Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272760(1) X7x •. • SALMON HABITAT PLAN ' Y d • , • 40 ♦ J l e• ♦ r n �I —�.. « R GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource t InventoryArea 9 IV a t Y .,.� ,. ,. H�rr{S«���'�r� awl •_ _ - . r { .♦.k _ s _ •�i.. � _ -E �i.,l. +. t GREEN/DUWAMISH Cup IV v • : _ •; �� � '.� is i • � ► �•�l. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND ,� -e"�- ..,, - �. ' .. 4 jig ` �•: •rl� .'♦ W A T E R S H E D teal •E �.a CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON f rt ; )tJ 5 u1EY`witt :Y RESOLUTION NO_ 3776 L.T!, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE "WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA(WRIA) 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN, MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING." WHEREAS,in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA); and WHEREAS, in November 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) listed the Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment as a threatened species under the ESA; and WHEREAS, significant areas of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9, are designated by the federal government as critical salmon habitat; and WHEREAS, coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes,businesses, non-governmental organizations, landowners, citizens, and other interests are essential to plan for and implement a salmon recovery plan; and WHEREAS,the City of Renton supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures; WHEREAS, 17 local governments in WRIA 9 entered into an inter-local agreement in 2001 to jointly fund development of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed, 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3776 Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, Making our Watershed Fit for a King, published August 10, 2005; and WHEREAS,the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, developed by a steering committee comprised of multiple interests, includes a wide variety of actions that focus on habitat recovery for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and other salmonids for the next 10 years and prioritizes them to guide efforts to recover the Green River Chinook salmon population; and WHEREAS,the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan is based upon a sound scientific foundation, and includes an adaptive management approach and funding strategy for implementation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City of Renton hereby ratifies the GreenlDu►vamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, Making our Watershed Fit for a King, dated August 2005. This resolution does not obligate the City of Renton Council to future appropriations beyond current authority. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 17 t h day of October 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 17th day of October 2005. Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2 r Y RESOLUTION NO_ 3776 Approv to form: wrence I Warre4tity Attorney RE S.113 6:10/05/05:ma 3 A MOTION RECOMMENDING THE SALMON HABITAT PLAN FOR THE GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED TO THE WRIA 9 FORUM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon are an icon of the Pacific Northwest and were listed as "threatened"under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, and WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 citizen-stakeholder Steering Committee has devoted seven years to the review, study, and development of a Chinook Salmon Habitat Plan for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed, and WHEREAS, a science based plan has been developed to assist Chinook on the road to recovery; and WHEREAS,the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan balances economic development needs and salmon habitat restoration needs, and WHEREAS, an extensive public involvement process and public review of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan has occurred, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee: The WRIA 9 Steering Committee hereby recommends the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan to the WRIA 9 Forum of Local Governments for approval and adoption. This motion has been approved by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee this 14th day of July, 2005. Signature page r .10 Cz r Dee Arntz Al Barrie Washington Environmental Council Trout Unlimited/Mid-Sound Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group r 6)e ecca Clark Richard Conlin City of Covington Councilmember City of Seattle Councilmember Dow Constantine Jay C in ton King County Councilmember City of ton Chief Administrative Officer J oel Gilbrough la e GrotS) .S. Army Corps of Engineers Port of Seattle �;�, A&w� Paih Hickey Steve Hirschey Tacoma ublic Utilitie Washington Department AlEcology Garrett huffriian Susie Kalhorn Master Builders Associati n of King and Vashon/Maury Island Community Council Snohomish Counties DeAnna Burnett Keener Charles Keller South County Chambers of Commerce The Boeing Company Coalition Kirk Lakey to L mphear Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife City of en