation and snowmelt at the site. The site was likely a lake in the recent
geologic past that has filled in with sediment and organic materials since the last ice age. Information on
groundwater conditions is not available in previous reports reviewed for this study. It is likely that do-
mestic wells in the area would be completed in deep formations and that information on shallow ground-
water conditions does not exist.
Surface water hydrology appears from maps and air photos to include a series of altered stream channels
and drainage ditches (Figure 4-3). These surface water features appear to have be altered or constructed
to facilitate drainage for agricultural uses.
Additional site hydrology and hydrogeology data would be required for final wetland evaluation and de-
sign. These data would include seasonal variations in groundwater elevations. This is usually accom-
plished by installation and monitoring of shallow wells through at least one spring high water period.
Data from the Western Regional Climate Center for Newport, Washington suggest annual precipitation of
26 inches and annual snowfall of 58 inches. These data suggest that limited wetland restoration may be
possible at the site with precipitation and snowfall alone. Contributions from uphill sources increase the
potential for wetland restoration success. These climate data however must be evaluated in combination
with soil conditions and other factors during final wetland design.
The location and character of this site presents an intriguing opportunity to consider basin transfer of wa-
ter from the Pend Oreille River. Such basin transfers present significant permitting challenges but are
under consideration across the western United States. A basin transfer is currently under evaluation to
take water from Pend Oreille Lake for discharge into the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prarie (SVRP) aqui-
fer in Idaho northeast of Spokane As this evaluation proceeds it should answer many of the questions
that would be raised by a similar transfer to the Diamond North site. It is likely that water could only be
transferred during spring runoff when river levels are high and dams are passing water above their storage
capacity.
Pend Oreille River water delivered to Diamond North could increase the amount of wetland restoration
and water storage dramatically. It could also be used to recharge the entire West Branch of the Little
Spokane River and downstream portion of the Little Spokane River during dry years or drought periods.
Thousands of property owners, water right holders, recreationists and others would benefit from this sce-
nario. A portion of the transferred water would likely be consumed but it is likely that a significant por-
tion would be delivered to the Spokane River and augment flows later in the season. This water may also
allow additional wetland restoration or creation projects throughout the drainage that could provide addi-
tional storage and improve late season flow conditions downstream.
September 2009 42
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
4.5 Water Quality
Water quality is cited as a concern in past studies of the West Branch of the Little Spokane River. The
effect of potential wetland projects on water quality would require evaluation based on the specific wet-
land design. Wetland projects could be designed so as not to increase water quality concerns and some
wetland designs may reduce these concerns by dilution.
4.6 Water Rights
Water right information was obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology. Water rights at spe-
cific sites are difficult to evaluate since listings are only available by Section and not by specific proper-
ties. Appendix C lists eight water rights for Sections 30 and 31, T31N, 44E where the potential project
sites are located. It is not clear from the record if these rights are appurtenant to the project sites or to
lands outside these sites. None of the names listed on the water rights appear on the current county plat
map for the project site location. It is likely that there are no water rights associated with the Diamond
North site suitable for transfer to wetland restoration projects. There are over 400 water rights listed in
the vicinity of Diamond Lake and thousands downstream in the remainder of the West Branch of the Lit-
tle Spokane River.
The West Branch of the Little Spokane River is closed to new appropriations for consumptive use from
June 1 to October 31 every year. The extent of the closure area is listed as the "outlet of Eloika Lake to
the headwaters". This would apparently exclude the possibility of obtaining any new water rights for this
project site for diversions during the irrigation season. It may be possible to obtain a water right for di-
verting water outside the irrigation season.
4.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation
Figure 4-4 illustrates the distribution of wetland types at Diamond North according to the National Wet-
land Inventory (NWI) maps. This figure suggests that the majority of the site is mapped as wetland and
the dominate wetland type is Freshwater Emergent Wetland. Small areas of Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland are mapped around the perimeter of the site as well as "islands" of upland within the main wet-
land area. Despite the NWI map designations of wetland at the site, these maps were created using aerial
photograph interpretation techniques with little or no on -the -ground verification. Sites like Diamond
North are often difficult to evaluate by aerial photograph interpretation, or even on -the -ground unless
groundwater monitoring data is available. The air photo clearly indicates a network of altered stream
channels and drainage ditches which would suggest that at least a portion of the site has been drained for
agriculture in the past. This would suggest that at least a portion, if not all of the site does not meet cur-
rent wetland criteria and that there is excellent potential for wetland restoration projects. A wetland de-
lineation, including groundwater monitoring, would be needed for final wetland evaluation and design.
4.8 Wildlife Habitat
No readily available information was found regarding wildlife or habitat at the Diamond North site. The
area likely receives use by deer, coyote, and a variety of small mammals. It also is likely used by a varie-
ty of bird, amphibian and reptile species. It is unlikely to be used by or to be listed as critical habitat by
any TES species.
September 2009 43
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
4
. 146
ecunpary
I„e• a Cc'
C Wetland Project Site
Soil Map Unit Symbol 1D Number, Name:
3 78. Mobate-Rock outcrop complex, 40-65% slopes
in 80. Moscow silt loam. 25-40% percent slopes
f3 104. Pywell muck
in 125, Sacheen loamy fine sand, 5-15% slopes
c3 146, Uncas muck
Figure 4-3. Diamond North Soils Based on NRCS Soil Survey Data
September 2009
44
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
(Z Wetland Proje.Site
National Wetland Invntory Types:
C3 1, Freshwater Emergent Wetland
C3 2. Upland
3 3. Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Figure 4-4. Diamond North Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory
September 2009
45
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
4.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential
Wetland projects may be designed in a variety of ways to achieve various goals. This section describes
example designs that could be altered or refined as more information is obtained. Other potential designs
may also be identified with further discussion, new data or experience from an initial project. Wetland
restoration at the Diamond North site has a moderate to high potential for success even without additional
water from the Pend Oreille River. This potential for success is based on the significant rainfall, snow
accumulation, drainage area above, soil conditions and apparent need for drainage. It is likely that there
is only sufficient water available under natural conditions to restore a portion of the site. The potential for
wetland restoration success across the entire site with the addition of Pend Oreille River water is virtually
certain.
It is important to note that two of the most important site characteristics for wetland design are detailed
topography and seasonal groundwater depths. These data are not currently available for the North poten-
tial wetland project site; consequently, we have had to make assumptions from available data. The result-
ing evaluation provides a general framework for how wetland restoration projects may be implemented,
the potential for success, the potential for increased water storage and other related concerns. However,
they should be viewed as examples of what may be done and not as a final proposal until additional eval-
uation is completed.
Future information that could affect final design includes:
• Improved topographic survey
• Onsite groundwater evaluation
• Onsite soil evaluation
• Wetland delineation
• Additional water rights analysis
• Landowner goals
• Funding organization goals
• Permitting agency views
• Potential for use of Pend Oreille River water
• Other information
Design and Construction Elements Common to All Wetland Designs
Some elements needed to complete wetland design and construction at the Diamond North site are com-
mon to all designs. These common elements include:
1. Wetland delineation and functional evaluation
2. Site survey at a 1 foot contour interval and survey of groundwater monitoring wells and wet-
land boundaries
3. Shallow groundwater well installation and monitoring through one high water season
4. Soil investigation to confirm soil characteristics
5. Final design and construction documents
6. Permitting and environmental review as described in Section 4.11
Example costs for wetland restoration are summarized in Section 4.11. These designs would increase
water storage by 160 to 188 acre-feet.
September 2009 46
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Example Wetland Project Design #1
This example design includes plugging drainage ditches and allowing the water table to rise back to pre-
drainage levels. This action alone may return much of the site to emergent wetland conditions. If indi-
vidual property owners did not wish to participate in wetland restoration it may be possible to incorporate
drainage ditches into the design to prevent water table rise outside of restoration areas. Sufficient rem-
nant wetland vegetation may be present and no further seeding or planting needed. If this is not true, wet-
land seeding and planting can be used to augment or replace existing vegetation. If diversity is a goal at
this site, wetland tree and shrub planting could be used to increase diversity. If significant amounts of
unwanted species are present, herbicide application and reseeding may be needed to prevent their domin-
ance.
