Final ROE For NB Centennial Well Water Right

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION

TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Surface Water (Issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 117, Laws of Washington for
1917, and amendments thereto, and the rules and regulations of the Department of
Ecology.)
Ground Water (Issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 263, Laws of Washington for
1945, and amendments thereto, and the rules and regulations of the Department of
Ecology.)
PRIORITY DATE APPLICATION NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER
June 16, 1992 G1-26617(A)

NAME
City of North Bend

ADDRESS (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE)
P.O. Box 896 North Bend Washington 98045-0896

PUBLIC WATERS TO BE APPROPRIATED
SOURCE
Well NB-3
TRIBUTARY OF (IF SURFACE WATERS)
MAXIMUM CUBIC FEET PER SECOND MAXIMUM GALLONS PER MINUTE MAXIMUM ACRE FEET PER YEAR
2,646 3,094
PURPOSE OF USE, PERIOD OF USE
Municipal Water Supply Purposes - Year-round, as needed
Water right is subject to WAC 173-507-020 instream flow levels for the following control points
unless mitigated:
Snoqualmie River near Snoqualmie (USGS #12144500)

Snoqualmie River near Carnation (USGS #12149000)
Snohomish River near Monroe (USGS #12150800)
LOCATION OF DIVERSION/WITHDRAWAL
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DIVERSION--WITHDRAWAL
NB-3 - 566 feet north and 410 feet west from the south quarter corner of Section 10
LOCATED WITHIN (SMALLEST LEGAL SUBDIVISION) SECTION TOWNSHIP N. RANGE, (E. OR W.) W.M. W.R.I.A. COUNTY
SE 1/4, SW 1/4 10 23N 8E 7 King

RECORDED PLATTED PROPERTY
LOT BLOCK OF (GIVE NAME OF PLAT OR ADDITION)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ON WHICH WATER IS TO BE USED
The place of use of this water right is the service area described in the Water System Plan
approved by the Washington State Department of Health in April 2002 and the North Bend
Urban Growth Area described in the King County Growth Management Planning Council’s
Urban Growth Area Boundary Map (June 2005). Future Water System Plan updates may have
the effect of revising the place of use of this water right, so long as the City of North Bend is and
remains in compliance with the criteria in RCW 90.03.386.
PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORKS
Well NB-3 was completed in sand and gravel deposits between 153-203 feet below land surface
using a 20-inch, stainless steel, telescopic well screen
This system is identified by the Washington State Department of Health by Public Water System
ID 60100.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
BEGIN PROJECT BY THIS DATE: COMPLETE PROJECT BY THIS DATE: WATER PUT TO FULL USE BY THIS DATE:
Started January 1, 2054 January 1, 2059
REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Under the provisions of Chapters 90.03 and 90.44 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), on June
16, 1992, the City of North Bend (North Bend) applied for a permit to appropriate public ground
water. The City seeks additional water to meet its municipal demand for the next 50 years. The
application was amended on March 31, 2004. The points of withdrawal requested include 4
production wells and 2 deep mitigation wells. The points of withdrawal and service area of
North Bend are located in King County within the Snohomish River Basin, Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 7. A withdrawal rate of 2,646 gallons per minute was requested for
municipal water supply purposes, and an additional 1,614 gpm for streamflow augmentation
from the deep mitigation well(s) – for a total instantaneous withdrawal (Qi) of 4,260 gpm.
Attachment 1 shows the locations of these sources.
Since new appropriations from the Snoqualmie River watershed are subject to minimum
instream flow levels established at control stations located downstream at Snoqualmie Falls,
Carnation and Monroe, (WAC 173-507-020(2)), the City has proposed a mitigation plan that
replaces flows in the Snoqualmie River from alternate sources to offset the impacts that result
from additional ground water withdrawals during those times when instream flows are not met.
The City proposes to use several sources of water to offset the impacts of their ground water
withdrawals on the Snoqualmie River system:
1. Surface water from Seattle Public Utility’s (SPU) Hobo Springs;
2. Ground water from the wells operated by the Sallal Water Association;
3. Surface water from the Tolt River purchased from SPU; and,
4. Ground water from the upper Snoqualmie Deep Aquifer, to the extent scheduled testing
and analysis support its availability.
Attachment 2 shows the locations of the Hobo Springs and Sallal Water Association mitigation
sources.
PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 2 G1-26617(A)

Given the complexities of this project, North Bend has requested that the original application be
split into two applications with Ecology making a decision on the Record A application while the
Record B application will remain pending. The Record B application will be handled in a
separate future Report of Examination after receipt of additional supporting information and
contingent upon Ecology having the resources to process it. It is anticipated that additional
information will be ready for review in approximately one to three years. While it is not typical
that water right applications are split into multiple records, neither the Water Code nor
Department of Ecology regulations prohibit the issuance of multiple reports of examination on
what was originally a single application. Details of the split application can be found below in
Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Split Water Right Application No. G1-26617
G1-26617(A) G1-26617(B)
Attributes
(Record A) (Record B)
Name North Bend North Bend
Priority Date June 16, 1992 June 16, 1992
1,614 gpm from mitigation wells

2,646 gpm for production wells
Instantaneous Quantity Non-additive to Record A from production
well
874 afy from mitigation wells

Annual Quantity 3,094 afy for production wells
Non-additive to Record A from production
well
NB-4 (production well),
Sources NB-1, NB-2, and NB-3
MW-1 and MW-2 (mitigation wells)
NB-1: SW ¼, NW ¼, Sec. 10 T23N, R8E NB-4: Govt Lot 4, Sec. 35, T24N, R8E
Points of Withdrawal NB-2: SW ¼, NE ¼, Sec. 9 T23N, R8E MW-1: Sec. 10, T23N, R8E
NB-3: SE ¼, SW ¼, Sec. 10 T23N, R8E MW-2: Sec. 14, T23N, R8E
Municipal Water Supply Purposes (NB-4),
Purpose of Use
Municipal Water Supply Purposes Mitigation for Streamflow Augmentation
(Wells MW-1 and MW-2)
Period of Use Year-round Year-round
Area served by the City of North Bend within Area served by the City of North Bend within
its existing service area approved by the its existing service area approved by the
Washington Department of Health in their Washington Department of Health in their
Place of Use
2002 Water System Comprehensive Plan and 2002 Water System Comprehensive Plan and
also the entirety of the North Bend Urban also the entirety of the North Bend Urban
Growth Area Growth Area
This Report of Examination is only for the investigation and decision by Ecology on Application
G1-26617(A) under the four-part test of RCW 90.03.290, and includes the following elements:
1. North Bend’s 50-year projected growth demands for the North Bend Water Service Area
and Urban Growth Area (UGA);
2. Current and projected return flows from North Bend’s wastewater treatment plant;
3. Pump testing of Well NB-3 and hydrogeologic characterization related to availability of
water from this source and its relation to Snoqualmie River flows;
4. Analysis of stream depletion from pumping Well NB-3 and related mitigation
requirements (mitigation algorithm) to prevent impairment of instream flows and senior
water rights;

5. Establishment of the suitability of mitigation water supply from the Hobo Springs and
Sallal water sources available by contract to North Bend that could supplement the flow
of the Snoqualmie River to mitigate for the instream flow impacts of the new municipal
ground water withdrawals, to the extent of North Bend’s 50-year projected growth
demands;
6. Identification of future Tolt River pipeline source pending additional analysis;
7. Determination of the capacity of mitigation sources currently available to North Bend
(Hobo Springs and Sallal wells), for which projects to deliver mitigation water supply
have been engineered and will be constructed concurrently with the installation of new
water production facilities for Well NB-3;
8. The operations, monitoring and reporting requirements necessary to confirm that North
Bend is mitigating the impacts of its new ground water withdrawals in real time,
whenever instream flows are not met;
9. The technical requirements and process for adding new production well sources NB-1
and NB-2;
10. Adaptive management requirements to respond to new information or changed
circumstances;
11. The potential for impacts to senior water rights and mitigation for such impacts; and
12. Public interest factors relating to this application.
If warranted, a Superseding Permit may be issued to integrate the two records of the project into
a single document if the Record B application can be approved.
1.2 Cost Reimbursement Contract
Based on the provisions of RCW 43.21A.690 and RCW 90.03.265, Pacific Groundwater Group,
is under contract to Ecology to process water right application G1-26617(A) and any competing
senior applications. PGG reviewed all available documents pertaining to the City of North
Bend’s application including site conditions, historical water use, existing right-holders, and
seniority of pending applications potentially affected by the application.
PGG evaluated pending senior applications in the general area and determined that reservoir
application R1-26218, with a priority date of May 9, 1991, predated North Bend’s filing. While
this application would generally need to be processed prior to North Bend’s request, applicant
Puget Sound Energy, through their attorney Tom McDonald of Perkins Coie LLP, submitted a
letter to Ecology dated May 4, 2004, allowing for the processing of North Bend’s junior
application ahead of their senior application. PSE also agreed that when Ecology processes their
application in the future, the conditions in the river at that time will determine if their application
can be approved.
1.3 Public Notice
The most recent public notice of the proposed appropriation was published in the Snoqualmie
Valley Record on May 25th and June 1, 2005. In response to that notice, Ecology received a
protest letter from the following party:

• Obe Healea, Jr. – June 3, 2005 - a resident of North Bend. Mr. Healea indicated that he
felt that North Bend’s current source of supply at Mt. Si Springs was a preferable source,
and that the development of wells was costly and unnecessary.
Protest/comment letters were also submitted to Ecology based on previous public notices
published for this application:
• William Francis – April 26, 2004 - a resident of North Bend. Mr. Francis is concerned
that the operation of North Bend’s proposed well NB-1 could impact local domestic
wells.
• Ewing Stringfellow – July 28, 1998 – a resident of North Bend. Mr. Stringfellow is
concerned that North Bend’s proposed well NB-1 will cause his stockwatering well to go
dry and those of his neighbors.
These protests and comments will be addressed in Section 2.7 of this report titled Considerations
of Protests and Comments. In addition to the formal protest period afforded by statute, other
parties were consulted in the process of formulating the mitigation plan for this project.
1.4 Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
The City of North Bend acted as lead agency for SEPA review of this application and
construction of the Hobo Springs to Boxley Creek mitigation project. A Mitigated Determination
of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on March 9, 2007. Mitigation measures identified in
the MDNS included all mitigation measures described in the following documents which are
discussed elsewhere in this decision:
1. Revised and Updated Mitigation Plan for North Bend Water Right Application,
Memorandum from Thomas M. Pors to Dan Swenson, Washington State Department of
Ecology, dated March 7, 2007;
2. North Bend Mitigation Supply from Hobo Springs and Sallal Wells, Golder &
Associates, Inc., February 28, 2007; and
3. Preliminary Engineering Plan for Hobo Springs/Sallal Wells Mitigation Project, Gray &
Osborne Consulting Engineers, March 7, 2007.
Only two comments were received on the MDNS. One was a favorable comment from Obe M.
Healea, Jr. The other was a comment from Anne Savery on behalf of the Tulalip Tribes relating
to the location of mitigation sources and effects on the food web in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River. This comment letter and North Bend's response is discussed in Section 2.7.

1.5 Statutory Authority
Under the provisions of RCW 90.03.290 and 90.44.050, a water right shall be issued upon
findings that water is available for appropriation for a beneficial use and that the appropriation,
as proposed in the application, will not impair existing rights or be detrimental to the public
welfare.
2. INVESTIGATION
The evaluation of this application included, but was not limited to, research and/or review of the
following:
• Department of Ecology records of surface and ground water rights and claims and well
construction reports within the vicinity of the subject production wells;
• Documents and reports applicable to the area as referenced following the conclusions of
this report;
• Field visits by Ecology and Pacific Groundwater Group staff to Well NB-3 and the Hobo
Springs mitigation source; and,
• Revised Code of Washington 90.03, 90.44 and 90.54, and Chapter 173-507 Washington
Administrative Code
2.1 North Bend Water System
The City of North Bend is located in the Snoqualmie Valley between the confluence of the
Middle and South Forks of the Snoqualmie River and Interstate 90. The points of withdrawal and
service area of North Bend are located in King County within the Snohomish River Basin, Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 7. North Bend is a Group A municipal water system that
supplies water to approximately 1,700 connections. North Bend’s water system is identified by
the Washington Department of Health (WADOH) as Public Water System ID 60100.
Attachment 1 shows the location of Well NB-3 and also proposed points of withdrawal NB-1
and NB-2. This figure also shows the current boundary of the North Bend Water Service Area
(Water System Plan, April 2002) and the North Bend UGA.
2.1.1 Service Area
North Bend’s water service area covers approximately 8.5 square miles. Additionally, North
Bend’s service area includes and specifically designates the wholesaling of water to the Sallal
Water Association for service within the North Bend UGA (Attachment 1).
2.1.2 Existing Water Right
In addition to the subject application, North Bend holds one surface water certificate. The water
right information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Water Right Currently Held by North Bend
Water Instantaneous
Document Purpose Point of Priority Annual Water
Right Withdrawal
Type of Use Diversion Date Quantity (Qa)
Number Rate (Qi)
Mount Si Springs
Govt Lot 4, Sec. March
S1-00620C Certificate Municipal 5 cfs 336 acre-feet
35, T24N, R8E, 17, 1965
W.M.
This water source is the Mount Si Springs located to the northeast of town, at the base of Mt. Si
(WADOH Source S01). The intake facilities capture subsurface spring flow. Any excess flow
from the system discharges to a tributary of the North Fork of the Snoqualmie River. The water
right requires that a minimum of 3 cfs be allowed to bypass the diversion for discharge to the
river system.
2.1.3 Current Water Use and Future Demand Projections
North Bend’s annual water use as reported from 2000 through 2006 is shown in Figure 1. For
each of these years North Bend has exceeded their annual water right limit. North Bend initiated
a self-imposed development moratorium in April 1999, which they have decided not to lift until
such time as they can secure additional water rights.
North Bend Annual Volume Diverted

