CONCEPT DOCUMENT

WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT

INSTREAM FLOW SELECTION METHODOLOGY SYMPOSIUM

PURPOSE:  The purpose of the Instream Flow Selection Methodology Symposium is to identify how instream flow modeling results can be used as a management tool to identify and protect an ecological flow regime throughout Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1) in the context of the multiple demands of out-of-stream water users and federal, state, and tribal laws. 

BACKGROUND: The overall goal of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project is to have water of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of current and future human generations.  This goal includes the restoration of salmon, steelhead, and trout populations to healthy and harvestable levels, and the improvement of the habitats upon which fish rely.  An essential step in achieving this goal is to develop the technical information necessary to evaluate instream and out-of-stream needs.  This technical information must be considered in light of legal and policy considerations to determine how to meet the overall goal of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project.

The goal of the instream flow analysis element of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project is to accurately estimate the relationship between stream flow and fish habitat quantity and quality for different fish species and life stages, and the maintenance of ecological health at selected locations throughout WRIA 1.  The instream flow analysis can be generally described as being comprised of the following three interrelated parts:

1. Identification of Methods to Estimate the Relation Between Stream Flow and Fish Habitat Quantity and Quality in WRIA 1
2. Apply Selected Estimation Method(s)
3. Selection of Instream Flow Levels

Substantial progress in Part 1 and Part 2 has been made over the past two years.  These first two parts of the process are focused on developing the scientific data necessary to define a reliable relationship between instream flows in streams and rivers throughout WRIA 1 and fish habitat quality and quantity.  The selection of flows (Part 3) will be accomplished after the work conducted in Part 2 has recommended flow levels.  The bulleted items below summarize the steps taken to date in WRIA 1. 

Part 1:

• A WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project Instream Flow Methods Conference was held on September 15-17, 1999.  National experts in the field of instream flow analysis gathered to discuss and recommend the most appropriate methods to be used to collect and analyze instream flow data for WRIA 1.  The panel of experts agreed that an ecological flow regime (see Attachment A) is needed to preserve, protect, and restore the physical, biological, and chemical processes that form and maintain fish habitat.  The experts agreed that each of the components of an ecological flow regime (i.e., water quality maintenance flow, fisheries baseflow, channel maintenance flows, riparian maintenance flow, and valley maintenance flow – see Attachment A) are essential for maintaining the ecological health of the stream system.  The results of this conference were documented in a peer-reviewed report completed in March 2000 (Hardy 2000) [http://wria1project.wsu.edu/documents/ISFPlan.pdf].
• A Utah State University technical team, under the leadership of Dr. Thom Hardy, was selected to complete the instream flow studies.

Part 2:

• Field sampling was initiated during the summer of 2000 and continues to date.  During 2000 and 2001 the Utah State University field crews have collected field data at 22 “intensive” sites and five “rapid assessment” sites recommended by the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project Instream Flow and Fish Habitat technical teams.
• A Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC) Workshop was held on October 10-12, 2000.  This workshop brought national, state, and local experts together to select the HSCs to be used in modeling the WRIA 1 instream flow data.
• Modeling/analysis of the collected field data was initiated during the summer of 2001.

As described above, Part 1 and Part 2 of the instream flow analysis are well underway.  These data collection and analysis efforts are some of the tools needed to understand, identify, and evaluate the relationship between streamflow and fish habitat in WRIA 1. 

Part 3:

Part 3 of the instream flow analysis element of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project will be focused on the following four objectives:

1. To identify the methods that will be used to select the ecological flow regime for locations throughout WRIA 1. 
2. To ensure that the Planning Unit and the general public have a clear understanding of how different environmental variables (e.g., water quality, water quantity, ecological flow regimes, fish habitat) will be used when recommending and setting flows. 
3. To identify the mechanisms (e.g., technical, legal, policy) that will be used to ensure that the selected ecological flow regime occurs. 
4. To select the instream flow levels that will be incorporated into the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. 

The first step in Part 3 will be an Instream Flow Selection Methodology Symposium.

SYMPOSIUM FORMAT: The two-day Instream Flow Selection Methodology Symposium will include technical, legal, and policy presentations by panels of experts.  The symposium presentations, which will include question and answer periods, will be followed by a roundtable discussion of the panelists in an attempt to integrate the technical, legal, and policy elements of a selection methodology. 

The symposium presentations will be summarized in a written report that will be distributed to project participants (e.g., Staff Team, Technical Teams, Planning Unit, general public) a few weeks after the symposium.  Following the distribution of the report, perhaps during the next regularly scheduled Planning Unit meeting, the Planning Unit representatives from the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project will be asked to describe, based on what they gathered both from the pre-symposium packet of information and the panel presentations at the symposium, how they think the instream flows that comprise the ecological flow regime should be selected and protected throughout WRIA 1. 