Cou ci mem er c Don Nettleton 1. Leonard Olive Plum Creek Timber Company Covington Water District J - Bill Peloza Max Prinsen City of Auburn Councilmember King Conservation District Deborah Ranniger U ames Rasmussen City of Kent Councilmember Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance F Dennis Robertson dy Tayl r City of Tukwila Councilmember 9ing County Agriculture Commission C�'T"'1 ©�' �✓wtarul� 11rk mua�caC frJ �C'.vi Rex-Thompson John Wiltse Washington Department of Natural City of Normandy Park Mayor Resources *INV � PLANNING/BUILDING/ ♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 9, 2005 TO: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, Development Services Principal Planner Bob Mahn, Transportation Systems Civil Engineer FROM: {' Ron Straka, Surface Water Engineering Supervisor(ext. 7248) SUBJECT: Steering Committee Approved WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Attached is a copy of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (Plan) and Appendices approved by the members of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. The WRIA 9 Forum must now review the document and decide if it should be forwarded for ratification by each jurisdiction in WRIA 9 or be remanded back to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. The schedule calls for the WRIA 9 Forum to make the decision to approve or remand the plan back to the Steering Committee on September 21, 2005_ The next WRIA 9 Forum meeting is scheduled for September 8, 2005. Once the WRIA 9 Forum approves the Plan for ratification by each jurisdiction, the Plan will be presented for approval by the City Council in October or November of this year. Please review the Steering Committee approved WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and provide me with your written comments by August 26, 2005. For your convenience, you may also review the document on-line at http://splash.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/HabitatPIan.htm. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me, if you have any questions. If you do not need to retain a copy of the Plan, please return it to me. Attachments cc: Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director H:Tile Sys\SWP-Surface Water Projects\SWP-27-Surface Water Projects(CIP)\27-2760 WRIA 9 Planning\Cite Correspondence\WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan-Steering Committee Appro%ed.doc\RStp ,ram v 1 PLANNINGBUILDING/ ;� >= , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 7, 2005 �� J ju TO: Lys Hornsby + t,`....,n,,{��.1 YJrsc.�ssc•�a ,,� FROM: Ron Straka SUBJECT: WRIA 9 Steering Committee Recommended Salmon �g— Habitat Plan The following are review my comments regarding the WRIA 9 Steering Committee recommended Salmon Habitat Plan, which is currently being reviewed by the WRIA 9 Forum. The WRIA 9 Forum is reviewing the plan to determine if it can be approved for ratification by each jurisdiction in WRIA 9 or should be remanded back to the Steering Committee for revision. Please review and discuss with me if any of the concerns are significant enough to discuss with Jay Covington, our WRIA 9 Steering Committee and Forum representative. Recommended Policies To Minimize Impacts On Salmon Habitat: (Chapter 3) 1. Policy IN4— Support new and existing incentives to protect salmon habitat. One incentive is to reduce surface water fees for landowners with properties that are at least 65% forested and have no more than 10% impervious surface. This policy is a result of the King County Critical Areas Ordinance and is most applicable to properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Our Surface Water Utility rates structure accounts for the level of development that exists on a site. To give reductions for certain properties would create more administrative burden from a utility billing standpoint and require inspections to verify that the criteria has been met. In addition, if certain customers get a reduction in rates then other customers would need to have an increase in rates to offset the reduction in revenue and to maintain the same level of service. The incentives listed are optional so the City has the flexibility to choose which incentives they will implement, so this policy is not a concern. 2. Policy IN5 — Local Governments should review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written best management practices that protect salmon habitat. Our Parks Department is already doing this or will be doing it for other reasons so it should not be a problem. No comments were provided from Parks on the Plan. hAfile sys\swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(cip)\27-2760 wria 9 planning\city correspondence\wria 9 steering committee recommended plan review.doc Lys Hornsby Page 2 of 5 September 7,2005 3. Policy WQ4—Local Governments should assess current surface water management standards, facilities and programs and strengthen them where necessary to reduce entry of sediment and other pollutants to salmon streams. This is something that the City needs to do and will have to do as part of our compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems as required by the Clean Water Act. Our current storm water standards are significantly below the industry standard and other jurisdictions. Increased storm water standards will not only go towards complying with the Endangered Species Act,the Clean Water Act and the Growth Management Act, but will also benefit our citizen by better controlling runoff that will reduce flooding and protecting water quality. Better management of storm water runoff in the City will reduce the need for increased capital improvement projects and help to control operation and maintenance costs,which will reduce the rate of increase of Surface Water Utility rates in the future. 