Water Right Limit = 336 Acre-feet
900
782 769
800 749 736 737
723
700 651
600
Acre-feet
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Calendar Year
Figure 1. Water diverted by North Bend from Mount Si Springs over the past 7 years.
Annual volume authorized under S1-00620C is 336 acre-feet per year (shown on graph as dashed
black line).
North Bend currently has a single intertie with the Sallal Water Association for emergency use
(WADOH Source S02). In the future, the two systems will be configured to supply water to each
other on a more regular basis, with North Bend serving portions of Sallal’s service area that are
within the North Bend UGA. North Bend will provide wholesale deliveries of water to the Sallal
Water Association until North Bend’s water service area expands to include all property within

the UGA. Eventually this wholesale supply will return to a retail supply when North Bend
annexes that portion of the UGA service area from Sallal.
The projected future water demand for the North Bend Service Area and the North Bend UGA
was determined by North Bend (2004) and reported by Golder (2007c) over a 51-year growth
period based on current land use and zoning. These projections include converting the water
supply of all existing structures within the UGA currently served by Sallal and the anticipated
existing structures in the North Bend service area to the North Bend water supply.
Demand projections were completed for the first 11 years (year 11), the following 25 years (year
36), and the last 15 years (year 51) of a 51-year period (Golder, 2007c). The projected total new
water right demand for the time periods specified, excluding the existing Mount Si Springs water
right, is shown below. The numbers account for 10 percent savings from water conservation
initiatives.
Table 3. Projected future demand above existing water rights for the
North Bend Water System (North Bend, 2004)
Growth Year (Calendar Year) Projected Demand (mgd) Projected Demand (afy)
1 (2008) 0.35 390
11 (2018) 0.58 652
36 (2043) 2.07 2,316
51 (2058) 2.76 3,093
2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wastewater collected by North Bend from its residential and commercial customers is treated at
it’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and then discharged into the South Fork Snoqualmie
River in the NW ¼, NE ¼, Sec. 9, T23N, R8E, W.M., just downstream of the State Route 202
bridge (Attachment 1). North Bend uses secondary treatment methods to meet or exceed
applicable standards established by Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA). The water discharged is monitored in accordance with the Ecology-issued National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (Waste Discharge Permit No. WA-002935-1).
North Bend maintains a flow meter on the outfall pipe. This flow meter (totalizer) is read daily,
in the mornings, with flows measured to the nearest 10,000 gallons. The results are recorded
manually on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), along with other information, and sent to
Ecology’s Water Quality Program each month.
Discharge from the WWTP varies seasonally based on relative proportions of sewage and
infiltration and inflow (I&I). Sewage is generated by homes and businesses, and is assumed to
remain constant year-round. I&I is generated by surface-water runoff routed to sewer pipes and
ground water inflow into leaky pipes, and varies between seasons and is higher during the wet-
season.

Golder (2006a) analyzed WWTP return flow during the four driest months (July-October)
between 2000 and 2003. The 4-year average summer flow of 0.42 mgd was assumed to reflect
the “base” return flow through the WWTP, excluding I&I. This base return flow represents about
60% of the annual pumped volume during the same time period. For projections of return flow
from the WWTP, 60% of the annual pumped volume is used year round.
2.1.5 Proposed New Source(s)
Application G1-26617(A), seeks approval for three production wells (NB-1, NB-2, and NB-3),
however only Well NB-3 is authorized pursuant to this first phase Report of Examination. Wells
NB-1 and NB-2 can be added as production sources under this water right only after complying
with the technical and procedural requirements outlined in Section 5.4.1.
North Bend has drilled and tested the new water supply well referenced in this Report of
Examination (Well NB-3). The well was completed in sand and gravel deposits between 153-203
feet below land surface using a 20-inch, stainless steel, telescopic well screen. The testing
indicated that the well can sustain long-term pumping rates of at least 2,500 gpm. The specific
capacity of the well is between 35 and 37 gpm/ft (Golder, 2007a). Aquifer properties estimated
from the testing are further discussed in Section 2.2.2.
The new ground water supply will cause stream depletion because the shallow aquifer in which
Well NB-3 is completed is in hydraulic continuity with the Snoqualmie River. Mitigation will be
required to replace the new stream depletion when minimum instream flows are not met. North
Bend assumes that 100 percent of the pumped volume from Well NB-3 results in baseflow
reduction in the Snoqualmie River. Depletion associated with the other sources will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis, as discussed in Section 5.4.1.
While this Report of Examination addresses only Well NB-3, North Bend may develop 2 other
wells under this portion of the water right application. The process for securing authorization to
use additional wells is detailed in Section 5.4.1. Prior to receiving Ecology’s authorization to
bring NB-1 and NB-2 into production, North Bend will be required to prepare a detailed
description of the new source(s) and how they will be operated consistent with this permit.
Ecology shall review the information and any comments received from interested parties and
determine whether or not the new production well meet(s) the conditions of this Report of
Examination as an addition of a new production well.
2.2 Background Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The new water supply source referenced in this Report of Examination will withdraw water from
the Snoqualmie Valley Aquifer System. The mitigation sources approved in this Report of
Examination (Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells) are derived from the Cedar Moraine aquifer
system.

2.2.1 Surface-Water Hydrology
The Snohomish River Watershed (WRIA 7) is located in the north-central Puget Sound region of
Washington and includes portions of Snohomish and King Counties. Elevations in the watershed
range from sea level to 8,000 feet. The watershed includes three major rivers, the Skykomish, the
Snoqualmie, and the Snohomish, which flow west through broad, glaciated lowland valleys and
enter Puget Sound near Everett. There are 720 miles of streams in WRIA 7 that are known to
support anadromous salmonids and bull trout/Dolly Varden (Haring, Donald 2002)
The City of North Bend is located with the Snoqualmie River sub-basin, three miles upstream of
Snoqualmie Falls, which is an impassible barrier to the upstream migration of anadromous fish
in the Snoqualmie River. Three major forks converge to form the mainstem Snoqualmie River.
The South Fork Snoqualmie River begins near Snoqualmie Pass and flows generally northwest
for 35 miles to its confluence with the mainstem upstream of Snoqualmie Falls. It has a drainage
area of 82 square miles, and (over 67 years of record) has an average discharge of 546 cfs and a
minimum discharge of 63 cfs (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007c). The Middle Fork, which begins
in the Mt. Daniel-Mt. Roosevelt-Big Snow Mountain area of the Cascade Mountains, flows west
and southwest 40 miles to its confluence with the North Fork about five miles upstream of
Snoqualmie Falls. It has a drainage area of 154 square miles, and (over 45 years of record) has an
average discharge of 1,221 cfs and a minimum discharge of 91 cfs (U.S. Geological Survey,
2007a). The North Fork originates in the Lennox Mountain area of the high Cascades and flows
26 miles to its confluence with the Middle Fork. It has a drainage area of 64 square miles, and
(over 65 years of record) has an average discharge of 500 cfs and a minimum discharge of 30 cfs
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2007b). The combined Middle and North Forks join the South Fork
about 4.5 miles upstream from Snoqualmie Falls. According to the Washington Department of
Fish & Wildlife “Washington Lakes and Rivers Information System Database - Salmonid Stock
Inventory” GIS coverage (Date Modified – August 16, 2006), anadromous salmonids or bull
trout/Dolly Varden are not found in the Middle and South Forks of the Snoqualmie River near
North Bend. However, Snohomish Coastal Cutthroat is present in all streams and rivers in the
vicinity of North Bend.
The Snoqualmie River downstream of the forks, flows over Snoqualmie Falls, then generally
northwest and north, leaving King County just north of the town of Duvall. Important tributaries
are Tokul, Skunk, Patterson, Griffin, Harris, Ames and Cherry Creeks and the Tolt and Raging
Rivers.
The Instream Resource Protection Program (IRPP) for the Snohomish River Basin (Chapter 173-
507 WAC) was enacted in 1979. The intent, in accordance with RCW 90.54 and 90.22, is to
retain base flows in perennial streams, rivers, and lakes at levels necessary to protect wildlife,
fish, scenic, aesthetic, recreation, environmental, and navigational values.

The IRPP for the Snohomish River Basin establishes instream flow requirements at nine control
stations within the WRIA. The IRPP also lists twenty streams which are closed to diversions
when their flows drop below single specified levels, as well as two streams which must have at
least one-half of their low flow bypassed.
Given the location of the Hobo Springs and Sallal wells mitigation sources, this Report of
Examination also references the surface water features of the Cedar Moraine. The moraine is
located several miles southeast of North Bend. The most prominent surface water features on the
moraine are a direct result of SPU’s Cedar River water supply project, which was created over a
hundred years ago to supply the municipal needs of the City of Seattle. The watershed contains
the 1,680-acre Chester Morse Lake, formed behind the Masonry Dam. The lake serves as a
reservoir for 15.8 billion gallons (48,500 acre-feet) of water, which is partially stored above its
natural gravity outlet.
As a result of the impoundment, some of the Cedar River source water is lost from the Masonry
Pool, the portion of the reservoir between the Overflow Dike and Masonry Dam, via seepage
into a moraine on the Pool’s northern bank. Water leaks out of the Masonry Pool predominantly
in the spring and early summer when water levels are the highest. About 75 percent of the water
that leaks from Masonry Pool finds its way back to the Cedar River, while the remainder ends up
in the Snoqualmie River Basin. Seepage return occurs from springs and small streams that
emanate from the moraine aquifer as well as subsurface return flow pathways.
Springs which issue from the Cedar Moraine aquifer system include Hobo Springs, Canyon
Creek Springs, and Railroad Springs which discharge to the Cedar River system, and Upper
Boxley Creek Springs and West Boxley Springs which are tributary to the Snoqualmie basin.
2.2.2 Snoqualmie Valley Aquifer System
The hydrogeology of the Upper Snoqualmie Basin was recently summarized by Golder in a
document prepared for the East King County Regional Water Association (Golder, 2007d). The
basin occupies a drainage area of around 375 square miles and includes all three forks of the
Snoqualmie River as well as the main stem above Snoqualmie Falls. Much of the sediment in the
basin was deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which advanced to its
maximum extent about 15,000 years before present. Alpine glaciation also sculpted the
landscape and deposited sediments, particularly during periods of the Pleistocene when
continental glaciers were less prominent. Sediments were deposited in ice-dammed lakes (finer
grained lacustrine deposits and coarser grained deltas), along the edges of glaciers (stream
deposited embankments and ice-contact deposits) and beneath ice bodies (glacial till). In some
cases sediments were reworked during periods of glacial advance.
All three forks of the Snoqualmie River have aquifers that occupy the respective river valleys,
referred to by Golder (2007d) as “channel” aquifers. The South Fork and Middle Fork channel
aquifers are relatively thick (200-400 feet), are typically unconfined, and are composed of

moderate-to-high permeability sands and gravels. These two aquifers are included in what is
termed the “shallow aquifer”, which is also present where the channel aquifers converge in the
vicinity of North Bend. The shallow aquifer near North Bend is unconfined, highly productive,
and (like the two channel aquifers) exhibits significant hydraulic connection to adjacent reaches
of the Snoqualmie River. The Snoqualmie River and its respective forks in the upper Snoqualmie
basin generally gain water from ground water. In parts of the basin, the shallow aquifer overlies a
deep aquifer, which is separated by intervening till in places.
Hydrogeologic conditions in the main portion of the valley near North Bend show a thick
sequence of coarse sand and gravel (shallow aquifer) that directly overlies fine-to-medium
grained sand (deep aquifer) and silty clay (lacustrine deposits). East King County Regional
Water Association’s Test Well TW-4 (located in the NE ¼, SW ¼, Section 10, T23N, R8E)
penetrated about 300 feet of coarse sand, gravel, and cobbles; followed by about 200 feet of
uniform gray fine sand with varying silt and organic content, followed by 200 feet of gray silty
clay. North Bend Well NB-3 was drilled to 216 feet and predominantly encountered sand and
gravel with minor occurrences of silt or clay. Well NB-3 is completed in the shallow aquifer,
which exhibits unconfined conditions. The valley aquifer system receives recharge from
precipitation and responds to stage variations in the Snoqualmie River. The aquifer system also
receives recharge from adjacent areas, such as the Middle Fork embankment and the Cedar
embankment.
A 5-hour step-pumping test was performed on Well NB-3 on October 4, 2006, followed by a 72-
hour constant-rate pumping test performed between October 5th and 8th, 2006. During the
constant-rate test, 10.6 million gallons were pumped from the aquifer at a reported rate of 2,530
gpm. Interpretation of the test data by Golder (2007a), along with supplemental interpretation by
PGG (noted), indicates the following:
• Well NB-3 can sustain long-term pumping rates of at least 2,500 gpm; and the specific
capacity of the well is between 35 and 37 gpm/ft;
• Data collected during the constant rate test in various observation wells are sufficient for
estimating aquifer properties; however, aquifer boundary responses cannot be determined
with the available data;
• The transmissivity of the shallow aquifer was estimated to be between 99,400 and
316,000 ft2/day. PGG interprets this transmissivity value to represent aquifer properties in
the local vicinity of Well NB-3. Assuming 250 feet of saturated thickness, these
transmissivity values correspond to hydraulic conductivity values between approximately
400 to 1,260 ft/d;
• Storativity estimates were based on diffusivity calculations from ground water level
responses to river-stage variations in various wells. This approach to estimating
storativity considers aquifer responses over several days. A median storativity of
approximately 0.05 was estimated assuming a mean transmissivity of 240,000 ft2/day;
• During testing, drawdown ceased after about 100 minutes and water levels began to rise
in the production well and nearby monitoring wells. This rise was likely associated with
re-infiltration of discharge water into the shallow aquifer from a stormwater detention
pond about 500 feet from the well. PGG’s interpretation of aquifer test results suggests
that data collected after 100 minutes are not particularly useful for estimating aquifer
parameters or drawdowns in neighboring wells.