Following this Planning Unit meeting, which will likely occur about a month after the two-day symposium, the members of the Joint Board will meet to discuss the two-day symposium and the results of the Planning Unit meeting.  The Joint Board will then give the Staff Team direction on how, based on the pre-symposium packet of information, panel presentations during the symposium, and the subsequent roundtable discussions, the instream flows that comprise an ecological flow regime should be selected and protected.  The Staff Team will then draft a document that describes the proposed action plan for selecting and protecting an ecological flow regime for locations throughout WRIA 1.  The draft document will be circulated among the participants in the expert panels from the Symposium and the Planning Unit for review and comment.  Based on comments from the reviewers, the action plan will be finalized and sent to the Planning Unit and Joint Board for adoption.  The general schedule is presented in Attachment B.

The topics to be addressed by the technical, legal, and policy panels during the Symposium and by the Planning Unit representatives during the subsequent roundtable are identified below.  A list of possible participants is also identified for each panel.  Please note that the listing of possible participants is not complete and we are seeking suggestions for other panelists so that each panel includes perspectives from federal, tribal, state, and local governments as well as the private sector.  Also note that preparatory materials will be distributed to Symposium participants (i.e., panelist, Staff Team, Technical Teams, Planning Unit members, and the general public) prior to the symposium.  These materials and the purpose of the Symposium may be discussed as needed with Planning Unit members or others in advance of the Symposium.  This will be done to enhance the ability of community members to fully benefit from the workshop.

Technical Panel:

• Topics to be Addressed:
• What functional categories comprise an ecological flow regime?
• How have the flows that comprise an ecological flow regime been selected in other places?
• For recommended ecological flow regimes in other places, how have natural variations in flow both during a year and between years been addressed?

How might other beneficial uses of water or other factors (e.g. historic channel modifications or landuse changes) influence recommendations for an ecological flow regime?  Early Data Need (EDN) results and associated WRIA 1 data (e.g. water quality, quantity, or fish habitat) or examples from other basins will be used to illustrate relationships and associated data needs.

Possible Participants:

• Dr. Thomas Hardy, Utah State University
• Dr. Robert Vadas, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Dr. Hal Beecher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Brad Caldwell, Washington Department of Ecology
• Michael Barclay, Duke Engineering and Services
• Dan Tonnes, National Marine Fisheries Service
• Paul Bakke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Brian Richter, Biohydrology Program, The Nature Conservancy
• Lance Vail, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Monica Gowan, (Affiliation not identified yet)
• Jeff Cedarholm, Washington Department of Natural Resources
• Chris Northcut, Olympic Environmental Consulting
• Pat Larsen, Oregon State University
• Dudley Reiser, R2 Resources Consultants
• Don Orth, Virginia Tech
• Tom Annear, Wyoming Department of Fish and Game

Legal Panel:

Topics to be Addressed:

1. Overview of State Legal Considerations

• What approaches are available for setting flows?
• How does the State quantify and select instream flows and ensure that they are achieved?
• How much flexibility does the State having in setting instream flows, for example:
  • Can one geographic area be held to a higher or lower standard than another area?
  • Does the whole WRIA need to be considered at one time or can there be a phased approach?
• Once established, if new information suggests changes are needed, what is the process for making changes (if any)?
• How does State law refer to instream flows?
• How would the state deal with the legal status of instream flow claims with a time immemorial priority date as described by the tribes?
• What is the State process for setting instream flows and how would it work under the WRIA 1 Project if a decision were made to change instream flows?
• How does the State currently allocate water using existing instream flows

2.      Overview of Federal Legal Considerations

• What Federal laws affect the process of setting instream flows?
• What are the relationships between instream flows and compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act?
• What is the relationship between instream flows and tribal rights?
• What is the relationship between instream flows and other federally reserved rights?
• How much Federal or State flexibility is there in setting instream flows, for example:
  • Can one geographic area be held to a higher or lower standard than another area?
  • Does the whole WRIA need to be considered at one time or can there be a phased approach?
• Once established, if new information suggests changes are needed, what is the existing process for making changes (if any)? On what basis can changes be considered?

3. Other Legal Considerations

• How might a planning process such as WRIA 1's be finalized with respect to flows in consideration of State and Legal issues? (What is the process? – the legislation associated with ESHB-2514 identifies a process, there is a related State process, and there are federal considerations related to quantification of tribal and other federal reserved rights to instream flow; how will they work together?)
• How might current restrictions in western water law (e.g., "use it or lose it") be overcome using incentives, efficiencies, and associated legislative changes?

