WRIA 19 (Hoko-Lyre) Watershed Plan Draft
Lead Entity :
Clallam County
Funded by Washington Department of Ecology Grant no. G050013
(Intentionally Left Blank)
WRIA 19 (LYRE - HOKO)
WATERSHED PLAN
Public Review DRAFT
October 2008
Prepared by the Lyre-Hoko Watershed (WRIA 19) Planning Unit
Cover photo: Hoko River (Intentionally Left Blank)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WRIA 19 Planning Non-governmental Unit Members
Herb Balch, Citizen Margaret Owens, Citizen
Harry Bell, Green Crow Josey Paul, Citizen
John Burdick, Citizen Janeen Porter, Citizen
Karolyn Burdick, Citizen Patrick Raymond, Olympic Resource Management Coleman Byrnes, Citizen Ken Sadilek, Citizen Bill Drath, Clallam Bay/Sekiu Chamber of Commerce Louise Sadilek, Citizen
Don Hamerquist, Citizen Frank Silvernail, Crown Pacific (formerly)
Ian MacIver, Rayonier Jane Vanderhoof, Citizen
Sasha Medlen, Citizen Peter Vanderhoof, Citizen
Joe Murray, Merrill & Ring Connie Beauvais, Crescent Water Association, Inc. Carol Johnson/Don Hansen, North Olympic Timber Action Committee Cindy Kelly, Dry Creek Water Association, Inc.
WRIA 19 Planning Unit Initiating Governments Members
Jim Medlen, Lyle Almond, Jeff Shellberg, Gwen Bridge, Andy Ritchie – Makah Tribe
Tom Martin, Mike Kitz – Clallam Public Utility District
Cathy Lear, Pat Crain, Debi Barnes, Jeff Bohman, Andy Brastad – Clallam County
Doug Morrill, Ted Schmidt – Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
A special thank you is extended to the government policy makers who supported this planning process and who are ultimately responsible for implementing these recommendations:
Clallam County Commissioners: Clallam PUD Commissioners:
Mike Chapman – District 2 Hugh “Ted” Simpson, District 3
Mike Doherty – District 3 Will Purser, District 1
Steve Tharinger – District 1 Hugh Haffner, District 2
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Council: Makah Tribal Council:
Frances G. Charles – Chairwoman Micah McCarty – Chairman
Dennis Sullivan – Vice Chairman Michael Lawrence – Vice Chairman
Phillip L. Charles, Jr. – Secretary/ Timothy J Green – Treasurer/Council Treasurer Member
Joe Turrey – Council Member Nathan Tyler – Council Member
Russ Hepfer – Council Member Blanchard Matte – Council Member
JoDean Haupt-Richards – Tribal Secretary
Shirley Perete – Enrollment Officer
WRIA 19 Planning Unit State Government Representative Member
Bob Duffy and Cynthia Nelson – WA Department of Ecology
Jim Pacheco and Terra Hegy – Instream flow technical team
Other members (in alphabetical order):
Bob and June Bowlby, Citizens
Aaron Brooks, Fisheries Technician, Makah Tribe Fisheries Department
Dick Goin, Citizen
Mike McGarvie, Citizen
Ringo McGimpsey, Fisheries Technician, Makah Tribe Fisheries Department
Mike McHenry, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Chuck Owens, Citizen
Clea Rome, Clallam Conservation District
Assisting:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Michael Blanton, Tim Rymer, Anne Shaffer, Terra Hegy, Bob Burkle
Consultants:
Cynthia Carlstad, Andrea Petzel, and April Magrane – Tetra Tech
John Blum – EES Consulting
Bob Wheeler – Triangle Associates
Jeremy Pratt– Entrix
(Intentionally Left Blank)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...... 1 Intent of the Watershed Planning Process...... 3 Goals...... 4 Initiation of Planning...... 5 Tribal Provisons...... 6 History of WRIA 19 Planning Process...... 6 Perspectives ...... 8 Overview of WRIA 19 ...... 13 Instream Flow Element ...... 21 Water Quantity Element ...... 54 Water Quality Element...... 55 Habitat Element ...... 60 Plan Recommendations ...... 68 Supplemental Plan Information ...... 77 Glossary ...... 89 Common Water Terms & Measurements ...... 95 Acronyms & Abbreviations ...... 96 Bibliograpy ...... 97
APPENDICES...... 103 APPENDIX 1: Chapter 90.82 RCW; Watershed Planning ...... 105 APPENDIX 2: Memorandum of Understanding...... 107 APPENDIX 3: Ground Rules For WRIA 19...... 115 APPENDIX 4: Intergovernmental Agreement ...... 119 APPENDIX 5: Public Information & Education Plan ...... 125 APPENDIX 6: Citizen Interviews; Tribal Interviews ...... 127 APPENDIX 7: Crescent Water Association Report...... 137 APPENDIX 8: Instream Flow Study Methods Used in Washington ...... 139 APPENDIX A-1: WRIA-Wide Technical Information...... A-1 APPENDIX B-1: Subbasin Descriptions ...... B-1 APPENDIX C-1: Hydrology ...... C-1 APPENDIX H-1: Habitat And Water Quality Summary Matrices...... H-1 (Intentionally Left Blank)
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. 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. The plan is intended to reflect local knowledge, interests, and recommendations.
The Planning Unit, comprised of local government, business & industry, private landowners, environmental, tribal, and some State agency representatives, drafted the plan with consultant assistance and approved the document. 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.
In particular, the Department of Ecology will use recommendations on minimum instream flows to develop rules regarding the future availability of water to new water right applicants. (Existing water rights are not affected.) The recommendations also will be considered when future activities aimed at improving the natural environment are developed.
1 What are some other important plan recommendations that can affect me? Plan recommendations address: Education and public outreach Watershed monitoring Land use Instream flows and groundwater 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, pop. 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 watershed and both the Makah and the Elwha 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.
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, that 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
2 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.
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 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 and Subbasins
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), Clallam Public Utility District, the Elwha 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 A-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 A-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 Appendix A-2 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) (90.82.100 RCW) More information is contained in Appendix C-5. Instream Flows: Instream flows are defined as scientifically-based surface water flows set by administrative rule to ensure adequate water for fish and other instream values. The instream flow component of the plan is designed to recommend minimum instream flows for streams within the watershed. More information is contained in Appendix C-3
5
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 PROVISONS
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 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 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 and have the most senior right to water necessary to manage that resource. 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 Tribe works cooperatively with federal, state, county, and other government representatives to ensure tribal rights are protected.
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, Clallam Public Utility District, Makah Tribe, and Makah 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
6 Clallam County Clallam Public Utility District 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 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.
The Planning Unit has 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 the consultants and from the state’s instream flow team.
7 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. Clallam PUD, 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 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
8 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.
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.
9 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 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 Clear 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.
10 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.
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
11 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.
State of Washington’s Perspective for WRIA 19 State Perspective —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 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.
12
Hoko river below its confluence with the Little Hoko
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.
13
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. 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 deciduous trees such as red alder, big leaf maple, and willows.
14 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. 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. 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 consists of 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. 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
15 groundwater. Alluvial deposits along river drainages, terraces, and shorelines also can store more 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 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:
16
Source: Washington Department of Ecology Water Allocation and Use
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.
17 • 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 exempt wells. While these specific uses are exempt from obtaining a permit, they must still comply with other provisions of the law.
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 and tribal governments. 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 by the state and by property owners. 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. • There are three small non-Indian federal reservations for the radar installation at Bahokus peak in the northwest part of the Makah Reservation. • There are 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.
18 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).
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 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 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 Clallam PUD #1 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). Water Purveyors
Active community water systems in WRIA 19 include the following: • Clallam Bay/Sekiu, with 254 residential and 80 commercial connections, served by Clallam PUD. • Crescent Water Association, a private, non-profit Washington corporation with over 800 members, including residential and commercial accounts • Island View LUD 9, with 32 connections, served by Clallam PUD • San Juan Vista, with 30 connections
Clallam PUD #1, 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
19 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 2 summarizes the findings of the review of water rights by subbasin Table 2 Summary of Water Rights by Subbasin Total Total Instantaneous Subbasin Population Number of Withdrawal Rate Large Individual Rights Rights (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 65 128 4.2 single Crescent 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 1,567 35 2.5 A 0.62-cfs right for domestic-multiple River 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
20 INSTREAM FLOW ELEMENT
Instream flow refers to the amount of flow that must remain in a stream to support a range of activities by various species of fish. Prior to the beginning of the watershed planning effort for WRIA 19, limited information had been collected on the required instream flows for streams in the watershed.
Under Washington water law, senior water rights have priority over junior water rights. EXISTING WATER RIGHTS ARE UNAFFECTED BY INSTREAM FLOWS. After adoption of this watershed plan, the Department of Ecology will use instream flows in reviewing future water right applications.
Right now there is not an instream flow rule for the WRIA 19 Lyre-Hoko watershed. Ecology wants guidance from locals to determine the amount of water available for future use. Again, instream flows only apply to NEW water users. Scientific studies
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 • West Twin River. • Murdock Creek
A 1985 study used the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) to assess instream flows for 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.
As part of the WRIA 19 watershed planning effort, instream flow studies were conducted, using the toe-width method (please see Appendix 8 for a description), 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. In addition, a consultant, EES of Bellingham, was hired to conduct a modified study. These two studies plus an IFIM study on the Lyre were analyzed by the state. Instream flows were recommended for each stream and discussed at several meetings with the Planning Unit.
One purpose of the Watershed Planning Act was to involve local people in water management decisions, especially in basins without instream flows in regulation. In many areas of the state there is stiff competition for water - especially in late summer - between human water users and salmon that need water for spawning or rearing.
The Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife have been helping the Lyre-Hoko planning group review and understand the different studies done in this watershed. The planning group hired a consultant to do a study
21 on how fish habitat changes as stream flow changes. The state also did what is called a “toe width study” which is a simple field method designed to give a single flow number that provides good fish habitat. After discussion, the planning unit decided on instream flows that protect the most fish habitat.
There needs to be a reality check on whether those flows do occur. That’s where hydrographs come in. They give an estimate of the flows to be expected for a stream over an entire year. The planning group adjusted their proposed instream flows so they do not exceed the amount of water that could reasonably be expected, especially during the dry season. The planning group feels comfortable with recommending these instream flows.
Right now the watershed plan is being reviewed. The public will be involved in the review of the draft plan. Once Clallam County Commissioners adopt the plan, Ecology will begin formal rule adoption. (A rule is like a law, but it is adopted by a state agency through an administrative process). The adoption process must involve public outreach and consultation with any affected Indian tribes. Anyone can comment on a draft rule. The process can take over a year.
The rule typically lists instream flows by time periods, often by month of the year. Instream flows are usually managed by the flow measured at a stream gage, generally located near the mouth of a river. There are many watersheds around the state that already have instream flows (these can be found in WAC 173-501 through 562). All future water users are subject to these instream flow rules, unless there is an exception in the rule such as for drinking water or stream restoration projects.
WRIA 19 Basin Hydrology and Draft 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.
BASIS: TW = Toe width method used for habitat flows IFIM = Instream flow incremental methodology used for habitat values FLOW = Hydrology that was used to set a flow that has occurred
22 Hoko River Near Sekiu Daily Flow Hydrograph - Normal Scale USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2006
10000
This is a graph of the daily flows in the Hoko river for the past 44 years. Each colored line represents the daily flows from a different water-year (October 1 to 8000 September 30).
The Hoko River shows the typical rain-fed seasonal stream flow pattern common in this watershed.
6000 Stream flows are high in the winter (when it is raining) and drop rapidly when the rains stop. During the late summer and early fall, stream flows are quite low.
Using the normal (linear) scale makes it hard 4000 to see flow differences during the low flow
Flow(cfs) scale normal months. The next graph shows this same data using a log scale.
2000
0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
23 Hoko River Near Sekiu Median Flow Daily Flow Hydrograph - Log Scale USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2006
10000 This shows the same daily flow data as the previous graph, with each colored line representing a different water year, but it uses a log scale instead of a normal (linear) scale. With a log scale, the units of the scale change 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 Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow
100
Log scales are useful for looking at data with a large range of values, 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 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
24 Hoko River Near Sekiu Wet Day (10% Exceedance) Daily Flow Hydrograph - Log Scale Median (50% Exceedance) USGS Gage 12043300, River Mile 5.3, Period of Record: 1962 - 2006 Dry Day (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 1000 flows tend to be near the 90% exceedance. Think of it as the flows experience during a Dry Day. Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) 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 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
25 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 - 2006 WY 2005-06 WY 2004-05 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Apr 16 - Oct 15 Jan-May = 275 cfs Except for a proposed reserve of 0.16 cfs and June = 208 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects July = 143 cfs Aug = 76 cfs Allocation Limit Sept = 183 cfs 47 cfs is available from Oct 15-Apr 15 for future Oct-Dec = 275 cfs appropriation
1000 Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow
100
This is the format we will use to describe the daily and seasonal variability of our streams, and the water management recommendations proposed by the Planning Unit. When available, we will also show the last 1 or 2 years of daily stream flows. 10 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
26 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Hoko River - Actual flow data, rather than synthesized data, provides the basis for Hoko recommendations. The USGS gage has been operational since 1962.
New water for h\Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 275 IFIM Priority is chinook spawning. April 16-Oct Oct 16- Possible 0.16 cfs October 16-31 275 IFIM Chinook spawning. 15 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 208 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing. Potential for Chinook rearing July 143 Flow “ August 76 Flow “ September 183 Flow “
27 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Clallam River @ RM 1.3 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Water Year 06-07 (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 05-06 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Proposed Instream Flow 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows April - October Oct-Nov = 120 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.02 cfs and for approved Dec -Apr = 150 cfs restoration or enhancement projects May = 120 cfs June = 84 cfs Allocation Limit July = 41 cfs 19 cfs is available from Nov-Mar for future Aug = 16 cfs 1000 appropriation Sept = 45 cfs
100 Flow (cfs) log scale Flow (cfs)
10
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
28 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Clallam River
New water Open for Humans Closed to New Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 120 IFIM Priority is Chinook Spawning. April-Oct Nov-Mar Possible 0.02 October 16-31 120 IFIM “ With cfs reserve, based on 1% November 1-15 120 IFIM “ allocation of 19 cfs of flow November 16-30 120 IFIM Coho and chum spawning. 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 84 Flow Priority is steelhead rearing through September. 120 is desirable (June-Sept) but lowered to 10% exceedance. July 41 Flow August 16 Flow September 45 Flow
29 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Deep Creek @ RM 0.2 Median (50% Exceedance) Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrographs Water Year 06-07 (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 05-06 Water Year 04-05 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Proposed Instream Flow 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year Around Oct = 65 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.023 cfs and for Nov = 190 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Dec 1-Jan 15 = 200 Jan 16-Mar = 250 Allocation Limit Apr = 143 cfs No additional water is available for future May = 87 appropriation Jun = 35 Jul = 16 Aug = 9 100 Sept = 13 cfs Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow 10
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
30 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Deep Creek
New water for Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 65 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing Year round None Possible 0.023 cfs October 16-31 65 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 143 Flow “ May 87 Flow Steelhead incubation and rearing June 35 Flow Steelhead incubation and rearing July 16 Flow Steelhead rearing August 9 Flow “ September 13 Flow “
31 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) East Twin @ RM 1.5 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Probability Hydrographs Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Water Year 06-07 (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 05-06 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Proposed Instream Flow 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year around Oct 1-15= 28 cfs Except for a reserve 0.022 cfs and for approved Oct 16 - Nov = 63 cfs restoration/enhancement projects Dec-Mar = 104 Apr = 82 cfs Allocation Limit May = 48 cfs 11 cfs is available from Nov-Feb for future Jun = 20 cfs appropriation Jul = 10 cfs Aug = 6 cfs Sep = 8 cfs 100 Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow 10 The planning unit agreed that this systhesized 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
32 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
East Twin River at RM 1.5
New water for Priority and Rationale Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Water Rights Period
October 1-15 28 TW Steelhead and coho rearing March - November Possible 0.022 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 82 Flow Steelhead spawning (104 is desirable) lowered to the 10% exceedance May 48 Flow Steelhead incubation (67 cfs is desirable) lowered to the 10% exceedance June 20 Flow Priority is steelhead and coho rearing (28 cfs is desirable) lowered to the 10% exceedance July 10 Flow “ August 6 Flow “ September 8 Flow “
33 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Lyre River at Piedmont with Daily Flows from RM 1.0 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedence Probability Hydrograph Dry Days (90% Exceedance) 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 Flow (cfs)
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
34 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Lyre River at RM 1.0
New water for Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basisa Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
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 for flow based recommendations. Ecology is developing an exceedance hydrograph for RM 1.0
35 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Pysht River @ RM 4.9 Median (50% Exceedance) Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrograph Proposed Instream Flows (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 06-07 Water Year 05-06 with Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 04-05 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows April - Oct Oct -May = 190 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.029 cfs and for approved June = 89 cfs restoration/enhancement projects July = 47 cfs Aug = 17 cfs Allocation Limit Sept = 54 cfs 33 cfs available from Nov-Mar for future appropriation 1000
100 Flow (cfs) log scale (cfs) Flow
10
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
36 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Pysht River
New water for Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 190 IFIM Priority is chinook spawning. April-Oct Nov-Mar Possible 0.029 cfs October 16-31 190 IFIM Chinook and coho spawning with reserve available based on 1% loss November 1-15 190 IFIM Add chum spawning allocation of 33 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 89 Flow Chinook rearing. (steelhead juveniles are also present). 100 cfs is desirable; lowered to 10% exceedance July 47 Flow Chinook rearing (steelhead juveniles are also present) August 17 Flow “ September 54 Flow “
37 Wet Day (10% Exceedance) Salt Creek at RM 1.4 Median (50% Exceedance) Flow Exceedance Hydrographs and Historic Data Dry Day (90% Exceedance) (Exceedance Hydrographs were Synthesized via Monthly Regression Water Year 06-07 with Elwha and Hoko River Daily Flows) Water Year 05-06 Recommended ISF 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year around Oct = 13 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.01 cfs and for Nov = 55 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Dec-Mar = 92 cfs Apr = 61 cfs Allocation Limit May = 33 cfs No new water is available for future Jun = 10 cfs appropriation Jul = 5 Aug = 3 Sep = 3 100 Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow 10
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
38 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued))
Salt Creek at RM 1.4
New water for Closed to New Open Humans Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 13 Flow Priority is steelhead, coho rearing; lowered to 10% exceedance Feb-Nov 15 Possible 0.01 cfs October 16-31 13 Flow Priority is coho spawning; lowered to 10% exceedance Nov 16- reserve available Jan based on 1% loss November 1-15 55 TW Coho and chum spawning of flow during low November 16-30 55 TW “ flow conditions 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 61 TW Incubation flow (2/3 of spawning flow) May 33 Flow Incubation flow desired; lowered to 10% exceedance June 10 Steelhead, coho rearing Flow July 5 Flow “ August 3 Flow “ September 3 Flow “
39 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) Sekiu River near Mouth Median (50% Exceedance) Synthesized Flow Exceedance Hydrographs Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Flows synthesized by taking 92.44% of SOOES RIVER BELOW MILLER CREEK Proposed Instream Flow USGS gage 12043163; RM 5.2; 35.7 sq mi above gage; Period of Record: 1977 - 1986 Water Year 06-07 10000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows April - Oct Oct-Apr = 175 cfs Except for a reserve 0.08 cfs and for approved May = 117 cfs restoration/enhancement projects June = 117 cfs July = 97 cfs Allocation Limit Aug = 97 cfs 21 cfs is available from Nov-Mar for future Sept = 175 cfs 1000 appropriation
100 Flow (cfs) log scale (cfs) Flow Ecology is currently unable to develop a reasonable synthesized hydrograph for the Sekiu River. As a temporary solution, the planning unit agreed to use 10 the data from the historic Sooes River gage to develop their draft management recommendations.
Ecology was requested and agreed to continue developing an exceedance hydrograph the Sekiu River.
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
40 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS
Sekiu River
New water for Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 175 IFIM Priority is Chinook spawning. April-October November Possible reserve of October 16-31 175 IFIM Chinook spawning. - March .08 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 21 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 101 Flow “Steelhead and coho rearing (lowered to 10% exceedance) August 97 Flow “ September 175 IFIM Chinook migration flow
41 Wet Days (10% Exceedance) West Twin River Near Pysht @ RM 0.25 Median (50% Exceedance) Dry Days (90% Exceedance) Flow Exceedence Probability Hydrograph Toe-Width ISF Synthesized by taking 91.4% of USGS 12043430 East Twin River near Pysht WY 06-07 RM 1.3 WY 05-06 RM 1.3 1000 Proposed Closure Instream Flows Year around Oct 1-15 = 32 cfs Except for a reserve of 0.029 cfs and for Oct 16-Nov = 71 cfs approved restoration/enhancenent projects Dec-Apr = 114 cfs May = 55 cfs Allocation Limit Jun = 24 cfs No water is available for future appropriation Jul = 16 Aug = 8 Sep = 20
100 Flow (cfs) log scale log (cfs) Flow
10 Ecology is currently unable to create a reasonable synthesized hydrograph from the West Twin gage. The planning unit agreed that a systhesized hydrograph using a watershed area comparison with the East Twin was reasonable enough to use for draft recommendations.
Ecology was requested and agreed to continue developing an exceedance hydrograph for the West Twin.
1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
42 TABLE 3 WRIA 19 DRAFT INSTREAM FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
West Twin River at RM 1.3
New Water for Humans Closed to New Open Dates Instream Flow (cfs) Basis Priority and Rationale Water Rights Period
October 1-15 32 TW Steelhead rearing Year around none Possible 0.029 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 114 TW “ May 55 Flow Steelhead spawning ending and incubation June 24 Flow Steelhead incubation. July 16 Flow Steelhead and coho rearing August 8 Flow “ September 20 Flow “
Flow based instream flows relied on the historic East Twin gage. Ecology is developing an exceedance hydrograph for RM 1.3
43 Table 4 Water For Humans—Option A. For Streams that Have Potential Water Capability
Future Water Right Permitting Actions Out of WRIA 19 Exempt Wells Mitigation Plans Reserve Option Alternate Water Sources Source
No additional • Can’t impair existing water rights or instream • Allowance from specified streams (Hoko, Lyre) to take 1 cfs regardless • Conservation and efficiency • WRIA 18 – restrictions for flows. of actual stream conditions, as long as at least (unspecified) cfs remains in measures applied to existing uses. Examples: Elwha or exempt wells. the Hoko. That stop loss number has yet to be determined This water Conserved water available for other Groundwater • Action must be in the public interest and right limited to only an existing (as of November 1, 2005) municipally domestic use, including transfer. State should can’t impair or degrade water quality. defined water purveyor (Please see Table 3-2 for a list for • WRIA 20 – enforce current current projects and potential Examples: Sol partnering opportunities.) regulations • Possible in-kind mitigation: Alternative – Limit new water rights to only domestic usage, with 10% of the amount Duc(why is this still related to sources of water of equal or better quality than allowed for parks or agriculture (Evaluate further, Makah propose 5% in here) exempt wells. the proposed source can be used to improve minimum monthly.) • Reuse of reclaimed water, stream flows for fish, offset impacts of focusing on the Clallam Bay Prison • Saltwater Conduct a withdrawals on stream flow and provide – Water right available only for development that meets “highest desalinization WRIA-wide sources of water for future out-of-stream use. conservation standard” • Water storage facilities evaluation of • Recognize that exempt wells • Possible out-of-kind mitigation: watershed – Water use has to be metered with use-based rate and with enforcement • Zone basin for only single family out-of-WRIA water to better improvements, such as; mechanisms established to insure conservation residences on rural land sources aren’t a determine their probable option. impact. –Riparian enhancement or channel restoration – Ecology will expedite process to obtain water right for using this • Encourage, provide regulations for allowance LIDs and other water conserving
–Wetland inventory to advance our knowledge development techniques of existing conditions and produce improved • November - March—Subject to the minimum instream flow, up to 10% results. No net loss of wetlands. (5%) of median monthly stream flow is available for out-of-stream use on • Acquisition of existing water the following streams: (see above) rights –Acquisition of forest land to be preserved as late successional. • Groundwater—All groundwater is believed to be in significant hydraulic • Establishment of a trust water continuity with surface water, and therefore subject to the minimum right program • All projects should directly benefit streams instream flows, unless a project proponent demonstrates otherwise. and/or fish and enhance to the same degree of Consider deep aquifer where option exists (likely only Salt Creek). • Lyre River—Coordination degradation. between Lyre and Lake Crescent • Water right applications for new public water systems utilizing reserves regarding water management and • Effectiveness of mitigation must be designated by this recommendation will only be considered if the potential competing needs monitored at the expense of the Permittee. If applicant demonstrates that water service cannot be provided to the monitoring indicates that mitigation is not proposed service area in a timely and reasonable manner. • Aquifer recharge and recovery effective, then water right will become subject (note: this does not appear to be a to minimum flows. In the case of a closed • Lakes and ponds: With the exception of Lake Crescent, surface water viable option in WRIA 19; see stream, the use will cease until a more effective withdrawals from all lakes and ponds will be limited to single in-house Multipurpose Water Storage Study) mitigation plan is put in place. domestic uses not to exceed 150 gallons per day per residence. Encourage use of storage from winter to summer; don’t limit by specific number for • Consolidate exempt wells. maximum net benefit.
44 Table 4 Water For Humans—Option B. For Streams with Little Potential Water Capability or BOR-Modeled Median Flows that drop to less than 10 cfs in late summer—Plus all Other Streams that Discharge Directly to Salt Water
Future Water Right Permitting Actions Out of WRIA 19 Exempt Wells Mitigation Plans Reserve Option Alternate Water Sources Source
• No additional • No mitigation allowed, basins closed to new water rights • Single domestic water rights from • Conservation and efficiency measures • WRIA 18 – restrictions for except exempt wells as chosen in Column 1 OR surface or groundwater sources are applied to existing uses. Conserved water Examples: Elwha or exempt wells. allowable. available for other domestic use, Groundwater • Can’t impair existing water rights or instream flows. including transfer. • State should • In general basins are closed to new • WRIA 20 – enforce current •Action has to be in the public interest and can’t impair or water rights except Salt Creek • Reuse of reclaimed water Examples: Sol Duc regulations degrade water quality. exception. (this is not related to exempt • Water storage facilities appropriate) wells. • Consider deep aquifer where option exists (likely only Salt • Salt Creek—Deeper aquifers only Creek). and only if applicant proves deeper • Zone basin for only single family • Saltwater • Conduct a source not in hydraulic continuity with residences on rural land desalinization WRIA-wide • Possible “in-kind” mitigation: Alternative sources of water Salt Creek. evaluation of of equal or better quality than the proposed source can be • Encourage, provide regulations for • Recognize that out- exempt wells to used to improve stream flows for fish, offset impacts of • Cap for new small water rights of LIDs and other water conserving of-WRIA water better determine withdrawals on st4ream flow and provide sources of water for .125 cfs cumulative impact for surface development techniques sources aren’t a their impact. future out-of-stream use. water for each of the small basins viable option. (Makah). No new water rights if they • Acquire existing water rights • Possible “out-of-kind” mitigation: Make some watershed would exceed the .125 improvement, like: • Establishment of a trust water right program – Riparian enhancement This part needs some clarification; • Aquifer recharge and recovery (note: – Channel restoration possibly remove the second bullet. this does not appear to be a viable option (Makah)The cap applies to the reserve in WRIA 19 – See Multipurpose Water right for the single domestic water – Wetland inventory Storage Study) rights from surface or ground water sources, agree with second bullet. – Acquire forest land to be preserved at late successional state • Consolidate exempt wells.
• Effectiveness of mitigation must be monitored. If monitoring indicates that mitigation is ineffective, then water right will be subject to minimum flows. In the case of a closed stream, the use will cease until a more effective mitigation plan is put in place.
45
Reserves
A reserve is a quantity of water set aside in a closed basin, so that there can be a small number of new water rights issued in that area. The purpose of the reserve is to allow some development in the basins even when the specific stream flow is below the set instream flow.
How large a reserve would be allowed? Ecology and WDFW biologists restrict the reserve to a very small amount, around 1% loss of habitat. Studies show that a 1% loss in fish habitat closely corresponds with a 1% loss of steam flow that also corresponds to a reduction in fish numbers. Biologists calculate this reserve during low flow conditions because this is the time of the greatest stress for fish. Although any loss of fish, especially ESA-listed species, should be avoided, a reduction of 1% of habitat was considered an acceptable tradeoff for a reserve, as long as other flow protection in the form of instream flows and closures went with the reserve.
What is an allocation limit? “High flows” or “channel maintenance flows” are those very high, almost flood flow events that do not occur every year. These flows, although problematic for humans, are important in the river’s annual cycle so that it can move, clean and sculpt gravel, form new side channels for fish to rear in, wash wood into the stream, and allow salmon to migrate upstream to spawning grounds.
We don’t know how often or how high these stream flows need to be. So fish biologists and hydrologists have to use their best professional judgment to figure out how much needs to be protected. By having an “allocation limit”, a reasonable amount of water rights may be issued, but the amount is fairly small so that these high flows will not have their peaks cut off. This is to allow important channel maintenance functions to occur once every few years.