This design could provide over 200 acres of emergent wetland restoration depending on what further in-
vestigation reveals about current wetland conditions. It could increase water storage at the site by over
160 acre-feet (200 acres x 2 feet of water table rise x .4 porosity = 160 acft). This water would be re-
leased slowly to the drainage downstream by seepage depending on final design details. Costs for this
design example are small due to the simple requirement of plugging drain ditches. Costs would vary de-
pending on the size of the area, the need for drain ditches to prevent impacts on neighbors and the amount
of vegetation augmentation desired.
Example Wetland Project Design #2
This example design includes plugging drainage ditches and constructing shallow water wetlands by ex-
cavation and berm construction (Figure 4-5). It would incorporate intermittent streams into the shallow
wetlands. It would also likely raise the water table in the vicinity of shallow water wetlands and restore
these areas to emergent wetlands. These design components could be applied to as large a portion of the
site as is determined feasible during future investigation. It is likely that there is not enough water to im-
plement these restoration techniques across the entire site without augmentation with Pend Oreille River
water.
Under this design, drainage ditches would be plugged and water table conditions returned to pre -drainage
conditions. This action alone may return a portion of the site to emergent wetland conditions. This ex-
ample design would restore approximately 94 acres to shallow water wetlands by excavating to a depth of
2-4 feet (Figure 4-5). A portion of the excavated material would be used to construct shallow berms 2-4
feet high along the southern (downhill) border of each shallow water wetland. The remainder of the ex-
cavated material would be placed in upland areas within the site or along the eastern and western border
of the site. Excavated materials that could not be placed at the site would be hauled to suitable off-site
locations. Excavated materials that remain on the site would be shaped to blend with the surrounding to-
pography and revegetated. Water elevation control structures such as culverts or armored spillways
would be used to control water levels behind berms. Berm construction may be problematic on this site
due to the dominance of organic soils. However, it is often the case that these soil materials include lay-
ers or areas of mineral soil suitable for berm construction. Alternative construction techniques are also
available for berm construction in organic soil materials.
This design would incorporate the existing intermittent streams. Streams would be routed into the upper
shallow water wetlands and connections made to each successive shallow wetland downhill. Flow from
the lowest cell would be routed back to the existing stream channel.
Due to elimination of drainage ditches, the use of water from the intermittent streams and shallow water
wetland construction, this design is likely to raise the water table in the vicinity of shallow water wet -
September 2009 47
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
lands. It is also possible that the water elevation would rise across the entire remaining site sufficiently to
restore emergent wetland conditions.
If individual property owners did not wish to participate in wetland restoration it may be possible to in-
corporate drainage ditches into the design to prevent water table rise outside of restoration areas.
Revegetation would include seeding wetland grass, sedge and bulrush species across the shallow water
wetland areas in a sequence related to water depths. Wetland tree and shrub species would be planted in a
clumped pattern across the area on a 4 x 4 foot spacing to provide diversity. Excavated materials would
be seeded with an upland grass species mix. Weed control would likely be necessary, especially on the
berms and excavated materials, for a period of at least 3-5 years. Re -seeding may be required depending
on the success of the initial seeding effort. Additional shrub and tree plantings could be used on a portion
of the excavated materials if desired.
This design could provide 94 acres of shallow water wetlands and 100 acres of emergent wetlands. It
would increase water storage at the site by approximately 188 acre-feet due to shallow water area excava-
tion and berm construction. It would increase water storage by approximately 80 acre-feet by raising the
water table in emergent wetland areas (100ac x 2ft x .4). This water would be released slowly to the
stream and groundwater system by seepage depending on final design details. Costs for this design ex-
ample are summarized in Section 4.10 below.
4.10 Costs and Timelines
Table 4-2 lists potential costs for collecting additional information and for design examples discussed in
Section 4.9 above. Note that these estimates are for the entire 295 acre site and investigations or designs
may actually be completed for only a portion of the site in relation to landowner interest. Costs for land
purchase or easements may also determine how much of the site is considered for restoration. All cost
estimates were made using unit values from similar projects in Montana. Costs may be slightly different
in Washington, but the results are considered useful for the purpose of making an initial evaluation. Costs
can be further refined upon completion of the additional studies summarized in Section 4.9 and required
for all options.
Note that these cost estimates do not include purchase of the property or an easement for a wetland
project. This estimate also does not include fencing. This estimate also does not include temporary ero-
sion control measures during construction such as silt fence. Cost estimates for these items would be-
come clear during the permit phase.
The estimate for permits for this project is difficult to make without agency consultation. Water rights are
a special concern at this site since there are so many potential water right holders downstream. The most
difficult costs to estimate are those associated with water use from the Pend Oreille River. It is likely that
extensive modeling efforts, multi -state permitting and future monitoring costs would be large. Costs for
diversion, transport and delivery of Pend Oreille River water to the site would also be significant. These
costs however would be offset by tremendous potential benefits.
The timeline for potential wetland projects at these sites would be dependent on interest, available fund-
ing, permitting and other factors. The additional site information including shallow groundwater monitor-
ing, wetland delineation, soil evaluation and topographic survey is generally conducted within a 6-12
month period. Initial design would then require 3-6 months. Permitting and environmental review time-
lines are difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of agency and public requirements and comment but
would likely require 6-12 months.
September 2009 48
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
3 Wetland Project Site
Shallow Water Wetland
Berm
Figure 4-5. Diamond North Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Areas
September 2009
49
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Table 4-2. Cost Estimates for Example Diamond North Wetland Projects
Cost Estimate (Dollars)
Unit Prices Total I
Additional Onsite Information
O
O
kr)
9
O
O
O
O' _
69
O
O
O
vi
69
O
O
,n
(
69
0
0
0
vi
M
64
0
0
0
vi
N
64
0
0
0
vi
N
64
Wetland Design Example #1
0
O
O
(.4
69
0
O
vi
(-,1
69
0
O
O
o
M
69
0
0
v,
4c4vi
M
EA
Wetland Design Example #2 I
.o
01
(-1,
69
O
0
O
01
69
O
0
O
,--i
O
0
O
o
M
69
O
O
O
,:t=
69
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Vo
11"--
a
cc
to
M
EA
TOTAL -ADDITIONAL INFO
TOTAL -FINAL DESIGN
TOTAL -PERMITS
69
6
O
0
69
PLANTS $3
1 TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS
$4
005$
en
69
69
O
69
TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS
Item No. Description Quantities Unit
Final Design 1
Permits 1
PLANTS
PLANTS
_.
.-.
.-.
.-,
O
O
000`0I
303,244
194
5,000
O
O
O
vl
Wetland delineation / functional assessment
Site survey at 1 foot contours
Well installation and monitoring
Soil investigation
Plug drainage ditches
Seed 50 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
F
N
O
O
O
O
c
P+
Excavate and construct basins and berms for 94 Acres of shallow water
wetlands
Seed 194 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 5,000 wetland plants in shallow water sites
Plant 10,000 wetland shrubs
Seed 10 acres with upland grasses
Delivery System for Water from Pend Oreille River
Additional modeling, permitting and other tasks needed to facilitate use
of Pend Oreille River Water
,-.
N
M
-1-
vl
�.
01
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
4.11 Permits
Permits, approvals and review processes that may be required for completing a wetland project at the Di-
amond North site are listed in Table 4-3. A description of each permit is presented in Appendix E along
with timelines and permits fees. Some of these may not be required at Diamond North and would be de-
termined during review and discussion with the permitting agencies.
Table 4-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Diamond North Wetland Projects
JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application — includes several permits listed below)
Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Into Waters of the United States (Section 404 Permit)
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Noxious Aquatic and Emergent Weed Transport Permit
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Section 106 Review
401 Water Quality Certification
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Floodplain Development Permit
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NPDES General Permit Coverage
Water Right, New (Permit to Withdraw or Divert Surface or Ground Water)
NPDES Aquatic Pesticides General Permit
Dam Construction Permit
Reservoir Permit
Spokane County Critical Area Ordinance Compatibility Review
4.12 Summary
Wetland project design and cost estimating at this site is difficult at this time due to the lack of precise
topographic, groundwater and soil data. This preliminary evaluation suggests that wetland restoration is
moderately to highly feasible at the Diamond North site and a wide variety of projects are possible. The
next step is to conduct the additional onsite investigations needed for a more accurate evaluation and de-
sign. Design options can then be finalized and more accurate estimates for costs, permit requirements and
schedules can be developed. It will be important to monitor the progress of the Department of Ecology
study to transfer water from Lake Pend Oreille to the SVRP aquifer. This project has many similar issues
and costs.