Possible Participants:

• Susan Williams, Williams, Janov and Cooney
• Robert Anderson, University of Washington Law School
• Rich McCallister, EPA
• Tom Morrill, Washington Attorney General’s Office
• Tom MacDonald, Perkins and Coie
• Robert Caldwell, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, &Daheim LLP
• Robert Wigington, The Nature Conservancy
• Jeff Schuster, Water Law Attorney
• Russ Busch, Water Law Attorney
• Tom Schlosser, Morisset, Schlosser, Ayer & Jozwiak
• Charles F. Wilkinson, Colorado University Law School
• Larry MacDonnell, formerly Colorado University Law School
• Richard Stephens, Groen, Stephens & Klinge LLP
• Joe Mentor (Affiliation not identified yet)
• Jim Jesernig, Perkins and Coie
• Michael Mirande, Miller Bateman LLP
•   Jeff Fassett, Fassett Consulting
• Reed Benson, University of Wyoming College of Law

Policy Panel:

Topics to be Addressed:

• What approaches have been used successfully for setting flows and who supports them?
• How do these approaches balance water between beneficial uses?
• What are the economic and cultural impacts (both positive and negative) of these methods?
• What sort of management structure is necessary to ensure that any adopted flow regimes are achieved and to make adaptive management feasible?
• What policy 'challenges' are there to our ability to develop a plan that works for WRIA 1 and what legislative 'fixes' may be needed to implement a preferred alternative?

Possible Participants:

• Clare Stalnaker, USGS
• Nina Burkhardt, USGS
• Berton Lamb, USGS
• Bernie Burnham, Bureau of Indian Affairs Northwest Regional Office
• Carl Samuelson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Representative Kelli Linville
• Senator Karen Fraser
• A representative from the Wyoming State Engineers Office (River Basin Planning, Herschler Building, 4E, Cheyenne , WY 82002 (307.777.6150) 
•   A Representative from an Indian Tribe or Nation where instream flows have been established
• Ernie Niemi, ECONorthwest
• Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest
• Larry Wasserman, Skagit Systems Cooperative
• David Braun, The Nature Conservancy
• Jeffrey Baumgartner, The Nature Conservancy
• Jack McDonald, Northwest Water Law and Policy Project
• Nicole Silk, Freshwater Initiative, The Nature Conservancy
• Fred Seavey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Tim Sullivan, U.S. Forest Service, Winema National Forest
• Genevieve Pisarski, Washington Senate Environment, Energy, and Water Committee
• Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Development, Environment, and Security
• Gary Smith, California Department of Fish and Game
• Bob Dieble, U.S. Forest Service
• Craig Bell, Western State Water Council

Follow-Up Meeting/Round Table (Planning Unit):

Topics to be Addressed:

• Based on the panel presentations and their current understanding of the wants and needs of the participants in the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project, how do Planning Unit members think the instream flows of the ecological flow regime should selected and protected within an overall management structure with multiple beneficial uses.

Possible Participants:

• Planning Unit Caucus Representatives
• Technical/legal/policy panelists available for questions

Attachment A: Ecological Flow Regime

Initial discussion during the September 1999 Instream Flow Methods Conference focused on identifying the streamflow level that the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project was trying to estimate.  As shown in Figure 1, instream flow levels needed to preserve, protect, and restore the physical, biological, and chemical aspects of a stream can be divided into five functional categories: 1) water quality maintenance, 2) fisheries baseflow, 3) channel maintenance, 4) riparian maintenance, and 5) valley maintenance.  Each of these flows components were identified by the conference participants as essential for maintaining the ecological health of the stream system.  Please note this is a diagrammatic representation and does not represent an absolute relationship between the flows identified (i.e., water quality maintenance flow may or may not be less than the fisheries baseflow).

Briefly, the water quality maintenance flow is the quantity of water needed to assimilate wastewater and still achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards.  The fish habitat maintenance flow is the minimum instream flow needed to support fish populations during different life stages.  The channel maintenance flow is the minimum amount of water needed to perform processes such as sediment transport.  The channel maintenance flows impact the long-term characteristics of aquatic habitat such as the distribution, quantity, and quality of pools and riffles.  Riparian maintenance flows are the flows needed to maintain a productive plant and animal community along the stream corridor.  Valley maintenance flows are catastrophic flood events and are generally not quantified.

Attachment B:  Schedule

¹ An additional series of ad hoc work sessions may be needed to take Symposium results and generate a detailed management approach.