Although the aquifer test was affected by re-infiltration of the discharge water after 100 minutes,
similar values of hydraulic conductivity have been observed during testing of the Golf Course
well and Well NB-1 (Golder, 2007d). Testing results from Well NB-1, however, may also have
been affected by re-infiltration of discharge water (Golder, 2007d). As discussed in Section 5.5,
North Bend will perform and analyze a second constant-rate test on Well NB-3 (designed to
avoid re-infiltration of discharge water) within two years of new system operation. Based on the
aquifer properties calculated during this test, North Bend will update the streamflow depletion
and mitigation analyses associated with this water right for Well NB-3 if the new test results
differ from the original test results (see Section 5.5).
2.2.3 Cedar Moraine Aquifer System
The Cedar Falls glacial moraine aquifer lies downgradient of the Masonry Pool. It includes an
embankment area located between the pool and Rattlesnake Lake, and a lower moraine area
which encompasses the area in vicinity of Rattlesnake Lake.
The glacial moraine includes a complex assemblage of recessional outwash, ice contact, till, and
lacustrine deposits that were laid down as part of the last continental ice advance and retreat
(Vashon). In general, the deposits become finer with depth. The upper and lower moraine areas
include significant thicknesses of high permeability outwash deposits. The soils near the
embankment area consist of both lower permeability till and lacustrine as well as more highly
permeable outwash deposits. The occurrence of springs along the embankment face is likely
controlled in part by the arrangement of the various soil types.
Seepage from the north abutment of the Masonry Pool provides a major source of recharge to the
moraine aquifer. Average seepage into the moraine aquifer is estimated to be approximately 185
cfs (Hart Crowser, 1984). Most all of the hydrologic features that lie downgradient of the pool in
the Cedar Falls area are influenced by the seepage losses. Seepage rates increase significantly in
response to rising pool conditions and conversely decline as pool levels fall. The downgradient
features respond in a similar manner as seepage rates, with increased spring activity, creek flow,
and higher lake and aquifer water level conditions as pool levels rise.
A ground water divide exists downgradient of the Masonry Pool. This divide separates seepage
return to the Cedar River basin from seepage to the Snoqualmie River basin. Approximately 75
percent of the total seepage loss to the moraine aquifer is estimated to return to the Cedar River
basin, with the remaining 25 percent discharging to the Snoqualmie River basin (SPU, 2007). As
seepage enters the moraine aquifer and moves downgradient on the south side of the divide, a
portion is returned to the Cedar River via Canyon Creek. The remaining seepage on the south
side of the divide, moves further downgradient to supply water to the Hobo Springs area,
Rattlesnake Lake and eventually returns to the Cedar River by means of subsurface return flow
south of Rattlesnake Lake.

Seepage which enters the glacial moraine aquifer on the north side of the ground water divide
moves downgradient where a portion discharges to the upper reaches of Boxley Creek. The
remaining seepage on the north side of the divide moves further downgradient to supply water to
embankment springs, small lakes (Christmas Lake and Rainbow Lake), and eventually returns to
the lower reaches of Boxley Creek by means of Rattlesnake Ditch (when lake elevations cause
overflow of water to the north) and subsurface return flow on the north side of Rattlesnake Lake.
A portion of the subsurface seepage return flow also discharges directly to the South Fork of the
Snoqualmie River
There are three major areas of spring activity in vicinity of the embankment including Hobo
Springs, Canyon Creek Springs, and Upper Boxley Creek Springs. Canyon Creek and Upper
Boxley Creek Springs occur at elevations of around 1,350 to 1,400 feet. Hobo Springs occur
lower on the embankment at an elevation of approximately 1,100 feet.
Ground water movement through the embankment includes both horizontal and vertical
components of flow. The total head drop between Masonry Pool and Rattlesnake Lake is
approximately 650 feet over a distance of 1.5 to 2.0 miles. Vertical gradients within the
embankment are highly variable and are dependant on local geologic conditions.
Hobo Springs and Boxley Springs are two of the largest springs associated with seepage from
Masonry Pool. Water seeps from Masonry Pool through a glacial moraine and emerges down
gradient as springs that discharge to Rattlesnake Lake and Boxley Creek. Hobo Springs flows to
Rattlesnake Lake, and Boxley Springs flows to Boxley Creek, a tributary to the Snoqualmie
River.
Water quality at Hobo Springs and Boxley Springs is distinctly different than water quality at the
Masonry Pool. Water quality at the springs is much higher in dissolved anions and cations,
indicating a long residence time in the subsurface. The similarity in water quality between Hobo
Springs and Boxley Springs also indicates that they have a common source (Masonry Pool) and
similar residence time (Golder, 2006b).
2.3 Streamflow Depletion Associated with Pumping Well NB-3
The hydraulic connection between the Snoqualmie Valley Aquifer System and the Snoqualmie
River indicates that associated base flows will be depleted due to pumping Well NB-3. Golder
(2007c) performed calculations to estimate the depletion associated with pumping Well NB-3
based on estimated aquifer properties and distances between the well and the South Fork and the
Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River. The calculations employed a spreadsheet model (IGARF
v4) published by The Environment Agency in the U.K. (EA, 2004). The IGARF spreadsheet
used the method of Hunt (1999) to estimate the timing and magnitude of depletion on both forks
of the river due to a single-day of pumping. Hunt’s method calculates the effect of pumping a
fully-penetrating well in a homogeneous, isotropic aquifer on a partially penetrating stream with
a streambed permeability lower than the aquifer permeability. Because the Hunt equation is

linear, it can be scaled to any operational ground water withdrawal rates and summed by
superposition to calculate the depletion associated with any given pumping schedule.
Aquifer and streambed properties control the timing and magnitude of streamflow depletion
predicted by the Hunt equation. Golder incorporated uncertainty in aquifer property estimates in
estimating streamflow depletion by applying a range of aquifer property values. As described in
Section 2.2.2, aquifer transmissivity estimates ranged from 99,400 to 316,000 ft2/day. In
addition, storativity values ranged from 0.01 to 0.12 and streambed conductivity was assumed to
be one-tenth the horizontal conductivity of the aquifer based on limited field measurements and
literature review. Based on this range of variation, Golder (2007c) defined 27 combinations of
aquifer properties to reflect associated uncertainties. These parameter sets were input to the Hunt
Equation to develop 27 depletion curves for single-day pumping. The IGARF spreadsheet model
calculated depletion over a 20-day period. Most of the depletion to the Snoqualmie River for a
single day of pumping is estimated to occur during the first (pumping) day and the following
several (non-pumping) days (Golder, 2007c). Small quantities of residual depletion were
calculated after 20 days (about 4% to 8% of the total volume pumped). As discussed in Section
2.4.2, in order to conform to the concept that 100% of the pumped volume will be expressed as
stream depletion, the remaining 4%-8% was added evenly back into the 20-day period to
estimate the mitigation requirement for each pumping day.
2.4 Mitigation Plan
Water appropriated from Well NB-3 is in hydraulic continuity with the Snoqualmie River and is
therefore subject to minimum instream flow requirements established for the three control
stations located farther downstream. North Bend has proposed that when regulatory instream
flow requirements established for the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie Falls or Carnation, or for
the Snohomish River at Monroe are not met, water from another source will be added to the river
to replace the net streamflow depletion due to pumping associated with this water right.
Water production from North Bend’s new water right will be limited to the capability of
mitigation sources to offset net streamflow depletion caused by pumping Well NB-3 (or other
sources added under this water right at a later date) when instream flow levels at the downstream
control points are not met.
Documentation of water-supply sources, mitigation sources and transmission, return flows from
the WWTP, the algorithm used to estimate mitigation requirements and control mitigation
deliveries, and monitoring/reporting requirements will be contained in the Mitigation Operation
and Monitoring Plan (e.g. Golder, 2007e). The plan may be updated to reflect changes in sources
or available information based on an order from Ecology. A system of monitoring and reporting
will be maintained to ensure that the mitigation plan is being followed (Sections 5.1 and 5.3).
The mitigation reports will also provide the City with early warning if required mitigation
volumes approach available mitigation capacity faster than anticipated so that development of
new mitigation sources can be accelerated if required.

2.4.1 Mitigation Sources
The mitigation sources proposed in North Bend’s plan related to G1-26617(A) are: (1) surface
water at Hobo Springs purchased from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU); (2) ground water from
Sallal wells purchased from the Sallal Water Association; and (3) surface water from the Tolt
Pipeline purchased from SPU.
North Bend’s preferred sources for mitigation supply water are water purchased from SPU via
Hobo Springs and surplus water provided by the Sallal Water Association. Hobo Springs is an
existing municipal point of diversion in the Upper Cedar Watershed, and has been designated as
a point of diversion via an administrative claim amendment under the City of Seattle’s Cedar
River Claim (Water Right Claim 68624). The Sallal Water Association holds water rights for
municipal water right supply purposes that also will be contracted to North Bend for water
supply and mitigation.
The mitigation supplies that will be under contract are existing water rights from sources suitable
for direct discharge to the Snoqualmie River or its tributaries. The infrastructure to deliver those
supplies to the Snoqualmie River for mitigation will be constructed concurrently with increasing
demand for municipal water supply, and will be ready to deliver mitigation water to mitigate the
impacts of North Bend’s new ground water withdrawals.
The SPU water supply contract will be structured so that North Bend has the ability to purchase
the entire quantity of mitigation water from SPU under a worst case mitigation scenario at the
maximum projected 50-year growth demand. To the extent of any seasonal supply limitations in
the Hobo Springs source, the Sallal wells will be used to make up the necessary mitigation
quantity pursuant to a water sharing and pricing agreement between North Bend and the Sallal
Water Association. This will extend the period during which North Bend can rely on Hobo
Springs as a primary mitigation source for its initial period of growth until it needs to construct
another mitigation source to meet additional future growth.
The initial sources used to meet the mitigation requirement are surface water purchased from
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) via Hobo Springs and ground water purchased from the Sallal
Water Association via existing wells. These two sources are available immediately. Surface
water from the Tolt Pipeline (also covered under the SPU contract) can also be made available to
meet future growth demands. However, while water from the Tolt Pipeline is legally available
as a mitigation source, the timing associated with its introduction into the system is somewhat
different than Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells, and will need to be further evaluated via an
amendment to the City’s Mitigation Plan as described in Section 5.4.2.
In operating its surface water supply sources, including the water from Hobo Springs and the
Tolt River that have been contracted for North Bend’s mitigation needs, SPU is obligated to meet
instream flow requirements on the Cedar and South Fork Tolt Rivers to protect fisheries

resources and aquatic habitat. On the Cedar River, instream flow management is governed by the
Cedar River Instream Flow Agreement (IFA), a component of the Cedar River Watershed
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The IFA specifies a guaranteed flow regime as measured at
the USGS stream gage below the Landsburg Dam.
Hobo Springs
Hobo Springs emanates from a hillside located approximately 7,000 feet northwest of the
Masonry Pool, and were historically used by the Milwaukee Railroad and to supply the Town of
Cedar Falls. Hobo Springs was also used to supply municipal water to the Sallal Water
Association in conjunction with a pipeline from the Masonry Pool from 1970 until the Sallal
wells were completed in 1986. Flows at Hobo Springs are captured through a large covered
concrete spring box with a weir at the outlet.
The Hobo Springs project will use the existing spring collection box but will replace (and
extend) existing pipeline to provide 8,700 feet of 16-inch pipe from the springs to a discharge
structure on Boxley Creek just downstream of USGS gage 12143700. The 16-inch pipe will
originate at the collection box and follow the Iron Horse Trail to the discharge structure. The
pipe will initially provide 1,800 gpm (4.0 cfs) to the discharge structure via gravity flow, but will
ultimately include a booster pump that will increase the capacity to 2,500 gpm (5.6 cfs). The
Sallal wells will be connected into this system using an existing 12-inch pipeline and will
therefore discharge at the same point on Boxley Creek.
Historical flow data for Hobo Springs were collected at the outlet weir. Historical data prior to
2006 were collected by SPU and are not well documented. The data are divided into three
periods of record: 1976 to 1981, 2000 to 2005, and June 2006 forward. The older dataset consists
of monthly average and monthly minimum values; the frequency of the data collection is
unknown. The more recent dataset (2000 to 2005) consists of 179 measurements taken on a
weekly to monthly basis. Of the 179 measurements, only 35 were taken during June through
October, when flows below minimum instream flow requirements are most likely to occur in the
Snoqualmie River. Continuous flow monitoring of the springs by North Bend began in June
2006 to obtain higher-resolution flow data.
The weir does not capture all of the flow discharging from Hobo Springs. Small channels were
observed flowing around the weir during the field visit on March 9, 2006. Visual inspection
suggests that the weir was capturing 60% to 70% of the flow during the field visit. The flow
outside of the weir converges with the flow through the weir to form Hobo Creek below the
intake structure and piping that historically transferred water to the Sallal water main. Golder
(2007c) suggests that the actual flow available for diversion may be 20% to 40% more than what
the weir data indicate. However, this estimate is subject to revision as more data become
available, capturing this flow would require structural improvements and the amount of excess
flow could vary seasonally.

Hobo Springs flow varies throughout the year, ranging from zero to almost 6 cubic feet per
second (cfs) at the weir. Flow statistics from the springs are summarized on Attachment 3. Peak
flows have historically occurred between May and August, with minimum flows occurring
between November and March. Among the available flow data, data from 2001 to 2005 indicate
slightly higher flows than the older record from 1976 to 1981. Minimum daily flows recorded on
a monthly basis from the 2001-2005 record ranged from 5.0 cfs in July to 0.2 cfs in February and
March. In contrast, minimum daily flows during the 1976-1981 record showed high values of 3.8
cfs in May, June and July and low values of 0 cfs in December and 0.007 cfs in January.
Minimum average monthly flows are typically higher than minimum daily flows per month.
During the 2001-2005 period they ranged from 0.3 cfs (March) to 5.0 cfs (July); and during the
1976-1981 period from 0.02 cfs (December) to 5.0 cfs (June). While recent (2006) monitoring
suggests that flows vary little from day-to-day, the unknown number of measurements
supporting flow statistics from the 1976-1981 period makes it difficult to ascertain the relative
duration (per month) of the minimum daily flows versus the minimum average monthly flows.
Minimum average monthly flows are further exceeded by average monthly flows, but are subject
to the same statistical limitation for the 1976-1981 period. A possible explanation for the
differences in flows between 1976-1981 and 2001-2005 records is that Sallal withdrawals were
not accounted for in the weir estimates during the earlier Hobo Springs record.
The travel time for water flowing from the mitigation system discharge point on Boxley Creek to
the South Fork of the Snoqualmie River confluence with the Snoqualmie River was predicted to
range from 7.8 to 13.2 hours (Golder, 2007c). In general, the predicted travel times increase as
streamflow decreases. Therefore, it will take the mitigation water that is added to Boxley Creek
longer to reach the South Fork of the Snoqualmie River during low flow periods in Boxley
Creek.
Sallal Wells
A second source of mitigation is being made available to North Bend by agreement with the
Sallal Water Association. Two of Sallal’s existing wells are located in close proximity to the 16-
inch pipeline that will connect Hobo Springs to Boxley Creek, and will be tied into the 16-inch
pipeline via a 12-inch pipeline to deliver mitigation water whenever the supply from Hobo
Springs is inadequate for the full mitigation requirement. Up to 35% of Sallal’s water right,
243.6 AFY, is available to North Bend from Sallal wells 1 and 2 for mitigation purposes as a
supplement to the Hobo Springs source. The Sallal mitigation source provides reliability to
insure that the impacts of the new North Bend water right can be mitigated even with one of the
mitigation sources temporarily off-line.
The Sallal wells are located in the Snoqualmie River watershed near Rattlesnake Lake. The
ground water source for these wells is the Recessional Outwash deposits which are part of the
Cedar Moraine Aquifer System (Section 2.2.3).

