Definition of the Issue
Instream flows are an optional element under 2514 Watershed Planning. The Chehalis Basin Partnership elected to include the instream flow element in its watershed plan because the group believes there are a number of issues surrounding instream flows in the watershed, and a State funding source became available to fund instream flow-related work. This grant funding requires that the Partnership make some recommendation related to instream flows by September 30, 2003.
In 1976, regulatory minimum flows were set for 31 control stations1 in the Chehalis Watershed (WRIAs 22 and 23) under Chapter 173-522 WAC [Washington Administrative Code (WAC)]. A WRIA is shorthand for a "Water Resource Inventory Area". There are 62 WRIAs in the state. Together, WRIAs 22 and 23 comprise the entire 2,520 square mile Chehalis river watershed.)
The intent of setting these flows was to provide security that "base flows," or low summer flows (June through late September), would be retained to provide for preservation of fish and wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic (scenic) uses.
The watershed planning process identified the following specific issues concerning instream flows in the Chehalis Basin:
Stream flow has not been measured regularly at most of the regulatory control points, making it impossible to determine whether regulatory flows are actually being met.
There is a perception that the actual flows are regularly below regulatory flows at many locations in the watershed.
Water quality problems (especially temperature) that have been identified in the watershed may be related to low summer flows.
Habitat studies have identified low summer flows as potentially problematic for fish.
What questions are we trying to answer?
The watershed planning process identified the following specific issues concerning Department of Ecology's (Ecology) management of instream flows in the basin:
What do the regulatory minimum flows mean and what was their intended use?
Are the regulatory minimum flows being met? Everywhere? If not, where?
What happens when the regulatory minimum flows are not met?
In the future should Ecology direct water right holders with water rights issued after the regulatory minimum flows were established to stop diverting water when river flows fall below the regulatory minimum flows (i.e., enforcement)?
Do the current regulatory minimum flows provide the desired quality of fish habitat, as related to stream flow?
Should changes be made to the existing regulatory minimum flows?
What does it mean when a basin is closed?
Has Ecology implemented the Water Resources Program developed for the Chehalis basin in 1976 (the study upon which the existing regulatory minimum flows are based)? Are there additional management actions Ecology should take?
Are there any basins where new regulatory flows should be established such that Ecology would be requested not to issue water rights when flows reach a certain level (i.e. threshold)?
The ultimate issue for the Chehalis Basin Partnership is to determine what the Partnership wants to recommend to Ecology concerning instream flows to meet its responsibilities under its 2514 Instream Flow Grant.
What is the legal background to instream flows?
The Water Resources Act of 1971, in the laws of the state of Washington called Chapter 90.54 RCW, directed Ecology to develop and implement a comprehensive state water resources program to insure that the waters of the state are utilized for the best interests of the people of the state. Ecology took an initial step to carry out this law in the Chehalis Basin by conducting a study of water rights and stream flows in the basin. The agency published this study in November 1975.2
In 1976, Ecology conducted a public rulemaking process that incorporated scientific and policy recommendations from the Chehalis Basin study into state regulations (the WAC). This regulation implements state law and generally speaking have the force of law. WAC 173-522 established a "comprehensive water resources program" for the Chehalis Basin.3 The major elements of this program are as follows:
It established base flow water rights (commonly known as "minimum instream flows") for 31 Chehalis subbasins with a priority date of 10 March 1976. The purpose of these base flows is to protect fish, game, birds or other wildlife, and recreational or aesthetic values.
It closed some streams and river reaches in the Chehalis basin for issuance of additional consumptive surface water rights based on a determination that there were no waters available for additional withdrawals without impairing base flows. The 23 closed basins are listed in Table 1:
| |
||
| May 1 - Oct 31 | Beaver Creek, tributary to SF Newaukum
Beaver Creek, tributary to Black River rrBunker Creek Dempsey Creek Dillenbaugh Creek Hanaford Creek Hope Creek and Garrard Creek Kearney Creek Lincoln Creek |
Middle Fork Newaukum River
Mill Creek Mox Chehalis Salmon Creek Rock Creek Scatter Creek Stearns Creek Wildcat Creek Williams Creek Wynoochee River |
| July 1 - September 30 | Black River
Skookumchuck River |
South Fork Chehalis River
Salzer Creek |
| Note: Affected reach is from mouth to headwaters and includes all tributaries in the contributing drainage area unless specifically excluded |
It created one exception to the basin closures listed in Table 1. The exception is that, in cases where there is no alternative source of water supply, Ecology may issue new consumptive rights for domestic use (per Ecology interpretation, this means in-house use) and for normal stock watering use.
