- 1.2012 State of Our Watersheds WRIAs 1-23Hoh TribeJamestown
SKlallam TribeLower Elwha Klallam TribeLummi NationMakah
NationMuckleshoot TribeNisqually Indian TribeNooksack TribePort
Gamble SKlallam Tribe1973Puyallup Tribe of IndiansQuileute Indian
TribeQuinault Indian NationSauk-Suiattle TribeSkokomish
Tribe2006Squaxin Island TribeStillaguamish TribeSuquamish
TribeSwinomish TribeTulalip TribesUpper Skagit Tribe SSHIAPSalmon
and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment
Programnwifc.org
2. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Member Tribes2 3. 3 4.
4 5. Our Thanks & Acknowledgements to the following Groups and
IndividualsWe would like to thank and acknowledge the participants
who took time out of their regular schedulesto meet with the SSHIAP
staff and to review drafts to complete this report. Their tireless
work anddevotion to the Northwest Tribes and to this report shows
in the final product. The following individualsare especially
recognized (Commissioners in blue, project leads in red):Hoh Tribe
(David Hudson Sr., Steve Allison, Bob Howell, Warren
Scarlett)Jamestown SKlallam (Scott Chitwood, Hansi Hans, Byron Rot,
Randy Johnson)Lower Elwha Klallam (Russ Hepfer, Doug Morrill, Mike
McHenry, Larry Ward, Matt Beirne)Lummi (Elden Hillaire, Merle
Jefferson, Jeremy Freimund, LeRoy Deardorff, Gerry Gabrisch, Victor
TurtleJohnson, Ben Starkhouse, Randy Kinley Sr., Alan Chapman, Jill
Komoto, Diana Bob)Makah (Russ Svec, Kimberly Clark, Stephanie
Martin, Jeremy Gilman, Ray Colby, Mike Dulik, Lyle
Almond)Muckleshoot (Leo LeClair Jr., Holly Coccoli, Isabel Tinoco,
Eric Warner, Glen St Amant, Paul Hage, Martin Fox,Karen
Walter)Nisqually (Georgiana Kautz, David Troutt, George Walters,
Jennifer Cutler, Jeanette Dorner)Nooksack (Bob Kelly, Treva Coe,
Ned Currence, Llyn Doremus, Erica Capuana)Port Gamble SKlallam
(Randy Harder, Paul McCollum, Abigail Welch)Puyallup (Herman
Dillon, Bill Sullivan, Russ Ladley, Char Naylor, Andrew
Berger)Quileute (Anna Geyer, Frank Geyer, Garrett Rasmussen, Katie
Krueger, Mel Moon, Nicole Rasmussen)Quinault (Ed Johnstone, Dave
Bingaman, Larry Gilbertson, Mark Mobbs, Jim Jorgensen, Nicole
Rasmussen,Tyler Jurasin, Tony Hartrich, Tom Gibbons)Sauk-Suiattle
(Jason Joseph, Scott Morris, Norma Joseph, , Robert Franklin, Kevin
Lenon)Skokomish (David Herrera, Joseph Pavel, Alex Gouley, Ron
Figlar-Barnes, Randy Lumper)Squaxin Island (Joseph Peters, Jeff
Dickison, John Konovsky, Brian McTeague, Scott Steltzner, Sarah
Haque,)Stillaguamish (Shawn Yanity, John Drotts, Pat Stevenson, Don
Klopfer, Charlotte Scofield, Kip Killebrew,Jennifer Sevigny, Jason
Griffith, Franchesca Perez, Jody Brown, Scott Rockwell)Suquamish
(Merle Hayes, Rich Brooks, Tom Ostrom, Steve Todd)Swinomish
(Lorraine Loomis, Larry Wasserman, Alix Foster)Tulalip (Terry
Williams, Daryl Williams, Kit Rawson, Abby Hook, Kurt Nelson, Libby
Nelson, Maria Calvi, ToddZackey, Mike McHugh, Darla Boyer)Upper
Skagit (Scott Schuyler, Jon-Paul Shannahan, Lauren Rich, Carolyn
Dudek, Doug Couvelier, Tim Shelton,Chris Gourley)Point No Point
Treaty Council (Randy Harder, Sarah Burlingame, Cynthia Rossi, Thom
Johnson, Chris Weller)Skagit River System Cooperative (Devin Smith,
Curt Veldhuisen, Jeff Phillips, Kate Ramsden, Tim Hyatt, MikeOlis,
Eric Beamer, Steve Hinton, Stan Walsh)Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (Billy Frank Jr., Bruce Jones, Tyson Waldo, Marilu
Koschak, OsaOdum, Ron McFarlane, Katie Anderson, Christina
Gonzales, Fran Wilshusen, Craig Bowhay, Mike Grayum,Gary Graves,
Tony Meyer, Kari Neumeyer, Tiffany Royal, Emmett OConnell, Debbie
Ross-Preston, Jim Peters,Jim Weber, Todd Bolster, Lawrence
Sullivan)5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9. 9 10. Table of ContentsLocation Map
2Billys Letter 3Acknowledgements 5Executive Summary6Table of
Contents 10Introduction11Regional Reports Puget Sound 13 Pacific
Coast 24Tribal ChaptersHoh Tribe 32Jamestown SKlallam Tribe 44Lower
Elwha Klallam Tribe 56Lummi Nation71Makah Nation87Muckleshoot
Tribe103Nisqually Indian Tribe 123Nooksack Tribe 134Port Gamble
SKlallam Tribe148Puyallup Tribe of Indians163Quileute Indian
Tribe179Quinault Indian Nation 194Sauk-Suiattle Tribe206Skokomish
Tribe224Squaxin Island Tribe 240Stillaguamish Tribe255Suquamish
Tribe271Swinomish Tribe289Tulalip Tribes 303Upper Skagit Tribe
321Report Development Process 335 10 11. 11 12. 12 13. Puget Sound
Regional ReportPuget Sound Land Ownership BellinghamPort Angeles
EverettSeattle BremertonFederalTacoma33.4% Private /Other
OlympiaFederal 37.5%StateTribal26.5%WA State 050 Miles Local
GovtTribal Private/Other0.9% Local Govt 1.7% 13 14. Increased
Effective Impervious SurfaceOutside of the federal park, forest
service and recreation lands, the Puget Sound area impervious
surfaceincreased by 35% from 1986 to 2006. It is projected that by
2026, the impervious surface will increaseanother 41%, moving this
area from an Impacting to Degrading category. The Puget Sound
SalmonRecovery Plan (2007) lists "Minimize impervious surfaces" as
a key strategy for protecting habitat.Impervious surface causes
increases in stream temperatures; decreases in stream biodiversity,
asevidenced by reduced numbers of insect and fish species; and
contributes to pollutants in stormwaterrunoff, which can
contaminate local aquatic systems (Schueler, 2003). As the
population continues toincrease, so will the impervious surface
area, causing a disruption of both the ground and surface
waterecologies. This disruption will negatively impact both the
freshwater and marine ecosystems dependentupon the proper function
of the hydrologic cycle. Currently, the Puget Sound area has a mean
level ofimpervious surface to raise it to a "Trend to impacting "
condition, and when considering the futurepopulation growth the
area is projected to move to an "Impacting" condition. Individual
WatershedAdministrative Units (WAU) already exceed the " Trend to
Impacting" condition, with a third more toexceed by the year 2026.
By then 30 WAUs are forecast to exceed " Impacting" condition. The
ChinookRecovery Plan has leaned heavily on local planning, land use
policies, and provisions contained in thelocal Watershed Plans to
protect critical habitat. However, even with critical area
ordinances, planneddevelopment areas outside of the designated
Urban Growth Areas will contribute to the increases inimpervious
surface area.Puget Sound Impervious Surface (1986 - 2026 forecast)
excluding National forest, parks and recreation areas(Table &
Chart) Impervious Surface # of WAUs per Category Categories 1986
2006 2026* Little to no Impact 0-4% 181168 155 Trend to Impacting
4-7% 1718 20 Impacting 7-12% 1215 16 Degrading 12-40% Degrading
12-40%1119 26 Severely Damaged >40%0 1 4*Forecast based upon WA
OFM Population Projection 20062026 (Forecast) 060 MilesImpervious
Surface CategoriesImpactingPuget Sound Boundary Sources: WSDOT
Little to no Impact DegradingNational Park/Forest/Rec Lands NOAA
CCAP 1986 Trend to ImpactingSeverely Damaged Marine Waters&
2006, WAOFM14 15. Permit-Exempt Wells in Puget SoundSince 1980,
there has been an 81% increase in the number of new wells being
drilled per 100 newPuget Sound residents moving into the area. This
is an indication of a trend that as new population isadded to the
area, they are moving into the non-developed areas, causing the new
for new wells to bedrilled. Population growth leading to a high
percentage of urban or rural-residential use is anidentified
concern in Puget Sounds Chinook Recovery Plan.Population growth
within the Puget Sound watershed, both in the past and in the near
future, will haveincreased demands on groundwater resources. When
the change in population is compared to thechange in installed
exempt wells, a statistical increase is observed in the
relationship between the twovalues. For the decade beginning in
1980, a rate of 3.1 new wells were added for every 100 new
people.By the decade beginning in 2000 the rate increased to 5.5
new wells per 100 new people. This trendindicates that as new
population is added, an increasing number is developing land
outside of areas ofsupplied water, and the drilling new wells
without regard to aquifer sensitivity and stream rechargeneeds.
Unchecked growth and its concomitant increase in groundwater demand
will reduce aquifervolume with all its effects.Water naturally
discharges from aquifers at a rate which is controlled to a large
extent by the amount ofrecharge. Natural outflow, from an aquifer,
is discharged into lakes, wetlands and streams throughsprings and
seeps on the surface of the land and through underwater springs to
lakes, wetlands orseawater. Adequate natural outflow is essential
for sustaining stream base flows, maintaining lakelevels, providing
fresh water inputs to the nearshore and preventing seawater
intrusion.When more water is extracted from an aquifer than is
being recharged, aquifer volume is reduced andthe natural outflow
from the aquifer is decreased until the outflow and aquifer level
balances with theinput. This reduces the amount of fresh water
availableto lakes, wetlands, streams and the Puget Soundnearshore.
