INTRODUCTION

The pristine sparkling water of the Lyre River; the gently curving Clallam Bay; the open coastal waters all the way west to the tip of the continent at Tatoosh Island at Neah Bay, these scenic landscapes are part of the Lyre-Hoko watershed for which this document was developed. The watershed provides a livelihood and home for approximately 4,500 people. Water is becoming a critical issue in much of Washington State and is seasonally limited in watersheds here. A local group has been meeting since 2000 to understand and make recommendations regarding elements that they chose to address: water quality, water quantity, instream flows, habitat, and water storage. Many, many hours and a substantial amount of dollars have gone into this effort.

The following sections set the stage for why this work is being done. Included in this report are the group’s final recommendations.

What is the purpose of this plan summary? This summary is intended to provide an extremely brief overview of the Lyre-Hoko Watershed Plan for citizens and officials. The full plan is divided into the following key components: Background Watershed Process Plan Elements Plan Recommendations Appendices

Why was this plan prepared? This plan was prepared as a result of legislation, passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1998, that authored a planning process. This process provided an opportunity to develop recommendations for local solutions to water conflicts.

Who paid for, wrote, approved, and adopted this plan? Grant funds from the Washington Department of Ecology funded the planning process. Clallam County has supported this process since funds expired in 2005. The plan is intended to reflect local knowledge, interests, and recommendations.

The Planning Unit, comprised of local government, business and industry, private landowners, environmental, tribal, and some state agency representatives, drafted the plan with consultant assistance and approved the document. Whenever possible, recommendations were reached by agreement of the entire group; otherwise, voting followed the statutory language in which unanimity among government entities is required, with a majority among the other planning unit members. The Clallam County Commissioners are responsible for plan adoption.

How will the plan affect me? The plan contains recommendations to local and state government regarding water quality, water quantity, fish habitat, and instream flows. Governmental agencies will consider the recommendations in the plan as regulations and rules are developed.

1 In particular, the Department of Ecology will use recommendations on regulatory (also known as ‘minimum’) instream flow levels to develop rules regarding the future administration of new water right applications, including small wells. (Existing water rights are not affected.) The recommendations also will be considered when future activities aimed at improving the natural environment are developed.

What are some other important plan recommendations that can affect me? Plan recommendations address: Education and public outreach Watershed monitoring Land use Recommendations for instream flow levels and water supply strategies to be adopted into rule. Fish habitat Water quality Climate change

Where are the boundaries for the plan located? The planning boundaries are defined by the area encompassed by the Lyre/Hoko Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 19). This area is located on the Olympic Peninsula, covers 384 square miles, and lies entirely within the boundaries of Clallam County.

Who lives in this watershed, what communities are within the planning area, and what are the major land uses? In WRIA 19, the current population is approximately 4,476. While there are no incorporated cities within the boundaries of WRIA 19, several small communities may be found along the coastal fringe of the Straits. The most densely settled communities are Neah Bay, Clallam Bay, Sekiu, Coville, Ramapo, and Joyce. Joyce, population 2,300, is the major population center in the watershed and is located about 14 miles west from Port Angeles, the nearest incorporated city. In WRIA 19, most of the land use is devoted to timber management. There are a number of small communities with mostly rural lifestyles, and some recreational activities – fishing, hiking, and camping. The Makah Tribe has a reservation at the western end of the WRIA, and both the Makah and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe share usual and accustomed fishing and hunting areas within the watershed.

How is this plan going to get implemented? The next phase of the planning process involves implementation. This step begins after the plan is adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners.

Two key elements of getting the plan accomplished are funding and ongoing support. Significant state grant funds are available to help fund implementation of the plan, but a 10 percent local match is required. The local matching funds can come from a variety of sources. In terms of support, other watersheds have found that the formation of an ongoing group – a watershed council or some other type of implementation body – was essential in helping to get recommendations translated into action on the ground.

2 What else was accomplished during the planning process? The planning process resulted in the development of the following key products: Watershed plan containing recommendations developed by the Planning Unit Draft Technical Assessment, with comments, which gathered information about the watershed Lyre-Hoko Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring Plan and Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity Sampling Program Field Report, including recommendations for ongoing water quality studies and results of field studies conducted during the planning process Multipurpose Water Storage Study, a general assessment of the possibility and methods of storing water within the watershed Technical Report on Instream Flow Studies, summarizing examinations of the flows of the rivers within the watershed The Planning group requested that Ecology install gages on streams in WRIA 19 because very little flow data was available and it was considered necessary for the setting of instream flows. As a result, in 2005 Ecology’s Environmental Assessment Program began installing gages on eight streams in the watershed: Lyre, Salt, Deep, East and West Twin, Pysht, Sekiu, and Clallam. Results of stream flow gauging are available at: https://www.fortress.wa.gov/wrx/wrx/flows/regioins/state.asp.

How can I get more information on this plan and the various reports that were developed? For further information on the planning process, please see the Department of Ecology web site at: www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/planning/19.html or contact Clallam County staff at (360) 417-2361.

INTENT OF THE WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS

The intent of the Watershed Management Act is, “meeting the needs of a growing population and a healthy economy statewide; meeting the needs of fish and healthy watersheds statewide; and advancing these two principles together, in increments over time.” The Watershed Management Act goes on to state that, “The legislature finds that improved management of the state’s water resources, clarifying the authorities, requirements, and timelines for establishing instream flows, providing timely decisions on water transfers, clarifying the authority of water conservancy boards, and enhancing the flexibility of our water management system to meet both environmental and economic goals are important steps to providing a better future for our state.” (RCW 90.82 notes 2001 c 237).

3 GOALS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

Generally, the key goals of the planning process are:

1. Assess the status of water resources within a Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)

2. Determine how to address competing demands for water within each WRIA

A watershed plan may be written for each WRIA or group of WRIAs in the state; however, watershed planning itself is not mandatory.

This plan addresses Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 19, the Lyre-Hoko watershed. Watershed boundaries do not usually correspond to specific political or jurisdictional boundaries but instead are defined by areas of common drainage. WRIA 19 extends along the western half of the north Olympic Peninsula, along the Straits of Juan de Fuca, from just west of the Elwha River to the eastern boundary of the Makah reservation (Figure 1).

NEAH BAY

Figure 1. WRIA 19 Subbasins Source: Washington Department of Ecology

4 INITIATION OF PLANNING

To start the planning process, a decision must be made by local governments and tribes electing to participate in the process, to undertake watershed planning. These agencies are called the initiating governments and in WRIA 19 consist of Clallam County (lead agency for this planning process), PUD #1 of Clallam County, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and the Makah Tribe. A Memorandum of Agreement between the governments that began the planning process was developed. This agreement between the initiating governments is contained in Appendix 4.

The initiating governments also asked the State of Washington to participate in the planning process. Governor Gary Locke appointed the Department of Ecology to participate for the state. As a governmental entity, the Watershed Management Act provides that the state has the same responsibilities and obligations as other governmental units on the Planning Unit, such as the ability to veto and the requirement to concur with the Plan. A separate Memorandum of Agreement was developed by state agencies for coordinated implementation of the planning process. This agreement among state agencies is contained in Appendix 2.

The Legislature provided for local flexibility and local choice in carrying out much of the planning effort. However, the Watershed Management Act requires that certain steps be followed in the watershed planning process. The planning unit must address water quantity, strategies for water supply, and certain procedures for plan adoption.

The water quantity component of the plan addresses water quantity by assessing water supply and use in the watershed and developing strategies for future use (RCW 90.82.070). Watershed plans must address quantity with strategies that would supply adequate instream water for fish and out-of-stream water for future uses and/or development. The law specifies that certain types of information must be gathered and that certain strategies must be addressed.

In addition to the required elements planning units may address the following optional elements: Water quality: The water quality component addresses water quality in the watershed by synthesizing current available data, and gathering metadata on current and historical water quality programs and studies. It then develops WRIA-wide and local approaches for monitoring and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation. More information is contained in the Water Quality Elements section on page 54. Habitat: The habitat component provides that the watershed plan is developed in a way that fish habitat is protected and enhanced. This component “must rely on existing laws, rules, or ordinances created for the purpose of protecting, restoring, or enhancing fish habitat, including the Shoreline Management Act (90.589 RCW), the Growth Management Act (36.70A RCW), and the Forest Practices Act (76.09 RCW). Where habitat restoration activities are being developed under chapter 246, laws of 1998, such activities are to be relied on as the primary non- regulatory habitat component for fish habitat under this chapter (90.82.100 RCW). More information is contained in Habitat Element section on page 59.

5

Instream Flows:

Instream flows are defined as scientifically-based surface water flows set by an Ecology rule to administer future water rights. These levels ensure that water for fish and other instream values is considered and protected during future water right decisions. The instream flows’ component of the plan is designed to recommend these regulatory instream flow levels for streams within the watershed. More information is contained in the Instream Flow Element section on page 23. Multi-Purpose Storage: The Watershed Management Act allows planning units to use this optional element to explore a wide array of storage issues and options. In WRIA 19, a multi-purpose water storage study was conducted that provided a general overview of potential storage options.

In WRIA 19, the Planning Unit elected to address all optional elements.

TRIBAL PROVISIONS

This plan does not address water resource issues pertaining to the Makah Reservation at the northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula. This land is excluded as “federally reserved” based on the 1908 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Winters v. United States, which states, “when the Federal Government withdraws land from the public domain for a particular purpose, by implication it also reserves whatever unappropriated water is necessary to accomplish this purpose. That reserved right carries a priority as of the date of the reservation, regardless of when the water is actually used” (Authorities and Definitions, USFWS Manual, 1993). These rights were given a priority date of “time immemorial” and are the most senior water rights in WRIA 19.

Although reservation water and land falls outside the scope of watershed planning, both the Makah and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe have “Usual and Accustomed (U&A)” hunting and fishing rights in many of the subbasins throughout WRIA 19. The U&A areas overlap with the land boundaries defined in the WRIA 19. The Tribes have a federal right to manage natural resources (excluding water quantity) on the landscape in their respective U & A’s. These Tribal rights are not affected by any outcome of the WRIA 19 planning process. Federal courts have determined that tribes are co-managers of the fisheries resources in WRIA 19, so the Tribes and the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife manage the fisheries together. Although currently unquantified, Tribes have the most senior right to water necessary to manage fisheries. Some courts, including Washington State’s Aquavella adjudication in the Yakima basin, have determined such rights to have priority dates of “time immemorial.” Management of natural resources, including water, in the U&A is the responsibility of the Tribes as defined by their respective Treaties and the federal, state, and county governments. The Tribes work cooperatively with federal, state, county, and other government representatives to ensure Tribal rights are protected.

6 HISTORY OF WRIA 19 PLANNING PROCESS

The watershed planning process in WRIA 19 originally began in 2000 with the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Initiating Governments – Clallam County, PUD #1 of Clallam County, the Makah Tribe, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.

Phase 1 of the watershed planning process was conducted in conjunction with WRIA 20. When Phase 2 began, WRIAs 19 and 20 formed separate planning units. The two groups remained linked through a shared project manager, monitoring plan, and budget. The original project manager left in late 2002 and a new project manager was named in 2003. The current WRIA 19 Planning Unit, created in 2001 by the IG’s, consists of citizen, business, non-profit, and government representatives and carries out its efforts independently of the WRIA 20 planning activities.

Membership of the Planning Unit includes representatives from: Makah and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribes Clallam County PUD #1 of Clallam County Environmental community Homeowners Timber industry and related business interests State of Washington, at the request of the IGs

Some small towns (Neah Bay, Joyce, Clallam Bay, and Sekiu) are located in WRIA 19, but there are no incorporated cities.

As the membership was developed, invitations to participate were extended and the Planning Unit began regular monthly meetings. The current voting members of the WRIA 19 Planning Unit include representatives from the four Initiating Governments as well as local citizens, business and timber industries, and representation from the State of Washington.

In mid-2004, the Planning Unit hired the consultant team Tetra Tech, Inc., Triangle Associates, Inc., and EES Consulting to provide technical, facilitation, and plan development/writing services.

The Watershed Management Act provides a framework for diverse interests to resolve water- related issues by working collaboratively to develop a watershed plan that benefits the community, economy, and ecology of WRIA 19. All representatives to the WRIA 19 Planning Unit have demonstrated strong dedication to their community through their commitment to participate in this lengthy planning process.

All Planning Unit meetings have been open to the public, and members of the public have been welcome to attend and participate in the planning process. A specific time has been set aside in every meeting agenda for public comment.

7 The Planning Unit usually met in Joyce, Sekiu, or at the Pysht Tree Farm on the first Wednesday of each month, although some meetings have been held at other times and locations.

In the course of its work, the Planning Unit has heard presentations, held workshops, and worked to develop the plan assessments and recommendations. Until November, 2005, the Planning Unit was assisted by consultants hired by Clallam County to provide meeting facilitation, draft technical studies, and prepare portions of the plan for review, discussion, and approval by the Planning Unit.

The Planning Unit has held special workshops on water quality, instream flows, and water storage. Supplemental reports were developed to examine water quality and storage. Instream flow recommendations comprise key elements of the plan. The Planning Unit received assistance in developing instream flow recommendations from fisheries consultants and from the state’s instream flow team.

8 PERSPECTIVES

Throughout the planning process, a critical element of the WRIA 19 Planning Unit has been the diverse range of opinions about the impacts of forest practices on watershed health. The intent of watershed planning is to provide a framework for such different interests to resolve water- related issues by working collaboratively to develop a watershed plan that benefits the community, economy, and ecology of the watershed; however, the WRIA 19 Planning Unit was in significant disagreement on the topic of forest practices. Therefore, the PUD #1 of Clallam County, commercial forestry representatives, homeowners, and the state submitted perspectives.

Public Utility District #1 of Clallam County Perspective for WRIA 19

We encourage collaboration with the Forest Practices Board in establishing forest practices rules which secure favorable flow conditions for water supply in WRIA 19. The goals of the 1999 Forests & Fish Law are consistent with the District’s mission, which is:

“Providing reliable, efficient, safe, and low-cost utility (water and wastewater) services in a financially and environmentally responsible manner.”

The Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82.120) very clearly states that watershed planning efforts shall take into account forest practices rules, but not create any obligations or restrictions on forest practices additional to or inconsistent with the forest practices act and its implementing rules. The goals of the WRIA 19 planning unit and the forest and fish rules both seek to improve water supplies and fisheries habitat. Improving water quantity should be an obvious mutual goal and outcome of collaboration between all planning unit members and those groups implementing the forest and fish rules.

Traditionally, forest management has sought to preserve water supply. In passing the Forest Service Organic Administrative Act of 1897, Congress identified that one of the primary purposes of national forests is to secure favorable conditions of water flows. Because of this history, it should not come as a surprise to foresters that forest practices have a significant impact on downstream water resources.

The impacts that past logging practices have had on salmon seemed to have dominated the deliberations of the WRIA 19 Planning Unit. Evidence of these impacts has been gathered by the WRIA 19 Planning Unit. Members of the planning unit collected scientific literature which documents similar impacts in other watersheds in the Pacific Northwest. The impact on the availability of water supplies for future human populations in WRIA 19 has not received as much attention.

The PUD perspective is that restoring river channels would reduce the impact of past logging practices on the availability of future water supply. River channels in WRIA 19 have widened and deepened as a result of past logging practices in the watershed. This channel incision disconnects the river with the surrounding floodplain and riparian zones. According to Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologists on the WRIA 19 Planning Unit, it is within the margins of the river channel, near the edge of the riparian zone, where salmon find refuge and food. Sufficient streamflow during the dry season is required to fill the channel and allow fish to access these margins. Restoring channels to their historical depth and widths would reduce the

9 streamflow required for fish, leaving more water for people. We believe that as restoration of river channels is accomplished in the future, further IFIM studies will prove this theory to be true.

To this end, we support forest and fish rules which restore river channels and recommend that the WRIA 19 Watershed Plan identify this as a high priority objective. If river channels are not restored, we would have to resort to more-costly alternatives to provide potable water supply for future growth. We have identified four more-costly alternatives to supply water for future growth: • Off-stream storage. • Wastewater reuse. • Diversion of water from non-fish bearing streams. • Desalinization.

We recommend pursuing all of the above alternatives to supply water for future growth as priority action items, in addition to the long term beneficial effects of restoring river channels.

We also believe that a realistic “Reserve” should be made available to accommodate a reasonable amount of future growth prior to the setting of in-stream flows. This Reserve should be aggressively managed to make potable water available to as much future growth as possible in a financially and environmentally responsible manner.

Commercial forestry, homeowner, and State Perspectives for WRIA 19

Commercial forestry perspectives and homeowner perspectives represent opposing ends of the range of views held by Planning Unit members. Below is a summary of these opposing perspectives:

Forest Industry Perspectives—Forest practices were established by law through a series of negotiations and discussions that included broad participation from multiple groups. Current Washington State law stipulates that watershed planning shall “not create any obligations or restrictions on forest practices additional to, or inconsistent with” the state’s forest practices law. Monitoring of forest practices should be conducted through the protocols established by the state’s Cooperative Monitoring and Evaluation Research (CMER) group. If best management practices (BMPs) do not meet proposed objectives, they are subject to “adaptive management,” an approach that allows for changes when BMPs are not met. Forest industry representatives believe that the improvements of new forest practices need to be evaluated over a reasonably long time period.

Homeowner Perspective—Local residents of WRIA 19, predominantly watershed homeowners, are skeptical of current forest practices and critical of the CMER monitoring program, which they feel is inadequate to protect water quantity and quality in WRIA 19. Representatives of this perspective believe that stream conditions are drastically impacted by past forest activities that have had a major, lasting impact on salmon and other stream and riparian life. They propose immediate action, including more rigorous monitoring of water bodies, which is a crucial factor in understanding the nature and severity of environmental health and salmon recovery in the watershed.

10 Private Forest Landowner Perspectives

COMMENTS ON THE PLANNING PROCESS:

Washington state law stipulates that watershed planning shall “not create any obligations or restrictions on forest practices additional to, or inconsistent with” the state’s forest practices law. Forest practices rules and regulations are set out in the Forest Practices Act. The Forest Practices Act rules, regulations and Board manual were most recently amended through a series of negotiations and discussions that included broad participation from multiple groups, resulting in the Forest & Fish Report. This Report was adopted by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Locke in 1999. The U.S. Dept. of the Interior granted a Habitat Conservation Plan (Forest & Fish HCP) to the State of Washington, with the determination that the forest practices rules protect fish and amphibian species and are consistent with the long-term survival and recovery of salmon. The HCP is based on an extensive scientific record, and contains provisions for scientific research, monitoring and evaluation of rules through the Adaptive Management Process involving all stakeholders.

Monitoring of forest practices should be conducted through the protocols established by the state’s Cooperative Monitoring and Evaluation Research (CMER) group. These protocols include scientifically rigorous study design appropriate to the research question, peer review and full stakeholder review of research results, and referral of results to authorized policy makers for determination of necessary changes. If best management practices (BMPs) do not meet resource protection objectives, they are subject to “adaptive management,” an approach that allows for changes to BMPs and rules. We believe that the evaluation of improvements in resource protection resulting from new forest practices rules and BMPs need to occur over a reasonably long study time period, recognizing that natural systems change slowly.

Forest industry representatives have participated in the watershed planning process in the interest of developing a plan that fully meets the intent and meaning of the law, utilizes appropriate data and science, meets community and economic needs, and obtains broad-based consensus support. Unfortunately, not all of the participants share these objectives. The initial planning group quickly became polarized into anti-timber and pro-timber groups, with the anti-timber group seeking to change forest practice rules in the watershed, contrary to the ESHB 2514 enabling legislation. The facilitators and initiating government committee members failed to maintain an orderly, civil process and allowed meetings to turn into shouting matches where forest industry and agency representatives, and elected officials were treated with profane and vulgar language. Because of lack of leadership and conscious misdirection throughout the planning process, this plan is not based on the “fair and equitable process” expected by the legislation.

Because of the lack of willingness and inability to develop consensus agreements, the planning group adopted and now utilizes a voting system that essentially disenfranchises the forest industry representatives, even though forests cover over 75% of the watershed. While any resident in the watershed is permitted to vote, the forest industry is restricted in the number of voting members that may participate (i.e. Merrill & Ring manages lands for five separate, individual entities, yet only one M&R representative may vote. Green Crow similarly represents three entities, but has only one vote). Initiating government representatives have been denied the opportunity to veto actions of the committee, in violation of the committee’s own rules.

When it became clear that the planning process would not result in a consensus plan, supported by all stakeholders including the predominant forest landowners, we raised our concerns to the

11 Board of County Commissioners, the attorney representing Clallam County and the Department of Ecology Olympia office. While each has made some efforts to “fix the process” none have been successful. At the request of the Department of Ecology and Clallam County the forest industry representatives submitted a complete “red-line” version of the plan with our suggested edits. With almost no discussion by the planning group the redline version was summarily dismissed, accepting none of the suggested edits. Initiating government recommendations to remove inflammatory and inaccurate language from the Homeowner’s Perspective have been ignored. Consequently, the timber industry representatives have disengaged from the plan development.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT DRAFT PLAN:

While we recognize the right for people to state their own perspectives, opinions and beliefs, we believe that those statements should be included as an appendix to the plan, not part of the body of a plan that will guide county policy. The Homeowner’s Perspective is replete with anti- forestry and anti-timber harvest vitriol. Broad generalizations, erroneous statements and individual beliefs are used to paint timberland management in the worst possible light. Much of the text of the plan is a transparent effort to discredit forest practices laws and the agencies that enforce them.

Setting minimum stream flows that disallow new water withdrawals will render moot many of the Clallam County land use zones. If water for domestic use is not available, or prohibitively expensive, then the uses that are permitted by zoning are not feasible. While the DOE hydrologists have done an adequate job characterizing existing stream flows, they have not demonstrated that these flows have substantively changed either from man or natural conditions. Nor have they demonstrated that water use from existing or new exempt wells will empirically change stream flows.

Additionally, the flows necessary for fish were based on a very limited field exam both in time and space. Consequently, there is limited understanding of where, in any of the watersheds, flows are inadequate or where human use would cause inadequacy.

Virtually no flow data was collected on any but the larger streams. The plan simply makes the assumption that all of the smaller streams are deficient and therefore closed to additional water use.

Additionally, there is no discussion of the interrelationships of large woody debris, stream structure and the minimum flows necessary for healthy fish populations. It is clear that early settlers and agencies cleared streams to provide access for both people and fish. Consequently, even if a robust effort to characterize the minimum flow necessary for fish had been done, it would likely have been in error.