The program assumed that in basins other than those listed in Table 1, waters would be available for the issuance of new water rights subject to minimum instream flows.
The regulation authorizes Ecology to stop or limit withdrawals by those who hold surface water rights issued after 10 March 1976 (these are called "junior rights"4) from withdrawing water when flow falls below the regulatory minimum flows (as the law says "in times of water shortage"). The regulation also provides Ecology with the authority to limit withdrawals beginning with the latest priority date first (the last water right issued) and working backward [until all junior water rights are limited or] the agency is satisfied that flows will be met. There is one exception to this last-to-first priority system, for domestic uses. That is, Ecology must stop other right holders from withdrawing before asking domestic right holders to limit their withdrawals. Domestic uses include irrigation of lawns and noncommercial gardens not to exceed one half acre and livestock use, excluding feedlot operations.
It stated that Ecology has no authority to interrupt valid senior water (rights with a priority date prior to 10 March 1976) even during times of water shortage.
It required Ecology to revise the base flows through a public rule making process, if the Department of Fish and Wildlife should provide Ecology with information that higher flows than the base flows are needed.
How was the final adopted regulation different that the proposed program?
Ecology has managed the program in various ways depending on staffing, budget, and political pressure. In addition, there are some differences among the water resources program recommendations in the 1975 Chehalis study and the program as established by the WAC 173-522 regulations. Understanding some of these differences may assist the Chehalis Basin Partnership as it develops the instream flow recommendations to be included in its Watershed Management Plan.
Some of the more significant differences are as follows:5
Restrictions on "Junior Rights ": The 1975 study recommended that all surface water rights issued after 1976 carry the proviso that the holders will stop diverting water when the flows fall below the level necessary to meet the regulatory minimum flow. Ecology has included a proviso in all junior surface water rights and some junior ground water rights issued since 1976 stating that these rights may be interrupted when river flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows, not that the holders will stop diverting.
Base Flow Monitoring : Ecology has not monitored base flows at most regulatory control stations in the Chehalis Basin regularly. Therefore, Ecology does not systematically gather or maintain an information base to use in applying its authority to restrict withdrawals by junior right holders when base flows are not met. (See the previous bulleted point and fifth bullet in previous section.)
Use of Available Flow Information : Although there is no systematic program to monitor actual river flows relative to regulatory minimum flows, Ecology does receive information from time-to-time indicating instream water rights (i.e. regulatory base flows) are not being met. The agency has not used this information to manage withdrawals in order to maintain instream flows.
No Interruption of Withdrawals to Protect Flows (that is, no enforcement) : Ecology has no program in the Chehalis Basin to use its authority to require junior water right holders to stop diverting water when regulatory base flows are not met. Ecology has implemented such programs in other basins in the state.
Informal Closures : Although Ecology does not maintain a systematic system of monitoring flows, the agency is aware that data from mainstream Chehalis flow monitoring stations indicate that actual flows are periodically below minimum regulatory flows. Ecology has recognized the low flow problem by adopting a cautious policy regarding issuance of new rights in those basins not already closed by the WAC (see No. 4 above). In the Upper Chehalis, Ecology strongly discourages potential applicants from pursuing new water rights and encourages those seeking to satisfy new water needs to acquire existing valid rights. In essence, this policy constitutes an informal closure of the Upper Chehalis Basin to issuance of new rights.
Water Ledger : The 1975 study recommended that Ecology develop and maintain a tracking system, so that all consumptive rights issued after 1976 would be deducted from water available for appropriation. This was intended to place a limit on appropriations in the "open" basins (see No. 4, above). Ecology tracked the amount of water appropriated for each stream reach in ledger book fashion for several years following 1976. Subsequently they abandoned the tracking system after determining that the ledger book approach was not scientifically based and appropriate for water management.