Reduced lake/wetland levels and stream6.0flows can have a negative
impact on all stages of theNew Wells / 100 New People 5.54salmonid
life cycle. Reduced fresh water inputs to the 5.05.21shoreline and
nearshore of Puget Sound can have anegative impact on shellfish and
out-migrating juvenile4.0salmonids. Population Change ! ! !!! ! 3.0
3.07 vs Exempt Well !!! ! ! !! !! Puget Sound!!!! Change by Decade
!!!! ! Exempt Wells!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!2.0 ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !
1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
!!! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! Puget Sound Boundary
! ! !! ! Wells per Dot! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !1 - 50 City/Urban
Area ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! 51 - 250 National
Park/Recreation Area !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !National Forest !! !!251
- 500! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! 501 - 1000Marine Waters! ! !
!! !! !!!!! 1001 - 4368 ! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !
Data Sources: !!! !! ! ! !! WADNR WAU; WSDOT Natl Park,! ! !! !! 0
40 Mi!Forest, Recreation Area, City, UGA & Urban Area;WAECY
Wells 201015 16. Forest Cover Loss ContinuesAbout 8.6% of the
forest cover was removed between 1996 and 2006 and the trend is to
see more loss ifprotective actions are not taken. Minimizing forest
cover removal to reduce long-term impacts is a "Keystrategy for
protecting habitat" component of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Plan (2007). Forest Cover Loss (1996-2006) 020 Miles 16 17. Puget
Sound Culvert StatusPuget Sound usable salmon habitat is a fraction
of what it once was and our ability to recover thePuget Sounds
salmon populations directly depends on the recovery of habitat.
Over 47% of thesurveyed culverts in Puget Sound are considered a
passage barrier to salmon attempting to reachupstream habitat.
Providing access to habitat is a key restoration priority in the
2007 Puget SoundSalmon Recovery Plan.N/A & Owner Barrier
NonBarrier Unknown Total Culvert 47.3% Federal 143 2534 202 Status
State116062111502931 26.1% Local Gov19491280 1480470926.5%
Private225012014283879 Other 166 5136 253 Total56683178 3128
11974!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!
!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!39.3%!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !
!!!!! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !
!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !
! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !!
!!! !!!! !!!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
!! ! ! !!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!
!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !
!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !
! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !
!!!!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!Culvert !! !
! ! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!
!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !
!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!! !! ! !!! !!!
!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !!!!! ! !!!! ! !24.5%
32.4% Ownership!! !!!! !! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!
!! ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!! !!!! !!
!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!
!!!! !!! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!
!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! !
!! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!!
! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !
!! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !
!! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!
! !!!! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !
!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !
!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !
!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!! !
! !! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!!! !!!!! ! ! !!! !! !!!! !!
!! !! !!! !! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!
!!! !! !! !! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!
!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!!!! !!!! !!! !! !
!! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! !
!!!! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! !!!!
! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !!!
!!!! !!! !!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!
! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!
!!! !! !!! !!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !!!! !
!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!
! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! 1.7% 2.1% !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!
!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!!!! !! !!!
!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !!
! !!!!! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! !
!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!
!!!! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! !!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!
!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!
! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! !!!! !! !
! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!
!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!
!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!
!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!!
!!!! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !!!!! ! !
! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !!!!
!! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!!
!!!!! ! ! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !
!!!! !!!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!
! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!! !!! !!
!!!!!! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !
!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! !
! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!! !!! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! !!!
!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!
!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!
! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!! !
! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!
!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!
! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!
!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! !!! !!! !! !! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!
! !! !!! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! 34.4% !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !
!!!!!!! !! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!
!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!! !! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!
! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !! !!! !!!!! ! !!!
!!!! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !
Barrier Status!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!!! !! !!!!!! !!
!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! !
!!! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !
!!!!! !!! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! !
!! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !
!! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !!! !!!!! !!!! !!!
! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! 39.7% !
! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!! ! !! ! Barrier20.5%!Barrier!!!! ! !! !
!!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !!! !
! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !!
!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!! !! ! !!!!!
!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!
!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! !!
!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !
!!! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! Culvert !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! !
!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !
! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!!!! !
!!!!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! !!! !! ! !
! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !
!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! Ownership !NonBarrier !!
! !! ! !!! !!!! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !
!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !! !
!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!
! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !
!!!!! ! !! !!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !!
!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!
!!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !Other !!! !! ! !! !
!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !
! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!
!!!! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!
!! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!
!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!! !
!! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!
!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! !!! ! !
! ! !!!!! !!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!
2.5% 2.9%National Forest!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!!
!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !!!!
!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !
!!! !!! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! !! !!! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!!!Nat.
Park/Rec Area !!!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!!!
!!!!!!! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !Puget
Sound Bnd ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !! !! !! !! !! !!
!!!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! 020 Miles !!! !!! !! !! !!!!Marine
Waters 17 18. Diminished Riparian ForestsDiminished riparian
forests in the lowlands of Western Washington continue to impair
habitats criticalto the recovery of the regions anadromous salmon.
For most of Puget Sound in 2011, NMFS identified"Degraded Riparian
Areas" as a limiting factor to the recovery of Chinook
salmon."Since statehood in 1889, Washington has lost an estimated
70% of its estuarine wetlands, 50% of itsriparian habitat, and 90%
of its old-growth forest" (NMFS, 2011 Implementation Report).
"Althoughfocusing growth inside UGAs (Urban Growth Areas) is
required by GMA (Growth Management Act),the protection of forest
cover has not been met by existing regulatory tools. Growth
pressures clear landin UGAs, even along riparian corridors and
other areas important for salmon habitat" (NMFS, 2011App A).The
Puget Sound area consists of 19 Watershed Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIA) from the Canadianborder and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to
South Sound and Hood Canal. Of these 19 WRIAs, all havediminished
riparian forest cover. NMFS identified fifteen with "Degraded
riparian areas" as a limitingfactor important for recovery in their
2011 Implementation Status Assessment Final Report. Theremaining
WRIAs were not listed because of a lack of Chinook salmon presence
or other more pressinglimiting factors, but all have diminished
riparian habitat.The diminished riparian function in all watersheds
and marine shoreline results in decreased waterquality, temperature
regulation, cover, bank stability, LWD recruitment, sedimentation,
detrital/nutrientinput and impacts to other biotic and abiotic
conditions for salmon and their supporting environment.Human
population growth will continue throughout Puget Sound, however its
concomitant effects inriparian areas must be mitigated/managed to
ensure recovery of this vital salmonid habitat
limitingfactor.Diminished LowlandRiparian Forests50 meters from
Potentially Bellingham Salmon Bearing Waters Mount Vernon Port
Angeles EverettSeattle Percent Tree Cover0 - 20% 20 - 45%Tacoma 45
- 65% 030 Mi Olympia City Data Sources: National Park,
Forest,NOAA-CCAP 2006; or Recreation Area WADNR 2010, WRIA Boundary
WSDOT City, Park, Rec Area & Forest18 19. Puget Sound Nearshore
ImpairmentForty Percent of Puget Sound shorelines have some type of
shoreline modification stressor, with 27% ofthe shoreline armored.
Of the 4,900 "Geographically Significant Units" identified within
Puget Sound,50% have some measure of shoreline armoring and 67%
have some degree of modification. Protectionand restoration of
nearshore marine waters is a component of the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan."Nearshore areas serve as the migratory pathway to
ocean feeding areas. The vegetation, shade andinsect production
along river mouth deltas and protected shorelines help to provide
food, cover and theregulation of temperatures in shallow channels.
Forage fish spawn in large aggregations along protectedshorelines,
thus generating a base of prey for the migrating salmon fry. Salmon
often utilize pocketestuaries-small estuaries located at the mouths
of streams and drainages, where freshwater input helpsthem to
adjust to the change in salinity, insect production is high, and
the shallow waters protect themfrom larger fish that may prey on
them. As the juvenile salmon grow and adjust, they move out to
moreexposed shorelines such as eelgrass, kelp beds and rocky
shorelines where they continue their migratorypath to the ocean
environment" (PSSRP, 2007)."Armoring affects salmon by reducing
prey density, increasing predation, and changing migrationpatterns
that cause a decline in growth and lower survival rates" (PSNERP,
2006). "...The importance ofinsects as high-quality prey
highlighted the terrestrial link to the marine feeding of Chinook
salmon andsuggests that shoreline development and land use changes
will affect feeding opportunities for thesefish in Puget Sound"
(Duffy, 2010)."Due to extensive development activities over the
last century on many of the Puget Sound shorelines,many key
nearshore processes have been significantly degraded or lost.
Impairments to habitat formingprocesses on the shoreline include:
reduced sediment input and transport, loss of riparian fringe
habitat,reduced estuarine area and connectivity, filling over of
upper intertidal beaches and degradation ofwater quality due to
introduction of contaminants" (Nisqually, 2010)."...analysis shows
new bulkheads today are being built just as fast as they were a
decade ago. In the pastfour years, the state Department of Fish and
Wildlife has granted 456 permits for new bulkheads onPuget Sound.