The Sallal Water Association is a private cooperative system that serves water to approximately
2,000 connections. Water is supplied from 4 production wells, and the majority of its water
comes from Wells 1 and 2 located in the Snoqualmie River Watershed. These two wells supply
over 80 percent of the total water system demand. Well 3 is located near the Edgewick
Reservoir. Sallal’s current water rights consist of a single right to withdraw 696 acre-feet
annually, with a maximum withdrawal rate of 1,600 gpm from Wells 1 and 2. The Association
also has a non-additive (supplemental) water right to 102 acre-feet per year with a maximum
withdrawal rate of 91 gpm for Well 3. The Sallal Water Association holds the following water
rights:
Table 4. Water Rights held by Sallal Water Association
Water Right # Qi (gpm) Qa (afy) Source Comment
G1-24671 1600 696 Wells 1 & 2
G1-24975 91 102 Well 3 Annual volume is

non-additive
Total 1691 696
During periods when low flows are anticipated from Hobo Springs, Sallal will designate one of
the wells listed under G1-24671 to mitigation production and 20 to 25% of production from the
second well as necessary. To accomplish this, Sallal anticipates two phases of construction. The
initial installation will include a 12-inch pipeline from Sallal Well 2 to the 16-inch pipeline
between Hobo Springs and Boxley Creek. The second phase, if necessary, will include a new
pipe to Sallal Well 1 with the valving needed to allow some of the production to be added to the
mitigation system. With all of the Sallal Well capacity in place, North Bend will have
instantaneous access to at least 800 gpm during phase one construction with expansion to 1,000
gpm during phase two. The 12-inch pipeline has a design capacity of 1,000 gpm (2.2 cfs).
Tolt Mitigation Pipeline
When the City’s demand approaches the capacity of Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells, North
Bend will be able to add additional mitigation capacity by purchasing and delivering water from
SPU’s Tolt Pipeline to the North Fork Snoqualmie River via a 4-mile pipeline along Deep Creek.
As North Bend plans, engineers, and constructs additional mitigation source capacity beyond
Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells, it will need to document the new mitigation sources and
update the Mitigation Operation and Monitoring Plan (including the mitigation algorithm) to
account for the operation of additional mitigation sources. These updates shall be submitted to
Ecology for review and approval consistent with the conditions set forth in this Report of
Examination (Section 5.4.2). Changes to the mitigation planning documents should also be
incorporated into North Bend’s CWSP updates and/or amendments.

2.4.2 Calculating Streamflow Depletion for Mitigation
On days when mitigation is required, the mitigation requirement will be calculated by

aggregating streamflow depletion generated by pumping withdrawals over the prior 20 days. In
addition, the mitigation requirement will be based on the net impact of streamflow depletion,
which accounts for return flow from the wastewater treatment plant. The concepts of aggregate
streamflow depletion and net streamflow depletion are discussed below.
Aggregate Streamflow Depletion
The IGARF spreadsheet model calculated streamflow depletion due to a single day of pumping
over a 20-day calculation period. As mentioned above, only small quantities of residual depletion
existed beyond 20 days (about 4% to 8% of the total volume pumped) after pumping. To limit
calculated streamflow depletion values to operationally plausible rates and avoid rounding errors
on small values, North Bend proposed to divide the remaining percentage beyond 20 days by 20
and add that volume evenly add back into the 20-day period, thus ensuring that the pumping
streamflow depletion equals the associated daily volume of ground water pumping within 20
days of pumping the well.
The streamflow depletion curves can be used to calculate depletion on any given day based on
pumping during that day and the preceding 20 days. All of these depletion curves can be
summed to obtain an “aggregate streamflow depletion curve”. However, for the practical purpose
of mitigating depletion, it is impossible to calculate the depletion volume resulting from the same
day of pumping until that day is complete and the actual pumping volume is known. North Bend
proposed to address this problem by modifying the depletion curves to transfer the “same-day”
depletion volume into the second day of the 20-day curve. Therefore, for any given day,
streamflow depletion can be estimated based on the depletion curves for the prior 20 days of
pumping.
In order to account for aquifer property uncertainties, Golder (2007c) developed 27 depletion
curves that correspond to various combinations of aquifer property estimates. By considering all
27 aggregated depletion curves, the maximum of the curves can be used to define the “maximum
predicted aggregated depletion”. Initially, the “aggregate streamflow depletion” will be
considered to equal the “maximum potential aggregate depletion”. See Section 5.5 to determine
how the numbers used to calculate the “aggregate streamflow depletion” can be updated.
Net Streamflow Depletion
North Bend has proposed that while the depletion curves can be used to estimate the maximum
potential aggregated depletion associated with pumping, the quantity of depletion that must be
mitigated is less than the total aggregated depletion due to discharge from the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) associated with pumping the new water right. This depletion quantity,
herein termed “net stream depletion”, is defined with the following equation:
Net Stream Depletion = Aggregate Streamflow Depletion – WWTP Return Flow

The daily volume of WWTP return flow is calculated with the following equation:
Vwwtp = VNRA * fwwtp, where
Vwwtp = daily volume of water returned from wastewater treatment plant [gallons per day]
VNRA = annual volume of water from new water right [gallons]
fwwtp, = percentage of annual produced volume from new water right that is returned to the
river on a daily basis as WWTP flow. [1/day]
VNRA represents a running total of gallons pumped over the preceding 365 days. The fwwtp factor
is based on the fraction of total annual water demand that is returned to the river, and is
normalized to a daily basis by dividing the annual return flow fraction by 365. Initially fwwtp will
be equal to 0.001644 (an annual value of 0.60, as discussed in Section 2.1.4, divided by 365
days); however, fwwtp may change as new residences are constructed which rely on the WWTP
instead of septic tanks. Therefore, fwwtp may be updated periodically with revisions to the
mitigation operation plan or more frequently if necessary using the last six years of continuous
data.
2.4.3 Mitigation Algorithm
The mitigation algorithm defines the rules and calculation methods for determining the daily
mitigation requirement under reasonably foreseeable scenarios. The algorithm is capable of
implementation under the operational conditions of North Bend’s water system, and is
summarized in Attachment 4. The algorithm was developed for withdrawals from Well NB-3
with Hobo Springs and Sallal Well mitigation sources, but can be expanded to include additional
sources at a later date.
The first step in the algorithm is to determine the source of the water produced by North Bend in
the preceding 24 hours. If 100 percent of the produced water (V24) was from the senior Mt. Si
Springs water right, then there is no mitigation requirement from this withdrawal. However, if
any of the produced water (V24) is from the new water right (i.e. Well NB-3), then it is necessary
to calculate the volume of the water produced from the new water right over the past 24 hours
(VNR). The pumping history of Well NB-3 is then used to calculate the aggregated stream
depletion based on ground water withdrawals from the previous 20 days.
The streamflow and instream flow requirements at each of the three USGS gages during the
preceding 24 hours are also compared each day to determine if the minimum instream flow
requirements at each of the three USGS gauges have been met. If the instream flows have been
met consistently for the 24-hour period, then there is no mitigation requirement. However, if the
minimum measured streamflow at any of the 3 gages during the preceding 24 hours was below
the minimum instream flow requirement, instream flows were not met and it is necessary to
determine the daily volume of mitigation water needed to offset net stream impacts.

The daily mitigation volume is equal to net stream depletion as defined above. The aggregated
streamflow depletion resulting from ground water withdrawal is calculated based on the pumping
history from approved points of withdrawal under this water right over the past 20 days. The
daily volume of WWTP return flow is calculated by updating the annual volume of water
pumped from the new water right (VNRA) on a daily basis as a 12-month running total and is
based on the most recent value of fwwtp approved by Ecology.
The City will input the necessary data into a database at the beginning of each 24-hour period,
and the database will calculate the net stream depletion. Data required to perform this calculation
include VNR and minimum streamflows measured at the 3 instream flow control points over the
past 24 hours. The database will store all of the necessary water system information to calculate
mitigation needs and assist the water system operators in decision making related to the
mitigation system. The database will also store information regarding mitigation requirements
and mitigation deliveries during preceding recent days, and will add any prior mitigation
shortfalls to the mitigation requirement for the current day.
The daily mitigation volume (net stream depletion) is converted into a daily rate (QM) so it can
be compared to the Hobo Springs flow. If there is adequate Hobo Springs flow (Qh > QM) then
Hobo Springs can supply the entire mitigation requirement. However, if there is inadequate flow
from Hobo Springs, then it is necessary to calculate the volume of mitigation water needed from
the Sallal wells. The daily rate of mitigation water needed from the Sallal wells (Qs) is the
difference between Hobo Springs flow and the daily mitigation requirement. The instantaneous
rate (Qs) is compared to the instantaneous portion of Sallal’s water right contracted to North
Bend for mitigation. If Qs is less than the contracted portion of the water right, then the two
mitigation sources can mitigate 100 percent of the net stream depletion resulting from the new
water right. If Qs is greater than the contracted instantaneous portion of the water right, the
production from Well NB-3 will be limited to the mitigation capacity provided by Hobo Springs
and the instantaneous portion of Sallal’s water right contracted to North Bend. Qs is then
converted to a volume (Vs) and added to the total volume of water produced by Sallal for North
Bend’s mitigation during the calendar year thus far (Vst). The accumulated total volume (Vst) is
compared to the annual portion of Sallal’s water right contracted to North Bend for mitigation. If
Vst is less than the contracted portion of the water right, then the two mitigation sources can
mitigate 100 percent of the net stream depletion resulting from the new water right. If Vst is
greater than the contracted annual portion of the water right, the production from Well NB-3 will
be limited to the mitigation capacity provided by Hobo Springs. Additional mitigation capacity
could be obtained by development of additional mitigation sources or implementation of the
City’s water consumption curtailment plan.
2.4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Operations
Every morning, the City will monitor production during the previous 24 hours at Mt. Si Springs,
Well NB-3, WWTP flows, USGS streamflow gages on the Snoqualmie River and Boxley Creek,
Hobo Springs flow, mitigation water pumped from Hobo Springs and Sallal mitigation pipeline

flows. The data will be conveyed via telemetry to the Public Works Department from Mt. Si
Springs, Well NB-3, the USGS gauges, Hobo Springs (consecutive data from both the weir and
the mitigation intake) and the Sallal Water System. Relevant data will be processed by the
database to calculate the mitigation requirement for that day.
Under normal operating procedures, the City will supply the calculated volume of mitigation
water (VM) within the next 24 hours. Any delays in obtaining the necessary information to
calculate the previous day’s mitigation requirement will require QM to be recalculated from VM
using a smaller amount of time and will be available through the database calculations. For
example, if the calculations are completed two hours late, then QM is calculated using a period of
22 hours or 1320 minutes: QM = VM /1320. If normal operating procedures are not possible to
maintain (e.g., there is an emergency), then the part of the daily aggregated mitigation
requirement that is unfulfilled is added to the mitigation requirement for the next possible day.
The rate and volume of mitigation water from each mitigation source will be monitored when in
use. Water delivery to Boxley Creek will also be monitored. If monitoring indicates that the City
has under-mitigated during normal operations, then the unmitigated volume is added to the next
day’s mitigation requirement.
Mitigation water will be supplied from either Hobo Springs or from Sallal wells. The aggregate
volume of mitigation water will be added using remote switches and valves at one or both of the
available mitigation sources to provide flows to the South Fork of the Snoqualmie River via
Boxley Creek.
Emergencies that would require contingency responses range from a lack of supply to
mechanical failure of the system. Mechanical failures will be promptly addressed and repaired.
The Mitigation Operation and Monitoring Plan (Golder, 2007e) describes responses to power
failures, gage or metering failures, and engineering failures. Specifically, the plan describes how
mitigation quantities would be estimated in response to missing data and how any unmet
mitigation requirements would be introduced on the first possible day after a mechanical failure.
While the City’s access to multiple mitigation sources (Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells)
provides some redundancy in case of mitigation-source failure; insufficient mitigation capacity
will result in alerting customers of the situation, implementation of the City’s emergency water
shortage plan and activation of the Sallal/North Bend intertie for flow into North Bend. The
City’s emergency response plan is described in its Comprehensive Water System Plan (North
Bend, 2002).
2.4.5 Mitigation Capacity
Golder (2007c) performed a series of analyses to estimate the total mitigation requirement
associated with this new water right and the capacity of Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells to
meet this requirement