What is a closure? A closure means that there is no additional surface or groundwater available. In a rule it would be stated that the stream is “closed”. There can be exceptions to the closure such as projects that benefit salmon, emergencies, and other limited purposes identified in the rule.
EXTRA CREDIT: “More than you ever wanted to know about How We Synthesized the Exceedance Hydrographs” (this part gets a little technical).
It takes at least 9 years of daily flow measurements before the USGS has enough data to produce 10% and 90% exceedance flows. There is only 1 stream with an active long-term gage in WRIA 19 -- the Hoko River. For all other streams in WRIA 19 we had to rely on either really old flow data or synthesize a hydrograph ourselves.
Hydrographs were synthesized in one of two ways. The first and most reliable method was to compare a month of daily gage data1 with the same month of daily gage data from the Hoko, Elwha, and Dungeness rivers (the only current long-term gages on streams that drain to the Strait). If that comparison showed a strong relationship, we used that relationship to estimate that month’s exceedance flow of the stream (as expected, 90+% of the time, the Hoko provided the strongest relationship).
1 Ecology has over the last two years installed 8 stream gages in WRIA 19. For a list of these gages and tables of stream flow data, go to: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/regions/state.asp
47 Examples of relationships are shown in the graphs below. Strong Relationship Okay Relationship
Correlating April Hoko Flow Correlating August Hoko Flow
200 10
8 150
6 100
Curve (cfs) 4 Curve (cfs)Curve 50 2
Stream that Needsan Exceedance 0 Stream that Needs an Exceedance Exceedance an Needs that Stream 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1020304050 Hoko River (cf s) Hoko River (cf s)
Weaker Relationship (questionable accuracy) No Relationship-Unable to Use
Correlating October Hoko Flow Correlating March Hoko Flow
300 400
250 300 200 200 150 Curve (cfs) Curve
Curve (cfs) 100 100 50
Stream that Needs Exceedance an that Stream 0
Stream that Needs an Exceedance 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Hoko River (cfs) Hoko River (cf s)
For example, let’s say that in the month of October, we found on day 1 that the Clallam was flowing @ 100 cfs and the Hoko was flowing @ 300 cfs. On day 2, the Clallam flowed at 200 cfs and the Hoko flowed at 600 cfs. From this example it looks like the Hoko flows three times the flow of the Clallam River. If this relationship was fairly consistent for the rest of the month, we would call it a 1:3 relationship or that the Hoko routinely has 3 times the flow of the Clallam. We would come up with a relationship equation. Then we would take the known average October exceedance flows on the Hoko and use the relationship equation to “synthesize” the exceedance flows on the Clallam. In our example, the known October 10% exceedance flow for the Hoko is 945 cfs. So, the Clallam flow would equals 1/3 of the Hoko flow relationship, or 315 cfs. This is done for each month and for each exceedance curve, the 10, 50, and 90%. Although the actual relationship equations are more complex than this example shows, the concept is the same. But what if the state can’t use this method? If there were streams that were not that similar or if the stream gage appeared to be giving inaccurate stream flows or if the gage record was not at least 1 year long, the group had to look at other methods for generating exceedance flows. On the East Twin, the planning unit thought the gage was giving inaccurate flow data, especially at the higher flows. The Lyre River had new data but it didn’t seem to be accurate. Both streams had old gage data, so the planning unit decided to use this old data to “synthesize”, or create, a new hydrograph. On the Sekiu River, the gage has not been in long enough to develop a relationship with a long-term gage. On the West Twin, the planning group had little confidence in the gage accuracy. For these two streams, the synthesis was done by comparing each stream to another stream with a similar watershed area and flow pattern. For the Sekiu we used the Sooes River and for the West Twin, we used the East Twin, its close neighbor. This is probably the least accurate option, so Ecology will continue to gather more data from newly installed gages. Eventually a more accurate synthesis will be done. The hydrographs are important because they show exceedance curves from which the group can decide if the instream flows are within the range of reality. They become especially important during the summer and fall low flow times, when the amount of water in all streams is very low. The instream flow numbers are to protect juvenile salmon that may remain in a stream for two years or more.
48 Reserves for future growth: Ecology Paper on Reserve Concepts For Public Review and Comment The original document was prepared by Tom Loranger, Supervisor, Water Resources Program, Southwest Regional Office, Phone: (360) 407-6058; Email: [email protected]. Comments were added by Bob Duffy based on input from a variety of sources. What is the purpose of this Q &A? This paper uses a question and answer format to address a number of questions related to reserves. The Planning Unit can use this paper to help develop recommendations related to this subject. What was the source of information for this Q & A? As each watershed has different circumstances, there is no specific reserve example that can be directly applied to every watershed. Each watershed must develop recommendations that work best for the local situation. The Department of Ecology has recently collected the reservation recommendations from a number of watershed plans from a variety of areas in the State, including the Entiat, Stillaguamish, Skagit, and Walla Walla. In response to the Planning Unit’s request, we have generally summarized the recommendations and some options from these plans for the Planning Unit’s consideration. The recommendations have been edited for easier reading. (The specific recommendations were provided at the February 2007 Planning Unit meeting by Jim Pacheco in a handout titled “Basic Policies Behind the Reserve”. In addition to the examples reviewed from the watersheds mentioned above, comments from Ecology’s Water Resources Program staff and WRIA 19 Planning Unit members, as well as input from a number of other folks, has also been used to develop this Q & A. What is a reserve? Reserves are quantities of water that have been set aside during instream flow rule making. The purpose of a reserve is to provide water for new human usages after a stream closure has occurred. Reserves of water have specified out-of-stream uses associated with them, and may contain a variety of other limits. What about existing water rights – how will they be impacted by reserves? Existing water rights are NOT affected by a reserve. Existing water right holders can continue to withdraw water under the provisions of their permits or permit-exempt requirements. While existing water rights are not impacted by reserves, State agencies should continue to pursue efforts to reduce pressure on streams that are over allocated and to help restore late-season low flows. Agencies should use existing tools to acquire and retire existing water rights on a voluntary basis and promote the development and use of new techniques to help restore instream flows. In particular, efforts should be focused on incentive programs and buy-back of water rights, especially where existing rights exceed actual flows. How can the plan introduce the discussion of reservation recommendations? The plan can acknowledge that reservations take additional water out of our rivers. We also know that global climate change is happening although there is uncertainty about the exact effects it will have on our streams in the near future. The effects of climate change could be severe, especially for summer low flows. The Planning Unit reservation recommendations should be considered as a last resort to provide water for people, not as a resource of first preference or a resource to be used as quickly as possible.
49 To help salmon thrive, a key recommendation in this plan is for water to be used more efficiently so that we can, over time, add water back to streams and rivers where flows are already too low and where water quality has suffered. What role could PUDs take to avoid use of reservation water? By reducing existing demand, the use of reservation water can be reduced or eliminated. All public utility districts within WRIA 19 should consider the preparation of (shall prepare?) plans to reduce average household water consumption within their service areas. A minimum recommended reduction of household consumption is 30 percent by 2015, from current use levels, which could be achieved by conservation or other means. What role could the State and County take to avoid use of reservation water? Water demand can be reduced by State and County actions. The State and County should consider the establishment of (shall prepare?) rules that require water-efficient homes. Rules should allow and encourage the use of rainwater catch basins for the full range of domestic water needs. The County should consider adoption of (shall adopt?) revisions to the Critical Area Ordinance to protect small streams and biological hot spots from low flow impacts. These State and County actions should be established before any reserves can be accessed. What is a Closure of Surface and Ground Waters? A closure is the termination of availability of surface water and associated/connected ground water to appropriation because not enough water is available to meet the needs of both humans and fish. Closures to surface waters generally apply to surface as well as connected ground water. Closures can be defined in an Ecology instream flow and water management rule as either seasonal or year round. Because of weather patterns on the North Olympic Peninsula, most closures in WRIA 19 would be in the summer and early fall when streams are low or dry up. Water is generally (but not always) expected to be available (say for storage or other purposes) during the wet winter months. When a stream closure is set by rule, this means no surface water (or surface and ground water) from that stream’s watershed is available for new consumptive uses during the closure. For months when closures are NOT in effect, surface or groundwater would be available for authorized new consumptive uses. Are there exceptions to closures? Yes, an exception can be made within the Ecology rule to allow small reservations of water to be designated for new consumptive uses, even with an overall closure. Conditions, or mitigating measures, can be added to the use of any reserved water to reduce or eliminate the impact to instream resources from the additional loss of water. Conditions may include restrictions on amount, timing, and location of reserve withdrawals and the requirement for habitat enhancement. In addition, certain monitoring, reporting, and other requirements can be established in conjunction with the use of reserves. For example, in limiting the location of reserve withdrawals, a restriction may be placed on taking reservation water from small tributaries and from biologically sensitive areas. In WRIA 19 these areas include Charlie Creek on the Clallam, Sadie Creek on the East Twin, and Susie Creek on the Lyre. During Phase IV, the successor group to the Planning Unit should evaluate additional small tributaries and other biologically sensitive areas where reservation water is not available. This evaluation should be forwarded to Clallam County and the Department of Ecology. Ecology should close those areas when instream flows are not met. The County should add identified reservation-limited areas to a list of areas where alternative sources of water must be used when permitted or permit-exempt water is not available.
50 Can an exception to closure be made if adequate mitigation is made? In some watersheds, exceptions to closures have been made if adequate mitigation is made. Mitigation typically offsets the effects of pumping or diversions. For example, buying out and retiring upstream water rights can offset new withdrawals. A range of water conservation activities can be used to improve low flows under certain conditions (but not under other conditions). Habitat restoration activities can also offset the impacts of reservation use. In some watersheds that use mitigation, the requirement for mitigation is broadly addressed by an agency rather than individual homeowners. During Phase IV, the successor group to the Planning Unit should evaluate whether or not reservation water should be available if adequate mitigation is made, and, if so, what the specific conditions and limitations would be required for such mitigation. Can an exception to a closure be made for emergencies like firefighting? Yes, exceptions to closures are made for emergencies like firefighting. Can an exception to a closure be made for habitat restoration projects? Yes, exceptions to closures can be made for certain habitat restoration projects. In WRIA 19, exceptions for habitat restoration projects will be considered by the successor group to the Planning Unit during Phase IV, plan implementation. What happens when a reserve is all used up? When and if the full amount of reserved quantities are allocated, those sub-basins as identified as subject to closure are then closed to further availability of surface and ground water for new consumptive uses except for emergencies and other authorized exceptions such as approved habitat restoration projects, unless the surface waters impaired by the use have any depletions mitigated for (provided mitigation is permitted). Do closures also apply to lakes and ponds? Yes, when a closure for new consumptive use is put in place for a surface or groundwater body , lakes and ponds are in the same drainage are included in the closure. Reservoirs and other constructed storage ponds are not included in a closure. How are reservations calculated? Reservations of water for future out-of-stream uses are calculated based on impacts to fisheries habitat at times when flows are usually at the lowest levels. Calculations are based on Ecology’s September 2004 “Guidelines for Setting Instream Flows and Allocating Water for Future Out-of-Stream Uses”. Biologists from Ecology, in consultation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, have used 1% to 2% as a limit on loss of habitat during low flow months (usually August or September) and low flow years (90% exceedence – very low - flows). The habitat loss is converted into a reserve amount for year round out of stream uses that are not limited by the instream flows set by rule. State agencies try to calculate the habitat loss using site specific fish habitat information on a stream by using the results from a fish habitat model such as IFIM/PHABSIM. Using this approach the State has recommended that reservations in WRIA 19 be calculated as a maximum of 1% of stream low flows. In WRIA 19, after evaluation of the information presented and discussion of the various options, 1% has been selected as the recommended reservation amount. Other provisions of the reservation will be reviewed and recommendations made to Ecology during Phase IV.
51 What can reservation water be used for? The WRIA 19 Planning Unit has the option of recommending restrictions on the uses of the reservation water (e.g. domestic use only, with or without outdoor irrigation). Or, alternatively, the uses for the reservation can be much broader, e.g. single and group domestic supply, stock watering, commercial agriculture, and commercial/light industrial uses. Any use consuming a portion of the reserve could be limited to a maximum number of gallons per day. How much water should be allotted for each development when calculating the amount of reserve that is used? State law currently allows up to 5,000 gallons per day from each permit exempt well. However, when establishing reservations in closed basins, restrictions can be added to the use of the water. When calculating household demand, including lawn and garden watering, other planning units have used 350 gallons per day per household for planning purposes. The greater the amount allowed to be used the faster the reserve is used up. Coming to agreement on the amount to be allocated can be difficult. For example, it can be hard to trust that a 350 GPD limit can be relied on without metering and enforcement. However, it is highly unlikely the majority of well users in WRIA 19 use the maximum of 5,000 GPD. There are a number of options for the Planning Unit to consider in coming up with a specific recommended number: Until research on alternative numbers and discussion of options can occur, reservations could allow 5,000 GPD for each permit exempt well. This amount would provide maximum protection to the resource. The Planning Unit could recommend some number - 5,000 GPD or a lower number – now or after hearing public comments on the draft plan. A GPD number could be evaluated and recommended during Phase IV. What about reservation record keeping and administration? Clallam County will be directly involved with Ecology in accounting for, and administration of, the reserve. The administration provisions of a reserve can be recommended in the watershed plan, developed during Phase IV, finalized during rule-making or formulated using some other appropriate mechanism. Ecology expects Clallam County to be directly involved in some aspects, with Ecology, in administering any reserve. Ecology can report to Clallam County when regular sources of water are no longer available and any further building permits must use water from a reservation or other approved alternative source. Clallam County could then report to Ecology’s Water Resources Program on building permits issued that use water from a reservation. Ecology can calculate water used under a reservation using the accounting method specified in the instream flow rule and would notify Clallam County when a reserve is exhausted. When a reserve is exhausted, Clallam County would inform building applicants that only alternative sources of water must be used to meet water supply needs, citing Ecology’s notification. The particulars of this approach would be unique to WRIA 19 – there is not a similar approach that can just be applied directly from another location. A reservation for a finite amount of water will need a system to track future use. Agreements between Ecology and the County government are one mechanism to do this.
52 Is there any requirement to use municipal water if it is available? Maybe, as some watershed planning units, (including the Elwha/Dungeness), have recommended requiring hook-up to existing water systems when available and have made reserved water accessible for municipal water use. One option is to have no requirement to use a municipal water supply before using water from the reservation. The other approach is a new surface or ground withdrawal would not be allowed in areas where a municipal connection is available in a timely and reasonable manner and the water is for domestic purposes. This is another provision of reserve use that could be evaluated after a public meeting on the plan or during Phase IV. Where can reservation water be taken from? Protecting small tributaries during low flow periods can be very important to minimizing impact to fish habitat. In some watersheds, critical areas have been identified and restrictions placed on taking reservation water from these locations. Concern about impact to habitat has been expressed in WRIA 19, and some specific areas have been identified where reservation water should not be accessed. One suggestion was to limit reserve access to the lower one mile of each river, however without some additional evaluation and discussion, this suggestion may not provide sufficient protection, or it may be unnecessarily restrictive. Adding additional restrictions on where reservation water can be taken from can be recommended before or after public review, or discussed in greater detail during Phase IV. Where can reservation water be used? The plan may or may not address restrictions on where reservation water is used. In other words, the Planning Unit may or may not recommend that the place of use of reservation water be restricted. If restrictions are recommended, the plan may require reservation water to be put to use in the reservation management area from which the water is withdrawn and prohibit transfers between management areas. (Restrictions on interbasin transfer have been proposed in some parts of the State.) It should be noted that currently some interbasin transfers already occur in WRIA 19. Both Clallam PUD and Crescent Water serve areas outside the basin where they have a water right. What exactly is a “reservation management unit”? A reservation management unit is any stream segment, reach, or tributary used to describe the part of the relevant stream to which a particular use, action, instream flow level, or reserve of water applies. Besides reserves, what are some other possible sources of water for development? Alternative sources of water have been discussed in the storage study portion of the WRIA 19 watershed planning process. Some of these options include multipurpose storage facilities, conservation and efficiency measures applied to existing uses and the transfer of water from other existing uses of existing rights desalinization, or other sources, alone or in combination. Any of these alternatives can also be incorporated into reserve recommendations or inserted into an instream flow rule as exceptions. This is especially true of beneficial storage projects.
The State appreciates the efforts of the Planning Unit to develop recommendations, and in particular recommendations regarding instream flows, closures and reserves. We hope this summary will assist the Planning Unit in finalizing recommendations regarding reserves and we look forward to receiving the adopted watershed plan. Ecology will use the recommendations in the adopted plan to help develop rules that will specify instream flows, reserves and closures in WRIA 19. Comments received during rule making also have the potential to impact the final reservation rule.
53 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, RM 1.5, telemetry, since June 2004 West Twin, RM 0.2, stand alone June 2004-2008, telemetry since summer 2008 Deep RM 0.2, stands 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, stands 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.
54
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 colder requirements 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.
We realize the data for this section is incomplete at best. Most of the information we have to work with 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 our 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.
55 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/2002/2002-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.
56 USGS and Ecology Water Quality Sampling Data
Along with the gages for which flow monitoring is done, in 2005, Ecology started monitoring conventional water quality parameters at the following 3 streams: East Twin, West Twin, and Deep Creek. 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=1 9&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 clearcuts. 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.
57 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.
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.
58 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.
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, bulkheading along Clallam Bay and jetty construction have also occurred.
59 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. 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 and 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, and “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. There is a need for additional monitoring to accurately assess these limiting factors and the effectiveness of restoration efforts. Community members also are concerned with the collection of scrap metal, trash, and junk vehicles along waterways. The collection of scrap metal, trash, junk vehicles, and part thereof, creates environmental hazards to the soils, surface water, and groundwater. These environmental hazards are especially exacerbated when waterways flood, with runoff from flood events posing threats to salmon and other aquatic life. The planning unit proposes that Clallam County and landowners work together to locate and remove caches of trash, scrap metal, and all junk vehicles in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program. The WRIA 19 Limiting Factor and Action Recommendation Priorities from the Washington State Conservation Commission Limiting Factors Analysis (WCC 2003) provides 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 Clearcuts - 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 large woody debris (LWD). Many riparian areas are dominated by hardwoods, and will not contribute key pieces to future LWD. Also, it is believed that the change in age and type of surrounding forests contributes to an increased frequency and severity of peak flows.
60 • 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. • 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.
61 • Severe Peak Flows – It is believed that changes in the age and type of surrounding forests can 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 - Members of the TAG believed that there may have been a 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. 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 – It is believed that changes in the age and type of surrounding forests can contribute to the increased frequency and severity of peak flows. • Caches of trash, scrap metal, and junk vehicles located in riparian buffers or floodplains. 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
62 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: • 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, and efforts to return the riparian to old conifers should be encouraged • Increased demand for water,
63 • 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 • Conversion of the Riparian Zone to Open Areas. • Excessive Sedimentation – Excessive sedimentation is believed to be a problem in Whiskey, Fielding, 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.
64 • 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. It 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 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 of course 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.
65 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, like 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 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
66 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 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 into an overall plan, integrated with protection and restoration goals, and incorporated in to strategies and actions in the larger recovery planning area.
67 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.
The Planning Unit was unable to reach consensus on all of the suggested recommendations. Recommendations with General Agreement
Note: The recommendations that have no notation are those that were adopted by consensus.
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.
68 •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 Clallam Conservation District.
•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.
•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
69 •Recommendation EDU-B6—Provide education and training for volunteer monitors through entities such as Clallam County Streamkeepers or the Clallam Conservation District. VOTED – PASSED
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. VOTED – PASSED
•Recommendation MON 2—With continuing permission of willing landowners, continue monitoring of the current BIBI and IFIM sites. VOTED – PASSED
•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. VOTED - PASSED
•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 nonconforming 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
70 actions and outcomes. DNR will make information available through the provisions of public disclosure laws.
•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. VOTED – PASSED
C. Protected Areas
•Recommendation LU-C1—Consider developing a plan for land purchase or conservation easements in the watershed focusing on parcels or areas that would benefit water resources of the basin.
•Recommendation LU-C2—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.
•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 3 and with the provisions as indicated in Table 4. The instream flow recommendations are for the “Big 9” and for “Other Streams.” VOTED – PASSED
•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 data, the Planning Unit recommends the following actions: VOTED – PASSED
–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 Clallam County Streamkeepers, 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.
–After approximately 5-10 years, this flow data will be used to verify and/or modify minimum instream flow levels. It is envisioned that minimum instream flow levels may be revised, based
71 on actual flow data, to 50% exceedance levels, where initial flows have been set based on hydrology rather than the instream flow incremental methodology model results.
–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 flow levels. VOTED - PASSED
•Recommendation ISF-4—Develop an “emergency plan” for voluntary water conservation measures to be employed in drought or low water years. VOTED - PASSED
•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. VOTED – PASSED
•Recommendation ISF-6—Conduct IFIM analysis for adult summer Chinook (August) in the Hoko River prior/during Ecology rulemaking process. VOTED – PASSED
•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 gauges 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 steam 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)
Habitat Recommendations
A. Stream Habitat
•Recommendation HAB-A1—Using a study plan with established protocols the following suggested actions pertain to off-channel habitat:
72 –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 to 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. VOTED – PASSED
D. Estuarine Conditions
•Recommendation HAB-D1—With land owner permission, inventory estuarine and marine shoreline habitat to identify degraded locations.
•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.
73 E. Biological Indicators
•Recommendation HAB-E1—Coordinate with existing salmon recovery efforts such as North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (NOPLE), NOSC, and Shared Strategy 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 Shared Strategy.
•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 our fear that runs of western Strait fall chum, winter chum (Lyre), and chinook on our 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. VOTED – PASSED
•Recommendation HAB-E8—Send a letter to the appropriate parties regarding the lack of listed salmon and lamprey in WRIA 19. VOTED – PASSED
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 be impacting 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.
•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.
74 •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 State Prison in Clallam Bay. Look for water reuse opportunities on forest land, on landscaping, and in creative manners that will provide benefits to 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-8—Develop a water supply plan to encourage off-stream storage for in-stream and out-of-stream uses WRIA-wide with emphasis on the Hoko River.”
•Recommendation WQT-10—Investigate the potential of obtaining potable water at the fresh water/salt water interface.
–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). VOTED – PASSED
•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
•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
75 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. What are the potential impacts on fish, wildlife and water quality? Is there enough water for both fish and people?
•Recommendation SUB-2—Find a permanent solution for the Clallam River outlet closure to protect salmon runs. VOTED – PASSED
•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. VOTED – PASSED
B. Funding
•Recommendation IMP-B1—Pursue 2514 Watershed Management Planning Phase 4 (Implementation) and/or other project funding from Ecology. VOTED – PASSED
•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. VOTED – PASSED
76 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 a watershed management plan as the preferred tool for future watershed 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.
77 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 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 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 XX. State funding for Phase 1 is up to $50,000 for individual watersheds and $xxx 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.
78 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.
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.
79 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 active in monitoring throughout the watershed, including Clallam County, Streamkeepers, 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:
80 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. 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.
81 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.
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 for adoption. Because WRIA 19 is located entirely within Clallam County, the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (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.
82 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 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
83 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:
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.
84 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: Create awareness of watershed planning and how it affects individuals and groups. Encourage an open and responsive planning process. Gain stakeholder input on issues facing the watershed and on ways to resolve them. Gather local knowledge about the history and unique features of the Hoko-Lyre watershed to incorporate into the watershed plan. Provide citizens and policymakers with accurate and timely information about the watershed planning process. Effectively communicate issues and solutions to community members and elected officials. Encourage support for adopting the WRIA 19 Watershed Plan. Objectives: To the extent possible, schedule Planning Unit meetings and field trips for evenings or weekends to encourage participation from residents who work during weekdays. 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. Maintain information kiosks at the Clallam Bay and Port Angeles Public Libraries, with current information and study results related to the watershed plan. Make regular personal outreach to all parties identified as Planning Unit members or interested parties. Circulate email notices regarding watershed plan activities to all Planning Unit members and other interested parties. Have Planning Unit members help publicize activities related to the watershed plan through their regular interactions in the community. 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. 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. Hold two community meetings (in Joyce and in Sekiu) to present draft recommendations and solicit input from the community.
85 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. 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.
86 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, will assume the functions now 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. Shared Strategy: The Shared Strategy is a groundbreaking collaborative initiative by Puget Sound communities to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget Sound. Shared Strategy engages local citizens, tribes, technical experts, and policy makers to build a practical, cost-effective recovery plan endorsed by the people living and working in the watersheds of Puget Sound. How Shared Strategy Fits into Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Shared Strategy is supported by NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Governor Christine Gregoire, Puget Sound Tribes, state natural resources agencies, local governments, and key non-government organizations. The Shared Strategy is based on the conviction that: People in Puget Sound have the creativity, knowledge, and motivation to find lasting solutions to complex ecological, economic, and cultural challenges; Watershed groups that represent diverse communities are essential to the success of salmon recovery; Effective stewardship occurs only when all levels of government coordinate their efforts; The health and vitality of Puget Sound depends on timely planning for ecosystem health and strong local and regional economies; and The health of salmon are an indicator of the health of our region salmon recovery will benefit both human and natural communities. The 5-Step Shared Strategy 1. Identify what should be in a recovery plan and assess how current efforts can support the plan. 2. Set recovery targets and ranges for each watershed. 3. Identify actions needed at the watershed level to meet targets. 4. Determine if identified actions add up to recovery. If not, identify needed adjustments. 5. Finalize the plan and actions and commitment necessary for successful implementation.
87 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.
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. 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.
89 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 or 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. 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—A group of bacteria originating in the intestines of warm-blooded animals (including humans), also found in plants, soil, air, and water. Fecal coliforms are a specific class of bacteria that only inhabit the intestines of warm-blooded animals. 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.
90 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. 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 Clallam County PUD. 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.
91 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. 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.
92 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. 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.
93 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. 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 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
94 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. 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 & MEASUREMENTS
TABLE i. 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 i. Hydraulic System and Water Distribution Components
Transmission pipe usually Stream Flow in mgd or gpm usually in cfs Lake/Reservoir (in Water Treatment Plant acre-feet or million usually in mgd gallons [mg])
Treated Water Reservoir in mg Service in cf 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 95 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 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 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 FPA—Forest Practices Act FOFF—Friends of the Fields Foundation GIS—Geographic Information Systems GMA—Growth Management Act
96 GPD—Gallons per day GPM—Gallons per minute GPS—Global Positioning System HB—House Bill, Washington State Legislature IFIM—Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 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 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 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
97 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
98 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, in progress.
Haggerty, M., M. McHenry, and R. McCoy. “Salt Creek Watershed: An Assessment of Habitat Conditions, Fish Populations and Opportunities for Restoration.” Haggerty Consulting & Lower Elwha 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 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.
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.
99 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, and A. Loch. “Effectiveness of Forest Road and Timber Harvest Best Management Practices with Respect to Sediment-Related Water Quality Impacts, Interim Report No. 2.” Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 94-67. 1994.
Rashin, E., J. Bell, and C. Clishe. “Effectiveness of Forest Road and Timber Harvest Best Management Practices with Respect to Sediment-Related Water Quality Impacts, Interim Report No. 1.” Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 94-27, 1993.
Rashin, E., J. Bell, and C. Clishe. “Effectiveness of Forest Road and Timber Harvest Best Management Practices with Respect to Sediment-related Water Quality Impacts, Progress Report.” Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 92-e55, 1992.
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.
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, 2000: 768-775.
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.
100
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, 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.
101 WEBSITES: 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/
102 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Chapter 90.82 RCW; Watershed Planning ...... 105
APPENDIX 2: Memorandum of Understanding...... 107
APPENDIX 3: Ground Rules For WRIA 19...... 115
APPENDIX 4: Intergovernmental Agreement ...... 119
APPENDIX 5: Public Information & Education Plan ...... 125
APPENDIX 6: Citizen Interviews; Tribal Interviews ...... 127
APPENDIX 7: Crescent Water Association Report...... 137
APPENDIX 8: Instream Flow Study Methods Used in Washington ...... 139
APPENDIX A-1: WRIA-Wide Technical Information...... A-1
APPENDIX B-1: Subbasin Descriptions ...... B-1
APPENDIX C-1: Hydrology ...... C-1
APPENDIX H-1: Habitat And Water Quality Summary Matrices...... H-1
103 (Intentionally left blank)
104 APPENDIX 1
Chapter 90.82 RCW, WATERSHED PLANNING
(Formerly Water resource management)
RCW 90.82.005
Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to develop a more thorough and cooperative method of determining what the current water resource situation is 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 resource management and development.
It is necessary for the legislature to establish processes and policies that will result in providing state agencies with more specific guidance to manage the water resources of the state consistent with current law and direction provided by local entities and citizens through the process established in accordance with this chapter.
[1997 c 442 § 101.]
RCW 90.82.010
Finding.
The legislature finds that the local development of watershed plans for managing water resources and for protecting existing water rights is vital to both state and local interests. The local development of these plans serves vital local interests by placing it in the hands of people: Who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who live and work in the watershed; and who have the greatest stake in the proper, long-term management of the resources. The development of such plans serves the state's vital interests by ensuring that the state's water resources are used wisely, by protecting existing water rights, by protecting instream flows for fish, and by providing for the economic well-being of the state's citizenry and communities. Therefore, the legislature believes it necessary for units of local government throughout the state to engage in the orderly development of these watershed plans.