That doesnt include the old bulkheads people want to rebuild. The
number it has rejected:zero" (Seattle Times, 2008). A modified
nearshore habitat with diminished cover, reduced preyabundance and
contaminated waters is harmful to achievement of salmon recovery
goals.Armoring Modification Bellingham Mount Vernon Port Angeles
EverettArmoredNot ArmoredModifiedSeattle025 MiUnModifiedSources:
Tacoma Puget Sound BoundaryPSNERP Armor &Marine Waters
Shoreline ChangeOlympiaWAECY WRIA 19 20. 20 21. 21 22. 22 23. 23
24. Pacific Coast Regional ReportThe Pacific Coast region includes
WRIAs 20-23, whichextend along the Pacific coastline of Washington
state. Theland area of these WRIAs covers approximately 4,968
squaremiles and consists of watersheds of the western portion of
theOlympic Peninsula, south to the Chehalis River Basin. Thisarea
is heavily forested with small human population centersexcept for
parts of the Chehalis River Basin, and has economiesthat rely upon
timber, agriculture and recreational activities. TheChehalis River
basin is the second largest river basin inWashington State, outside
the Columbia River basin.The Pacific Coast area contains eight
major river systems, from the SooesRiver, near Neah Bay, south to
the Chehalis River and Grays Harborestuary. The Grays Harbor
estuary is one of two major estuaries on the Washington coast and
includesthe only deep water navigation channel and major port. The
northern watersheds originate in the steephigh-elevation headwaters
of the Olympic Mountains, which receive over 200 inches of rain per
year,while the Chehalis River watershed receives less than 40
inches of rain per year, near the town ofChehalis.The Pacific Coast
Watersheds are the ancestral and current homelands to the Makah,
Quileute, Hoh, andQuinault Indian Nations who have lived and
managed the natural resources along the Pacific Coastsince time
immemorial. The Makah Reservation is located at the northwestern
tip of Washington stateand, moving south, is followed by the
Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault Reservations.The Pacific Coast
watersheds are home to eight different anadromous fish species:
pink salmon, chumsalmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye
salmon, steelhead, bull trout and cutthroat trout. LakeOzette
Sockeye and bull trout are listed as threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. TheLake Ozette sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan
was approved by NOAA in May 2009, and the DraftRecovery Plan for
the Coastal-Puget Sound DistinctPopulation Segment of Bull Trout
was approved by theUSFWS in May 2004.0 40 MilesForks Ownership
State_LocalTribal Marine Waters FederalPrivate 47.3% 7.2%18.2%
Aberdeen 27.3% Chehalis Sources: WSDOT, WADNR 24 25. Forest Cover
Loss ContinuesAbout 9.0% of the forest cover was removed between
1996 and 2006 and the trend is to see more lossif protective
actions are not taken. Loss of conifer forestlands to other uses
(and its concomitantnegative effect on fisheries and water
quality/quantity) is a concern repeatedly stated in the
recovery,management and watershed plans for this region.Within the
Pacific Coastal Region (WRIAs 20 - 23) and outside of the National
Park areas, is an areaof approximately 4,170 square miles
(excluding the marine waterways). In 1996, 75.1% of this areawas
forested, but due to timber harvesting and some land conversions,
ten years later only 68.3% ofthe area is forested, representing a
loss of 9.0% or 282 square miles of forest cover. Of the forest
coverlost, 55.4% (or 156 square miles) is currently zoned for
non-forestry uses, indicating that the removedforest cover is not
planned to be restored.While over 68% of this region remains
forested, most non-park watersheds exhibited a loss in forestcover,
with 30 Watershed Administrative Units (WAU) suffering a greater
than 10% loss of forestcover. Per NOAAs Lake Ozette Recovery Plan
"... voluminous literature shows (sic) that water yieldchanges
begin following a significant (10 to 25 percent) reduction of
forest vegetation cover" (NOAA,2009). 1996-2006 ForksForksForest
Loss/Gain 1996-2006 WAU Forest Change >1% Pos Change 0-1% Change
1-5% Neg Change 5-10% Neg Change >10% Neg Change Aberdeen 0 30
MilesAberdeenChehalisChehalisNational Park Unforested
(1996)National Forest ChehalisForest LostPacific Coast Forest
GainRegional Boundary Forested StreamMarine Waters 010 Miles
Sources: WADOT, NOAA CCAP 1996 & 2006 25 26. Road Density and
the Number of Road CrossingsHave an Impact on Fish Habitat# of Road
Crossings per Road Miles perKilometer of Stream Length SquareMiles
of WAU Lower NegativeForksImpactForks< 0.50.5 - 1.01.0 - 1.51.5
- 2.0 > 2.0 Higher Negative Impact 0 20 MilesAberdeen
AberdeenChehalis ChehalisRoad Milesper Square Mile PCR Boundary
Major Rivers National ParkMarine Waters 26 27. Forest Road Impact
on Salmonid Habitat and RMAPA high density of forest roads makes a
significant impact on salmonid habitat in the Pacific CoastRegion
(PCR). To address the adverse effects of roads, most forest
landowners are required to have aRoad Maintenance and Abandonment
Plan (RMAP) showing a schedule of needed repairs. About47.6% of the
identified culverts in the plans are still in need of repairs.
Delayed RMAP compliance willnegatively affect opportunities for
salmon to reach their spawning and rearing habitat and
maycontribute to further stock decline.With over 68% of the PCR
(outside of the national parks) in active forest management, a high
densityof forest roads exist to facilitate commercial timber
harvest. Forest roads are known to contribute tostream channel
degradation because, if not properly constructed and maintained,
they can be a source ofsediments to streams which degrade fish
habitat and water quality (Cederholm et al, 1981, Furniss et
al,1991). Also, many culverts constitute fish barriers at forest
road crossings, denying salmon access toneeded habitat. Denial of
access to desirable habitat, and degradation to salmonid habitat,
have already,and will continue to negatively impact salmon
recovery.The States forest management laws require most private
forest landowners to prepare and submit aRMAP for their forest
roads. To protect water quality and riparian habitat, roads must be
constructedand maintained in a manner that will prevent damage to
public resources. All forest roads were to beimproved and
maintained to the standards of the law prior to October 31, 2016,
however, due to recentlegislative changes, forest landowners are
now able to request an extension of up to five years. As of2011,
only 52% of RMAPs have beenimplemented within the PCR. In thePCR,
the state, federal and local!!!! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! 2011 RMAP!!! !
!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !governments have met
63% of their !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!
!Distribution in PCR !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!
!!!!! ! !!! !! ! !!RMAP obligations, and private!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!
!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!! !!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !
!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !forestland
owners have met 49% of !! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!
!!! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!! ! !! !
!! !! !! !!! ! ! !Forks! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !
!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!their obligations. A vast majority (81%) !
!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! Not Fixed! !!! !!!! !!of
the remaining culverts are on private! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! !
!! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! Fixed! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !! !lands. Of the 1,636
identified culverts!! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!
!! !! ! PCR!! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!
! !! !remaining to be fixed, 98 were scheduled ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!
!!! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!
!! ! ! WRIA Bnd !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!to be completed before January 2011, and !
! !!!! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!
!!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!National Park470 are as yet to
be scheduled for repair.!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! !!!! !!!!
!!! ! !!!!!!! ! Marine Waters !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!! !!RMAP
2011 Status!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!
!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !!! !
! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !
!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !
! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! !!!
!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !
! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! !!
! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!
! ! !! !!!!! ! !! Fixed - 52.4%!! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!
!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!
!!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!
!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!! !!!! !!! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !
!!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !
!!!!Aberdeen!! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!
! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!! !!! !!!!!Not Fixed - 47.6% ! !!! ! !! !!!!
!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !!!
!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!!! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! !!
!! !! !! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!
!!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!! Chehalis! !! ! !! ! !
!!!!! !!!!!!! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!
! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !!!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! 0 20 Miles! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !
!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!!Sources: !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!
!! !! !!!! !!WADNR 2011, WAECY, WADOT ! !!! !! !!!!27 28. Invasive
Knotweed ManagementKnotweed negatively impacts salmon habitat,
their food, water quality and stream physiology.Knotweed control is
a component of the salmon restoration strategy for this region.
Continued fundingcuts threaten progress in identifying, treating
and monitoring knotweed infestations.Between 2004 and 2010, the
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and the
SalmonRecovery Funding Board (SRFB) spent over $1 million to
control invasive knotweed within the PacificCoastal Region (PCR).
Work is ongoing to identify, treat and monitor this invasive
species within thePCRs area. However, it takes three years to treat
an infestation site and several more years ofmonitoring to confirm
it is eradicated. "...There is evidence that the small amount of
live knotweedpresent at treatment sites can return to the original
infestation level in three seasons..." (WSDA 2010)."WSDA will
continue to support knotweed control as program funding allows, but
further reductions infunding could require the abandonment of
additional projects ...and reduce support for remaininginitiatives"
(WSDA, 2010).Knotweed is present in all the WRIAs comprising the
PCR. Knotweed infestations replace streambankstabilizing native
vegetation, thus increasing erosion and sediment loads. Loss of
native vegetationreduces riparian canopy, increases stream
temperatures, and reduces invertebrate populations andrecruitment
of instream woody debris, all of which negatively impacts salmon. A
section of stem or asmall portion of root is all that is needed to
start a new plant, thus its streambank destabilizing existencemakes
streams a ready vector for new infestations in downstream riparian
areas."Once established, knotweed patches compromise key ecosystem
components and processes. ...Becauseof its extensive root system
and large size, knotweed can change the shape and form of river
channelsand gravel bars, as well as the composition and
distribution of riparian vegetation. Knotweedspropensity to grow on
riverbanks and gravel bars may clog off-channel wetlands that
provide criticalrearing habitat for salmon. ...These collective
impacts of knotweed on keystone species, such as salmon,and on
critical riparian functions, can have cascading effects that may
result in significant, far-reachingand long-lasting impairment of
the ecosystem" (WSDA, 2006). Forks Knotweed Acres By
CountyUnknown100 - 1000 Treated and1000 - 2000 Untreated> 2000
knotweed patch Photo: Frank Geyer, Aberdeen0 20 Miles Quileute
TribeChehalisCurrent Knotweed Control Projectswithin the Pacific
Coastal Region:11-1455 RHoh River09-1390 RLower Quinault PCR
Boundary07-1894 RNaselle Marine Waters06-2254 RPrarie CreekSource:
WSDA 201128 29. 29 30. 30 31. 31 32. State of Our Watersheds
ReportHoh River Basin rowing up on the Hoh, I remember
hikingGupriver with my nets to catch steelhead andcamping out. Its
good to know that by doing thissome way too.RICHARD SHERIFF, HOH
TRIBEThe Hoh Tribe Chalat: People of the Hoh River The Hoh River
Indians are considered a bandof the Quileutes but are recognized as
a separatetribe. The Hoh Indian Reservation was estab-lished by an
Executive Order in 1893. The HohReservation consists of 443 acres
located 28 milessouth of Forks, and 80 miles north of Aberdeen.The
Hoh Reservation has approximately one mileof beachfront running
east from the mouth of theHoh River and south to Ruby Beach. The
Hoh Tribe has formed a Tribal Governmentunder Public Law 89-655,
providing for a basicroll of tribal members. The governing body
iselected by secret ballot biannually in November. 32 33. Land
Management Limits Salmon Production The Hoh River Basin is one
ofincreased stream sedimentation; least developed watersheds on
thealtered riparian areas; as well as Washington coast. The basin
in-scoured, incised channels with few cludes the Hoh Rain Forest, a
largespawning gravels and large woody temperate area protected
within thedebris. Olympic National Park. Commer-A Watershed Plan
(Golder As- cial forestry and National Park aresociates, 2009) was
developed to the two primary land uses within address these
limiting factors with the watershed. A significant portion specific
actions and management of the upper Hoh Basin lies within
strategies. the Olympic National Park, butThe strategies involved:
downstream of the Park, consider-1. Protection of habitat and
habitat able habitat problems exist.forming processes; A limiting
factors analysis was2. Collection of information conducted by the
Washington State where data gaps exist; and Conservation Commission
(Smith 3. Restoration projects to rein- 2000) and identified
several factorsstate or advance the recovery limiting salmonid
production in the of habitat, habitat protection basin: fish access
problems fromformation processes that affect culvert passage and
cedar spalts; the salmonid ecology. - 33 34. Hoh Basin Summary The
Hoh Basin has remainedrate was 54%. Forest practices resultand 37.