We recommend that additional stream flow data be collected prior to setting minimum instream flow levels.

The preceding perspectives are from the major private forestland managers in WRIA 19: Green Crow Timber Company, Rayonier Inc., and Merrill & Ring Inc.

12 Homeowner Perspectives for WRIA 19

Although all stakeholders of the WRIA 19 Planning Unit support this plan because it establishes some level of protection for stream flows, the citizen members of this process want the community to understand that much more needs to be done if we are to save our dwindling runs of salmon and protect our watersheds for our children and grandchildren.

A glaring weakness of this plan is its failure to address the major cause of damage to our watersheds and the major cause of damage to salmon habitat. Therefore, a future process will have to address these issues and do so quickly if we are to save our salmon.

Here’s the problem: In setting up this watershed-planning process, the Legislature granted the timber industry an exemption from any reforms recommended by this plan. For this reason, the plan has no forest-policy recommendations.

But at some point, forest practices must be reviewed. Why? Consider a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA’s West Coast Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team found that forest practices are the major cause of habitat destruction in WRIA 19’s streams and rivers, triggering mass wasting events (landslides) that smother spawning grounds with sediment and depriving our streams of logs and other large woody debris and the shade necessary for healthy salmon streams. The scientific team found that the Hoko “has been heavily impacted” by logging practices and that there have been more than 300 mass wasting events on that river in the past 50 years. These findings ring true to those of us who live in WRIA 19.

The Shared Strategy plan, a region-wide blueprint for salmon recovery, finds that forest practices damage our streams in many ways:

By reducing the food supply for salmon.

By weakening the water storage capabilities of watersheds.

By increasing habitat-damaging peak flows that scour salmon redds and kill salmon.

By reducing stream flows in summer that are needed by both people and salmon.

By elevating stream temperatures to levels that sicken or kill salmon.

By washing loose soil and sediment into streams in such quantities that spawning gravel is ruined and eggs and juveniles are “severely” impacted.

By increasing run-off of pesticides and other chemicals that result in “direct mortality” to salmon, as well as reduced resistance to disease and the loss of the ability to reproduce.

These problems need to be addressed.

This is our opinion: the community members of this planning process. We are landowners, small-scale loggers, ranchers, farmers, artists, painters, environmentalists, volunteers, builders and retired people. Unlike any other group in this planning process, we are all homeowners in WRIA 19. And unlike other members of the planning unit, we are not employees paid to take part in this process. We represent ourselves as homeowners and landowners in our own

13 community. Our only motive is to protect our watersheds and the health of our remaining runs of salmon.

Ideally, the WRIA 19 watershed plan should be the community’s best attempt to protect what’s left of our dwindling runs of salmon. It should also be a blueprint to protect the streams that we people need to survive. Such a plan is desperately needed. Despite the rural character of WRIA 19, many of our streams fail Clean Water Act standards. And WRIA 19 has lost virtually all but one of its runs of Pacific salmon. Pinks are probably gone forever. Chinook are almost gone. Even the once numerous fall chum have been extirpated or nearly extirpated from most of our streams, their eggs smothered by fine sediment washing off clear-cut slopes. Only our runs of fall coho remain at weak or fair levels in most of our streams.

The WRIA 19 watershed plan does not regulate timber companies. The 2514 legislation that authorized and funded this watershed planning process exempted timber companies from any reforms suggested by this plan. Nothing in this plan will prevent timber companies from cutting down a single tree or require them to protect even one inch of a salmon stream.

Yet, there is ample and credible research to show that current forest practices are hurting our streams and killing our salmon. Deep Creek, for example, has no development – no houses, no ranches, and no damaging water withdrawals. The Deep Creek watershed is entirely in commercial forestry. And yet Deep Creek still violates Clean Water Act standards for both excess sediment and water temperatures too warm to support healthy salmon runs. Aggressive logging practices caused such huge peak flows in 1990 that almost the entire stream was blown out. Those peak flows cut the stream channel down ten vertical feet in places and blew a plume of mud a mile out into the strait. A scientific flow study found that the Deep Creek channel is so damaged that it now needs 100 times more water during the summer in order to keep water levels high enough to provide optimal habitat for juvenile steelhead. Obviously, we cannot protect our streams and salmon unless forest practices are held to account.

Forest practices are governed by a lax set of rules set forth in the Forests and Fish Report (F&F), which was passed by the Legislature in 1999. These rules allow timber companies to aggressively log riparian areas, steep slopes and wetlands, all to the detriment of watersheds, salmon, and people. These rules, as the state Department of Natural Resources has acknowledged, have never proven effective at saving salmon anywhere in the world. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists openly warned the Legislature and the public that F&F rules will not maintain clean-water standards or protect salmon. Few listened.

F&F was written largely by lobbyists hired by the timber industry; and the authors of the F&F Report, in the words of a League of Women Voters analysis, “provided no rationale and cited no evidence to support the assertions and prescriptions in their report.”

When F&F was approved in a political – not scientific – process, many scientists had grave misgivings. So the American Fisheries Society and the Society for Ecological Restoration assembled a nominating team of leaders from the science departments of Pacific Northwest academic institutions. This committee nominated four noted research scientists with well- established credentials in forestry and fisheries management. The four scientists agreed to provide a thorough evaluation of the F&F Report, with the stipulation that their identities be kept confidential. The two organizations agreed so that the review would be insulated from the intense political controversy surrounding state forest rule changes.

14 Their findings, which are the best and most thorough scientific report on CURRENT forest practices, found that F&F rules do not adequately address erosion, landslides, pesticide applications, or stream buffers. Erosion control was found to be inadequate. Salmon were found to be unprotected. Water quality was found to be at risk. And the study found that F&F “will not meet its intended objectives.” Remember, this study looked at CURRENT forest practices.

These independent scientists said that the F&F rules allow timber companies to violate Clean Water Act standards, damage salmon habitat, and decrease the likelihood of survival for threatened salmon.

To overcome this criticism, the timber industry promises that “adaptive management” will solve problems as they come up. (This program is technically called the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research program, or “CMER” for short.) But the truth is that CMER is a “captive agency” that allows the timber industry to veto desperately needed research and reforms to the F&F process. As David Montgomery, PhD, and James Karr, PhD, two highly respected salmon researchers at the University of Washington, wrote in the Seattle Times in April 2005: “…no rule changes have taken place in the past six years despite state-sponsored science projects that found the current [F&F] rules do not meet environmental targets.”

So this is the problem we face: The Legislature mandated this planning process to draft a plan that will restore salmon habitat, maintain healthy stream flows and protect the water quality of our streams and rivers. At the same time, the Legislature said this process could not change forest practices. Unfortunately, this legislative Catch 22 creates an essentially unreachable goal because three-quarters of WRIA 19 is in commercial forestry, and forest practices are the major cause for the degradation of salmon habitat and water quality.

The lower Pysht River, for example, reaches average daily temperatures between 18 and 19 degrees Celsius during late summer and early fall. These temperatures can weaken, sicken, and even kill salmon by disrupting their physiological processes and weakening their immune systems. Current logging practices continue to open that river up to yet more direct sunlight, and timber companies continue to harvest inside the 50-foot no-cut buffers called for by even the notoriously lax F&F Report. Additionally, these logging practices destabilize stream banks and leave them vulnerable to peak flows in the winter.

The truth is that this watershed plan will not save our rivers. It may offer incremental improvements to some stream segments here and there, but our watersheds need more than small fixes.

We need an independent process – free from unfair political interference and based upon legitimate, peer-reviewed science – to examine all of the factors that affect our watersheds. We especially need an independent examination of the labyrinth of lax and poorly enforced F&F rules. And, finally, we need to give independent investigators reasonable access to all reaches of our streams so that they can monitor for water quality, stream flows, and salmon habitat. Only then can we begin to restore our watersheds for human water needs and to preserve for all generations the miracle of salmon.

15 State of Washington’s Perspective for WRIA 19

In the 1999 Forests and Fish Report, Washington forest landowners and federal, state, local, and tribal governments agreed on a new set of aquatic resource protection commitments governing forest practices on state and private forest lands. State agencies anticipate that implementation of the Forests and Fish Report and associated statutes and rules will achieve steady progress in improving water quality and riparian habitat for water bodies under state jurisdiction. In addition to routine enforcement, the state is conducting compliance monitoring to determine how consistently the rules are applied. Forests and Fish participants and contractors are conducting monitoring state-wide to determine if the assumptions the rules are based on are valid and if waters and habitat are on a trajectory to meet water quality standards and support aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The Forest and Fish Agreement requires large landowners to have roads in compliance by 2016.

The Forest Practices Board is a public body that establishes forest practices rules, including adaptive management. Adaptive management will be used to adjust forest practices rules and guidance if necessary to achieve Forests and Fish goals, resource objectives, and performance targets. The state welcomes voluntary restoration and watershed monitoring activities, as well as participation in the adaptive management program (see http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/adaptivemanagement/). We encourage all parties to engage with the Forest Practices Board as the public body responsible for forest practices programs.

The Watershed Planning Act, Chapter 90.82 RCW, provides for planning and review of water resources at the local level, and engages governments, Tribes, citizens and other interests in developing water management strategies. Planning units are required to analyze a number of aspects of water quantity and to develop strategies to address current and future water needs of both instream and offstream uses. (RCW 90.82.010, 020, 040).

Plan implementation can address the range of recommendations, including quantity, quality, habitat, storage, provision of water supplies, based on a detailed implementation plan developed in Phase 4 of watershed planning.

16

Hoko River below Little Hoko River confluence

OVERVIEW OF WRIA 19 Location

Located on the Olympic Peninsula, the Hoko-Lyre Watershed covers 384 square miles and lies entirely within the boundaries of Clallam County, stretching west from Port Angeles to Neah Bay along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The WRIA 19 Watershed Plan includes all the watershed’s rivers and streams draining to the Strait that are outside of tribal lands. These include the “Big 9” or the nine major streams: Sekiu River, Hoko River, Clallam River, Pysht River, Deep Creek, East and West Twin Rivers, Lyre River, and Salt Creek. Climate

WRIA 19 experiences a typical maritime climate, characterized by cool dry summers and mild wet winters. Temperatures and rainfall vary throughout the watershed. Temperatures (in Fahrenheit) average in the high 60s to low 70s during summer and in the 30s and 40s during winter. Snow and freezing temperatures are rare in the lower elevations, but common from November until June in the high peaks.

WRIA 19 is a rain-dominated system. No glaciers are present in the watershed. Winds moving across the Pacific Ocean push moisture-laden air masses over the peaks of the Olympic Mountains. The resulting rainfall gives this region the wettest climate in the contiguous United States. As the weather systems progress eastward, less rain falls, creating a sharp decline in precipitation from west to east across the WRIA.

17

Figure 2. Olympic Peninsula Precipitation Map Map Source: http://www.ptguide.com Land Use

The dominant land use in WRIA 19 is commercial forestry. Seventy-five (75%) percent of the WRIA is zoned for commercial forestry, of which fifty-three (53%) percent is privately owned (ONRC Clearing House for the Olympic Peninsula). Almost the entire watershed has been harvested at least once in the past 100 years, and much of it is in its third rotation of harvest, although reserves of old growth and late successional stands persist. In addition to commercial forestry, WRIA 19 has a long agricultural tradition and today seven (7%) percent of the watershed is zoned for rural agricultural purposes. Demographics

The current estimated population of WRIA 19 is 4,500. There are no incorporated cities within the boundaries of WRIA 19, but there are several small communities, mostly along the coastal fringe of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These communities include Joyce, Neah Bay, and Clallam Bay-Sekiu. Joyce is the most densely populated area with a current population of about 2,300. Flora and Fauna

WRIA 19 supports a diverse array of plants and animals. The most extensive habitat type is “Westside lowland conifer-hardwood forest,” which is dominated by evergreen conifers, in particular Douglas fir and western hemlock. Mature stands typically have a multi-layered canopy, large snags, and many large logs on the ground. Common understory species include vine maple, salmonberry, salal, sword fern, twinflower and a wide variety of herbs, mosses, and lichens. Younger stands typically feature coniferous trees such as Douglas-fir, western hemlock,

18 western red cedar, and Sitka spruce, and deciduous trees such as red alder, big leaf maple, and willows.

Western riparian wetlands are also found in WRIA 19. Conifers and deciduous mixed forests are typical for this habitat and include red alder, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, western red cedar, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce. Species that make up the understory include salmonberry, salal, vine maple, red osier dogwood, red-flowering currant, devil’s club, snowberry, and a variety of ferns and sedges.

Over 200 wildlife species are associated with the various habitats in WRIA 19. Wildlife communities vary with elevation and structural class, with the greatest diversity found at lower elevations in mid-late successional stands of timber (“successional” refers to the ongoing development of an ecosystem as the composition of plants and animals evolves; early succession is the youngest phase of this development, and late succession is the oldest).

Large mammals such as Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, black bear, and mountain lions are known to inhabit the watershed, along with smaller mammals such as the snowshoe hare, mink, river otter, and Douglas’ squirrel. Typical birds include songbirds, ruffed grouse, jays, ravens, and several species of raptors. Two species of note are the spotted owl and marbled murrelet, both currently listed as federally protected species. Waterfowl and shorebirds can be found in wetlands and nearshore habitat. Amphibians can also be found throughout the watershed.

Wind, fire, and climate change are the major natural disturbances in this habitat. WRIA 19 experiences frequent debris flows and landslides. Two bird species that depend on older lowland forest habitat—the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet—have suffered population declines due to habitat loss and are listed as federally protected species.

Small portions of the watershed have been converted to agricultural lands. The wildlife community in these areas includes several introduced species. Waterfowl and shorebirds also find suitable habitat in agricultural lands, particularly during winter. Geology

WRIA 19’s underlying geology consists primarily of marine sediments (mostly shale, sandstone, and conglomerate) and basalt. A relatively thin veneer of glacial deposits and alluvium, up to 200 feet thick, covers the bedrock in 21 percent of WRIA 19. Surface deposits include glacial drift, landslides, and alluvium. The Crescent Fault is an inactive thrust fault that separates the marine sediments and basalt above from “core rocks” below. The Crescent Fault passes through the Lake Crescent, Clallam River, and Hoko River subbasins. Surface Water

WRIA 19 includes all streams that drain from the Olympic Mountains into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Lake Crescent. Of those that drain into the Strait, the most prominent are Salt Creek, Lyre River, East Twin River, West Twin River, Deep Creek, Pysht River, Clallam River, Hoko River, and the Sekiu River. These nine streams vary in size and stream flow, though they are smaller compared to neighboring watersheds such as the Sol Duc and the Elwha Rivers, several smaller streams drain independently into the Strait.

19 Groundwater and Hydrogeology

Most of WRIA 19 is underlain by bedrock, which accommodates low quantities of groundwater, but typically enough to support domestic wells. A few glacial deposits accommodate somewhat greater amounts of groundwater. Alluvial deposits along river drainages, terraces, and shorelines also store groundwater. The following is a summary of the aquifers in WRIA 19:

Aquifers in Glacial Deposits—Glacial deposits are found at lower elevations in the Salt Creek, Lyre River, and Twin Rivers Subbasins and immediately west of Lake Crescent. These provide permeable, thin aquifers of sand or gravel. Depth to groundwater typically is 25 to 75 feet.

Aquifers in Alluvial Deposits—Alluvium forms as mostly narrow deposits (25 to 75 feet thick) along river drainages (the Lyre, Pysht, Clallam, Hoko, and Sekiu Rivers) and near Neah Bay. These deposits consist of layered sand, gravel, and silt, with each layer typically 5 to 10 feet thick. Depth to groundwater for alluvium typically is 5 to 15 feet.

Aquifers in Bedrock—Fractures and occasional permeable sandstone units provide for groundwater flow in bedrock. Groundwater systems in fractured bedrock that contribute to surface water bodies can be considerably larger than the topographically defined watershed and can have extensive, deep, complex flow paths. The deepest wells in bedrock in WRIA 19 are in the range of 500 feet, and most wells are less than 250 feet. Depth to the water table is typically 50 to 150 feet.

Bedrock wells have been installed successfully for domestic water supplies, but they typically are limited to single-family residences. Most wells in WRIA 19 yield less than 25 gallons per minute (gpm). A few wells produce yields in the 25 to 80 gpm range, and the most productive well in the area yields 220 gpm from alluvial deposits along the Hoko River; the latter services the public Clallam Bay/Sekiu Water System.

WRIA 19 receives abundant rainfall—in the range of 60 to 110 inches per year. Infiltration from this precipitation provides almost all the groundwater recharge in the watershed. The percentage of precipitation that reaches the groundwater system may be 5 to 40 percent. In addition, Lake Crescent, which is fed by snowmelt, may provide local recharge through seepage in fractured bedrock to aquifers and springs.

Recharge that has entered the groundwater system gradually flows to a variety of “sinks,” which include discharge to springs, streams, marine bodies, wetlands, ponds, and wells, or even uptake by plants in places where it is within reach of taproots near the ground surface. In the natural system, a small portion of groundwater flow sustains saturation in wetlands and a larger portion discharges to streams and springs, providing their base flow. The largest portion of groundwater flow in WRIA 19 discharges to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where it controls the balance between freshwater and saltwater in coastal aquifers. Below is a map showing the location of wells in WRIA 19:

20 Figure 3. Lyre/Hoko Watershed Wells Map Source: Washington Department of Ecology Water Allocation and Use

Present water allocation in WRIA 19 was evaluated for the Watershed Plan by examining Washington Department of Ecology records for water right certificates, permits, applications, and claims, obtained from Ecology’s electronic database, the Water Rights Application Tracking System (WRATS). Federal reserved water rights, including tribal rights, also have been identified. Current and future water use were estimated based on Clallam County geographic information system (GIS) data, 2000 census data, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water use estimates, local knowledge about agricultural water use, and meter records where available.

Background and History of Water Rights

In 1917, the Washington Legislature adopted a water code that established a permitting system for the appropriation of state surface waters. The permitting system was extended to groundwater in 1945. The following are basic principles for state-regulated water rights: • Permits give property owners the right to drill a well or divert surface water for a beneficial use at a given location and for a specific quantity. • The right is made permanent when finalized or perfected as a certificate, when all terms of the water appropriation have been met.

21 • The “prior appropriation” doctrine awards water rights to a person who first took the water and put it to beneficial use. • Continuous beneficial use is required to preserve a water right. • Changes in water appropriation, including quantity, location, and use, require permission from the state. • A water right that existed before 1917 cannot be established except by court action through the claim process. • Wells drawing limited amounts of water (generally 5,000 gallons per day or less) for limited uses that are allowed under state law (such as domestic or certain limited non-domestic uses) may be established without an official water right; these are called permit-exempt wells. While these specific uses are exempt from obtaining a permit, they must still comply with other provisions of the law. • Permit-exempt wells may be required to report water use to Ecology.

The total quantity of water right allocations regulated by the state may be estimated by adding the quantities that are permitted, certified, or claimed. Exempt wells complicate this due to their undetermined extent and quantity. The construction of exempt wells statewide has proliferated in the past few years and the amount of water currently being withdrawn from the state’s aquifers could be significant, depending on the watershed.

Water rights are also reserved by the federal government on behalf of Tribes. The state attorney general has noted the following principals concerning these rights: • When the United States reserves land for some federal purpose, including an Indian reservation, the federal government thereby also reserves sufficient water to meet the primary purposes of the reservation. The priority date of a federal reservation, for prior appropriation purposes, is the date the reservation was created. • A federal reserved water right is not subject to the continuous beneficial use or “use it or lose it” requirement of Washington State law. • Federal reserved water rights may be used for any of the primary purposes of the reservations, and may be changed from time to time without state permission. • Indian off-reservation fishing may be a basis for tribal claim of water rights for in- stream flow to protect the fish.

The presence of federal reserved water rights also complicates watershed planning and regulation development. Because federal reserved water rights are senior and not quantified, the amount of water in a water body that is still available for appropriation may not be known. Reservations and federal lands in WRIA 19 include the following: • The Makah Indian Reservation, established by treaty in 1859, occupies the western end of WRIA 19 and parts of WRIA 20. • Three small non-Indian federal reservations for the radar installation at Bahokus peak in the northwest part of the Makah Reservation.

22 • Several water systems for federal recreation areas in Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest. • The Makah Air Force Base, which was closed in the late 1980s, had three systems in the Department of Health water system inventory, all of which had inactive status. Existing Water Rights Overview

The WRATS identified 626 records (529 active and 97 inactive) as being in WRIA 19. Of these, 16 (14 active and 2 inactive) were determined to be outside the WRIA 19 boundaries. The remaining 515 active records (166 for groundwater withdrawals and 349 for surface-water withdrawals) were tabulated by subbasin. Most of the rights are concentrated in the Salt Creek and Lyre River subbasins. The most common rights are water certificates for domestic single purposes (112) and domestic multiple purposes (43), and claims for domestic general purposes (197 total). The next most common are claims and certificates for stock (76) and irrigation (47). There are three power-related certificates and one municipal certificate.

The active records were reviewed for the allowed instantaneous withdrawal rate (how much water can be taken from the water source at any given time). The largest aggregate instantaneous withdrawal rate (Qi) is for domestic multiple (9.8 cubic feet per second (cfs)), followed by fish hatchery (5.9 cfs), domestic general (estimated at 3.9 cfs), and then power (1.9 cfs), irrigation (1.8 cfs), domestic single (1.8 cfs), and stock (1.5 cfs). The current extent and validity of water rights may differ significantly from the paperwork originally filed with Ecology.

Many records, particularly claims, did not include water withdrawal rates or other detailed information to estimate water use. For estimation purposes, claims were assumed to have a withdrawal rate of 0.02 cfs, based on a previous study done for the Chehalis watershed (WRIAs 22 and 23). Using this assumption and the withdrawal rates available on the records, the total Qi for all active rights in WRIA 19 was estimated to be 27.9 cfs.

Data from the 2000 Census for all census blocks completely or partially within WRIA 19 shows 2,694 households in these blocks. A rough estimate of water usage for this total is 26.9 cfs for domestic uses (assuming a domestic water use of 0.01 cfs per household), or 53.8 cfs for overall water use (assuming a value of 0.02 cfs per household for overall use). This suggests that the 27.9 cfs allocated by the water right certificates and permits for all water uses is inadequate, and it could indicate the presence of other, unaccounted water sources, such as permit-exempt wells.