September 2009 51
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
5.0 CHESTER CREEK
The Chester Creek potential wetland restoration site is located in south-central Spokane County and the
southeastern portion of WRIA 57 (Figure 1-1). Few information sources were found for this site other
than basic climate, topographic, wetland and soil data as discussed below. The site is mostly visible from
adjacent public roads.
The upper Chester Creek drainage is dominated by agricultural lands and rural home sites. The creek
flows northward through the potential wetland restoration site discussed here and terminates approximate-
ly 4 miles north in an infiltration basin. This infiltration basin is located within the SVRP aquifer approx-
imately 4 miles south of the Spokane River within the city limits of Spokane Valley.
5.1 Land Use
Land use at the Chester Creek sites is mainly suburban and semi -rural with limited agricultural use for
grazing and hay production (Figure 5-1). The site is located immediately adjacent to the southern border
of the City of Spokane Valley. A golf course is located adjacent to and immediately north (downstream)
of the site. Three residences are present within the site with many more around the perimeter. County
plat maps list 30 parcels and 22 different owners for the site.
5.2 Topography
Figure 5-2 illustrates topography at the Chester Creek site according to the Spokane County five-foot
contour data. This figure indicates that the southern portion of the site has approximately 30 feet of ele-
vation variation which is poorly suited to wetland restoration or creation. The northern portion of the site
has significant areas of relatively level terrain with less than 10 feet of elevation variation. Views from
adjacent public roads confirm that the northern portion of the site has topography that appears feasible for
wetland restoration or creation. The existing topographic data is not sufficient for final wetland evalua-
tion and design purposes. More detailed survey information, in combination with groundwater level
monitoring, would be needed to establish critical design elevations.
5.3 Soils
Soils at the Chester Creek site are mainly formed in alluvial deposits from Chester Creek. Figure 5-3
illustrates the locations of soils across the site. Table 5-1 lists soils present according to the County Soil
Survey.
Almost the entire Chester Creek site is mapped as the Narcisse silt loam with small areas of other soils
around the perimeter of the site. The Narcisse soil is suitable for wetland restoration or construction
where groundwater is shallow and/or where sufficient surface water is available. This soil has sandy,
permeable subsoil layers that do not hold water well. However, permeability can be reduced by compac-
tion, additions of finer soil materials, lining or other techniques. In this case, the porous nature of these
subsoils may be beneficial since a goal of this project would be to increase infiltration to groundwater and
therefore reduce flows downstream. Soil characteristics at the site would need to be confirmed during
final wetland design.
September 2009 52
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
:rt
L*
a.-
14
Wetland Project Site
d Parcel Ownership Boundary
Figure 5-1. Chester Creek Ownership Based on Spokane County Parcel Map
September 2009
53
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Chester Creek
107 ac
•
,.. end wRoim,en ...era,. �,..
.. Wetland Project Site
- 5 -Foot Contour Lines
Figure 5-2. Chester Creek Topography Based on Spokane County Five -Foot Contour Map
September 2009
54
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Table 5-1.
Map Symbol
CuB
MaC
NcA
SpC
SrE
SsC
Soils at the Chester Creek Potential Wetland Project Site
Soil Mapping Unit
Clayton sandy loam
Marble loamy sand
Narcisse silt loam
Spokane loam
Spokane stony loam
Spokane complex
5.4 Hydrogeology and Hydrology
Groundwater hydrogeology at this site appears to be directly related to Chester Creek and its associated
shallow aquifer. It is likely that domestic wells in the area would be completed in deeper formations and
that information on shallow groundwater conditions does not exist.
Chester Creek is a perennial stream. Five significant intermittent streams enter the Chester Creek site,
three from the east and two from the west. Smaller ephemeral drainages are also present and enter the site
from both the east and west.
Additional groundwater data would be required for final wetland evaluation and design. These data
would include seasonal variations in groundwater elevations at the proposed wetland restoration/creation
area discussed below in Section 5.9. This is usually accomplished by installation and monitoring of shal-
low wells through at least one spring high water period.
5.5 Water Quality
The effect of potential wetland projects on water quality in Chester Creek would require evaluation based
on the specific wetland design. Wetland projects could be designed so as not to increase water quality
concerns. It is unlikely that water quality would be a significant impediment to a project at this location
since the stream terminates in an infiltration sump.
5.6 Water Rights
Water right information was obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology. Water rights at spe-
cific sites are difficult to evaluate since listings are only available by Section and not by specific proper-
ties. Appendix D lists water rights for Sections 4 and 9, T24N, 44E where the potential project site is
located. It is not clear from the record if these rights are appurtenant to the project site or to lands outside
the site. None of the names listed on the water rights appear on the current Spokane County plat map for
the project site location. Six of these water rights include irrigation. No obvious signs of irrigation were
observed from public roads or on recent aerial photographs. If these water rights are current or have been
exercised in the past five years, they would likely be considered valid and could be used for wetland res-
toration/creation should water rights be required for this project.
There are a few water right filings for irrigation downstream from this location but no clear evidence of
any agricultural uses on recent aerial photographs. The area downstream is densely populated urban and
suburban land. Any water rights not used in the past five years would be considered abandoned. There
are a number of irrigation water rights listed for Section 33 T25N R44E where the golf course is located.
These rights list wells as the water source and have significant flow rates of up to 1000 gpm. It is unlike-
ly that there are any significantly large and valid irrigation rights downstream of the project site except for
the golf course. It therefore seems likely that a water right might be obtained for a wetland restora-
tion/creation project at the Chester Creek site.
September 2009 55
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Chester Creek
107 ac
c3 Wetland Project Site
Soil Map Unit Symbol, Name:
�j CuB. Clayton sandy loam. 0-8% slopes
C3 MaC. Marble loamy sand. 0-30% slopes
NcA, Narcisse silt loam, 0-5% slopes
C3 SpC. Spokane loam. 0-30% slopes
SrE. Spokane stony loam, 30-70% slopes
C3 SsC, Spokane complex, 0-30% slopes
Figure 5-3. Chester Creek Soils Based on the Spokane County Soil Survey
September 2009
56
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
5.7 Existing Wetlands and Vegetation
Figure 5-4 illustrates the distribution of wetland types at the Chester Creek site according to the National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. This figure suggests that the majority of the site is upland with only one
small area of Freshwater Emergent Wetland located in the middle of the site. The Spokane County Criti-
cal Areas Ordinance identifies a small area at the north end of the Chester Creek site as "seasonal marsh."
A wetland delineation and groundwater monitoring would be needed for final wetland evaluation and de-
sign.
5.8 Wildlife Habitat
No readily available information was found regarding wildlife or habitat at the Chester Creek site. The
area is likely used by deer, coyote, and a variety of small mammals. It also is likely used by a variety of
bird, amphibian and reptile species. It is unlikely to be used by or to be listed as critical habitat by any
TES species. The Spokane County Critical Area Ordinance maps indicate the site is habitat for whitetail
deer and elk.
5.9 Restoration Options and Success Potential
Wetland projects may be designed in a variety of ways to achieve various goals. This section describes
example designs that could be altered or refined as more information is obtained. Other potential designs
may also be identified with further discussion or new data. Wetland restoration at the Chester Creek site
has a high potential for success due to a dependable water source (Chester Creek) and other favorable
conditions.
It is important to note that two of the most important site characteristics for wetland design are detailed
topography and seasonal groundwater depths. These data are not currently available for the Chester
Creek potential wetland project site; consequently, we have had to make assumptions from available data.
The resulting evaluation provides a general framework for how wetland and stream restoration projects
may be implemented, the potential for success, the potential for increased water storage and other related
concerns. However, they should be viewed as examples of what may be done and not as a final proposal
until additional evaluation is completed.