Modification of Base Flows for Fish and Wildlife : To date, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has not requested modification to the current regulatory instream flows. However, the Instream flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) studies currently underway at 12 locations in the basin will provide habitat information that could lead to such recommendations. It certainly will assist the Partnership in determining what flow levels are protective of fish. It should be noted that current State and Federal law holds that Indian Tribes retain instream flow water rights to protect reserved hunting and fishing rights with a priority date of time immemorial.6
What technical resources are available relative to instream flows?
The technical data available to assist with evaluation of the Instream Flow issue in the Chehalis Watershed fall into the two categories: "Available Stream flow Data" and "Fish Needs related to Low Flows."
Available Stream Flow Data
A minimum 10-year record is desirable to evaluate performance of the stream. However, as mentioned previously, stream flow is not systematically measured at many of the 31 regulatory control points in the watershed.7 (See Table 2.) More gauging was done historically, but many of these sites were deactivated prior to 1983, making the data from these sites 20 years old. In addition, many of the old gauges were active for just a short time during the 1940-1970 period. The Chehalis Basin Partnership undertook a flow monitoring study during summer 2002 (Tetra Tech/KCM and Triangle Associates, in press) that provided one summer's worth of flow data for 14 control stations, 12 of which had no prior flow data.
2SUMMARY OF CHEHALIS WATERSHED REGULATORY CONTROL POINT FLOW DATA |
|
| Active flow gauge | 8 sites |
| Inactive Gauge, > 10-year record | 4 sites |
| Inactive Gauge, < 10-year record | 7 sites |
| No flow data prior to Summer, 2002 | 12 sites |
Available flow data indicate that actual river flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows at many control stations in the Chehalis Watershed. Ecology documented that for the station on the Chehalis River near Porter, actual river flows have dropped below the regulatory minimum flows regularly (Table 3). Table 3 lists the percentage of days historically when river flows were below the regulatory minimum flow for each time period. This compilation indicates that river flows have been below the regulatory minimum flow nearly half the time from May through July at the Porter station. During the rest of the year, actual river flows have dropped below the regulatory minimums less frequently.
| |
|
| January 1-15
January 16-31 February 1-15 February 16-28 March 1-15 March 16-31 April 1-15 April 16-30 May 1-15 May 16-31 June 1-15 June 16-30 July 1-15 July 16-31 August 1-15 August 16-31 September 1-15 September 16-30 October 1-15 October 16-31 November 1-15 November 16-30 December 1-15 December 16-31 |
8%
10% 7% 2% 5% 10% 15% 29% 36% 45% 46% 43% 38% 46% 33% 15% 14% 10% 12% 11% 13% 12% 8% 11% |
| 1Data taken from Ecology, 1995, Initial Watershed Assessment Water Resource Inventory Area 23, Upper Chehalis River (Table 4 on page 20). This data is for the 1952-1991 period. |
Flow hydrographs for other control stations with available data indicate that actual flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows at other stations as well. For stations with enough flow data to evaluate, the pattern varies by station and throughout the year. Records available for 19 of the 31 control stations indicate that during the low flow season, the actual river flows have been below the regulatory flows up to 50% of the time8.
Flow data were collected for the first time during summer 2002 at 12 control stations in the Chehalis Watershed (Tetra Tech/KCM and Triangle Associates, 2003, in press). The results from this gauging program vary by station, but flows dropped below the regulatory minimum flows at most sites by the middle of August and stayed below until early November. This very limited data set is not enough to provide a statistically valid basis for predicting how often actual flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows at these sites. However, comparing summer, 2002, flow data from long-established gauging sites with the historical records for that site provides some context for the seasonal flow pattern experienced in the Chehalis watershed during the summer, 2002. This comparison indicates that flows were slightly below average (50%) for the June-July period, and then dropped to very low flow levels for the August-early November period.
Ecology and WDFW are currently conducting an instream flow habitat study known as an IFIM study (Instream Flow Incremental Methodology). This study will be specific to six river reaches: Humptulips, Black River, East Fork Hoquiam, Satsop, Skookumchuck, and upper Chehalis River. The study will produce information about ideal flows for fish in those rivers, based on specific information on velocity, depth, substrate, and cover. Results from the IFIM study should be available during fall of 2003. In addition, the state will review an earlier IFIM study the then Department of Fisheries conducted on six sites for the Chehalis River between Elk Creek and the Newaukum River, the Newaukum River (South Fork, North Fork and Newaukum River), Cloquallum Creek, and the Wishkah River.