[1997 c 442 § 102.]
RCW 90.82.020
105 106 APPENDIX 2
Memorandum of Understanding for the Coordinated Implementation of Chapter 247, Laws of 1998: Watershed Management (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2514), and Chapter 246, Laws of 1998: Salmon Recovery Planning (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496), By the Participating Agencies Of the State of Washington:
The Department of Agriculture, The Conservation Commission, The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, The Department of Ecology, The Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Department of Health, The Department of Natural Resources, The Department of Transportation, The Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, The Salmon Recovery Office, Within the Governor’s Office, and The State Parks and Recreation Commission
1. Purpose: The purposes of this agreement are:
• To clarify the roles and responsibilities of participating Washington State agencies in support of watershed planning and salmon recovery at the local level, pursuant to the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act; • To foster cooperative working relationships among the participating state agencies, local governments, and tribal governments; • To help coordinate and, where possible, to simplify the implementation procedures articulated in the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act.
2. Authority:
Specific mandates to undertake the watershed planning and habitat restoration activities identified in this Memorandum of Understanding were provided through the Watershed Management Act, Chapter 247, Laws of 1998 (ESHB 2514) and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act, Chapter 246, Laws of 1998 (ESHB 2496). In addition, the participating agencies have authorities to conduct the activities described in this Memorandum through their respective enabling statutes and delegated federal authorities. The Joint Natural Resources Cabinet requested the preparation of this Memorandum of Understanding through its Water/Endangered Species Act Work Group.
3. Scope:
The scope of this agreement encompasses all activities of participating state agencies necessary to implement the Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514), and to implement in a coordinated way the related portions of the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496), notably the critical pathways, limiting factors analysis, and habitat restoration efforts described in Sections 7 & 8, and the mitigation criteria development described in Section 16. While this agreement specifies some key coordinating procedures, it presumes continuing interagency cooperation to implement these efforts.
4. Basic Principles:
• Commitment to the success of watershed-based salmon recovery and watershed planning efforts; • Good faith sharing of information; • Timely response to questions from local planning groups and to situations requiring coordinated state agency action. Response to situations requiring coordinated state agency action and to questions or requests for assistance from local planning groups will be subject to each agency’s resources constraints. Some agencies may only be able to participate at the statewide leads level.
107 • Care, clarity, and discipline as one participating state agency represents another, to responsibly inform the local planning process in a timely way about the state’s roles, authorities, and intended contributions, while honoring each agency’s own responsibilities for explicitly agreeing to any commitments, to ensure that they are realistic and consistent with its available resources and legal authorities.
5. Role of participating state agencies in support of local government planning under the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act:
The participating agencies are committed to cooperation and coordination to honor as effectively as possible the requests from the local planning groups for support of local watershed management and restoration efforts, subject to agencies’ resource constraints. This support includes these dimensions:
• Encouragement and support for local governments to coordinate their work under the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act • Providing technical assistance at the assessment and planning stages, including clarification of state standards and expectations; • Policy review and approval of watershed management plans; • Technical and other resource support for plan implementation, including • Watershed Management Act watershed implementation grants, and • Salmon recovery project funding under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act. • Monitoring and evaluation of the results of these efforts, especially • Watershed management plans, • Limiting factors identification for salmon recovery planning, and • Salmon recovery project lists.
6. Coordination of requests from local planning groups for state assistance:
For watershed management planning, Ecology will serve as the clearinghouse for requests to the Governor, as provided in the Watershed Management Act. Receipt of the request will trigger notification of all participating agencies through their designated leads.
For salmon recovery, the Conservation Commission will develop technical guidance for local lead entities to use as a guide in developing project lists.
The Department of Ecology and the Conservation Commission will coordinate to the maximum extent possible the local requests for technical assistance.
7. Overall Management and Statewide Coordination:
Overall management of the state agencies in implementing the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act is vested in the Director, Commissioner, or Secretary of each participating agency. General interagency coordination and leadership is provided at the Director’s level through the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, and at a more detailed level for participating agencies through the statewide leads as described in Section 8, below, and the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.
The statewide leads for participating agencies, in consultation with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, will serve as a statewide interagency caucus for coordinating statewide support for local watershed planning and salmon recovery. When a coordinated multi-agency policy interpretation is required, local state caucuses will be able to elevate, as needed, issues involving policy gaps or interpretation to the statewide leads. Agencies not participating in this memorandum of understanding may be invited through their directors to designate a representative to participate with the statewide leads on multi-agency issues.
108 The statewide leads will also serve as a resource to the local state caucuses for dispute resolution, as needed.
8. Designation of Statewide Lead for each agency:
The Director, Secretary, or Commissioner of each participating agency will designate a lead point of contact for statewide implementation of the Watershed Management Act and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act. This statewide lead will in turn identify the person to represent the agency at the local state caucus, as well as the appropriate people to work on specific issues, as required.
This statewide lead will be responsible for the overall management and coordination of watershed planning and salmon recovery activities for the agency. Any statewide lead may call a meeting of other affected statewide leads for dispute resolution or coordination on emerging issues as necessary.
9. Designation of the lead state agency for each local planning area:
For watershed management planning:
• It is understood that the local initiating governments under the Watershed Planning Act may determine the number of state agency representatives participating in each local planning unit. The Watershed Management Act provides that state agencies may organize and agree upon their representation on the planning unit. • Ecology will identify the local planning areas where it proposes to have the lead staff role for state agencies. This proposed list will be distributed to the Governor’s Office, other participating state agencies, initiating local governments and affected tribal governments for comment. The state agencies will be invited to indicate where they want to participate directly, or to play a lead role, where Ecology’s resources are constrained. (Ecology estimates it will initially have staff resources to assume a lead role in response to invitations from about twenty local planning areas.) • Once Ecology has received comments from the other interested state agencies it will identify, with the consensus of the designated statewide leads, which agency will have the state agency lead in each of the local planning areas. Ecology will then report this information to other agencies through their designated statewide leads, the local planning groups through the lead local agency or initiating governments, and the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet. • The designation of any additional state agency representatives to the local planning unit will be based on the requests from the local initiating governments to seat additional agencies at the local planning table. Ecology will coordinate local requests for state agency participation with the applicable Director, Commissioner, or Secretary, and the designated statewide leads for the affected agencies.
For salmon recovery, the Conservation Commission has the lead for coordinating the work of technical assistance groups (TAGS).
To help coordinate watershed management planning and salmon recovery work at the local level, participating state agencies agree to coordinate their work through the local state caucus and the technical assistance group, and make efficient use of work products and meeting times.
10. Designating the state watershed interagency lead and each state agency’s primary watershed contact(s) for each local planning effort:
For watershed management planning:
• Once the state agency with the lead role in a planning area has been designated, that agency will identify the lead state staff person to represent the lead agency to that local planning effort, and will communicate that name to Ecology, if the lead agency is other than Ecology. Ecology will distribute the name to other state agencies, the local planning groups, and the affected tribal governments.
109 • Participating state agencies will be represented at the local planning unit by the state watershed interagency lead, except that where there are additional state agency representatives designated to serve on the local planning unit, each additional state agency representative will represent his or her own agency. In any case, state agencies will strive for a coordinated and uniform state message.
For salmon recovery, the Conservation Commission will designate the lead point of contact for each technical assistance group (TAG).
For both watershed management planning and salmon recovery:
• When each state agency identifies or changes its representative to each local planning effort, that agency’s designated statewide lead will communicate that information to Ecology for distribution to other state agencies, and to the lead local government contact for distribution to the participating local agencies and affected tribal governments. The agency may designate separate people to represent the agency at the local planning effort, and to represent the agency at the local state caucus and the technical assistance group.
11. Areas of coordination: In each area of support for local planning and restoration efforts, participating agencies will keep each other informed of major upcoming developments and progress. These include:
Start-up support;
• Contributions to assessments; • Specifically sharing GIS data sets and other information, including the limiting factors analysis and background data developed under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act; • Technical assistance being provided to local entities for watershed planning and salmon recovery; • Alternative mitigation criteria being developed by the Alternative Mitigation Strategies Work Group; and • Grant coordination for protection and restoration projects, including contributing information on the pool of potentially available grant sources.
In addition, participating agencies will help integrate the work products and work groups envisioned by the Salmon Recovery Planning Act and the Watershed Management Act, especially related to watershed characterization and limiting factors analysis.
12. Coordination between watershed management planning and salmon recovery:
• The Salmon Recovery Planning Act requires lead entities to use a critical pathways methodology to develop a habitat project plan. The methodology must include a limiting factors analysis (which may have substantial overlap with a watershed management plan), identify local habitat projects’ sponsors, determine how projects will be monitored and evaluated, and develop an adaptive management strategy. If a lead entity has completed a limiting factors analysis or a watershed management plan for a planning area, participating state agencies agree to use this analysis or plan as a factor in awarding grants for watershed planning and salmon recovery where possible, subject to statutory constraints. • If watershed planning groups include a habitat element in their plan, state agencies will encourage lead entities under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act and watershed planning groups under the Watershed Management Act to jointly develop habitat project lists. • To achieve an efficient and effective use of state dollars, the Interagency Review Team established by the Salmon Recovery Planning Act and the Department of Ecology will coordinate these habitat project grants and watershed planning grants.
13. Key responsibilities of each participating state agency in support of the local planning process ("local state caucus" and technical assistance group expectations):
110 Good faith participation: Participating agencies accept the responsibility to participate in local state caucus meetings and technical assistance groups in good faith.
For watershed management planning:
• Local state caucus chair: The state agency with the lead in each local planning area will designate the local state caucus chair for the area.
The purposes of the local state caucus are:
• To coordinate positions, interests, and potential contributions of participating state agencies to the local planning unit’s efforts; • To communicate and coordinate representation issues; and • To elevate interagency policy coordination issues for consideration by the statewide leads or other interagency teams identified by the statewide leads.
To be effective, the local state caucus should also:
• Monitor the local planning unit’s level of understanding of the state’s roles, policies, expectations, potential contributions and constraints, and help clarify misunderstandings early. • Anticipate emerging issues in the planning process, to start consideration of potential agency obligations and areas where a coordinated state position will have to be developed.
For salmon recovery:
• TAG leadership: The Conservation Commission will establish the technical assistance groups’ lead positions, and define their roles. • TAG purpose: The essential purpose of the technical assistance groups defined under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act is to conduct the limiting factors identifications.
For alternative mitigation strategies: The Alternative Mitigation Strategies Work Group, co-chaired by Ecology, the Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, will serve as a working group to develop criteria to be used by participating state agencies and local planning efforts in the development of watershed management and salmon recovery plans.
Informational materials: Each participating state agency will make informational materials available for use by local leads and local planning groups.
• Each participating agency will provide some basic written materials for use by local leads and local planning groups, including lead entities and technical assistance groups under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act, outlining the basic authorities, role, and expectations of the agency, as well as the kinds of contributions the agency expects to make in support of local planning and restoration. • Participating agencies will also provide updated or supplementary information as the local planning processes unfold, in response to (or in anticipation of) the major questions from the local planning groups or lead entities. Written information is encouraged, but resource and timing constraints are recognized.
Dispute resolution: Any local state caucus member or state TAG member may elevate disputes at the caucus or TAG level to the statewide leads of the agencies involved. The statewide leads will consult with each other and identify the appropriate people to work on resolution.
14. Key responsibilities of state watershed interagency leads for watershed planning:
111 Communications link: Each state watershed interagency lead will establish regular communications with the other state agencies involved with that local planning effort, to follow-up and prepare for local planning meetings and public hearings focused on that local area. This local lead will try to anticipate upcoming issues and alert other agencies to the anticipated response that will be needed. It is understood that agencies will respond in a timely way to questions posed by the local group.
State caucus of participating agencies at the local level: The local lead will convene and chair an interagency consultation and coordination process ("local state caucus") with the representatives of the participating state agencies identified through each agency’s lead. Insofar as possible, these meetings or consultations will use a consensus approach to decision-making, when a group decision is required.
Representing other participating state agencies: The state watershed interagency lead will identify and give early notice to any state agencies that may be "obligated," within the meaning of the Watershed Planning act, by any proposed plan element. The responsibilities of the state watershed interagency lead will include:
• Educating the local planning unit about the "obligations" provisions of the Watershed Planning Act, and how participating state agencies will take an organized approach to responding; • Clearly conveying the interests and expectations of participating state agencies in watershed planning and management to the local planning unit, including applicable state law, standards and requirements; • Negotiating local planning unit ground rules to flag potential obligations for early agency consideration; • Negotiating up front with the local planning unit sufficient review time at key points in the planning process, and especially to review the final draft proposed watershed plan, before a state representative to the planning unit is asked to approve it. The amount of review time required will vary depending on prior review opportunities and the nature of the obligations in the final proposed plan.
Ensuring consultation with tribal governments: The state watershed interagency lead will ensure consultation with affected tribes, including those with usual and accustomed territory or ceded lands, before committing to obligate the state on any particular instream flow levels or other issues that affect tribal treaty rights and co- management responsibilities.
15. Approval and commitment process for local plans and resulting obligations for statewide agencies under the Watershed Planning Act:
Watershed planning (Chapter 247, Section 9) final plan review provisions: It is understood that state agencies that would incur an obligation under the plan will have the opportunity to concur with the obligation before a proposed watershed plan becomes final. However, once there is consensus among the represented units of government (including the state, where state agencies would be obligated), and once local public hearings and adoptions are conducted, state agencies are directed to support implementation, without an additional review step under Chapter 247.
Obligations to implement recommendations means following established public processes: The Watershed Management Act (Chapter 247, Laws of 1998) requires participating governments to implement recommendations in adopted plans (obligations). For state agencies this means a good faith commitment to propose amended rules, propose amended permit modifications, redirect resources, and other actions. This does not imply that public processes established to review draft rules, permits, or other state actions are superceded by Chapter 247, or that agencies can pre-commit to adopt the proposed rules or issue permits contrary to the requirements of existing legislation, including the Administrative Procedures Act, Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and other laws which must be followed to implement recommendations of watershed plans. At the request of the local planning unit, state agencies may conduct adoption processes concurrent with the development of the watershed management plan.
Input to local planning: Participating agencies accept the responsibility to stay current with local planning as it unfolds, to provide early input into those plans, to minimize the likelihood or extent of disapproval, and to minimize the length of time necessary to conduct the final review.
112 Participating agencies agree to review in a timely way all communications and information distributed to them by the state watershed interagency lead, who will, in turn, help agencies focus on the particular issues requiring response.
Participating agencies agree to help explicitly consider any implied obligations in the watershed plan, and to work on these early in the process whenever possible. Participating state agencies understand that they will only be obligated for explicit written commitments to take or defer action, not for implied commitments.
Participating agencies further agree to provide notification and plan element approval/disapproval in a timely manner, and to have lead staff available to meet at the local caucus level or with the local planning unit on concurrence issues and at other key times in the process. Participating agencies understand the importance of working difficult obligation issues early, and helping to develop mutually acceptable alternatives where possible.
Coordinated interagency review of the plan in progress, and the completed proposed watershed plan: The state watershed interagency lead will negotiate with the local planning unit sufficient time for affected participating state agencies to review proposed watershed plan elements as they are developed, and again in a final draft form, before state agencies are asked to concur with obligations in the plan. The amount of review time required will vary depending on prior review opportunities and the nature of the obligations in the final proposed plan.
It is incumbent on each participating agency to alert the state watershed interagency lead in writing when the agency determines that its written concurrence on a plan element will be necessary.
The state watershed interagency lead may not support (i.e. must withhold approval or consensus from) a plan element that does not have the written support of all "obligated" participating agencies.
The result of this review process should include:
• Explicit, written identification of which provisions of the local plan would create obligations upon each agency; • Explicit written identification of which related agency programs are included in the plan, and which are outside the scope of the plan. This is intended as a final communications check on any expectations to withhold or delay imposing related requirements on participating local entities, until after identified plan obligations are completed. • Explicit agreement, agreement with conditions, or lack of agreement with those provisions. Any obligations by state agencies for the commitment of existing resources in support of plan implementation will be expressed in writing to the lead local agency, with a copy to Ecology for coordination purposes. • A written description of the process each agency intends to follow to satisfy any other obligations in support of the approved plan (i.e. subject to rule adoption requirements, or legislative appropriation, or a competitive grant award process, etc.).
Some state agencies may not be participating in this memorandum of understanding, but may be affected by local watershed management planning and salmon recovery planning:
• "Participating agencies" are the state agencies committed through the signatures of their agency heads to participating in watershed management and salmon recovery planning through this memorandum of understanding. • Local state caucus chairs will clarify for local governments which agencies are participating in a coordinated way through this memorandum of understanding, and which would require separate communication and coordination efforts. • The expectation is that these other agencies would also want the earliest possible notice of potential obligations, and would also attempt to resolve issues as early in the planning process as possible, subject
113 to their resource constraints. Where they were not able to work on planning issues early, they would expect to represent their own issues at public hearings without prejudice.
16. Amendments and updates: As experience is gained with the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding at the state and local levels, changes may be needed to respond to emerging issues. This memorandum of understanding can be updated, refined, or amended in writing as needed through the statewide leads, in consultation with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, with concurrence by the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet.
17. Severability: State agency severability from this Memorandum of Understanding requires consultation with the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet and formal notification to the Governor.
18. Conclusion: In signing this document, the head of each participating agency reaffirms the importance of coordinated state agency support for local watershed management and restoration as mandated by the Watershed Management Act (Chapter 247, Laws of 1998, ESHB 2514) and the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (Chapter 246, Laws of 1998,ESHB 2496), and commits that agency to support these efforts as outlined above.
Signed:
Jim Jesernig, Director Department of Agriculture
Steve Meyer Executive Director, Conservation Commission Tom Fitzsimmons Director, Department of Ecology Larry Peck, Deputy Director Department of Fish and Wildlife Kris Van Gorkom Deputy Secretary, Department of Health Tim Douglas Community, Trade and Economic Development Jennifer Belcher Commissioner of Public Lands Department of Natural Resources Sid Morrison, Secretary Department of Transportation Nancy McKay, Chair Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Curt Smitch, Special Assistant Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office Laura Eckert Johnson Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Cleve Pinnix State Parks and Recreation Commission Lee Faulconer Department of Agriculture Ed Manary Conservation Commission Joe Williams Department of Ecology Jim Fox Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Steve Wells Community, Trade and Economic Development Erik Fairchild Department of Health Craig Partridge Department of Natural Resources Karen Terwilleger Department of Fish and Wildlife Shari Schaftlein Department of Transportation John Dohrmann Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Phil Miller Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Bill Jolly State Parks and Recreation Commission
114 APPENDIX 3
Ground Rules for WRIA 19 Watershed Planning Unit
Draft (8/10/03)
Definitions
Initiating Government (IG): Each of the three local and tribal governments (Clallam County, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Makah Tribe), and the largest water supply utility (PUD #1 of Clallam County) who have initiated this planning process and who manage this planning process for WRIA 19-specific matters.
Consensus: The explicit, unanimous concurrence of all Initiating Governments and active Stakeholders. Consent within this consensus definition is understood to mean that each individual IG and Stakeholder can “live with”, or not object to, the decision in question.
Quorum: The number of members of a body that must be present in order to conduct official business (e.g., decision making).
Committee: A committee established and appointed by the Planning Unit(s) and/or the Initiating Governments to address a specific issue or problem.
Stakeholder: An individual or group of individuals, with a distinct community interest that the Planning Unit, upon approval of the Initiating Governments, has identified as being important to have participated within the Planning Unit. A “stakeholder” will be considered active when one or more individuals and/or organizations that share a common interest, have indicated a desire to participate, have been approved to participate by the Initiating Governments, and actively do participate in the watershed planning process as a unified group. Approval by the Initiating Governments shall not be unreasonably denied.
II. Purpose
These ground rules make explicit the expectations with which the IGs and stakeholders of WRIA 19 undertake the watershed planning process. The goal of the process as defined by the Planning Unit is to create a dynamic watershed plan for water quantity, water quality and fish habitat, which will contribute to sustainable environmental and human communities. The rules describe the structure for participation, the decision making process and the expectations of the participants. Their intent is to provide a framework for fruitful discussion and exchange which guides rather than constrains interaction and decision making.
These ground rules are intended to facilitate discussion and planning efforts under the Washington State Watershed Management Act (RCW 90.82/ESHB 2514 et seq) and the Memoranda of Agreement signed by the Initiating Governments. However, if there is a conflict created by these ground rules, then the provisions of the MOAs and existing state and federal law shall prevail.
Participating in the watershed planning process as an Initiating Government or Stakeholder signals an understanding and acceptance of the ground rules. Once the ground rules have been adopted by IG consensus and a 2/3 majority of stakeholders, they may be amended by the process described in Section
VI. Membership
115 The Initiating Governments of WRIA 19 shall consist of one member and one alternate from each of the following groups: Clallam County, Lower Elwha Tribe, Makah Tribe, and PUD #1 of Clallam County.
The WRIA 19 Planning Unit shall consist of:
WRIA 19 Initiating Government representatives and alternates, and
Stakeholders, approved by the Initiating Governments, who come from private and nonprofit sectors, activist and special interest groups, as well as from governmental agencies, and who represent a range of economic and social concerns and different land and resource use priorities. a.) Any Stakeholder approved by the Initiating Governments, which represents a group of individuals, shall elect a representative and an alternate to represent that Stakeholder Group on the Planning Unit. Each Stakeholder shall notify the Planning Unit in writing as to the name and contact information for its designated representative and alternate. b) Any Stakeholder failing to attend three (3) consecutive meetings may be suspended from the voting membership by the Initiating Governments. Meeting minutes will reflect absences. A suspended Stakeholder may reinstate its voting status by attending any three (3) consecutive meetings. The voting status will be reinstated at the beginning of that third (3rd) meeting.
Support Staff will be non-voting members of the Planning Unit
Special Committees
The Planning Unit may select a steering committee to help organize its work and facilitate its meetings. Steering committee meetings must be announced and open to participation by all planning unit members. In addition, special committees dealing with specific tasks and responsibilities may be selected. These should be open to input from all members. Guidelines for the composition and action of the steering committee or special committees shall be adopted by the Planning Unit at the time of the establishment of the committee, according to the procedures for voting outlined in Section V.
Meeting Procedure
Agenda topics for the next meeting will be discussed at the end of each meeting. The steering committee or staff person will distribute a proposed agenda a week before the Planning Unit meetings. The final meeting agenda will be adopted at the Planning Unit meeting.
The Planning Unit will propose, at the beginning of each calendar year, that year’s meeting schedule. This proposed meeting schedule will be distributed to all members. Meeting notice shall be disseminated to the interested public and the media at least one week in advance of each meeting.
Decisions, wherever possible, will be made by consensus of the Planning Unit. If, after strong, sharp debate and attempts to maximize agreement, there is no consensus, decisions will be made by vote, subject to the provisions of topics D and E of this section.
Each IG and each Stakeholder shall have one vote. Any decisions pertinent to the final watershed plan will require unanimous agreement of the IG’s as well as at least a simple majority of the non- governmental Stakeholders. The day-to-day issues coming before the Planning Unit will only require a simple majority vote of all members of the Planning Unit.
Upcoming decisions on matters pertinent to the final watershed plan shall be identified at the end of each Planning Unit meeting. Notification of such matters shall be provided to all members of the
116 Planning Unit, along with an announcement of the date of the meeting at which a decision shall be made. Notification shall be provided at least one week in advance of the meeting date, along with the agenda for meeting. Planning Unit members are expected to attend the meeting and participate in the decision-making process. In the event that a member is unable to attend, they may provide written input on the matter. Absentees may also petition the Planning Unit to reopen a decision. The Planning Unit shall carefully consider all reasonable petitions. All decisions are subject to the requirements of Section V.D., above.
Decisions made by Initiating Governments on matters raised during their absence from any Planning Unit meeting shall be provided in writing, along with written explanation and justification for that decision, to the other members of the Planning Unit, within one week of making the decision.
A quorum of the Planning Unit shall consist of 2 IG’s and 5 stakeholders present and voting.
Minutes will be recorded for all official Planning Unit meetings. These minutes will be made available to the public as soon after each meeting as is practical (no longer than 30 days after the meeting). The minutes will be kept along with other reference materials and work products in the public repositories designated for these purposes.
Conduct of Members
It is important that all members and participants be familiar with and subscribe to certain basic provisions that are important in developing consensus on difficult and complex issues. The following provisions shall be observed by all participants in the watershed planning process in order to encourage the collaborative decision-making process:
Participants agree to act in “good faith” in all aspects of the process.
Participants commit to listening carefully to each other, to recognizing each participant’s interests and concerns about a topic, to asking questions for clarification, and to making statements that attempt to educate or explain.
It will be the responsibility of the stakeholder groups to ensure that their members understand and abide by these ground rules. Only those participants who are willing and able to accept these ground rules should be designated as stakeholder group representatives or alternates.
The focus of discussion will be on interests and concerns rather than on positions and demands.
Participants commit to fully explore issues, searching for solutions in a problem-solving atmosphere.
Participants agree to make a good faith effort to share information on matters related to the process, the subject of discussion at the time, and/or other information that may be of value to the group and the goals of the planning effort.
Participants will refrain from attacks and/or characterizations directed at people, organizations, and/or subjects under consideration.
Amendments to the Ground Rules
Amendments to the ground rules may be proposed by any planning unit member. They will not be acted on until the meeting subsequent to the proposal. Passage will be by 2/3 vote of participating planning unit members and consensus of the IG’s.
Approved by unanimous consent of the WRIA 19 Planning Unit. on ______. Record of amendments:
117 118 APPENDIX 4
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
REGARDING LOCAL WATERSHED PLANNING
FOR THE LYRE-HOKO BASINS
(WRIA 19)
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING LOCAL WATERSHED PLANNING FOR THE LYRE-HOKO BASINS (WRIA 19) hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” is entered into by and between Clallam County, the Makah Tribe, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1.
WHEREAS, coordinated efforts for watershed planning in WRIA 19, which contains some of the last few runs of wild salmonids in Washington State that are not ESA-listed, are a priority; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 90.82 RCW, Watershed Planning, provides authority for local watershed planning for waters and water rights under State jurisdiction and directions for the initiation of planning and eligibility for grant funds, and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39.34 RCW) provides authority for governmental entities to exercise their respective powers jointly by intergovernmental agreements; and
WHEREAS, watershed planning under Chapter 90.82 RCW includes representation by a wide range of water resource interests in the investigation and planning of actions relating to water quantity, water quality, habitat restoration and preservation, and instream flows, and the identification of projects and activities to protect water resources and improve natural resource management; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 90.82.060(2) provides that watershed planning may only be initiated with the concurrence of the following entities: 1. All counties in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA); and 2. The largest city or town within the WRIA; and 3. The water supply utility obtaining the largest quantity of water from the WRIA; and
WHEREAS, under Chapter 90.82.060(4), the initiating entities after deciding to proceed, must invite each tribe with reservation lands within the management area to participate as an Initiating Government; and
WHEREAS, the following Indian Tribes have been invited and have agreed to participate as initiating governments: Makah Tribe and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe--and by their acceptance, the Initiating Governments now consist of these tribes, the Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1 and Clallam County, and
119 WHEREAS, the Lyre-Hoko Basins have been designated by the State as WRIA 19; and
WHEREAS, the Initiating Governments will invite other interested parties, including but not limited to federal and state government agencies or services, interest groups and individuals; and
WHEREAS, under Chapter 90.82 RCW, after the Initiating Governments commence watershed planning and invite the Tribes to participate, they must designate a lead agency and indicate how the Planning Unit will be staffed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Initiating Governments agree as follows:
1. Formation of the WRIA 19 Initiating Governments
The Initiating Governments are Clallam County, Makah Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1. Clallam County serves as lead agency for Phase I of the watershed planning process. The Initiating Governments shall provide for staffing of the watershed planning effort, management of grant funds, resolution of disputes regarding interim decisions, and a public hearing process. The representatives of the Initiating Governments shall consist of one elected or appointed official and one alternate from each of the four (4) Initiating Governments from WRIA 19. The recognized officials shall be the voting members of the Initiating Governments, provided that a designated, duly authorized alternate representative may vote in their absence.
2. Funding and Accounting
a. The Initiating Governments are authorized to apply for and accept grants in the name of the WRIA 19 Initiating Governments and to use existing grant funds and appropriations for the purposes specified herein.
b. The Initiating Governments’ funds shall be retained in a special account established by the Clallam County Treasurer to be known as the “WRIA 19 Watershed Planning Account”. All sums received by the Initiating Governments shall be placed in and disbursed from that account. The Clallam County Treasurer shall be the custodian of the account and the Clallam County Auditor shall keep a record of the receipts and disbursements. The Clallam County Auditor shall draw and the Clallam County Treasurer shall honor and pay all warrants, which shall be approved before issuance and payment as directed by the Initiating Governments.
c. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is hereby designated as the fiscal agent for watershed planning funds from the Dept. of Ecology and will perform certain tasks related to the proper administration of funds, and shall keep full and complete accounts of the costs incurred in connection with the planning process and shall report to the Initiating Governments on a quarterly basis regarding the accounting of revenues and expenditures.