These structures contribute tolargely rural and heavily forested
within the loss of riparian vegetation,river channel degradation by
impedingrelatively low levels of imperviousdisturbance of soils,
construction ofbank erosion and river meander, thesurface from
human development. Itsroads and installation of culverts.basic
forces for most riverine ecologi-economy is natural resource based;
The removal of vegetation typicallycal processes and functions.
They alsofisheries, forestry, and tourism are the affects the
quantity and routing ofincrease the erosive potential of peakthree
main economic activities. Thewater, sediments and other materials
flows which cause channel incisionenvironmental impacts associated
to streams. It also negatively impacts and streambed scouring.with
these activities, particularly bank the recruitment and retention
of largeIn the Hoh basin, road densities arearmoring associated
with roadwayswoody debris (LWD) in streams. Lackclearly higher
outside the Olympicand timber harvest, are altering and of LWD has
been identified as a factor National Park, the result of the net-in
some areas accelerating the natural limiting salmonid production in
thework of roads built for commercialphysical river processes and
thus hav- basin and this deficiency still requires timber
harvesting. The highest roading an adverse effect on fish habitat.
attention. densities of 4.0 miles/sq mile and 5.5 Commercial
forestry remains theThe effects of timber harvest opera-miles/sq
mile occurred in the Middlemajor land use activity in the Hoh tions
are compounded by improperly Hoh and Lower Hoh subbasins
respec-basin. According to WDNR records,constructed and maintained
roads; this tively. Higher road densities generally31% of the
available private forest- situation is made worse when con-result
in increased sediment deliverylands were harvested in the
12-yearstruction involves shoreline armoring. to streams, which
reduces the qual-period between 1998 and 2010. In the The mainstem
Hoh River has over 3.7ity of water and spawning gravels forMiddle
Hoh sub-basin, the harvestmiles of riprap between river mile 1
salmon. 34 35. - - -Salmon need cool, clean, highlyof the
cumulative effects of land man-many streams from a complete
recov-oxygenated water to survive. Even in agement activities,
which have alteredery of natural temperature conditions.an area as
rural as the Hoh watershed, surface water runoff, groundwater What
salmon need, people need too.land management activities
threatenrecharge, streamside plant communi- To ensure a future for
the next sevensalmon survival and the future of theties, and
in-channel structures such as generations, land management rulesHoh
people who depend on them cul- logjams.already in place need
enforcement andturally and economically. In all likelihood,
continued landthose that are not adequate to protect Elevated
stream temperature is onemanagement activities will preclude fish
need to be adapted to do so. 35 36. Hoh Tribe(Hoh River Watershed
and Independent Tributaries)Hoh Basin Land Use/Ownershipanoodm
CrkGSF HohR iverer Riv HohC rk ch lalo Ka0 2 MilesHoh Basin Land
Ownership Hoh Basin Land Use 36 37. Impacts of Timber Harvest
OperationsThirty-one percent of the private forestlands in the Hoh
basin were harvested between 1998 and 2010.The Middle Hoh River
sub-basins saw the greatest impact with 54% of the private
forestlands harvested.Commercial timber logging occurs in all
watersheds within the Hoh basin, particularly in the LowerHoh and
Middle Hoh sub-basins. This removal of vegetation has resulted in
poor large woody debrisand riparian conditions in the basin (Smith,
2000; Golder and Associates, 2009). Debris flows arecommon and
devastating, resulting in scoured, incised channels with few
spawning gravels for salmon.The WRIA 20 Watershed Plan (Golder and
Associates, 2009) recognizes the significant conversion offorests
to other uses as a threat to watershed planning and management
objectives. Thirty-one percent of theTimber Harvest Activities in
the Hoh Basin private forestlands in the Hoh basin have been
harvested between 1998 andUpper Hoh River2010. An additional 5%
ofGoodman-Mosquito state forestlands were alsoMiddle Hoh harvested
in the same time period. The Middle HohLower Hoh RiverRain Forest
River sub-basin saw the greatest impact with 54% of theprivate
forestlands harvested.Thisrapid Cedar removalofvegetation
significantly impacts peakForest Practice ApplicationsPrivate
Forestland and mean daily flow in theKalaloch RidgeOlympic National
Park Boundary Hoh basin (Achet, 1997)0 2 Milesand affects the
quantity and Data: WA DNR(2010)routing of water, sediments and
other materials to streams. Middle Hoh RiverMiddle Hoh River Forest
Practice Activity: 1998-2010Unharvested Harvested 46%54% NAIP
(2009)Reductions in hydrologic maturity with the resultant
degradation of floodplain habitat and altered flowregime are
significant habitat factors limiting salmonid production in this
basin (Smith, 2000). Theseconditions may be improved by altering
timber harvest rates, particularly in the Middle Hoh River
sub-basin. 37 38. Impact of Roads on HabitatA high density of
forest roads makes a significant impact on fish habitat in the Hoh
basin. To address theadverse effects of roads, most forest
landowners are required to have a Road Maintenance andAbandonment
Plan (RMAP), showing a schedule of needed repairs. About 46% of the
identified culvertsin the plan are still in need of repairs,
blocking a total of 53.74 miles of fish habitat. A vast
majority(90%) of these culverts are on private lands.One of the
goals of the WRIA 20 Watershed Plan (Golder Associates,2009) is to
reverse stream channel degradation. Forests roads areknown to
contribute to this problem because, if not properlyconstructed and
maintained, they can be a source of sediments tostreams which
degrade fish habitat and water quality (Cederholm etal, 1981,
Furniss et al, 1991) Also, many culverts may constitute
fishbarriers at forest road crossings.Road densities were higher
outside the Olympic National Park Before After(ONP), the result of
the network of roads built for commercial timber Braden Creek
culvert removalharvesting.Photo: Debbie Ross-PrestonAt least 46% of
the culverts identified in this basin in the Road Maintenance and
Abandonment Plan(RMAP) are still in need of repairs to support
upstream and downstream migration of fish species. About90% of
these are on private lands. These culverts constitute a significant
negative impact on fish habitat. ! ! . .!! #.. 0!.!!..#0 ! ! 01. .
!! #. 0! ! .. . . ! .!.! .!!G!!..!.. .!..!.!!. 1 .w.!!. ! !y ! "
!!! !.. .. !!YX! .!0 .! !.# ! !! ! .. .! .. H. # . !. . ! . . 0!! !
! . !! .. ! !.! . ! ! . . ! .YX # 0!. ! ! .! . ! !.!. . !! " .
..YX! !! ... .. .!.!. G ! !! G.G.. ! ." " ! " .!.! !! !. .. . # 0 !
. ! ! ! . . . ! .YX ! . ! ! . . ! . !G .YX ! !! ! ! ! . . . .! .
!!! .!. !!..! !! ! !. .. . .!YX !. . . . .! !.. . . ! . . ! ! . .G
. ! ! !#! ! ! . . .0 !# .G! . ! ... . !!! ! !YX. ! G !!. ..! G !!!.
! ...# !!!! ! ! .!!! 0 .... . . !...!! !! 0 . !!! ! ! ! ... . . !..
..! ! !.. . .! ! ! .! .!!.! # . 0G.! .YX.! G . .. ! !! ! ! 0#G G.!
!! . .. . . #0... .. G !!. !! . .! . !! ..!!.. .! !!. ... .!! ! .
!.!.! !! . ! ! G ! !. .. !. . !. .YX!!..YX !! ! .!!! ! ... . !...!!
! #!!.. . 0.. ! .!.!! ! !!! .. !!..YX!. !..!YX!! ! !.. . .!! ! !..
. . !!!! . ! ! ! .... ! . . . !! .. .! . # . !. ! .! . 0.! !!...!.
. !!!!!!.!. !!! !!! #!!. .!YX ... ... 0. !! !.YX! . !. ...!. !.! !
. !! . #0!. !!..!. ...YX..! ! . .!. G !.!.! .YX # 0G.!! .YX! ! G
!!! !YX. . . ... ..G !.! .YX! !! !!G ... !YX !! ..!! #.. 0!.!.
.!.YX ! .GYX! ! !! #. . .. 0 . . ! ! ! ! . . ! .YX !
.YX!!..YX.!.!G! .!.!! .... !!YX ! ! . . .!#!! !.0.. . ! . . ! ! .YX
Culvert Repair Status and Road Density per WAU !# ! .0 .!! !!..
..YX#0 2.01.0. - 2.0 Data Source:< 1.0 Maudlin 2011; WADNR 2011;
05 Miles Whatcom Co 2011; Skagit Co 2010No alteration of the human
landscape has a greater and more far reaching effect on aquatic
habitat thanroads (NRC 2003). The majority of forest roads in the
Upper Nooksack basin are on private industrialand state lands. All
of these fall under the RMAP mandate and were originally scheduled
to berepaired by 2016. An extension has been granted, and private
industrial and state forestland ownerscan apply to have RMAP work
completed by 2021. RMAP road repair has not been tracked so
thecurrent status of road condition is not clear.It is expected
that RMAP repairs will improve water quality in the upper Nooksack
River watershedby fixing road drainage problems. Considering the
role improved water quality plays in Chinookrecovery, it is
important that forestland owners try to complete their RMAP repairs
by the originallynegotiated date of 2016.82 83. 83 84. 84 85. 85
86. 86 87. State of Our Watersheds ReportMakah Nationy ancestors
referred to their hunting M as topats. They have names for every
rock in their topat. They were individual stewards of each topat
and if a rock was RUSSELL SVEC, MAKAH NATION The Makah
NationLocated on the northwest tip of the lower 48 states, the
Makah always have utilized the bounty of the sea and the forests.