The total instantaneous withdrawal rate for the 10 largest rights is 15.54 cfs, 56 percent of the total estimated for all of WRIA 19. Among these rights, those that appear to be for mainly non- consumptive purposes, such as power and fish propagation, total about 7.43 cfs.

There is very little information in the WRATS database on annual water allocation (the total amount of water that can be withdrawn in one year, measured in acre-feet). The largest water allocation is for the Crescent Water Association, at 672 acre-feet per year, followed by PUD #1 of Clallam County at 400 acre-feet per year. The other two explicit allocations are for Don Baker (1.5 acre-feet per year) and Terry Weller (1 acre-foot per year).

23 Water Purveyors

Active community water systems in WRIA 19 include the following:

• Clallam Bay/Sekiu, with 254 residential and 80 commercial connections, served by PUD #1 of Clallam County.

• Crescent Water Association, a private, non-profit Washington corporation with over 800 members, including residential and commercial accounts

• Island View Local Utility District 9, with 32 connections, served by PUD #1 of Clallam County

• San Juan Vista system, with 30 connections

PUD #1 of Clallam County, which operates the Clallam Bay/Sekiu system and the Island View LUD 9 system, also provides water to the Clallam Bay Corrections Center, which uses 1075 equivalent residential units (ERUs) of water. A more detailed report of Crescent Water Association water use and water rights may be found in Appendix 7. There are a number of “transient, non-community” systems serving recreation parks, camps, and federal and municipal park facilities. There are also a number of investor-owned utilities serving a limited number of connections. Water Allocation by Subbasin Table 1: Summary of Water Rights by Subbasin Summarizes the findings of the review of water rights by subbasin Total Number Total Instantaneous Subbasin Population Large Individual Rights of Rights Withdrawal Rate (cfs) A 0.6-cfs right for power Salt Creek 2,319 255 7.3 A 0.5-cfs right for fish propagation A 0.1-cfs right for domestic-multiple A 5.01-cfs right for domestic-multiple Lyre River 184 24 5.5 A 0.11-cfs right for fish propagation and domestic-single A 1.0-cfs right for power and domestic- Lake Crescent 65 128 4.2 single A 0.33-cfs right for power generation Twin Rivers 29 9 0.16 — Deep Creek 1 2 0.04 — Pysht River 48 15 0.4 — A 1.0-cfs right for municipal Clallam River 1,567 35 2.5 A 0.62-cfs right for domestic-multiple A 0.22-cfs right for domestic-multiple Two fish-propagation rights totaling 5.22 cfs Hoko River 215 23 6.9 Three domestic-multiple rights totaling 1.29 cfs A 0.3-cfs right for domestic-multiple Sekiu River 113 20 0.7 A 0.2-cfs right for domestic-multiple This table does not include water use of wells established under the permit exemption in RCW 90.44.050.

24 INSTREAM FLOW ELEMENT

Many areas of the state experience stiff competition for water between human users and salmon, especially in late summer with high irrigation demand and needs for salmon spawning and rearing. The legislature directed Ecology to develop a statewide program to protect stream-based resources and values. (RCW 90.54.040 ‘Instream flow’ is a statutory term referring to the amount of flow in a stream that supports a number of stream resources and values.) Instream resources and values are recognized in RCW 90.54.020 (1): fish and wildlife maintenance and enhancement, recreational, preservation of environmental and aesthetic values, and all other uses compatible with the enjoyment of the public waters of the state, are declared to be beneficial and… 3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic, and other environmental values, and navigational values. Lakes and ponds shall be retained substantially in their natural condition…

Under Washington water law, senior water rights have priority over junior water rights. Existing water rights are unaffected by a new instream flow and water management rule. After adoption of this watershed plan, the Department of Ecology will use the Plan’s recommended instream flow levels and water management strategies to develop a water management rule and review future water right applications. A rule is similar to a law but is adopted by a state agency through an administrative process. Scientific studies

Prior to the beginning of the watershed planning effort for WRIA 19, limited information had been collected on the flow needs for instream resources in the watershed for fish. However, the Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) had previously taken toe-width measurements and derived preliminary instream flows for chinook, coho, and chum salmon and steelhead trout spawning and rearing for the following stream systems in WRIA 19:

• Snow Creek • Whiskey Creek

• Bullman Creek • Salt Creek

• Olsen Creek • Hoko River

• Jim Creek • Little Hoko River

• Joe Creek • Clallam River

• Deep Creek • East Twin River

• Murdock Creek

A 1985 study used the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) to assess instream flow needs for fish in the Lyre River. The Makah Tribe conducted instream flow studies in 1985 using IFIM on the Hoko and Sekiu Rivers. It is unknown, however, whether these data are still in existence.

25 As part of the WRIA 19 watershed planning effort, additional flow recommendations were derived using the toe-width methodology for Salt Creek, the East Twin River, the West Twin River, Deep Creek, the Pysht River, the Clallam River, the Hoko River, and the Sekiu River (see Appendix 8 for description.) In addition, a consultant, EES of Bellingham, was hired to conduct a modified IFIM study on several streams. The planning group funded a study on how fish habitat changes with stream flows. These studies plus an IFIM study on the Lyre were analyzed by state biologists. Instream flows were recommended for each stream and discussed at several meetings with the Planning Unit.

After discussion, the planning unit decided on instream flows that protect the most fish habitat.

The public has had opportunities to review the draft plan, and will have another opportunity during review of the Plan by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners. Following plan adoption by the County Commissioners, and as funds and staffing are available, Ecology will begin rule development.

The rule development and adoption process includes public outreach, a formal hearing for public testimony, written responses to comments, and consultation with any affected Indian tribes. A water management rule typically lists instream flows by month. Instream flows are measured at a stream gage, generally located near the mouth of a river. For rights with priority dates junior to the rule, water use may be required to stop when the stream flows drop below the levels listed in the rule. Exceptions to interruption, such as for drinking water, can be established in the rule to provide a non-interruptible supply. Many watersheds across the state have instream flow/water management rules adopted in Chapters 173-501 through WAC-562. WRIA 19 Basin Hydrology and Draft Instream Flow Recommendations

The WRIA 19 planning unit recommends that for all in-stream water rights, and for the associated closures and reserves that are included in the final rule, the effective date is no later than the date of legal adoption of this watershed plan. Within these watersheds, the County will endeavor to provide to prospective new water users information resources of possible impacts on water availability from these pending actions.

Instream flow recommendations proposed by Ecology and WDFW May 8, 2007; Presented to planning group at meetings on June 6 and 12, 2007 for discussion; Approved June 12, 2007, Updated with stream data through 6-31-2009.

INSTREAM FLOW DEFINITIONS: TW = Toe width method used for habitat flows. IFIM = Instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) used for habitat values and to describe the relationship between flow levels and habitat available to species and life stages of fish. FLOW = Hydrology used to recommend instream flows.

The next 4 pages give a brief review of stream hydrology and explain the format of the hydrographs we used in the plan.

26 Hoko River Near Sekiu Daily Flow Hydrograph - Normal Scale USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2008

10000

This is a graph of the daily Stream Flows in the Hoko river for the past 46 years. Each colored line represents the daily Stream flow from a different year (1962-2008). 8000 The Hoko River shows the typical rain-fed seasonal stream flow pattern common in this watershed.

If a rain-fed system, Stream Flows are 6000 highest in the winter (when it is raining), drop rapidly in the spring when the rains are greatly reduces, and are lowest in the late summer and early fall when we experience very little rain.

Using a normal (linear) scale makes it hard to 4000 see the daily differences during the low flow months. The next graph shows this same data using a log scale. Stream Flow(in scale cubic second)ft per normal Stream 2000

0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep

27 Hoko River Near Sekiu Daily Flow Hydrograph - Log Scale USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2008 Median Flow Series5 10000 Series15 This shows the same daily flow data as the previous graph, with each colored line representing a differentSeries16 water year, but it uses a log scale instead of a normal (linear) scale. With a log scale, the units of the scale increase from 10 cfs increments in the lower portion of the graph to 100 cfs in the middle to 1000 cfs increments in the upper portion.

1000

Stream Flow (cfs) log scale Stream 100

Log scales are useful for looking at data with a large range of values, like stream flow, so we will use a log scale to display our stream flow data. The median flow is the monthly point where half of the flows were higher and half of the flows were lower.

10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep

28 Hoko River Near Sekiu Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Daily Flow Hydrograph - Log Scale Median (50% Exceedance) USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2008 Dry Days (90% Exceedance) 10000 To simplify the daily flow hydrographs, Ecology uses a statistical tool called Exceedance curves. These flow curves tells us how often the actual daily stream flow could be expected to meet or exceed a given flow.

When it is raining hard, stream flow will be near the 10% exceedance. Think of it as the flows experienced on a Wet Day. When it stops raining for around 2 weeks or more, stream flows tend to be near the 90% exceedance. Think of it as 1000 the flows experience during a Dry Day. Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

100

Between the Wet and Dry Day curves, we can see a pattern of the stream flows experienced by the stream throughout the year.

Because it is much easier to read, we will rely on these Wet and Dry day curves to discribe the flow pattern of our remaining streams.

10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep

29 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Hoko River Near Sekiu Median (50% Exceedance) Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Flow Exceedence Probability Hydrograph Proposed Instream Flow USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2008 WY 2007-08 WY 2006-07 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Apr 16 - Oct 15 Jan-May = 275 cfs Except for a proposed reserve of 0.16 cfs June = 201 cfs and approved restoration/enhancenent July = 140 cfs projects Aug = 83cfs Sept = 173 cfs Allocation Limit Oct-Dec = 275 cfs 47 cfs is available from Oct 15-Apr 15 for future appropriation

1000 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

100

We will use this forma t from now on to show the sea sonal pattern a nd variability of our streams and to show the wa ter management recommendations proposed by the Planning Unit. When a vaila ble, we will a lso show the la st 1 or 2 yea rs of daily stream flowdata.

10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

30 TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

Hoko River @ RM 5.3

New water for h\Humans Instream Closed to New Open Dates Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period

October 1-15 275 IFIM Priority is chinook spawning. April 16-Oct 15 Oct 16- Possible 0.16 cfs October 16-31 275 IFIM Chinook spawning. April 15 reserve available, with based on 1% loss November 1-15 275 IFIM Chinook, coho, and chum spawning. allocation of flow during low November 16-30 275 IFIM Coho and chum spawning. of 47 cfs flow conditions December 1-15 275 IFIM Steelhead, coho, chum spawning. December 16-31 275 IFIM Steelhead and coho spawning. January 1-15 275 IFIM Steelhead and coho spawning. January 16-31 275 IFIM Steelhead spawning. February 275 IFIM “ March 275 IFIM “ April 275 IFIM “ May 275 IFIM “ June 201 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing. Potential for Chinook rearing. 350cfs is desirable but lowered to 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat. July 140 Flow “ August 83 Flow “ September 173 Flow “

Actual flow data, rather than synthesized data, provides the basis for Hoko recommendations. The USGS gage has been operational since 1962.

31 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Clallam River @ RM 1.3 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data Dry Days (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 06-07 Proposed Instream Flow 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Mar 16 - Oct 31 Oct-Nov = 120 cfs Except for a domestic reserve of 0.02cfs and Dec -Apr = 150 cfs for approved restoration/enhancement May = 120 cfs projects Jun = 49 cfs July = 35 cfs Allocation Limit Aug = 20 cfs 19 cfs is available from Nov 1-Mar 15 for Sept = 42 cfs future appropriation 1000

100 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

10

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

32 TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Clallam River @ RM 1.3

Instream Flow Closed to New Open New water Dates (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period for Humans

October 1-15 120 IFIM Priority is Chinook Spawning. Mar 16-Oct 31 Nov-Mar Possible 0.02 October 16-31 120 IFIM “ 15 cfs reserve, With based on 1% November 1-15 120 IFIM “ allocation of flow November 16-30 120 IFIM Coho and chum spawning. of 20 cfs during low flow December 1-15 150 IFIM Steelhead spawning. conditions December 16-31 150 IFIM “ January 1-15 150 IFIM “ January 16-31 150 IFIM “ February 150 IFIM “ March 150 IFIM “ April 150 IFIM “ May 120 IFIM Steelhead rearing. June 49 Flow Steelhead rearing. 120cfs is desirable but lowered to 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat. July 35 Flow “ August 20 Flow “ September 42 Flow “

33 Deep Creek @ RM 0.2 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Median (50% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrographs Dry Days (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 04-05 Proposed Instream Flow 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year Around Oct = 71 cfs Except for a reserve (0.026cfs) and for Nov = 190 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Dec 1-Jan 15 = 200 Jan 16-Mar = 250 Allocation Limit Apr = 233 cfs No additional water is available for future May = 110 appropriation Jun = 28 Jul = 14 Aug = 10 Sept = 12 cfs 100 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

10

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

34 TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Deep Creek @ RM 0.2

Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 71 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing. Year round None Possible 0.026 cfs October 16-31 71 Flow Coho spawning. except for reserve available, reserve based on 1% loss November 1-15 190 IFIM “ of flow during low November 16-30 190 IFIM “ flow conditions December 1-15 200 IFIM Steelhead, coho, chum spawning. December 16-31 200 IFIM “ January 1-15 200 IFIM “ January 16-31 250 IFIM Steelhead spawning. February 250 IFIM “ March 250 IFIM “ April 233 Flow Steelhead spawning. 250cfs is desirable but lowered to 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat. May 110 Flow Steelhead rearing. 250cfs is desirable but lowered to the 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat. June 28 Flow “ July 14 Flow “ August 10 Flow “ September 12 Flow “

35 East Twin River - RM 1.5 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Median (50% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrographs Dry Days (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized with Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Deep River Daily Flows) Water Year 05-06 Proposed Instream Flow 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year Around Oct 1-15= 32 cfs Except for a reserve (0.023cfs) and for Oct 16 - Nov = 71 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Dec - Apr = 104 cfs May = 69 cfs Allocation Limit Jun = 23 cf !! cfs of water is available from Nov-Jan Jul = 11 cfs for future appropriation Aug = 8 cfs Sept = 10 cfs

100 Flow (cfs) log log scale (cfs) Flow

10 The planning unit determined that this sysnthesized hydrograph was reasonable enough to use for draft recommendations. However, there were concerns that the stream gage did not accurately measure high flows.

Ecology has agreed to continue to improve the accuracy of the stream gage.

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

36

TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

East Twin River at RM 1.5 Priority and Rationale Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 28 TW Steelhead and coho rearing. February - November Possible 0.023 cfs October 16-31 63 TW Coho and chum spawning. October -January reserve available, with an based on 1% loss November 1-15 63 TW “ allocation of flow during low November 16-30 63 TW “ of 11 cfs flow conditions December 1-15 104 TW Steelhead spawning. December 16-31 104 TW “ January 1-15 104 TW “ January 16-31 104 TW “ February 104 TW “ March 104 TW “ April 104 TW Steelhead spawning. May 69 TW Steelhead incubation. June 23 Flow Priority is steelhead and coho rearing (28 cfs is desirable) lowered to the 10% exceedance. July 11 Flow “ August 8 Flow “ September 10 Flow “

37 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Lyre River at Piedmont with Daily Flows from RM 1.0 Median (50% Exceedance) Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Flow Exceedence Probability Hydrograph Proposed Instream Flow USGS Gage 12044000, RM 5.3, Period of Record: 1917 - 1927 Water Year 06-07 Water Year 05-06 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows July-Oct Oct-Dec 15 = 150 cfs except for a reserve of 0.27 cfs and for approved Dec 16-May = 200 cfs restoration/enhancement projects. June - July = 150 cfs Aug = 140 cfs Allocation limit Sept = 105 cfs 26 cfs is available from Nov-Jun for future appropriation

1000 Flow(cfs) log scale 100 Ecology is currently unable to develop a reasonable synthesized hydrograph for the control point at RM 1.0 As a temporary solution, the planning unit agreed to use the data from the historic gage at RM 5.3 to develop their management recommendations. This is a conservative approach as the exceedance flows at RM 1.0 will likely be higher than those at RM 5.3.

Ecology was requested and agreed to continue developing an exceedance hydrograph for RM 1.0. 10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

38 TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Lyre River at RM 1.0

Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basisa Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 150 IFIM Priority is coho and steelhead rearing. July-October Nov-June Possible 0.27 cfs October 16-31 150 IFIM Coho and chum spawning. with reserve available allocation based on 1% loss November 1-15 150 IFIM “ of 26 cfs of flow during low November 16-30 150 IFIM “ flow conditions December 1-15 150 IFIM Chum, coho, steelhead spawning (transitional flow.) December 16-31 200 IFIM Steelhead spawning. January 1-15 200 IFIM “ January 16-31 200 IFIM “ February 200 IFIM “ March 200 IFIM “ April 200 IFIM “ May 200 IFIM Steelhead spawning ending and incubation is covered. June 150 IFIM Steelhead rearing and incubation. July 150 IFIM Steelhead, coho rearing. August 140 Flow Steelhead, coho rearing (150 cfs is desirable, but was lowered to the 10% exceedance.) September 105 Flow “

a. USGS gage on the Lyre (RM 5.3) was used as an illustration of how flow based recommendations would work and are not to be used during rule-making. Ecology agrees to develop an exceedance hydrograph at RM 1.0 prior to setting an instream flow on the Lyre River.

39 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Pysht River @ RM 4.9 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data Dry Days (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 06-07 Proposed Instream Flows 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows April - Oct Oct -May = 190 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.28 cfs and for approved June = 74 cfs restoration/enhancement projects July = 46 cfs Aug = 18 cfs Allocation Limit Sept = 30 cfs 30 cfs available from Nov-Mar for future appropriations 1000

100 Flow (cfs) log scale

10

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

40

TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Pysht River

Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 190 IFIM Priority is chinook spawning. April-Oct Nov-Mar Possible 0.028 cfs October 16-31 190 IFIM Chinook and coho spawning. with reserve available allocation based on 1% loss November 1-15 190 IFIM Chum spawning. of 30 cfs of flow during low November 16-30 190 IFIM Chinook, coho, chum spawning. flow conditions December 1-15 190 IFIM Add steelhead spawning. December 16-31 190 IFIM “ January 1-15 190 IFIM “ January 16-31 190 IFIM Steelhead spawning. February 190 IFIM “ March 190 IFIM “ April 190 IFIM “ May 190 Chinook rearing and steelhead spawning. IFIM June 74 Flow Chinook rearing. (steelhead juveniles are also present). 100 cfs is desirable; lowered to 10% exceedance July 46 Flow Chinook rearing (steelhead juveniles are also present.) August 18 Flow “ September 30 Flow “

41 10% Exceedance Salt Creek at RM 1.4 50% Exceedance Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data 90% Exceedance (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Hoko and Elwha Daily Flows) Water Year 06-07 Recommended ISF 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year-Around Oct = 13 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.009cfs and for approved Nov = 55 cfs restoration/enhancenent projects Dec-Feb = 92 cfs Mar = 52 Allocation Limit Apr = 34.5 cfs none May = 18.8 cfs Jun = 8.9 cfs 100 Jul = 3.7 Aug = 3.7 Sep = 3.7

10 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

1

0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

42

TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Salt Creek at RM 1.4

Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 13 Priority is steelhead, coho rearing; lowered to 10% exceedance. Year-Around Possible 0.009 cfs Flow reserve available based on 1% loss October 16-31 13 Priority is coho spawning; lowered to 10% exceedance. of flow during low Flow flow conditions November 1-15 55 TW Coho and chum spawning. November 16-30 55 TW “ December 1-15 92 TW Coho, chum and add steelhead spawning.

December 16-31 92 TW Steelhead spawning. January 1-15 92 TW “ January 16-31 92 TW “ February 92 TW “ March 92 TW “ April 52 TW Incubation flow (2/3 of spawning flow.)

May 34.5 Flow Incubation flow desired; lowered to 10% exceedance. June 8.9 Steelhead, coho rearing. Flow July 3.7 Flow “ August 3.7 Flow “ September 3.7 Flow “

43 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Sekiu River above Carpenter Creek RM 2.2 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data Dry Days (90% Exceedan ce) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 06-07 Proposed Instream Flow 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows March 15- Oct 31 Oct-April = 175 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.05 cfs and for approved May = 117 cfs restoration/enhancement projects June = 117cfs July = 73 cfs Allocation Limit Aug = 36 cfs 24 cfs is available from Nov-Mar 15 for future Sept = 85 cfs appropriation 1000

100 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow

10

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

44

TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

Sekiu River

Closed to New Open New water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 175 IFIM Priority is Chinook spawning. April-October November Possible reserve of October 16-31 175 IFIM Chinook spawning. - March .05 cfs based on 1% of flow during November 1-15 175 IFIM Chinook and coho spawning. With allocation low flow November 16-30 175 IFIM “ of 24 cfs conditions December 1-15 175 IFIM “ December 16-31 175 IFIM Coho and steelhead spawning. January 1-15 175 IFIM “ January 16-31 175 IFIM Steelhead spawning. February 175 IFIM “ March 175 IFIM “ April 175 IFIM “ May 117 IFIM Steelhead incubation. June 117 IFIM “ July 73 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing (lowered to 10% exceedance.) August 36 Flow “ September 85 Flow Chinook migration flow (lowered to 10% exceedance.)

45 West Twin River nr Mouth - RM 0.2 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Median (50% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrographs Dry Days (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized with Monthly Regression Water Year 07-08 with Deep River Daily Flows) Water Year 05-06 Proposed Instream Flow 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year Around Oct 1-15= 32 cfs Except for a reserve (0.023cfs) and for Oct 16-31 = 71 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Nov = 71 cfs Dec -Mar = 114 cfs Allocation Limit Apr = 112 cfs No additional water is available for future May = 62 cfs appropriation Jun = 21cfs Jul = 12 cfs Aug = 9 cfs Sept = 9 cfs 100 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow 10 The planning unit determined that this sysnthesized hydrograph wa s reasonable enough to use for draft recommendations. However, there were concerns that the stream gage did not accurately measure high flows.

Ecology has agreed to continue to improve the accuracy of the stream gage.