Future information that could affect final design includes:
• Improved topographic survey
• Onsite groundwater evaluation
• Onsite soil evaluation
• Wetland delineation
• Additional water rights analysis
• Landowner goals
• Funding organization goals
• Permitting agency views
• Other information
September 2009 57
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
2
F,t
Wetland Project Site
National Wetland Inventory Types:
C3 1, Freshwater Emergent Wetland
C3 2, Upland
b
Figure 5-4. Chester Creek Wetlands Based on the National Wetland Inventory
September 2009
58
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Design and Construction Elements Common to All Wetland Designs
Some elements needed to complete wetland design and construction at the Chester Creek site are common
to all designs. These common elements include:
1. Wetland delineation and functional evaluation
2. Site survey at a 1 foot contour interval and survey of groundwater monitoring wells and wet-
land boundaries
3. Shallow groundwater well installation and monitoring through one high water season
4. Soil investigation to confirm soil characteristics
5. Final design and construction documents
6. Permitting and environmental review as described in Section 5.11
Example costs for wetland restoration are summarized in Section 5.10. These designs would increase
water storage by 18 to 90 acre-feet.
Example Wetland Project Design #1
This example design would restore approximately 9 acres to emergent wetlands by excavating several
areas of the site to a depth of two feet (Figure 5-5). This design assumes that groundwater monitoring
will reveal water depths during the early growing season to be approximately two feet or that there is suf-
ficient surface flow to support a wetland. The excavated material would be placed along the border of the
site and shaped to blend with the surrounding topography. This area is assumed to not meet wetland cri-
teria at this time and so would not constitute fill in a wetland. The alternative is to haul this material to
another site at an increased cost.
This design would leave the existing Chester Creek stream channel in its current location and condition.
Stream flow, at least during spring runoff, would be diverted into the emergent wetlands.
Under this design, the remaining area outside the emergent wetlands would not be likely to achieve wet-
land hydrology and would remain upland since water table elevations and streamflow would not be al-
tered outside the designed wetland area. Enhancement of the upland area could be undertaken if desired
including riparian shrub and tree planting.
Revegetation would include seeding wetland grass and sedge species across the emergent wetland areas.
A total of 2,500 wetland tree and shrub species would be planted in groups across the area to provide di-
versity. Excavated materials would be seeded with an upland grass species mix. Weed control would
likely be necessary for a period of at least 3-5 years and re -seeding may be required depending on the
success of the initial seeding effort.
This design would provide 9 acres of emergent wetlands. The final mix of these wetland types would be
determined during further investigation and final design based on feasibility. This construction would
likely increase water storage at the site by approximately 18 acre-feet due to excavation. This water
would be released slowly to the stream and groundwater system. Costs for this design option are summa-
rized in Section 5.10 below.
September 2009 59
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Example Wetland Project Design #2
This example design would restore approximately 30 acres to shallow water and emergent wetland by
constructing low berms 2-4 feet high along the northern, western and eastern borders of the area at the
north end of the Chester Creek site (hatched area in Figure 5-6). Berm construction may be problematic
on this site due to the dominance of sandy soils. However, some soils listed for the site are mapped as silt
loams so it may be that there is a sufficient mixture of soil materials across the entire site that would make
berm construction feasible.
This design would incorporate Chester Creek stream flow as the source of water. The existing channel
could be left as is and water diverted from it to the wetland or the stream could be reconstructed in this
section and enhanced. Chester Creek could also be routed through the new wetland area. The final
stream and wetland configuration would be determined during final design.
Revegetation would include seeding wetland grass, sedge and bulrush species across the shallow water
wetland area in a sequence related to water depths. A total of 2,500 wetland tree and shrub species would
be planted across the area in clumps to provide diversity. Excavated materials would be seeded with an
upland grass species mix. Weed control would likely be necessary, especially on the berms and exca-
vated materials, for a period of at least 3-5 years. Re -seeding may be required depending on the success
of the initial seeding effort. Additional shrub and tree plantings could be used on a portion of the exca-
vated materials if desired.
This design would provide 30 acres of shallow water and emergent wetlands. The final mix of these wet-
land types would be determined during further investigation and final design based on feasibility. This
construction would likely increase water storage at the site by approximately 60-90 acre-feet due to berm
construction with an average water depth of 2-3 feet. This water would be released slowly to the stream
and groundwater system. Costs for this design option are summarized in Section 5.10 below.
Example Stream Reconstruction Projects
The Chester Creek site also has opportunities for stream reconstruction projects. The stream channel ap-
pears to have been relocated and shortened in the past along much of its length. It has also been bermed
and otherwise modified near the north end of the site. These stream reconstruction options are mentioned
here briefly due to their potential for coordinated stream/wetland projects. Figure 5-6 illustrates three
Chester Creek stream segments that could be reconstructed to provide additional meanders and increase
stream length. These segments total approximately 6,000 feet and could be completed together or as sep-
arate projects. Reconstruction of a separate channel instead of rehabilitation of the existing one would
allow new channel vegetation to mature before diverting water to it. The existing channel could also be
rehabilitated by constructing meanders and floodplain features, introducing woody debris, introducing
gravel substrates and planting woody species. Example costs for completing Chester Creek stream recon-
struction are summarized in Section 5.10.
September 2009 60
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
C3 Wetland Project Site
0) Emergent Wetlands
)0ONc Fill
Figure 5-5. Chester Creek Example Wetland Design #1
September 2009
61
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Wetland Project Site
C,Constructed Wetland
New Stream Channel
Figure 5-6. Chester Creek Example Wetland Design #2
September 2009
62
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
5.10 Costs and Timelines
Table 5-2 lists potential costs for completing options for the three designs discussed in Section 5.9 above.
All cost estimates were made using unit values from similar projects in Montana. Costs may be slightly
different in Washington, but the results are considered useful for the purpose of making an initial evalua-
tion. Costs can be further refined upon completion of the additional studies summarized in Section 5.9
and required for all options.
Note that this cost estimate does not include purchase of the property or an easement for a wetland
project. This estimate also does not include fencing of the site since livestock grazing is not apparent on
adjacent lands. This estimate also does not include temporary erosion control measures during construc-
tion such as silt fence. Cost estimates for these measures would become clear during the permit phase.
The estimate for permits for this project is difficult to make without agency consultation. Costs may be
shared if permitting were coordinated with the surface storage project. Estimates for design are depen-
dent on the final design selected. We have combined these two estimates since both are dependent on
factors not now know.
The timeline for potential wetland projects at these sites would be dependent on interest, available fund-
ing, permitting and other factors. The additional site information including shallow groundwater monitor-
ing, wetland delineation, soil evaluation and topographic survey is generally conducted within a 6-12
month period. Initial design would then require 3-6 months. Permitting and environmental review time-
lines are difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of agency and public requirements and comment but
would likely require 6-12 months.
September 2009 63
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportun
In -Depth Wetland Studies
Table 5-2. Cost Estimates for Example Chester Creek Wetland and Stream Projects
Cost Estimate (Dollars)
Unit Prices Total
Additional Onsite Information
O
O
v1
r-
69
1000`5$
O
O
O
O_
69
$1,500 I
O
O
O
7
N
EA
O
O
O
N
EA
O
O
O
N
EA
Wetland Design Example #1
.o
M
_
69
O
O
v1
69
O
O
N
69
O
D
v1
69
M
M
Cr,'
N
--
—
64
Wetland Design Example #2
O
O
O
N
cT
,--1
69
O
O
O
,r
69
O
O
41'
69
O
O
v1
69
TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS $214,900 I
Stream Reconstruction
O
O
O
O
N
_
69
O
O
O
O
N
---i
EA
TOTAL -ADDITIONAL INFO
TOTAL -FINAL DESIGN
TOTAL -PERMITS
$4
005$
O
O
.1
69
M
69
TOTAL -EXAMPLE #1 TASKS
$4
005$
O
O
't'
69
M
69
Reconstruct 6,000 feet of Chester Creek 6,000 FT $20
TOTAL -STREAM TASKS
Item No. Description Quantities Unit
Final Design 1
Permits 1
Q
Q
PLANTS
Q
Q
PLANTS
_.
.
,—-.,—
.
29,034
01
M
2500
O
O.
O
oe
ch
O
M
ti
2500
Wetland delineation / functional assessment
Site survey at 1 foot contours
Well installation and monitoring
Soil investigation
Excavate 2 feet over 9 Acres for emergent wetlands
Seed 9 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Seed 3 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 2,500 wetland shrubs
Construct berms for 30 Acres of shallow water wetlands
Seed 30 acres with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Seed 1 acre with wetland grasses and grass -like species
Plant 2,500 wetland shrubs
,--i
N
M
-1-
,!1
�.