From seals to salmon to whales, the sea was and still is a large
part of the livelihood of the Makah.Within their territory, the
Makah had many summer and permanent villages. The five permanent
villages the Waatch, Tsoo-Yess, Diaht, Ozette and Baadah were
located in forests and on beaches. In the early 1800s, these
villages were home to between 2,000 and 4,000 Makah.The Makah are
highly skilled mariners, coming from a long line of ancestors who
used sophisticated naviga- tional and maritime skills to travel the
rough waters of the Pacific Ocean and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to
hunt whales and seals as well as travel.In 1855, the Makah,
represented by 42 tribal digni- taries, negotiated and signed a
treaty with the United States retaining their right to whale and
hunt, fish and gather as they always had.Today, tribal headquarters
are located in Neah Bay, Wash.87 88. Recovering Habitat Means
Prioritizing and RestoringThe Makahs Area of Concern in- diversity
for all salmonid species bycludes many independent streams
thatprotecting highly productive habitatsflow from the foothills of
the northern and populations, and restoring im-Olympic Mountains
along the north-paired habitat and depressed popula-west corner of
the Olympic Penin- tions.sula. This area encompasses WaterThe
approach is to prioritize habitatResource Inventory Area (WRIA) 19
restoration, protection and enhance-and the northern portion of
WRIA 20.ment activities with regard to theThe largest watersheds
are the Sekiu, specific habitat conditions of eachHoko, Clallam,
Pysht, Tsoo-Yess,individual watershed.Ozette and Lyre Rivers.The
short-term focus is on habitatBeginning in the late 1800s, this
restoration activities such as:region was heavily logged, withLarge
woody debris placement;severe consequences to the health of
Riparian planting;The Makah Tribe restored this blockage ofthe
watersheds and salmon habitat. Fish barrier culvert removal;
important coho rearing habitat by pulling theToday, the region is
predominantly Nearshore fill removal; and tributary of the
Tsoo-Yess River.rural; commercial forestry remains its Conservation
easements.primary land use.Long-term habitat recovery focusestives
of this habitat recovery strategy.The restoration strategy
developedon the restoration and protection of Only general
conditions and trendsfor the Area of Concern
consistshabitat-forming processes. Insuf-can be highlighted.of
maintaining and improving theficient time has elapsed to assess
theecosystem productivity and geneticprogress toward the goals and
objec-Properly Functioning Fish Habitat at a Premium Timber harvest
rotation within the watersheds has led tocern, nine have road
densities in a not properly function-significant reductions in
hydrologic maturity. Loss of foresting condition. To address the
aquatic habitat and fishcover continues to be an issue. Excluding
federal land, this passage issues caused by roads, most forestland
ownersregion experienced an 18% decrease in forest cover fromare
required, under the Washington State Forest and Fish1996-2006. The
Hoko watershed saw a 38% decrease inlaw, to have a Road Maintenance
and Abandonment Planforest cover and the Sekiu watershed
experienced a 44% (RMAP), showing a schedule of repairs needed to
upgradedecrease. Loss of forest cover can alter instream flow,road
systems at stream crossings. Currently only 39% ofincrease
sedimentation and reduce natural recruitment of the RMAP crossings
have been repaired on private landsmaterial that sustains
in-channel large woody debris.and only 30% have been repaired on
state lands. In addi- Excess sedimentation is a major limiting
factor for the tion, in 2011 the Washington State Forest Practices
BoardHoko watershed, which sources from roads and clear-cuts.
approved an extension to the schedule date for implementa-The Sekiu
River has extensive sedimentation problems tion until 2021,
allowing the impacts associated with thesestemming primarily from
high road densities and mass roads to continue to degrade salmon
habitat for an addi-wasting sites. This sedimentation has led to
debris flowstional five years.that have incised the mainstem
channel and removed largeLarge woody debris creates fish habitat
and enhanceswoody debris. Without restoration action, natural
recov- the quality of habitat in all sizes of stream. Past
forestryery from this scale of habitat disturbance will take
several practices and flood control measures have led to the loss
ofdecades to mend. mature trees in riparian areas and streambeds,
which has Road density, maintenance, and abandonment issues are
disrupted the natural habitat-forming processes within thealso a
problem. Research has shown that fine sediment in regions
watersheds.salmon spawning gravels increased by 2.6-4.3 times in
Throughout the last century, and particularly in the lastwatersheds
with more than 4.1 miles of roads per square60 or 70 years, large
woody debris was removed frommile of land area. This has a direct
impact on overall wa- the Ozette River in the belief that it helped
fish or wouldtershed health and salmonid productivity. Federal
guide- reduce flooding. This practice removed many of the
func-lines characterize watersheds with road densities
greatertioning wood jams in the systems and presumably inter-than 3
miles of road per square mile of watershed area asrupted the
riparian recruitment process, and the hydrologicnot properly
functioning, while properly functioningand sediment regime. The
lack of large woody debris inconditions are defined as less than or
equal to 2 miles per the Ozette River, in combination with other
factors, hassquare mile with few or no streamside roads. affected
water quality, stream flow and habitat conditions Of the 10
watersheds within the Makah Area of Con-such as pool depth, pool
volume and cover.88 89. 80 Miles of Streams Designated as Impaired
Water quality and quantity remain at risk within the20 and provides
habitat for fall chinook, chum and cohoMakah Area of Concern.
Approximately 80 miles of salmon, and winter steelhead.
Approximately 2.6 miles ofstreams are listed as impaired waters by
the Washingtonthe 16 mile long Tsoo-Yess River are listed as
temperatureDepartment of Ecology. Of these 80 miles, 76 are
listedimpaired waters by the Washington State Departmentas being
temperature impaired. Increased monitoring of of Ecology. Stream
habitat and water quality conditionsstream flow and water quality
is an ongoing need withinwithin the Tsoo-Yess watershed have been
affected by wa-the Makah Area of Concern and is identified as a
goalter withdrawals and past forestry practices.within both the
WRIA 19 and WRIA 20 Watershed Man-Large woody debris is uncommon
and immediate naturalagement Plans. recruitment potential is low
because riparian vegetation The Tsoo-Yess River would be an ideal
candidate as it and canopy consist of young stands of alder and
conifers.is the largest watershed in the northern portion of
WRIARiver.Sharing Plans and Cooperation Key to Recovery As
co-manager of shared natural adjacent fish-bearing streams where
and salmon recovery. The transfer ofresources with the state, Makah
is fall chinook, chum, coho and winter these lands to private
ownership couldconcerned with the communication steelhead are
found. This is contrary hamper or eliminate tribal access toand
cooperation from Washingtonsto salmon recovery efforts and water-
collect cultural plants and animals,state agencies.shed recovery
plans for the Tsoo-Yess and conduct important research. Ensuring
that salmon habitat is River drainage.A current example is the
proposedprotected is central to successfullyLand exchanges of
public forest forland exchange of parcels within theand sustainably
managing this trustprivate timberlands have the potentialBig River
basin, which lies withinresource. Problems still persist in co-to
negatively impact treaty resources the Lake Ozette watershed. The
landordinating habitat actions. For exam-and tribal activities.
Land transfers tois within the tribes usual and ac-ple, in 2007, a
culvert failed on nearby private ownership within the Makahcustomed
areas and the protection ofprivate forestland. The Washington Area
of Concern have a direct impactthis land is critical to recovery of
theDepartment of Natural Resourceson tribes abilities to utilize
the prop- local Lake Ozette sockeye salmon,moved forward with the
landowners erties natural resources and have thewhich is listed as
threatened underplan to abandon the road without real potential of
isolating important the Endangered Species Act. The
landcommunicating with the Makah monitoring sites to further
use.proposed to be traded has mature treesTribe. This prevented
consultationHistorically, the Makah Tribe hasand includes a section
of one of theand allowed the implementation of an utilized
Washington Department of only two tributaries where sockeye
areabandonment plan that failed to utilizeNatural Resources public
lands toknown to spawn.best management practices. The resultconduct
research related to waterwas excessive sediment runoff into
quality, habitat, watershed health89 90. Looking Ahead Although the
watersheds within the Makah Area ofwoody debris placement, riparian
planting and fencing,Concern continue to sustain salmonid species,
significantculvert barrier removal and conservation
easements.threats to fish habitat remain. We are doing our part to
buy what land we can in the Land-use practices particularly
associated with forestryareas of concern, but the threat of land
transfers to otheractivities and road maintenance continue to alter
watershedprivate ownership could isolate these lands from
monitor-processes, resulting in degradation of water quality,
watering as well as collecting important cultural plants.quantity
and stream channel complexity. We will need improved communication
and cooperation There is a need for greater communication and
coopera-between the myriad of natural resources managers in thetion
between natural resources managers to assure achieve- area to hold
the line, much less improve, fish habitat.ment of the goals set in
the watershed recovery plans for It is troublesome that important
repairs to some of thesethe region.problem road and stream
crossings have been delayed with Current habitat conditions and
trends speak to the need a five-year extension, meaning continued
serious harmfor continued restoration efforts focused on degraded
habi-to these important streams. It is deceptive to think of thetat
and increased protection of existing properly function-Olympic
Peninsula as healthy for fish. In concert with cli-ing habitat.
mate change, current Land-use practices hasten the threat To
improve habitat for salmon, significant progress mustof extinction
of the salmon that are a central part of thebe made in restoring
habitat and stream function with largecultural identity of Makah
people.90 91. The Makah Nation - WRIA 19 and portions of WRIA
20Located on the northwest corner of the Olympic Peninsula, the
Makahs Areaof Concern includes many independent streams that flow
from the foothills ofthe northern Olympic Mountains and enter the
shores of theStrait of Juan de Fuca. The largest watersheds are the
Sekiu,Hoko, Clallam, Pysht, Tsoo Yess, Ozette and Lyre rivers.