1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

46

TABLE 2: WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)

West Twin River RM 0.2

Closed to New Open New Water for Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period Humans

October 1-15 32 TW Steelhead rearing. Year around none Possible 0.023 cfs October 16-31 71 TW Coho and chum spawning. reserve available, based on 1% loss November 1-15 71 TW “ of flow during low November 16-30 71 TW “ flow conditions December 1-15 114 TW Steelhead spawning. December 16-31 114 TW “ January 1-15 114 TW “ January 16-31 114 TW “ February 114 TW “ March 114 TW “ April 112 Flow “Steelhead spawning. 114cfs is desirable but lowered to 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat. May 62 Flow Steelhead spawning ending and incubation (114cfs is desirable but lowered to 10% exceedance to protect achievable habitat.) June 21 Flow Steelhead incubation. July 12 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing. August 9 Flow “ September 9 Flow “

47

Synthesizing Exceedance Flow Hydrographs

Ecology and Fish and Wildlife (DFW) staff often used USGS stream flow statistics to develop 10-50- 90% exceedance flow hydrographs to explain and illustrate stream flow patterns to watershed groups. This useful tool is not always available for a number of reasons: 1) Most streams have no gage data, 2) USGS requires about 8 years of gage data before they will generate 10 and 90% exceedance flow statistics, 3) USGS discontinued gaging on many streams and current data is not available, and 4) many streams have gage data from non-USGS sources and do not use the USGS exceedance probability function.

1 .1 Percentile to Exceedance Flow Method

For streams with more than 8 years of gage data from single or multiple sources, it’s possible to approximate USGS exceedance flow by using an Excel percentile function. For example, comparing a variety of Excel percentiles of the USGS daily flows on the Big Quilcene River (10 years of daily data at the time) with the USGS exceedance flow statistics from the same record found that it takes a 1 and a 99th percentile (from the excel percentile function) flow to most closely equate (highest R value) to the 90% and 10% exceedance flow. With 43 years of data on the (Hoh River), it takes an 8th and a 92nd percentile flow to most closely equate to the USGS 90% and 10% exceedance flow. Using such direct comparisons of USGS daily flow data to USGS exceedance flows gives us a pattern of percentiles that closely equate to exceedance flow statistics based on the number of years in the periods of record.

This method is used to synthesize exceedance flow hydrographs by combining data sets from similar gaged locations. For example on the Wind River (WRIA 29) there has been a historic USGS gage at RM 1.9 from 1934 to 1980. The US Forest Service (USFS) began operating a gage at the same location in 2005. By combining the two data sets there is 42-43 years of daily flow data. Then using the 8th and 92nd percentile of the daily record, it’s possible to approximate the desired USGS exceedance flows.

On Snow Creek (WRIA 17) there is an old DFW gage data at RM 0.3 (1977-1993) and a current Ecology gage (starting 2002) at the same location. By combining the two data sets there is 19-22 years of data and the 6th and 94th percentile most closely approximates the desired USGS exceedance flows.

1 .2 Daily Flow Regression Method

For the past few years Ecology has been developing its stream gage network. Currently there are 194 gages operating in the state. Unfortunately, only a few have been operating for over 8 years or are located at a site with a historic record that could be appended and used the percentile to exceedance flow method. There are other sources of daily gage data, e.g. Dept of Ecology gages, conservation districts, Streamkeepers, etc, but they suffer from similarly short periods of record.

The Daily Flow Regression Method converts short-term gage data into long-term exceedance estimates. The method compares daily flow data from a short term gage and compares it with the same daily flows recorded at a long-term USGS gage location. A regression equation shows how closely the two daily flow data sets relate to each other and show the equation that allows estimation of the flows at the short- term gage based on the flows at the long-term gage. Below are examples of the daily flow relationship from 2 different long-term gages.

49 Daily Flow Comparison y = 0.1183x1.0788 R² = 0.8943 1000

900

800

700

600

500 Deep

400

300

200

100

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Hoko Flows (cfs)

Daily Flow Comparison y = 0.0584x R² = 0.4586 1000

900

800

700

600

500 Deep

400

300

200

100

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Elwha Flows Figure 4. Daily Flow Comparisons

In this example Deep Creek has a much stronger relationship to Hoko River than to the Elwha River. This method shows the general relationship and highlights three reference streams that have a flow pattern similar to the short-term gaged stream. (A third graph from Dungeness River showed no relationship and is not shown to save space.) A similar regression analysis is performed on the three reference streams and the relationship checked on a month by month basis. This catches any seasonal differences in the stream flow relationship.

50 Two of the November regression analysis graphs are printed below. Based on this analysis the Deep Creek flows are most strongly related to flows in the Hoko River by the following equation: Daily Deep Creek Flows = 0.1779*(Hoko flow)^1.0277 (R2=.8297).

y = 0.1779x1.0277 Correlating Daily Flows R² = 0.8297 700 600 500 400

Deep 300 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Hoko Flows (cfs)

November Power (November)

y = 0.129x0.9219 Correlating Daily Flows R² = 0.4415 600 500 400 300 Deep 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Elwha Flows

November Power (November)

Figure 5. Correlating Daily Stream Flows

It is assumed that this flow relationship remains consistent year by year, and as such, the long term- exceedance flows would also have the same flow relationship. Based on these assumptions, exceedance flows from the long term gage are used to predict the short term gage exceedance by using the flow relationship from the regression analysis. In this example the average November exceedance values for Hoko River are 1758 cfs (10%), 515 cfs (50%), and 155 cfs (90%). Using the above flow relationship equation gives synthesized 10, 50, and 90% exceedance flows for Deep Creek of 464 cfs, 104 cfs, and 33 cfs respectively.

Following this procedure month by month shows the synthesized average monthly exceedance flows for Deep Creek. Water Reserves for Future Development

Water reserves are small quantities of water that will be set aside during the in-stream flow rulemaking process. The purpose of a reserve is to provide uninterruptible water for specific new human uses in a closed stream basin. Staff from the Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife agreed that a reduction of 1% of habitat during extreme low flow conditions, as a component of an instream flow management plan that is generally protective of instream habitat, may be acceptable for a reserve. Reserves for Lyre Hoko streams were calculated during the in-stream flow determination process and took into consideration the low-flow conditions for each major stream. The results are summarized in Table 3 on the next page.

51

Table 31 WRIA 19 Water Reserves

# ERU’s if # ERU’s if Reserved Reserved allowed allowed Stream Amount Amount (CFS) (Gal/day) 5,000 gal/day 350 gal/day

Hoko 0.16 103,403 21 295

Clallam 0.02 12,925 3 37

Deep 0.023 14,864 3 42

East Twin 0.022 14,218 3 41

West Twin 0.029 18,742 4 54

Lyre 0.27 174,493 35 499

Pysht 0.029 18,742 3 53

Salt Creek 0.01 6,463 1 19

Sekiu 0.08 51,702 11 147

Total 1187

Currently, an owner may use up to 5,000 gallons/day, with reasonable efficiency, for indoor uses and for watering a non-commercial lawn and garden up to one-half acre. By looking at Table 3, it is clear that reducing the amount of water each residence is allowed to use per day will extend the amount of water available for future residents in the area. For instance, in the Hoko River watershed using the 5,000 gallon/day allowance, only 21 ERUs can be constructed by utilizing the reserve. However, if the allowance is reduced to 350 gallons per day, 295 ERUs can be constructed.

We therefore believe that the WRIA 19 reserves need to be aggressively managed to maximize the beneficial use to the community. All new development should be required to:

• Meet water use efficiency standards of the Uniform Plumbing Code as well as any more stringent local or state codes. • Meet low impact development standards. • Utilize natural landscaping where appropriate. • Meter and report all water use to keep water usage within seasonal parameters to be determined in the Phase 4 implementation process.

1 350 gpd is used as an illustration of a water management option. The number of gpd allowed per ERU will be decided during the Phase 4 implementation process.

52 Once the reserve is completely utilized in a basin, no additional development will be allowed unless the potential impact to local streams is mitigated. In-kind mitigation (water for water) is preferred, however acceptable mitigation might be any or a combination of the following:

• Storage of water to be used for consumption during the stream closure. • Storage of water for release into the surface water during a closure period so that groundwater withdrawal may continue through the closure period as long as temperature and water quality issues can be resolved. • Aquifer storage and recovery. • Purchase of an existing (pre-instream flow rule) water right. • Other mitigation may include habitat restoration or other means approved by the Department of Ecology in consultation with Tribes and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Legal issues are yet to be resolved with this approach.

An acceptable mitigation plan will include monitoring, reporting, and a quality assurance/quality control plan. A mitigation plan will tie continued use of the water right to successful mitigation.

Acceptable mitigation can be accomplished on an individual basis or by participation in an approved mitigation exchange program, should one be established by rule. The Department of Ecology is responsible for approving or rejecting mitigation plans/programs designed to compensate for the impacts of using an interruptible water right during times of interruption. Reserves and Tributary Protection

The full-stream reserves established for the nine major streams in WRIA 19 represent the total amount of additional water that may be withdrawn from each of the respective watersheds for future development. These reserve protections are based on lower main-stem flows. Additional protection is given to tributaries, upper-stream segments, and biologically critical areas.

The reserve plan incorporates three levels of protection:

1) Full-stream reserve. This reserve represents the cumulative amount of additional water that may be taken from the entire watershed of each stream.

2) Tributary and upstream reserve. Tributaries and upstream flows are much smaller than the lower main-stem flows that were used to establish the full-stream reserve. Any tributary could be severely damaged if the entire watershed’s reserve were taken from it. So as a second level of protection, each stream’s reserve will be reduced proportionally to the section of stream or tributary from which new water rights are given. Prior to new water rights, scientifically supportable evidence should demonstrate that withdrawals from the tributary will not reduce flow more than 1% during extreme low flow conditions.

3) Biological hotspots. Streams often have relatively small reaches that have outsized importance for salmon and other wildlife. These biological hotspots are critical to the overall health of the full watershed and need special protection. For example, fisheries scientists have found that upper Sadie Creek on the East Twin River and index segments of Charlie Creek on the Clallam River are biological hotspots for salmon. This plan affords such biological hotspots with full protection from additional withdrawals. No additional water may be taken from these areas or from areas that recharge or feed water flow into these hotspots. Fisheries experts have already identified several biological hotspots. These reaches will receive immediate protection. As other hotspots become known to the watershed

53 planning unit, they will also be given additional protection. The already-identified biological hotspots that will receive immediate protection are:

Clallam River tributaries: Charlie Creek, Last Creek, Pearson Creek.

Deep Creek tributaries: Gibson Creek, East and West Forks.

East Twin River tributaries: Sadie Creek.

Hoko River tributaries: Little Hoko River, Ellis Creek, Cub Creek, Bear Creek, Johnson Creek, Brownes Creek, Ossert Creek, Herman Creek.

Lyre River tributaries: Nelson Creek, Susie Creek.

Pysht River tributaries: South Fork, Green Creek, Needham Creek, Reed Creek.

Salt Creek tributaries and segments: Bear Creek, segments 19.0009 and 19.0010.

Sekiu River tributaries: Carpenter’s Creek, South Fork, Sonny Brook.

West Twin River segments: segment 19.0094.

54 WATER QUANTITY ELEMENT

Flow Monitoring Stations

Eight stream gaging stations were installed and are monitored by the Department of Ecology, at the request of the Planning Group. Three (East Twin, West Twin, and Deep Creek) are telemetry gages. A telemetry gage reads data every fifteen minutes and transmits this data every three hours to Ecology in Olympia, where it is automatically imported into the streamflow database and published to Ecology's web page. The data is transmitted via either a GOES satellite transmitter or a standard dial-up modem. The other 5 gages are stand-alone streamflow stations. These log data every fifteen minutes and are downloaded once a month by Ecology staff. Data is imported into the Ecology streamflow database later. All eight streams may be accessed via Ecology’s website for the current and historical data. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/regions/state.asp The gaged streams are as follows, with the location in river mile and the date monitoring began. East Twin River, RM 1.5, telemetry, since June 2004 West Twin River, RM 0.2, stand alone June 2004-2008, telemetry since summer 2008 Deep Creek, RM 0.2, stand alone June 2004-2008, telemetry since summer 2008 Pysht River, RM 4.9, stand alone, since March 2005 Salt Creek nr. Ramapo, RM 1.4, stand alone, since March 2005 Lyre River, RM 1, stand alone, since March 2005 Clallam River, RM 1.3, stand alone, since April 2005 Sekiu River above Carpenter Creek, RM 2.2, stand alone, since June 2006

According to the Ecology website, all eight streams for which flows are taken are classified as AA waters.

Information from Ecology’s website 4/6/07

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has one long term sampling station in the watershed: Lyre River. The Hoko is also monitored (site 12043300). Funds for the operation of the gage and telemetry equipment, and production are provided by the Makah Nation. To view this data, go to http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?12043300.

55

Sekiu River Photo: Department of Ecology

WATER QUALITY ELEMENT Evolving Water Quality Standards

New water quality standards for Washington State went into effect in December 2006. The new standards include requirements for colder temperatures for specific streams and increase the amount of dissolved oxygen that will be required in those streams. Otherwise, the new water quality standards are not anticipated to materially affect previous evaluations about water quality. Ecology is currently updating its Water Quality Assessment and should be consulted for the latest information.

The Planning Unit understands that the data for this section is incomplete at best. Most of the information is old; some as old as fifty years. There is some more recent water quality data, mainly collected by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Makah Tribe that indicates many of the WRIA 19 streams are at least temperature-impaired. An on-going water quality data collection effort is critical for accurately assessing the health of the WRIA 19 rivers and tributaries.

The planning unit agrees on the need for a strong, scientifically based, objective, independent water quality monitoring program in WRIA 19.

Since the Department of Ecology has installed temperature gages on all of the major streams, we should be able to update and better address at least the temperature parameter for WRIA 19 streams. However, this is not a substitute for assessing all other water quality parameters. Unfortunately, such efforts have not been possible because of limited legal access to streams and lack of funding. Water quality improvement is possible if watershed stakeholders work collaboratively to achieve desired future conditions for all resources.

56

Water Quality -- 303(d)-Listed Water Bodies

If a stream is on the “303(d) list”, it means that the water quality is lacking in one or more parameters. Categories range from 1 (good) to 5 (extremely impaired).

The Washington Department of Ecology’s 2004 Integrated Water Quality Assessment is the current state list for water quality impairment status. Each listing represents one segment of a water body and one water quality parameter.

Category 5 in the Water Quality Assessment identifies water bodies that are impaired and require a cleanup process, usually a total maximum daily load (TMDL). WRIA 19 has sixteen Category 5 listings, including: • Temperature-impaired - Clallam River, Deep Creek, Green Creek, Little Hoko River, Sekiu River (mainstem and north and south forks) • Fine sediment-impaired – Deep Creek • Fecal coliform bacteria-impaired – Strait of Juan de Fuca

Note: Deep Creek has the most Category 5 listings (4 for temperature and 3 for fine sediment).

There are no category 4’s or 3’s.

There are 28 listings in Category 2 waters of concern for WRIA 19, including: • Dissolved oxygen – Bullman Creek, Clallam River, Deep Creek, Green Creek, Herman Creek (east fork), Joe Creek, Little Hoko River, Lyre River, Murdock Creek, Olsen Creek, Pysht River (mainstem and South Fork), Salt Creek, Sekiu River, Snow Creek, and West Twin River. • Bioassessment – Barnes Creek, Lyre River, and Salt Creek • Temperature – Lyre River • pH – Barnes Creek

Note: Salt Creek and Lyre River have the most Category 2 listings: Salt (3 dissolved oxygen, 3 bioassessment) and Lyre (1 bioassessment, 1 dissolved oxygen, 2 temperature.)

Category 1 listings show where a parameter has been shown to meet state standards. In WRIA 19: • Fish tissue in Crescent Lake meets state standards for a number of toxic substances. • Temperature – segments of Deep Creek, East Twin River, Herman Creek (east fork), Pysht River (mainstem and South Fork), Salt Creek, and West Twin River meet state water quality standards. • Dissolved oxygen – segments of East Twin River, and West Twin River meet state water quality standards. • pH – segments of Herman Creek (east fork), Pysht River (South Fork and mainstem), and Salt Creek meet water quality standards for this parameter. • Fecal coliform bacteria – a number of locations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca meet state water quality standards.

Visit Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html. Use the simple query tool to call up listings. Then, by clicking on the map link on the right, you can see where the listing is. Or, by clicking on the listing ID link on the left, you can see the basis for the listing, and a verbal description of the sampling location.

57 USGS and Ecology Water Quality Sampling Data

Along with the flow monitoring gages, in 2005 Ecology started monitoring conventional water quality parameters at the following 3 streams: East Twin, West Twin, and Deep Creek. These are referred to as ‘intensively monitored watersheds.’ Based on that data, Ecology determined that “overall water quality at this station met or exceeded expectations and is of lowest concern” (source: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/riv/station.asp?theyear=&tab=final_data&scrolly=404&wria=19&sta=19E060).

USGS sampling stations from which water quality data may be found at USGS Washington Water Science Center, North Olympic River Basins: http://wa.water.usgs.gov/realtime/htmls/olympic_north.html. USGS sampling observation periods varied from one day to 10 years. The periods of record included observations in 1952 and intervening years up to 1978.

Possible Sources of Pollution

The following are potential natural causes of water quality problems:

Water quality could be affected by natural cyclic low flows as the Pacific Northwest climate goes through alternating 20- to 30-year cycles of cool/wet weather and warm/dry weather. Most of the short-term USGS sampling occurred during the 1946-1976 cool/wet phase; the 1998 Ecology 303(d) evaluations used data from the end of the 1977-1995 warm/dry period.

Except for the Lyre River, the coastal rivers in WRIA 19 do not have lake sources, and snowmelt is a less significant contributor to stream flow in the rivers farther to the west. These factors cause summer in-stream flows to be significantly lower than winter flows.

Geologic conditions in WRIA 19 are not conducive to seasonal groundwater moderation of flows. Most of the streams flow in narrow steep-sided channels and soil layers tend to be shallow.

The following is a summary of potential human impacts on water quality in WRIA 19:

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had a “Stream Clearance Unit” whose function was to remove logs and log jams from streams in WRIA 19 as well as other streams in western Washington. In addition, the Department required landowners to remove logs and woody debris from streams at the completion of timber harvest operations. This work of clearing streams took place between the 1950’s and the 1980’s, before people understood that large wood debris was a critical element for salmon habitat.

The Hoko River has excess sedimentation, with sources from roads and clear-cuts. Naturally low flows in the summer, which lead to higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen, are worsened by water withdrawals.

The Sekiu River has extensive sedimentation, with primary sources including high road densities and mass wasting sites. Erosion has increased turbidity.

The Pysht River watershed has similar problems, and along with the Sekiu, has experienced riparian changes that are believed to increase the frequency and severity of peak flows, contributing to erosion, sediment transport, and scour.

The Clallam River has excess sedimentation, with altered riparian conditions, contributing to higher summer temperatures and believed to cause increased frequency and severity of peak flows.

58 Deep Creek is affected by excess sedimentation, which is believed to have increased the size of the delta in recent years. Altered riparian conditions contribute to higher summer temperatures, and are believed to cause increased frequency and severity of peak flows.

Little is known about habitat conditions in the Twin Rivers; however, estuarine impacts are noted near their mouths.

The Lyre River has been impacted with fine sediments from Boundary and Susie Creeks.

Salt Creek has experienced increased demand for water, unauthorized water withdrawals, and excess sedimentation.

Small streams in the east end of WRIA 19 are believed to have experienced excess sedimentation. Excess sedimentation from roads and resulting increased turbidity is a problem for small streams in the west end of WRIA 19. High water temperatures have been documented in Agency and Rasmussen Creeks.

In the nearshore environment, sediments from Highway 112 are impacting eelgrass habitat. Groundwater Quality

Overall, available data indicate that groundwater quality is generally good throughout WRIA 19. Elevated chloride can be problematic in coastal areas, and is sometimes noted in inland areas. While elevated iron is a common complaint, this constituent generally causes aesthetic and maintenance problems, but is not considered to be a health hazard in WRIA 19. Specific instances of poor water quality by subbasin are as follows:

Salt Creek Subbasin—A few well logs in the bedrock aquifer report elevated chloride. One bedrock well in shale near the Strait of Juan de Fuca was abandoned due to salt. No problems have been reported for nitrate or other chemicals related to septic systems or agricultural practices, although this is the most likely region for such issues to occur.

Lyre River Subbasin—One well completed immediately above a clay layer reports a high iron content. No problems have been reported for nitrate or other chemicals related to septic systems or agricultural practices.

Lake Crescent Subbasin—At least one boring in shale contained salty water and had to be abandoned; another well in shale produced water with a sulfur taste. One well in shale bedrock reported high chloride.

Clallam River Subbasin—Some problems with iron and chloride have been identified. Two wells in alluvium along the Clallam River reported elevated iron and had to be abandoned. One well in Tertiary bedrock aquifer reported elevated chloride and had to be abandoned. No problems have been reported for nitrate or other chemicals related to septic systems or agricultural practices.

Sekiu River Subbasin—Methane gas and higher turbidity with sulfur odors were reported for different locations. No problems have been reported for nitrate or other chemicals related to septic systems or agricultural practices.

Twin Rivers, Deep Creek, Pysht River, and Hoko River Subbasins—No problems have been identified in these subbasins regarding groundwater quality.

59 Nearshore Water Quality

The “nearshore” is the offshore area around river deltas and along marine coastlines extending out to a depth of about 10 meters relative to mean lower low water. This section addresses how freshwater flows affect nearshore water quality.

Rivers and streams carry sediments to beaches, spits, and other coastal landforms. Tides and rivers contribute minerals and nutrients, shape the land, and cyclically inundate and expose floodplain and shoreline areas. Freshwater flowing into the nearshore via rivers, streams, and seeps creates complex patterns of salinity. The cumulative result of these processes working in concert is a complex landscape of diverse habitat types and community structure.

For example, studies have shown that surf smelt and sand lance have specific substrate requirements for spawning. Without the appropriate sediment input and distribution, the preferred sediment type could become depleted, leading to reduced or eliminated spawning opportunity. A reduction in these forage fish populations translates into reduced prey available for salmon and numerous other fishes and wildlife. This example illustrates how interruptions in sediment processes can influence spawning, prey production, and the health of fish and wildlife populations.

Certain types of nearshore habitat are especially important for salmonid production. Eelgrass, kelp, and sandy beaches provide habitat for herring, surf smelt, and sand lance, which are food fish for salmonids. Eelgrass is found in sandy, protected areas, and prefers waters with a level of salinity that can be found near and within the mouths of streams. Roughly 20 percent of the Strait of Juan de Fuca’s coastline consists of eelgrass habitat. Kelp requires rocky substrate, and is preferred by adult salmonids. Kelp is found along the WRIA 19 coast in beds and patches. Lengths of the coastline occupied by kelp have been stable and have increased.