Golder (2006a) first employed a probabilistic (Monte Carlo) model to simulate the total annual
mitigation requirement regardless of source. The model distributes projected growth in annual
demand into average monthly pumping rates based on monthly demand profiles consistent with
the actual 2003 production, and assumes that the impact from pumping is realized
instantaneously in the Snoqualmie River. WWTP flows are assumed equal to 60% of annual
pumping. Actual streamflow record was modeled with random selection of the first year of
record (subsequent years followed, and the streamflow record was permitted to “wrap” around
back to the beginning), and was compared on a daily basis to minimum instream flow
requirements. Mitigation volume probability distributions at full build out (51 years of growth)
indicate average 5% and 95% percentile values varied from 101 to 1020 AFY (0.09 to 0.91 mgd)
respectively with a median value (50th percentile) of 482 AFY (0.43 mgd). This compares to a
net mean annual consumptive use (pumping minus WWTP return flow) of 1,230 AFY (1.10
mgd) at full build out.
While the probabilistic model prepared by Golder (2006a) estimated total required mitigation
volumes, it did not evaluate the capacity of currently available sources (Hobo Springs and the
Sallal wells) to meet the mitigation requirement over time. Such evaluation of source capacity
further required that the model consider day-to-day variations in pumping (instead of using
monthly averages) and the timing of estimated streamflow depletion curves (rather than
assuming instantaneous depletion). In order to reliably evaluate the mitigation capacity of Hobo
Springs and the Sallal wells, Golder (2007c) adopted a simple, comprehensive, and very
conservative spreadsheet model developed by Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG, 2006).
PGG’s model incorporates daily variations in pumping (peaks) and can be used to represent
estimated streamflow depletion schedules derived from actual pumping schedules. The model
employs similar assumptions regarding monthly pumping distribution and WWTP return flow as
Golder’s probabilistic model, but also assumes that instream flow requirements are not met on
the maximum number of days per month that flow requirements were historically not met at any
of the 3 downstream gages over a 30-year record (1970-1999), and that Hobo Springs discharge
occurs at the minimum observed daily rate for each month (every day of the month). These
assumptions imply that PGG’s model will underestimate the mitigation capacity of the two
mitigation sources for any given streamflow depletion relationship.
Golder (2007c) applied the maximum aggregated streamflow depletion to PGG’s model and
determined that the City of North Bend has an adequate supply of water using Hobo Springs and
Sallal wells for 27 years. At 27 years, the average mitigation requirement from the new water
right will be approximately 0.63 mgd (701 AFY), of which approximately 226 AFY was
predicted to come from the Sallal wells and 475 AFY from Hobo Springs. The projected
mitigation supply is very sensitive to the volume assigned to Hobo Springs discharge because
most of the mitigation water will be provided by Hobo Springs. Golder (2007c) performed a less
conservative analysis in which the model assumed minimum average monthly Hobo Springs
discharge rather than absolute minimum observed discharge for each month. As discussed in

Section 2.4.1, statistical interpretation of existing spring flow data is limited by sparse and/or
irregular data frequency. Use of minimum average monthly discharge values increased the
capacity of the two sources to 34 years of build-out.
PGG’s model was originally designed to evaluate how far along North Bend’s projected growth
in water demand could be supported by existing mitigation supplies. The model specified Hobo
Springs flow on a monthly basis and treated Sallal pumping as an annual “bank account” that
could be drawn upon as needed. However, Sallal’s contribution is limited to both the annual
volume contracted with North Bend (243.6 af) and the maximum instantaneous capacity
available from its sources (1,000 gpm). Golder (2007c) modified PGG’s model to allow
comparison of the peak daily mitigation requirement from Sallal’s wells for each month with the
instantaneous mitigation capacity from the wells. Golder’s analysis conservatively employed the
absolute minimum observed values of Hobo Springs discharge for each month to estimate the
maximum likely instantaneous flow needed from the Sallal wells for each month. Estimating
streamflow depletion with the maximum aggregated value suggests that the mitigation capacity
of Sallal’s wells would be fully exercised after 21 years of growth.
It is worth noting that the streamflow depletion curves may be updated within two years of Well
NB-3 being brought into production based on additional aquifer testing at Well NB-3.
Refinement of the 27 curves may change the results of mitigation capacity modeling performed
with PGG’s model. In order to evaluate a more conservative scenario, Golder (2007c) used
PGG’s model to evaluate mitigation source capacity based on instantaneous streamflow
depletion rather than the maximum aggregated depletion derived from the Hunt model. This
analysis differs from Golder’s probabilistic model because it considers peak daily pumping
behavior and requires full mitigation of all pumping peaks (regardless of whether they occur on
days when instream flow requirements are not met). Using these assumptions, Golder’s analysis
indicates that the City of North Bend has an adequate supply of water using Hobo Springs and
Sallal wells for 23 years (based on the maximum annual volume of water available from the
Sallal wells) and 16 years (based on the maximum instantaneous capacity of the Sallal wells).
This highly conservative analysis serves as a minimum endpoint for the capacity of the two
mitigation sources. Even with possible changes to the streamflow depletion curves, depletion
from Well NB-3 will never be instantaneous (there will always be some time lag). Golder’s
analysis therefore demonstrates that even under the most conservative depletion assumptions,
North Bend has a sufficient time period to develop new mitigation capacity as water demand
increases.
2.5 Fishery Related Issues
While Snoqualmie Falls forms a natural barrier to upstream migration of anadromous salmon,
the system above the falls provide habitat for resident fish populations, including cutthroat and
rainbow trout, white fish and sculpin, (Haring 2005).

Below the falls, the Snoqualmie River system support significant runs of anadromous salmonids,
including coho, chinook, chum, and pink salmon, steelhead trout, as well as bull trout/Dolly
Varden, and other resident trout species. NOAA Fisheries has identified Snoqualmie populations
of Chinook as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Thus water quality and quantity–
related impacts to the Snoqualmie River resulting from activities in the City of North Bend could
contribute to cumulative impacts on Chinook downstream of the falls.
Since North Bend’s withdrawals will be mitigated on a real-time basis, when instream flows are
not met, this project should be neutral to fishery conditions. Under this first phase of the project,
mitigation water will be delivered directly into the Snoqualmie system via Boxley Creek, which
is a natural tributary to the South Fork Snoqualmie River. Boxley Creek is fed in part by Boxley
Spring, which has very similar water quality parameters to Hobo Springs.
This application and the associated mitigation proposal have been reviewed by Steve Boessow of
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The WDFW originally had two
areas of concern; the first being the potential risk of disease transmittal between the Cedar and
Snoqualmie River Basins, and second being a reduction of instream flows in the Snoqualmie
system.
Since the use of Hobo Springs as a source of mitigation water to the Snoqualmie River was
originally proposed, extensive investigation has been done to rule out the transmittal of
Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) from the Cedar River into the Snoqualmie
River basin. It has been concluded, with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in
concurrence, that the risk of transmittal is negligible (Conrecode, 2006). The evidence for
reaching that conclusion is based, in part on the following factors:
• IHNV is transmitted by anadromous salmon especially sockeye, and no anadromous fish

go above Cedar Falls, so it is very unlikely IHNV is in the Masonry Pool.
• Masonry Pool water travels through a glacial moraine consisting of sand and gravel, and
IHNV has a very limited life span outside of a host. As it passes through the glacial
material multiple factors work to inactivate or remove IHNV; time, water quality
changes, and substrate composition.
• A hydraulic connection has existed between the two basins for over 100 years, since SPU
developed the Cedar as a water source. As a result of the Cedar River water supply
project, water from the Cedar River already discharges into the Snoqualmie River system
via Boxley Springs which feed Boxley Creek. There has been no previous detection of
IHNV in the Snoqualmie Basin.
Mr. Boessow has indicated that he has no objections to the proposal based on concerns about
disease transmittal. Nor does the agency object to North Bend’s plan to mitigate on a real-time

basis with imported water, provided that the applicant can manage the mitigation system such
that instream flows are not adversely impacted (Boessow, 2007).
2.6 Effects to Existing Water Rights
Ground Water:
Golder’s aquifer test report for Well NB-3 did not include estimation of long-term drawdown
associated with using the well at the rates requested in North Bend’s water right application.
However, Golder (2007c) performed additional calculations to estimate drawdowns in
neighboring wells using the production capacity of Well NB-3 (2,500 gpm). Ecology’s well log
database lists 165 wells within 10,000 feet of Well NB-3. The current status of these wells is
unknown. No wells are noted in the Ecology database within 500 feet of the Well NB-3. Golder
(2007c) estimated the potential range of drawdown for each well after 120 days of pumping at
2,500 gpm. Drawdown estimates were generated using lowest transmissivity (T=99,400 ft2/d)
and storativity (S=0.05) values cited in the well report (Golder, 2007b) and the highest
transmissivity (T=316,000 ft2/d) and storativity (S=0.12) values to bound the range of potential
impacts to neighboring wells. The drawdown estimates may over-predict actual drawdown
because they were generated using the Jacob equation, which assumes isotropic, homogenous
aquifer properties and no influence of river boundaries. Upper-end estimates of drawdown
typically ranged from 1 to 3 feet, and lower-end estimates were typically smaller than 0.8 feet.
Based on this analysis, it appears that there are no ground water users in the vicinity of NB-3 that
will be impaired by the operation of the well.
Surface Water:
Department of Ecology’s records indicate that downstream from North Bend on the Snoqualmie
River 56 surface water certificates have been issued and 47 surface water claims were filed. The
certificates were generally issued for irrigation, and the claims generally were filed for general
domestic purposes. Since North Bend intends to provide a continuous source of mitigation water
to the Snoqualmie River, when the instream flows are not met, this project will be neutral and
not affect downstream water right holders at lower stream flows. There are, however, two larger
surface water rights located downstream of the City of North Bend’s production well that should
be addressed in more detail, specifically the Snohomish River Regional Water Authority’s water
supply project, and Puget Sound Energy’s Snoqualmie Falls hydro-electric project.
The Snohomish River Regional Water Authority (RWA) holds surface water certificate 10617,
priority date August 20, 1951, to divert 27,219.5 acre-feet per year from Ebey Slough, which is a
distributary of the Snohomish River near its mouth, at an instantaneous diversion rate of 56 cfs.
Under this authorization, diversions between the months of July through October are subject to
increased regulation and partial curtailment. Additionally, the RWA’s ability to divert is limited
by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) considerations when Snohomish River flow at the
Monroe gauge is 1350 cfs or lower. Without North Bend’s mitigation program, the RWA’s

ability to divert water could be impaired if North Bend’s withdrawals were to increase the
duration of time that flows dropped below 1350 cfs from July through October.
However, since North Bend will be augmenting flows in the river to offset their consumptive
streamflow depletion if the streamflow at the Monroe gauge was to drop below 1350 cfs (lowest
instream flow level for this gauge is 2000 cfs), there will be no impact to the RWA. The
continued monitoring of the Monroe station is a condition of this permit’s issuance. Water
quality is anticipated to remain neutral.
An additional consideration is Puget Sound Energy’s existing water right claim (water right
claim number 160814) to utilize the Snoqualmie River for hydroelectric power generation at its
Snoqualmie Falls powerhouses. While actual impacts to the flow of the river are very minor in
proportion to overall flows, there is still a reduction in total stream flow available to PSE. PSE
and the City of North Bend have reached a private agreement to compensate for the reduction in
power generating capacity.
2.7 Consideration of Protests and Comments
Ecology received two protest letters during the public notice process, from local residents
William Francis and Obe Healea, Jr. Ecology also has a letter of concern on file from Ewing
Stringfellow. Mr. Francis and Mr. Stringfellow’s primary concerns were that North Bend’s
proposed new wells could impact local domestic, irrigation, and stockwatering wells. In
particular they were concerned about the operation of NB-1 which was found to effect
neighboring domestic wells during initial pump-testing. Since the first phase of this project
addresses only NB-3, which is situated nearly a half mile south of NB-1 it is not anticipated that
Mr. Francis or Mr. Stringfellow’s wells will be affected. Future consideration of whether NB-1
can be operated without impact to neighboring water users will need to be thoroughly addressed
when that well is considered whether it can be added to this water right.
Mr. Healea, Jr. a resident of North Bend and former Mayor indicated in his letter that the Mt. Si
Spring source provided sufficient water to meet North Bend’s needs. He indicated that the water
right issued for the springs did not restrict the amount of water that could be put to beneficial
use. His position, however, is not consistent with the Department of Ecology’s interpretation of
the right which limits the total annual usage to only 336 acre-feet per year.
When allocating water for a beneficial use, it is generally assumed that Ecology authorizes a
specific amount deemed adequate to satisfy the specific intent of the application. Thus while the
quantities allocated for any given permit address future need, that future demand is not open-
ended, and it is assumed that communities will seek additional water rights as the need arises. In
the case of surface water certificate S1-00620C the application was reviewed by Ecology in
1965, and it was determined that to meet the projected future needs of a 1980 population a total
of 336 acre-feet per year would be needed. The calculation supporting the annual allocation are

discussed in the original Report of Examination, and included as provisions in the Permit issued
to North Bend.
North Bend has acknowledged the annual allocation of the surface water right, imposed strict
conservation standards and actively sought additional rights to meet future needs.
Tulalip Tribes
While not formal objectors to North Bend’s application, the Tulalip Tribes have been actively
engaged in the process and has submitted several comment letters to the Department of Ecology.
North Bend is within the Snoqualmie River Basin which is within a portion of the Tulalip Tribes’
treaty-protected usual and accustomed hunting, fishing and gathering area. The Tulalip Tribes
have remained actively engaged in the review of North Bend’s water right application.
Comments received from Tulalip Tribes technical staff have been addressed and incorporated in
the preparation of North Bend’s mitigation proposal. In particular, the Tribes comments have
been used to shape the monitoring and reporting requirements of this project.
Comment letters of significance from the Tribe include:
1. March 26, 2007, letter from Anne Savery on behalf of the Tribe to Gina Estep in response
to North Bend’s issuance of a MDNS for the SEPA determination. Ms. Savery noted in
her comment letter that impacts of pumping ground water from Well NB-3 are reported
to be fairly evenly distributed between the Middle and South Forks of the Snoqualmie
River, and that mitigation water from Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells will be
introduced to Boxley Creek, a tributary to the South Fork, leaving impacts in the Middle
Fork unmitigated. The Tribes' concern regarding the location of the mitigation is due to
the impact of withdrawing shallow ground water and surface water from the river on the
food web in the Middle Fork. They are concerned that primary productivity of the Middle
Fork may be disrupted by the operation of Well NB-3, especially if the pumping rate is
not constant, or if the pump cycles on and off frequently.
North Bend responded that the mitigation flows will enhance the ecosystem of both the
South Fork Snoqualmie River and Boxley Creek by adding water to the interstitial spaces
of the hyporheic zone to further improve the habitat for primary producers and
macroinvertebrates during times of low flows by helping to maintain the wetted width of
a continuous river reach that is 2.5 times longer than the bypass reach on the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River. The City anticipates that the proposed mitigation measures for
withdrawals at Well NB-3 will result in no net impact to the primary productivity on the
Snoqualmie River watershed.
2. April 9, 2007, letter from Anne Savery to the Department of Ecology regarding the draft
version of the Mitigation Supply Report (Golder, 2007c). The Tribe expressed a variety

