105

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Chapter 90.82 RCW-Watershed Planning .......................................107

APPENDIX 2: Memorandum of Understanding .......................................................109

APPENDIX 3: Ground Rules For WRIA 19 ..............................................................117

APPENDIX 4: Intergovernmental Agreement ..........................................................121

APPENDIX 5: Public Information & Education Plan ..............................................127

APPENDIX 6: Citizen & Tribal Interviews ...............................................................129

APPENDIX 7: Crescent Water Association Report ..................................................139

APPENDIX A: WRIA-Wide Technical Information ............................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: Subbasin Descriptions ........................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: Hydrology .......................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX E: Instream Flow Methods/Reserve Q&A ............................................E-1

APPENDIX F: Habitat ................................................................................................. F-1

APPENDIX G: Salmon Recovery Actions by Watershed ........................................ H-1

106

(Intentionally Left Blank)

107

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

Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this

chapter. (1) "Department" means the department of ecology. (2) "Implementing rules" for a WRIA plan are the rules needed to give force and effect to the

parts of the plan that create rights or obligations for any party including a state agency or that establish water management policy.

108

(3) "Minimum instream flow" means a minimum flow under chapter 90.03 or 90.22 RCW or a base flow under chapter 90.54 RCW.

(4) "WRIA" means a water resource inventory area established in chapter 173-500 WAC as it existed on January 1, 1997.

(5) "Water supply utility" means a water, combined water-sewer, irrigation, reclamation, or public utility district that provides water to persons or other water users within the district or a division or unit responsible for administering a publicly governed water supply system on behalf of a county.

(6) "WRIA plan" or "plan" means the product of the planning unit including any rules adopted in conjunction with the product of the planning unit.

109

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.

110

• 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

� 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

� 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.

The statewide leads will also serve as a resource to the local state caucuses for dispute resolution, as needed.

111

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.

• 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

112

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.

o 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):

Good faith participation: Participating agencies accept the responsibility to participate in local state caucus meetings and technical assistance groups in good faith.

113

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:

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

114

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.

115

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

116

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

117

APPENDIX 3

Ground Rules for WRIA 19 Watershed Planning Unit

Final (8/10/03)

I. Definitions

A) 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.

B) 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.

C) Quorum: The number of members of a body that must be present in order to conduct official business (e.g., decision making).

D) Committee: A committee established and appointed by the Planning Unit(s) and/or the Initiating Governments to address a specific issue or problem.

E) 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 participate 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.

118

III. Membership

A. The Initiating Governments of WRIA 19 shall consist of one member and one alternate from each of the following groups: Clallam County, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Makah Tribe, and PUD #1 of Clallam County.

B. The WRIA 19 Planning Unit shall consist of:

1. WRIA 19 Initiating Government representatives and alternates, and 2. 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.

C. Support Staff will be non-voting members of the Planning Unit IV. 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.

V. Meeting Procedure A. 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.

B. 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.

119

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 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.

F. 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.

G. A quorum of the Planning Unit shall consist of 2 IG’s and 5 stakeholders present and

voting.

H. 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.

VI. 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: A. Participants agree to act in “good faith” in all aspects of the process. B. 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.

C. 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.

120

D. The focus of discussion will be on interests and concerns rather than on positions and

demands. E. Participants commit to fully explore issues, searching for solutions in a problem-solving

atmosphere. F. 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.

G. Participants will refrain from attacks and/or characterizations directed at people,

organizations, and/or subjects under consideration. VII. 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: Section/Subsection Amended Date Amended Synopsis of Amendment

121

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 PUD #1 of Clallam County.

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

WHEREAS, the Lyre-Hoko Basins have been designated by the State as WRIA 19; and

122

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 PUD #1 of Clallam County. 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.

d. The Initiating Governments shall not acquire real property. Any personal property acquired for use by the Initiating Governments may be acquired

123

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.

124

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 PUD #1 of Clallam County, 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.

125

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

126

State or federal law or Indian Treaties. These estimates cannot be used to limit, 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: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________ BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________

BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________

MAKAH TRIBE DATE: ________________________

BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE DATE: ________________________

BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________

PUD #1 of CLALLAM COUNTY DATE: ________________________

BY: __________________________________ POSITION: ____________________________

END OF DOCUMENT

127

APPENDIX 5

Public Information & Education Plan: WRIA 19 & 20 Initiating Governments, 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:

128

(Intentionally Left Blank)

129

APPENDIX 6

Citizen & Tribal Interveiws

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

130

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 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 clams due to recreational digging.

• Historically the Pysht River supported populations of steelhead and cutthroat trout, as well as dog (chum), 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 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!

131

• 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.

• 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 (timber) scalers 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.

132

– 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

– 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.

– 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.

133

– 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

– 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.

134

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.

• 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.

135

• 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 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.

136

• 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.

• 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.

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.

137

• 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.

• 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 old growth 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 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.

Tribal Information

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

138

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.

• 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.

139

APPENDIX 7

Crescent Water Association Report

November 18, 2008

Re: “Existing Water Rights Overview” on page 19 of November 14, 2008, WRIA 19 DRAFT Watershed Plan

From Page 19: “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 889 memberships, had an average daily water demand of 171.56 gallons per customer for the year 2007.

171.56 gallons (average daily demand) x 889 (customers) = 152,516.84 gallons (daily demand on system). 152,516.84 gallons (daily system demand) divided by 7.48 (gallons per cubic foot) = 20,389.95 cubic feet divided by 1440 (minutes per day) = 14.1596875 cubic feet per minute divided by 60 (seconds in one minute) = 0.23599479166 cfs (cubic feet per second)

Thus, during 2007 the Crescent Water Association, with 889 customers, utilized an average of 0.23599479166 cfs of water from the Lyre River.

From Page 19: “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 2007 was 171.56 gallons.

171.56 gallons (average daily demand) divided by 7.48 (gallons per cubic foot) = 22.935828877 (cubic feet per customer per day) divided by 1440 (minutes in one day) = 0.01592765894 (cubic feet per minute) divided by 60 (seconds in one minute) = 0.00026546098 cfs (cubic feet per second).

Thus, during 2007, using an average daily demand, each member of the Crescent Water Association utilized 0.000265 cfs.

140

From Page 19: “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