The net effects of stream water quality and water quantity changes on the nearshore would be too difficult to quantify with the level of information available. However, some general observations can be made.

Much of the existing shoreline is still largely in its natural state. Large beds of kelp are present in all subbasins. Eelgrass is present in patches along the coasts of the Salt Creek, Twin Rivers, Deep Creek, and Sekiu River Subbasins. Salt Creek has a large eelgrass bed.

At the Pysht River estuary and coast, eelgrass has been reported but there has been some loss of eelgrass. Surf smelt spawning has been observed near the mouth of the Pysht River. Between Clallam Bay and the Hoko River is an extensive kelp bed. From 1995 to 1996, the kelp coverage area in this region increased by 55 percent.

Shoreline modifications and activities can significantly affect the nearshore system. Some of the larger, historical shoreline developments are the Neah Bay and Clallam Bay/Sekiu developments and the breakwater from Neah Bay to Waadah Island. In the Clallam area, several saltwater marsh areas were filled and tidal sloughs and wetlands cut off. Riprap, shoreline armoring, bulk heading and jetty construction along Clallam Bay and jetty construction have also occurred.

A major landslide occurred between the Twin Rivers and Deep Creek from Highway 112 (in the vicinity of milepost 36). The Deep Creek delta appears to be expanding in recent years due to sediment deposition.

Upland land management practices, including logging, agriculture, residential development, roads, and stream management affect watershed hydrologic behavior, introducing or altering sediment loads, thermal effects, other possible pollutants, runoff volumes and peaks, and stream conditions.

60 HABITAT ELEMENT

Human Impacts on Habitat

WRIA 19’s streams and nearshore environment provide habitat for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and organisms. In this watershed plan, fish (especially salmon) are the primary focus for habitat-related efforts, although actions to improve their habitat will also benefit other fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

Water quality, water quantity, flow, stream and river physical features, riparian zones (the area of living and dead vegetative material adjacent to a stream), upland terrestrial conditions, human development activities, and ecosystem interactions all affect habitat quantity and quality (WCC, 2003).

Development in WRIA 19 is primarily restricted to small coastal areas and along highway corridors. However, the majority of the uplands in WRIA 19 are managed for timber production. “Legacy” timber harvest activities in WRIA 19 have dramatically altered the forest composition (from multi-story and species old growth conditions to mostly even-age single-species forests) and thus the ecological functions of the uplands, floodplains, riparian zones, and stream channels.

The WRIA 19 Limiting Factor and Action Recommendation Priorities from the Washington State Conservation Commission Limiting Factors Analysis (WCC 2003) provide a detailed description by river system of human impacts on habitat in floodplains, riparian zones, and the in-stream environment. The following is a summary of those impacts, slightly modified to reflect more recent and specific information:

Hoko River Major Limiting Factors:

• Excess Sedimentation from Roads and Clear-cuts - The sedimentation has led to channel instability and a change in substrate to less suitable spawning gravels. • Severe Lack of Large Woody Debris (LWD) - Sediment transport and water velocity effects are worsened by a severe lack of LWD. Many riparian areas are dominated by hardwoods, and will not contribute key pieces to future LWD. Also, change in age and type of surrounding forests may contribute to an increased frequency and severity of peak flows. • Encroachments to the Floodplain - These encroachments are from riparian roads and an old railroad grade in the mainstem, as well as dikes and channelization in the Little Hoko River. These floodplain impacts constrain the channel, reduce side-channel habitat, and reduce riparian vegetation and associated LWD recruitment. In addition, riparian roads also contribute to excessive sedimentation. • Low flows in the summer and early autumn - Low flows contribute to high water temperatures and limit the spawning distribution of fall chinook to less stable areas of the mainstem, possibly increasing the likelihood of scour during peak flow events. The naturally low flows are worsened by water withdrawals.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Improving culverts would increase coho and steelhead habitat, but would not address the large problems in the mainstem that impact all salmonid species. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015.

61 • Estuarine Habitat Alteration - The estuarine habitat has been altered by sediment deposition in recent history. The effects of the estuarine sediment deposition on salmon are unclear.

Sekiu River Major Limiting Factors:

• Sedimentation from High Road Densities and Mass Wasting Sites - The sedimentation has led to debris flows that have incised the mainstem channel and removed LWD. The mainstem provides critical rearing habitat as well as spawning habitat for all salmon species in that watershed. The floodplain impacts to the mainstem such as the Mainline and other riparian roads have greatly impaired salmon production through an increase in channel instability (constrictions), increased sediment, loss of riparian vegetation, and loss of off-channel habitat. • Riparian Alteration and Forest Management Activities - These alterations and activities have resulted in a lack of LWD and deep pools, extensive riparian areas that are dominated by hardwoods, and reduced the age of the surrounding forests. • Water Quality Impacts - The alteration of riparian in the mainstem and South Fork has resulted in high summer water temperatures, while the forest management activities have contributed to increases in water turbidity.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Fish passage problems have mostly impacted coho and steelhead.

Pysht River Major Limiting Factors:

• Sedimentation from Roads and Mass Wasting - Sedimentation from roads and mass wasting sites have lead to channel instability, especially in the mainstem. • Lack of LWD – Lack of LWD has resulted in increased channel instability and peak flow impacts as well as decreased pool habitat formation and spawning gravel storage. • Conversion of Riparian Areas from Conifers to Open Areas - The conversion of a conifer riparian to open areas has limited future LWD supplies and increased water temperatures. • Floodplain Impacts - Severe floodplain impacts, particularly from Highway 112, contribute to sediment problems, reduce riparian vegetation, and increase channel instability. The removal of trees along riparian roads also reduces important riparian vegetation for salmon. • Severe Peak Flows – Changes in the age and type of surrounding forests may contribute to the increased frequency and severity of peak flows.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Channelization – The lower mile and a half of the mainstem has been channelized. • Estuarine Sediment Impacts - Excessive amounts of sediment have been delivered to the estuary. • Loss of Eelgrass Habitat - Technical Advisory Group (TAG) members deduce that there may have been loss of eelgrass habitat in the estuary, but historical data are not available to demonstrate this. • Blockages (Human-Caused) - Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Riparian areas dominated by hardwoods rather than conifers.

62 Clallam River Major Limiting Factors:

• Excessive Sedimentation • Lack of LWD • Open Riparian Area - The altered riparian has contributed to high water temperatures in the summer. • Floodplain Impacts - Significant floodplain impacts include gravel bar scalping and riparian road impacts. • Loss of salt marsh • Severe Peak Flows - Changes in the age and type of surrounding forests may contribute to the increased frequency and severity of peak flows.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Fish passage problems have mostly impacted coho and steelhead habitat. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Riparian areas dominated by hardwoods rather than conifers.

Data Needs:

• Intermittent River Mouth Blockage - Some members of the (TAG) expressed concern about the intermittent blockage near the mouth caused by gravel, however the problem and potential solutions are not well-understood and need to be studied before restoration activities are planned for this issue. (Note: It was not clear, in reading the Limiting Factors Analyses for WRIA 19, whether the TAG considered this to be a major or minor problem in the Clallam River.)

Deep Creek Major Limiting Factors:

• Excessive Sedimentation - Debris flows have resulted in extensive channel incision and instability. Large woody debris is lacking and the conversion of riparian vegetation from old conifers to relatively young hardwood or, worse, open areas, results in a future lack of key pieces of LWD as well as high water temperatures. Channel incision has contributed to floodplain impacts such as a lack of off-channel habitat, and this lack of off-channel habitat has severely impacted all salmonid species in Deep Creek. The excessive sedimentation has also impacted the estuary, where the delta has increased in recent years. • Forest Conversion to Young Conifers - The lack of older trees is thought to increase the frequency and severity of peak flow events. Channel incision and the lack of instream LWD worsens water velocities.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015.

Twin Rivers (East and West) There are new studies and data available, but they have not been summarized in a readily-accessible form that can be used to further refine habitat conditions in the Twin Rivers. It is believed that the following limiting factors might be important:

63 • Lack of LWD – LWD is lacking in the lower reaches. • Excessive Sedimentation from Roads. • Blockages - Fish passage is an issue in the East Fork of the East Twin River. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Estuarine Impacts - Estuarine impacts exist near the mouths of both Twin Rivers.

Lyre River Major Limiting Factors:

• Fine Sediments - The Lyre River has been impacted with fine sediments from Boundary and Susie Creeks. The fines have degraded spawning habitat and increased water turbidity. • Altered Riparian Areas - The riparian areas along Nelson Creek are alder-dominated. • Lack of LWD - Nelson Creek, Susie Creek, and the lower mainstem are lacking LWD. • Mainstem Channelization - The lower mile of the mainstem is channelized. • “Stream cleaning” - Removal of LWD or “Stream Cleaning” contributes to the lack of LWD in this river.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Algae growth in the Beardslee Trout spawning beds at the outlet of Lake Crescent, believed to be caused by eutrophication of the lake due to development.

Salt Creek Major Limiting Factors:

• Lack of LWD - The greatest salmon habitat problem in Salt Creek is the lack of LWD, which has resulted in a loss of holding pools for salmon. • Land Conversion - The following problems are likely the result of land conversion to accommodate development. Development in the floodplain has altered the riparian areas, and efforts to return the riparian to old conifers should be encouraged. • Increased Demand for Water. • Unauthorized Water Withdrawals. • Excess Sedimentation. • Loss of Saltmarsh - The saltmarsh in the estuary was lost due to road impacts.

Minor Limiting Factors:

• Blockages - Fish passage problems have reduced coho and steelhead habitat. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Floodplain Impacts due to Riparian Roads.

East-End WRIA 19 Streams The small salmon-producing streams in the east-end of WRIA 19 include Colville, Field, Whiskey, Murdock, Jim and Joe Creeks. Major Limiting Factors:

• Lack of LWD

64 • Conversion of the Riparian Zone to Open Areas. • Excessive Sedimentation - Excessive sedimentation is believed to be a problem in Whiskey, Field, Jim, and Joe Creeks. • Blockages - Fish passage problems are known to exist in Colville, Field, Jim, and Joe Creeks. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • Estuarine Impacts - Estuarine impacts have occurred near Whiskey and Jim Creeks.

West-End WRIA 19 Streams The small salmon-producing streams of the west-end of WRIA 19 include the Sail River and Agency, Jansen, Rasmussen, Bullman, Snow, and Village Creeks. Major Limiting Factors:

• Lack of LWD - LWD is lacking in Agency and Jansen Creeks, as well as in the Sail River. • Conversion of Riparian Areas - Riparian areas have been converted in Rasmussen, Bullman, and Jansen Creeks, and the Sail River. • Excessive Sedimentation from Roads - Excessive sedimentation from roads is a problem in Snow, Rasmussen, Bullman, and Jansen Creeks. In Jansen Creek, the resulting turbidity from roads is a significant problem. • Blockages - Fish passage problems are known to exist in Agency and Village Creeks and the Sail River. Blockages on commercial forest lands are being removed or repaired under the Forest/Fish HCP and should be completed by 2015. • High Water Temperatures - High water temperatures have been documented in Agency and Rasmussen Creeks. • Sediment Impacts on Eelgrass Habitat - In the nearshore environment, sediments from Highway 112 are impacting eelgrass habitat.

As can be seen, many of the major limiting factors are similar throughout the WRIA, and several factors are often the result of a few causes. Because of this, the Washington State Conservation Commission’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for WRIA 19 recommends the following actions for the entire WRIA to help address some of these widespread, complex factors that stem from similar causes.

• Enforce current environmental regulations, such as the Hydraulic Code, Forest Practices Act, and Forest/Fish HCP and corresponding Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plans, Shoreline regulations, Critical Area Ordinances, and Growth Management Act. • Revise the Growth Management Act to protect salmon habitat. • Protect the channel migration zone (floodplain) habitat. Floodplain development leads to a loss of riparian forest and loss of future LWD. This also increases sedimentation, channel instability, and water quality problems. • Protect conifer riparian areas. • Convert open and hardwood riparian areas to conifer. • Increase off-channel habitat. • Increase instream LWD, preferably with attached rootwads. • Stop the removal of instream wood. • Prevent the increase of water withdrawals. These can have a large impact on salmon because of the naturally low flow conditions in the summer and early autumn. • Set up a State/Tribal/County committee to identify and purchase critical salmon habitat for conservation and to address problem areas. • Increase marine-derived stream nutrient levels by allowing sufficient escapement of salmon.

Estuarine Habitat - The nearshore environment is essential for rearing juvenile salmonids, offering a transportation corridor for both juvenile and adult salmonids as well as resting habitat for adult salmon

65 transitioning to spawning streams. Habitats that are especially important for salmonid production include eelgrass, overstory and understory kelp beds, and sandy beaches. Common human impacts on estuarine habitat include landslides associated with roadways, shoreline armoring, and dock construction. Salmon Distribution

The WRIA 19 watershed supports three species of Pacific Salmon: Chinook, coho, and chum plus steelhead and cutthroat trout. None of the other two species of salmon (pink or sockeye) have been documented in WRIA 19 fresh waters, although they are seasonally abundant in the Straits, along with all other species during their adult migration to other waters.

The spawning distributions of Chinook, coho, and chum plus both summer and winter stocks of steelhead can be found on the web in the interactive mapping project SalmonScape at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape. Data sources are from the WDFW StreamNet project and the WCC Limiting Factors Analysis.

Specifically, fall Chinook are presently documented to return to the Sekiu River (both Forks), the Big and Little Hoko Rivers and both the mainstem and South Fork of the Pysht River. Historically Chinook were found in Salt Creek, the Lyre River, Deep Creek, and Bullman Creek.

Coho are found in most streams with anadromous access including Village Creek, Agency Creek, Snow Creek, Bulllman Creek, Olsen Creek, the Sekiu River and tributaries, the Hoko and tributaries, the Clallam and tributaries, Jim Creek, Deep Creek and tributaries, the East and West Twin Rivers and tributaries, Murdock Creek, Susie Creek, Nelson Creek, Whiskey Creek, Salt Creek, and Coville Creek.

Fall chum (there are no summer chum in WRIA 19) spawn in Coville Creek, Salt Creek, Whiskey Creek, Fielding Creek, the Lyre River and tributaries, the East and West Twins, Deep Creek, the Pysht and tributaries, the Clallam, Hoko and tributaries, the Sekiu River, and Bullman Creek.

Summer steelhead are found the in East and West Twin Rivers, Murdock Creek, the Lyre River, Fielding Creek, and Coville Creek.

Winter steelhead reside in Coville Creek, Salt Creek, Whiskey Creek, Fielding Creek, the Lyre River along with tributaries, Nelson and Susie Creeks, Murdock Creek, the East and West Twin Rivers, including Sadie Creek, Deep Creek and tributaries, the Pysht River and tributaries, the Clallam River and tributaries, the Hoko and tributaries, the Sekiu and tributaries, Jansen Creek, Rassmussen Creek, Bullman Creek, the Sail River, Agency Creek, and Village Creek.

Cutthroat trout are ubiquitous throughout the watershed in most streams with both saltwater and resident forms, the latter even found among natural blockages.

There have been none of the native chars, such as bull trout, found in WRIA 19.

Most of the streams in this watershed have their origin in the high range of hills paralleling the Strait of Juan de Fuca. They typically have a steep gradient near their headwaters with many miles of moderate gradient before reaching the tidal influence zone which on some of the larger streams can extend upstream for several miles. The Hoko, Sekiu, Clallam, and Pysht rivers have this characteristic. All streams that are accessible to salmonids have good to excellent quality pool-riffle streambed interspersed with sections of rapids. Twenty stocks or stock complexes of salmonids have been identified in WRIA 19: Fall chinook stock: Hoko

66 Fall chum stocks: Lyre Deep Creek/East and West Twin Pysht Hoko/Clallam/Sekiu Coho stocks: Salt Creek Lyre Pysht/Twin/Deep Creek Clallam Hoko Sekiu/Sail Winter steelhead stocks: Salt Creek/Independent Lyre Pysht/Independent Clallam Hoko Sekiu Sail Coastal cutthroat stock complexes: Mid Strait of Juan de Fuca Western Strait of Juan de Fuca Related Studies and Documents on Habitat

Several previous studies document habitat conditions in various WRIA 19 subbasins. A limited list of studies includes the following:

Limiting Factors Analysis—The Washington State Conservation Commission’s Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors in the Western Strait of Juan de Fuca (Limiting Factors Analysis; Smith, 1999) identifies habitat conditions of salmonid-producing watersheds in WRIA 19. Major and minor factors that limit salmonid production are summarized by watershed. The report reviews historical and current conditions of salmonid habitat and populations.

Washington Department of Natural Resources Watershed Analyses—The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) performed an analysis of the Hoko River Subbasin in 1995 and an analysis of the Sekiu River Subbasin in 2001. The analyses assess resource conditions, define problems and sensitivities, produce management prescriptions, and monitor effectiveness.

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board—A project by the Intensively Monitored Watershed Scientific Oversight Committee of the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board addresses the relationships controlling salmon response to habitat conditions. This project has begun limited monitoring of water quantity, water quality, habitat, summer juvenile fish abundance, and smolt production, and identifying restoration actions.

2007 Puget Sound Watershed Protection and Restoration Program—Strategies and actions to address salmonid protection and restoration will be assessed and developed for WRIA 19. Substantial work has been done in WRIA 19 to assess habitat, set recommendations for instream flows, and to protect and restore habitat. Now it must be integrated (with protection and

67 restoration goals) into an overall plan, and incorporated into strategies and actions in the larger recovery planning area.

Forest Practice HCP and EIS—In 2006 the State of Washington entered into a Habitat Conservation Plan with federal agencies responsible for the protection of salmon and other aquatic species under the Endangered Species Act. The HCP regulates forest practices on private forestlands. The HCP and EIS contain an extensive scientific record that formed the basis of the agreement. Recent changes to the FPA are a result of the Forests & Fish Law adopted by the Legislature in 1999 in response to federal listings of endangered salmon and impaired water quality on non-federal forestlands. An important aspect of the Forest & Fish Law is adaptive management, which will be evaluated through the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (CMER) program. CMER will emphasize validation and effectiveness monitoring and research, and will develop documented, standard procedures to evaluate forest practices.

Northwest Forest Plan—Adopted in 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is an integrated, comprehensive design for ecosystem management, intergovernmental and public collaboration, and rural community economic assistance for federal forests in western Oregon and Washington, and northern California. The mission of the NFP is to adopt coordinated management direction for lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and to adopt complementary approaches by other federal agencies operating in the range of the northern spotted owl. The management of these public lands must meet dual needs: the need for forest habitat and the need for forest products.

Geomorphic Analysis of the South Fork of Green Creek—Conducted by Lee Benda for Cavenham Forest Industries Division, 1993.

Watershed Characteristics and Conditions Inventory: Pysht River and Snow Creek Watersheds—Conducted by Jones & Stokes Associates for Department of Natural Resources, 1991.

Clallam River Watershed Stream Habitat Inventory and Assessment—Prepared by Mike Haggerty for Clallam County, 2007.

68 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains the recommendations for watershed resources in WRIA 19 as developed by the Planning Unit. Recommendations were developed by an initial survey and request for input from Planning Unit members. For reference and to track changes as recommendations were developed, each item was placed in one of the following categories and given a specific code and numbering: • Education and Outreach (EDU) • Watershed Monitoring Program (MON) • Land Use (LU) • Instream Flow (ISF) • Stream Flow and Groundwater (SGW) • Habitat (HAB) • Water Quantity (WQT) • Water Quality (WQL) • Climate Change (CLI) • Specific Subbasin (SUB) • Implementation (IMP) Suggested recommendations were developed by Planning Unit members, local citizens, and other interested parties, all of whom contributed their ideas about how to protect watershed resources in WRIA 19. Recommendations were also developed by the consultants through the technical assessment, as well as through conversations and observations at Planning Unit meetings. When the Planning Unit was unable to reach consensus, recommendations were decided by a majority vote. Recommendations with General Agreement

While differences between community members do exist, the Planning Unit has reached consensus on 58 recommendations that have come out of the watershed planning process for WRIA 19. Recommendations were initially taken from suggestions by Planning Unit members, from the Technical Assessment studies, and from past ideas and research studies. These recommendations evolved through an iterative process with extensive input from Planning Unit members. Specifically, a Planning Unit workshop was held on August 3, 2005 to review, modify, and comment on the current list of recommendations as of that date.

Education and Outreach Recommendations

A. Stewardship of Private Property

•Recommendation EDU-A1—Distribute informational material (existing or newly-developed materials) to promote responsible stewardship of private property.

•Recommendation EDU-A2—Continue to provide technical and financial assistance programs for planning and implementation of conservation projects/issues on private property, such as is provided through the Clallam Conservation District.

69 •Recommendation EDU-A3—Urge Clallam County to provide technical and financial assistance programs for planning and implementation to remove caches of trash, scrap metal, and junk vehicles from private property.

B. Watershed Plan Implementation Support

•Recommendation EDU-B1—Demonstrably successful public outreach and involvement activities should continue during Watershed Plan implementation and beyond. The following types of activities have been found to be effective and should continue:

–Publicize meetings of the Planning Unit (or watershed planning coordinating group).

–Maintain information kiosks.

–Continue informational updates by email for members of the Planning Unit and interested parties.

–Continue public outreach and community meetings as needed to solicit community input as implementation actions are undertaken.

•Recommendation EDU-B2—Develop and maintain a website that will provide information about current Planning Unit (or watershed planning coordinating group) activities, implementation efforts, monitoring data, and any additional information relevant to watershed resources (can be done through Ecology’s watershed planning website).

•Recommendation EDU-B3—The Planning Unit (or watershed planning coordinating group) will obtain administrative and financial support for Watershed Plan implementation, possibly including dedicated staff members.

•Recommendation EDU-B4—Educate public officials and policy makers about the plan and its implementation:

–Keep public officials aware of water resource concerns and issues.

–Actively solicit support (financial and other) from public officials and policy makers.

•Recommendation EDU-B5—Related to Watershed Plan implementation, provide educational or outreach opportunities for citizens to learn about the basic ecology of a healthy watershed and nearshore areas, focusing first on the following high priority areas:

–Water conservation

–Stream and nearshore awareness (riparian areas, stream and nearshore functions, positive and negative impacts on streams and shorelines)

–Salmon and habitat restoration

–Wastewater treatment system maintenance.