120 d. The Initiating Governments shall not acquire real property. Any personal property acquired for use by the Initiating Governments may be acquired jointly in the name of the Initiating Governments. The Initiating Governments shall dispose of property acquired.
e. The Initiating Governments agree to disbursal and expenditure of funds as set forth by grant contracts and associated budgets.
3. Staffing for Planning Purposes
The Initiating Governments may utilize their staff and resources to organize and administer the planning processes for WRIA 19 and may hire consultants or additional staff to perform various functions related to the watershed planning process.
4. Scope of Planning
a. The Initiating Governments agree that effective watershed planning cannot take place without sufficient scientific data to support informed decision- making. To achieve this, the Initiating Governments, with technical assistance from tribal, federal, state and local natural resources agencies, will scope, design and include in the scope of work for each planning unit, scientific studies which provide an acceptable level of certainty concerning all the surface and ground water quality and quantity requirements of the ecosystems and water users in the affected watershed.
b. It is expected that the water quantity assessment shall comply with the requirements of RCW 90.82/ESHB 2514. Water quality, instream flows and habitat studies may be incorporated into the scope of work subject to the unanimous consent of the Initiating Governments and to the extent funds are made available at a later time for this purpose.
c. Watershed planning under this Agreement for any watershed lying wholly or primarily within the Makah Indian Reservation, shall occur outside of the framework of Chapter 90.82 RCW, and shall not extend the jurisdiction of the state of Washington over on-reservation water resources. Watersheds lying wholly or primarily within the Makah Indian Reservation include but are not limited to the following: i) Wa’atch River and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. ii) Educket River and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. iii) Sail River and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. iv) Agency Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. v) Anderson Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. vi) Archawat Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. vii) Beach Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. viii) Cheeka Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. ix) Classet Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. x) Flattery Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth.
121 xi) Hobuck Creek, including Hobuck Lake and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xii) Kabusie Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xiii) Middle Creek (Halfway Creek) and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xiv) Ocean Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xv) Scow Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xvi) Tyler Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth. xvii) Village Creek and its tributaries from their headwaters to the river mouth.
d. Watershed planning under this Agreement for any watershed lying wholly or primarily within the Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Reservation shall occur outside of the framework of Chapter 90.82 RCW, and shall not extend the jurisdiction of the state of Washington over on-reservation water resources.
5. Organization of Planning Unit
The Initiating Governments shall cause to be organized a comprehensive public outreach program for the purpose of soliciting all parties of interest to participate in the watershed planning process as Stakeholders in the Planning Unit.
The Planning Unit shall consist of:
a. Initiating Governments, which include Clallam County, Makah Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1, and
b. Stakeholder Groups, approved by the Initiating Governments, representing broad interests from government, private, and nonprofit sectors.
Each Stakeholder Group, approved by the Initiating Governments, shall elect a representative and an alternate to represent their Stakeholder Group at the Planning Unit.
“Ground rules” for the Planning Unit will be established by cooperation between the Initiating Governments and the approved Stakeholder Groups.
6. Plan Preparation
a. Decision-making.
i) Decisions will be made by unanimous vote of the Initiating Governments with each Initiating Government having one vote.
ii) Stakeholder Groups, approved by the Initiating Governments, shall make recommendations to the Initiating Governments by a majority vote and the Initiating Governments shall make a decision on that recommendation at their next meeting, unless the Initiating Governments determine that further study is recommended, in which case the vote may be delayed until the next meeting thereafter.
122 iii) The Initiating Governments shall file a written explanation for record purposes if a recommendation is rejected or voted down.
b. Watershed Plan Approval by the Planning Unit shall be accomplished as follows:
i) Approval of the Watershed Plan is achieved by unanimous vote of the Initiating Governments with each Initiating Government having one vote and by unanimous vote of Stakeholder Groups with each group having one vote; if unanimous vote is not obtained, then Approval of the Watershed Plan is achieved
a) by unanimous vote of the Initiating Governments with each Initiating Government having one vote, and
b) by a majority vote of any approved Stakeholder Groups, in existence four (4) months prior to plan submission for approval, with each group having one vote.
ii) If the Planning Unit approves the watershed plan, the Planning Unit shall submit the watershed plan to Clallam County. The Clallam County Board of Commissioners 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 Clallam County Board of Commissioners shall to consider the proposal. The Clallam County Board of Commissioners, by a majority vote, may approve or reject the proposed watershed plan for the management area, but may not amend it. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt the approved watershed plan. Pursuant to RCW 90.82.130, if the proposed plan is rejected, the county legislative authorities shall return the plan to the Planning Unit with recommendations for revisions. A revised proposed plan shall follow the same approval as the original watershed plan. If the approval of the revised plan is not achieved, the process shall terminate.
c. Concurrence to Obligation The parties of this contract hereby incorporate the entirety of RCW 90.82.130 (3), as it may be amended in the future.
d. All meetings of the Planning Unit are open meetings to the public, pursuant to RCW 42.30 et seq.
7. Water Rights Disclaimer
Nothing in this Agreement nor any report, study, or other product resulting from the watershed planning process or any other activity under this Agreement shall impair any treaty, water or other right of an Indian Tribe or its members, and/or any water or other rights of any other entity or person under any applicable law. Water quantity estimates generated in this watershed planning process are only estimates and are not intended to formally determine or resolve any legal dispute about water rights under State or federal law or Indian Treaties. These estimates cannot be used to limit,
123 prejudice, or in any way impact, the legal rights or obligations of any parties to this Agreement.
8. No real property will be acquired within the framework of this agreement. Any other property or equipment purchased under this agreement, which is funded by grants from the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), will be disposed of according to the guidelines set forth in DOE publication 91-18 (rev. 7/95), “Administrative Requirements For Ecology Grants And Loans”.
9. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written understandings of the parties, regarding the local watershed planning for WRIA 19, but does not supersede any Indian Treaties.
10. Any signatory parties to this Agreement may terminate their participation with written notice of intent to terminate by a formal termination letter, which gives no less than forty-five (45) days notice. Within such period, the Initiating Governments shall convene a meeting. Unless the withdrawal of such party terminates the process by law, the remaining Initiating Governments are the WRIA 19 Initiating Governments.
11. This Agreement may be amended by unanimous written consent of the Initiating Governments.
12. Effective Date and Term of Agreement
a. This Agreement, established with four (4) original copies (one for each of the signatory Initiating Governments) shall be effective immediately upon its execution by the final signatory Initiating Government, Clallam County.
b. This Agreement shall terminate four (4) years from the last date of execution unless otherwise extended by written amendment of all of the Initiating Governments prior to such date. The Agreement may be terminated earlier upon mutual consent of the Initiating Governments. Upon termination, all unexpended funds shall be disbursed as decided in writing by the Initiating Governments, provided that Clallam County shall first certify to the Initiating Governments that such disbursement complies with the terms of all applicable grants, laws, and accounting principles relating to the expenditure of public funds.
SIGNATURE PAGE CLALLAM COUNTY DATE: ______BY: ______BY: ______POSITION: ______POSITION: ______APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: ______BY: ______POSITION: ______POSITION: ______MAKAH TRIBE DATE: ______BY: ______POSITION: ______LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE DATE: ______BY: ______POSITION: ______CLALLAM COUNTY PUD #1 DATE: ______BY: ______POSITION: ______END OF DOCUMENT
124 APPENDIX 5
WRIA 19 & 20 INITIATING GOVERNMENTS PUBLIC INFORMATION & EDUCATION PLAN
September, 2000
1 .1 GOAL
To provide the public, including both individuals and recognized interests, with the fullest understanding of the water resources and related features and issues of WRIAs 19 & 20.
1 .2 PURPOSES To enable broad public involvement in the inquiry into water resource issues.
To attract widely representative participation throughout the watershed planning process.
To ensure substantial public involvement in the composition, completion, and implementation of the watershed plan(s). ELEMENTS
General Public Information
1. Conduct initial round of informational meetings with all identifiable civic, service, and other organizations. 2. Provide routine notice of all IG and Planning Unit meetings to print, radio, and TV media. 3. Produce periodic press releases describing key steps, activities, and accomplishments of the process. 4. Maintain comprehensive hard copy records for public review at designated repositories. Planning Unit Development
1. Emphasize planning unit participation in informational meetings. 2. Produce introductory/recruitment materials for release to media. 3. Conduct one or more meetings specifically designed to introduce the planning process and recruit participants. 4. Develop comprehensive mailing list of all identifiable organizations and groups and include them in above recruitment activities.
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS – Potential groups:
125
(Intentionally left blank)
126
APPENDIX 6
Citizen Interviews
Residents of the watershed, whether as witnesses to one-time events or observers of slow changes over time, possess a unique knowledge and expertise that can contribute to the planning process by complementing the technical analysis that provides the foundation for much of this watershed plan.
The sections that follow summarize community perspectives obtained through personal interviews and the collection of anecdotal and informal information; more detailed presentations of these residents’ comments are provided in Appendix F. All subjective viewpoints expressed in these sections are those of the residents who were interviewed. Also included are overviews of cultural information about the Makah and Lower Elwha Klallam tribes, summarized from information provided on the tribes’ web sites.
Mike McGarvie
In 1949, Mike McGarvie’s father moved his family to Clallam County just outside the town of Joyce, drawn to the location for the opportunities in logging and fishing, Except for a short time in 1953, Mr. McGarvie has lived in the same area since he was 13. Interviewed for this watershed plan on December 2, 2004, he made the following observations:
• After the initial logging of coastal areas in the watershed, much of the land was converted to agricultural use, but with substantial stands of old-growth timber remaining in the hillsides.
• There were two cooperative creameries in the area: one in Port Angeles and one in Sequim. Eventually Darigold moved into the area and the small creameries were driven out of business. One of the last dairy farms Mike remembers, belonging to Carl Craig, closed in 1963, selling for roughly $8,000, including the house, barn, outpost and cattle.
• Mike can’t think of any big timber left in the watershed. The last area he knew of personally, along the Twin Rivers, was cut about five years ago.
• Mike believes that true loggers, when given the opportunity, are good stewards of the land, but that the field has become too mechanized—done by logging machines instead of local residents.
• Mike and his father spent some time as commercial fishermen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. He says that the salmon were disappearing by 1974-75 and that catches the size of those he remembers from his youth no longer exist.
• Mike says he once witnessed a massive fish die -off on the Lyre River, for which he could find no explanation.
Bob and June Bowlby
Husband and wife Bob and June Bowlby are life-time residents of the Olympic Peninsula who currently live on the Pysht River 7 miles from Clallam Bay. Bob’s family moved to the
127 Pysht area in 1926, six months before he was born, and he spent the first 18 years of his life there. June was born in Sekiu in 1932 and graduated from Clallam Bay High School. They were married in the Clallam Bay School Auditorium in 1951 and raised four children in their home on the Pysht River. They were interviewed for this watershed plan on December 3, 2004 and made the following observations:
• The Bowlbys say that the work people do in their area has changed over the years but not the population numbers. In the old days there were the loggers and fishermen, but today the Clallam Bay Corrections Center is the largest employer. The population probably reached its peak around 1949 when there were many fishermen and tourists in Sekiu.
• The Bowlbys’ property on the Pysht River has good habitat spots for salmon. However, there’s a tributary on their property that dog chum and silver salmon come to, which turns into a fish trap because it dries up every year. The salmon spawn, and when the water level dries, the small fish concentrate in dwindling pools, and eventually die. For a long time Bob and his grandkids collected the small fish from the tributary creek and put them in the much larger Pysht. That worked until a freshet occurred. Then the fingerlings would run back upstream and die when the creek dried up.
• People also used to do a lot of clamming at the mouth of the Pysht. These days there isn’t much clamming for subsistence, but there are fewer calms due to recreational digging.
• Historically the Pysht River supported populations of steelhead and cutthroat trout, as well as dog, coho and king salmon. Once there were even a couple of sockeye under the bridge near their house. This year there were more dog salmon than Bob’s seen in years, but he remains worried about the recovery of king salmon in the Pysht. This year there was some evidence of a few kings, but it’s unclear if the carcasses they found were indigenous or an aberration coming from a run somewhere else. Bob remembers seeing hundreds of kings at a time when he was young, some weighing as much as 60 pounds.
• After World War II, the salmon population seemed to take a turn for the worse. Tribes were netting fish at the mouth of the rivers for a time in the 1970s, and there was an increase in sport and recreational fishing, as well as more at-sea harvesting.
• Although neither was born at the time, both Bob and June remember family stories from the 1921 blow-down event—a freak wind storm that swept across the peninsula. Trees that were toppled and roads were blocked.
• Ten to 15 years ago, the upper part of the Pysht River basin was almost entirely clear cut. After that, summer flows in the river became really low.
• Two or three years ago, in the upper reaches of the river basin, the entire side of a hill slid and blocked the Pysht, creating a dam that began forming a lake 200 to 300 yards long. Bob isn’t certain, but he thinks somebody went up and blasted the riverbed to release the water before the flooding got out of hand. Before that, the salmon were making their way past the slide area by swimming through the woods when the river was high!
• The Bowlbys remember that when they first moved to their residence on the Pysht there were what appeared to be hundreds, if not thousands, of toads. In the spring, you could find long strings of toad eggs, as well clusters of frog and salamander eggs. They used to hear lots of frogs in the spring, but Bob has only seen one toad this year.
128 • Their flock of mallard ducks used to feed off crawfish all day long. Bob hasn’t seen a crawfish in the Pysht for 5 to 10 years, although others have seen some, occasionally.
• Pesticides often were sprayed by helicopter, which dispersed it everywhere; residents could smell it and taste it. This is less common today—now it’s more roadside spraying—but it still happens.
• The eel population seems to have dwindled. They think it’s been about 30 years since they’ve seen a bullhead; they used to fish for bullheads on the Sekiu and Pysht.
• Bob remembers black bear being abundant when he was young. These days there is hardly any evidence of black bears.
• Elk and deer are also here. June and Bob used to wander all around the Pysht valley hunting elk. Some deer they see today have tumors on them and many have large patches of bare skin where the hair has fallen off.
• Cougars used to wander the woods and the Bowlbys never worried about it, but now there is evidence of them killing dogs and cats. Cougars have accosted scalers (timber person) and hunters.
• Normally the Bowlbys have many birds: jays, crows, ravens, juncos, varied thrushes, wrens, towhees, and downy woodpeckers. Owls are scarce, but in spring they get a run of eagles up and down the river.
Dick Goin
Dick Goin has been interested in fisheries restoration for over 40 years. The Goin family moved from Iowa to the Elwha valley in 1937 and Dick has a great familiarity with the streams while they were still in good shape. Dick has fished “the Big 9” rivers of WRIA 19 since he was a little boy. His main interest is specific fish stocks and how they have adapted to river conditions over time. He first realized that fish were disappearing by the mid-1940s. Dick, a president and vice-president of the Sportsmen’s Club, says that all the members seemed to have a sense of entitlement to their catch; none of the volunteer fish counters that he works with are fishermen from the Sportsmen’s Club. Most of the counters are outdoor types, climbers, bird-watchers and a lot of women. What follows is a summary of Dick’s observations of the historical conditions of main streams in WRIA 19:
• Salt Creek
– Salt Creek is a low-gradient stream, with many tributaries and connected wetlands.
– For its size, Salt Creek had the most coho and steelhead of the rivers Dick is familiar with. Coho, winter steelhead and chums could be found up to the lower falls, as well as sea-run cutthroats and a very large lamprey run. The estuary is still one of the few in the watershed that hasn’t been trashed.
– All the wood in the streams is gone from logging. There are a lot of water withdrawals, and excessive sediment recruitment is filling in the lower-end.
• Lyre River
129 – The Lyre River is a very high-gradient stream with an impassable falls at about River Mile (RM) 3.2.
– It was the premier chum stream on the Olympic Peninsula—featuring the only true winter chum in the region. He started going there in 1945-46, and it was common for every hole to have 200 to 500 large chum. It’s a designated winter run because the first major entry is after November 15, but chum still enter up to February 15. The chum runs in the Lyre are an anomaly because chums normally need a large estuary and the Lyre has no estuary.
– The Lyre is gravel-poor, so most of the eggs of any coho that spawned were dug up when the chum came through.
– It seems that there are as many coho now as then but the chum run has deteriorated badly.
– The Lyre has a relatively small winter steelhead run of pretty large and mean fish, and a small run of summer steelhead. There’s also a moderate cutthroat run and an occasional run of sockeye strays.
– Logging was finished in the area around 1948. Nearly all the wood has been lost and there’s very little recruitment.
Lyre River– In the 1960s, the river started being planted with the Chambers Creek steelhead stock, whose smolts are larger and preyed on the young chum.
– In March 1997 there was a blowout that destroyed all of Boundary Creek and dumped an enormous amount of sediment into the river.
• East/West Twin Rivers
– The Twin Rivers are both high-gradient canyon streams. Toward the mouth, they are slow and deep with lots of pools. Both have coho, winter steelhead, and cutthroat runs, and there used to be some chums. Lots of restoration work was done on the East Twin and there is still a reasonably good coho and winter steelhead run, but nothing like they were.
– Logging in the Pysht and Twins subbasins was pretty well finished by 1945. Conifers are now being planted to provide the river with large woody debris, but it takes 50 to 100 years for large woody debris recruitment.
• Deep Creek
– Deep Creek is a moderate-gradient stream that has really good chum and good coho, steelhead and cutthroat.
– When Dick was about 12 years, there were lots of jams and big timber, and Deep Creek had a series of big holes and was very calm and full of cutthroats.
– Dick observed chinook in Deep Creek recently, but there may have been some in the past.
– In 1990-91 there was a blowout that wiped the creek off the map. Dick thinks the first restoration effort was in 1991 and the work was finished last summer, but the chums aren’t coming back very well. Steelhead are doing OK, and the coho are alright.
• Pysht River
130 – The Pysht River has a low-moderate gradient, and had excellent chum, coho and winter steelhead and lots of lampreys. There were occasional summer steelhead and a small run of summer/fall chinook. To Dick, these are late-summer chinook, but it depends on the timing of the run: up to September 15, it’s considered a spring run; from then until October 15, a summer run, and after October 15, fall. There were also a lot of indigenous lampreys. At first blush it appears that the chinook are gone and what remain are strays, probably Hoko strays, some of them very large.
– Before logging, the river was alive with wetlands. In the 1940s, when it rained the river would swell over its banks one to three times a year, and on the average it was only about 3 feet below the road. Now it’s a rare thing for it to flood because the river is about 12 feet below the road.
– The whole lower end used to be rearing and spawning area, with lots of chums and late steelheads. Now it’s virtually unusable with sand and very fine gravel and, in the worst parts, very gluey silt. He says recruitment of sediment has to stop before the river will take it out.
– Pillar Point flat used to be a huge mass of eelgrass and Clallam Bay was total eelgrass, but now it’s almost totally choked. There were a lot of geoducks 20 years ago, but not anymore. Horse clams are also smothered out.
• Clallam River
– The Clallam River is a moderate- to high-gradient stream that had coho, winter steelhead and chums. It also had some summer/fall chinook long ago. Dick started going out there in 1946-47 and is pretty sure it wasn’t stocked then. There were lots of lamprey. According to Dick, there are so many hatchery programs that he doesn’t know what stocks are in there any more.
– The river has always bar-bound some fish, but it happens more often now.
– The river remains a good stream for steelhead and coho. Two years ago Mike McHenry counted 100 fish to the mile, which is good for these days.
• Hoko River
– The Hoko River is a low- to moderate-gradient stream with good chums and winter steelhead, a few more summer steelhead than the Pysht, and lots of cutthroat. It still has summer/fall chinook.
– After the 1974 Boldt decision (a federal court decision related to Native American fishing rights), 17 hatcheries and four to six rearing facilities were built, one of them on the Hoko. There was not enough water, so satellite water stations were built. Dick fished out there quite a bit in his boyhood, mostly for cutthroats; he found hardly any salmon.
– Today, all the little tributaries have blown out massive amounts of gravel; there is virtually no meaningful wood. There are many sand and mud areas in the lower end. The river is heavily incised and a lot of the wetlands aren’t connected anymore.
– The Hoko still has pretty good steelhead, coho, and chinook. The steelhead is probably wild. The river still has a lot of lampreys.
131 • Sekiu River
– The Sekiu is a higher-gradient stream than the Hoko, but not extremely steep. Chums, coho, winter steelhead and cutthroat are present. Dick doesn’t know about chinook, but says there is a strong likelihood they did exist. He fished for steelheads until the surrounding forests were cut. The state reopened the river for steelhead fishing two years ago.
– There was a blowout in 1997.
• Summary
– The most profound change Dick has witnessed is the loss of the fish and the loss of enormous trees. In terms of restoration, the biggest problem is that every stream is heavily sediment-laden.
– Lamprey, crawfish and fish stocks have disappeared. Bull trout in the lower Elwha are pretty well gone as well.
– Pesticide use used to be significant; these practices have been cleaned up some.
– Dick hiked Deep Creek recently and observed riparian zones with 7 feet of salmonberries, although it is often claimed that 200 feet is maintained. Dick says he has only seen 200- foot zones in one or two places.
Don Hamerquist and Janeen Porter
The following is a summary of a paper on the Pysht River written by Don Hamerquist and Janeen Porter for discussion in the WRIA 19 Citizens Facilitation Group:
• The Pysht River is a small rain-fed stream of moderate gradient that enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca a few miles east of Clallam Bay. The Pysht, along with a few other similar streams in the area, has a huge contrast between summer and winter flows, probably a variation of two orders of magnitude.
• The river has been a very productive salmon stream with large runs of chinook, coho, chum, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat. While it is currently depressed for all species and the chinook are virtually gone, it still has relatively healthy stocks of coho, chum, and steelhead. There was a substantial hatchery impact on the river in the past, but currently there is only a relatively limited (10,000) annual outplanting of steelhead.
• The watershed is sparsely populated, with less than two dozen families.
• The predominant land use is logging and most of the land that is not state or federally held is owned by three logging companies. The old growth timber is virtually all gone and much of the area has been logged a second time.
• Logging has left the Pysht with too little large woody debris, too much sediment, and a generally degraded set of stream characteristics. An additional problem is presented by the state highway that follows the stream fairly closely for about 5 miles.
• A few years after the old growth logging, the Pysht, including its tributaries, was full of small to medium-sized trout (6 to 10 inches) in the spring, summer and fall. These were
132 mainly cutthroat, though there were some rainbow, possibly hatchery derived. By the middle of August, larger sea-run cutthroat (12 to 18 inches) began to appear in fair numbers.
• The Pysht and its tributaries have seen a precipitous decline in medium-sized cutthroat. Only late in the summer when the sea-runs enter the river are there a few larger ones.
• Don and Janeen assume that high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels, lack of cover, lack of large woody debris, increasing sediment levels, and increased frequency and severity of flood flows are habitat limiting factors facing cutthroat.
• The cutthroat started doing better as the habitat gradually recovered from the initial impact of old growth logging.
• Species and areas are currently being logged that were passed over when the priorities were on large fir and cedar, and when, maple, alder, and spruce were considered to be virtually worthless.
• Logging currently relies on high impact tracked vehicles and a profusion of sediment generating logging roads, rather than the older techniques that concentrated damage on landings, skid roads, and railroad grades.
• Current logging takes much smaller trees, including trees that are more concentrated in riparian corridors and wetlands.
Chuck Owens
Chuck Owens spent many years involved in the fishing industry around WRIA 19 and throughout the Pacific Northwest. He began his fishing career after leaving the Marine Corps in 1974, working on everything from longliners, to gillnetters to salmon trollers. In 1978, Chuck went to work as a buyer for High Tide Seafoods. He left the seafood industry in 1994. Chuck offered the following observations about the fishing industry in WRIA 19:
• Few people in the community still make a living from fishing. Chuck’s friends still in the business are barely holding on. Most work other jobs or spend the summers fishing in Alaska.
• Salmon recovery should be approached like marine mammal recovery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act—stocks shouldn’t be brought back to just a harvestable level, they should be brought to the overall maximum level.
• Chuck feels that the responsibility for the decline of the commercial fishing industry falls on the government for mismanaging the resource base and allowing commercial fishing to become dominated by corporate interests, rather than small-scale, local fishermen.
• Impacts on fish runs come from a variety of sources, including logging and development. As a comparison, in Southeast Alaska fish traps in the 1930s did the majority of damage to the commercial salmon runs, but had relatively little impact on stream habitat. Once the traps were outlawed, salmon runs came back because the habitat was still intact. The difference in WRIA 19 is the impact logging and development had on salmon habitat.
133 • Diminished salmon runs affected sport fishermen as well as the commercial industry, particularly in the Clallam Bay/Sekiu area. In the past, Chuck bought more fish in Sekiu than anywhere else.
• WRIA 19 could be a spotlight of what can be done for the rest of the state; but a lot needs to be done to change people’s mindset. Salmon recovery needs to be the primary objective and all interest groups need to be on board with protecting habitat and stopping overfishing.
Historical View of Clallam Bay Fishing Fleet at Neah Bay
Photo?
Joe Murray
Joe Murray has worked for 25 years as a forester for Merrill & Ring (M&R). Joe attended the University of Notre Dame and forestry school at Peninsula College and earned a degree in silviculture. He started working for Merrill & Ring as a summer employee and eventually became a full-time employee. Joe was named Forester of the Year by the Society of American Foresters in 2003. Before commercial software was available for taking a forest inventory, Joe wrote his own program for his forest inventories. The following is a summary of Joe’s views on forestry in general and in WRIA 19:
• Joe believes that there’s a tremendous social value in being able to provide materials for people’s use, and that it’s fundamentally more beneficial to provide a renewable natural resource that can be regenerated. Foresters have to be careful they don’t change the climate and manage the soil, but forestry isn’t like mining, where the resource is removed and doesn’t grow back.
• Like forestry, agriculture for food has an environmental impact, but many people don’t equate the benefit of forestry with that of agriculture. There isn’t as direct a link between the trees people use and their understanding of the products that come from trees.
• Old growth timber was harvested at a time when society put a higher priority on “taming the wilderness.” Old growth could be grown back given time, but it doesn’t have to be on M&R land. It can be on land set aside, such as National Parks.
• Joe feels M&R has a good relationship with the community, but it depends on who you talk to. The company has generally good working relationships with contractors, state agencies and tribes. He feels M&R practices forestry in an environmentally friendly manner. People forget that logging is just one aspect of forestry.
• Private landowners do a lot to help out the community. Recently M&R donated $50,000 worth of trees that will go into the South Fork of the Pysht for a project enhancing in-stream large woody debris. It’s M&R’s part of a Salmon Recovery Funding Board project in conjunction with Mike McHenry of the Lower Klallam Elwha Tribe.
• Merrill & Ring started purchasing land in 1888. The company employs about 24 people; Joe is one of four foresters who manage the land. Logging, tree planting, road construction, burns, are all done by contractors; so the company provides jobs in the community. Most people who work in the forest industry are proud of what they do.
134 • M&R’s community involvement includes: donating land for a 5-acre County Park (Pillar Point Park) next to the company’s headquarters; sponsoring college scholarships for local high school students; donating money and staff time to salmon recovery and watershed restoration projects, including meeting spaces for all the WRIA 19 meetings; and, paying for transportation and guided tours for schoolchildren on M&R property.
• People in general feel a need for more old-growth forests. Riparian areas are where oldgrowth forests will probably exist on commercial forest land.
• People’s social and environmental values change. At one point the government thought it was desirable to remove the wood from streams. If private landowners did what was at one time socially and legally correct, and that results in a problem, should private landowners be the ones to correct it? Stream cleaning was something the companies were directed to do that at their own expense. Where do you draw the line between individual and social responsibility?
• We should be aiming for functioning habitat, not perfection.
• M&R encourages its foresters to manage company-owned lands as though they owned it themselves. The company wants its foresters to be stewards of the land, and has created the inspiration and the opportunity to be so. In forestry, mistakes remain obvious in the landscape for a while. It’s human nature to point to the mistakes and not to the successes.
• Joe’s not optimistic that the watershed plan is going to be a valuable product in the long run. It’s not designed to reinforce good things. We have some ideas for improvements—put wood in the stream, reduce sediment—but whatever we do is never enough.
History and Culture of the Makah
The 29,410-acre Makah reservation falls within the boundaries of WRIA 19 and neighboring WRIA 20. In addition to the reservation, the Makah have “usual and accustomed” hunting grounds within WRIA 19. The reservation is designated as federally reserved land, outside the jurisdiction of watershed planning, but the usual and accustomed land within the Plan’s jurisdiction. The Sail River has the largest subbasin on Makah land in WRIA 19, but numerous other small streams and tributaries exist as well. The following is a summary of Makah history and culture, taken from the Tribe’s website (www.Makah.com):
• Prior to European settlement, the Makah Tribe’s territory reached east to the Lyre River and south to lands shared with the Quileute. Five permanent villages were home to between 2,000 and 4,000 Makah in the early 1800s. During the summer people traveled to summer residences that were closer to fishing, whaling and gathering areas.
• With the January 31, 1855 signing of the Treaty of Neah Bay between the United States and the Makah Indians, the Tribe ceded 300,000 acres of tribal land to the U.S. in order to retain whaling rights and to protect the health, education and welfare of their people. Congress ratified the treaty in 1859.