of concerns, including: potential impacts of no-flow boundaries not represented by the
streamflow depletion modeling; assumptions regarding streambed permeability in
depletion estimation; uncertainties in aquifer properties remaining from the Well NB-3
pumping test; consideration of a zero-time lag scenario for the mitigation algorithm; the
distribution of depletion between the South and Middle Forks of the Snoqualmie River;
potential impacts to the food chain of the hyporheic zone of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River; and the fact that the depletion curves used for mitigation move the first-day-of-
pumping depletion impacts to the subsequent day. The Tribe’s letter also included a
technical memorandum from their consultant Joel Massmann. On behalf of North Bend,
Golder responded in a detailed matrix format to the Tribes questions on May 10, 2007.
3. May 18, 2007, letter from Anne Savery to Nicole DeNovio (Golder) regarding the draft
version of the Mitigation Operations and Monitoring Report (Golder, 2007e). The Tribe
submitted comments regarding the timing for bringing the Sallal mitigation wells online,
updating calculations regarding the WWTP return flows, releasing mitigation water, and
additional aquifer testing on Well NB-3. Other comments generally addressed mitigation
reporting. On behalf of North Bend, Golder addressed these comments in a response to
both Ecology and the Tribe dated May 24, 2007.
2.8 Quantities Recommended For Permit / Supply And Demand Analysis
North Bend's 50-year water demand projection is detailed in a March 23, 2004, report by Ron
Garrow, North Bend Public Works Director, titled, "North Bend Water System Water Demand
Forecast" (Demand Forecast). Appendix A presents the City’s projection of additional 50-year
water demand for North Bend and the UGA, which excludes existing water rights and shows the
reduction in demand due to implementation of North Bend's conservation plan (North Bend,
2004).
The UGA growth demands are included in this application because North Bend will ultimately
be the water service provider for all of the UGA. North Bend will provide wholesale deliveries
of water to Sallal Water Association until North Bend's water service area expands to include all
property within the UGA. Including the UGA demand within Application G1-26617 insures that
new development will be served from a water source with mitigated impacts on stream flow.
North Bend has calculated a projected 50-year demand of 3,061,375 gallons per day (average
daily demand) or 3,430 acre-feet per year. Since the City already holds rights to 336 acre-feet
per year they need to secure additional rights in the amount of 3,094 acre-feet per year. This is
the annual quantity recommended for this permit. The instantaneous quantity recommended for
this permit is 2,646 gpm, as originally requested by North Bend.
These projections are consistent with other regional water planning efforts, specifically the 1989
East King County Coordinated Water System Plan, which was developed to assess water supply
needs within East King County. The Plan projects that the region will have a 20 to 30 million

gallon per day shortfall by the year 2025 if current growth rates are sustained and no new water
rights are granted.
3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 90.03 RCW and Chapter 90.44 RCW authorize the appropriation of public surface and
ground water for beneficial use and describe the process for obtaining water rights including the
process to amend or change existing rights. Laws specifically governing the water right
permitting process are Chapter RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340 RCW and Chapter 90.44.050
through 90.44.080 RCW.
Under state law the following four criteria must be met for an application to be approved:
• Water must be available

• There must be no impairment of existing rights
• The water use must be beneficial
• The water use must not be detrimental to the public welfare
3.1 Water Availability
Water must be both physically and legally available for appropriation.
Physical Availability: Well NB-3 has been constructed, tested, and its potential effects
have been evaluated and modeled. A pumping test has indicated that the well can
produce 2,500 gpm. Based on the results from the pumping test and other hydrogeologic
investigations, it is reasonable to conclude that the aquifer is physically capable of
providing the requested 2646 gpm.
Legal Availability: Under the provisions of WAC 173-507-030 the State has made a
determination that water is not available for appropriation from the Snoqualmie River
tributaries of Griffin, Harris and, Patterson Creeks and also the Raging River. These
sources are closed to further appropriation. All of these sources enter the Snoqualmie
River downstream of the City of North Bend and in evaluating the City’s proposal it has
been determined that these water bodies are beyond the extent of any impacts from the
operation of the City’s wells.
Water is therefore available for appropriation under existing Ecology regulations. It is physically
available and also legally available in that this withdrawal will not affect surface water closures
contrary to the intent of WAC 173-507.
3.2 Impairment of Existing Rights
For the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to determine that water is available for
appropriation, the City of North Bend must demonstrate that they can provide mitigation for their

impacts such that the provisions of the instream flow regulations are not violated. It has been
determined that the approval of this application will not impair existing rights. Potential
impairment of both senior water right holders and instream flow levels has been adequately
addressed.
The City has entered into an agreement with Puget Sound Energy to compensate for lost revenue
associated with diminished generating capacity, related to impairment of the surface water claim,
at the Snoqualmie Falls hydro-electric facility. No other surface water rights will be impaired.
Wells in the vicinity of NB-3 may experience interference drawdown due to pumping of the
production well. However, this interference is calculated to not be large enough to cause
impairment of any existing wells that adequately penetrate the aquifer.
New appropriations from the Snoqualmie River watershed at North Bend are subject to
minimum instream flow levels established at control stations located downstream at Snoqualmie
Falls, Carnation and Monroe, (WAC 173-507-020(2)). While operation of this source will affect
flows in the Snoqualmie River system, the applicant has secured sources of mitigation water that
will be used to offset any adverse impacts on a daily basis when instream flows are not being
met.
3.3 Beneficial Use
According to RCW 90.03.015(4), RCW 90.14.031(2), and RCW 90.54.020(1), municipal water
supply purposes is considered a beneficial use of water.
3.4 Public Interest
No detriment to the public interest was identified during the investigation of the subject
application. The following were considered in reaching this conclusion:
Public Interest Test Criteria Comments

Since this proposal provides real-time mitigation water to
Impacts to water quality in
offset impacts to the Snoqualmie system, the withdrawals
hydraulically connected surface
authorized by this appropriation will not adversely affect
water.
regulated surface waters in the basin.
This appropriation is for a beneficial use in a municipal
Population growth and lack of
area, it is intended to provide a safe reliable supply to an
alternative supply
existing municipal population.
This appropriation proposal supports additional
Economic development and lack of economic development in the area. Water will be
alternative supply available to meet new industrial, commercial and
domestic needs.
This public water system supplies safe potable water to
Human health needs
an existing domestic population.
Promotion of regional public supply This application promotes regional water supply serving
systems the City’s urban growth area, as well as the Sallal area,
The approval of this application is not expected to result
in aquifer contamination or pollution. North Bend has an
Potential for aquifer established wellhead protection program associated with
contamination/pollution Mt. Si Springs, and samples on a regular basis.
Monitoring of any new sources will be required by the
Dept. of Health.

There are numerous water rights that have been issued
Potential for cumulative impacts to for this general area, Ecology has evaluated these rights
other water users and determined that these rights are not redundant and do
not conflict with each other.
This permit meets the fundamentals of state water law,
specifically:
Consistency with water resource RCW 90.54.005 – Objectives to provide water for
fundamentals of RCW 90.54 residential needs
RCW 90.54.020 – Protect stream baseflows
RCW 90.54.920 – No impairment of existing rights
Impacts to perennial base flows or Base flows should not be impacted by this permit, and
established minimum instream flows will be increased in Boxely Creek.
Aquatic habitat will not be impacted by the approval of
Impacts to aquatic habitat
this application.
Impacts to recreation or navigation There is no detriment to recreation or navigation uses
uses expected under this proposal.
The extent to which the proposal North Bend has an existing conservation program, and
advances water conservation and intends to remain in compliance with all new standards
efficient use for systems on this size as required under WAC 246-290.
This proposal would require ongoing monitoring and
The extent to which the proposed use reporting of multiple water management parameters and
would create new burdens on the detailed in the provisions of this Report of Examination.
public for monitoring, oversight and Since the responsibility of collecting, organizing and
regulation. reporting the data is the applicant’s, this would not create
unnecessary burden for monitoring by public agencies.
Without additional water rights, North Bend’s water system cannot connect any additional
customers or add new water sources to benefit the public health and security of its water supply.
The absence of an available public water supply creates a demand for new privately developed
water systems based on small wells using less than 5,000 gallons per day that are exempt from
the water right permit requirement. The proliferation of these so-called “exempt wells” can lead
to incrementally greater impacts on the Snoqualmie River because of the absence of mitigation
and conservation requirements that are only required for larger municipal water sources.
In conclusion, the proposed appropriation will be for a beneficial use and, as long as North Bend
follows the mitigation plan in this report, its water use will not result in the impairment of
downstream minimum instream flows. Furthermore, the appropriation will not impair existing
surface or ground water rights. After considering these criteria, no detriment to the public welfare
could be identified during the investigation of this application.
Under the provisions of RCW 90.03 and 90.44, the State of Washington promotes the use of
public waters in a manner that provides maximum net benefits arising from both diversionary
and uses and retention of waters within lakes, rivers and streams. Under RCW 90.54.010(a), it is
recognized that water resources need to be utilized to meet the needs of public health and to
ensure the economic well-being of the State. At the same time, in-stream resources and values
must be preserved and protected for future generations.
Under the provisions of RCW 90.03.290 and 90.44, a water right shall be issued upon findings
that water is available for appropriation for a beneficial use and that the appropriation thereof, as
proposed in the application, will not impair existing rights or be detrimental to the public
welfare.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend approval of this application and issuance of a permit authorizing withdrawal of up

to 2,646 gpm, and 3,094 acre-feet per year from North Bend’s Production Well NB-3 for
municipal water supply purposes. The period of use shall be year-round, as needed, with
mitigation for net streamflow depletion when instream flows are not met farther downstream.
The place of use is the City of North Bend’s water service area and the North Bend Urban
Growth Area described in the King County Growth Management Planning Council’s Urban
Growth Area Boundary Map (June 2005).
5. PROVISIONS
The following provisions are required as part of this water right approval.
5.1 Monitoring
North Bend will monitor water production, return flows from the WWTP, streamflow, and
mitigation contributions using remote sensors and data loggers that will be connected to the
mitigation and production sources. North Bend will be responsible for monitoring and data
collection on a daily basis regardless of whether Well NB-3 was pumped or if instream flows
were met. Monitoring must occur on a daily basis because mitigation water, when needed, will
be discharged on a daily basis, and the mitigation requirement is based on aggregated impacts
from the previous 20 days. The daily (24-hour) time period begins at the onset of each work day
(approximately 8:00 AM). The City will input monitoring data into a database at the beginning
of each day, and the database will calculate the mitigation requirement for the day.
The City will also collect data on a weekly basis to confirm various daily measurements and
obtain supplemental information for their own analyses. The North Bend Operation and
Monitoring Plan (Golder, 2007e) describes all of the City’s monitoring activities in detail. The
remainder of this section describes the monitoring activities required as part of this Report of
Examination.
Water Production
Well NB-3 will be monitored with a totalizer meter and daily production volume will be
recorded. Pump run times or instantaneous flow from the well will also be recorded
electronically by the telemetry system. The telemetry system will monitor a transducer to record
water levels during pumping and non-pumping conditions. The following daily data will be
transmitted to the Public Works Department telemetrically each morning: volume pumped;
hours pumped or average pumping rate; maximum and minimum ground water level.
WWTP Flow Monitoring
Flow from the WWTP to the South Fork Snoqualmie River is measured by a flow meter on the
outfall pipe. This flow meter (totalizer) is read daily in the mornings with flows measured to the

nearest 10,000 gallons. The readings will be recorded manually and transmitted to the Public
Works Department in the morning of each day by e-mail or other reliable means.
Streamflow Monitoring
Monitoring streamflow at the three instream flow control points (USGS gages 12144500,
12149000 and 12150800) is required to perform the mitigation algorithm. The minimum
measurement during the previous 24 hours will be compared to the minimum instream flow
requirement for that day at each site to determine if the instream flow requirement was met. The
City telemetry system will access the three gages to obtain the real-time streamflow data. If the
telemetry system malfunctions, then the City staff would download the data available online. The
USGS gage data that will be used is provisional and subject to revision. However, it is the best
available source of data at that time and will be used to determine mitigation triggers. Mitigation
will not be subject to revised data.
The mitigation plan requires that flows are monitored at three instream flow control points
downstream of North Bend. Specifically, the USGS currently monitors flow at Carnation,
Monroe, and Snoqualmie Falls. If the USGS were ever to discontinue monitoring at all of these
three gauges, the City would be responsible for monitoring flow at the nearest control point
(Snoqualmie Falls) in a manner similar to the USGS protocol.
Hobo Springs Monitoring
Water levels behind the existing weir will continue to be monitored using a pressure transducer
to determine flow rates over the weir. The water level at the weir will be translated into a flow
rate using a weir equation developed from previous analyses of Hobo Springs data. The
transducer will take measurements at a preset time increment of 60 minutes and the data will be
transmitted via telemetry. The telemetry system will be used to record average, minimum and
maximum daily flow.
Mitigation Water Monitoring
The City will monitor the flow through the outfall pipe into Boxley Creek using a totalizer that
will be read at least weekly. In addition, the instantaneous flow though the mitigation
transmission pipeline at Hobo Springs and the intertie with Sallal will be monitored via
telemetry. Daily mitigation volumes will be calculated by summing the instantaneous flow data.
The amount of time per day that mitigation water is delivered will be tracked for each source.
Field inspections will be completed at least monthly to identify potential maintenance issues.
5.2 Mitigation
Mitigation shall be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Mitigation
Operations and Monitoring Plan (Golder, 2007e) and the provisions outlined in this Report of
Examination.