Easilyweathered sedimentary rock, sandstones, and siltstones of
theTwin River Formation occur in the western watersheds from,
andincluding, the Pysht. Streams to the east of the Pysht have a
mixedgeology, including less erodible basalt from the Crescent
Formationin headwaters, glacial outwash in the lower plain, and
siltstones of theTwin River Formation to the west. The stream
channels in the regionchange quickly to variations in flow and
sediment inputs.Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and winter steelhead
occur in the areas watersheds, with the Ozettesockeye being listed
as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Traditionally
flourishing off ofland and sea, the Makah tribe had villages and
fishing camps most often associated with stream mouthswhere they
could take advantage of plentiful fish and shellfish resources.
With the Point No Point andMakah treaties of 1854-55, the tribes
agreed to cede their lands to the U.S. government in exchange
forretaining their rights to hunt, fish and gather in their usual
and accustomed areas. Beginning in the late1800s, the Strait region
has been heavily logged, with severe consequences to the health of
itswatersheds and salmon habitat. Today the region is predominantly
rural, though industrial forest landuse is widespread.Land
Ownership Federal Land State Land Neah BayStCites & UGAsra
Indian Reservationit Private/Other n of TsoeaJu oYes ans erSekiu
Riv Pacific Oc Rivdei ve rer k oRFuHoClallam Bay car iv e mR Clal l
a tR i ver 112 hysP Lyre Riv Olympic National Joyce Ozette Lake
ForesterFederal Lake Crescent 22%Olympic National Park0 5 Miles
Private/OtherTribal51%8%State18%Data Sources: WADNR 2011WSDOT
2011WA CTED 2003Cities/UGA1%91 92. Loss of Forest Cover
ContinuesExcluding federal land, the Makah Area of Concern saw an
18% decrease in forest cover from 1996 to2006. The Hoko watershed
saw a 38% decrease in forest cover, while the Sekiu saw a 44%
decrease.The Hoko River is the largest watershed within WRIA 19.
Nearly the entire Hoko watershed is subjectto active forest
management in the form of timber harvesting, with the entire basin
having beenharvested at least once (Hoko River Watershed Analysis
Hydrology Assessment, 1995). Excesssedimentation is a major
limiting factor for this watershed, with sources from roads and
clearcuts. Thesedimentation has led to channel instability and a
change in substrate to less suitable spawning gravels.The Sekiu
River has extensive sedimentation problems stemming primarily from
high road densitiesand mass wasting sites. This sedimentation has
led to debris flows that have incised the mainstemchannel and
removed large woody debris (LWD). The Sekiu Rivers mainstem
provides critical rearinghabitat as well as spawning habitat for
all salmon species in this watershed. Sekiu Watershed 44% decrease
in Forest Cover 1996-2006 Sekiu WatershedForest 2006 Hoko Watershed
Forest Gain Since 19961996Forest Lost Since 1996Federal Land2006
Acres010,000 20,000 30,000010 MilesHoko Watershed 38% decreasein
Forest Cover 1996-200619962006 Acres020,000 40,000 60,000Data
Source: NOAA-CCAP 1996-2006 NAIP 2006-2009 WADNR 2011Continued loss
of forest cover in the Upper Hoko Watershed 20062009k r ee eksCe
liCrEl lisEl Ellis Creek contains known distribution ofEllis Creek
is a tributary of the Hoko River.Chinook, coho, chum, and
steelhead. 92 93. Road Density a Major Limiting FactorOf the 10
watersheds within the Makah area of concern, 9 have road densities
in a "not properlyfunctioning" condition. The National Marine
Fisheries Service 1996 guidelines for salmon habitatcharacterize
watersheds with road densities greater than 3 miles of road per
square mile of watershedarea as "not properly functioning".
Currently only 39% of the RMAP crossings have been repaired
onprivate lands and only 30% have been repaired on state lands
(WDNR, 2011).Cedarholm et al. (1980) found that fine sediment in
salmon spawning gravels increased by 2.6 - 4.3times in watersheds
with more than 4.1 miles of roads per square mile of land area. The
NationalMarine Fisheries Service (1996) guidelines for salmon
habitat characterize watersheds with roaddensities greater than
three miles of road per square mile of watershed area (mi/sq mi) as
"not properlyfunctioning," while "properly functioning condition"
was defined as less than or equal to two mi./sq.mi., with few or no
streamside roads. In the Hoko basin, 330 landslides associated
primarily withlogging roads (40%) and clear-cuts (55%) have been
identified since 1995, and 141 occurred between1981-1993 after
intense logging in the 1970-1980s (Salmon and Steelhead Habitat
Limiting Factors inthe Western Strait of Juan de Fuca).RoadRoad
DensityNon-DNR0-4 Mi/Sq MiMajor Public Land Neah Bay4.1-5 Mi/Sq
MiDNR Managed Land ^ ^ ^^ ^^ > 5 Mi/Sq MiPrivate/Other Land E ^^
^ ^^^^^E ^^ ^^Urban Growth Area ^ ^^ ^ E^ E ^ E EE^ E^ E^ ^EE ^ E
E^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^E ^^^^ ^^ ^EEEE ^^^^^ ^ ^^ ^^ E ^^E ^ ^E^E E^^^^ ^ E
^E E E E E E ^EE ^E E^ ^ ^^^ ^ E EE E E E ^^^ ^EE ^ ^ ^E^ ^ ^^^ EE
E ^ ^ E^ ^^E ^^ ^E E ^ E ^EE ^^ ^ ^E^^ ^^EE^E^^ ^^^^^ ^E ^ ^^E^EE
EE EEE E E E ^^ EE EE E EE^E ^ ^^E^^ ^ ^^^^E ^ ^^^ E E^^ E^^E ^ ^
^^^ E^^^^EE0 2.5 Miles E EE E ^ ^E ^ E E^ EE ^ ^ EEE^ ^ ^ ^ E E^ ^
^E ^ ^ EE^ ^ ^^ ^ EE^^^^^^ ^ ^ E E^ ^ ^^ E E ^ ^ ^ E^^ ^E^ ^ ^E^ ^
^ E^ ^E E ^ ^^ E E^E EE ^^ ^ E ^ ^^ ^E E^^^ E ^^ ^ ^ E ^E ^ ^ ^E^^
^ EE E ^^^ ^^E^ ^E Hoko^ ^E ^^ ^E EE ^ E ^^ E^EE ^^^ E E^^^E^E^ ^ E
^^EE ^ ^^EE^^ ^ ^^ ^E E EEEE^EEE ^ E EE^ ^^^^E E ^E E EEE ^ E ^ EE
E ^ ^^ E^ ^ E ^ ^E ^ EE ^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ E ^^ ^E^ ^ ^^^ ^^ ^ E^ ^ E
^E WatershedEEE E^ EE E EE E 04 Miles ^ ^ ^ ^EE^EEE^^ ^ ^ E ^ ^ ^
^^ E ^ ^ E E^ EE^ E ^^ ^E^ ^ ^ E E ^ E^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ E ^ E ^ ^ E ^ E
^ ^ EE E ^^^^^ E E ^ ^ EEE E E ^ ^E EE^EE^ E^E E E ^ ^^ E^E ^^ ^ ^
E^^ ^E ^ E E ^E ^ ^ E^^^E ^ E E E ^ E^E EEEE EE ^^EE EE E E E^EE^ ^
E ^ E ^ ^^ ^ E ^ E ^^ E^ ^ ^E ^ ^ E E^ E E^^EE E E ^ E^ EE^ E E E
^^ EE^^ E E EE^ E E E E E^ ^ ^ EE ^ ^ ^E^EE^^EE^ E^ E E ^ E E E E
^EE ^ ^ ^ ^ E ^E ^ ^ E^ ^^^^^E EEEE E^ ^ ^^ ^E ^ E E E ^ E^^E E E
EEE^ ^E E ^^ E EE^^ EE ^ ^^ ^^^E^ ^ ^ EE^ E ^E^ E ^ ^E^ E
EE^^^EEE^EE ^ ^ ^^E ^E^ ^^E ^ ^E^ E^ ^E^ EE ^^^^E E^ Ozette Lake
^EEEE E E ^^E^^^ ^^^ EE^ ^EE ^ ^E^^ ^ ^^ E^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ E^ ^^E^ ^
^^^E ^^ ^ RMAP-Not Fixed Tribal Land E^^ E^^ ^ ^^^^^E ^^^ E^ ^^^E
EEEE^^ EEE^^^^E^^ E^ Federal Land ^ E ^ ^^E ^^^ ^E^ ^E^ EE
RMAP-Fixed^^^ Lake Crescent ^EEEE E EE^^ ^Watershed
BoundaryWashington State forest management laws require mostprivate
forestland owners to prepare and submit a RoadMaintenance and
Abandonment Plan (RMAP). ARMAP is a forest road inventory and
schedule for any 2011 RMAP datarepair work that is needed to bring
roads up to statestandards. A RMAP is prepared by the landowner and
Private 415 654approved by WADNR. The Puget Sound SalmonRecovery
planners assumed the RMAPs to be fullyimplemented and all stream
crossings on private forestlands to be brought up to the minimum
state standards State 51 117FixedNot Fixedby 2016. In 2011, the
Washington State Forest PracticesBoard approved an extension to the
due date for the0200 400600 800 1000 1200completion of stream
crossings improvements to 2021,allowing the impacts of these
crossings to continue toData Sources: WADNR 2011; WSDOT 2010degrade
salmon habitat for another 5 years.93 94. Large Woody Debris
(LWD)Lacking in the Ozette WatershedThroughout the last century,
and particularly in the last 60 or 70 years, LWD was removed from
theOzette River in the belief that it helped fish or would reduce
flooding. LWD removal, in combinationwith other factors, has
affected water quality (Hypothesis 2), Ozette River streamflow
(Hypothesis 3),and Ozette River habitat conditions such as pool
depth, pool volume, and cover (Hypothesis 4 - LakeOzette Sockeye
Recovery Plan Summary). Old growth conifers OzetteRed aldersLake 05
Miles 1953 Wa State Map depicting removed and existing Log JamsOz e
tet Rive rrR ive B ig Log Jams94 95. Water Quality on the Tsoo Yess
RiverNeeds Increased MonitoringApproximately 2.6 miles of the
16-mile-long Tsoo Yess River are listed as "temperature
impairedwaters" by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The
naturally low stream flows in this areahave been deteriorated by
water withdrawals. A WRIA 20 Watershed Management Plan "Stream
FlowData Action" is to establish additional stream flow gages
within WRIA 20, but none have beenestablished in the Tsoo Yess
watershed.The Tsoo Yess River is the largest stream in the Tsoo
Yess watershed, providing habitat for fall chinook,chum, coho
salmon, and winter steelhead. It is 16.2 miles long with
approximately 39 miles oftributaries entering the Tsoo Yess River
and heads in low foothills, draining to the Pacific Ocean atMukkaw
Bay. Tidewater extends to river mile 6, and waterfalls block salmon
access at river mile 13.8. Neah Bay Temperature Impaired Except for
the headwaters, the Tsoo Yess River gradient isTsoo Yess Basinless
than 1% throughout its course, and water temperaturesIndian
Reservation generally average from 42 degrees F (5.5 C) in January
toFederal Land more than 65 degrees F (18.3 C) in August. The state
water quality standard for salmon migration, spawning, andc e
anStrrearing is 17.5 degrees C.aitofic O Juand Pacif eFMouth of the
Tsoo Yess River TsooucaYe sRi sv er 0 5 MilesThe Tsoo Yess River
provides habitat for fall chinook,chum, coho salmon and winter
steelhead. High watertemperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and
excessivesedimentation have been recorded in the Tsoo Yess
River,all of which negatively impact the success of salmon in
theGenerally, habitat quality of the Tsoo Yess River and itsstream.
