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