–Fishing and hatchery issues

•Recommendation EDU-B6—Provide education and training for volunteer monitors through entities such as Streamkeepers of Clallam County or the Clallam Conservation District.

70 Watershed Monitoring Program

•Recommendation MON 1—Continue water quality monitoring on property with willing landowners and public agencies, such as the DNR. The planning unit can provide the annual study plan for monitoring to facilitate access and assistance.

•Recommendation MON 2—With continuing permission of willing landowners, continue monitoring of the current BIBI and IFIM sites.

•Recommendation MON 3—Recommend a comprehensive study to address all of the factors affecting the health of the Big 9 streams, including how forest practices and other land uses affect summer base flows and winter peak flows.

Land Use Recommendations

A. Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial

•Recommendation LU-A1—Encourage low-impact development principles and practices.

•Recommendation LU-A2—Avoid or minimize creation of impervious surfaces (urbanization and paving) whenever possible. Where impervious surfaces are created, look to “best management practices” and mitigations to address the impacts of runoff on the WRIA’s water resources.

•Recommendation LU-A3—The Watershed Planning Unit supports efforts to improve coordination between water system planning, comprehensive land use planning (Growth Management Act), shoreline management planning (Shoreline Management Act), and watershed planning.

•Recommendation LU-A4—The Watershed Planning Unit supports the idea that land use proposals that would require a change or exception from current Clallam County zoning must be subject to a full environmental and comprehensive plan review/update. Any conversions must include County, citizen, and interested party input.

•Recommendation LU-A5—Determine how wastewater treatment/disposal and reuse will be provided for anticipated new growth.

•Recommendation LU-A6—Evaluate what impact septic tank-leach field systems have on water quantity and quality and consider actions to reduce or mitigate impacts if they exist.

•Recommendation LU-A7—The Watershed Planning Unit supports current efforts to evaluate existing development compliance programs and make improvements to these regulations as necessary.

•Recommendation LU-A8—Develop a mechanism to mitigate environmental threats to waterways on non-conforming pre-existing use parcels, where current environmental codes and regulations may not be enforced adequately.

B. Public and Private Forestry

•Recommendation LU-B1—DNR, in conformance with Freedom of Information Act requirements, should provide information about its enforcement approach and ongoing documentation of enforcement actions and outcomes. DNR will make information available through the provisions of public disclosure laws.

71 •Recommendation LU-B2—Evaluate the possibility of expanding the current Ecology Intensively Monitored Watershed study (in Deep Creek and East/West Twin Rivers) to other subbasin(s) with more intense land use activity such as the Pysht or Sekiu.

C. Protected Areas

•Recommendation LU-C1—Consider developing a plan for land purchase or conservation easements from willing sellers in the watershed focusing on parcels or areas that would benefit water resources of the basin.

•Recommendation LU-C2—In cooperation with willing landowners, develop a program to conserve existing late successional areas and creating new such areas. Currently, there are existing programs related to preserving late successional areas on commercial forestry land.

•Recommendation LU-C3—Implement programs to conserve agricultural activities in the WRIA, including agricultural land reserves.

•Recommendation LU-C4—Pursue actions to conserve, acquire, and protect riparian and nearshore habitat, including wetland areas, from willing sellers.

•Recommendation LU-C5—Actively support conservation measures for the nearshore marine waters to limit substantial coastal development.

Instream Flow Recommendations

•Recommendation ISF-1—Ecology is requested to begin the rulemaking process for establishing instream flows for the streams listed in Table 1 and with the provisions as indicated in Table 3. The instream flow recommendations are for the “Big 9” and for “Other Streams.”

The WRIA 19 planning unit recommends that for all in-stream water rights, and for the associated closures and reserves that are included in the final rule, the effective date is no later than the date of legal adoption of this watershed plan. Within these watersheds, the County will endeavor to provide to prospective new water users information resources of possible impacts on water availability from these pending actions.

•Recommendation ISF-2—The Planning Unit, in cooperation with Ecology, has initiated collection of flow data from ungaged “Big 9” rivers and streams. Related to this flow and channel geometry data, the Planning Unit recommends the following actions:

–Accurate continuous flow information should be collected from each of the “Big 9” rivers and streams. At a minimum, spot flow measurements should be collected from smaller streams in WRIA 19.

–There should be ongoing review and adjustment of data to account for new and pertinent information to supplement what already exists in the plan.

–Because of the remote location of WRIA 19, trained volunteers, such as Streamkeepers of Clallam County, should partner with state/federal/tribal agencies in this monitoring effort, with the local monitors providing day-to-day maintenance, observation, and data collection. Under the current flow gauging program, Ecology is providing station set-up (including access arrangements), periodic data collection and station maintenance, data analysis, and data management.

72 –After approximately 5-10 years, this flow and channel geometry data will be used to assess instream flow levels. It is envisioned that minimum instream flow levels may be revised, based on actual flow and channel geometry data, to 10% exceedance levels, where initial flows have been set based on hydrology rather than the instream flow incremental methodology model results. An initial assessment will occur as part of the rulemaking process. Language could potentially be included in the rule that envisions amendment of the instream flow levels without reopening the entire rule.

–Begin work immediately to obtain funding/resources to continue operating the new flow gages. (At this time, Ecology is not aware of a 5-year limit)

•Recommendation ISF-3—Consider conducting further assessment of priority or balanced approaches for setting instream flow levels.

•Recommendation ISF-4—Develop an “emergency plan” for voluntary water conservation measures to be employed in drought or low water years.

•Recommendation ISF-5—Consider conducting site-specific studies to evaluate the possible benefits for limiting anthropogenic peak flows to reduce negative impacts on stream channels.

•Recommendation ISF-6—Conduct IFIM analysis for adult summer Chinook (August) in the Hoko River prior/during Ecology rulemaking process.

•Recommendation ISF-7—Develop a water supply plan to encourage off-stream storage for instream and out-of-stream uses.

Stream and Groundwater Recommendations

•Recommendation SGW-1—Conduct reconnaissance-level studies with appropriate study design and protocols on the relationship between groundwater and surface water in other subbasins.

•Recommendation SGW-2—With the permission of willing landowners, install flow gages on all of “the Big 9” streams, as also discussed under Instream Flow recommendations. Collect and compile flow data. Begin to develop relationships between flows in each stream.

•Recommendation SGW-3—Where feasible, seek opportunities to improve stream flows in priority areas using tools such as the following:

–Improving stormwater management

–Relocating wells to points of reduced impact on stream flows

–Moving wells to a deeper aquifer

–Purchasing, leasing, or obtaining donations of water rights

–Water banking

–Directly augmenting surface water using groundwater or other sources

–Bringing in alternate sources of water (e.g., reclaimed water)

73 Habitat Recommendations

A. Stream Habitat

•Recommendation HAB-A1—Using a study plan with established protocols the following suggested actions pertain to off-channel habitat:

–Identify areas where off-channel habitat is good and prioritize them for permanent conservation.

–Identify areas where off-channel habitat is disconnected.

–Develop a prioritized list for possible reconnections of off-channel habitat to stream or restoration.

B. Channel Conditions and Dynamics

•Recommendation HAB-B1—Using a study plan based on established protocols, measure cross-sections along “the Big 9” streams to identify areas of aggradation and incision.

•Recommendation HAB-B2—Using a study plan based on established protocols; develop profiles for healthy stream reaches.

•Recommendation HAB-B3—Using a study plan based on established protocols identify areas where streambanks are moderately to highly unstable. Characterize/document the conditions of riparian vegetation and any active erosion in these areas.

•Recommendation HAB-B4—Using a study plan based on established protocols prioritize and conduct restoration activities such as bank stabilization, riparian planting, and in-channel, off-channel refugia, and rehabilitate incised channels.

C. Watershed Conditions

•Recommendation HAB-C1—Riparian areas should be accurately characterized.

•Recommendation HAB-C2—Residential landowners should be targeted for education and technical assistance related to significance, function, conservation, and restrictions on riparian areas that they own.

•Recommendation HAB-C3—Encourage voluntary increases of riparian buffers to improve and protect habitat.

•Recommendation HAB-C4—Assemble enough land in a small subbasin or stream to conduct a full watershed restoration demonstration project. However, land acquisition is not a prerequisite to restoration.

•Recommendation HAB-C5—Encourage the creation and/or restoration of wetlands and ponds in headwater areas and along side channels (among other locations in the watershed), to benefit summer base flows and salmon habitat.

D. Estuarine Conditions

•Recommendation HAB-D1—With land owner permission, inventory estuarine and marine shoreline habitat to identify degraded locations.

74 •Recommendation HAB-D2—Work with a nearshore restoration group to prioritize habitat restoration goals. Currently WDFW is attempting to secure funding for such an effort.

E. Biological Indicators

•Recommendation HAB-E1—Coordinate with existing salmon recovery efforts such as North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (NOPLE), North Olympic Salmon Coalition, FFR HCP, and Puget Sound Partnership on salmon recovery efforts.

•Recommendation HAB-E2—Within the WRIA, develop a restoration work group, or work with existing restoration groups, to emphasize salmon recovery. This includes investigating the causes of population declines, prioritizing actions, soliciting funding, and implementing restoration projects. These efforts would be coordinated through NOPLE, NOSC, and Puget Sound Partnership.

•Recommendation HAB-E3—Conduct a study to determine the loading of marine-derived nutrients in riparian vegetation to provide an estimate of historical fish biomass.

•Recommendation HAB-E4—Conduct a study of the impact of food loss on fish populations (lamprey, sand lance, minnows, and crayfish).

•Recommendation HAB-E5—Monitor spawning and smolt production.

•Recommendation HAB-E6—Organize a meeting between planning unit members and officials from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Tribes to discuss salmon escapements in WRIA 19 streams. The meeting would specifically address concerns that runs of western Strait fall chum, winter chum (Lyre), and chinook on “the Big 9” streams may be extirpated or at such low levels that the genetic viability of the runs are threatened.

•Recommendation HAB-E7—As quickly as possible, establish minimum escapement to restore harvestable levels of wild salmonids in the terminal fisheries.

•Recommendation HAB-E8—Send a letter to the appropriate parties regarding the lack of listed salmon and lamprey in WRIA 19.

Water Quantity Recommendations

•Recommendation WQT-1—Consider federal and tribal water rights. Federal and tribal water rights are not listed in Ecology records, nor are they quantified anywhere. An estimate of the potential magnitude of federal and tribal water rights in WRIA 19 should be generated. Because of the size of federal and tribal land holdings and facilities and the longstanding duration of tribal rights, this is likely to have an impact on water availability and uses.

•Recommendation WQT-2—Conduct a WRIA-wide evaluation of permit-exempt well impacts in WRIA 19. Generally speaking, exempt wells are not believed to be creating a negative impact in this watershed. However, unaccounted water use could impact several of the smaller streams.

•Recommendation WQT-3—The State should enforce current regulations related to exempt wells.

•Recommendation WQT-4—Develop an informed estimate of actual water use:

–For non-municipal systems, a comparison should be conducted between the amount of water rights that exist and the actual amount of water that is needed for beneficial use and actually used. Results of this evaluation should be documented with Ecology and Clallam County.

75 •Recommendation WQT-5—Work with the Departments of Health and Ecology, as well as Clallam County to develop a water supply plan to accommodate planned future population growth.

•Recommendation WQT-6—Working with municipal water purveyors, implement water conservation programs.

•Recommendation WQT-7—Actively encourage and promote water reuse or flow return projects, especially for the Clallam Bay State Prison. Look for water reuse opportunities on forest land, in landscaping, and in creative manners that will provide benefits to water quantity and the environment.

•Recommendation WQT-8—Develop Emergency Drought Response plan within communities of Clallam Bay and Joyce, when stream flows become prohibitively low.

•Recommendation WQT-9—Develop a WRIA-wide water supply plan to encourage off-stream storage for in-stream and out-of-stream uses with emphasis on the Hoko River.

•Recommendation WQT-10—Investigate the potential of obtaining potable water at the fresh water/salt water interface.

• Recommendation WQT-11—Investigate the potential for obtaining potable water from non- fish-bearing streams, such as Falls Creek.

Water Quality Recommendations

•Recommendation WQL-1—Using the appropriate study protocols, assess water quality impacts from potential pollution sources such as roadways, caches of junk vehicles, trash, and scrap metal, and agricultural and forest land runoff where chemicals have been applied, and on-site septic systems.

•Recommendation WQL-2—Work with land users to restrict livestock access to streams and riparian areas. Financial and technical assistance is available from various government agencies to help private citizens fence their streams.

•Recommendation WQL-3—Where water quality degradation has occurred, develop and implement a plan to prevent and correct. Ideally this will be accomplished without the need for a total maximum daily load (TMDL).

•Recommendation WQL-4—Promote on-site septic system disposal practices that are effective in protecting groundwater and surface water resources from possible adverse water quality impacts. This includes regular inspections and proper maintenance and repair of septic systems.

•Recommendation WQL-5—Working with the Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Action Team to develop and implement a stormwater management program incorporating all of the elements of a comprehensive stormwater management program, as outlined in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (Chapter SW-1.2), ensure that only high quality stormwater is released to WRIA 19 streams. Stormwater quality and quantity management should use Low Impact Development principles and practices, such as treatment prior to infiltration, whenever possible.

•Recommendation WQL-6—Implement educational programs on proper use, storage and disposal of household chemicals, including use of nontoxic alternatives.

Climate Change Recommendations

76 •Recommendation CLI-1—Establish a climate/weather monitoring station in WRIA 19 similar to the one at Clallam Bay High School to contribute data to organizations that are currently conducting climate change monitoring and provide local up to date information to local managers. Possible locations include schools in Crescent Bay and Neah Bay.

•Recommendation CLI-2—Monitor streams for the full life cycle of salmonids in order to track changes in freshwater and marine productivity. A better understanding of changes in marine and freshwater productivity rests on the establishment of long-term, continuous records of the age-

structure of spawners, parr, and smolt production, in addition to the more commonly collected index counts used to estimate total spawners.

Specific Subbasin Recommendations

•Recommendation SUB-1—Determine the impacts of present and future human use of water in the Salt Creek subbasin.

•Recommendation SUB-2—Find a permanent solution for the Clallam River outlet closure to protect salmon runs.

•Recommendation SUB-3—In the Lyre River subbasin, coordinate water use with Lake Crescent management, particularly related to any future development of recreational facilities within Olympic National Park.

Implementation Recommendations

A. Long term Management

•Recommendation IMP-A1—Recommend a longer-term coordinating group, open to stakeholders such as all WRIA 19 residents, landowners, tribes, Clallam County, and water purveyors for overseeing implementation of the plan.

B. Funding

•Recommendation IMP-B1—Pursue 2514 Watershed Management Planning Phase 4 (Implementation) and/or other project funding from Ecology.

•Recommendation IMP-B2—Develop an approach and secure ongoing local funding for implementation of recommendations from the Watershed Plan. As part of the early implementation phase, local agencies should pursue local funding sources, especially from the standpoint of funding an ongoing effort.

77 SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN INFORMATION Background

This section introduces the watershed planning process in Washington State and in the Lyre-Hoko watershed. Through this process, stakeholders in this watershed have worked to develop management strategies and recommended actions to help protect and enhance water quantity, quality, instream flows, and fish habitat. Additional work remains to be accomplished and it is therefore envisioned that this plan will be further refined in the implementation phase of the watershed planning process and in future plan updates.

In 1998 the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2514, the Watershed Management Act (WMA). This act has been codified into the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.82 and is commonly referred to as the “2514” watershed planning process. The law is the enabling legislation for watershed planning and provides a framework for locally-based planning and resource management through the development of watershed plans by “Planning Units”. Watershed plans address water availability and quality and critical habitat for fish and wildlife. The full text of the Watershed Management Act is contained in Appendix 1.

The planning process outlined in the Act was designed to allow people who live, work, and recreate within a watershed to collaborate on how they want water resources to be managed for the future. A stated purpose of the statute is “… to develop a more thorough and cooperative method of determining the current water situation in each water resource inventory area of the state and to provide local citizens with the maximum possible input concerning their goals and objectives for water resources management and development.” Obligations and Expectations

The State of Washington considers an approved watershed plan adopted by the county commissioners as the preferred tool for future water management in each WRIA. The Department of Ecology and the Planning Unit expect to use recommendations in this plan to aid decisions about instream flows and issuing permits for new water rights.

When the watershed management plan is approved by the Planning Unit and adopted by Clallam County, the Department of Ecology will be obligated to adopt strategies that will implement applicable watershed management plan recommendations. In the case of instream flow recommendations, Ecology intends to adopt rules using plan recommendations as a key basis for rule-making. Ecology will also be required to track its work obligations under the local watershed management plans and give priority to making water rights decisions in watersheds that have developed sufficient information to make decisions.

The following sections from the 2003 update of RCW 90.82 provide details and directives to agencies and organizations about plan obligations and expectations:

All agencies and organizations voluntarily accepting a plan obligation will need to adopt policies, procedures, agreements, and rules or ordinances to implement the plan. These organizations should annually review implementation needs with respect to budget and staffing.

After a plan is adopted the Department of Ecology shall use the plan as a framework for making future water resource decisions for the planned watershed. Additionally, the Department shall

78 rely upon the plan as a primary consideration in determining the public interest related to such decisions. Sequence and Products of the Planning Process The WRIA 19 watershed planning process includes the following separate products:

WRIA 19 Watershed Plan 9 Draft Technical Assessment with comments 9 Multi-Purpose Water Storage Study 9 Draft Hoko-Lyre Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring Plan 9 Technical Report Instream Flow Studies 9 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity Sampling Program Field Report 9 Ground Rules for WRIA 19/20 Watershed Planning

The sequence of the planning process is divided into four key steps or phases. This plan is the result of the first three phases:

Phase I – Organization:

Developing a planning process, determining a scope of work, preparing interagency agreements, identifying membership and convening a planning unit, and otherwise preparing for the planning process to begin in earnest. Planning unit membership is listed on Page 7. State funding for Phase 1 is up to $50,000 for individual watersheds and $100,000 for multi-watershed planning units. (WRIA 19 began watershed planning as a multi-watershed in conjunction with WRIA 20, but partially into the planning process, the planning effort separated into two individual efforts.)

Phase II – Assessment:

In Phase II, the planning unit collects and assesses information about the watershed and prepares a Technical Assessment. In the WRIA 19 planning process, the final product was a draft Phase II report, with comments. (The WRIA 19 draft technical assessment may be updated in the future.) A technical assessment must include the following minimum requirements: Estimate of surface and groundwater present, and its availability given seasonal fluctuations and other variations. Estimate of water represented by the water rights claims registry, water use permits, certificated rights, existing minimum instream flow rules, federally reserved rights, and any other rights to water. Estimate of surface and groundwater actually being used, and predicted future needs. Identification of aquifers which recharge surface water, and surface areas which recharge aquifers. Estimate of the surface and groundwater available for future appropriation, taking into account adopted minimum instream flows, including the data needed to evaluate flows necessary for fish.

79 State grant funding for this portion of Phase II is up to $200,000.

All available existing studies and technical documents pertaining to the natural and human landscape were analyzed with individual subbasins characterized by relevant natural and human-influenced environmental features. Significant findings and conclusions from the technical assessment include the following: There is little historical data for WRIA 19, making it difficult to assess past conditions and formulate specific, science-based recommendations for the Watershed Plan. Historical and current logging practices are the key land use impact and shape current conditions within the watershed. Water quality problems have been identified throughout WRIA 19. Salmonid populations are generally in distress within the watershed. Roads have a major impact on stream function in WRIA 19. Instream flow needs have been estimated for numerous WRIA 19 streams/rivers through toe-width studies and studies using the “instream flow incremental methodology.” The primary consumptive water use in WRIA 19 is for residential domestic needs. Consumptive water use which is not quantified or regulated is potentially an issue in localized regions of the watershed. There are limited deep aquifers that could likely provide additional water supply with a lesser impact on river and stream flow. Due to the high level of disturbance in the watershed, restoration is necessary to achieve a healthy watershed. Land ownership is the defining element of land use; ownership determines use. Human settlement is minimal throughout the watershed, but it is significant in the Clallam River and Salt Creek Subbasins. There have been no provisions to ensure that adequate water is available in the watershed for both fish and people. A nearshore assessment will be undertaken by WDFW in 2007.

Under a bill passed by the Legislature in 2001, Phase II of the planning process may also include the following optional elements. These elements can help to increase the level of technical information available for the watershed and help form the basis for developing plan recommendations:

Water Quality: To assess water quality and develop water quality monitoring and other recommendations. With a supplemental grant for a water quality element, information about existing monitoring efforts was collected to create a “coordinated monitoring program” based on the Department of Ecology’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) framework. Two workshops were held to determine specific monitoring needs for WRIA 19, in January 2005, and March 2005. Participants included representatives from organizations

80 active in monitoring throughout the watershed, including Streamkeepers of Clallam County, the Department of Ecology, the National Park Service, and the Makah and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribes. The purpose of these workshops was to document activities, identify monitoring needs, and develop goals and objectives for a watershed wide coordinated monitoring program. Examples of monitoring activities included water quality, water quantity (such as flow and water use), and habitat monitoring. Details about who does the monitoring, frequency, site location and protocols were also collected. Instream Flows: To assess flows and establish recommendations for minimum instream flow rules. Multi-purpose Storage: To assess multi-purpose storage opportunities and develop storage recommendations. The goal of the multipurpose water storage analysis was to evaluate the water needs of the basin and the capacity of water providers to meet those needs in the future and to identify potential projects for storing excess winter runoff to use for increasing summer instream flows, either by providing additional water for consumption or by directly augmenting instream flows. This was a survey-level study to determine projects that warrant further consideration and was based on a review of existing information. No new analyses were conducted for this report, so the level of detail for specific projects in this report depended on the information available. In some instances, projects would require considerably more investigation before a final determination of their feasibility could be made. Because the goal of the water storage study is to identify projects that will help mitigate the human impact on hydrologic processes, this report does consider the current state of hydrologic processes and summarizes conditions discussed in the habitat, water allocation, and hydrology sections of the Watershed Plan. Projects were selected for further consideration based on the following criteria: ease of implementation, water storage ability, potential cost, potential benefits/detriments, potential fish benefit, and habitat potential. At least one project was identified for each basin. Priority was given to projects located in basins that have been identified with a high need for water either for instream flow or for consumptive uses. State grant funding for each of the above optional elements is up to $100,000. Habitat: Planning Units have generally relied on salmon-related programs to fulfill habitat related assessment needs. No separate watershed planning grant funds were allocated by the Legislature for the optional habitat element.