What are the needs of fish in regards to water and flow?
In a fish species' life history, all flow stages are important: high flow in winter; medium flows in spring to ensure out-migration to the ocean; enough flow in summer for rearing juveniles and flow in late summer/early fall for returning spawning adults.
A flow regime that most benefits fish and aquatic systems is one that, in general, mimics the natural regime. The natural flow regime of the Chehalis River basin is driven by rainfall, which is greatest November through February. Saturated soils, limited snow pack in the upper Newaukum, Skookumchuck, Wynoochee, and Humptulips, combined with continued rainfall into spring months keep flows moderately high in early spring, declining in late spring. By summer occasional rain and residual groundwater from winter rain feed the low flows, which gradually decline until the onset of fall rains.
Droughts actually contribute to habitat variability. Natural droughts can have both positive and negative impacts to fish. On the positive side, drought and dry periods favor the encroachment of trees, shrubs, and other organic matter into the streambed, which provides a source of food, cover, and build up of sediment. On the negative side, droughts often disrupt upstream fish migration, increase predation by birds and mammals, and reduce insect production that provides a source of food for fish. It confines fish, crowding them into a smaller space, usually at a time when water is warm. Low flows mean that water volume is reduced, and it heats up faster than a larger water body at the same air temperature. In warmer temperatures fish need more space, not less, as they are cold-blooded and have higher metabolic demands (they need more food and oxygen). Thus at the higher temperatures, fish eventuallycease to feed,stop growing, and eventually die.
Low flows historically have received the most attention by planning groups, such as the Chehalis Basin Partnership, who have agreed to take on the instream flow issue. Setting a minimum instream flow (as opposed to a more natural, year-round pattern) has likewise been the approach of the State of Washington in an attempt to ensure that at least some minimum amount of water remains in the stream for fish returning to spawn while allowing for other out-of-stream uses. Generally, low flow periods of the year are when the greatest conflict is seen between the water users and the needs of fish.
A regime that mimics flows at the essential life stages, which incorporates high flow and low flow elements, and which varies from year to year, as in nature, will most successfully allow fish species to co-exist with other water uses. Using a habitat simulation model which most nearly approximates the needs of fish at various flows and velocities, such as PHABSIM, will help the Planning Unit analyze the impacts of various flow regimes on fish habitat while considering other uses of water.
What are some potential solutions & a toolbox?
The potential solutions identified in this paper fall into two categories: recommending changes/additions to the existing regulatory flow, or proposing management actions that would help restore water back into the basin's rivers and streams. As a decision-making tool, the group also proposes a No Action alternative against which to gauge the other solutions. These solutions are listed below, and each alternative is described in the following section.
Leave regulatory minimum flows as they are.
Amend or add to existing regulatory instream flows (including using IFIM studies to consider setting instream flows for 6-12 additional stream segments).
Recommend additional closure(s):
Place restrictions on exempt wells in basins already closed;
Change the way flows are managed;
Implement a non-regulatory flow restoration;
Conduct additional studies or monitoring.
Analysis of potential solutions:
Leave minimum flows where they are; no change to regulatory management of minimum flow program.
This is the status quo alternative from a regulatory perspective. The established regulatory minimum flows would remain as they are now. Those rights that are junior to the regulatory minimum flow could be interrupted during periods when river flows are below the regulatory minimum flows for that reach. Ground water rights can also be provisioned as interruptible if a field investigation determines them to have an impact on instream flows.
To date, Ecology has not required junior water right holders to stop diverting water during times when the river flows are below the regulatory minimum flows in the Chehalis watershed, even though Ecology has sometimes taken this approach to regulating regulatory minimum flows in other parts of the state.
By itself, the status quo alternative would not likely result in more water in the streams and rivers during low flow periods, unless Ecology began requiring junior water right holders to stop diverting water during times when the river flows are below the regulatory minimums.