01
00
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
5.11 Permits
Permits, approvals and review processes that may be required for completing a wetland project at the
Chester Creek site are listed in Table 5-3. A description of each permit is presented in Appendix E
along with timelines and permits fees. Some of these may not be required at Chester Creek and would be
determined during review and discussion with the permitting agencies.
Table 5-3. Potential Permit Requirements for Chester Creek Projects
JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application — includes several permits listed below)
Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Into Waters of the United States (Section 404 Permit)
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Noxious Aquatic and Emergent Weed Transport Permit
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Section 106 Review
401 Water Quality Certification
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Floodplain Development Permit
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NPDES General Permit Coverage
Water Right, New (Permit to Withdraw or Divert Surface or Ground Water)
NPDES Aquatic Pesticides General Permit
Dam Construction Permit
Reservoir Permit
Spokane County Critical Area Ordinance Compatibility Review
5.12 Summary
This preliminary evaluation suggests that wetland and stream restoration is highly feasible at the Chester
Creek site and a wide variety of projects are possible. The next step is to conduct the additional onsite
investigations needed for a more accurate evaluation and design. Design options can then be finalized
and more accurate cost estimates, permit requirements and schedules can be developed.
The size of wetlands presented in the example designs are based on available space. It is likely that the
size of potential wetlands may actually be reduced during final design to match the available water and
soil conditions. Cost estimates provided here are likely to be significantly higher than costs for a final
design when all factors are identified.
September 2009 65
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
This project summarizes potential wetland projects at four sites in WRIA 55 and 57 based on available
information. All sites have good potential for successful wetland projects that would increase water sto-
rage and potentially increase late season stream flows.
Additional information is needed to complete wetland evaluations and designs at these locations. Most
important are:
• wetland delineations to determine what areas if any on these sites currently meet wetland criteria
• detailed site surveys to determine elevations in relation to water tables and surface topography
• water table monitoring to determine groundwater elevations during high water (spring)
• land owner goals and willingness to participate?
Costs for construction are estimates based on standard estimating methods. However, it is likely that ad-
ditional site investigation and contractor consultations will reveal alternatives that are less costly.
September 2009 66
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
7.0 REFERENCES
Funk, W., B. Moore, S. Burkett and S. Juul. 1998. Newman Lake Restoration Phase II. 85p.
Golder, 2004. Final Storage Assessment, Little and Middle Spokane Watersheds. Prepared by Golder
Associates Inc. for Spokane County and WRIA 55 and 57 Planning Unit. December 2004. 77p.
Moore, D. 2003. A Survey of Newman Lake Property Owners About Lake Water Quality Issues. Social
Economic Sciences Research Center, WSU, Pullman, WA. 66p.
Newman Lake Watershed Plan Committee. 1992. Newman Lake Watershed Plan. 26p.
PBS&J. 2009a. Potential Wetland Project Sites, WRIAs 55 and 57. Prepared by PBS&J for Spokane
County Division of Utilities. April.
PBS&J. 2009b. Eloika Lake In -Depth Surface Water Storage and Wetland Restoration
Feasibility: Spokane County, Washington. Prepared by PBS&J for Spokane County Division of
Utilities. June. 61p.
Robbinson, D. and W. Funk. 1997. Comprehensive Plan of Development for Stormwater Control in the
Newman Lake Watershed. 95p.
Southerland, B. 2000. Thompson Creek Stream Inventory, Assessment and Geomorphic Stream Classifi-
cation. 10p.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Thompson Creek Watershed Analysis.
September 2009 67
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Appendix A
Newman North Additional Information
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Stu
Newman North Water Rights Summary
l stSrc
UNNAMED SPRING
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CREEK
UNNAMED SPRING
THOMPSON CREEK
THOMPSON CREEK
N
i..—
N
N
..—
N
QQ/Q
CO
NE/SW
Z_
W
Z
Z
TRS
27.0N 45.0E 22
27.0N 45.0E 22
27.0N 45.0E 22
27.0N 45.0E 22
27.0N 45.0E 27
27.0N 45.0E 27
Q
..
r
r
r
,-
r
r
Ir
Acres
O
N
O
co
O
(o
R
a
N
O
71-
-
O
N
5(0
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
O
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
O
N-
O
O
co
O
I-
O
Purpose
ST,DM
co
ST,RE
Priority
Dt
N
ao
5/31/1950
5/23/1961
12/4/1974
I--
co
5/23/1961
O
O
oo
O
N
a
V
O
N
N
N
N
N
a)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Person
WELTER AN-
THONY H
Takai Robert
Von Lintel Philip
SELLE DANNY C
WARNER RO-
BERT J
Woodard Alva
S3-27374CWRIS
S3 *09645CWRIS
S3 *16698ABBC
S3-24083CWRIS
S3-01608CWRIS
0
oorn
co
co
It
a)
LL
CO
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Newman North Example Photos — Additional Photos are included on the CD attached to this report.
)44P)JJ1))1J,P
Figure A-1. View of McKenzie Conservation Area from Near Fire Station on W Newman Lake Dr
Figure A-2. View of McKenzie Conservation Area Looking North from W Newman Lake Dr
September 2009
A-2
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Appendix B
Eloika South & Southeast Additional Information
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Stu
Table B-1. Eloika South and Southeast Water Rights Summary
1 stS rc
WELL
WELL
INFILTRATION
TREN
UNNAMED
STREAM
SPRING
UNNAMED
STREAM
UNNAMED
SPRING
WBLSR
WBLSR
SPRING
WELL
POND
RIVER
WELL
N
N
QQ/Q
SE/NE
SE/NE
W
Z_
(1)
NW/NE
(1)
Z
w
Z_
(1)
SE/NE
NE/NE
TRS
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 15
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 16
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
N
L i O,
Q
O,
in
O
O
R
U
O
Ln
CO
T-
O
CO
O
LO
N
O
CO
_
N
p
m
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
d
0
LL
0
LL
0
d
(D
d
0
LL
0
d
0
LL
0
LL
0
d
(D
d
0
LL
0
LL
0
d
0
d
0
d
U
d
(3
LL
0
d
0
LL
0
LL
0
d
(D
d
0
LL
0
d
0
d
0
LL
0
d
0
a
O
Ln
co
O
O
N
O
O
V
d-
N
O
O
.-
in
�-
O
O
O
O
Purpose
0
0
ST,DG
0
ST,IR
CD
0
CD
0
cK
DS
ST,IR
ST,IR
ST,DG
(n
0
ST,DG
ST,IR
ST,IR
ST,IR
STIR
ST,DG
0
0
0
cK
0
ST,DG
ST,IR
0
Priority Dt
4/4/1985
5/2/1977
6/2/1964
4/18/1952
co
N-
(3)
v
N
O
10/8/1952
1/22/1966
2/15/1965
Doc
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
N
0
Claim S
N
0
N
0
N
0
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
Claim L
Claim L
N
0
Claim S
Claim S
Claim L
N
0
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
N
0
Claim L
N
0
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim S
Claim L
Claim L
Person
HELGESON & EMERSON
HELGESON & EMERSON
HELGESON GORDON L.
LEESON CHET F
MARTIN LAWRENCE E.
PARKS E E
PARKS F E
PARKS F E
PARKS F. E.
PARKS WAYNE R.
RIDDLE F B
RIDDLE F B
FRANTZ LEE E.
FRANTZ LEE E.
FRANZ LEE E
HUTCHINSON ELLEN L
HUTCHINSON ELLEN L
PRATT JESSE
SANTO W A
BURROW CHESTER A.
COX JAMES A
FERGUSON LYLE A
INGRAM JAMES I
KELLER L G
KELLER VIOLA M.
MANZERLH/EM
MANZER LEWIS A.
MANZER LEWIS H.
MORRIL ELDON B.
REESE EARL J
SIMPSON ROBERT C.