81 Phase III – Planning: The planning unit drafts a plan that includes recommendations to prevent and correct water and habitat problems that have threatened or may impact the watershed. State grant funding for Phase III is up to $300,000. Phase IV – Implementation: The fourth step of the planning process occurs after the plan is approved and adopted. Phase IV begins with the development of a detailed implementation plan (within the first year of plan implementation funding) which identifies specifically how the plan recommendations will be undertaken. The detailed implementation plan must include strategies to provide sufficient water for production agriculture, commercial, industrial, and residential use, and instream flows, among other requirements. State grant funding for Phase IV is up to $400,000, which is distributed as follows: up to $100,000 per year for the first three years, and then up to $50,000 for each of the next two years. A 10 percent match is required, which may consist of in-kind goods and services. Funding of and Restrictions on Planning Process

In order to undertake watershed planning the Legislature provided for funding to be administered by the Department of Ecology to be made available to each watershed planning process. In WRIA 19, grant agreements were developed between Ecology and Clallam County. Approximately $750,000 in grant funding has been expended on plan development in this watershed. A total of approximately $127,000 was awarded to complete the Phase III planning process.

The Legislature also imposed certain restrictions on what a watershed plan may or may not do. For example, a plan may not conflict with law or tribal treaty rights, impair or diminish a water right, or affect or interfere with water rights adjudication. Plans may not modify habitat restoration or enhancement projects under the Salmon Recovery Act.

While plans may recommend changes in state or local regulations, policies or plans, plans themselves may not change existing ordinances, laws or rules. Entities and agencies that participate in the planning process, and agree to be obligated by a watershed plan, are bound by it. Of special note in WRIA 19, the legislation specifically limits how the plan can influence forest practices:

RCW 90.82.120 - Plan parameters.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, watershed planning shall take into account forest practices rules under the forest practices act, chapter 76.09 RCW, and shall not create any obligations or restrictions on forest practices additional to or inconsistent with the forest practices act and its implementing rules, whether watershed planning is approved by the counties or the department.

The legislation, however, does not preclude the forest industry or agencies from agreeing to undertake additional voluntary actions to protect watershed health. The planning unit encourages such actions to be consistent with the purposes of Federal Forest reserves, which include securing favorable conditions of water flow to preserve water supply.

82 Plan Approval and Adoption Process

Planning Unit Approval: The Watershed Management Act prescribes that a Planning Unit may approve a watershed plan by either of the following forms of agreement: Consensus of all members of the Planning Unit. Consensus of the Initiating Governments and a majority vote of the non-governmental members. If approval of the entire watershed plan cannot be achieved by one of these two forms of agreement, the Planning Unit has two options: Approval of components of the plan by one of the two forms of agreement identified above, with or without a commitment to continue discussion of elements that are not approved. Termination of the planning process. County Adoption After Planning Unit approval, the plan is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption. Because WRIA 19 is located entirely within Clallam County, the BOCC is the only involved legislative authority for adoption of this plan. Once the Planning Unit has approved the plan, the BOCC must hold at least one public hearing, with appropriate advance public notice, on the watershed plan or components approved by the Planning Unit. After the public hearings, the BOCC must consider the watershed plan. Clallam County has two options: Adoption of the Watershed Plan by a majority of the commissioners. Return of the Watershed Plan to the Planning Unit with recommendations for revisions: RCW 90.82.130 2b (2)(a) With the exception of a county legislative authority that chooses to opt out of watershed planning as provided in (c) of this subsection, the legislative authority of each of the counties with territory in the management area shall provide public notice of and conduct at least one public hearing on the proposed watershed plan submitted under this section. After the public hearings, the legislative authorities of these counties shall convene in joint session to consider the proposal. The counties may approve or reject the proposed watershed plan for the management area, but may not amend it. Approval of such a proposal shall be made by a majority vote of the members of each of the counties with territory in the management area.

(b) If a proposed watershed plan is not approved, it shall be returned to the planning unit with recommendations for revisions. Approval of such a revised proposal by the planning unit and the counties shall be made in the same manner provided for the original watershed plan. If approval of the revised plan is not achieved, the process shall terminate.

The BOCC may not amend the plan, but must return it to the Planning Unit if it is not adopted. In this case, the same procedure is required for a Planning Unit amended plan - Planning Unit approval followed by County hearings and adoption or referral back to the Planning Unit.

Public and Policy-Maker Acceptance

For the Watershed Plan to be effectively implemented by local agencies, it is vital that policy makers and citizens of the WRIA 19 be aware of the plan and have opportunities to shape it before it is finalized.

Representatives from each Initiating Government have taken some responsibility for obtaining the buy- in of their policy makers during the planning process. Assurance of this buy-in can only be obtained if Planning Unit representatives have kept their government officials updated about the progress and issues

83 of the plan and have asked for input as to what issues and actions those officials wish to see included in the plan.

Citizen awareness of and input into the recommendations in the watershed plan will contribute significantly toward acceptance of the plan at the public hearings. SEPA Requirements

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was enacted by the State Legislature to ensure that state and local agencies consider likely environmental consequences of proposed actions, including “non- project actions,” which are defined as changes to governmental policies, plans, and programs. A non- project action, such as adoption of a watershed plan, must be reviewed under SEPA unless specifically exempted.

The review consists of identifying and evaluating probable impacts of the action, reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures.

The Department of Ecology’s July 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Watershed Planning (Watershed Planning EIS) analyzes probable environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures associated with the development and approval of watershed plans. The Watershed Planning EIS provides Planning Units with a number of options for SEPA compliance:

1. Adoption of the Watershed Planning EIS and Determination of Significance—This is an option if the Watershed Planning EIS adequately addresses all probable adverse impacts.

2. Adoption of the Watershed Planning EIS, Determination of Significance, and Addendum—This option includes preparation of an addendum providing additional information such as local land cover, environmental, etc.

3. Adoption and Supplemental EIS—If the Watershed Planning EIS addresses some but not all of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts, then a supplemental EIS may have to be prepared.

4. Adoption and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)—This could be issued if it is determined that no probable significant adverse impacts are associated with the recommended actions contained in the Watershed Plan.

Recommendations in watershed plans can involve updates or changes to ordinances, rules, regulations, comprehensive plans, comprehensive water systems plans, or projects. If thorough environmental review for the watershed plan occurs at the broad non-project level, then focused review for individual actions, such as a comprehensive plan update, can be carried out at the time the individual action is carried out. “Actions” are defined by SEPA as any of the following: New and continuing activities (including projects and programs) entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, licensed, or approved by agencies New or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures Legislative proposals.

The following qualifications apply to the use of the Watershed Planning EIS and SEPA compliance for watershed planning:

84 Recommended studies typically do not have the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact and will not trigger a determination of significance.

Recommendations to convene interest/stakeholder groups or educate watershed residents do not have an adverse environmental impact and will not trigger a determination of significance.

Recommended actions that involve review or revision of ordinances, policies, or programs will undergo the SEPA review process during adoption of the revised ordinance, policy, or program. Since a number of the alternatives in the Watershed Planning EIS address modifications to ordinances, plans and policies, impacts, and mitigation measures associated with these types of actions have been addressed adequately for the level of environmental review required for the watershed planning process. Further environmental review under SEPA is not required for any recommendation that has been determined not to result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts.

The Watershed Planning EIS presents alternatives that may be used in local watershed plans. It lists 25 alternatives for achieving water quantity goals; two alternatives for achieving in-stream flow goals; 14 alternatives for achieving water quality goals, and 16 alternatives for achieving habitat goals. The alternatives were identified in consultation with planning units, watershed planning lead agencies, watershed planning consultants, and Ecology watershed leads.

With respect to this planning process, SEPA Compliance for the WRIA 19 Watershed Plan, Clallam County, the SEPA lead agency for the WRIA 19 watershed planning process, has opted to adopt the Watershed Planning EIS and issue a determination of significance for the WRIA 19 Watershed Plan. The WRIA 19 Watershed Plan does not require an addendum or additional EIS for its determination of significance. The Watershed Planning EIS will be used for all actions in the plan that require SEPA review. Public Involvement

While the planning process has been locally based, additional efforts have been made to involve the public. In addition to the ability to attend and participate in regular Planning Unit meetings, the Planning Unit has provided for additional public review and input at the conclusion of the planning process. A “Public Review Draft” of the plan will be made available in a series of special public meetings. Further review and comment will occur during this special period of public review. After public review, the Planning Unit will evaluate input on the plan and make any needed last minute changes.

Creation of a meaningful watershed plan requires active involvement in the planning process from a broad cross section of the public. Only such involvement can lead to the development of a balanced, well-informed plan that reflects the needs and interests of local citizens.

The WRIA 19 Public Involvement Plan (Appendix 5) was developed in December 2004 to increase public awareness and involvement in watershed planning and to inform citizens about meaningful developments in the planning process. The public involvement plan outlines the following goals and the objectives for achieving them.

Goals: Š Create awareness of watershed planning and how it affects individuals and groups. Š Encourage an open and responsive planning process. Š Gain stakeholder input on issues facing the watershed and on ways to resolve them.

85 Š Gather local knowledge about the history and unique features of the Hoko-Lyre watershed to incorporate into the watershed plan. Š Provide citizens and policymakers with accurate and timely information about the watershed planning process. Š Effectively communicate issues and solutions to community members and elected officials. Š Encourage support for adopting the WRIA 19 Watershed Plan.

Objectives: Š To the extent possible, schedule Planning Unit meetings and field trips for evenings or weekends to encourage participation from residents who work during weekdays. Š Publicize Planning Unit meetings in the newspaper and by poster at locations throughout the WRIA including the Joyce General Store, Clallam Bay Library, and post offices in Sekiu, Clallam Bay, and Neah Bay. Š Maintain information kiosks at the Clallam Bay and Port Angeles Public Libraries, with current information and study results related to the watershed plan. Š Make regular personal outreach to all parties identified as Planning Unit members or interested parties. Š Circulate email notices regarding watershed plan activities to all Planning Unit members and other interested parties. Š Have Planning Unit members help publicize activities related to the watershed plan through their regular interactions in the community. Š Through development of the water storage study and coordinated monitoring plan, conduct outreach to entities and individuals who are not participating in planning process but have a more focused interest in these related topics. Š Conduct a watershed field trip in the spring of 2005 to view and discuss watershed information and recommendations. The field trip will be publicized and open to all. Š Hold two community meetings (in Joyce and in Sekiu) to present draft recommendations and solicit input from the community. Related Watershed Planning Processes

In order to be successful, watershed planning needs to be fully integrated with other planning processes at the federal, state, and local level. Other planning processes offer opportunities for coordination, data sharing, program management, and funding; they also have rules and regulations that this planning process must accommodate, such as the Washington State Forest Practices Act. Some of the related planning processes are described below.

Clallam County Comprehensive Plan:

The Clallam County Comprehensive Plan has served as a guide for directing local land use policy and decision-making since it first adoption in 1967. The current Comprehensive Plan outlines a vision for land use and development for the early 21st century and defines the policies, programs, and actions necessary to attain this vision. Clallam County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the State Growth Management Act (GMA) that enacted a new framework for land use planning. Within this framework, a wide range of local visions for the future can be accommodated; however the GMA and other land use regulations identify specific goals and requirements that local comprehensive plans must achieve.

86 Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project:

The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project is a cooperative effort among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies including state and other federal government organizations, tribes, industries, and environmental organizations. Its goal is to preserve and restore the health of Puget Sound’s nearshore, which extends approximately 2,500 miles from the Canadian border, through Puget Sound and out the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Neah Bay.

Washington Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan:

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Habitat Conservation Plan is a 70-year management plan for 1.6 million acres of forested state trust land mostly in Western Washington. It is an agreement between the DNR and federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to guarantee that habitat commitments are met, while not penalizing the occasional incidental “take” of a federally listed animal or its habitat. This allows some leeway to accomplish both habitat goals and various income production activities such as timber harvest.

Salmon Recovery Act (ESHB 2496):

This process is considered a part of the watershed plan’s habitat element.

The 1998 State Legislature passed ESHB 2496, the Salmon Recovery Planning Act, to address the decline of salmon in Washington State. ESHB 2496 established a statewide process to identify habitat factors limiting salmon production in the state. This process requires assembly of a technical advisory group of basin experts and uses a set of habitat criteria to be applied statewide to produce a “limiting factors analysis” (LFA) for each river.

The Act also established the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and the Lead Entity Program.

WRIA 19 is represented by the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (NOPLE). The Washington State legislature allocates a certain portion of federal funds from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to the SRFB, who in turn allocates these funds to salmon habitat recovery projects based on a competitive grant process, which is coordinated in WRIA 19 by NOPLE.

Puget Sound Partnership:

The Puget Sound Partnership is a state agency established in 2007 to lead efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound and its spectacular diversity of life, now and for future generations. The Partnership replaces the Puget Sound Action Team and, as of January 1, 2008, assumed the functions once performed by the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound.

The Partnership will create a long-term plan called the 2020 Action Agenda by September 2008. The Action Agenda will identify and prioritize actions, name those responsible, identify funding, track progress and report the results publicly. In the meantime, the state’s 2007-2009 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan is in effect.

Washington State Forest Practices Act:

In 1974, the State Legislature passed the Forest Practices Act (FPA), Chapter 76.09 RCW, which governs all forest practices on non-federal lands in Washington State. The Act defines a plan to protect public resources while ensuring that Washington continues to be a productive timber growing area. The Act regulates activities related to growing, harvesting, or processing timber on all local government, state, and private forest lands.

87 Recent changes to the FPA are a result of the Forests & Fish Law adopted by the Legislature in 1999 in response to federal listings of endangered salmon and impaired water quality on non-federal forestlands. An important aspect of the Forest & Fish Law is adaptive management, which will be evaluated through the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (CMER) program. CMER will emphasize validation and effectiveness monitoring and research, and will develop documented, standard procedures to evaluate forest practices

Northwest Forest Plan:

Adopted in 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is an integrated, comprehensive design for ecosystem management, intergovernmental and public collaboration, and rural community economic assistance for federal forests in western Oregon and Washington, and northern California. The mission of the NFP is to adopt coordinated management direction for lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and to adopt complementary approaches by other federal agencies operating in the range of the northern spotted owl. The management of these public lands must meet dual needs: the need for forest habitat and the need for forest products.

Northwest Straits Commission – Clallam Marine Resources Committee:

NWSC works to protect and enhance the salt water habitat adjoining WRIA 19. The Clallam County Marine Resources Committee (Clallam MRC) was established by the Northwest Straits Commission as a result of the 1998 Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, which combines data-driven science with grassroots involvement by citizen groups in an effort to address the depletion of marine resources in the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

Local (Clallam County) land use and other regulations:

Local laws are intended to protect the land and guide development within the watershed. This plan does not override any local laws and should be considered in the updating of any local plans, i.e., comprehensive plan.

88 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

Acre-foot—The volume of water that would cover one acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of one foot, equivalent to 325,851 gallons of water. Adaptive Management—Reliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately. Allocation—The process of legally acquiring the right to specific amounts of a water resource for specific beneficial uses. Alluvial—Relating to mud and/or sand and gravel deposited by flowing water, e.g. ancient river beds. Appropriation—A deliberate act of acquisition. Aquifer—A geologic formation that is water bearing. A geological formation or structure that stores and/or transmits water, such as to wells and springs. Use of the term is usually restricted to those water- bearing formations capable of yielding water in sufficient quantity to constitute a usable supply for human uses. Aquifer (confined)—Soil or rock below the land surface that is saturated with water. There are layers of impermeable material both above and below, and the aquifer is under pressure so that when it is penetrated by a well, the water rises above the top of the aquifer. Aquifer (perched)—Groundwater in a saturated zone separated from the main body of groundwater by unsaturated material. Aquifer (unconfined)—An aquifer whose upper water surface (water table) is at atmospheric pressure, and thus is able to rise and fall. Aquitard—Underground geological formation that is distinctly less permeable than that of an aquifer and yields inappreciable amounts of water compared to an aquifer. Artificial Recharge—A process where water is put back into ground-water storage from surface-water supplies such as irrigation or induced infiltration from streams or wells. Bank Incision—Entrenching of certain streams/rivers into the adjacent land. Base Flow—Stream flow coming from groundwater. Beneficial Use—Water uses including, among others, domestic use, stock watering, industrial, commercial, agricultural, irrigation, hydroelectric power production, mining, fish and wildlife, stream flow maintenance and enhancement, recreation, municipal, and preservation of environmental and aesthetic values. Best Available Science—Scientific data and methodologies commonly accepted by the scientific community and agreed upon by all government participants. Best Management Practices—Structural, non-structural, and managerial techniques that are recognized to be the most effective and practical means to achieve intended outcomes yet are compatible with the productive use of the resource to which they are applied. Brackish—Containing a mixture of seawater and fresh water. Commercial Water Use—Water used for commercial facilities such as motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, institutions, etc. Water for commercial use comes both from public-supplied sources and self-supplied sources such as local wells. Condensation—The process of water vapor in the air turning into liquid water. Water drops on the outside of a cold glass of water are condensed water. Condensation is the opposite process of evaporation.

89 Cone of Depression (or Cone of Influence)—The depression, roughly conical in shape, produced in the water table by the pumping of water from a well. Congressionally Withdrawn—Areas that require Congressional enactment for their establishment, such as National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments and Wilderness. Consumptive Use—The part of water withdrawn that is evaporated, transpired by plants, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment. Also referred to as water consumed. Cost/Benefit Analysis—A quantitative evaluation of the costs that would be incurred versus the overall benefits to society of a proposed action. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area—Area determined to have a critical recharging effect on aquifers that are used as a source for potable water and are vulnerable to contamination from recharge. Cubic Feet per Second—A rate of discharge used for stream flow measurement equal to the quantity in cubic feet of water flowing past a certain point each second. Depletion—The withdrawal of water from surface-water or groundwater reservoirs at a rate greater than that of replenishment. Discharge—The volume of water that passes a given location within a given period of time, usually expressed in cubic feet per second. Dissolved Oxygen—Measure of free oxygen dissolved in water. Domestic Water Use—Water used for household purposes, such as bathing, flushing toilets, drinking, food preparation, washing clothes, dishes, and dogs, and watering lawns and gardens. Drainage Basin—Land area where precipitation runs off into streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. It is a land feature that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often a ridge. Large drainage basins like the area that drains into the Mississippi River contain thousands of smaller drainage basins. Also called a "watershed." Drawdown—A lowering of the groundwater level caused by pumping. Ecology—Washington State Department of Ecology. Effluent—Water or other liquid—raw, partially or completely treated—flowing from a reservoir, basin, treatment process, or treatment plant. [US EPA definition] Enhancement—The modification of specific structural features of an existing wetland to increase one or more functions based on management objectives, typically done by modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water. Although this term implies gain or improvement, a positive change in one wetland function may negatively affect other wetland functions”. (Lewis, 1989) Equivalent Residential Unit—Amount of water used (indoors and outdoors) by a typical household in a given period of time. Erosion—The process by which a material is worn away by a stream of liquid (water) or air, often due to the presence of abrasive particles. Estuary—A place where fresh and salt water mix, such as a bay, salt marsh, or where a river enters an ocean. Evaporation—The process by which liquid water becomes water vapor, including vaporization from water surfaces, land surfaces, and snow fields, but not from leaf surfaces. The latter is referred to as transpiration. Evapotranspiration—The sum of evaporation and transpiration.

90 Exempt Wells—Wells exempt from the requirement to obtain a water right permit from Ecology. These are usually wells for single-family domestic use that consume less than 5,000 gallons per day. By Department of Health practices, an exempt well serves six or fewer homes. Fecal Coliform—Fecal coliforms are a specific class of bacteria that only inhabit the intestines of warm-blooded animals, including humans. The presence of coliform is an indication that the water is polluted and may contain pathogenic organisms. Flood—Any relatively high stream flow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. Floodplain—The lowland that borders a river, usually dry but subject to flooding. Freshwater—Water that generally contains less than 1,000 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids. Freshet—A sudden overflow of a stream resulting from a heavy rain or thaw. Gaging Station—A site on a stream, canal, lake, or reservoir where systematic observations of water surface elevation or discharge are obtained. Geological Log—A detailed description of all underground features discovered during the drilling of a well (depth, thickness and type of formations). Also known as well log or well driller’s report. Grey Water—Wastewater other than sewage, such as sink drainage or washing machine discharge. Groundwater—(1) Water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock, supplying springs and wells. The upper surface of the saturated zone is called the water table. (2) Water stored underground in rock crevices and in the pores of geologic materials that make up the Earth’s crust. Groundwater (confined)—Groundwater under pressure significantly greater than atmospheric, with its upper limit the bottom of a bed with hydraulic conductivity distinctly lower than that of the material in which the confined water occurs. Groundwater Recharge—Inflow of water to a groundwater reservoir from the surface. Infiltration of precipitation and its movement to the water table is one form of natural recharge. Also, the volume of water added by this process. Groundwater (unconfined)—Water in an aquifer that has a water table exposed to the atmosphere. Hydraulic Continuity—The interconnection between groundwater (aquifer) and surface water sources. Hydrograph—Graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other property of a stream or river over time. Hydrologic Cycle—The cyclic transfer of water vapor from the earth’s surface via evapotranspiration into the atmosphere, from the atmosphere via precipitation back to earth, and through runoff into streams, rivers, and lakes, and ultimately into the oceans. Hydrology—The science encompassing the behavior of water as it occurs in the atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground. Hydrogeology—The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemistry and movement of water. Impermeable Layer—A layer of solid material, such as rock or clay, which does not allow water to pass through. Inchoate Right—Water right certificates to water suppliers are based on projected future use rather than actual "beneficial use.” The unused portions of those certificates or rights are known as "inchoate" rights. Industrial Water Use—Water used for industrial purposes in such industries as steel, chemical, paper, and petroleum refining.