B.Amend or add to existing regulatory flows
B1. Raise or lower the regulatory minimum flow in specific stream reaches
Raising the regulatory minimum flow could be a possible recommendation if the Partnership believed that the established regulatory minimum flows do not provide adequate protection to instream resources. The Ecology/WDFW team working on the IFIM study will produce flow recommendations for six sites within the watershed and possibly 6 others where data from the 1987 IFIM study is available. While results from that study are not available yet, it is likely that those flow recommendations will be higher than the existing regulatory minimum flows because the IFIM studies are focused on identifying ideal conditions for fish, whereas the regulatory minimum flows were set with less ambitious goals.
If the Partnership concluded that regulatory minimum flows should be higher than currently set, the new recommended flows could be set based on recommendations from the IFIM study or on any additional scientific or reasonable basis that supports raising the regulatory minimum flow.
Any new regulatory flow would carry a "paper" priority date of 1998 if recommended through the watershed plan, and, thus, be junior to most water right holders. This higher regulatory flow would not result in actual "wet" water, but could allow Ecology to apply a strict standard to future requests for water. However, based on Indian or federal reserved water rights, the Chehalis Tribe and Quinault Nation retain an instream flow right necessary to protect fishing and hunting rights. The tribal right to instream flows will likely be adjudicated or settled using the same IFIM methodology conducted by WDFD. Most significantly, the Tribal reserved right to instream flows will carry priority date of time immemorial. Thus, the only way to attain actual higher "wet" instream flows through regulatory means based on IFIM studies rests with the assertion of Indian or federal reserved water rights.
The IFIM study will produce recommendations for six sites, potentially twelve, but recommendations would have to be developed for the remaining 19 to 25 instream flow control stations in the Chehalis. This could be a major undertaking, as these studies must be site-specific. Doing a simplified habitat study to develop recommendations for the remaining sites is a possibility, but there is currently no modern-day precedent in Washington State for a simplified approach. One option would be to do a synthesized hydrograph whereby data would be extrapolated to other control points, probably based on watershed area.
B.2. Set new minimum flows for streams that do not currently have them .
The focus for this could be in urbanizing areas where streams and habitat are at the most risk of degradation. One useful exercise would be to consider setting instream flows in smaller tributaries in areas where future growth is anticipated. Most of the major rivers have flows set on them already. In its review of water rights applications, the State commonly will choose the closest downstream control point to set an instream flow, if the proposed water right is located on an upstream tributary that does not have a regulatory minimum flow set. Setting specific instream flows on tributaries would have the advantage of taking into account any individual characteristics of the streams such as groundwater influence. The areas that would be best to consider would be those areas that the Steering/Technical Committee has identified as anticipating growth and population increases.
C. Closure recommendations:
C.1. Closure of basins in addition to those already closed
Some streams are identified in Chapter 173-522 WAC (Table 1) as closed to any further appropriation. The Partnership may wish to identify additional streams or reaches that should be closed. These might be identified by reviewing historical hydrographs and specifying those streams which do not meet minimum flows for a substantial number of years. Any proposed closures should be reviewed closely with WDFW staff to protect fish resources.
C.2. Seasonal closures on specific stream reaches
Seasonal closures may be determined to be appropriate on additional stream and river reaches. Identification of these locations would require examination of hydrologic data (flow records, water diversions, upstream dam releases), as well as existing and potential fish habitat information. Where actual stream flows have frequently been below regulatory flows, it is also possible that the original regulatory flows were set at a higher level than elsewhere in the Chehalis Watershed.
C.3. Amending stream closure periods to address extended fall dry season
As it stands now, four reaches are closed for a 3 month period from July 1 to September 30 and nineteen are closed for a six month period, May 1 to Oct. 31. The Partnership might consider recommending closure of the first 4 for a six month period. This year was an abnormally dry November, however, the Partnership could consider extending the dry period to November 15, for instance.
D. Restrictions on exempt wells
In some parts of the state, Ecology has closed basins not only to surface water withdrawals, but also to any groundwater withdrawal, including exempt wells. An exempt well may draw up to 5000 gallons of water a day although most times is it is far less for a single family home. However, agricultural and industrial uses are not limited to 5,000 per day. It should also be noted that much of the water is returned to the ground via on site septic systems
In any basins where water is a critical concern for fish, if hydraulic continuity is established, and if it is shown that exempt wells in a subbasin are affecting instream flows, the Partnership might consider asking Ecology to take action on exempt wells (See Exempt Wells Issue Paper for further discussion).