SMITH VRANCES M
TAYLOR ROBERT D
TAYLOR ROBERT D
i.,
U 4:t
In
N-
M
in
V
6)N
O
co
(0
(O
Ln
CO
M
o
O
N-
O
a)
*
N
-
LL
G3-048797CL
G3-048798CL
G3-048897CL
G3-27969CWRIS
G3-080148CL
G3-25350GWRIS
G3-*07200CWRIS
S3--*11254CWRIS
S3-072850CL
G3-039064CL
G3-164911 CL
S3-164912CL
G3-018884CL
S3-018885CL
S3-21999CWRIS
G3-105003CL
G3-105004CL
J
0
O
co
N
O
M
0)
S3--*11742CWRIS
G3-059144CL
G3-134248CL
G3-134247CL
G3-134108CL
S3-*19411CWRIS
G3-003789CL
S3-*18870CWRIS
S3-042131 CL
G3-042132CL
G3-019597CL
S3-160880CL
G3-027155CL
G3-109908CL
S3-122499CL
G3-122498CL
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Stu
1 stS rc
WELL
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
SPRING
RIVER
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
WELL
SPRING
WEST BRANCH
LITTL
RIVER
LITTLE SPO-
KANE RI
SPRING
SPRING
LITTLE SPO-
KANE R
LITTLE SPO-
KANE RI
WELL
WELL
WELL
WELL
N
V)
QQ/Q
NE/NE
Z_
(1)
SW/SE
SE/SE
Z_
u)
NE/NW
NE/SE
u)
Z
u)
Z
u)
u)
TRS
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 22
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 23
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 25
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
29.0N 43.0E 26
N
i a-
Q
CO
O�
dO
coM
N"
N
O
Ci
O
N
N
N
N
(09
N
5
0
D
2
d
00
2
d
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
00
2
d
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
2
d
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
u)
LL
0
2
d
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
u)
LL
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
2
d
0
MN
p
O
`--
O
NO
O
d
O
I--
p
O
N
p
O
V
O
N
pLo
O
p
O
0
O
0
N
Purpose
0
0
ST,IR
a
o
ST,IR
_
o
ST,IR
STIR
FR,DS
o
cK
ST,IR
o
o
cK
cK
DS
DM,CI
o
o
o
0
cK
ST,IR
ST,IR
Priority Dt
O
a)
O
(NI,- N(h
(O
2/5/1952
8/26/1988
9/3/1954
8/6/1934
pp
(O
\
2/27/1992
M
a
C)
p
V
N
0
3/29/1984
N-
p
N
I-
N-
p
-,-----
CO
M
Doc
Claim L
Claim S
Cert
N
0
Claim S
Cert
Cert
N
0
Claim S
Claim L
N
0
Claim L
Claim S
Claim L
Pmt
Claim S
Claim S
N
0
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
N
0
Cert
Cert
N
0
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim S
Person
THOL JAMES L.
WEBER LOREN E.
WILBRECHT L D
ARNOLD F D
DEAN FARLEY L
Kidder Evelyn
MILLER C C ET AL
MOODY V
POCHEL LYLE
POCHEL LYLE E
Smethers John
SMETHERS JOHN T.
WEAVIL LEVI F
WEAVIL LEVI F
Williams Brian
BATTERS GARY N
BATTERS GARY N
Grizzly Bear Bluff Trust
MORAN LARRY A.
MORAN RUTH
MORAN RUTH I.
MORAN RUTH I.
Burrows John
Dean Farley
DEAN FARLEY
DEAN FARLEY L
HILLIARD RAYMOND H.
JORDAN JIMMY D
NIELSEN HENRY K.
REESE LENORE J.
i
U 4:to
in
O
a)
inM
p
v
co
p
_
LL
G3-037477CL
G3-039084CL
S3--*19724CWRIS
S3--*11026CWRIS
G3-127323CL
S3-28510
u)
E
0
co
+
co
S3--*04020CWRIS
G3-140922CL
S3-127147CL
S3-20410CWRIS
G3-045733CL
G3-152317CL
G3-152318CL
S3-29158
00
p
0
N
,-
M
0
S3-123068CL
S3 -28288C
M
in
O
u)
S3-051130CL
0
N
O
co
0
N
Ln
O
u)
S3-29264
G3-27797
G3-25508CWRIS
G3-25304CWRIS
0
O
M
N
O
M
0
G3-153589CL
G3-000535CL
G3-089027CL
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Eloika South and Southeast Example Photos — Additional Photos are included on the CD attached to this
report.
Figure B-1. WBLSR Above Eloika Lake Road Looking North (April 2009)
Figure B-2. WB
SR Below Eloika Lake Road Looking South (April 2009)
September 2009
B-3
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Studies
m
inC
•Wo
U o
W N
O
L
a
c
ca
7
a)
To
c
m
0
a
S.
a
0
co
'o
L
a)
1-
i-
48 48O
N
3
a)
O
3
1-
c';'
m
m
L
mJ
a1
LL
.L
a
Q
a)
a
0
0
LI
a)
a
3
0
ca
0
ce
a..?"..'
0
0
a)
1-
1—
E
O
L
u_
t
0
z
a)
a
2
0
0
Septemeber 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Figure B-4. Eloika Southeast Potential Wetland Project Site
Looking North From The County Road (April 2009)
September 2009 B-5
pBsi
In-Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Appendix C
Diamond North Additional Information
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Stu
Diamond North Water Rights Summary
U
a)
.72
cv
lstSrc
WELL
WELL
WELL
QQ/Q
NW/SE
NE/SE
NE/SE
NE/SE
TRS
31.0N 45.0E 30
31.0N 45.0E 30
31.0N 45.0E 31
31.0N 45.0E 31
31.0N 45.0E 31
31.0N 45.0E 31
31.0N 45.0E 31
31.0N 45.0E 31
p
0
d
C9
0_
C9
d
C9
d
C9
d
0
d
0
d
0
d
0
a
00
Purpose
ST,IR
ST,IR
ST,DG
DM
DM
ST,DG
ST,DG
CD
0
Priority Dt
V
O
11/22/1980
(NI
O)
V
0)
0
0)
0)
O
O
O
V
CO
Claim S
Claim L
Cert
Cert
Claim S
Claim L
Claim L
VE
O
O
._
co
0
Stat
Person
HAMILTON MERLIN A
KENNEDY BEN C
CLEVELAND MURRY
Diamond Lake Sewer & Water
District
Diamond Lake Sewer Dist
MCALLISTER DUANE C.
SMITH CHARLES C.
SMITH CHARLES C.
G3-108921 CL
J
G3-152941 C L
G3 -26439C
G3 -26738C
G3 -056123C L
G3 -028353C L
G3-003736CL
0
0
N
O
N
N
M
LL
U
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Diamond North Example Photos — Additional Photos are included on the CD attached to this report.
Figure C-1. View of Southern Portion of Diamond North from Private Road
Figure C-2. View of Diamond North Looking South from North Border on County Road
September 2009 C-2
In-Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Appendix D
Chester Creek Additional Information
September 2009
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportu
In -Depth Wetland Stu
Chester Creek Water Rights Summary
stSrc
J
J
WELL
WELL
J
J
SPRING
SPRING
J
J
J
J
J
J
00/0
NW/SE
NW/SE
SE/SE
NE/NE
W
Z_
Z
S2/NE
TRS
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 04
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
24.0N 44.0E 09
N
LL
Q
p
p
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
u_
O
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
0
d
CD
d
CD
u_
0
d
CD
d
CD
d
CD
Ci
to
ch
Purpose
CD
STIR
(3
CD
CD
CD
CD
STIR
:.3
STIR
DM
ST,DG
ST, I R
CD
CD
CD
CD
ST,DG
Priority Dt
(0
O
inin
(0
O
In
O
O
V
O
W
(0
O
3/30/1962
O
O
O
00
(0
O
00
(0
O
5/1/1974
Doc
Claim L
Claim S
Claim S
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
Cert
Claim S
Claim S
Claim S
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
Claim L
co
C
O
N
a)
a
ANDERSON GORDON J.
BROOKS ROBERT B
HAMMER GARFIELD E.
HIGLEY JAMES M.
HIGLEY JAMES M.
HIGLEY JAMES M.
MILNE FLOYD W
MINNA JOHN D
RADYK JOHN
REED ROBERT P
SIGMON ELLEN R
Washington Water Power Co
GOLDSMITH HUGH
LEE SENITH C
MARLOW JERRY L.