• The Makah were skilled mariners, using sophisticated navigational and maritime skills to travel the Pacific Ocean and the Strait of Juan de Fuca in various types of canoes. The Makah traveled great distances to obtain food or to trade.
135 • Fish and marine mammals have always served as staple foods in the Makah diet. Halibut were caught, dried or smoked and stored in large quantities to be used in the winter. A variety of bottom fish were caught year-round. Porpoise and fur and harbor seals were eaten fresh or smoked and their skins were cured and used for whaling floats. Seal blubber was rendered into oil that was consumed as a condiment at every meal. Sea otters were a valuable item for trade.
• Humpback, right, sperm, gray, fin and blue whales were among the species traditionally hunted by the Makah. Whales were hunted for their meat and blubber. Oil was rendered from the whale’s blubber and bones of the whale were useful for making combs, spindle whorls, war clubs, bark pounders, shredders and personal adornments.
History and Culture of the Lower Elwha Klallam
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe possesses no reservation land in WRIA 19, but the eastern end of the watershed is culturally significant to the Tribe. There is historical evidence that land in the Deep Creek and Twin Rivers Subbasins was traditional hunting and fishing grounds for the Tribe, and it remains so to the present day. While there is little doubt that the Klallam used land as far west as the Pysht River, detailed information isn’t available (James, 2002). The following is a summary of Lower Elwha Klallam history and culture, taken from the Tribe’s website (www.Elwha.org):
• Historically the Klallam people lived throughout the northern Olympic Peninsula. They had villages on both sides of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There were about 33 village sites from the Hoko River on the west to Puget Sound on the east.
• European settlers began arriving in the 1860s, establishing towns and displacing many Klallam from their traditional home sites. When the 1884 Indian Homestead Act passed, several Klallam families eventually became landowners. But to take up the homesteads, the Klallam had to sever tribal relations.
• Historically, the Tribe’s main source of food had always been fishing, but in 1910 state law required a license to fish; tribal members could not obtain a license because they were not U.S. citizens. In 1924, Indians were made U.S. citizens, but their fishing rights continued to be restricted.
• In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act helped the Tribe obtain 327 acres of land in the Elwha Valley for 14 families. The Elwha Klallam Reservation was not proclaimed until 1968 when the Tribe became federally recognized. Running water became available on the reservation in 1969, and electricity became available in the early 1970s. Since then the Tribe has purchased more land, currently owning 965 acres.
• In 1974, the Boldt decision helped the Tribe regain fishing rights. In 1975 and 1976, the Fish Hatchery and Tribal Center were built in the Elwha valley.
136 APPENDIX 7
Crescent Water Association Report
June 6, 2007 Re: “Water Purveyor” information on Page 37 of April 2007 WRIA 19 DRAFT Watershed Plan
From Page 37:“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 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.”
The Crescent Water Association, with 850 memberships, had an average daily water demand of 171.43 gallons per customer for the year 2006.
171.43 gallons (average daily demand) x 850 (customers) = 145,715.5 gallons (daily demand on system). 145,715.5 gallons (daily system demand) divided by 7.48 (gallons per cubic foot) = 19,480.6818 cubic feet divided by 1440 (minutes per day) = 13.528251 cubic feet per minute divided by 60 (seconds in one minute) = 0.225470 cfs (cubic feet per second)
Thus, during 2006 the Crescent Water Association, with 850 customers, utilized an average of 0.225470 cfs of water from the Lyre River.
From Page 37:“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).”
The average daily water demand per customer in the Crescent Water Association during 2006 was 171.43 gallons.
171.43 gallons (average daily demand) divided by 7.48 (gallons per cubic foot) = 22.918449 (cubic feet per customer per day) divided by 1440 (minutes in one day) = 0.015915 (cubic feet per minute) divided by 60 (seconds in one minute) = 0.000265 cfs (cubic feet per second).
Thus, during 2006, using an average daily demand, each member of the Crescent Water Association utilized 0.000265 cfs.
From Page 37:“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 exempt wells.”
The Crescent Water Association holds water rights for 672 acre feet per year from the Lyre River.
672 acre feet x 43,555.69 (cubic feet per acre foot) = 29,269,423.68 cubic feet (per year) divided by 365 (days in a year) = 80,190.201863 (cubic feet per day) divided by 1440 (minutes per day) = 55.687640 (cubic feet per minute) divided by 60 (seconds in one minute) = 0.928127 cfs (cubic feet per second)
Thus, the Crescent Water Association holds water rights for 0.928127 cfs of water from the Lyre River.
Connie Beauvais Board of Trustees Crescent Water Association
137 (Intentially left blank)
138 APPENDIX 8
Instream Flow Study Methods used in Washington
The three instream flow study methods described below are the primary flow measurement methods used in Washington State. IFIM and toe-width are the methods used most often. Because it is infrequently used in Washington, the Tennant method is omitted from the table.
Toe-Width Method The Toe-Width Method was developed by the Department of Fisheries (WDF), the Department of Game (WDG), and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) in the 1970s at the request of the state legislature in response to the need to determine minimum instream flows for fish. After the legislature passed the Minimum Water Flows and Levels law in 1969 and the Water Resources Act of 1971, USGS collected water depths and velocities along transects over known spawning areas. WDF and WDG provided the criteria for salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing and the locations of the known spawning areas. After 9 years of data collection, USGS had measured 28 streams and rivers in eastern and western Washington. They had 84 study reaches with each reach consisting of 4 transects. They measured each transect at 8 to 10 different flows. USGS used the data from these 336 transects to calculate spawning and rearing flows for salmon and steelhead. Criteria for the needed spawning and rearing depths and velocities for each fish species and lifestage were used to calculate the square feet of habitat at each measured flow. These points of habitat quantity at different flows were connected to create a fish habitat versus streamflow relationship. Next, these fish habitat relationships were compared to many different variables in the watershed to determine if there were any correlations that could be used to avoid having to do so many flow measurements to calculate a spawning or rearing flow for a certain fish species. The toe-width was the only variable found to have a high correlation. The toewidth is the distance from the toe of one streambank to the toe of the other streambank across the stream channel. This width of the stream is used in a power function equation to derive the flow needed for spawning and rearing salmon and steelhead (Swift, 1976 and 1979).
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) IFIM generally is selected as the best available method for predicting how the quantity of available fish habitat changes in response to incremental changes in streamflow. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1970s (Bovee, 1982) developed this methodology. The IFIM involves putting site- specific streamflow and habitat data into a group of models collectively called PHABSIM (physical habitat simulation). Within IFIM are models of fish habitat as affected by hydraulics. The most common model is IFG4, which uses multiple transects to predict depths and velocities in a river over a range of flows. IFG4 creates a cell for each measured point along the transect or cross-section. Each cell has an average water depth and water velocity associated with a type of substrate or cover for a particular flow. The cell's area is measured in square feet. Fish habitat is defined in the computer model by the variables of velocity, depth, substrate, and/or cover. These are important habitat variables that can be measured, quantified, and predicted.
The IFIM is used nationwide and is accepted by most resource managers as the best available tool for determining, in a broad sense, the relationship between flows and fish habitat. However, the methodology only uses four variables in hydraulic simulation. At certain flows, such as extreme low flows, other variables such as fish passage, food supply (aquatic insects), competition between fish species, and predators (birds, larger fish, etc.) may be of overriding importance. In addition to the PHABSIM models, IFIM may include reviewing water quality, sediment, channel stability, temperature, hydrology, and other variables that affect fish production. These additional variables are not analyzed in this report.
After the IFG4 model is calibrated and run, its output is entered into another model (HABTAT) with data describing fish habitat preferences in terms of depth, velocity, substrate, and cover. These preferences vary according to fish species and life-stage (adult spawning and juvenile rearing).
139 The output of the HABTAT model is an index of fish habitat known as Weighted Useable Area (WUA). The preference factor for each variable at a cell is multiplied by the other variables to arrive at a composite, weighted preference factor for that cell. For example: a velocity preference of 1.0 multiplied by a depth preference of 0.9, then multiplied by a substrate preference of 0.8 equals a composite factor of 0.72 for that cell. This composite-preference factor is multiplied by the number of square feet of area in that cell.
A summation of all the transect cells' areas results in the total number of square feet of preferred habitat available at a specified flow. This quantity is normalized to 1,000 feet of stream or river. The final model result is a listing of fish habitat values (WUA) in units of square feet per 1,000 feet of stream. The WUA values are listed with their corresponding flows (given in cubic feet per second).
Tennant Method This methodology was developed by Don Tennant and predicts flows based on average flow. Using USGS data, this method is based on aquatic habitat being very similar when they are carrying the same proportion of the average flows. Ten percent of the average flow is a minimum instantaneous flow recommended to sustain short-term survival habitat for most aquatic life forms. Thirty percent is recommended as a base flow to sustain good survival conditions for most aquatic life forms and general recreation. Sixty percent provides excellent to outstanding habitat for most aquatic life forms during their primary periods of growth and for the majority of recreational uses. In a large river, it can be useful in developing a quick response, such as for evaluating a water right application potential impacts.
Literature Cited Bovee, K.D. 1982. A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Paper 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. FWS/OBS-82/26.
Milhous, R.T., et al. 1984. User’s Guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System. Instream Flow Paper 11. Revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. FWS/OBS-81/43.
Milhous, R.T., et al. 1989. Physical Habitat Simulation System Reference Manual – Version II. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 26, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89(16), Fort Collins, Colorado.
Swift III, C. H. 1976. Estimation of Stream Discharges Preferred by Steelhead Trout for Spawning and Rearing in Western Washington. USGS Open-File Report 75-155. Tacoma, Washington. (Toe- width)
Swift III, C. H. 1979. Preferred Stream Discharges for Salmon Spawning and Rearing in Washington. USGS Open-File Report 77-422. Tacoma, Washington. (Toe-width)
140
Simplistic Comparison of Toe-Width and IFIM Flow Measurement Methods
Method Purpose & Constraints Advantages Cost Time Equipment needed typical use
Toe- Generally used Yields a single number • Quick (several • Low cost per Can take as little Minimal (measuring width on smaller for spawning and rearing stream site (maybe an as a week from tape and a streams flows (which makes it measurements hour or two per data collection calculator) Describes ‘peak hard to balance between (tails and ponds) site) through write-up. habitat’ for species and lifestages can be taken in • Most of the salmonids. This is because it does not one day). cost is the a quick show the relationship • Easy (the driving time to method for between habitat and method can be and between obtaining data to flow) learned in sites. look at spawning an hour or so) and rearing flows.
IFIM Describes “peak • Relatively date Generally Relatively Can take from Relative to toe-width, habitat” intensive (have to visit recognized as much more six months to a much needed. Rod, (sometimes each site at least three “state of the time intensive year (flow velocity meter, tape called ‘optimum’) times at the appropriate art”— (more site measurements measure, surveying for salmonids. It flow stage.) i.e., it is generally visits; longer are needed for level and tripod, provides data at • Takes a while an accepted time to take least three survey rod; personal various flow (typically, because of the method of measurements, various stages of computer and IFIM levels that can be need for several ascertaining run the model stream flow program, boat and correlated to what measurements, it takes flows needed for and write up falling). associated is the “best” a week of field work fish. the results). measuring habitat (i.e. flow, spread over 3-4 equipment (if working velocity, months). in unwadeable substrate) • Specialized training is streams or rivers). for fish. needed. • Timeliness is crucial— when measurements are taken is highly contingent on how fast stream flows are falling.
141 (Intentionally left blank)
142 APPENDIX A WRIA-WIDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
A.1 Boundaries...... A-1 A.2 Topography ...... A-1 A.3 Waterbodies...... A-1 A.4 Geology...... A-1 A.5 Land Use...... A-4 A.6 Weather Patterns...... A-6
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page No.
A-1 WRIA 19 Hydrologic Features ...... A-2 A-2 WRIA 19 Topography...... A-3 A-3 WRIA 19 Geology Data...... A-5 A-4 WRIA 19 Zoning...... A-7 A-5 WRIA 19 Lyre/Hoko Water Resource Inventory Area...... A-8 A-6 WRIA 19 Rain or Snow ...... A-9
A-i
APPENDIX A
WRIA-WIDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION
A.1 BOUNDARIES
The Hoko-Lyre Watershed, which is designated Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 19 for watershed planning purposes, includes all rivers and streams that drain into the Strait of Juan De Fuca along the western part of the north coast of the Olympic Peninsula. The WRIA extends from the eastern boundary of the Makah Reservation on the west, to Freshwater Bay, just west of Port Angeles, on the east. The southern boundary of WRIA 19 is marked by the northernmost peaks of the Olympic Mountains, and the northern boundary is the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure A-1).
A.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The most prominent features of WRIA 19 are the northernmost peaks of the Olympic Mountains in the upper watersheds, including Sekiu Mountain, Stoltzenberg Mountain, Ellis Mountain, Deadmans Hill, Snider Peak, North Point, Mt. Muller, Sourdough Mountain, Pyramid Mountain, Aurora Peak, and Lizard Head Peak. These east-west peaks mark the southern boundary of the WRIA. Northward, the land lowers to foothills of the middle watershed and valleys of the lower watershed to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Notable shoreline features include Shipwreck Point, Kydaka Point, Eagle Point, Sekiu Point, Clallam Bay, Slip Point, Pillar Point, Low Point, Agate Bay, Crescent Bay, Observatory Point, and Freshwater Bay (See Figure A-2).
A.3 WATER BODIES
From the high elevations of the Olympic Mountains, nine major streams flow northward through the foothills and lowland valleys to sea level: the Sekiu River, the Hoko River, the Clallam River, the Pysht River, Deep Creek, the East and West Twin Rivers, the Lyre River and Salt Creek. Many smaller streams originate in the foothills and lowlands and flow into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Lake Crescent is the only lake in WRIA 19; it is part of National Park lands. (See Figure A-1).
A.4 GEOLOGY
Consolidated strata underlying WRIA 19 consist primarily of tertiary (Eocene through Miocene) marine sediments and basalt. In addition, a relatively thin veneer of quaternary glacial deposits and alluvium up to 200 feet thick covers bedrock in 21 percent of WRIA 19 (Figure A-3). Bedrock that underlies the WRIA primarily consists of cemented marine sedimentary deposits of shale (or siltstone and mudstone), sandstone, and conglomerate, for which the sands and gravels represent turbidite deposition from submarine fans. The basalt includes massive flows, pillow basalts, and volcaniclastic sediments.
The marine sediments and basalt have been lithified, uplifted, and rotated such that the original subhorizontal bedding planes of the sediments have been tilted to the north-northeast with a dip of roughly 30 degrees (ranging mostly between 20 degrees and 40 degrees) and a strike (trend) that generally parallels the coastline oriented from N60°W to N90°W.
Figure A-1
Figure A-2
The Crescent Fault is an inactive thrust fault dipping northward that separates the slightly folded and faulted marine sediments and basalt above from “core rocks” below of highly deformed marine sediments and volcanics. The Crescent Fault passes through the subbasins of Lake Crescent, Clallam River, and Hoko River (Figure A-3), and the core rocks to the south or southwest consist of marine sediments and volcanics that are sheared and slightly metamorphosed to the zeolite facies (Tabor and Cady, 1978). To the north of the Crescent Fault, and underlying the remainder of WRIA 19, the following formations lie in ascending order over 20,000 feet of marine sediments of Eocene to Miocene age (Snavelly et al., 1980; Snavelly et al., 1993): • Crescent Formation—Basalt made up of massive flows, pillow basalt, and breccia, with minor sandstone, siltstone, and limestone • Aldwell Formation—Siltstone with minor sandstone and conglomerate • Lyre Formation—Conglomerate and thick-bedded sandstone with minor siltstone • Hoko River Formation—Massive siltstone and very thin-bedded sandstone; calcite cemented • Makah Formation—Thin-bedded siltstone and thin- to thick-bedded sandstone; calcite cemented • Pysht River Formation—Massive siltstone and mudstone with medium-bedded sandstone and conglomerate • Clallam Formation—sandstone and conglomerate, with minor siltstone.
Surficial deposits of quaternary age include glacial drift, landslides, and alluvium: • Glacial drift, which covers approximately half of the lower elevations within the Salt Creek, Lyre River, and Twin Rivers subbasins, includes layers of till (a mixture of silt, clay, sand, and gravel/cobbles) sand and gravel, silt, and clay. Most glacial deposits formed from Pleistocene continental ice sheets, the most recent of which was the Fraser glaciation of 21,000 to 10,000 years ago. The repeated advance and retreat of glaciers left deposits from ice (till), rivers (outwash deposits), and lakes. These glacial deposits overlie bedrock with an irregular erosional contact, such that thickness can vary significantly over short distances, and the thickest deposits range from 50 to 200 feet thick; they generally thin from east to west. • Landslide deposits are primarily from the large slide at the northeast end of Lake Crescent and consist of poorly sorted debris flows with a fine-grained matrix. • Quaternary alluvium forms as mostly narrow deposits 25 to 75 feet thick along river drainages and terraces (the Lyre, Pysht, Clallam, Hoko, and Sekiu Rivers), but also along terraces near Neah Bay, as layered sand, gravel, and silt (layers typically 5 to 10 feet thick), as observed in well logs.
A.5 LAND USE
The first inhabitants of the Olympic Peninsula are believed to have crossed the land bridges from Asia many thousands of years ago. Early native communities thrived on the abundant fish and wildlife food sources in the hospitable climate. By the late 1700s, approximately 4,000 Native Americans of the S’Klallam, Makah, and Ozette tribes inhabited 17 villages along the northern peninsula. By the mid-1800s, European settlers were establishing communities in what is now Clallam County, with fur trading, canning, timber and wood products, and farming as the economic base. Commercial forestry continues to employ many people throughout WRIA 19, in addition to retail, recreation, tourism, and staffing of the corrections facility in Clallam Bay.
Figure A-3
The dominant land use in WRIA 19 is commercial forestry. Sixty-eight percent of the WRIA is zoned for commercial forestry, of which 53 percent is privately owned and the remainder is managed by state and federal agencies (24 and 19 percent, respectively). The largest private land owners are Green Crow, Merrill & Ring, Bloedel, Rayonier, and Ring Family LTD. Seven percent of WRIA 19 is zoned rural, and minor portions are zoned tribal, public, industrial, tideland, and urban (see Figure A-4).
There are no incorporated cities in WRIA 19, but there are several small communities, including Coville, Ramapo, Joyce, Disque, Ovington, Crescent, Fairholm, Port Crescent, Shadow, Twin, Pysht, Clallam Bay, Sekiu, and Old Royal. Of these, Clallam Bay has the densest population centers; Coville, Ramapo and Joyce have the most widespread populations, likely due to the vast lowlands in the eastern portion of WRIA 19. The 2000 census estimates that approximately 4,500 people currently live in WRIA 19, most of them along the coastal fringe of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
A.6 WEATHER PATTERNS
WRIA 19 experiences a typical maritime climate, characterized by cool dry summers and mild wet winters. Temperatures and rainfall vary throughout the watershed. Temperatures 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.
Winds moving across the Pacific Ocean push moisture-laden air masses over the peaks of the Olympic Mountains. The resulting orographic rainfall gives this region the wettest climate in the contiguous United States. As the weather systems progress eastward, less rain falls, creating a steep gradient of precipitation across the WRIA ranging from 35 to 140 inches per year. The upper watersheds of the Salt, Lyre, Lake Crescent, Twins, and Deep Creek are all located within the peak rain-on-snow zones.
Figure A-4
Figure A-5
APPENDIX B B. SUBBASIN DESCRIPTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
B.1 Subbasins Overview...... B-1
B.2 Salt Creek Subbasin...... B-2 B.2.1 Landscape Features ...... B-2 B.2.2 Land Use...... B-2 B.2.3 Forestry Activities ...... B-2 B.2.4 Roads...... B-6 B.2.5 Soils...... B-6
B.3 Lyre River and Lake Crescent Subbasins ...... B-6 B.3.1 Landscape Features ...... B-6 B.3.2 Land Use...... B-6 B.3.3 Forestry Activities ...... B-10 B.3.4 Roads...... B-10 B.3.5 Soils...... B-10
B.4 Twin Rivers Subbasin...... B-12 B.4.1 Landscape Features ...... B-12 B.4.2 Land Use...... B-12 B.4.3 Forestry Activities ...... B-15 B.4.4 Roads...... B-15 B.4.5 Soils...... B-15
B.5 Deep Creek Subbasin...... B-15 B.5.1 Landscape Features ...... B-15 B.5.2 Land Use...... B-18 B.5.3 Forest Activities ...... B-18 B.5.4 Roads...... B-18 B.5.5 Soils...... B-18
B.6 Pysht River Subbasin...... B-21 B.6.1 Landscape Features ...... B-21 B.6.2 Land Use...... B-21 B.6.3 Forest Activities ...... B-21 B.6.4 Roads...... B-21 B.6.5 Soils...... B-25
B.7 Clallam River Subbasin...... B-25 B.7.1 Landscape Features ...... B-25 B.7.2 Land Use...... B-25 B.7.3 Forest Activities ...... B-25 B.7.4 Roads...... B-29 B.7.5 Soils...... B-29
B.8 Hoko River Subbasin...... B-29 B.8.1 Landscape Features ...... B-29
B.8.2 Land Use ...... B-29 B.8.3 Forest Activities ...... B-32 B.8.4 Roads...... B-32 B.8.5 Soils...... B-32
B.9 Sekiu River Subbasin...... B-32 B.9.1 Landscape Features ...... B-32 B.9.2 Land Use ...... B-35 B.9.3 Forest Activities ...... B-35 B.9.4 Roads...... B-35 B.9.5 Soils...... B-35
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page No.
B-1 WAU Names and Size ...... B-1 B-2 Road Types and Ownership in WRIA 19...... B-38
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page No.
B-1 Salt Creek Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-3 B-2 Salt Creek Sub-basin Human Landscape ...... B-4 B-3 Salt Creek Sub-basin Forestry Activity...... B-5 B-4 WRIA 19 Soils Data...... B-7 B-5 Lyre River Sub-basin Natural Landscape ...... B-8 B-6 Lyre River Sub-basin Human Landscape...... B-9 B-7 Lyre River Sub-basin Forestry Activity...... B-11 B-8 E/W Twin Rivers Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-13 B-9 E/W Twin Rivers Sub-basin Human Landscape...... B-14 B-10 E/W Twin Rivers Sub-basin Forestry Activity ...... B-16 B-11 Deep Creek Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-17 B-12 Deep Creek Sub-basin Human Landscape...... B-19 B-13 Deep Creek Sub-basin Forestry Activity ...... B-20 B-14 Pysht River Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-22 B-15 Pysht River Sub-basin Human Landscape ...... B-23 B-16 Pysht River Sub-basin Forestry Activity...... B-24 B-17 Clallam River Sub-basin Natural Landscape ...... B-26 B-18 Clallam River Sub-basin Human Landscape ...... B-27 B-19 Clallam River Sub-basin Forestry Activity...... B-28 B-20 Hoko River Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-30 B-21 Hoko River Sub-basin Human Landscape ...... B-31 B-22 Hoko River Sub-basin Forestry Activity...... B-33 B-23 Sekiu River Sub-basin Natural Landscape...... B-34 B-24 Sekiu River Sub-basin Human Landscape...... B-36 B-25 Sekiu River Sub-basin Forestry Activity ...... B-37
APPENDIX B - SUBBASIN DESCRIPTIONS
B.1 SUBBASINS OVERVIEW
The delineation of subbasins for the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 19 watershed planning effort was based on Watershed Administrative Units (WAUs) developed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The boundaries and names of the subbasins match those of the WAUs (see Figure A-1). Table B-1 lists each WAU and its size.
TABLE B-1. WAU NAMES AND SIZE
WAU Name Area (square miles) Salt Creek 44.6 Lyre River 18.0 Lake Crescent 49.5 Twin Rivers 33.4 Deep Creek 18.2 Pysht River 54.4 Clallam River 35.8 Hoko River 70.9 Sekiu River 44.5 Total 369.4
Because of the sparse level of development in the Lake Crescent Subbasin, it is combined with the Lyre River Subbasin in the analyses and discussions provided in the Watershed Plan. The Neah Bay Subbasin is not addressed in the watershed plan because it is on the Makah Indian Reservation; the sections below describe the following key features of the other subbasins: • Streams • Wetlands • Zoning • Land ownership • Forestry activities • Roads • Soils.
Stream information was taken from the Washington Department of Ecology’s Environmental Information Management Database (Ecology EIM Web Site, 2004).
B.2 SALT CREEK SUBBASIN
B.2.1 Landscape Features
Four main streams flow directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the Salt Creek Subbasin (see Figure B-1): Coville, Salt, Whiskey, and Field Creeks (from east to
west). The shoreline of this subbasin includes Freshwater, Crescent, and Agate Bays. Of these, Freshwater Bay has the most significant tidal aquatic wetlands.
These creeks flow from headwaters in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains into a wide terrace where several tributaries join the creeks’ main stems. The lower reaches of Salt Creek flow northwestward in a narrow valley along the base of Striped Peak, emerging through tidal emergent wetlands onto the alluvial fan at the mouth into Crescent Bay. Coville Creek drains into Freshwater Bay east of Salt Creek, and Whiskey and Field Creeks flow into the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of Salt Creek.
Emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands are sparsely scattered throughout the subbasin, however there are notable wetlands grouped in the northwestern portion of the subbasin along Norstrom Creek to Salt Creek that joins the main stem just before the creek enters the valley below Striped Peak, where the Camp Hayden Military Reservation is located. Large emergent wetlands are also located along the middle reaches of Coville Creek.
There is one dam that is semi-passable by fish on the main stem of Salt Creek at river mile (RM) 6.5 (Smith, 1999).
B.2.2 Land Use
The Salt Creek Subbasin encompasses 45 square miles, of which half is zoned commercial forestry (including mixed use), 45 percent is zoned rural, and less than 1 percent each is zoned tribal, public, industrial, and commercial (see Figure B-2). Of the public lands, 196 acres are designated county park. The town of Joyce is located in the Salt Creek subbasin. The Joyce area is the most densely populated area of WRIA 19, with a current population of about 2,300.
Currently, most lands in the upper portion of the subbasin and western half of the middle portion are managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Lands in the lower portion of the subbasin and eastern half of the middle portion are primarily private residential properties or private commercial forest properties owned by the forest product companies Green Crow and Rayonier. A 196-acre area near the mouth of Salt Creek is managed by Clallam County as the Salt Creek Recreational Area. The park facilities include upland forests, rocky bluffs, rocky tide pools, a sand beach access area, access to Salt Creek, the Tongue Point Marine Life Sanctuary, campsites, and playgrounds.
B.2.3 Forestry Activities
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 3,669 acres of land (13 percent of the total subbasin area) were approved for harvest, of which 35 percent was clearcut, 3 percent was salvage treatment, and 62 percent was partial cut. Aerial photos dated 1990 show significant land clearing throughout the subbasin, particularly in the central and western areas (see Figure B-3).
Figure B-1
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
B.2.4 Roads
Highway 112 runs east-west through the Salt Creek Subbasin, just north of the foothills. This state highway connects several small communities including Coville, Ramapo, Joyce, and Disque. Camp Hayden Road runs north-south from Highway 112 along the east bank of Salt Creek to the mouth. This riparian road prevents lateral migration and disconnects the stream from side channel habitats. Two roads enter the town of Joyce: Piedmont Road from the foothills to the south and Crescent Beach Road from Crescent Bay to the north. Approximately 190 miles of roads exist throughout the subbasin (see Table B-2, at the back of this appendix, for ownership and type; see Figure B-2 for locations). The Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad grade runs roughly parallel to and north of Highway 112.
B.2.5 Soils
The upper reaches of Salt Creek flow through Terbies-Louella soils, which are deep, well-drained soils found on the steep slopes of the Olympic Mountains. The western tributaries of Salt Creek flow briefly through Schnorbush-Sadie soils, which are deep well-drained soils found on steep hill slopes, then join the main stem of Salt Creek in Elwha-Clallam-Catla soils, which are shallow, well-drained and found on moderately steep to level slopes. Further north where an unnamed tributary joins the main stem from the west, Salt Creek re-enters Schnorbush-Sadie soils, which continue to the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure B-4).
B.3 LYRE RIVER AND LAKE CRESCENT SUBBASINS
B.3.1 Landscape Features
The Lyre River is the only stream in the Lyre River Subbasin that flows directly to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the only stream in WRIA 19 that is fed by a lake (Lake Crescent). From Lake Crescent, the Lyre River flows north and west through valleys surrounded by steep mountain slopes (see Figure B-5). June Creek and Boundary Creek also flow through steep mountain valleys, and join the Lyre River in the Olympic foothills. North of the foothills, the Lyre River flows atop a glacial till terrace of deep well-drained soils. Susie Creek and Nelson Creek join the Lyre River near its mouth. Susie Creek flows northeastward from the foothills and joins the Lyre River just north of Highway 112. Nelson Creek flows north and joins the Lyre River near its alluvial fan.
Several streams flow northward directly into Lake Crescent, including Cross, Lapoel, Aurora, Smith, Falls and Barnes Creeks. Of these, Barnes Creek is the longest, stretching 7.2 miles southeastward.