91

Infiltration—Flow of water from the land surface into the subsurface. Initiating Government—A specific set of local and tribal governments designated by RCW 90.82 for the purposes of initiating watershed planning. Initiating Governments must include representatives from all counties, the largest city or town, the water supply utility obtaining the largest quantity of water from the WRIA, and all tribes with reservation land within the WRIA. WRIA 19 Initiating Governments are: Clallam County, Makah Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and the PUD #1 of Clallam County. Instream Flow—The quantity of water maintained in a stream (by regulation) to sustain multiple non- consumptive uses, such as: fisheries and wildlife, channel stability and maintenance, riparian habitat maintenance, navigation, recreation, and aesthetics. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology—One of the methods for determining stream flow needs for specific fish species. Instream Uses—Water uses that can be carried out without removing the water from its source, as in navigation and recreation. Interception—The process and amount of rain or snow stored on leaves and branches and eventually evaporated back to the air. Interflow—Lateral movement of water in the upper layer of soil. Lead Agency—The organization designated by the Initiating Governments for the purposes of receiving and administering state grant funds related to watershed planning. The lead agency in WRIA 19 is Clallam County. Limiting Factors for Salmon—Conditions that limit the ability of habitat to fully sustain populations of salmon. These factors are primarily fish passage barriers and degraded estuarine areas, riparian corridors, stream channels, and wetlands. Low Impact Development—A generic term for development methods that reduce surface water runoff by minimizing disturbances to soils/vegetation to maximize infiltration. It involves planning, engineering, and construction techniques and considers factors at the regional or watershed scale all the way down to the scale of individual trees, downspouts, and sidewalks. Macrohabitat—The larger area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs. Management Area—Under RCW 90.82, a single-WRIA or multi-WRIA area designated by Initiating Governments for the purposes of watershed planning and management Mesohabitat—The intermediate area or environment where an organism normally lives or occurs. Microhabitat—Specific combination of habitat elements in a place occupied by an organism for a specific purpose. Minimum Instream Flow—A minimum flow in a stream as defined under RCW 90.03 or a base flow under 90.54. Modeling—Use of mathematical equations to simulate and predict real events and processes. Municipal Water System—A network of pipes, pumps, and storage and treatment facilities designed to deliver potable water to homes, schools, businesses, and other users in a city or town and to remove and treat waste materials. In Washington it must be a water system that has at least 15 service connections or which regularly serves 25 individuals for 60 days; also called a public water system.

92 Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution—Pollution discharged over a wide land area, not from one specific location. These are forms of diffuse pollution caused by sediment, nutrients, organic and toxic substances that originate from land use activities. As surface water runoff from rainwater, snowmelt, or irrigation washes over plowed fields, city streets, highways, or suburban backyards, it picks up soil particles and pollutants, such as nutrients and pesticides, along the way and deposits them in lakes, streams and rivers. Nutrient—Any substance that is assimilated (taken in) by organisms and promotes growth. Nitrogen and phosphorous are nutrients that promote the growth of algae. Other essential and trace elements are also considered nutrients. Organic Matter—Mass of matter that contains living organisms or non-living material derived from organisms. Overland Flow—The flow of rainwater or snowmelt over the land surface toward stream channels. Peak Flow—The maximum instantaneous discharge of a stream or river at a given location. It usually occurs at or near the time of maximum stage. Per Capita Use—the average amount of water used per person during a standard time period, generally per day. Percolation—(1) The movement of water through the openings in rock or soil. (2) The entrance of a portion of the stream flow into the channel materials to contribute to groundwater replenishment. Permeability—The ability of a material to allow the passage of a liquid, such as water. Permeable materials such as gravel and sand allow water to move quickly through them; impermeable materials such as clay do not allow water to flow freely. Permit Exempt Well—See exempt well. pH—An expression of the intensity of the basic or acidic condition of a liquid. pH ranges from 0 to 14, where 0 is most acid, 14 most basic, and 7 neutral. Natural waters usually have a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. Planning Unit—A group that represents a wide range of water resource interests, tasked with conducting a watershed assessment and completing a watershed plan for one or more WRIAs. Interests represented in WRIA 19 include the private landowners, citizens, county and state governments, tribes, and local businesses. Point Source Pollution—Water pollution coming from a single point, such as a sewage outflow pipe. All point sources must have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Population (fish)—a group of fish of the same species spawning in a particular lake or stream at a particular season which to a substantial degree does not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a different situation. An independent population is an aggregation of one or more local breeding units linked by exchange of individuals but sufficiently isolated from other independent populations so that exchanges of individuals among the populations do not appreciably affect the dynamics of the populations or their extinction risk over a 100-year time frame. (www.nwr.noaa.gov) Porosity—A measure of the water-bearing capacity of subsurface rock. With respect to water movement, it is not just the total magnitude of porosity that is important, but the size of the voids and the extent to which they are interconnected, as the pores in a formation may be open, or interconnected, or closed and isolated. For example, clay may have a very high porosity with respect to potential water content, but it constitutes a poor medium as an aquifer because the pores are usually so small.

93 Potable Water—Water that is safe and satisfactory for drinking and cooking. Prior Appropriation—A doctrine of water law that allocates the right to use water on a first-come, first-served basis. Public Supply—water withdrawn by public governments and agencies, such as a county water department, and by private companies that is then delivered to users. Public suppliers provide water for domestic, commercial, thermoelectric power, industrial, and public water users. Recharge—Water added to an aquifer; for instance, rainfall that seeps into the ground. Recharge Area—Generally, an area connected with the underground aquifer(s) by a highly porous soil or rock layer. Water entering a recharge area may travel for miles underground. Restoration—The return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance. The reestablishment of predisturbance aquatic functions and related physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Return Flow—(1) That part of a diverted flow not consumptively used and returned to its original source or another body of water. (2) (Irrigation) Drainage water from irrigated farmlands that re-enters the water system to be used further downstream. Riparian—Pertaining to the banks of a stream. River—A natural stream of water of considerable volume, larger than a brook or creek. Runoff—(1) That part of the precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that appears in uncontrolled surface streams, rivers, drains, or sewers. Runoff may be classified according to speed of appearance after rainfall or melting snow as direct runoff or base runoff, and according to source as surface runoff, storm interflow, or groundwater runoff. (2) The total discharge described in (1) above, during a specified period of time. (3) Also defined as the depth to which a drainage area would be covered if all of the runoff for a given period of time were uniformly distributed over it. Salinity—(1) The relative concentration of dissolved salts, usually sodium chloride, in a given water. (2) A measure of the concentration of dissolved mineral substances in water. Seepage—(1) The slow movement of water through small cracks, pores, and interstices, of a material into or out of a body of surface or subsurface water. (2) The loss of water by infiltration into the soil from a canal, ditches, laterals, watercourse, reservoir, storage facilities, or other body of water, or from a field. Septic Tank—A tank used to detain domestic wastes to allow the settling of solids prior to distribution to a leach field for soil absorption. Septic tanks are used when a sewer line is not available to carry them to a treatment plant. A settling tank in which settled sludge is in immediate contact with sewage flowing through the tank, and wherein solids are decomposed by anaerobic bacterial action. Seral—Relating to the entire sequence of ecological communities successively occupying an area from the initial stage to the climax stage. Sidecast Roads—Sidecast roads are constructed in forests. The construction technique involves carving out about half the road width from the uphill side and using that material to create the downhill side. The material is then smoothed over to make the flat road surface. Such roads are landslide-prone. Storage—Water artificially impounded in surface or underground reservoirs for future use Stormwater—The water that runs off surfaces such as rooftops, paved streets, highways, and parking lots. Stormwater can also travel across grassy surfaces such as lawns or play fields, and from graveled roads and parking lots.

94 Stream—A general term for a body of flowing water; natural water course containing water at least part of the year. In hydrology, it is generally applied to the water flowing in a natural channel as distinct from a canal. Stream Reach (gaining)—Segment of a stream that, on balance, receives water from groundwater. Stream Reach (losing)—Segment of a stream that, on balance, contributes water to groundwater. Stream Flow—The water discharge that occurs in a natural channel. A more general term than runoff, stream flow may be applied to discharge whether or not it is affected by diversion or regulation. Stream Gaging—The process and art of measuring the depths, areas, velocities, and rates of flow in natural or artificial channels. Streamkeepers—Clallam County volunteers dedicated to the collection of scientifically credible data for use by resource managers and policy makers. Streamkeepers of Clallam County provides monitoring assistance on local streams for salmon recovery projects and watershed planning groups. Sub-area or Subbasin—A portion of the WRIA as defined primarily by hydrogeologic characteristics to facilitate analysis and management. Succession—The change in plants and animals inhabiting a forest over time; young forests are referred to as “early successional” and old forests “late successional.” Surface Tension—The attraction of molecules to each other on a liquid’s surface. This creates a barrier between the air and the liquid. Surface Water—Water that is on the Earth’s surface, such as in a stream, river, lake, or reservoir. Total Maximum Daily Load—A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. Transpiration—The process by which water absorbed by plants, usually through the roots, is evaporated into the atmosphere from the plant surface, such as leaf pores. See evapotranspiration. Unsaturated Zone—The zone immediately below the land surface where the pores contain both water and air, but are not totally saturated with water. These zones differ from an aquifer, where the pores are saturated with water. User Fee—Fee collected only from those persons who use a particular service or facility, as opposed to one collected from the public in general. User fees generally vary in proportion to the degree of use of the service or facility. Viable Salmonid Population—As defined by NMFS “an independent populations of any Pacific salmonid that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year time frame. Wastewater—Used water and solids from a community (including used water from industrial processes) that flow to a treatment plant. Stormwater, surface water, and groundwater infiltration also may be included in the wastewater that enters a wastewater treatment plant. The term sewage usually refers to household wastes, but this word is being replaced by the term wastewater. Water Budget—An accounting of inputs, outputs, and net changes to a particular water resource system over a fixed period. Components of the water budget include precipitation, recharge, runoff, and evapotranspiration. Water Cycle—The circuit of water movement from the oceans to the atmosphere and to the Earth and return to the atmosphere through various stages or processes such as precipitation, interception, runoff, infiltration, percolation, storage, evaporation, and transportation.

95 Watershed—For purposes of this document, a management area consisting of one or more complete WRIAs. Also, the land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds. Large watersheds are also called “drainage basins.” Watershed Management Planning Act 2514 RCW 90.82—With the Comprehensive Watershed Planning Act, the state established a framework for developing local solutions to water issues on a watershed basis. The comprehensive watershed planning process is based on watersheds known as Water Resources Inventory Areas (WRIAs). This process is optional and allows local governments to collaborate and join with citizens and tribes to form watershed management planning units to develop watershed management plans. Water Table—The upper surface of a zone of saturation (unconfined aquifer). This level can be very near the surface of the ground or far below. Withdrawal—Water removed from a groundwater or surface water source for use. WRIA 19—The Hoko-Lyre Watershed Basin, including other streams that drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

COMMON WATER TERMS AND MEASUREMENTS

Table 4: Flow Measurement Unit Conversions Cubic Feet/Second Gallons/Day Million Acre Feet/Year (cfs) (gpd) Gallons/Day (mgd) (afy) 1 Acre Foot/Day* (afd) 0.504 325,851 0.326 365 1 Gallon/Minute (gpm) .00223 1,440 .001440 1.61 1 Cubic Foot/Second (cfs) — 646,560 0.645 18,396 1 Million Gallons/Day (mgd) 1.55 — — 11,899 *Acre Foot = the volume of water that would cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot.

Figure 6. Hydraulic System and Water Distribution Components

Transmission pipe usually in mgd or gpm Stream Flow Lake/Reservoir (in Water Treatment Plant usually in cfs acre-feet or million usually in mgd gallons [mg])

Treated Water Reservoir in mg Service in cfs Distribution System Pipe in gpm Well in Sewage Pipe in gpm Wastewater Treatment cfs or gpm Plant usually in mgd

Ground Water in Acre-Feet

96 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2496—State legislative bill to fund salmon habitat restoration projects 2514—State legislative bill to authorize/fund watershed planning 303(d) List—Washington State’s list of water bodies that are impaired by pollution ACOE—Army Corps of Engineers APA—Aquifer Protection Area ASR—Aquifer Storage and Recovery B-IBI—Benthic Index of Biological Integrity BMP—Best Management Practice BOCC – Board of County Commissioners (Clallam) BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand CAO—Critical Area Ordinance CCD—Clallam Conservation District CCF—100 cubic feet CFG—Citizens Facilitation Group CFS—Cubic feet per second CIG—Climate Impact Group, University of Washington CMER – Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research CREP—Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CWA—Clean Water Act CWSP—Coordinated Water System Plan DCD—Clallam County Department of Community Development DFW—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife DNR—Washington Department of Natural Resources DO—Dissolved Oxygen DOE—Washington Department of Ecology DOH—Washington Department of Health EDT—Ecosystem diagnosis and treatment EIS—Environmental Impact Statement EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency ERU—Equivalent Residential Unit ESA—Endangered Species Act ESHB—Engrossed Substitute House Bill FFR – Forest & Fish Report FPA—Forest Practices Act

97 FOFF—Friends of the Fields Foundation GIS—Geographic Information Systems GMA—Growth Management Act GPD—Gallons per day GPM—Gallons per minute GPS—Global Positioning System HB—House Bill, Washington State Legislature HCP – Habitat Conservation Plan IFIM—Instream Flow Incremental Methodology IG – Initiating Governments IMW—Intensively Monitored Watersheds IRRP—Instream Resources Protection Program ISF—Instream Flows LFA—Limiting Factors Analysis LID—Low Impact Development LUD—Local Utility District LWD—Large Woody Debris M&R—Merrill & Ring, Forestry & Land Management Company MGD—Million Gallons per day MISF—Minimum Instream Flow MOA—Memorandum of Agreement NFP—Northwest Forest Plan NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service (former name of NOAA Fisheries) NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOLT—North Olympic Land Trust NOPLE—North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity NOSC—North Olympic Salmon Coalition NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service OCPI—Overriding Consideration of Public Interest OPI—Olympic Park Institute PUD—Public Utility District PWS—Public Water Systems Qi—Instantaneous water withdrawal rate QAPP—Quality Assurance Project Plan RCW—Revised Code of Washington

98 RM—River Mile RMAP—Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan SASSI—Salmon and Steelhead Stocks Inventory SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act SEPA—State Environmental Policy Act SMA—Shorelines Management Act SRFB—Salmon Recovery Funding Board TA—Technical Assessment TCE—Trichloroethene TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Load (of pollutants in a given water body) TSS—Total Suspended Solids UAH—Usual and Accustomed Hunting USDA—United States Department of Agriculture USFS—United States Forest Service USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS—United States Geological Survey VSP—Viable Salmonid Population WA—Washington State WAC—Washington Administrative Code WAU—Water Administrative Unit WDFW—Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife WDOE—Washington Department of Ecology WDOH—Washington Department of Health WDOT—Washington Department of Transportation WRATS—Water Rights Application Tracking System WRIA—Water Resource Inventory Area (designated by WA Dept. of Ecology) WSU—Washington State University

99 (Intentionally Left Blank)

100 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelsman, H., G. Blomstrom, and W. Bolender. Watershed Planning and Instream Flow Setting Progress: 2004 Report to the Legislature. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 04-11-035, 2004.

Austin, S.A. Streamflow response to forest management: a meta-analysis using published data and flow duration curves. Colorado State University, 1999.

Barreca, J. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Management Needs Assessment for the Eastern Olympic Water Quality Management Area. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1998.

Blomstrom, G., W. Bolender, and B. Anderson. Progress on Watershed Planning and Setting Instream Flows: A Report to the Washington State Legislature. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 05-11-038, 2005.

Bureau of Reclamation. Assessment of Water Quantity for the Lyre-Hoko (WRIA 19) and Sol Duc-Hoh (WRIA 20) Watersheds (WRIA’s 19 and 20) of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Publication No. D-8520, 2001.

Caldwell, Brad. Instream Flow Study Methods used in Washington. Memo, Washington State Department of Ecology, November 2002.

CH2M HILL, Inc. Lyre River Instream Flow Assessment. Prepared for PUD #1 of Clallam County, Port Angeles, WA, 1984.

Clallam County. State of the Waters of Clallam County 2004: A Report on the Health of Our Streams & Watersheds. Clallam County Department of Community Development, Port Angeles, WA, 2004.

EES Consulting. Technical Report WRIA 19 Instream Flow Studies, 2005.

Guide to Watershed Planning and Management. Prepared by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., in association with Washington State Department of Ecology, 1999.

Haggerty, M. Clallam River Watershed Assessment. Haggerty Consulting, 2008.

Haggerty, M., M. McHenry, and R. McCoy. Salt Creek Watershed: An Assessment of Habitat Conditions, Fish Populations and Opportunities for Restoration. Haggerty Consulting & Lower Klallam Tribe, submitted to North Olympic Salmon Coalition, 2004.

Haggerty, M., M. McHenry, and R. McCoy. Pysht River Floodplain Habitat Inventory and Assessment. Haggerty Consulting & Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, submitted to the Pacific Salmon Commission, 2006.

Heffner, M. Clallam Bay Sewage Treatment Plant; Sekiu Sewage Treatment Plant July 28 and 29, 1987 Class II Inspection Reports. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 88-e08, 1988.

101 Johnson, A. and D. Norton. 1989 Lakes and Reservoir Water Quality Assessment Program: Survey of Chemical Contaminants in Ten Washington Lakes. WA Department of Ecology, Olympia WA, Waterbody No. 23-9010, Publication # 90-e35, 1990.

Jones and Stokes Associates. Watershed Characteristics and Conditions Inventory: Pysht River and Snow Creek Watersheds. Prepared for Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Timber, Fish, & Wildlife Publication No. TFW-AM10-91-001, May 1991.

Klug, J. Crafting Collaboration: An Implementation Analysis of Washington State’s Watershed Planning Act, Executive Summary. University of Washington College of Forest Resources, June 2001.

Lee, R. Clallam Bay Bacteriological Survey. Memo to George Houck, Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 71-e13, August 1971.

McHenry, M.L., et al. Changes in the quantity and characteristics of large woody debris in streams of the Olympic Peninsula. Washington, USA, 1982-1993.

McHenry, M.L. and J.F. Murray. Riparian and LWD Demonstration Projects in the Pysht River, Washington (1992-1996), A Final Report to the Washington Department of Ecology & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act 319 Grant # WA-92-03-319, December 1996.

Megahan, W.F. PhD, PH. Effects of Forest Practices on Runoff and Erosion. University of Padova, Italy, 1979.

Megahan, W.F. PhD, PH. Effects of timber harvest on low flows.

Merritt, G.D., B. Dickes, and J.S. White. Biological Assessment of Small Streams in the Coast Range Ecoregion & the Yakima River Basin. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 99-302, 1999.

National Cooperative Soil Survey, US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Clallam County Area, Washington. In Cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University Agriculture Research Center, and Clallam County Commissioners, 1987.

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity Major and Minor Habitat Limiting Factors in WRIA 19, 2001.

Paul, J. and J. Blore. WRIA 19 2002 Base-Flow Study, 2002.

Rashin, E., C. Clishe, A. Loch, and J. Bell. Effectiveness of Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment-Related Water Quality Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Paper 01162, October 2006.

Rector, J, and D. Hallock. Lake Water Quality Assessment Project, 1989. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 91-60, 1991.

Shaffer, J.A. Clallam Bay River Mouth and Nearshore: 2003 Clallam Bay Technical Committee findings. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Port Angeles, WA, 2003.

102 Shaffer, J.A. Seasonal Variation in Understory Kelp Bed Habitats of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3), West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSA 0749-0208: 768-775, 2000.

Shaffer, J.A. WRIA 19 Nearshore Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. Work Session Results, WA Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA, 2005.

Shaffer, J.A. et al. Synthesis of Clallam Bay. Clallam Bay River Mouth and Nearshore, Clallam Bay Technical committee findings, WA Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA, 2003.

Smith, C.J., PhD. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 19: Lyre-Hoko Rivers. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, WA, 2000.

Smith, K., D. Hallock, and S. O’Neal. Water Quality Assessments of Selected Lakes within Washington State, 1998. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 00-03-039, 2000.

State of Washington Statewide Watershed Assessment Guidance, 2000.

Tetra Tech/KCM. Hoko-Lyre Watershed (WRIA 19) Planning Unit, Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity Sampling Program Field Report. Prepared for WRIA 19 Planning Unit, Project #3440023, 2005.

Tetra Tech/KCM. WRIA 19 Multipurpose Water Storage Study. Prepared for Clallam County, Project #3440023, 2005.

Tetra Tech/KCM. Hoko-Lyre Watershed (WRIA 19) Planning Unit, WRIA 19 Watershed Plan. Prepared for WRIA 19 Planning Unit, Project #3440023, 2004.

Tetra Tech/KCM & Triangle Associates, Inc. Hoko-Lyre Watershed (WRIA 19) Planning Unit, Hoko- Lyre Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring Plan. Prepared for WRIA 19 Planning Unit, Project #3440023, 2005.

Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Weller. Historical Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State, Final Report. Point No Point Treaty Council, PNPTC Technical Report 06-1, 2006.

Tuffley, Brad. Salmonid usage of the lower Salt Creek watershed. A final report for TFish 258, Peninsula College Fisheries Program, Port Angeles, WA, 2004.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Olympic National Forest, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Washington State Department of Ecology. Deep Creek and East Twin and West Twin Rivers Watershed Analysis, 2002.

Washington State Department of Ecology. WRIA 19/20: Initiating Governments Reference Handbook, 2001.

Washington State Department of Ecology. WRIA 19: Watershed Planning Reference Handbook, 2000.

Wilson, S. and V. Partridge. Condition of Outer Coastal Estuaries of Washington State, 1999, A Statistical Summary. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 07-03-012, March 2007.

103 Websites

Clallam County, Watershed Planning under ESHB 2514 (RCW 90.82). http://www.clallam.net/environment/html/watershed_planning.htm

Crescent-Hoko Watershed – 17110021, Crescent-Hoko, Watershed Profile—Crescent-Hoko, USGS Cataloging Unit: 17110021. http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=17110021

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity, Priority Actions & Areas tables for Watershed 19. http://www.noplegroup.org/NOPLE/pages/strategy/PriorityActionsStrategy.htm

USGS Washington Water Science Center, North Olympic River Basins. http://wa.water.usgs.gov/realtime/htmls/olympic_north.html

Washington State Department of Ecology, Watershed Planning, WRIA 19, Lyre-Hoko. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/ & http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/19.html

Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Watershed Planning. http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/lead_entities/efforts.htm

Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Salmon Recovery. http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/

EIM Database, Washington State Department of Ecology, Ecological Studies in WRIA 19, Search 2006. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/

104