To the extent practical, the City must attempt to deliver mitigation flows uniformly over the
course of the “mitigation day”. This may not be possible when the mitigation requirement is less
than the minimum daily delivery capacity of either mitigation source. However, when either of
the mitigation sources can be controlled in such a manner to provide uniform delivery of
mitigation water over the mitigation day, this approach shall be employed. The City shall
monitor and report the timing of mitigation deliveries to show compliance with this provision.
5.3 Reporting
Reporting will be required to summarize the monitoring data, evaluate the performance of the
mitigation system, and assess the capacity of the mitigation system relative to current and future
demand. Various reports will be generated, including initial system reports, annual system
reports, and event reports. In addition, reporting includes periodic update of the Mitigation
Operation and Monitoring Plan as new information becomes available, new approaches to
managing the mitigation system developed, and/or new water-supply or mitigation sources are
placed on line.
Initial System Reports
Quarterly reports will be generated for the first two years of operation. Quarterly reports will
coincide with the quarter-periods of the calendar year, and the first quarterly report will be issued
only after at least six weeks of data collection (otherwise data will be reported in the next
quarter). Reporting will be on an annual basis after the first two years. Reports will be sent to
Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, the Snoqualmie Tribe, and made available to other interested parties
upon request.
Initial system reports will contain summary information about the mitigation operations on a
daily and annual basis. The summary information will include a table detailing daily and year-to-
date cumulative values of: 1) water produced from Well NB-3; 2) assumed WWTP return flow;
3) the net stream depletion (i.e. mitigation requirement) of the volume of water produced from
Well NB-3; 4) the number of days that mitigation water was required; 5) the volume of
mitigation delivered from each mitigation source; 6) the timing (hours per day) of mitigation
water delivered from each mitigation source; 7) the difference between the volume of mitigation
required and the volume delivered; and 8) total Hobo Springs flow captured by the collection
box. In addition, the report should discuss any planned improvements to mitigation sources,
additional evaluation of mitigation capacity as Qi (instantaneous quantity) and Qa (annual
quantity) limitations approach, the status of the availability of the mitigation sources, and any
update to the mitigation algorithm (as approved by Ecology).
Initial system reports will also be generated quarterly during the first two years operation of any
new water supply or mitigation source. These reports will be sent within 30 days of the end of
the quarter.

Annual System Report
Annual reports will contain summary information about the mitigation operations on a daily and
annual basis. The annual reports will contain the same information as the initial system reports;
however, they will present all the data collected over a complete calendar year of operation. The
annual system report will replace the initial system report that occurs on the fourth quarter of the
calendar year. These reports will be sent to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Snoqualmie
Tribe within 30 days of the end of the year. Annual System Reports will be made available to
other interested parties by Ecology upon request.
Event Reports
Event reports will be generated when the City misses a mitigation day, supplies insufficient
mitigation volume, or has a water system failure. If the City misses a mitigation day or supplies
insufficient mitigation volume, then the City will add that volume of water to the total mitigation
volume required for the next day. A water system failure is any problem that compromises the
ability to compute the mitigation algorithm. If the total volume of water produced in the
preceding 24 hours is unknown (i.e., the totalizer number is unknown), then the City would
mitigate using the highest level of pumping in the last three days. A report explaining the details
of the event, the actions taken to ensure that mitigation was implemented, and how the City can
prevent this problem in the future will be sent to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Snoqualmie
Tribe within 30 days of the event. Event reports will be made available to other interested parties
by Ecology upon request.
Mitigation Operations and Monitoring Plan Update
The mitigation operations plan will be updated after the first two years of operation. All of the
water monitoring and operations data from the mitigation supply system will be used to update
the mitigation operations plan. The update may include revision of the streamflow depletion
functions used by the mitigation algorithm if additional aquifer testing revises existing values of
aquifer properties (see Section 5.5 below). The update may also include revised assumptions
regarding the fraction of annual pumpage returned to the Snoqualmie River as WWTP return
flow (fwwtp, as described in Section 2.4.2)
After the initial 2-year update, the mitigation operations plan will be updated once every six
years to coincide with other water system plan updates. Optimization of the mitigation system
will occur as more data are collected during operation, especially during the first 5 years.
5.4 Adaptive Management Amendments
Adaptive management includes adding production sources NB-1 and NB-2 to this water right,
adding the Tolt pipeline as a mitigation source, and modifying elements of the mitigation
approach (These include updating aquifer properties at NB-3 to be used in the IGARF model of
streamflow depletion and updating the wastewater treatment plant return flow function).

For each adaptive management amendment, North Bend shall submit the required documents to
Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, the Snoqualmie Tribe, and other interested parties who have
requested notification. Ecology shall review the reports along with any comments received, and
determine whether or not the proposed amendment meets the conditions of this Report of
Examination.
If Ecology determines that the proposed amendment does not comply with the conditions of this
Report of Examination, it shall give notice in writing to North Bend, with a copy to interested
parties, of the factors causing the non-compliance and allow North Bend to resubmit the
documents with the appropriate corrections.
Ecology’s determination regarding any adaptive management amendments to this water right
shall be in the form of an order to North Bend and shall be delivered with a notice to the Tulalip
Tribes, Snoqualmie Tribe, and all other parties of interest (who have requested notification) of
the right to appeal the order to the Pollution Control Hearings Board as prescribed by chapters
34.05 and 43.21B RCW.
After the appeal period of the order has passed, Ecology will issue an amended permit containing
the new information.
5.4.1 Adding Production Sources
This permit authorizes use of Well NB-3 for municipal water supply purposes. However, the city
ultimately wishes to add production sources NB-1 and NB-2. This section details the process
needed to include NB-1 and NB-2 as approved points of withdrawal.
The City’s future municipal production wells can generally be placed into one of two groups:
(1) Withdrawals far from the river(s) that will result in multiple days of surface water
depletion; and
(2) Withdrawals close to the river(s) that will cause effectively instantaneous surface
water depletion.
Well NB-1 falls in the first category, as does Well NB-3. Well NB-2 most likely falls in the
second category. Well NB-1 is already constructed but requires additional testing, and Well NB-
2 has not yet been constructed. To add either Well NB-1 or NB-2 as an approved source of
supply under water right G1-26617(A), the following process must be followed:
North Bend must request a preliminary permit from Ecology before any future drilling or testing
of NB-1 or NB-2. This is to insure that all parties agree with what should be tested and
monitored.

It is anticipated that North Bend will be required to submit two reports to Ecology, the Tulalip
Tribes, and the Snoqualmie Tribe: a “New Source Report” and an update to the Mitigation
Operations and Monitoring Plan. The New Source Report must include the following:
• Description of well drilling and well construction (for NB-2 only);
• Description of well testing, estimated well yield, and estimated aquifer properties, aquifer
boundaries, and additional characterization of local streambed conductivity;
• Analysis of potential for impairment of nearby wells,
• Estimation of the schedule of maximum daily stream depletion resulting from new source
withdrawal; and,
• Description of how this new source will be operated along with other sources authorized
by this permit such that the overall quantities allocated by this permit are not exceeded.
The updated Operations and Monitoring Plan must include an updated system description,
monitoring requirements, mitigation operations and algorithm, other operational considerations
and reporting requirements.
Ecology will process the request for additional source wells (NB-1 and NB-2) consistent with the
requirements of RCW 90.44 in effect at the time the sources are requested to be added.
5.4.2 Adding Mitigation Sources
This permit authorizes the use of Hobo Springs and the Sallal wells for sources of mitigation.
However, the city may ultimately seek to add the Tolt pipeline source to its mitigation options.
To add the Tolt pipeline as an approved source of mitigation under water right G1-26617(A), the
following process must be followed:
North Bend must submit two reports to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Snoqualmie Tribe: a
“New Mitigation Source Report” and an update to the Mitigation Operations and Monitoring
Plan. The New Mitigation Source Report must include description of the following:
• Design, construction and SEPA permitting of the Tolt pipeline mitigation source;
• The location of discharge to the Snoqualmie River system;
• The transmitting capacity of the Tolt mitigation pipeline; and,
• Travel times between the control valve and the point of discharge.
The updated Operations and Monitoring Plan must include an updated system description,
monitoring requirements, mitigation operations and algorithm, other operational considerations
and reporting requirements.

5.4.3 Modifying the Mitigation Algorithm
In addition to regular updates of the Mitigation Operations and Monitoring Plan (see Section
5.3), the City may desire to update the plan based on new information or development of more
optimized mitigation routines. In this instance, the City shall submit a draft version of the
modified Mitigation Operations and Monitoring Plan to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, the
Snoqualmie Tribe, and interested parties who have requested notification. Ecology shall review
the updated Operations and Monitoring Plan, along with any comments received and determine
whether or not the new updated plan meets the conditions of this Report of Examination.
5.5 Special Provisions
Mitigation Contracts
Once the final contracts for supply of mitigation water from the City of Seattle and the Sallal
Water Association have been approved, copies of those contracts must be submitted to Ecology.
Future NB-3 Aquifer Test
The City will conduct a 72-hour constant rate pump test within the first two years of setting Well
NB-3 into operation and implementing the mitigation system. During the pump test, Well NB-3
will be pumped at the maximum safe capacity that can be received by the water system and all of
the pumped water will be discharged to a closed water system or outside the radius of influence
of the well. The pump test data will be analyzed to update estimated transmissivity and
storativity and will be reported to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Snoqualmie Tribe. Future
testing will use a similar monitoring system to previous Well NB-3 testing authorized under the
preliminary permit issued on September 16, 2004. Results will be used to update transmissivity
and storativity, reported to Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Snoqualmie Tribe, and if
necessary used to update the mitigation algorithm and mitigation functions.
Conservation Planning Requirements
The water right holder must comply with the water use efficiency requirements as defined in
Washington Department of Health WAC 246-290 for this size Group A public water system.
Health
The water appropriated under this application will be used for public water supply. The State
Board of Health rules require public water supply owners to obtain written approval from the
Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water Supply, prior to any new construction or
alterations of a public water supply system.
The benefits and requirements of this water right authorization shall be reflected in future water
system plan updates.

Hydraulic Project Approval
Contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain hydraulic project approval for
construction of the discharge point in Boxley Creek.
Tribal Rights
This authorization to make use of public waters of the state is subject to existing tribal rights,
including any existing rights held by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes under
treaty, reservation, or settlement.
Certificate
The applicant is advised that notice of Proof of Appropriation of water (under which the final
certificate of water right is issued) should not be filed until the permanent distribution system has
been constructed and that quantity of water allocated by the permit to the extent water is
required, has been put to full beneficial use.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION GROUND WATER
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Upon reviewing the above report, I find all facts, relevant and material to the subject
application, have been thoroughly investigated. Furthermore, I find water is available for
appropriation and the appropriation as recommended is a beneficial use and will not be
detrimental to existing rights or the public welfare.
Therefore, I ORDER a permit be issued under Ground Water Application Number G1-
26617(A), subject to existing rights and indicated provisions, to allow appropriation of
public ground water for the amount and uses specified in the foregoing report.
Signed at Bellevue, Washington, this ___________ day of _________________, 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Swenson
Water Resources Section Manager
Northwest Regional Office
Report by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schwartzman
Pacific Groundwater Group
Reviewed by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew B. Dunn
Water Resources Program
Northwest Regional Office

6. REFERENCES
Boessow, Steve. 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication
with Jill Van Hulle (Pacific Groundwater Group) on May 31, 2007.
City of North Bend (North Bend). 2002. Water Comprehensive Plan Final. Prepared by Gray and
Osborne, Inc. April 2002.
City of North Bend Public Works Department (North Bend). 2004. North Bend Water System
Water Demand Forecast. March.
Conrecode, Paul, Technical Memorandum to Jim Winton, Ph.D. Potential for IHNV in Springs
Associated with Masonry Pool Seepage, November 16, 2006
DeNovio, Nicole. 2007. Hydrogeochemist at Golder Associates Inc. Personal communication

with Peter Schwartzman of Pacific Groundwater Group on June 25, 2007.
Environment Agency (EA), 2004, IGARF v4 User Manual.
Gray & Osborne. 2007. Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Hobo Springs Mitigation Pre-design,
City of North Bend, King County, Washington, March 7, 2007,
Golder Associates Inc., 2000, Report to East King County Regional Water Association on
Exploratory Drilling in North Bend. August 17, 2000.
Golder Associates Inc., 2006a, North Bend Mitigation Forecasting Model Water Right
Application G1-26617 (Revision 1) Draft. June 15, 2006.
Golder Associates Inc., 2006b, Hobo Springs Flow and Water Quality Analysis. Letter to Tom
Pors dated June 15, 2006.
Golder Associates Inc., 2007a, City of North Bend Production Well NB-3 and Aquifer Testing.
January 2007.
Golder Associates Inc., 2007b, Comments on Well NB-3 Testing Report 1-25-2007. Letter from
Nicole DeNovio (Golder Associates Inc.) to Andy Dunn (Department of Ecology).
February 19, 2007.
Golder Associates Inc., 2007c, Report on North Bend Mitigation Supply From Hobo Springs and
Sallal Wells. February 28, 2007.
Golder Associates Inc., 2007d, Streamflow Enhancement Using Groundwater – A Case Study of
the Upper Snoqualmie River Basin. April 30, 2007.
Golder Associates Inc., 2007e, North Bend Mitigation Operation and Monitoring Plan. May 24,
2007.
Haring, Donald, Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis Snohomish River Watershed Water
Resources Inventory Area 7, Final Report Washington State Conservation Commission,
December 2002
Hunt, B., 1999, Unsteady stream depletion from groundwater pumping. Groundwater, 37(1), 98-
102.
Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG), 2006, Memorandum to Bob Anderson, Regarding North
Bend Mitigation Availability. April 24, 2006.
Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG), Draft Initial Watershed Assessment Water Resource
Inventory Area 7 Snohomish River Watershed, Open-File Technical Report 95-06, March
17, 1995
Pors, T. 2006, Memorandum to D. Swenson, A. Dunn, D. Matlock, and P. Schwartzman.

Amended Mitigation Plan for North Bend Water Right Application G1-26617. June 15,
2006.

Pors, T. 2007. Memorandum to D. Swenson and A. Dunn, WDOE-NWRO. Revised and Updated
Mitigation Plan for North Bend Water Right Application G1-26617. March 7, 2007
SPU (Seattle Public Utilities). 2007. SPU 2007 Water System Plan.
www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Plans/2007WaterSystemPlan/index.asp
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007a. 12141300 Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near Tanner, WA.
Water-Data Report 2006.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007b. 12142000 North Fork Snoqualmie River near Snoqualmie Falls,
WA. Water-Data Report 2006.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007c. 12144000 South Fork Snoqualmie River at North Bend, WA.
Water-Data Report 2006.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Washington Lakes and Rivers
Information System Database (WLRIS) Salmonid Stock Inventory (SASI) Geographic
Information System Theme. Date Modified – August 16, 2006.