Naturally low flows during summer and early fall tributaries is
poor. Large woody debris is uncommon andcontribute to high stream
temperatures and negatively affect immediate natural recruitment
potential is low because ofsalmonid migrations. past intensive
logging practices in riparian areas. Riparian . ! USGS
Stationvegetation and canopy consist of young stands of alder and
conifers (USFS, 2009). The removal of riparian canopy and*# Makah
Water Quality Station 0 2 Miles resulting loss of riparian shade
can contribute to elevated Wellsstream temperatures that affect
fish.*# * #Tsoo Yess River*# # * Lack of riparian protection during
* #* *# # * * # # Fish Distribution ** ## harvest on the Tsoo Yess
Roads * ##**# The Tsoo Yess basin has only one**##*# * # USGS
gaging station where data # * # # ** was collected for 1976-1986.
The # * * # Washington State ECY has no* *# #*# stations in this
basin..!Data Source:WADNR 2011WAECY 2011WSDOT 2010USGS 2009NAIP
201195 96. Water Quality and Quantity Remain at RiskApproximately
80 miles of stream in the Makah Area of Concern are listed as
"impaired waters" by theWashington State Department of Ecology. Of
these 80 miles, 76 are listed as being temperatureimpaired. A major
recommendation for water quality/quantity in WRIA 19 is to increase
water qualitymonitoring and to include all salmon-bearing
streams.Elevated stream temperatures, turbidity, and low dissolved
oxygen are conditions of known impairmentin WRIA 19. The
temperature problems are at least partially related to the below
target shade levels inthese same areas. The high temperatures
reduce available rearing habitat for coho and steelhead,
andpossibly Chinook salmon (Smith, 2000). WRIA 19 Boundary Neah Bay
Hoko Watershed Exceeds Temperature Standards c e an WA ECY, 2008
303(d)Summer water temperatures at all Federal Land monitoring
stations in the mainstemic O Indian Reservation and Little Hoko
River exceeded theP acifTs ostate standard of 16 degrees C.(Smith,
Sto Yess River erraLFA-Strait of Juan de Fuca).it o R iv fJuako
ndData Source:Ho eF0 5 Milesu ca WADNR 2011 WAECY 2011 NAIP 2011
WSDOT 2010 USGS 2009 Although the Hoko basin is naturally
susceptible to _ ^ low water flows because of its low elevation
andHoko dependence on precipitation, human factors contribute
Watershed_ ^to the problem. The infiltration gallery at river mile
40 1 Mile! River Mile 4 . serves as the water supply for the towns
of Clallam Bay, Sekiu, as well as the Clallam Bay CorrectionCenter.
Low summer water flows are often a problemparticularly for fall
Chinook and sometimes for cohosalmon (Currence, 1999).!.USGS Stream
Gage Stream flow data is very sparse in WRIA 19. The_^Ambient
Monitoring Site USGS has operated a flow gage on the Hoko River
Well Logs since 1963, with a 10-year gap between 1974-1983.Hoko
River Discharge - cubic feet per second Calendar Year 2007 Water
Year 2008 Water Years 1962-2008Lowest Daily Mean36 (July 17) 19
(Aug 17) 11 (Oct 10, 1987)Annual 7-day minimum 39 (July 12) 21 (
Aug 13) 11 (Oct 10, 1987) Lack of riparian cover, Lower Hoko R
(USGS data)! The Hoko watershed has been subject to forestry land
use practices, and the change in age and type of forest cover is
believed to be associated with increased frequency and severity of
peak flows. In addition, flow velocities have increased due to
reduced large woody debris loading, channelization, and incision.
Water withdrawals for municipal drinking water use in the Hoko
River watershed have led to reduced low-flow discharge rates during
the ! Wells ! summer (Smith, 1999). 96 97. Lack of Co-Management
Coherency and ResponsibilitesThe Makah Tribe, as co-manager of its
shared natural resources with Washington State, is concernedwith
the continued inconsistencies in communication from natural
resource agencies. As an example, in2007, when an RMAP culvert
removal project was under way on private forestland,
regulatoryoversight was negligent. When Makah staff visited the
project site, there were several WAC violations inaddition to the
lack of several specific project site requirements and
permits.Co-management is the process under which Washington State
and the treaty Indian Tribes cooperativelyexercise their authority
as co-managers of the salmon resource. The co-management structure
wascreated in 1984, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision
upholding U.S. District Judge GeorgeBoldts 1974 ruling in US v
Washington (the "Boldt Decision") that the tribes have a treaty
rightentitling them to half of all harvestable salmon returning to
their "usual and accustomed" fishing areas.The Boldt Decision also
requires the state to maintain the habitat on which salmon
depend.At first glance, the work may look "okay," but why not give
the resource the best, and legal chance torecover? The Makah Tribe
would have liked to see some due diligence and Best Management
Practicesadded to this project including disconnection of surface
runoff from the stream, pulling back fillmaterial and returning the
slopes to their natural contour, better sediment control, and
revegetating theslopes. Steep and large slopes are indicative of
the Makah U&A forestlands. BMPs for riparianassociated work
should be delineated in a written plan and followed in the field
with regulatoryoversight. Road remnants on either side of the creek
could be restored and replanted, as they arerelatively impervious
surfaces creating sediment-filled surfacewater runoff (see winter
flow photo). The culvert removal project was located on a tributary
to the Tsoo Yess River where fall Chinook, chum, coho salmon and
winter steelhead are found. It happened in 2007 on private
forestland, with natural resource work completed in 2008. Sediment
samples were taken both above and below the project after
completion of work.High turbidity levels affect fish feeding and
growth. The abilityof salmon to find and capture food is impaired
at turbiditiesfrom 25 to 70 NTU. Salmon growth is reduced and gill
tissueFailed culvertdamaged after 5 to 10 days of exposure to a
turbidity level of 25NTU (MacDonald et al, 1991).Sediment samples
after completion of work 0 2 MilesDateWest Fork AboveWest Fork
Below East Fork Project Project 8/19/2008 2.14 NTU 24.9 NTU N /A
8/19/2008 1.49 NTU 52.9 NTUN/A 8/19/2008 3.02 NTU 50.2 NTUN/A
8/19/2008 5.44 NTU 85.8 NTUN/A 8/24/200814.00 NTU323.7 NTU 23.9
NTUThe State of Washington Class AA stream standardsTsoo Yess
Riversuggest levels should not exceed 5 NTU Ts oo YFish
DistributionessRiervData Sources:NWIFC 2008WADNR 2011Makah Tribe
2011Winter Flow Capacity Concerns 97 98. WA State DNR Land
Exchanges to Private TimberCompanies Impact Makah
Resources^opTUOZET TE R RIVE o p T URI o p VE GopTUTU BI^U o p R To
op pTTU U AKE ! ! EL !OZETT !0 2 Miles 2009 2011 00.25 MilePossible
ways in which the State couldresolve these land exchange issues: !
! ! ! ! 98 99. 99 100. 100 101. 101 102. 102 103. State of Our
Watersheds ReportGreen-Duwamish River,White-Puyallup River, andLake
Washington Basinse are the salmon people. ForW generations, salmon
havesustained our way of life. Now wemust sustain the salmon. PHIL
HAMILTON, MUCKLESHOOT FISHCOMMISSIONThe Muckleshoot TribeThe
Muckleshoot Indian ton, Muckleshoot ancestorsTribe is a federally
recog-depended on fish, animal,nized Indian tribe whose and plant
resources andmembership is composed oftraveled widely to
harvestdescendants of the Du- these resources.wamish and Upper
Puyal- Village groups werelup people who inhabited linked by ties
of marriage,Central Puget Sound forjoint feasting,
ceremonies,thousands of years beforecommerce, and use of
com-non-Indian settlement. The mon territory. DownriverTribes name
is derivedpeople intermarried withfrom the native name for the
other groups along theprairie on which the Muck- Sound, while
people on theleshoot Reservation wasupper reaches of the
drain-established. Following the ages also intermarried
withReservations establishmentgroups east of the Cascadein 1857,
the Tribe and its Mountains. This networkmembers came to be known
of kinship tied togetheras Muckleshoot, rather thanancestral
Muckleshoot vil-by the historic tribal names lages within the
Duwamishof their Duwamish andwatershed, extended acrossUpper
Puyallup ancestors.watersheds and the CascadeToday, the United
States crest, giving MuckleshootAreas depicted do not necessarily
correspond to Muckleshoot Usual & recognizes the Muckleshoot
ancestors access to fishing,Tribe as a tribal successorhunting and
gathering sitesto the Duwamish and Upperthroughout a broad area
ex-Puyallup bands from whichtending from the west sidethe Tribes
membership of Puget Sound across thedescends. Like all
nativeCascade crest.people of Western Washing-103 104. History of
the Basins The Green-Duwamish, Puyallup-The Cedar River was
diverted into brood stock will continue to remainWhite, and Lake
Washington basins in Lake Washington, permanently extin-essential
for salmon harvest and con-Central Puget Sound continue to sup-
guishing chum and pink salmon runs servation. In these basins, the
Pugetport important salmon and steelheadunable to migrate through
the lake.Sound Chinook Recovery Plan goal ofruns despite dramatic
habitat altera-By the 1940s, the Duwamish estu- self-sustaining and
harvestable salmontion and ecosystem decline. However, ary marsh
and tidelands were filledpopulations is not likely achievable inthe
abundance and potential produc-to create Seattles industrial port,
and the foreseeable future. Until enoughtion of natural origin
salmon hasthe Cedar, White, and Green rivers high quality habitat
is reestablished sodeclined sharply. By the early 1900s,were
dammed. Streams, wetlands, andthat much greater numbers of
salmonnavigation and flood control projectsfloodplains were
drained, channel- can successfully complete their lifesplit apart
the former 1,700-square- ized, or confined and the conversion
cycle, the benefit of hatchery fish tomile river basin that
included the of forest to asphalt began.population abundance will
outweighGreen, White, and Cedar rivers and Today, the majority of
lowland areas any potential genetic or ecologicallakes Washington
and Sammamish asare urbanized. Only a small fraction ofrisks.