MINNA JOHN D
MINNA JOHN D
MINNA JOHN D
OLSEN BARBARA P
Cert #
2315
493
4781
It
N
E
G3-008095CL
G3 -122565C L
G3 -016330C L
G3 -106586C L
G3-030589CL
G3 -032632C L
G3-094221 C L
G3-
*02728CWRIS
G3 -080723C L
G3 -049744C L
G3-
*01389CWRIS
G3-26303GWRIS
S3-059555CL
S3-008026CL
G3-008027CL
S3-117639CL
0
co
O
N
O
M
0
G3-119737CL
G3-103224CL
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Chester Creek Example Photos — Additional Photos are included on the CD attached to this report.
Figure D-1. View of Chester Creek Site Looking NE from East Border on Emory Lane
Figure D-2. View of Chester Creek Site Looking South from South Border on Thorpe Drive
September 2009
D-2
In -Depth Wetland Studies WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Appendix E
Permit Information
September 2009
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material Into Water (Section 404 Permit)
Agency:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Federal)
Legal Author-
ity:
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
Application:
Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA)
Permit Fee:
Individual permit = $100.
No cost for a letter -of permission, nationwide permit or regional permit.
Time Frame:
6 — 8 months
Contact:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District Regulatory Branch
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Telephone: (206) 764-3495
Fax: (206) 764-6602
Comments:
If you plan to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, in-
cluding special aquatic sites such as wetlands, you must get a Section 404 permit. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) can authorize activities by a standard individual
permit, letter -of -permission, nationwide permit, or regional permit. The Corps will make
the determination on what type of permit is needed.
If your project might affect threatened or endangered species or their designated critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act, the Corps must consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before they make a
permit decision and you will be required to submit a Biological Evaluation.
http.//www.nws. usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu. cfm?sitename=REG&papename=mai
npaqe Permit Applicant Info
Permit Name:
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Agency:
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (Federal)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 25-48, Archaeological Excavation Permit WAC;
Chapter 27.44, Indian Graves and Records RCW; and
Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources RCW
Application:
Archaeological Excavation Permit
Permit Fee:
None for technical assistance.
Time Frame:
45-60 days
Contact:
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Suite 106
1063 South Capitol Way
Olympia, WA 98501
Telephone: (360) 586-3065
Fax: (360) 586-3067
Comments:
A permit from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) must
be obtained prior to any excavation that will alter, dig into, deface, or remove archaeo-
logical resources, Native Indian graves, cairns, or glyptic records. DAHP should be con-
tacted before beginning a project.
&V://www.dahp.wa.q0v/pages/Documents/Archaeology.htm
September 2009
E-1
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Section 106 Review
Agency:
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (Federal)
Legal Author-
ity:
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Application:
Unknown — Contact agency
Permit Fee:
None
Time Frame:
Unknown — Contact agency
Contact:
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Suite 106
1063 South Capitol Way
Olympia, WA 98501
Telephone: (360) 586-3065
Fax: (360) 586-3067
Comments:
The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)and affected tribes
must be consulted when projects are subject to review under Section 106 of the Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).
This act requires that all federal agencies take into account the affect of its actions on
historic properties. Requirements of Section 106 review apply to any federal undertak-
ing, funding, license, or permit. DAHP and affected tribes are consulted to help deter-
mine if the site has been surveyed, if there are identified historical resources on-site,
and if the property is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
The federal agency involved is responsible for initiating and completing Section 106
review.
Permit Name:
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Agency:
Department of Fish and Wildlife (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 220-110 Hydraulic Code Rules WAC; and
Chapter 77.55 Construction Projects in State Waters RCW
Application:
JARPA
Permit Fee:
None
Time Frame:
Maximum of 45 calendar days after complete application is received and SEPA com-
pliance is complete for a
standard HPA
Contact:
Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capital Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Telephone: (360) 902-2464
Fax: (360) 902-2945
Comments:
Any form of work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of any
fresh water or saltwater of the state, requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Permit processing can take up to 45 days following receipt of a complete application
package.
A complete application package for an HPA must include a completed Joint Aquatic
Resource Permit Application (JARPA) form, general plans for the overall project, and
complete plans and specifications of the proposed work within the mean higher high
water line in salt waters or within the ordinary high water line in fresh waters of the
state, complete plans and specifications for the proper protection of fish life, and notice
of compliance with any applicable requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
http://wdfw.wa.q0v/hab/hpapage.htm
September 2009
E-2
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Noxious Aquatic and Emergent Weed Transport Permit
Agency:
Department of Agriculture -Noxious Weed Coordinator. (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 16-752 Noxious Weed Control WAC; and
Chapter 17.10 Noxious Weeds -Control Board RCW
Application:
Unknown — Contact agency
Permit Fee:
None
Time Frame:
7 days.
Contact:
Department of Agriculture
111 Washington Street SE
PO Box 42560
Olympia, WA 98504-2560
Contact Greg Haubrich at (509) 225-2604
Comments:
Permit from the Department of Agriculture's Noxious Weed Coordinator required for
transporting various plants or plant parts found on the quarantine list.
No permit is required to transport plants or plant parts, as a part of a noxious weed con-
trol activity, to a sanitary landfill, to be burned or otherwise for disposition so long as
such activities are conducted under the supervision of an official weed control agency.
Washington State Noxious Weed Board: http.//www.nwcb.wa.gov/index.htm
Quarantine List (http.//www.nwcb.wa.pov/documents/
weed% 201ists/State % 20Weed % 20List% 202009.. d
September 2009 E-3
pBsi
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
401 Water Quality Certification
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 173-201A State Water Quality Rule WAC;
Chapter 173-225 Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401 WAC; and
Chapter 90.48 State Water Quality Law RCW
Application:
JARPA
Permit Fee:
No fee for certification
Time Frame:
90 days — 1 Year
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-7037
Toll Free: (800) 917-0043
Fax: (360) 407-6711
Comments:
Applicants receiving a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers are
required to obtain a section 401 water quality certification from the Department of Ecol-
ogy (Ecology).
Issuance of a certification means that Ecology anticipates that the applicant's project
will comply with state water quality standards and other aquatic resource protection re-
quirements under Ecology's authority. The 401 Certification can cover both the con-
struction and operation of the proposed project. Conditions of the 401 Certification
become conditions of the Federal permit or license
Information required with Application If applicable to the project:
Mitigation plans, Operation and maintenance plans, Stormwater site plans and Restora-
tion plans.
Review of applications will include the following timeframes based on the type of permit
application: Individual 401's - Minimum twenty day public notice; up to one year to ap-
prove, condition, or deny. Usually less than three months, see notes/comments. Na-
tionwide permits that have been partially denied may take a few days or weeks, after
receipt of the JARPA and a letter from the Corps issuing a LOV. Letter of Verification
(LOV): Usually takes 30 days but can take up to 180 days.
September 2009 E-4
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
SEPA Rule, WAC 197-111; and
SEPA Statute, RCW 43.21C
Application:
Environmental Checklist
Permit Fee:
Fees vary
Time Frame:
Lead agency must make a threshold decision no later than 90 days after the application
and supporting documentation are determined complete.
Contact:
Department of Ecology
SEPA Unit
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Comments:
Any proposal that requires a state or local agency decision to license, fund, or under-
take a project, or the proposed adoption of a policy, plan, or program can trigger envi-
ronmental review under SEPA. (See WAC 197-11-704 for a complete definition of
agency action.)
SEPA environmental review usually starts when an applicant applies for a permit or ap-
proval from a state or local agency. The completed environmental checklist is submitted
to the SEPA lead agency as a prerequisite to issuing the permit or approval. The check-
list should include attachments such as a site plan, vicinity map and any technical re-
ports or studies that have been prepared for the project. The standard checklist form is
in WAC 197-11-960 and available on the SEPA website listed under the links section
below, however most jurisdictions have their own version.
Filing fees will vary by jurisdiction because each state and local agency determines how
much they will charge for SEPA review.
http://www.ecv.wa.qov/proqrams/sea/sepa/e-review.html
September 2009 E-5
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Floodplain Development Permit
Agency:
Spokane County (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 173-158 Flood Plain Management WAC;
Chapter 86.16 Flood Plain Management ROW;
Title 42, Ch 50, S 4001 et seq USC; and
Title 44, Ch I, S 60.3 CFR
Application:
Floodplain Development Application
Permit Fee:
Determined by local government.