4. Policy FP —Local Governments should evaluate fish passage barriers within their jurisdictions, assess which barriers are most important to remove based on the suitability of potential salmonid habitat that would be opened, and add the high priority barrier removals to Capital Improvement Programs(CIPs). The City has not conducted a comprehensive fish barrier review of all streams. We have some information from basin studies and knowledge of where streams cross public right-of-way, but more work would have to be done to identify the barriers, assess the upstream habitat value and prioritize the barriers removal and then incorporate into the CIP program and secure the funding for their removal. This could be a fairly expensive policy to implement. As long as the City has the flexibility to implement over time and hopefully when other improvements, such as road improvement are occurring,then the policy is acceptable. This policy would have to be implemented by the Surface Water Utility, Transportation and Parks. 5. Policy FP2—Local Governments should replace culverts with bridges or arched- culverts that have natural streambed material in the course of planned maintenance and/or improvements. This policy is acceptable, as long as the decision for the type of structure and habitat features is determined as part of the project engineering, design and permitting process. The type of structure (bridge vs. culvert)is limited to site constraints and conditions. A project of this type will require full review by all permitting agencies and I am confident that they will review the design to ensure that habitat is protected or improved along with being fish passable. The cost for bridges is higher than culverts however. hAfile sys\swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(cip)\27-2760 wria 9 planning city correspondence\wria 9 steering committee recommended plan review.doc Lys Hornsby Page 3 of 5 September 7,2005 6. Policy LU4—Local Governments should adopt the Tri-County Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines for maintenance of existing infrastructure or equivalent set of practices. The Planning/Building/Public Works Maintenance Services Division has already adopted these standards and is currently working to implement them as part of their routine work. The Parks and Facility Maintenance may want to consider using these standards or may have already or will developed equivalent standards (see Policy IN4). Recommended Policies To Define And Uphold Scientific Goals and Priorities in the Watershed: (Chapter 5) 1. Policy MS 1: Focuses management actions and implementation efforts on district habitat for different parts of WRIA 9. The Lower Green River habitat need that will be focused on is rearing habitat. 40%of funding is recommended for management action recovery efforts in the Transition Zone (Duwamish Estuary) with the remaining 60% split between rearing and spawning habitat over the rest of WRIA 9. 2. Policy MS2: Table 5.2 provides a listing of instream habitat parameters and targets for good habitat with the goal to raise streams with poor habitat parameters to fair habitat parameters and to increase streams with fair habitat parameter to good habitat parameters. This is a good goal, but due to the significant historic and continuing modifications to habitat due to urbanization, it may be an unachievable goal. WRIA 9 Watershed-Wide Programs: (Chapter 7) 1. General—It is unclear as to who is responsible for implementing the Watershed Wide Programs, but as long as each jurisdiction has the ability to decide how, or if they will implement these programs, then the proposed programs are acceptable. 2. WW— 10: Support/Expand the Natural Resource/Basin Steward Program This program recommends the funding of additional Basin Stewards including a basin steward for the Lower Green River Subwatershed. The cost for the new Basin Steward would be shared between Tukwila, Renton, Kent, Algona and Auburn. There are pockets of unincorporated King County in this area, so it is unclear as to why King County would not also be contributing to WW-10 also. This program calls for a total of 8 Basin Stewards in WRIA 9. It seems like a lot of resource and it is unclear that there is enough work to justify this many Basin Stewards. hAfile sys\swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(cip)\27-2760 wria 9 planning\city correspondence\wria 9 steering committee recommended plan review.doc Lys Hornsby Page 4 of 5 September 7,2005 Subwatershed—Specific Policies, Programs And Projects For Lower Green River Watershed: (Chapter 7) 1. Policy LGI —In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all new developments and re-developments that occur within 200-feet of the river. Renton does not have any jurisdiction within 200-feet of the Green River except for a small area north of where the Black River discharges into the Green/Duwamish River. Language allows flexibility as to how this policy would be implemented. 