Leave regulatory minimum flows as they are; change the way Ecology and others manage these flows.
E.1. Ecology should change the way it manages flows (regulate junior water users, better recordkeeping, fulfilling more of the provisions of the 1975 Program, etc.)
A possible recommendation is for Ecology to develop and implement a program to interrupt junior water rights during times when river flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows. Implementing such a program would require the following steps:
Identify all junior water right holders, and determine the use of each right;
Conduct pre-season forecasting to assess likelihood/severity of possible water right use interruptions;
Develop system to determine whether flows are above or below the minimum flows for specific stations, and how junior water right holders can determine whether it is legal for them to divert or withdraw water; (this could involve meters or some other method of measuring water use)
Notify junior water right holders of the possibility of water interruptions; provide them with necessary information so they can determine whether or not they can divert water
Conduct field survey work to map and document junior water right holder's water diversion and distribution systems to aid in assessing compliance during times when river flows drop below the regulatory minimum flows.
During the low flow season, update flow/interruption information daily.
During low flow season, conduct regular (weekly) inspections. Work with individual water right holders to achieve compliance with flow interruptions.
Just as an example, based on water right records, junior water rights total 198 cfs in the upper watershed (WRIA 23), and 44 cfs in the lower watershed. Average stream flows for the Chehalis River at the Grand Mound and Porter gauging stations for the lowest flow times of the year are in the 200 cfs and 300 cfs range respectively. Therefore, interruption of these junior water rights could significantly help increase base flows.
E.2. In conjunction with Ecology, develop an approach to integrate groundwater use into instream flow needs. This will require identification of "losing/gaining" stream reaches, and better quantification of hydraulic continuity. Conduct field investigation of the relationship between ground water withdrawals and instream flows in those areas where flows are frequently below regulatory minimums. Possibly do a study of the gaining and losing reaches of the basin. The purpose of this would be to identify areas where interruption of groundwater withdrawals might be an appropriate tool to maintain flows when river flows drop below regulatory minimum flows.
E . 3. Work with other agencies who manage natural resources and implement land management practices to conserve water.
Implement land management practices that retain water within the watershed to feed summer base flows (vegetation retention, stormwater management, low impact development practices)
Working with other agencies active in natural resource management, such as DNR, to include protection of base flows in their management decisions and practices. Consider land use practices that would better manage water, such as conservation toilets, protecting critical aquifers, restricting growth in critical stream reaches, etc.
Identifying and building upstream water storage projects to store water in higher flow times for release in low flow periods. Since this water is often fairly warm in temperature, and temperatures above about 18 degrees Centigrade can be toxic to fish, this water would probably be best used for agricultural uses such as stock watering and irrigation or for domestic lawn and landscape watering.
Implement a non regulatory base flow restoration program to formalize the goal of getting more flow back in the river during low flow periods.
Overall, this alternative would step away from the concept of regulatory minimum flows as a regulatory means to protect and restore fish habitat and would establish a new voluntary program for restoring base flows to the rivers. This system would be founded on the premise that, in most cases, more flow is better for fish habitat, and the program would be focused on getting more base flow into the rivers.
For such a program to be effective at returning flow to the rivers, there would have to be specific actions identified and implemented to increase base flows, and tracking systems to facilitate quantification of progress. Ideally, some target flows would be established for each reach, although if the premise behind this alternative is as simple as "more flow is better", it may be unnecessary to expend the effort to develop targets. Instead, this effort could be focused on prioritizing river sections where low flows are the most damaging to fish, and working to find ways to increase flows in those reaches.
Tracking the progress of the base flow restoration program would be critical to evaluating and documenting its success. This tracking system would need to quantify the expected water to be returned to the rivers by each action, and include subsequent downstream flow monitoring records to aid in assessing the impact of specific actions. Also very important would be identification of who will be responsible for implementing this program.
This alternative has good potential to increase base flows, utilizing a voluntary approach, if it is implemented. The potential downside to this alternative is that, since it is voluntary, it may not work. It may be difficult to find willing participants for actions that will result in significant river flow increases. Other actions that are more easily implemented, such as riparian corridor protection/restoration, may not produce measurable river flow increases.