APPENDIX A
Average Day Water Demand Projections for Next 50 Years
(Gallons Per Day)
First Next Last

Calculated Actual 10-Yr 25-Yr 15-Yr
Existing* Hook-ups** Increase Increase Increase
Existing NB Service
Area GIS Calculated Demand 784,302 533,325 70,837 522,529 294,880
Conversion distribution 83,659 167,318 0
Subtotal 533,325 154,496 689,847 294,880
UGA GIS Calculated Demand 256,078 0 6,351 404,752 179,921

Conversion distribution 32,010 128,039 96,029
Subtotal 0 38,361 532,791 275,950
Subtotal all areas 533,325 192,857 1,222,638 570,830

Seasonal Effect Factor 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
Average Annual Demand Increase 719,989 260,357 1,650,561 770,621
Cumulative Demand 719,989 980,345 2,630,907 3,401,528

10% Conservation Factor 71,999 98,035 263,091 340,153
Total Cumulative Demand 647,990 882,311 2,367,816 3,061,375
Existing Water Rights (336 Ac. Ft.) 299,941

Min. Water Rights Needed (Not Including Mitigation) 2,761,434
* Assumes all structures are hooked up to public water

** 68% of existing structures in North Bend service area are hooked up to North Bend water
Seasonal Factor Calculation: GIS Estimate 533,325

2003 annual average 696,430
Factor = 696,430/533,325 = 1.31 (say 1.35)
Conversion Assumptions:
NB 1. A third of the North Bend service area structures not currently hooked up would be
hooked up in the first 10 years.
2. The remaining two thirds of North Bend service area structures not currently hooked
up would be hooked up in the following 25 years.
UGA 1. One eighth of the existing Sallal area structures in the UGA would be hooked up to
North Bend water in the first 10 years.
2. Another half of the existing Sallal area structures in the UGA would be hooked up
to North Bend water in the next 25 years.
3. The remaining three-eighths of the existing Sallal area structures in the UGA would
be hooked up to North Bend water in the last 15 years.

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Cost Reimbursement Contract ........................................................................................ 4
1.3 Public Notice................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)............................................ 5
1.5 Statutory Authority ......................................................................................................... 6
2. INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 North Bend Water System .............................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Service Area............................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Existing Water Right............................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Current Water Use and Future Demand Projections............................................... 7
2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................................................... 8
2.1.5 Proposed New Source(s)......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Background Hydrology and Hydrogeology.................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Surface-Water Hydrology..................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Snoqualmie Valley Aquifer System...................................................................... 11
2.2.3 Cedar Moraine Aquifer System ............................................................................ 13
2.3 Streamflow Depletion Associated with Pumping Well NB-3 ...................................... 14
2.4 Mitigation Plan.............................................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Mitigation Sources ................................................................................................ 16
2.4.2 Calculating Streamflow Depletion for Mitigation ................................................ 20
2.4.3 Mitigation Algorithm ............................................................................................ 21
2.4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Operations ................................................................. 22
2.4.5 Mitigation Capacity .............................................................................................. 23
2.5 Fishery Related Issues................................................................................................... 25
2.6 Effects to Existing Water Rights................................................................................... 27
2.7 Consideration of Protests and Comments ..................................................................... 28
2.8 Quantities Recommended For Permit / Supply And Demand Analysis ....................... 30
3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 31
3.1 Water Availability......................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Impairment of Existing Rights...................................................................................... 31
3.3 Beneficial Use............................................................................................................... 32
3.4 Public Interest ............................................................................................................... 32
4. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................... 344
5. PROVISIONS ....................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Mitigation...................................................................................................................... 35
5.3 Reporting....................................................................................................................... 36
5.4 Adaptive Management Amendments............................................................................ 37
5.4.1 Adding Production Sources .................................................................................. 38
5.4.2 Adding Mitigation Sources ................................................................................... 39
5.4.3 Modifying the Mitigation Algorithm .................................................................... 40
5.5 Special Provisions......................................................................................................... 40
6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 43
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Split Water Right Application No. G1-26617
Table 2 Water Right Currently Held by North Bend
Table 3 Projected future demand above existing water rights for the North Bend Water System
Table 4 Water Rights held by Sallal Water Association
FIGURES
Figure 1 Water diverted by North Bend from Mount Si Springs over the past 7 years

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Water Supply and Mitigation Sources in the Snoqualmie River Valley
Attachment 2 - Mitigation Sources on the Cedar Moraine
Attachment 3 - Hobo Springs Flow Summary
Attachment 4 - Mitigation Algorithm

NB-4
"
)
!
(Mt. Si Springs
WWTP
)"
NB-2 NB-1
!
( !
(
#
*MW-1
NB-3
!
(
MW-2
#
*
This figure was originally produced in color. Reproduction

LEGEND 0 3200 in black and white may result in a loss of information.
!
( Proposed Production Well #
* Proposed Mitigation Well Scale in Feet
"
) Spring Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Projection:
Washington State Plane,
ATTACHMENT 1
)"
North Zone, NAD 1983, Feet SNOQUALMIE VALLEY

North Bend Water Service Area WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
Source:
North Bend UGA USGS, City of North Bend, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION SOURCES
Golder Associates, Inc. PORS/NORTH BEND 2006 MITIGATION/WA
0231271100003F01R02 | 8/13/2007 | TBROUSSEAU
Golder Associates
!
(
NB-3
Sallal Well #2
Sallal Well #1
!
(
!
(
Hobo Springs
This figure was originally produced in color. Reproduction

LEGEND 0 2000 in black and white may result in a loss of information.
!
( Well Location Scale in Feet
Hobo Springs Map Projection:

Washington State Plane,
North Zone, NAD 83, Feet ATTACH. 2
Source: USGS
SOURCES FOR MITIGATION VIA BOXLEY CREEK
PORS/NORTH BEND 2006 MITIGATION/WA
0231271100002F09R03.mxd | MOD: 5/30/2007 | KBD
Golder Associates
February 28, 2007 023-1271-100
ATTACHMENT 3
Monthly discharge through the Hobo Springs Weir, in cubic feet per second (cfs).
1976-19811 2001-20052 June - Nov. 2006 3 All three periods of record4

Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum
Average Average Minimum Average Average Minimum Average Average Minimum Average Minimum
5
Month Monthly Monthly Daily5 Monthly Monthly5 Daily5 Monthly Monthly Daily Monthly 5
Daily5
January 3.4 0.9 (1977) 0.007 (1977) 2.9 0.5 (2003) 0.5 (2003) No data N/A No data 0.5 (2003) 0.007 (1977)
February 3.3 2.4 (1979) 2.0 (1977) 2.7 0.4 (2001) 0.2 (2001) No data N/A No data 0.4 (2001) 0.2 (2001)
2.4 (1978,
March 3.5 2.7 (1980) 1979, 1980) 3.7 0.3 (2001) 0.2 (2001) No data N/A No data 0.3 (2001) 0.2 (2001)
April 3.6 3.0 (1978) 2.4 (1978) 3.8 1.4 (2001) 0.4 (2001) No data N/A No data 1.4 (2001) 0.4 (2001)
3.8 (1976,
May 5 4.7 (1980) 1978) 4.8 3.5 (2002) 3.5 (2002) No data N/A No data 3.5 (2002) 3.5 (2002)
June 5.4 5.0 (1977) 3.8 (1978) 5.1 4.7 (2004) 4.0 (2002) 6.1 N/A 5.9 4.7 (2004) 3.8 (1978)
July 4.9 4.1 (1978) 3.8 (1979) 5.4 5.0 (2005) 5.0 (2005) 5.9 N/A 5.5 4.1 (1978) 3.8 (1979)
August 4.2 2.8 (1978) 2.4 (1978) 4.8 4.2 (2003) 4.2 (2003) 5.1 N/A 4.5 2.8 (1978) 2.4 (1978)
September 3.2 1.0 (1978) 0.5 (1978) 4.1 3.1 (2003) 3.1 (2003) 4.2 N/A 3.6 1.0 (1978) 0.5 (1978)
October 2.3 0.5 (1978) 0.5 (1978) 3.3 1.4 (2003) 1.4 (2003) 2.9 N/A 2.0 0.5 (1978) 0.5 (1978)
November 1.8 0.4 (1979) 0.17(1979) 2.9 1.5 (2003) 1.5 (2003) 1.9 N/A 1.5 0.4 (1979) 0.17 (1979)
December 2.1 0.02 (1979) 0 (1979) 3.5 1.2 (2002) 1.2 (2002) Incomplete N/A Incomplete 0.02 (1979) 0 (1979)
Notes:
1. The 1976-1981 data were provided by Seattle Public Utilities (Appendix D). The data were provided as a table of average and minimum monthly values. The number of measurements
and sampling frequency of the data used to calculate the average and minimum values is unknown.
2. The number of measurements and sampling frequency of the 2001-2005 data for each month is inconsistent. The number of monthly measurements ranges from zero to eleven. Some
measurements have a weekly sampling frequency and others do not have a consistent period of time between measurements. Calculating monthly averages using data with an inconsistent
sampling frequency can skew the results. See Appendix D for the complete dataset.
3. The 2006 data were collected on an hourly basis from June 20 to December 13 using a transducer to measure the depth of the water flowing through the weir. The rating curve used to
convert the feet of water measured by the transducer into the depth of water flowing through the weir has not been perfected yet.
4. Includes the 1976-1981, 2001-2005, and June - November 2006 data.
5. The number in parentheses is the year in which the measurement was made.
022807ra1-Tables.xls Golder Associates

Mitigation Algorithm
Used to Determine Mitigation Requirement
Is 100% of V24 withdrawal from Mt. Si Springs (VSi)? No Yes Mitigation Algorithm Key
V24 = Daily volume of water produced by NB in preceding 24 hours.
VSi = Daily volume of water produced from Mt. Si Springs.
Determine the volume of water from new water right. No Mitigation
Requirement for VNR = Daily volume of water from new water right in the preceding 24 hours.
VNR = V24 - VSi
this Withdrawal VNRA = Total volume of water produced from new water right during previous 365 days.
VNRA = Sum of VNR for the past 365 days.
VMD = Daily maximum aggregated depletion calculated using mitigation curves.
VD1 = Daily volume of stream depletion occurring from pumping one day ago.
Vwwtp = Daily volume of water returned from waste water treatment plant associated with new water rights.
Are Minimum Instream Flows met at each of 3 No Yes VM = Daily mitigation volume, the net stream depletion from previous 20 days.
USGS gauges? fwwtp = Percentage of annual produced volume from new water right returned to river on a daily basis as WWTP flow.
QM = Daily rate of required mitigation water discharge for next 24 hours (gpm).
Daily mitigation volume is the maximum No Mitigation Qh = Daily flow rate at Hobo Springs (gpm).
aggregated river depletion from previous Requirement QS = Daily rate of discharge to Boxley Creek from Sallal Wells (gpm).
20 days of pumping. VS = Daily volume of mitigation water from Sallal Wells.
V MD = V D20+V D19+V D18+…, V D1 VST = Total annual Sallal mitigation water production.
Net river depletion calculated as VSC = Total annual Sallal contracted water volume for mitigation.
V MD -V wwtp=V M, where V wwtp = V NRA* f wwtp
Daily rate of mitigation
Q M = V M/1440.
Is the Hobo Springs flow less than the daily rate of Yes No
mitigation (Qh < QM)?
Sallal water needed to mitigate QS = QM – Qh Adequate Hobo

Calculate Sallal water needed: VS = QS*1440, add Springs Source
VS to the total annual Sallal mitigation water
production (VST).
Does Sallal have adequate water right volume for

mitigation (VST VSC)? No Yes
New water right Adequate Mitigation Capacity

production limited to
mitigation capacity
ATTACHMENT 4
DAILY MITIGATION ALGORITHM
PORS/NORTH BEND 2006 MITIGATION/WA

0231271100002att04.ai | Mod: 09/19/07 | AMP

Final ROE For NB Centennial Well Water Right

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final ROE For NB Centennial Well Water Right

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final ROE For NB Centennial Well Water Right

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION

PRIORITY DATE APPLICATION NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER

June 16, 1992 G1-26617(A)

City of North Bend

P.O. Box 896 North Bend Washington 98045-0896

Municipal Water Supply Purposes - Year-round, as needed

Snoqualmie River near Snoqualmie (USGS #12144500)

SE 1/4, SW 1/4 10 23N 8E 7 King

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ON WHICH WATER IS TO BE USED

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION

Started January 1, 2054 January 1, 2059

1. Surface water from Seattle Public Utility’s (SPU) Hobo Springs;

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 2 G1-26617(A)

Table 1 Summary of Split Water Right Application No. G1-26617

Name North Bend North Bend

Priority Date June 16, 1992 June 16, 1992

1,614 gpm from mitigation wells

874 afy from mitigation wells

Period of Use Year-round Year-round

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 3 G1-26617(A)

1.2 Cost Reimbursement Contract

1.3 Public Notice

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 4 G1-26617(A)

1.4 Compliance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 5 G1-26617(A)

2.1 North Bend Water System

2.1.1 Service Area

2.1.2 Existing Water Right

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 6 G1-26617(A)

2.1.3 Current Water Use and Future Demand Projections

North Bend Annual Volume Diverted

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 7 G1-26617(A)

2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 8 G1-26617(A)

2.1.5 Proposed New Source(s)

2.2 Background Hydrology and Hydrogeology

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 9 G1-26617(A)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 10 G1-26617(A)

2.2.2 Snoqualmie Valley Aquifer System

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 11 G1-26617(A)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 12 G1-26617(A)

2.2.3 Cedar Moraine Aquifer System

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 13 G1-26617(A)

2.3 Streamflow Depletion Associated with Pumping Well NB-3

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 14 G1-26617(A)

2.4 Mitigation Plan

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 15 G1-26617(A)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 16 G1-26617(A)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 17 G1-26617(A)

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 18 G1-26617(A)

G1-24975 91 102 Well 3 Annual volume is

Tolt Mitigation Pipeline

PROTESTED REPORT OF EXAMINATION 19 G1-26617(A)

On days when mitigation is required, the mitigation requirement will be calculated by

Aggregate Streamflow Depletion

Net Streamflow Depletion

Net Stream Depletion = Aggregate Streamflow Depletion – WWTP Return Flow

Signed at Bellevue, Washington, this _ day of _______, 2007.