There are large emergent and forested wetlands located north of Highway 112 and west of Nelson Creek. There is a significant scrub-shrub wetland located just south of the headwaters of Nelson Creek, between an old railroad grade and a power line right-of-way. The shoreline of the Lyre River Subbasin is relatively steep, with considerable tidal flats east of Low Point, and shale/boulder beaches west of Low Point.
B.3.2 Land Use
The Lyre River and Lake Crescent Subbasins encompass 67.5 square miles, of which 23 percent is zoned commercial forestry, 2 percent is zoned rural, and 36 percent is zoned public lands (see Figure B-6).
Figure B-4
Figure B-5
Figure B-6
Currently, almost all of the Lake Crescent Subbasin is managed by the Olympic National Park, except where residential lands are located. The upper portion of the Lyre River Subbasin is owned by Merrill & Ring, Green Crow, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The middle portion is managed almost exclusively by the USFS west of the Lyre River and mostly by Green Crow east of the Lyre River. The lower portion is mostly privately owned and used as residential and mixed commercial. There is very little community establishment in the Lyre River Subbasin, with minor residential developments located near Lake Crescent and along Highway 112.
B.3.3 Forestry Activities
The USFS manages 27,146 acres within the Lyre River and Lake Crescent Subbasins, consisting of the following: • 92 percent is designated 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) • 6 percent Adaptive Management Area (landscape units designated for development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives) • Less than 1 percent each of Late Successional (forest in its mature and/or old-growth stages that has been reserved; stands over 80 years old may not be harvested) and Riparian Reserves (designated riparian areas outside the Late-Successional Reserves).
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 1,605 acres of land in these subbasins were approved for harvest, of which 65 percent was clearcut, 2 percent was salvage treatment, and 33 percent was partial cut. Aerial photos dated 1990 show significant land clearing in the middle and lower portions of the Lyre River Subbasin (see Figure B-7).
B.3.4 Roads
There are few major roads in the Lyre and Lake Crescent Subbasins. Highway 112 runs east-west across the lower Lyre River Subbasin, and US Highway 101 runs east- west along the southern shore of Lake Crescent. In all, there are 137 miles of roads in these subbasins. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-6 shows the road locations.
B.3.5 Soils
Soils in the headwaters are deep and well-drained material formed by colluvial and residual processes (Terbies-Louella and Snahopish-Solleks-Makah series). Northward beyond the foothills, the Lyre River flows atop a glacial till terrace of deep well-drained soils in the Schnorbush-Sadie series. The terraced area of the Lyre River Subbasin consists of soils in the Neilton-Lyre-Casey series. These soils are deep and well-drained, formed as a glacial outwash terrace (See Figure B-4).
Figure B-7
B.4 TWIN RIVERS SUBBASIN
B.4.1 Landscape Features
The Twins WAU as defined by WDNR is being treated as a subbasin for analysis in the WRIA 19 planning process, but it actually includes the subbasins of two rivers that flow separately to the Strait of Juan de Fuca: the East Twin River and the West Twin River (see Figure B-8). The landscape features of the two subbasins are described separately below.
East Twin River
There are two streams in the East Twin River Subbasin that drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca: the East Twin River and Murdock Creek. The headwaters of the East Twin River are in the steep valleys of the Olympic Mountains. The East Twin River is forked into three branches in the upper watershed. The west branch drains from the steep slopes of Mount Muller and converges with the other two branches just south of a narrow and steep valley, emerging onto the foothills. The lower eastern portion of the subbasin has a notable hillcrest that drains to Murdoch Creek. This independent stream is approximately 2.5 miles long and flows northeast to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Scattered wetlands exist along the western boundary of the subbasin, including forested, emergent, and scrub-shrub types. There also exist significant tidal aquatic beds along the coast west of the Murdoch Creek mouth.
West Twin River
The West Twin River Subbasin is relatively long and narrow with only one stream directly draining into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Most of the subbasin is steep mountainous and hilly terrain. The West Twin River is approximately 7 miles long and flows northeast from the steep mountain slopes onto lower gradient hills where two unnamed tributaries join from the east and west. The river then reenters a narrow valley between hillcrests to the east and west, emerging onto a low-gradient terrace and delta. Near the mouth, an unnamed tributary flowing northeast joins the West Twin River on the west bank. There are no wetlands in the West Twin River Subbasin.
B.4.2 Land Use
The Twin Rivers Subbasin encompasses 33 square miles, which is almost exclusively zoned for commercial forestry (see Figure B-9). The upper portions of the subbasin are predominantly managed by the USFS, designated as Late Successional Reserve (78 percent) and Adaptive Management Area (21 percent).
The WDNR is the largest land owner in the East Twin River Subbasin, holding all of the western portion except for small pieces owned by Green Crow and Merrill & Ring. The lower portion of the subbasin, nearest the mouth, is owned by Merrill & Ring and small private land owners.
The eastern middle portion of the West Twin River Subbasin is managed by WDNR. The lower portion of the subbasin is owned mostly by Rayonier, with small pieces owned by Merrill & Ring and other private parties.
Figure B-8
Figure B-9
B.4.3 Forestry Activities
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 1,779 acres of land in the Twin Rivers Subbasin was approved for harvest, of which 89 percent was clearcut, 5 percent was salvage treatment, and 6 percent was partial cut. Aerial photos dated 1994 show scattered land clearing in the East Twin River Subbasin and extensive clearing in the West Twin Subbasin, particularly in the middle and lower western portion (See Figure B-10).
B.4.4 Roads
State Highway 112 runs roughly east/west across the Twin Rivers Subbasin, crossing both rivers near their mouths. The subbasin has a total of about 107 miles of road, most of which is unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-9 shows the road locations.
B.4.5 Soils
East Twin River Soils
The East Twin River Subbasin has three main types of soils. The eastern portion is mostly of the Palix Ilwaco series, characterized as deep well-drained soils weathered from siltstone and fine sandstone. The western portion has a slightly lower gradient and is dominated by soils in the Schnorbush-Sadie series. These fine soils are residual from siltstone and common material of glacial till. Soils in the lowest reaches of East Twin River, near the mouth, are in the Neilton-Lyre-Casey series. These series are considered deep moderately to poorly drained soils common to glacial outwash terraces.
West Twin River Soils
The steep mountains of the upper watershed had soils in the Snahopish-Solleks- Makah series. These soils are characterized as deep and well-drained, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. The foothills of the middle watershed have soils in the Palix Ilwaco series, which are characterized as deep well-drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The mouth of the West Twin River runs through soils in the Neilton-Lyre- Casey series, which are described as deep moderately to poorly drained soils common to glacial outwash terraces.
B.5 DEEP CREEK SUBBASIN
B.5.1 Landscape Features
The Deep Creek Subbasin (see Figure B-11) encompasses 18.2 square miles that drain into Deep Creek; the only significant stream in the subbasin that flows directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The headwaters of Deep Creek are in the steep mountainsides of the upper portion of the subbasin. Two tributaries join Deep Creek along its upper reaches, both joining on the east bank. Emerging from the steep mountain slopes, the Deep Creek main stem flows through the foothills where it is joined by its east and west forks. The terrain of the mid and lower portions of the subbasin is continuously hilly through its entire course. There is a notable log jam present at RM 1.5 of the west fork of Deep Creek.
Figure B-10
Figure B-11
There are small, scattered wetlands east and west of Deep Creek just south of where the east and west forks merge. These wetlands are typed scrub-shrub, forested, and aquatic beds. Aquatic tidal bed wetlands are located near the mouth of Deep Creek and along the coast east of Deep Creek.
B.5.2 Land Use
The entire Deep Creek Subbasin is zoned and used for commercial forestry (see Figure B-12). Private land holdings account for 48 percent of the area, federal lands cover 47 percent of the land, and the remaining 5 percent are managed by WDNR. The upper portion of the subbasin is mostly USFS land, of which 87 percent is managed as Late Successional Reserve and 13 percent as Adaptive Management Area. WDNR manages a portion of the lands in the western half of the middle portion of the subbasin. The eastern half of the middle and lower portions of the subbasin are owned by Rayonier. The western lower portion of the subbasin is owned in part by Merrill & Ring and in part by small private parties.
B.5.3 Forest Activities
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 943 acres of land in the Deep Creek Subbasin was approved for harvest, of which 89 percent was clearcut and 11 percent was salvage treatment. Aerial photos dated 1994 show extensive harvest activity throughout this subbasin, most intensely in the lower portion of the subbasin surrounding East Fork Deep Creek (see Figure B-13). Harvest activity around Deep Creek began in the 1920s, escalated in the 1940s, and became very aggressive during the 1970s and 1980s on the USFS lands of the upper portion of the subbasin and private lands in the lower reaches. By 1990, approximately 60 percent of the subbasin was harvested (Smith, 1999).
B.5.4 Roads
State Highway 112 runs roughly east-west across the Deep Creek Subbasin, crossing very near the mouth. The subbasin has a total of about 77 miles of road present, most of which is unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-12 shows the road locations.
B.5.5 Soils
The soils of the upper watershed are in the Snohopish-Solleks-Makah series, characterized as deep and well-drained, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. The foothills of the middle watershed have soils in the Palix Ilwaco series, which are characterized as deep well-drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The middle watershed is slightly lower gradient with soils in the Ozette Kydaka series, characterized as deep and moderate-to-poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. The lower watershed shows hillier terrain and soils of the Palix Ilwaco series near the mouth of the Creek (See Figure B-4).
Figure B-12
Figure B-13
B.6 PYSHT RIVER SUBBASIN
B.6.1 Landscape Features
Four water bodies in the Pysht Subbasin (see Figure B-14) drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca: Joe, Jim, and Butler Creeks and the Pysht River. The three creeks are considerably smaller than the river—less than 3.5 miles in length and with few significant tributaries. The Pysht River however, is 16.5 miles long with an elaborate tributary system including the South Fork, the West Fork, and their associated tributaries. Tributaries of the South Fork include Middle and Salmonberry Creeks, which drain from steep mountainsides. Needham and Green Creeks flow from the foothills of the western subbasin into the middle reaches of the West Fork Pysht River. Reed and Indian Creeks flow from the terrace and valleys, joining the main stem of the Pysht River near its mouth.
Several wetlands are present throughout the Pysht River Subbasin. Tidal aquatic beds are located in both the eastern and western corners of the subbasin shoreline. Forested and scrub-shrub wetlands are present in the headwaters of Jim Creek, between Needham Creek and the South Fork, along the main stem of the Pysht River just south of the convergence of the forks, and in the headwaters of Green Creek. A large complex of forested and tidal emergent wetlands is found near the river’s mouth.
B.6.2 Land Use
The Pysht River Subbasin encompasses approximately 54 square miles, of which 98 percent is zoned commercial forestry and the remaining is zoned rural (see Figure B-15). A few residential properties are sparsely scattered in the lower and middle subbasin. The upper portion of the subbasin has a mosaic of land ownership, including Green Crow, WDNR, Rayonier, Merrill & Ring and other private land owners surrounding the West Fork Pysht River. Rayonier, Merrill & Ring, and WDNR lands surround the South Fork Pysht. From the middle reaches to the mouth, the land is almost entirely owned by Merrill & Ring, with small portions managed by WDNR and Rayonier in the eastern portion of the subbasin, and residential properties along Highway 112. In all, 77 percent of the subbasin is privately owned; with the remaining lands managed by USFS and WDNR (14 and 9 percent, respectively). Within the USFS lands, 63 percent is managed as Late Successional Reserve and 37 percent as Adaptive Management Area. There is a very small portion of the
subbasin that is owned and operated by Clallam County. Pillar Point County Park is approximately 4 acres and located on the shores of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
B.6.3 Forestry Activities
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 12,967 acres of land were approved for harvest, of which 51 percent was clearcut, 46 percent was salvage treatment, and 3 percent was partial cut. Aerial photos dated 1994 show extensive land clearing throughout the subbasin (see Figure B-16).
B.6.4 Roads
The main road in this subbasin is Highway 112, which runs immediately adjacent to the Pysht River from the mouth up to Highway 113. There are approximately 229 miles of road present, most of which is unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-15 shows the road locations.
Figure B-14
Figure B-15
Figure B-16
B.6.5 Soils
The headwaters of the Pysht River flow atop deep well-drained soils of the Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. The foothills of the upper watershed have soils in the Palix Ilwaco series, which are characterized as deep well-drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The middle watershed is slightly lower gradient with soils in the Ozette Kydaka series, characterized as deep and moderate-to-poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. Near the convergence of the West and South Forks, the main stem enters soils of the Queets Tealwhit series. These deep alluvium soils are common in floodplains and river terraces of the northwest Olympic Peninsula (See Figure B-4).
B.7 CLALLAM RIVER SUBBASIN
B.7.1 Landscape Features
Two water bodies in the Clallam River Subbasin (see Figure B-17) drain directly into Clallam Bay: the Clallam River and Falls Creek. The Clallam River is approximately 14 miles long with a complex tributary system; Falls Creek is only 1 mile long and has no significant tributaries. The upper reaches of the Clallam River twist east and west through very steep mountainsides, emerging onto the foothills where Blowder Creek joins it on the west bank. From here, the Clallam River flows through hilly terrain northward to Clallam Bay and is joined by Charley Creek from the west and two creeks on the east: Last Creek and Pearson Creek. Charley Creek is 4.3 miles long and flows northeast with several headwater tributaries in the steep mountainsides. Last Creek is 5.8 miles long and flows northwest through a wide foothill valley. Pearson Creek is 4.5 miles long and flows west along the mountain ridge located on the eastern shores. A sandbar approximately 3,500 feet long at the mouth of the Clallam River has historically blocked flow into Clallam Bay during low flow periods.
Small forested, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands are scattered throughout the subbasin, with a notable series of scrub-shrub wetlands along the Clallam River and Highway 112 between the Blowder and Charley Creek confluences. Large forested wetlands exist along the upper reaches of Last Creek and near the mouth of the Clallam River.
B.7.2 Land Use
The Clallam River Subbasin encompasses 36 square miles, of which 93 percent is zoned for commercial forestry. The remaining land is zoned rural, commercial, and industrial (see Figure B-18). Clallam Bay and Sekiu make up the second most densely populated area in WRIA, and are home to the Clallam Bay Corrections Center. Private land holdings make up 50 percent of the commercial forests; the remainder is managed by WDNR. Lands east of Highway 112 are primarily owned by Merrill & Ring, with small portions owned by Bloedel. Lands west of Highway 112 are primarily publicly owned, managed by WDNR, with small portions in the headwaters owned by Bloedel. Residential and commercial land use is prevalent in the lowermost portion of the subbasin, surrounding Clallam Bay. A 33-acre county park is located on the Clallam Bay Spit.
B.7.3 Forestry Activities
Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 7,706 acres of land were approved for harvest, of which 55 percent was clearcut, 36 percent was salvage treatment, and 9 percent was partial cut. Aerial photos dated 1994 show the headwater forests to be fairly intact. Land clearings are present along the lower reaches of Pearson and Last Creeks, Clallam Bay, and the headwaters of Charley Creek (see Figure B-19).
Figure B-17
Figure B-18
Figure B-19
B.7.4 Roads
The main road passing through the Clallam River Subbasin is Highway 112, which runs closely along the Clallam River main stem from where Blowder Creek converges. The state highway crosses the main stem in several locations as it heads toward Clallam Bay. In all there are approximately 135 miles of roads within this subbasin, most of which are unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-18 shows the road locations.
B.7.5 Soils
The headwaters of the Clallam River and Charley Creek flow atop deep well-drained soils of the Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. The foothills of the upper watershed have soils in the Palix Ilwaco series, which are characterized as deep well- drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The middle watershed is slightly lower gradient with soils in the Ozette Kydaka series, characterized as deep and moderate-to-poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. Near the convergence of Charley and Last Creeks, the Clallam enters soils of the Queets Tealwhit series. These deep alluvium soils are common in floodplains and river
terraces of the northwest Olympic Peninsula. A steep mountain cluster with peaks reaching 1000 feet is located along the eastern shoreline. These slopes have soils in the Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series (See Figure B-4).
B.8 HOKO RIVER SUBBASIN
B.8.1 Landscape Features
The Hoko River is the only water body that drains directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the Hoko River Subbasin (see Figure B-20). The headwaters of the main stem Hoko River are made up of several small tributaries that drain the moderately steep foothills, including Johnson, Cub, Bear, Ellis, and Herman Creeks, which drain into the main stem from the east, and Ossert and Brownes Creeks, which flow into the upper main stem from the west. The upper subbasin is deeply incised and several cascades exist, including Hoko Falls. The main tributary to the Hoko River is the Little Hoko River, which itself has several tributaries including Lamb, Coke, and Leyh Creeks. The Little Hoko River flows from moderately steep terrain and converges with the main stem at RM 6.8 in a low-gradient valley. The estuarine zone extends over a mile upstream from the mouth. The main stem Hoko River is approximately 25 miles long, with 80 miles of tributaries.
Small forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands are sparsely scattered throughout the subbasin. A notable scrub-shrub/forested/emergent wetland complex is located along the main stem approximately between RMs 1.0 and 2.0.
B.8.2 Land Use
The largest subbasin in WRIA 19, the Hoko River Subbasin encompasses approximately 71 square miles. Ninety-five percent of the subbasin is zoned commercial forestry, and the remainder is zoned rural and industrial (see Figure B- 21). Approximately 500 acres along the lower main stem Hoko River is non-forested and in agriculture use. A state park is located along the lower Little Hoko River.
Private land holdings make up 73 percent of the commercial forests in the Hoko River Subbasin, and 27 percent is managed by WDNR.
Figure B-20
Figure B-21
B.8.3 Forestry Activities
Timber harvest in the Hoko River Subbasin began in the late 1880s, and nearly the entire basin has been harvested at least once down to the streambanks. Approximately 95 percent of the old growth has been converted into commercially managed tree farms (Smith, 1999). Aerial photos from 1994 show moderate clearing scattered throughout the subbasin. Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 35,263 acres of land were approved for harvest, of which 36 percent was clearcut, 55 percent was salvage treatment, and 9 percent was partial cut (see Figure B-22).
B.8.4 Roads
State Highway 112 runs east-west near the shoreline, and crosses the Hoko River at approximately RM 1.0. Hoko Ozette Road intersects with Highway 112 just east of
the main stem, and runs immediately adjacent to the Hoko main stem as it heads southwestward. In all, there are approximately 348 miles of road in the Hoko River Subbasin, most of which are unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-21 shows the road locations.
B.8.5 Soils
The headwaters of the Hoko River flow lie atop soils in the Ozette-Kydaka and Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series. The upper main stem of the Hoko River flows through Ozette-Kydaka soils, typical of lower elevation terrain and characterized as deep and moderate-to-poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. Tributaries flowing south to the main stem are amidst the Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. These soils are typical of steep-sloped mountainsides. The middle reaches of the main stem flow through Palix-Ilwaco soils, which are characterized as deep well- drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The mid to lower main stem of the Hoko River and the lower reaches of the Little Hoko River flow through soils of the Queets Tealwhit series. These deep alluvium soils are common in floodplains and river terraces of the northwest Olympic Peninsula (See Figure B-4) .
B.9 SEKIU RIVER SUBBASIN
B.9.1 Landscape Features
The Sekiu River Subbasin (see Figure B-23) includes several streams on the Makah Tribal lands. For the purpose of this document, only streams outside tribal boundaries are discussed. Six water bodies in the Sekiu River Subbasin drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca: Snow, Bullman, Rasmussen, Jansen and Olsen Creeks and the Sekiu River. All of the smaller creeks are less than 3.5 miles in length, while the Sekiu River is approximately 12 miles long with an additional 37 miles of tributaries including the North Fork, South Fork, No Name Creek, and Carpenters Creek (Smith, 1999). In general, the terrain of the Sekiu River Subbasin is considerably steeper than the neighboring Hoko River Subbasin. Both the North and South Forks flow through narrow valleys among moderately steep hills that extend northward to the shoreline. Due to the steep terrain, very few wetlands exist in this subbasin. Small scrub-shrub wetlands are present in the headwaters of North Fork Sekiu and near the mouth of the main stem.
Figure B-22
Figure B-23
B.9.2 Land Use
The Sekiu River Subbasin encompasses approximately 45 square miles, of which 96 percent is zoned for commercial forestry (see Figure B-24). The remaining 4 percent is zoned as rural or tribal lands. Of the timberland, 80 percent is owned by Private Timber Industry, 14 percent is managed by the WDNR, and the rest is tribal land.
B.9.3 Forestry Activities
Timber harvesting began around the turn of the century near the outlet to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and has over time, at varying rates, continued inland. Nearly the entire
subbasin has been harvested at least once, though remnant patches of old-growth remain along the shoreline and as a riparian buffer along Carpenter Creek. Aerial photos dated 1994 show land clearing activities throughout the subbasin, particularly in the headwaters of Carpenter Creek, North Fork Sekiu, Jansen and Rasmussen Creeks. Forest Practices Applications from 1996 through 2002 show that 34,480 acres of land were approved for harvest, of which 28 percent was clearcut, 65 percent was salvage treatment, and 7 percent was partial cut (see Figure B-25).
B.9.4 Roads
The main road that traverses the Sekiu River Subbasin is State Highway 112, which runs immediately adjacent to the coast. There are approximately 218 miles of roads in the Sekiu River Subbasin, most of which are unpaved. Table B-2 lists the owners and types of roads, and Figure B-24 shows the road locations.
B.9.5 Soils
The headwaters of the Sekiu River flow atop soils in the Snohopish-Sollecks-Makah series, derived from residual and colluvial processes from basalt, sandstone, and conglomerate. These soils are typical of steep-sloped mountainsides. Where the forks converge, the main stem flows through Palix-Ilwaco soils, which are characterized as deep, well-drained soils weathered from siltstone, sandstone, and loess. The mid to lower Sekiu River flows through soils of the Queets-Tealwhit series. These deep alluvium soils are common in floodplains and river terraces of the northwest Olympic Peninsula (See Figure B-4) .
Figure B-24
FIGURE B-25TABLE B-2. ROAD TYPES AND OWNERSHIP IN WRIA 19
Length of Road, by Type (miles) Unpaved - Unpaved- Unpaved Unspecified Crushed Unpaved - Native Paved Materials Rock - Gravel Material Unknown Total CLALLAM RIVER Unspecified Private 5.6 5.7 0.2 0.1 6.6 18.1 State Lands 0.1 0.1 Federal Lands 3.5 23.1 20.2 17.6 6.1 0.7 71.1 Bloedel 0.4 10.9 0.3 0.4 11.9 Crown Pacific 0.5 5.5 1.0 7.0 Merrill & Ring 2.0 2.1 Rayonier 4.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 5.2 Ring Family LTD 0.2 14.8 4.9 19.8 Total by Type 10.2 66.1 20.5 18.0 6.2 14.2 135.3 Percent of Subbasin Total 7.6 48.8 15.2 13.3 4.5 10.5 10
DEEP CREEK Unspecified Private 1.1 2.5 3.6 State Lands 24.9 7.1 32.0 Federal Lands 0.4 1.1 1.5 Rayonier 1.0 24.9 3.9 29.8 Ring Family LTD 8.3 0.1 1.2 9.6 Total by Type 2.1 61.1 1.2 1.2 11.0 76.5 Percent of Subbasin Total 2.8 79.8 1.5 1.5 14.4 10
HOKO RIVER Unspecified Private 2.1 13.6 6.8 22.5 State Lands 1.4 1.4 Federal Lands 35.5 20.4 24.1 0.3 7.5 87.8 Crown Pacific 1.4 110.4 0.7 0.7 1.6 27.6 142.4 Rayonier 67.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 25.1 93.9 Total by Type 3.4 228.8 21.4 25.1 2.2 67.0 348.0 Percent of Subbasin Total 1.0 65.8 6.2 7.2 0.6 19.3 10
LAKE CRESCENT Unspecified Private 4.3 3.0 0.4 0.3 1.7 9.6 State Lands 13.8 9.6 0.1 34.0 57.4 Federal Lands 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.1 1.7 (blank) 0.7 0.7 Total by Type 18.2 14.1 0.9 0.4 35.7 69.3 Percent of Subbasin Total 26.3 20.4 1.3 0.5 51.5 10
TABLE B-2 (continued). ROAD TYPES AND OWNERSHIP IN WRIA 19
Length of Road, by Type (miles) Unpaved - Unpaved- Unpaved Unspecified Crushed Unpaved - Native Paved Materials Rock - Gravel Material Unknown Total RE RIVER ecified Private 3.0 10.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 15.5 Lands 0.1 8.8 0.4 0.2 9.4 ral Lands 0.3 17.1 5.5 5.8 0.8 3.7 33.3 ill & Ring 0.5 7.3 0.9 0.1 0.5 9.4 l by Type 4.0 43.4 6.7 6.5 0.8 6.4 67.6 ent of Subbasin Total 5.9 64.2 9.8 9.5 1.2 9.4 10
+ Crescent 22.2 57.5 6.7 7.3 1.2 42.0 136.9 ent of Combined 16.2 42.0 4.9 5.4 0.9 30.7 10 l
HT RIVER ecified Private 4.0 3.8 0.1 7.9 Lands 19.7 0.6 1.5 1.1 23.0 ral Lands 0.3 14.0 0.8 3.0 0.2 0.9 19.2 del 0.5 5.3 0.1 6.0 wn Pacific 1.7 17.2 1.7 2.5 23.1 ill & Ring 0.4 3.6 0.3 4.3 nier 0.5 13.9 0.2 14.6 Family LTD 9.4 104.1 6.5 2.3 8.7 130.9 l by Type 16.8 181.7 1.4 9.5 5.7 13.9 229.1 ent of Subbasin Total 7.3 79.3 0.6 4.1 2.5 6.1 10
T ecified Private 35.9 54.9 2.8 4.3 1.1 16.2 115.1 Lands 2.8 4.3 29.3 33.3 1.3 1.0 72.0 nty Lands 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 2.5 ill & Ring 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.1 l by Type 40.6 59.9 32.5 37.6 2.5 17.7 190.8 ent of Subbasin Total 21.3 31.4 17.0 19.7 1.3 9.3 10
IU RIVER ecified Private 1.3 1.0 0.1 1.0 3.4 Lands 0.2 4.1 16.8 11.7 0.1 0.8 33.8 al 7.6 1.6 9.2 wn Pacific 3.6 140.8 3.4 0.6 24.0 172.4 l by Type 5.1 153.5 20.3 12.3 0.1 27.4 218.7 ent of Subbasin Total 2.3 70.2 9.3 5.6 12.5 10
TABLE B-2 (continued). ROAD TYPES AND OWNERSHIP IN WRIA 19
Length of Road, by Type (miles) Unpaved - Unpaved- Unpaved Unspecified Crushed Unpaved - Native Paved Materials Rock - Gravel Material Unknown Total TWIN RIVERS Unspecified Private 2.3 6.5 0.3 0.1 0.8 9.9 State Lands 38.0 0.2 5.3 43.5 Federal Lands 4.1 7.4 17.1 3.3 2.3 4.5 38.8 Merrill & Ring 0.9 3.4 4.3 Rayonier 0.9 7.2 2.9 10.9 Total by Type 8.2 62.5 17.4 3.5 2.4 13.5 107.5 Percent of Subbasin Total 7.6 58.1 16.2 3.3 2.2 12.5 10
GRAND TOTAL 110.6 908.0 120.3 114.6 21.5 232.2 1507.2
APPENDIX C HYDROLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
C.1 Surface Waters...... C-1 C.2 Groundwater ...... C-1 C.2.1 Watershed-Wide Overview ...... C-1 C.2.2 Groundwater Analysis by Subbasin ...... C-4
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page No.
C-1 ??? ...... C-2
C.1 SURFACE WATERS
TO BE COMPLETED Has this been done?
C.2 GROUNDWATER
C.2.1 Watershed-Wide Overview
General Conditions
Most of WRIA 19 is underlain by Tertiary age bedrock that contains limited groundwater resources. Bedrock consists of cemented marine sedimentary deposits of siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate, as well as basalt. Within these consolidated deposits, groundwater is present within pore space of sandstones and within rock fractures, which accommodate low quantities but in amounts typically sufficient to support domestic wells. Locally within the WRIA, greater groundwater resources are available where unconsolidated sediments of Pleistocene glacial deposits underlie the lower elevations in the Salt Creek , Lyre River, and Twin Rivers Subbasins and where unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium has accumulated along river drainages, terraces, and shorelines. The largest alluvial deposits are along the Pysht River, the Clallam River, and the Hoko River and near Neah Bay. Bedrock wells have been installed successfully for domestic water supplies, although such wells possess low capacities and typically are limited to single family residences. Most wells within the area yield less than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) and are suitable for single dwelling domestic needs. 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 a public water supply system (Clallam Bay/Sekiu Water System).
WRIA 19 receives abundant rainfall in the range of 60 to 110 inches per year, increasing both to the west and with increased elevation. Infiltration from this precipitation provides almost all groundwater recharge. WRIA 19, for the most part, lacks adjacent mountainous terrain that could provide water via streams and underground flow. Only the Lake Crescent Subbasin contains high peaks from which snowmelt provides year-round tributaries to the lake. Lake Crescent, in turn, provides local recharge through seepage in fractured bedrock to downgradient aquifers and springs in the Twin Rivers, Lyre River, and Salt Creek Subbasins.