An additional complexity of this alternative is that it does not address Ecology's regulatory minimum flows. The regulatory minimum flows would remain as they are now, with the uncertainty as to whether Ecology will ever regulate against junior water right holders.
It would be possible to modify the minimum flow regulation (WAC 173-522), to address this, perhaps by specifying that Ecology will not regulate against junior water right holders in control sections where those water right holders are cooperating in the base flow restoration program. This modification would be tricky to get adopted and implemented, however, and may delay implementation of the program.
Several options are listed below, all of which would need to be explored and developed more fully before implementing in the Chehalis Basin.
F1. Trust Water Rights Program (ability to transfer water to trust account and avoid relinquishment)
F2. Acquisition Program (water leasing and acquisition during drought years-need to have monies spent in our WRIA's) Acquisition and "retiring" active water rights
F3. Pursue actions to increase base flows such as the following (more could be identified):
Transferring active surface water rights to ground water sources that will have a delayed or minimal effect on river flow.
Dry year leases of water rights or portions of water rights
Changes in point of withdrawal or diversion; work with landowners to decide what is best for fish but still allows them the water use that they need;
F4. Water Banking (perhaps in conjunction with relinquishment)
F5. Relinquishment (need "active" relinquishment enforcement not just on complaint )
F6. Examine the language in the current regulatory minimum flow WAC to clarify its intended use and recommend changes.
G.Conduct additional study before committing to changes of the regulatory minimum flows, such as further monitoring or stream gauging in order to provide data for future management decisions.
The components/implications of this alternative would be the following:
The Partnership believes the regulatory minimum flows should be revised, but lacks adequate information to recommend what flows should be.
Specific additional studies would be recommended such as:
Continued flow monitoring.
Simulation of "natural" flows (what river flows would be prior to water diversions, groundwater use, and vegetation changes).
Fish habitat studies, such as IFIM or others, to assess habitat needs and potential as related to flow.
Specific water right and water use information to better quantify how much water is removed from the rivers. This could include field surveys to locate all diversions, possibly some illegal.
Groundwater studies to evaluate the impact of groundwater withdrawals and land use activities (such as increasing impervious areas) on river flows.
Chehalis Basin Partnership STC
DRAFT Suggested Interim Instream Flow Approach & Information
Introduction: Process
The STC recommends the process outlined in the flow chart below in forming the final recommendation to the State. There has been some stakeholder input from CBP meetings, publicity and Study Area meetings, but the focus to date has been on habitat and instream needs, technical analysis and recommendations. The CBP feels that for final recommendations to be made, after all information is compiled and analyzed there must be additional stakeholder input to any final recommendation.
Draft Instream Flow Recommendation
Current regulatory flows should be retained; the CBP wishes to preserve the 1976 priority date for those flow levels.
After analysis of new and existing information (see #5 below), the CBP will consider recommending flow levels for streams with no regulatory minimums or adding incremental flows to existing regulatory minimums. Any new recommendations adopted by the State that are higher would carry a 1998 priority date for the additional flow increment.
Request that WDFW/Ecology, in consultation w/tribes and CBP members, recommend instream flow levels for all control stations. In addition to current stream hydrology and IFIM results, both the historic, "natural" stream flow level and flow levels less than 100% optimum for fish should be considered. Those agencies should consider the strategy of dry-year and wet-year flow numbers, as well as the possibility of "target" flows.
CBP adopts the following philosophy (possibly as an expansion of its existing mission, goals and objectives) for how to approach setting stream flow levels:
Recommended new regulatory minimum instream flows in the Chehalis Basin should represent flows that provide a healthy environment for fish and other aquatic life (related to flow conditions), and that strive for the flow levels that occurred in the stream prior to European settlement. Definitions for the two components in this statement (healthy environment for fish, and pre-European flows) need to be formulated.
These flows should be measured and monitored. The results will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make necessary adjustments.
A focus should be placed on gauging and increasing summer-time flows into the streams and rivers of the basin. Questions to consider (documented responses from agencies/tribes would be beneficial):
What is a healthy environment for fish?
What flows occurred prior to European settlement?
Enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations would assist greatly in achieving flow levels that are adequate for fish and people.