Time Frame:
Permit processing time varies by jurisdiction and project complexity.
Contact:
Spokane County Public Works Department
Division of Engineering and Roads
Environmental Program & Special Projects
1026 W. Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260-0170
(509) 477-3600
Comments:
Any development (see definition below) within the 100 year floodplain. Development is
defined as: any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but
not limited to building or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, ex-
cavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the
area of special flood hazard.
Local governments participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) admi-
nistered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are required to re-
view proposed development projects to determine if they are in identified floodplains as
shown on the FEMA maps. If a project is located in a mapped 100 -year floodplain (A or
V zone), the local government must require that a permit be obtained prior to develop-
ment (see definition below).
Proposed projects are reviewed and conditions imposed on any permits issued to re-
duce the potential for damage from floodwater. Permits are required for any develop-
ment (see definition below) in the floodplain.
Permit processing time varies by jurisdiction and project complexity. Though a public
hearing is not normally required, there are exceptions. State law requires that local enti-
ties have a local floodplain ordinance that meets or exceeds NFIP requirements. Ecolo-
gy has approval authority over these ordinances.
http://www.spokanecountv.orq/enqineer/content.aspx?c=1487
September 2009 E-6
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
NPDES Aquatic Pesticides General Permit
Agency:
Department of Ecology/ Department of Agriculture (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Unknown
Application:
Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit; Aquatic Mosquito Control Permit; Aquatic Plant and Al-
gae Management Permit; and Irrigation System Aquatic Weed Control Permit
Permit Fee:
Unknown — Contact agency
Time Frame:
Permit time frame is determined by each local government.
Contact:
Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6000
Comments:
Department of Ecology issues 4 NPDES General Aquatic Pesticide Permits.
Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit to control noxious and quarantine weeds list along
lake and river shorelines, in rivers, wetlands, and estuaries. Aquatic Mosquito Con-
trol Permit for the control of mosquitoes and mosquito larvae by mosquito control dis-
tricts and government entities. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit to
manage plants and algae in lakes and ponds. Irrigation System Aquatic Weed Con-
trol Permit to control weeds and algae in Washington State irrigation systems.
The application for an individual permit, which is called NPDES Aquatic Pesticides
General Permits., is online and can be downloaded at
htto://www.ecy.wa.goy/orograms/wg/oesticides/index.html .
September 2009 E-7
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 173-201A WAC;
Chapter 173-220 WAC;
Chapter 173-224 WAC;
Chapter 173-226 WAC;
Chapter 90.48 RCW; and
Federal Clean Water Act
Application:
Notice of Intent (NOI) application Form for Construction Stormwater General Permit
Permit Fee:
Permit fees for the Fiscal Year 2008 (7/1/07 to 6/30/08) range from $409 to $1,526 de-
pending on the number of disturbed acres.
Time Frame:
Ecology will issue coverage under the general permit within 30 days of receiving a
completed application or 31 days after the second public notice, whichever is later.
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6400
Fax: (360) 407-6426
Comments:
Federal law under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) re-
quires this permit. The permit requires construction site operators to install and maintain
erosion and sediment control measures to prevent stormwater from washing soil, nu-
trients, chemicals and other harmful pollutants into local water bodies.
Ecology requires any construction activity which disturbs one acre or more and which
may result in a discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the state, which includes
storm drains, ditches, wetlands, creeks, rivers, lakes and marine waters to obtain permit
coverage.
The applicant must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to
starting construction, but you do not need to submit it with the application.
http.//www. ecv. wa. pov/programs/wp/stormwater/construction/#Application
Permit Name:
NPDES General Permit Coverage
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 90.48 RCW; and
Clean Water Act
Application:
General NPDES permit
Permit Fee:
Fees are variable and are set by regulation (Chapter 173-224 WAC).
Time Frame:
Unknown — Contact agency
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6400
Fax: (360) 407-6426
Comments:
The discharge of pollutants into the state's surface waters is regulated through National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Ecology issues these per-
mits under authority delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
General permits are written to cover a category of dischargers instead of an individual
facility. Application for coverage under a general permit is by submitting a "notice of in-
tent" and is much less rigorous than applying for an individual permit. General permits
may place limits on the quantity and concentration of pollutants allowed to be dis-
charged and typically require operational conditions called Best Management Practices.
September 2009
E-8
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Water Right, New (Permit to Withdraw or Divert Surface or Ground
Water)
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 90.03 RCW; and
Chapter 90.44 RCW
Application:
Application for a Water Right
Permit Fee:
Variable
Time Frame:
Unknown — Contact agency
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Water Resources Program
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6600
Fax: (360) 407-7162
Comments:
Washington State law requires certain users of public waters to receive approval from
the state prior to use of the water - in the form of a water right permit or certificate. Any
use of surface of water (lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, or springs) requires a water -right
permit or certificate. Likewise, ground -water withdrawals require a water -right permit or
certificate, with the following exceptions:
Stock watering
Single or group domestic purposes using less than 5000 gallons per day
Industrial purposes using less than 5000 gallons per day
Watering a lawn or non-commercial garden that is not larger than one-half acre
Fees vary depending on amount of water, $50 minimum. The fee to appropriate new
water will be assessed at the rate of $1 per one hundredth cubic foot per second (cfs),
and the fee for new water -storage projects will be $2 per acre-foot of storage. The max-
imum application fee to appropriate or store water is $25,000.
The application for a permit can be downloaded at the following site:
htt.://www. ec .wa. o v/biblio/ec 040114. html
September 2009 E-9
pBsi
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Dam Construction Permit
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 173-175 Dam Safety WAC
Application:
Application for a Dam Construction Permit
Permit Fee:
$1,400 - $59,525
Time Frame:
Unknown — Contact agency
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Water Resources Program
Headquarters
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6600
Fax: (360) 407-7162 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/wrhome.html
Comments:
A Dam Safety Construction Permit is required before constructing, modifying, or repair-
ing any dam or controlling works for storage of 10 or more acre-feet of water, liquid
waste, or mine tailings.
This requirement may apply to dams and storage lagoons for:
• flood control
• domestic or irrigation water
• domestic, industrial, or agricultural wastes (including animal waste)
• mine tailings.
The applicant must submit plans and specifications to Ecology for review and approval.
These must be prepared by a qualified professional engineer registered in Washington
state and carry the engineer's signature and seal. Permit processing time averages
from 6 to 8 weeks, but varies depending on project complexity. Ecology also inspects
the construction of all dams to reasonably secure safety of life and property.
The application for a permit can be downloaded at the following site:
http://www.ecv.wa.g0v/pubs/ecv07038.pdf
September 2009 E-10
In -Depth Wetland Studies
WRIA 55/57 Wetland Restoration & Recharge Opportunities
Permit Name:
Reservoir Permit
Agency:
Department of Ecology (State)
Legal Author-
ity:
Chapter 90.03.370 RCW
Application:
Application for a Reservoir Permit
Permit Fee:
Variable
Time Frame:
Unknown — Contact agency
Contact:
Department of Ecology
Water Resources Program
Headquarters
300 Desmond Drive
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-6600
Fax: (360) 407-7162 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/wrhome.html
Comments:
A reservoir permit is required for impoundments above a certain size. A reservoir is any
impoundment that will store water to a depth of 10 or more feet at its deepest point, or
one that will retain 10 or more acre-feet of water. This definition applies to impound-
ments regardless of the proximity to a stream channel or ones constructed by placing
barriers across a stream, channel, or water course, Any impoundment of more than 10
acre-feet or at least 10 feet deep at its deepest point requires a reservoir permit.
Reservoir permit applications require information on the use and capacity of the reser-
voir, and a legal description of the location of the structure. Processing time varies de-
pending on project complexity. The process requires publication of a legal notice for two
succeeding weeks.
Normally, a reservoir permit application is accompanied by an application for a permit to
use water. This application describes the intended beneficial uses of water that will be
withdrawn from the reservoir. Unless otherwise specified, a reservoir permit will allow
the permittee to fill the reservoir once a year. The permit specifically states the period
during which the reservoir is filled.
The application for a permit can be downloaded at the following site:
htt..//www.ec .wa..ov/biblio/ec 040160.html
September 2009 E-11