Groundwater quantity is defined for purposes of this technical assessment as the amount of water recharging the groundwater system. The limited data available for the study area require such quantity values to be formed as general estimates. Aquifer storage can also be estimated, and similarly is poorly controlled. Overall, aquifer recharge should provide a more useful estimate of water potentially available for use on a sustained basis. Aquifer storage can provide an important source of peaking supply, but recharge is the important element in providing a sustained supply.
Recharge originates on the land surface as a percentage of precipitation that infiltrates into soil (versus surface runoff). Some infiltrating water evaporates or is taken up by plant roots and lost through leaf transpiration (these combined effects are called evapotranspiration), with the remainder available to percolate into the groundwater system. In many areas with topographic relief, infiltrating water may encounter low permeability materials at the base of the soil horizon, such as bedrock or glacial till, and flow downslope in the subsurface until it discharges to the surface. In WRIA 19, the percentage of precipitation that that continues to percolate and enters the groundwater system may be 5 to 40 percent.
Recharge that has entered the groundwater system gradually flows toward discharge features. Groundwater in the system flows to a variety of “sinks” that include discharge to springs, streams, marine bodies, wetlands, ponds, and wells, or even uptake as transpiration where it returns 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 drainages, thereby maintaining base flow in streams and springs. 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.
Within this groundwater system, a portion of the groundwater recharge can be withdrawn from wells. The flow system compensates for withdrawals with decreased discharge to the natural sinks. The overall water balance is formed by cumulative flow into the groundwater system, through recharge and underflow from upland regions, and discharge from the system. Insufficient data are available on the groundwater flow system to provide a water balance for WRIA 19, although rough estimates of recharge and aquifer storage are provided by subbasin.
Assumptions Used in Groundwater Estimates
Annual recharge from precipitation is dependent on factors such as precipitation amount and distribution over time, soil type, rock or sediment type, impermeable horizons, surface slope, vegetation type and root zone, land cover (e.g., paved areas), temperature, and surface water bodies (i.e., gaining or losing rivers and lakes). Forest practices, such as road construction and tree clearing, factor into a number of these parameters. All such factors combine to make for very complex calculations that, even under the best of circumstances, provide recharge values that must be
considered to be of moderate accuracy. Because of the many unknowns and scarcity of area-specific data, the estimate of recharge for WRIA 19 has been greatly simplified and relies heavily on evaluations conducted nearby. Assumptions for recharge, presented in Table C-?, C-1? include: • Precipitation rates by subbasin are applied as mean values from Figure 6 in Encon (1974). • Geologic units are divided into two main categories: consolidated shale, sandstone, conglomerate, and basalt of Tertiary age; and unconsolidated till, sand, gravel, silt, clay, and colluvium deposits of Quaternary age. • Infiltration rates are assumed as mean values reported for similar units in the Dungeness River area by Thomas et al. (1999) and scaled upward as follows: – Tertiary bedrock unit infiltration rate of 9 inches per year for 50 inches per year of precipitation (18 percent of precipitation) – Quaternary deposit unit infiltration of 8.5 inches per year for 25 inches per year of precipitation (34 percent of precipitation) • Assumed infiltration rates do not consider site-specific parameters that influence infiltration, nor are they likely linearly scalable and, thereby, must be treated as “ballpark” estimates.
TABLE C-1 ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BY SUBBASIN
Area Precipitation Percent Groundwater Recharge Surficial Geologya (feet2)a (inches/year)b (feet/year) Infiltrationc (feet3/year) (gal/year) alt Creek Subbasin uaternary Deposits 5.15E+08 40 3.33 34% 5.84E+08 4.37E+09 ertiary Bedrock 7.25E+08 40 3.33 18% 4.35E+08 3.25E+09 ubbasin Total 7.62E+09 yre River Subbasin uaternary Deposits 2.40E+08 60 5.00 34% 4.09E+08 3.06E+09 ertiary Bedrock 2.63E+08 60 5.00 18% 2.36E+08 1.77E+09 ubbasin Total 4.82E+09 ake Crescent Subbasin uaternary Deposits 1.11E+08 90 7.50 34% 2.84E+08 2.12E+09 ertiary Bedrock 1.05E+09 90 7.50 18% 1.42E+09 1.06E+10 ubbasin Total 1.27E+10 win Rivers Subbasin uaternary Deposits 2.87E+08 70 5.83 34% 5.70E+08 4.26E+09 ertiary Bedrock 6.44E+08 70 5.83 18% 6.77E+08 5.06E+09 ubbasin Total 9.32E+09
eep Creek Subbasin uaternary Deposits 1.09E+08 80 6.67 34% 2.47E+08 1.85E+09 ertiary Bedrock 3.99E+08 80 6.67 18% 4.79E+08 3.58E+09 ubbasin Total 5.43E+09 ysht River Subbasin
Quaternary Deposits 1.75E+08 80 6.67 34% 3.96E+08 2.96E+09 Tertiary Bedrock 1.34E+09 80 6.67 18% 1.61E+09 1.21E+10 Subbasin Total 1.50E+10
Clallam River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.84E+08 90 7.50 34% 4.69E+08 3.51E+09 Tertiary Bedrock 8.14E+08 90 7.50 18% 1.10E+09 8.22E+09 Subbasin Total 1.17E+10
Hoko River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 4.45E+08 110 9.17 34% 1.39E+09 1.04E+10 Tertiary Bedrock 1.51E+09 110 9.17 18% 2.50E+09 1.87E+10 Subbasin Total 2.91E+10
Sekiu River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.40E+08 100 8.33 34% 3.97E+08 2.97E+09 Tertiary Bedrock 1.10E+09 100 8.33 18% 1.64E+09 1.23E+10 Subbasin Total 1.53E+10
Total Annual Recharge 1.15E+11 a. Geology from DNR, as shown on figure in Appendix A. b. Estimated from Figure 6 of Encon (1974) c. Assumed rates to match those of Thomas et al. (1999) for the Dungeness River basin
TABLE C-2 ESTIMATED AQUIFER STORAGE CAPACITY BY SUBBASIN
Area Effective Saturated Estimated Aquifer Storage Surficial Geologya (feet2)a Porosity Thickness (feet) (feet3) (gallons) Salt Creek Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 5.15E+08 0.25 50 6.44E+09 4.82E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 5.15E+08 0.025 175 2.25E+09 1.69E+10 Surficial Tertiary Bedrock 7.25E+08 0.025 200 3.63E+09 2.71E+10 Subbasin Total 9.22E+10 Lyre River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 2.40E+08 0.25 50 3.00E+09 2.25E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 2.40E+08 0.025 175 1.05E+09 7.86E+09 Surficial Tertiary Bedrock 2.63E+08 0.025 200 1.31E+09 9.82E+09 Subbasin Total 4.02E+10 Lake Crescent Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.11E+08 0.25 50 1.39E+09 1.04E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 1.11E+08 0.025 175 4.87E+08 3.65E+09 Surficial Tertiary Bedrock 1.05E+09 0.025 200 5.24E+09 3.92E+10 Subbasin Total 5.33E+10 Twin Rivers Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 2.87E+08 0.25 50 3.59E+09 2.69E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 2.87E+08 0.025 175 1.26E+09 9.40E+09 Surficial Tertiary Bedrock 6.44E+08 0.025 200 3.22E+09 2.41E+10 Subbasin Total 6.04E+10 Deep Creek Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.09E+08 0.25 50 1.36E+09 1.02E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 1.09E+08 0.025 175 4.77E+08 3.57E+09 Surficial Tertiary Bedrock 3.99E+08 0.025 200 1.99E+09 1.49E+10 Subbasin Total 2.87E+10 Pysht River Subbasin
Quaternary Deposits 1.75E+08 0.25 50 2.18E+09 1.63E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 1.75E+08 0.025 175 7.64E+08 5.71E+09 urficial Tertiary Bedrock 1.34E+09 0.025 200 6.71E+09 5.02E+10 Subbasin Total 7.23E+10 Clallam River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.84E+08 0.25 50 2.30E+09 1.72E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 1.84E+08 0.025 175 8.04E+08 6.02E+09 urficial Tertiary Bedrock 8.14E+08 0.025 200 4.07E+09 3.04E+10 Subbasin Total 5.36E+10 Hoko River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 4.45E+08 0.25 50 5.57E+09 4.16E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 4.45E+08 0.025 175 1.95E+09 1.46E+10 urficial Tertiary Bedrock 1.51E+09 0.025 200 7.56E+09 5.66E+10 Subbasin Total 1.13E+11 ekiu River Subbasin Quaternary Deposits 1.40E+08 0.25 50 1.75E+09 1.31E+10 Tertiary Bedrock Under Quaternary 1.40E+08 0.025 175 6.13E+08 4.59E+09 urficial Tertiary Bedrock 1.10E+09 0.025 200 5.48E+09 4.10E+10 Subbasin Total 5.87E+10 Total 1.27E+10 7.89E+10 5.90E+11
. Geology from DNR, as shown on figure in Appendix A.
Aquifer Characterization
Characterization of aquifers in WRIA 19 is gathered from descriptions of geologic units and by review of driller’s logs in the Washington Department of Ecology well log reports (Ecology, 2004). Traditional classification of aquifers (which are defined as a saturated bodies of rock or sediments sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater to yield economically significant water to wells and springs) is limited in WRIA 19 to the distribution of sands and sandy gravel intervals within Quaternary deposits (Figure C-?). is this part of C-2? Successful installation of domestic wells in fracture zones of bedrock, however, also warrants discussion of a “bedrock aquifer.” Principal Quaternary deposits include the following: • Glacial deposits of sand, gravel, silt, and clay • Alluvial deposits of sand, silt, and gravel • Landslides of broken bedrock (at the northeast end of Lake Crescent).
Aquifers in Glacial Deposits
Glacial deposits mantle portions of lower elevations in the Salt Creek, Lyre River, and Twin Rivers Subbasins and include interlayered glacial till and outwash deposits 50 to 150 feet thick. Glacial outwash deposits also are present immediately west of Lake Crescent. As observed in well logs, the glacial outwash appears as permeable, thin aquifers of sand or gravel deposits (layers typically 5 to 20 feet thick) separated by thicker glacial till deposits of low-permeability silt and clay (layers typically 5 to 50 feet thick). Depth to groundwater typically is 25 to 75 feet. For aquifer storage calculations, the average aquifer thickness is assumed to be 50 feet (excluding silt and clay).
Aquifers in Alluvial Deposits
Quaternary alluvium forms as mostly narrow deposits 25 to 75 feet thick along river drainages (Lyre, Pysht, Clallam, Hoko, and Sekiu Rivers) and near Neah Bay as layered sand, gravel, and silt (layers typically 5 to 10 feet thick), as observed in well logs. Depth to groundwater for alluvium typically is 5 to 15 feet, with an average aquifer thickness of 25 feet (excluding silt and clay). Effective porosity of sand and gravel typically ranges from 15 to 35 percent, and is assumed for aquifer calculations in this report to be 25 percent.
Aquifers in Bedrock
Fractures and occasional permeable sandstone units provide for groundwater flow in Tertiary bedrock. Assumptions must be made for groundwater properties because of the lack of much specific data. Effective porosity and permeability of the Tertiary rocks generally are very low. Freeze and Cherry (1979) indicate 0 to 10 percent porosity for shale and 5 to 30 percent porosity for sandstone, and a range in hydraulic conductivity of 10-10 cm/sec to 10-5 cm/sec. Fractures and jointing can significantly increase values in narrow zones. Some beds of sandstone in the marine sedimentary rocks possess a porosity of 20 to 25 percent. They are characterized by an overall low permeability of 2 to 7.5 x 10-3 cm/sec, although one sandstone bed had a higher permeability of 6.6 10-1 cm/sec (Snavely et al., 1980). An overall effective porosity of 2.5 percent is assumed for aquifer calculations in this report.
Garrigues and Shedd (2001) evaluated groundwater/surface water interaction between fractured basalt bedrock of the Crescent Formation and the Dungeness River near Sequim, Washington, and identified an overall low rate of discharge from the bedrock to the river (approximately 7.8 cfs over 4 miles). Neither hydraulic conductivity nor porosity for this region was reported, but the authors point to abundant jointing (small fractures) as the primary flow pathways. Winter et al. (1998) indicate that 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, so an aquifer depth of 300 feet is assumed for purposes of storage estimates. Depth to the water table is typically 50 to 150 feet, so an average bedrock aquifer thickness of 200 feet is assumed.
C.2.2 Groundwater Analysis by Subbasin
A general estimate of aquifer storage by subbasin is presented in Table C-?, C-2? based on estimated average values for key parameters. Because of the lack of significant data these are very approximate estimates.
Salt Creek Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Salt Creek Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow directly north toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its proximity to Port Angeles and the presence of thin sandy aquifers within unconsolidated glacial deposits, this subbasin contains 240 of the 381 well records in the WRIA, or 63 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Logs for wells in the lower plains in the eastern portion of the subbasin indicate wells 40 to 200 feet deep, completed in 5- to 20-foot intervals of sand and gravel within unconsolidated glacial deposits. These wells have yields of 1 to 80 gpm (typically 15 to 30 gpm). Water-bearing sand and sandy gravel layers occur as 5- to 20-foot thick sequences within silty and clayey deposits, including glacial till. The lowest well yields of 1 to 5 gpm occur where sedimentary layers are predominantly clayey. Very shallow wells (20 to 35 feet) in the easternmost portion of the subbasin (T31N, R7W, S33) tap into sandy gravel deposits near the shoreline and yield 5 to 50 gpm, although higher elevations in this populated area are drilled deeper to reach sand deposits or fractured shale bedrock.
Wells in the foothills to the south, as well as headlands near the mouth of Salt Creek on the north, are completed in consolidated bedrock (marine sandstone, conglomerate, and shale, as well as basalt) from 100 to 500 feet deep (typically 175 to 250 feet) and in fracture zones. Bedrock wells yield 1 to 30 gpm (typically 2 to 10 gpm, and one well as high as 60 gpm) and some are unsuccessful.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Salt Creek Subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation, although some small component of recharge occurs through underflow in bedrock from the hydraulic high produced by Lake Crescent. Minor recharge likely occurs in the lower portions of Salt Creek where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. Is this C-1 – Groundwater Recharge?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Salt Creek where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 5.2 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 7.3 x 108 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an average of 40 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 7.6 x 109 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 4.8 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 4.4 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 9.2 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells are dispersed in glacial deposits and bedrock throughout the subbasin rather than in alluvium along Salt Creek. Alluvial deposits along the creek are minor in extent. It is likely, therefore, that hydraulic continuity is low between Salt Creek and wells in shallow aquifers.
Lyre River Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Lyre River Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow directly north
toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its relatively small area and low density of development, proximity to Port Angeles and occurrence of thin sandy aquifers within unconsolidated glacial deposits contain, this subbasin contains 13 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 3.4 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Wells in shallow alluvium in the center of the subbasin range from 40 to 200 feet deep and yield 12 to 75 gpm. The wells include one hand-dug well to a depth of 12 feet in glacial deposits (T31N, R9W, S35). At least two dry holes were abandoned. One well in the southern portion of the basin and immediately above a clay layer reports high iron levels (0.5 mg/L). Thin unconsolidated sediments of 35- to 40-foot thickness occur in the northern portion of the subbasin, near the Lyre River mouth, and wells are completed either in this shallow zone to 40 feet or deeper (up to 155 feet) in shale bedrock.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Lyre River Subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation, although a small component of recharge occurs through underflow in bedrock from the hydraulic high produced by Lake Crescent. Underflow from Lake Crescent also produces some springs in the area. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Lyre River where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Lyre River where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 2.4 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 2.6 x 108 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an annual average of 60 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 4.8 x 109 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 2.3 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 1.8 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 4.0 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells are dispersed in glacial deposits and bedrock throughout the subbasin rather than in alluvium along the Lyre River. Alluvial deposits along the creek are minor in extent. Therefore, it is likely that hydraulic continuity is low between the Lyre River and wells in shallow aquifers.
Lake Crescent Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
Because of the limited extent of Quaternary deposits in the Lake Crescent Subbasin, well installation is divided between Tertiary bedrock aquifers and Quaternary deposit aquifer. Bedrock underlies approximately 90 percent of the subbasin, and about half of the wells target fractured zones within shale and basalt. Localized unconsolidated
Quaternary deposits form aquifers in alluvium, glacial outwash, and landslide debris. No potentiometric surface data are available, although groundwater south and east of Lake Crescent is presumed to flow northward and westward toward the lake. From Lake Crescent, groundwater flows northward into the Lyre River and Twin Rivers Subbasins. The focus of development around the lake results in the installation of most wells near the lake. Most wells in the Lake Crescent Subbasin are within a half- mile of the lakeshore. This subbasin contains 16 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 4.2 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Wells in the area are nearly evenly divided between bedrock and unconsolidated aquifers, although wells in shale and basalt have a fairly high failure rate, with at least four borings abandoned due to dry holes. Wells in shallow alluvium range from 40 to 75 feet deep and yield 12 to 75 gpm.. Bedrock wells range from 125 to 300 feet deep, with yields of 5 to 25 gpm, although with numerous “dry” borings. Two attempted wells in shale yielded high chloride levels (T30N, R9W, S14; T30N, R8W, S3), with the latter producing a salt concentration of 6,400 mg/L.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Lake Crescent Subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation, although high elevations in the Olympic Range to the south, and associated hydraulic highs, may produce a small component of recharge through underflow in bedrock. Higher elevations in the south and southeast of the subbasin generate snowmelt that sustains runoff longer into the dry season than other portions of the WRIA. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1?
Most discharge occurs as discharge to Lake Crescent, from which most water flows through the outlet to the Lyre River. Groundwater on the northern end also discharges as underflow to the Lyre River Subbasin, with some underflow also occurring to the Twin Rivers and Salt Creek Subbasins. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 1.1 x 108 ft2 of Quaternary deposits and 1.1 x 109 ft2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an average of 90 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 1.3 x 1010 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 1.0 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 4.3 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 5.3 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells are located relatively close to Lake Crescent, and some hydraulic continuity may occur, particularly for wells in Quaternary deposits to the west and north of the lake. It is likely that hydraulic continuity is low between Lake Crescent and wells in shallow bedrock aquifers.
Twin Rivers Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Twin Rivers Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow directly north toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its low density of development and predominance of bedrock aquifers, this subbasin contains just 4 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 1.0 percent (Ecology, 2004).
No logs were found for wells in Quaternary deposits. Two wells in fractured shale bedrock range from 64 to 107 feet deep and yield 3.5 to 30 gpm.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge
Aquifer recharge in the Twin Rivers Subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation, although a small component of recharge occurs through underflow in bedrock from the hydraulic high produced by Lake Crescent. Underflow from Lake Crescent also produces some springs in the area. Minor recharge likely occurs along losing portions of the East Twin River and West Twin River. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C- 1?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of East Twin River and West Twin River where they are gaining streams.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 2.9 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 6.4 x 108 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an average of 70 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 9.3 x 109 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 2.7 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 3.4 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 6.0 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells in this subbasin are not located in alluvium along the East and West Twin Rivers, and alluvial deposits along the rivers are minor in extent. Therefore, it is likely that hydraulic continuity is low between wells in shallow aquifers and the East Twin and West Twin Rivers.
Deep Creek Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Deep Creek Subbasin aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow north-northeast toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its relatively small area and low density of development, this subbasin
contains just 3 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 0.8 percent (Ecology, 2004).
No well logs were found for the three wells, although borings for the Deep Creek bridge showed 97.5 feet of coarse Quaternary deposits that could be productive (Ecology, 2004). Other than adjacent to the creek, this subbasin generally offers only bedrock aquifers for potential wells.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Deep Creek subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Deep Creek where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Deep Creek where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 1.1 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 4.0 x 108 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an average of 80 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 5.4 x 109 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 1.0 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 1.9 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 2.9 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells completed in alluvium along Deep Creek would be expected to have some continuity with the surface water, while wells in Tertiary bedrock and Quaternary deposits away from the creek likely would have no continuity with the surface water.
Pysht River Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Pysht River Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow to the north- northeast toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its relatively small area and low density of development, this subbasin contains just 10 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 2.6 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Available well logs for three wells in the Quaternary alluvium near the Pysht River show well depths of 29 to 35 feet and yields of 5 to 40 gpm. The three well logs available for wells in Tertiary bedrock show depths of 80 to 107 feet and yields of 2 and 40 gpm. Other than coarse Quaternary deposits adjacent to the Pysht River, this subbasin generally offers only bedrock aquifers for potential wells.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Pysht River subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Pysht River where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Pysht River where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 1.8 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 3.3 x 109 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an annual average of 80 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 1.5 x 1010 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 1.6 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 5.6 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 7.2 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells completed in alluvium along the Pysht River would be expected to have some continuity with the surface water, while wells in Tertiary bedrock and Quaternary deposits away from the creek river likely would have no continuity with the surface water.
Clallam River Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Clallam River Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow to the north- northeast toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to its relatively low density of development and water supply taken from the Hoko River Subbasin for the Clallam Bay/Sekiu Water System, this subbasin contains just 15 of the 381 well records in the WRIA, or 3.9 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Wells in Quaternary alluvium are in shallow alluvium along the Clallam River, with most located near Clallam Bay. Depths of wells in these deposits range from 26 to 72 feet, with yields of 4 to 17 gpm, although one well yields 200 gpm. Elevated iron (up to 14 mg/L) and chloride (up to 645 mg/L) levels are reported for a few wells. The high iron forced abandonment of wells upstream of Sekiu that had been completed in an attempt by PUD #1 to increase its water supply, which currently comes from a wellfield in alluvial deposits adjacent to the Hoko River. The few wells in Tertiary bedrock range in depth from 25 to 150 feet and have yields from 2 to 10 gpm. One borehole in bedrock was dry. A chloride level of 1,800 mg/L in another bedrock well forced it to be abandoned.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Clallam River subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Clallam River where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Clallam River where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 1.8 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 8.1x 108 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an annual average of 90 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 2.9 x 1010 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 1.7 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 3.7 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 5.4 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells completed in alluvium along the Clallam River would be expected to have moderate to high continuity with the surface water, while wells in Tertiary bedrock and Quaternary deposits away from the creek likely would have no continuity with the surface water.
Hoko River Subbasin
Aquifers and Wells
The Hoko River Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow to the north- northeast toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to some development at and around Sekiu, this subbasin contains 42 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 11 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Almost all the wells are in Quaternary alluvial deposits along the Hoko River. Depths for wells in these deposits range from 25 to 97 feet, with yields that range from 1.5 to 220 gpm. The most productive well in the area yields 220 gpm from alluvial deposits along the Hoko River for the Clallam Bay/Sekiu Water System (operated by PUD #1 of Clallam County). Few wells are completed in Tertiary bedrock. One well to 75 feet yields 3 gpm. No wells are identified in the large expanse underlain by bedrock in the southern portion of the subbasin.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge and Storage
Aquifer recharge in the Hoko River subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Hoko River where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of the Hoko River where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 4.5 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 1.9 x 109 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an annual average of 110 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 1.1 x 1011 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 4.2 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 7.1 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 1.1 x 1011 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells completed in alluvium along the Hoko River would be expected to have moderate to high continuity with the surface water, while wells in Tertiary bedrock and Quaternary deposits away from the creek likely would have no continuity with the surface water.
Sekiu River Subbasin
Aquifers
The Sekiu River Subbasin includes aquifers in both Quaternary glacial deposits and Tertiary bedrock. Groundwater in both aquifers is presumed to flow to the north- northeast toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although no potentiometric measurements are available. Due to the low density of development, this subbasin contains just 16 of the 381 well records within the WRIA, or 4.2 percent (Ecology, 2004).
Several wells are completed in Quaternary alluvial deposits along the Sekiu River. Well depths in these deposits range from 25 to 79 feet, with yields that range from 2 to 24 gpm. One well log reports bubbling methane gas. Three well logs show wells completed in the Tertiary bedrock aquifer at depths of 52 to 245 feet and yields of 0.5 to 5 gpm. The well yielding 0.5 gpm is cloudy (high turbidity) and has a sulfur odor.
Aquifer Recharge/Discharge
Aquifer recharge in the Sekiu River Subbasin occurs almost entirely through infiltration of precipitation. Minor recharge likely occurs along portions of Sekiu Hoko River where it is a losing stream. A rough estimate of recharge from precipitation is provided in Table C-?. C-1?
Most discharge occurs as freshwater outflow to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Discharge by well withdrawal accounts for an estimated xx gallons per year, as indicated on Table C-?. don’t know where this is Minor discharge likely occurs in the upper portions of Sekiu River where it is a gaining stream.
Tables C-? and C-? show general estimates for groundwater recharge and storage in this aquifer. C-1 and C-2? These estimates assume 1.4 x 108 feet2 of Quaternary deposits and 1.1 x 109 feet2 of Tertiary bedrock. Recharge is estimated at an annual
average of 100 inches per year, which produces an aquifer recharge of 1.1 x 1011 gallons per year. For areas of Quaternary glacial deposits, the saturated thickness of the sediments is assumed to be 50 feet, with underlying bedrock to 300 feet representing a saturated thickness of 175 feet. For areas with bedrock exposed at the surface, the saturated thickness is assumed to be 200 feet. Estimated groundwater storage is 1.3 x 1010 gallons in Quaternary deposits and 4.6 x 1010 gallons in Tertiary bedrock, for a total of 5.9 x 1010 gallons.
Hydraulic Continuity
Wells completed in alluvium along the Sekiu River would be expected to have moderate to high continuity with the surface water, while wells in Tertiary bedrock and Quaternary deposits away from the creek likely would have no continuity with the surface water.
APPENDIX H HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MATRICES
Description of the Matrix
Table XX H-1?is designed to summarize important environmental parameters and determine the baseline condition for each of the major nine rivers in WRIA 19. The structure of the matrix is based on the National Marine Fisheries Service’s publication “Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale” (NMFS 1996).
This matrix is divided into six overall pathways (Water Quality, Habitat Access, Habitat Elements, Channel Condition and Dynamics, Flow/Hydrology, and Watershed Conditions) develop discussion for 7th condition – Estuarine – it’s probably too late to do this. Each pathway is further sub-divided into 18 habitat condition indicators that determine which actions can have potential effects on anadromous salmonids and their habitats. Indicators are generally of two types: (1) Metrics that have associated numeric values (e.g. "six pools per mile"); and (2) descriptions (e.g. "adequate habitat refugia do not exist"). The purpose of having both types of indicators in the matrix is that numeric data are not always readily available for making determinations (or there are no reliable numeric indicators of the factor under consideration). In this case, a description of overall condition may be the only appropriate method available.
The columns in the matrix correspond to levels of condition of the indicator. There are three condition levels: "properly functioning," "at risk," and "not properly functioning."
For each indicator, there is either a numeric value or range for a metric that describes the condition, a description of the condition, or both.
When a numeric value and a description are combined in the same cell in the matrix, it is because accurate assessment of the indicator requires attention to both. The pathways and indicators, as well as the ranges of their associated criteria, may be refined through watershed analysis. NMFS recommends consideration of this model for entities seeking an analytical approach, but does not prescribe it. Indeed, any scientifically credible analysis is acceptable to NMFS.
The ranges of criteria presented in the table are generally applicable but are not absolute; some watersheds may have unique geology, geomorphology, hydrology and other conditions that may not permit achieving the target habitat conditions. Target conditions can be established on a regional or site- specific basis as needed to account for those factors.