In the implementation stages of the watershed planning process, CBP will consider recommending flow levels for streams with no regulatory minimums, or adding incremental flows to existing regulatory minimums, using information from the following:
CBP goals and objectives and the above instream flow philosophy
Existing flow data
Out-of-stream uses
IFIM flow study results
Estimates of pre-European flows
Recommendations from Ecology/WDFW, in consultation with tribes
Possible strategy of dry-year and wet-year flow numbers
Ecology/EPA/USGS should monitor flows at all 31 sites:
| Table 1-1. Summary of Available Data for Chehalis Basin COntrol Points | |||
| Control Point | - | ||
| 1. Black River | - | ||
| 2. Cedar Creek | - | ||
| 3. Charley Creek | - | ||
| 4. Chehalis River at Grand Mound | - | ||
| 5. Chehalis River at Porter | - | ||
| 6. Chehalis River below Confluence with Satsop River | - | ||
| 7. Chehalis River | - | ||
| 8. Chehalis River Confluence with Elk Creek | - | ||
| 9. Chehalis River, South Fork | - | ||
| 10. Cloquallum Creek | - | ||
| 11. Decker Creek | - | ||
| 12. Elk Creek | - | ||
| 13. Elk River | - | ||
| 14. Hoquiam River, East Fork | - | ||
| 15. Hoquiam River, Middle Fork | - | ||
| 16. Hoquiam River, West Fork | - | ||
| 17. Humptulips River | - | ||
| 18. Johns River | - | ||
| 19. Newaukum River | - | ||
| 20. Newaukum River, North Fork | - | ||
| 21. Newaukum River, South Fork | - | ||
| 22. Newskah Creek | - | ||
| 23. Porter Creek | - | ||
| 24. Salzer Creek | - | ||
| 25. Satsop River | - | ||
| 26. Satsop River, East Fork | - | ||
| 27. Satsop River, Middle Fork | - | ||
| 28. Skookumchuck River | - | ||
| 29. Wishkah River | - | ||
| 30. Wishkah River, East Fork | - | ||
| 31. Wynoochee River | - | ||
| - | - | ||
| a.Current-meter measurements |
| Voluntary Effort | |
|
|
| Use volunteers to conduct flow gauging in 2003 and (possibly) beyond at 15 sites | Data acquisition during the 2002 low flow season will be continued and provide an important continuum of data for the basin | Logging of data and placement of this data in a database. | - |
| Education/Information | - | - | - |
| Water trusts | - | - | - |
| Conservation | - | - | - |
| Others?? | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | NOTE: This plan will attempt to gauge the success of voluntary efforts and consider added measures to achieve water resource goals and needs. |
| - | - | - | - |
(Placeholder): The new flows that should be established by rule are as follows:
| Stream/River | |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| Basin | |
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - |
| - | - | - | - |
References
Annear, Tom, et al. 2002. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship. Instream Flow Council.
Bunn, Stuart and Angela Arthington. 2002. Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity. Environmental Management Vol. 30: No. 4. pp 492-507.
Envirovision Corporation. 2000. Chehalis Basin Level 1 Assessment. Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Partnership.
Hare, John. 1997. Indian Water Rights: An Analysis of Current and Pending Indian Water Rights Settlements, B.I.A.
Pevar, S. 1992. The Rights of Indians and Tribes, ACLU pp.209-226.
Quinn, J.W., and T.J. Kwak. 2003. Fish assemblage changes in an Ozark river after impoundment: a long-term perspective. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 110-119.
Sly, P. 1988. Reserved Water Rights Settlement Manual, Island Press.
Tetra Tech/KCM and Triangle Associates. 2003. In press. Chehalis Watershed Instream Flow Study. Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Partnership.
Tetra Tech/KCM and Triangle Associates. 2001. Detailed Summary of the Chehalis Basin Level 1 Assessment. Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Partnership.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1995. Initial Watershed Assessment Water Resource Inventory Area 23, Upper Chehalis River. Open-File Technical Report 95-03. 67 p.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1975. Chehalis River Basin Water Resources Management Program.. Basin Program Series 2. 93 p.
Primary Authors: Cynthia Carlstad, Terra Hegy, Lee Daneker, Kahle Jennings, Jon Hare
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council