Without support from hatcheryits tributaries. The White River was
marine shorelines remain in a naturalfish, run sizes will dwindle
rapidly todiverted into the Puyallup River. Thecondition. Now, more
than 2 millionunfishable museum levels or evenBlack River, the
historical outlet ofpeople live in these basins. extinction given
the severity of habitatLake Washington and the Cedar River, The
scarcity of properly function- limitations. At the same time,
withoutwas eliminated and a new outlet wasing freshwater and marine
habitat in sufficient habitat, even hatchery fishconstructed
through the Chittenden Central Puget Sound basins means may not be
sustainable over time.Ship Canal and Locks.that hatchery fish
produced from local A Muckleshoot tribal gillnet boat on Elliot Bay
underneath the Seattle skyline at sunrise. 104 105. Habitat
Recovery Continues Despite Recovery Plan Effective habitat
protection and restoration efforts arenecessary to sustain future
salmon runs in these basinsregardless of natural or hatchery
origin. Local govern-ments in WRIAs 8, 9, and 10 have prepared
habitat plansunder the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan approvedby
NMFS in 2005. Significant efforts are being made bythe WRIA groups
to implement the projects and measuresidentified in these plans.
While some projects are complet-ed, implementation has been limited
by funding and otherconstraints. Even with full funding, however,
the ability ofthese habitat plans to produce a net gain in habitat
qual-ity and quantity is uncertain given the impacts of
ongoingdevelopment and population growth, the small
cumulativegeographic extent of the proposed actions, and a
relianceon voluntary or inadequate habitat protection measures. The
plans identify restoration projects that, while impor-tant, are
generally small on an individual and cumulativescale relative to
watershed needs. In many cases, the poten-tial to fully recover
natural habitat processes in restorationprojects is constrained by
conflict with adjacent land use,recreation, flood control, water
supply, or other demands.Despite significant efforts by the WRIA
groups, habitatcontinues to be lost and degraded. A recent status
reportcommissioned by NMFS to track Puget Sound Recovery Patrick
Reynolds, left, and Martin Fox, Muckleshoot biologists, survey
aPlan implementation found that, while salmon plan har- pool for
salmon habitat on the Green River in Auburn.vest limits had been
followed, habitat for Chinook is stilldeclining in Puget Sound
(M.M. Judge, 2011). The statustat connectivity where feasible; and
protect and improvereport concluded that habitat protection needs
improve-water quality and quantity conditions to support
healthyment despite the adoption of the Shoreline Managementsalmon
populations. The Puget Sound Chinook RecoveryAct, Growth Management
Act, and Forest Practices Act,Plan 2011 Implementation Status
Assessment preparedwith forestland conversion and impervious
surface area for NMFS (M. Judge, 2011) noted that the WRIA 9
plan-growing by 2 -3% from 2001-2004. Despite critical areasning
group has the disadvantage of attempting to achieveordinance rules,
riparian areas in priority watersheds in therecovery in one of the
most highly altered, diked, degradedLake Washington-Cedar-Sammamish
Watershed Habitatand urbanized watersheds in Puget Sound. As
elsewherePlan continued to lose forest cover and gain imperviousin
Central Puget Sound, restoration opportunities in WRIAsurfaces with
a 5.5% gain in rural areas and 10.6% gain9 are challenged by high
land costs, conflicting land use,inside Urban Growth Boundaries
between 2005 and 2009 and site availability. The individual and
cumulative scale of(Vanderhoof, J. et al. 2011).the habitat plan
restoration projects is generally small. For The Lake
Washington-Cedar-Sammamish Chinook example, the projects identified
in the plan that target estu-Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8)
contains habitat ary transition zone habitat (a high-priority
action) wouldprotection and restoration measures with objectives to
restore a total of less than 40 acres, with a long-term
goalmaintain or restore watershed processes, functional migra- of
just 173 acres.tion corridors and high-quality refuge habitats,
land usePierce County serves as the lead entity for the Puyal-and
planning recommendations, and public outreach andlup-White WRIA 10
salmon recovery habitat plan. Keyeducation. The plan identified 165
high-priority projects forstrategies include levee setbacks,
floodplain reconnection,implementation in the first 10 years of the
plan. In the first creation of off-channel habitat, restoration of
estuary and5 years, 23 of the 165 projects have been completed
whilemarine nearshore habitat, and protection and restoration of48
are currently active. key tributaries, along with programmatic
actions such asSome of the measures in the Green River Salmon Habi-
a Flood Hazard Reduction Plan and Shoreline Master Plantat Plan
(WRIA 9) are proceeding, although implementa- updates. While some
projects have been completed, thetion has been hindered by funding
shortfalls and staffingWRIA group reports that they are not on pace
to meet 10capacity. The plan established goals to protect and
restoreyear goals (M. Judge, 2011).physical, chemical and
biological processes and freshwater,marine and estuarine habitats;
protect and restore habi- 105 106. Restoration Progress Slow
Although only one indicator of habitat conditions, a re-view of
recovery progress and trends at the 5-year mark ofthe Lake
Washington, Green-Duwamish, and White Riverhabitat plans indicated
mixed results. Coordination and alignment of the regulatory and
pro-grammatic efforts of jurisdictions with the goals and
objec-tives of the recovery plans has not occurred. For
example,Shoreline Master Programs governing land use and
habitatprotection have yet to be updated and made consistent
withhabitat recovery strategies (WDOE website 3/3/2011). Despite
its value to salmon, large woody debris place-ment in rivers is
restricted to accommodate recreation.Progress with restoration
efforts has been slow and fewprojects have been able to begin to
restore characteristicnatural riparian and floodplain habitat
processes. At the same time, federal agencies have not
adequatelymet their own responsibilities for salmon habitat.
Examplesinclude continued delays in fish passage improvements
atU.S. Army Corps dams Mud Mountain, Howard Hanson,and the Ballard
Locks; weak permit terms and conditionsfor federal actions
affecting ESA Critical Habitat; sedimentreleases and other
unmitigated operational fish habitatimpacts at Howard Hanson and
Mud Mountain dams, andA ship moves through the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Ballard Locksthe Corps of Engineers levee maintenance
standards underroute to sea for juvenile salmon from the Lake
Washington system.Public Law 84-99 that require cutting trees on
levees de-spite Clean Water Act listings and Critical Habitat
designa- of 100-year-old lock valve machinery with new equipment to
facilitatetions. navigation at the Locks.Problems with Water Flow,
Pollution and TemperaturesImpacts to water quality and quantity
continue to be of Adult coho are highly sensitive to stormwater
runoffgreat concern in WRIAs 8, 9, and 10, with
approximatelycontaining toxic pollutants, especially copper,
pesticides,193 miles of stream being listed as impaired waters by
the and hydrocarbons originating from roads and from
urbanDepartment of Ecology. Another 42 stream miles are as- and
residential landscapes. Based on a predictive modelsumed to have
maximum water temperatures that exceed developed by NOAA, more than
half of the 481 streamState standards established for protection of
salmonids. miles of the known coho distribution in WRIAs 8
andTemperatures in the Lower Green River are frequently in9 are
expected to have elevated pre-spawning mortalitythe range of
sub-lethal effects and at times exceed lethal (PSM) rates of 5% or
greater, with 141 miles at 35% PSMthresholds. Low flow problems are
documented along 602 or greater.miles of streams in WRIAs 8, 9, and
10. The number of Healthy, properly functioning riparian areas
requireprivate permit-exempt wells continues to rise along with
adequate vegetation, accessible floodplains and the pres-land
development, with a 58% increase in WRIAs 8 and 9 ence of large
woody debris. Levees and revetments degradeoccurring between 2004
and 2010 and a 49% increase inalmost 100 miles of river bank or 49%
of the total main-WRIA 10. stem river miles accessible to salmon in
the Green, LakeExtensive urban, industrial, commercial, and
residential Washington, and Puyallup-White basins. Riparian shade
isdevelopment has greatly increased impervious land coverseverely
deficient along the lower Green River as well asin these
watersheds. Impervious surfaces are stronglyin other stream areas.
The size and amount of large woodycorrelated with degraded stream
health and lost salmon debris in the Green, White and Cedar rivers
continues to beproduction as a result of increased peak flows,
erosion, extremely low compared to natural conditions, with the
ex-pollution loading and water temperatures; and decreasesception
of the upper Muckleshoot Indian Reservation reachin pools, woody
debris, and gravel quality, and benthic or of the White River.
Instream wood levels in the Cedar andprey diversity. Available data
indicates a 9-square-mile Green rivers are estimated to be 89% to
95% below NMFSincrease in impervious surface area in WRIAs 8, 9,
and 10criteria for properly functioning conditions for
salmonbetween 1986 and 2006. habitat (NMFS 1996). 106 107. Degraded
Shoreline, Nearshore Challenges Habitat Restoration The Lake
Washington-Cedar-Sam-survival during the transition to thebasins
will continue to challenge themamish Chinook Recovery Plan
rec-Pacific Ocean. effectiveness of salmon conservationognizes the
need to restore degradedOf the 119 miles of marine shore- and
recovery efforts. Trends suggestshoreline habitats in Lake
Washingtonlines in WRIAs 8, 9, and 10, less than that loss of
critical habitat will c