TABLE H-1. BENCHMARKS FOR DETERMINING STREAM CONDITION athway/ ndicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality emperature 50-57º F 57-60ºF (spawning) > 60ºF (spawning) 57-64ºF (migration &rearing) > 64ºF (migration & rearing) ediment/ < 12% fines (<0.85mm) 12-17% (west-side) >17% (west-side) urbidity Turbidity low Turbidity moderate Turbidity high hemical Low levels of chemical Moderate levels of chemical High levels of chemical ontamination, contamination from contamination from agricultural, contamination from agricultural, utrients agricultural, industrial and other industrial and other sources, some industrial and other sources, high sources, no excess nutrients, no excess nutrients, one 303d levels of excess nutrients, more 303d designated reaches designated reach than one 303d designated reach Habitat Access Physical Barriers Any man-made barriers present Any man-made barriers present in Any man-made barriers present in watershed allow upstream watershed do not allow upstream in watershed do not allow and downstream juvenile and and/or downstream fish passage at upstream and/or downstream fish adult fish passage at all flows base/low flows passage at a range of flows Habitat Elements ubstrate Dominant substrate is gravel or Gravel and cobble is Bedrock, sand, silt or small cobble (interstitial spaces clear), subdominant, or if dominant, gravel dominant, or if gravel and or embeddedness <20% embeddedness 20-30% cobble dominant, embeddedness >30% arge Woody Coast: >80 pieces/mile Currently meets standards for Does not meet standards for ebris >24"diameter >50 ft. length; properly functioning, but lacks properly functioning and lacks and adequate sources of woody potential sources from riparian potential large woody debris debris recruitment in riparian areas of woody debris recruitment recruitment areas. to maintain that standard ool Frequency Meets pool frequency Meets pool frequency standardsa Does not meet pool frequency standardsa and large woody but large woody debris standardsa debris recruitment standards for recruitment inadequate to properly functioning habitat maintain pools over time ool Quality Pools >1 meter deep (holding Few deeper pools (>1 meter) No deep pools (>1 meter) and pools) with good cover and cool present or inadequate major inadequate cover/temperature, water, minor reduction of pool reduction of pool volume by fine Major reduction of pool volume volume by fine sediment sediment cover/temperature, by fine sediment moderate reduction of pool volume by fine sediment ff Channel Backwaters with cover, and low Some backwaters and high energy Few or no backwaters, no off- abitat energy off-channel areas side channels channel ponds (ponds, oxbows, etc.) efugia Habitat refugia exist and are Habitat refugia exist but are not Adequate habitat refugia do not adequately buffered (e.g., by adequately buffered (e.g., by exist intact riparian reserves); intact riparian reserves); existing existing refugia are sufficient in refugia are insufficient in size, size, number and connectivity number and connectivity to to maintain viable populations maintain viable populations or or sub-populations sub-populations
Pool frequency standards are based on channel width, as follows: channel: 184 pools/mile 15’ channel: 70 pools/mile 25’ channel: 47 pools/mile 75’ channel: 23 pools/mile 0’ channel: 96 pools/mile 20’ channel: 56 pools/mile 50’ channel: 26 pools/mile 100’ channel: 18 pools/mile
TABLE H-1 (continued). BENCHMARKS FOR DETERMINING STREAM CONDITION Pathway/ Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth <10 >10 >10 Ratio Streambank >90% stable; i.e., on average, 80-90% stable <80% stable Condition less than 10% of banks are actively eroding Floodplain Off-channel areas are frequently Reduced linkage of wetland, Severe reduction in hydrologic Connectivity hydrologically linked to main floodplains and riparian areas to connectivity between off- channel; overbank flows occur main channel; overbank flows channel, wetland, floodplain and and maintain wetland functions, are reduced relative to historic riparian areas; wetland extent riparian vegetation and frequency, as evidenced by drastically reduced, riparian succession moderate degradation of wetland vegetation/ succession altered function, riparian vegetation/ significantly succession Flow-Hydrology Change in Watershed hydrograph indicates Some evidence of altered peak Pronounced changes in peak Peak/Base Flows peak flow, base flow and flow flow, base flow and/or flow flow, base flow and/or flow timing characteristics timing relative to an undisturbed timing relative to an undisturbed comparable to an undisturbed watershed of similar size, watershed of similar size, watershed of similar size, geology and geography. geology and geography geology and geography Increase in Zero or minimum increases in Moderate increases in drainage Significant increases in drainage Drainage drainage network density from network density from roads (e.g., network density from roads (e.g., Network roads about 5%) 20-25%) Watershed Conditions Road Density and <2 mi/mi2, no valley bottom 2-3 mi/mi2, some valley bottom >3 mi/mi2, many valley bottom Location roads roads roads Disturbance <15% equivalent clearcut area <15% equivalent clearcut area >15% equivalent clearcut area History (entire watershed) with no (entire watershed) but (entire watershed) and concentration of disturbance in disturbance concentrated in disturbance concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable unstable or potentially unstable unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or areas, and/or refugia, and/or areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for NW Forest riparian area; and for NW Forest riparian area; does not meet NW Plan area (except adaptive Plan area (except adaptive Forest Plan standard for late- management areas), 15% management areas), 15% successional old growth retention retention of late-successional old retention of late-successional old growth in watershed growth in watershed Riparian Reserves The riparian reserve system Moderate loss of connectivity or Riparian reserve system is provides adequate shade, large function (shade, LWD fragmented, poorly connected, or woody debris recruitment, and recruitment, etc.) of riparian provides inadequate protection of habitat protection and reserve system, or incomplete habitats and refugia for sensitive connectivity in all protection of habitats and refugia aquatic species (<70% intact), subwatersheds, and includes for sensitive aquatic species (70- and/or for grazing effects: known refugia for sensitive 80% intact), and/or for grazing percent similarity of riparian aquatic species (>80% effects: percent similarity of vegetation to the potential intact),and/or for grazing effects: riparian vegetation to the natural community/composition percent similarity of riparian potential natural <25% vegetation to the potential community/composition 25-50% natural community/ composition or better >50%
TABLE H-1 (continued). BENCHMARKS FOR DETERMINING STREAM CONDITION athway/ ndicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning stuarine Conditions abitat Quantity/ The estuarine system provides Moderate loss of prey Gross loss of prey production, uality for adequate, prey production, production, cover, and habitat cover, and habitat complexity cover, and habitat complexity, complexity for both smolts and returning adults. real Extent Estuary provides for most (i.e., 50-80% of pre-modification area < 50% of pre-modification area greater than 80% intact) of its or volume and diversity of or volume; low diversity of historical areal extent and habitats habitats diversity of shallow water habitat types including vegetated wetlands and marshes, tidal channels, submerged aquatic vegetation, tidal flats, and large woody debris. ydrologic Fresh water inflow and other Moderate interruption of Gross interruption of estuarine onditions/ hydrologic circulation patterns estuarine circulation and nutrient circulation and nutrient and ediment and and sediment and nutrient inputs and sediment delivery sediment delivery utrient Input are similar to historic conditions. stuarine Water Quality issolved Water quality standards for Water quality standards are not Water quality standards are xygen, aquatic life protection met met intermittently when salmon consistently not met when emperature, are present salmon are present utrients, hemical ontamination ediments Sediments have low levels of Sediments have moderate levels Sediments have high levels of chemical contamination, of chemical contaminants chemical contaminants especially of persistent aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other compounds known to bio- accumulate. xotic Species Exotic species that are non- Sustained presence of multiple Predominance of exotic species hat Are Non- indigenous and aquatic nuisance exotic species that are non- that are non-indigenous and ndigenous species are at low and decreasing indigenous and aquatic nuisance aquatic nuisance species, low quatic Nuisance levels and not interfering with species in significant abundance abundance of many native pecies estuarine system functions. species with some low or extirpated.
ource: NMFS 1996. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators.
TABLE H-2. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SALT CREEK
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality Temperature 1 no “excursions beyond criteria” – middle/lower reaches Sediment/Turbidity 4C Livestock access increased sedimentation and turbidityb Chemical Contamination, Nutrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers An old dam creates a partial barrier in Salt Creek (RM 6.5), blocking about 0.7 miles of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat habitatb Habitat Elements Substrate Large Woody Debris 4C Adequate LWD loads downstream of Camp Hayden Rd. Poor conditions upstream of Camp Hayden Bridge.b Pool Frequency Pool Quality Off Channel Habitat Potential wetlands and side channels, but disconnected from channel.b Refugia Good spawning and Camp Hayden Rd - rearing habitat causes loss of rearing downstream of RM habitat and winter 6.5.b refuge areas.b
Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Streambank Condition 4C Potentially unstable due to livestock access to stream @ county park.b
TABLE H-2 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SALT CREEK
303d athway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning hannel Conditions and Dynamics (continued) loodplain Connectivity 4C Camp Hayden Road prevents lateral migration and disconnects potential wetlands and side channels. Road cuts salt marsh off from tide-influenced Salt Creek reachesb low-Hydrology hange in Peak/Base Flows Riparian Road RM 1-2 (Camp Hayden Rd). Channel incised and channelized.a ncrease in Drainage Network Watershed Conditions oad Density and Location Camp Hayden Rd : valley bottom.b isturbance History Heavy logging of Significant watershed west side tribs in disturbance with human 1980sb development around Joyce. iparian Reserves Predominantly alder or barren. Very poor potential for quality LWD recruitment.b stuarine Conditions abitat Quantity/ Quality real Extent Crescent Bay: extensive 15 acres lost with eelgrass and kelp beds road disconnection from Tongue Point to Agate Pointb ydrologic Conditions/ ediment and Nutrient Input stuarine Water Quality issolved Oxygen, 2 DO emperature, Nutrients, hemical Contamination ediments xotic Species That Are Non- ndigenous Aquatic Nuisance pecies
303d 2002-2004 list . Smith 1999 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly unctioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-3. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN LYRE RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality Temperature 4C 16.3ºC (migration and 16.3ºC (spawning) a, a rearing) 21ºC (all stages) a Sediment/Turbidity Fine sediments and turbidity increased from Boundary and Susie Creeks.b Chemical Contamination, Nutrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers Natural barrier @ RM 2.7. b Habitat Elements Substrate Spawning habitat in fair condition, though fines are settling in substrate. b Large Woody Debris 4C Poor in-stream LWD and poor recruitment potential in lower mile. Better in upper reaches.b Pool Frequency Pool Quality Off Channel Habitat Refugia Lowest mile of main stem is channelized and disconnected from floodplain and refugia. b
Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Streambank Condition Floodplain Connectivity 4C Lowest mile of main stem is channelized and disconnected from floodplain and refugiab
TABLE H-3 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN LYRE RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows ncrease in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Disturbance History Historical “stream cleaning” removed LWD from channels.b Riparian Reserves High percentage of Lower mile maturing second growth predominantly young conifer above lower veg with low potential mile.b for LWD recruitment.b
Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Areal Extent Lower lyre channelized and bulkheaded. Not significant aerial extent of estuary. Hydrologic Conditions/ 4C Biological degradation - ediment and Nutrient Input invertebrate assessment.a Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination ediments Exotic Species That Are Non- ndigenous Aquatic Nuisance pecies
. 303d 2002-2004 list . Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly unctioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-4. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN EAST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality Temperature 1 11-12°@RM 0.8 of EF 10-11°@RM 6.4 12-14°@RM 2.8 Sediment/Turbidity 4C Increased sedimentation due to erosion in East Fork of East Twin Riverb. Elevated due to roads on FS propertya Chemical Contamination, Has there been WQ Nutrients testing for contaminants? Habitat Access Physical Barriers About 1.5 miles of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat habitat are blocked by an impassible culvert associated with 30 Road near RM 0.7 of the East Fork East Twin River. (Mike McHenry)a Culvert @ FS rd 3040b Habitat Elements Substrate Scour in lower reaches - predominantly large gravel and small cobblea Large Woody Debris 4C Key pieces @ RM 4.5- Recruitment Potential = Key pieces @ RM 0-1.9 5.0 = 116/mi. E Fork 30% Mod/ 2. =14/mi. RM 2-4 30/mi. Recruitment Potential = Main stem lower = 19% RM 4-4.5 = 40/mi. E Fork 22% high/ 2. mod b. Main stem upper Recruitment Potential = Main stem lower = 66% = 36% mod b.. E Fork 48% low/ 2. high b. Main stem upper Main stem lower = 15% b = 25% high b. Sadie = low 81% high.\2 Main stem upper = 30% low b Pool Frequency table f-8 check table f-8 check table f-8 check w/protocols b need to w/protocols b need to w/protocols b need to determine channel determine channel determine channel width width width Pool Quality RM 0-1.9, 75% pools RM 2-4, 40% pools RM 4.5-5.0 23% pools >3'deep. b >3'deep. b >3'deep. b Off Channel Habitat Refugia
TABLE H-4 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN EAST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly athway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio RM 0-4.0 C:W ratio = RM 0-4.0 C:W ratio = 23 b 23 b treambank Condition Historic harvest of riparian and streambank trees a Severe erosion and debris flows associated with riparian clearcuts and roads in upper watershed (E Fork E Twin) b loodplain Connectivity Very little restriction, migration zones relatively accessible. b low-Hydrology hange in Peak/Base Flows Upper and East fork, 91% hydrologically mature. 7% intermed. Lower = 86% mature. b ncrease in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions oad Density and Location isturbance History Large debris flows and landslides (triggered by headwater roads) coupled with historical unbuffered clearcuts contribute to long-term cumulative effects on aquatic habitat. Erosion events peak in 1940s and 1990s; both associated with land management activities in highly unstable areas. b iparian Reserves Current riparian stands are mostly composed of young conifer and alder. Remnant stands of mature conifer are fragmented and limited in width. b
TABLE H-4 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN EAST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ Increased Increased sedimentation Sediment and Nutrient Input sedimentation has has occurred, and gravel occurred, and gravel removal has removed removal has removed beach between E and W beach between E and Twin Rivers. Resulting W Twin Rivers. loss of eel grass.a Resulting loss of eel grass.a Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination Sediments Exotic Species That Are Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species a. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. b. USFS 2002 Watershed Analysis Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly functioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-5. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN WEST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly athway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality emperature 1 13-15°@RM 3.6 Avg high = 15.8ºC Max = 19ºC (66ºF)b 12-14°@RM6.1 (60.44ºF)b (migration Avg high = 15.8ºC and rearing) (60.44ºF)b (spawning) ediment/Turbidity 4C Increased sedimentation due to lack of LWDb and roads on FS propertya hemical Contamination, Has there been WQ utrients testing for contaminants? Habitat Access Physical Barriers None noted Habitat Elements ubstrate Scour in lower reaches, mostly gravel bedsa arge Woody Debris 4C Recruitment potential Recruitment potential Key pieces @ above conf. No Name above conf. No Name RM 0-1.5 = 0.7/mi Creek = 8% high. Creek = 67% mod. RM 1.6-3.6 = 2.6/mi Lower = 30% high. Lower = 24% mod. RM 3.7 - 4.6 = 7.0/mi Mid = 32% high. Mid = 36% mod. RM 4.7 - 5.2 = 6.8/mi Upper = 19% high. Upper = 22% mod RM 5.3-7.7 = 1/mi. No Name Creek = 85% Recruitment potential high. above conf. No Name Creek = 24% low. Lower = 46% low. Mid = 31% low. Upper = 58% low. ool Frequency table f-8 check w/protocolsb need to determine channel width ool Quality RM 0-3.6, 55-70% of RM 3.7-7.7, 15-30% of pools are >3' deep.b pools are >3' deepb ff Channel Habitat efugia
Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio 5 reaches, w/d ratio ranges = 24-49b treambank Condition Extensive historical logging in lower reaches of riparian and streambank trees loodplain Connectivity Very little restriction, migration zones relatively accessibleb
TABLE H-5 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN WEST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Water available for runoff and estimated discharge do not significantly increase (<10%) under current conditions during average storm events; Unusual events see increased discharge, exacerbated by land use conditionsb Increase in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Disturbance History Large debris flows and landslides triggered by headwater roads coupled with historical unbuffered clearcuts contribute to long-term effects on aquatic habitat. Erosion events peak in 1940s and 1990s; both associated with land management activities in highly unstable areas.b Riparian Reserves Current riparian stands are mostly composed of young conifer and alder. Remnant stands of mature conifer are fragmented and limited in width.b Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ Increased sedimentation Sediment and Nutrient Input has occurred, and gravel has been removed between E and W Twin Rivers. Resulting loss of eel grassa Mining activities added fine sediments. Dredging has removed kelp beds. Major landslide between Twins and Deep Cr. located near smelt bed.
TABLE H-5 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN WEST TWIN RIVER
303d Not Properly athway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning stuarine Water Quality issolved Oxygen, emperature, Nutrients, hemical Contamination ediments xotic Species That Are Non- ndigenous Aquatic Nuisance pecies
Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. USFS 2002 Watershed Analysis ote: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly unctioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-67. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SWITCH DEEP/PYSHT ORDER PYSHT RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality Temperature 1 Temp C 17.8ºC (all stages)b DOE # WA8605 (SF) DOE#WA8615 (Main) Sediment/Turbidity 4C RM 7.2 - 7.4 RM 3.5-5.2 fines fines = 16.9%. (<.85mm) = 20.3%a RM 9.7-14.5 Sediment inputs fines = 15.4%a increased with upstream logging and deep seated landslidesa Chemical Contamination, (Compared to Nutrients referenced streams) increased phosphate, nitrates, nitrogen, silicateb No 303d listing Habitat Access Physical Barriers None noted in main stem, though some exist in tribs. Habitat Elements Substrate Very poor conditions, low incubation survivala Large Woody Debris 4C 23 pieces/ 100m (<50% conifer, <50% in contact with low flow channel). a Pool Frequency Pool Quality avg depth = 0.66 m. a Off Channel Habitat Most of the main stem habitat has an impaired floodplain, and the location of these impacts poses significant problems to all anadromous salmon production in the Pyshta Refugia Reduced rearing habitat Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Significant aggradation at 15 of 27 study sitesa Streambank Condition 4C Channel instable due to riparian roads Floodplain Connectivity 4C Hwy 112 (RM 2 - 8.4) and railroad grade (lower reaches), Crown Z road (RM 9.8 - 11.5) disconnect floodplain from channela
TABLE H-67 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SWITCH DEEP/PYSHT ORDER RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows ncrease in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Hwy 112, a Crown Z road and railroad grade- valley bottom. Road density = 3.6 linear mi/sq mia Disturbance History Mass wasting due to logging techniques, dredging of lowest reaches and mouth for log storagea Riparian Reserves Predominantly red alder and big leaf maple.a The SF Pysht has been converted to red alder, comprising 95% of riparian zone. Very poor LWD recruitment potential.a Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Kelp beds off Pillar Loss of estuarine Point increasing in sizea habitat due to dredginga Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ ediment and Nutrient Input Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, 2 DO/C Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination ediments Exotic Species That Are Non- ndigenous Aquatic Nuisance pecies
. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. . Wooten 2002. . 303d 2002-2004 list Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly unctioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-76. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN DEEP CREEK THIS SHOULD BE BEFORE PYSHT RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality Temperature 5, 1 12.07° - 12.4° 16.67ºC @RM 4.5 16.67ºC @RM 0.25, (migration and rearing) 2.5, and 4.5 (spawning) RM 7.3/a a a Sediment/Turbidity 5 Fines range from 17- 23% in mainstem and up to 28% in the East Fork. Of the 443 erosion features inventoried, 80% delivered sediment to defined channels.c Chemical Contamination, Has there been WQ Nutrients testing for contaminants? Habitat Access Physical Barriers An impassible culvert near RM 1.5 in East Fork Deep Creek blocks about 0.5 miles of steelhead and cutthroat habitat. b Habitat Elements Substrate Gravel beds in lower Upper reaches: very reaches> 50% c large substrate and bedrock. Gravel+cobble <50%.c Some reaches scoured to bedrock, as much as 10 feet deep from RM 2 - 12. No available spawning gravel upstream of RM 3b Large Woody Debris 4C Chronically depleted. Lower reaches have abundant LWD, but most is non-functional. 36% coniferous. Avg diameter = 50.3 cm (con) and 29.5 cm (decid). 6.3 pieces >50cm dia per 100 m of channel.b Total pieces/ mile= 70 - 223 (five reaches range) "large" LWD = 0.8 - 15.8 pieces per mile.c Pool Frequency "POOR" (table F4 USFS) Pool Quality approx 60-80% of pools Approx 15-30 of pools in reaches 1, 2, and 4 are >3 ft in reaches 3, are >3ft.c 5&6 (upper) c
TABLE H-76 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN DEEP CREEK
303d Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Habitat Elements (continued) Off Channel Habitat 4C Very good in lower 3 Very poor above restoration - only 112 miles - scour pools, meters of off channel habitat found.b backwater pools, meanders c Refugia Very good in lower 3 lack of off-channel habitat; poor winter miles - scour pools, refuge and rearing habitat for fall coho, backwater pools, winter steelhead, fall chinook.b meanders c Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio 6 reaches = W/D ratios 16 - 39.5 c Streambank Condition 4C very unstable - erosion and mass wasting major problem.b 48% of streambank failures associated with land management activities.c Floodplain Connectivity very little restriction, Lower reaches channelized b migration zones relatively accessible.b Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Debris flows caused dams and resulting dam-break floods. Upper and Mid: 80% Hydro Mature 20% Intermediate Lower: 49% Mature 14% Intermediate 37% immaturec Increase in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Midslope roads causing road failures and mass wasting b, many roads located in headwaters where steep slopes are highly unstable.c
TABLE H-7 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN DEEP CREEK
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Watershed Conditions (continued) Disturbance History 443 erosional features were inventoried, of which 48% were triggered by vegetation removal (clear cuts or fire), 27% by roads, 17% naturally, and 8% unknown. Several debris flows have been initiated from headwater areas within Deep Creek, all associated with roads.c Riparian Reserves Current riparian stands are mostly composed of young conifer and alder. Remnant stands of mature conifer are fragmented and limited in width.c Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ Channel @ mouth Sediment and Nutrient Input channelized and delta has elongated due to depositionb Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, 2 DO/a Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination Sediments Sediment load expected to stay high for many years, potentially affecting smelt bedsb Exotic Species That Are Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species a. 303d 2002-2004 list. b. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. c. USFS 2002 Watershed Analysis. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly functioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-8. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN CLALLAM RIVER
303d Not Properly athway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Water Quality emperature 5 16.8ºC @RM5.7 (1992) 16.8ºC @RM5.7 (1992) (migration and rearing) spawning 19.4ºC @RM 1.5 (1992) migration ediment/Turbidity 4C RM 5.4-9.5 RM 2.8-4.5 avg fines = 11.5%. avg fines = 21.5%. hemical Contamination, utrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers Slightly less than 1 acre of wetland and about 0.1 mile of 2-4% gradient stream habitat is blocked by a culvert at RM 0.01 in a right bank tributary to Clallam River near RM 5. Habitat Elements ubstrate arge Woody Debris 4C Inadequate in lower Inadequate in lower reaches. Comparison of reaches. Comparison of conditions between conditions between 1982 and 1993 showed 1982 and 1993 showed consistent quantity, but consistent quantity, but decreased quality as old decreased quality as old growth LWD input growth LWD input decreased. decreased. ool Frequency ool Quality ff Channel Habitat 4C Hwy 112 (RM 4.4-5.6) A culvert at about RM 2 reduces access to off in the Clallam River channel rearing and blocks 2 - 4 acres of winter refuge areas wetland rearing habitat. efugia Hwy 112 (RM 4.4-5.6) reduces access to rearing and winter refuge areas Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio treambank Condition loodplain Connectivity Hwy 112 (RM 4.4-5.6) reduces access to rearing and winter refuge areas
TABLE H-8 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN CLALLAM RIVER
Pathway/Indicators 303d Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly
Listing Functioning Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows It is believed that the change in age and type of surrounding forests contributes to an increased frequency and severity of peak flows a Increase in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Hwy 112 (RM 4.4-5.6) valley bottom. Density = 4.6 mi/sq mi Disturbance History Riparian Reserves Lower main stem = Lower main stem = predominantly predominantly hardwoods hardwoods Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Excellent habitat for salmonid nursery, though disturbance has degraded habitat. Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ Excessive Sediment and Nutrient Input sedimentation caused blockage to high quality sloughs and wetlands. Several marshes filled, and other disturbances include filling, bulkheading, and bank armoring. Bar at mouth exacerbated by upstream sediment inputs, stranding outmigrating salmonids. Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, 2 DO? Temperature, Nutrients, Intidal Influence? Chemical Contamination Sediments Exotic Species That Are Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species a. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly functioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-9. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN HOKO RIVER
303d Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality
emperature 5 16.9ºC @RM 2.0 (Little 16.9ºC @RM 2.0 (Little Hoko) Hoko) (migration and (spawning)a 18.7ºC @ RM 0.1 a rearing) (1992) (Little Hoko) (all stages)a ediment/Turbidity 4C RM 9.8-15.6 avg RM 3.5-5.6 fines<85mm =11.8% b avg % fines = 17.5%. RM 21.3 avg fines = 20%b hemical Contamination, utrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers About 0.9 miles of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat habitat is blocked by a perched pipe at RM 23.3 in the main stem Hoko River.b Habitat Elements ubstrate 47% of sampled area has ample spawning gravel, though stability is questionable due to increased scourb arge Woody Debris 4C Inadequate amounts: 0.67 pieces per channel width avg, though main stem below RM 15.7 only 0.17 pieces per channel width.b Inadequate recruitment potential due to small deciduous riparian composition.c ool Frequency Highly variable: 37-72 % c ool Quality (Table f2) 1993 survey of pools in subbasin - all pools but two are less than 1 meter deepc ff Channel Habitat Little Hoko - channel incised reducing access to off channel habitatc efugia Little Hoko: refugia disconnected due to channelization - no overbank flow. Reduced incubation survival and areas of rearing and winter refugeb
TABLE H-9 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN HOKO RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Aerial photo analysis shows significant channel widening and in- stream sedimentation related to mass wasting and LWD removal. (e32) Streambank Condition 4C Numerous landslides and hillslope erosion sites. Channel unstable.b Floodplain Connectivity 4C (L. Railroad grade (RM 4.5 - Hoko) 9) prevents channel migrationb Little Hoko channelized @ RM 0-2.0, no overbank flowa Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Predicted 5-10% increase in flows under current vegetative conditions for 100- and 2- year flows.c Increase in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Road density = 5.4 mi/sq mib Disturbance History Extensive logging throughout watershed. Historic use of bay for log transport altered estuary. Removal of LWD in-stream severely reduced stock.c Riparian Reserves 91% red alder w/ poor LWD recruitment potentialb Estuarine Conditions Habitat Quantity/ Quality Areal Extent Hydrologic Conditions/ Sediment input from Sediment and Nutrient Input upstream logging causing mouth to migrate westwardb
TABLE H-9 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN HOKO RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination Sediments Exotic Species That Are Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species a. 303d 2002-2004 list. b. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. c. WA DNR Watershed Analysis. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly functioning” is the appropriate designation.
TABLE H-10. KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SEKIU RIVER
Pathwa y/Indic 303d ators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality Temper 5 In sites below In sites below 1700 ft >16.5ºCc (spawning) ature 1700 ft >16.5 below N. Fork and S. Fork >23.9ºC c (all ºC (migration c c stages) Along main stem 20-21ºC (all & rearing) stages) Sedime Throughout Fines <0.85 mm nt/Turbi subbasin, fines avg volume =11.9-19.1% dity had avg volume of 11.9-19.1%.c In Lower main stem Sekiu levels of sediment <0.85 mm 12.2-16.7 % by volumec Chemic al Contam ination, Nutrient s Habitat Access No chum or chinook A culvert at RM 0.03 to Stream X-19.0203 Physical habitat thought to have blocks about 2.5 acres of wetland habitat Barriers migration barriersc important for coho and cutthroat rearing. This is a right bank tributary to the Sekiu River at about Sekiu RM 3.7.c Overall 5% of historical coho and steelhead habitat blocked by migration barriers.c Habitat Elements Substrat In main stem, gravel or e cobble-gravel substrate with bedrock locally exposed in poolsc Large Long-term potential for Of 2 channel segments on main stem, 2.3 and Woody LWD delivery good. Sites 3.4 pieces LWD (>15in diameter)/bkfl width Debris in subbasin can easily reported. Throughout subbasin, 58% riparian produce LWD 20 ft long, forest has low to moderate short-term 10 in diameter in 30 years recruitment potential. c which will supply target LWD.c Pool For 2 segments on main stem, 2.2 and 3.0 Frequen channel widths/pool cy Pool Fine sediment fills 0-8% of On main stem, pools shallow, lack cover, and Quality residual volume in typical have thermal problems. Only 1 pool >1m on gravel-bedded pools c segment mb1.c
TABLE H-10 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SEKIU RIVER
303d Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Habitat Elements (continued) Off Channel Habitat 4C Along main stem overwintering oxbow stranded by road CZ 1000c. Accessible, high quality overwinter habitat lacking in the Sekiu; few accessible high quality overwintering wetlands, side channels, beaver complexes, and oxbows; one high quality oxbow on main stem.c Refugia Along lower main stem, a side channel and several backbar flood channels could provide refuge during high flows; gravel riffles abundant and appear stable (pE-34). Winter refuge areas created by LWD.c Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio 25-26 on lower main stem.c Streambank Condition 4C In lower main ~50% lower gradient streams in subbasin stem measured, widened, aggraded, braided due to coarse erosion of sediment; many channels on main stem segment M1a overwidened w/unstable, eroding banks; in was <20% lower main stem measured, erosion was 75% in segment (M1b).c Floodplain 4C Stream channelized, Main Line logging Connectivity road (RM 0 - 4.5) constrains movement.b Along main stem overwintering oxbow stranded by road CZ 1000c Flow-Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Increase in Drainage Network
Watershed Conditions Road Density and 4C Main Line logging road (RM 0 - Location 4.5) valley bottom. Road density = 4.8 linear mi/sq mib Disturbance History Nearly all watershed harvested beginning 1930s-40s (main stem Sekiu in 1950s) resulting in channel widening and migration (little channel migration on main stem since 1972) most channels clearcut w/ no riparian buffersc
TABLE H-10 (continued). KNOWN CONDITIONS IN SEKIU RIVER
303d Not Properly Pathway/Indicators Listing Properly Functioning At Risk Functioning Watershed Conditions (continued) Riparian Reserves High proportion of young mixed species stands results in poor short term LWD
potential. c Estuarine Conditions
Habitat Quantity/ Quality Remnant patches of old- growth maintained along shoreline and as riparian buffer around Carpenter Creek; Areal Extent High quality kelp beds recently increased by 20-90%.b Hydrologic Conditions/ Sediment and Nutrient Input Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen, 2 DO/a Temperature, Nutrients, Chemical Contamination Sediments Exotic Species That Are Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
a. 303d 2002-2004 list. b. Smith 2001 Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 19. c. WA DNR Watershed Analysis. Note: Highlighted items indicate that a determination needs to be made whether “at risk” or “not properly functioning” is the appropriate designation.