2. LG 18 & LG 19—These two projects that are located in Renton and were previously identified the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Implementation Strategy: (Chapter 8.0) 1. Table 8-1: Local Government Commitment Options Table 8-1 list the range of options that local governments can choose to implement the plan. The options range from the local government choosing to implement the plan as the want with no formal commitments to actions or regional process to the City council ratifying and adopting the entire Plan as policy and implementing through local ordinance and capital improvement programs. The City will need to decide what our level of commitment we want to make towards implementing the Plan and should be discussed with the Administration prior to presentation of the Plan to Council. At a minimum we could commit to continue our current funding and level of effort with the expectation that funding from the King Conservation District,the State,the Federal government and grant sources will be the primary source of funding to implement the Plan. The cost to only implement the recommended projects over the next 10 years ranges for$198.3 million to 291.4 million. The cost to implement the programs and policies is not included. 2. Policy I5 —Local Governments shall consider the habitat project and program priorities of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan as each updates, develops, implements and enforces land use regulations. Policy is acceptable since it only requires us to "consider"the Plan recommendations. EDNSP did not provide any comments on the proposed Plan during this review period, but the use of the word "shall" instead of"should"may make it more binding. There are similar policies(I6 and 18)that recommend that local governments consider the Plan recommendations when developing and implementing capital improvement programs, land use, community development and public facility plans. h:Tfile sys\swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(cip)\27-2760 wria 9 planning\city correspondence\wria 9 steering committee recommended plan review.doc Lys Hornsby Page 5 of 5 September 7,2005 3. Policy I8—Local governments shall execute annexation and incorporation agreements that are consistent with and support the priority habitat projects and programs of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. The text preceding the policy states that the purpose of this policy is to retain established land use, zoning and habitat project provisions on unincorporated lands that were enacted by King County to protect habitat. The City typically establishes land uses and zoning for areas when the area is annexed. Cities generally don't like the County dictating the type of land use or zoning that has to be established on areas that are annexed. It is unclear if this is inferring that the County's Critical Area Ordinance standards would also have to be kept when an area is annexed. 4. Policy I12 & I13 —These policies call for the identification of funding options and within the first year of implementation the local governments shall consider a menu of funding ideas for implementation of the Plan. This is where the Watershed Fee would be considered along with other options. Conclusion: The information listed above highlights areas in the Plan that I thought was important enough for us to consider. I generally do not see any project or policy that creates any significant concern and the memo primarily will help us understanding some of the key requirements of the Plan. I will schedule some time to review this with you to confirm that we are in agreement that the recommendations in the Plan are acceptable from our perspective. The Transportation Division was the only section that provided me any comments on the Plan and they had none. The Plan was circulated the Parks, EDNSP and Development Services on August 9, 2005 for review and comment. hAfile sys\swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(cip)\27-2760 wria 9 planning\city correspondence\wria 9 steering committee recommended plan review.doc • • • SALMON HABITAT PLAN: • Making our Watershed Fitfor a King Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) • • • August2005 • • • • • Alternate formats available • Voice:206-296-6519 TTY Relay:711 • For Additional Copies of this Plan or the WRIA 9 Watershed Poster: • King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 201 • Seattle,WA 98104 • (206) 296-6519 • Recommended Citation: • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource • Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Steering Committee. - August 2005.Salmon Habitat Plan—Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. - File Archive: • King County WLRD Visual Commications and Web Unit Archives as: 05O8_W9HabPlan/ • • WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 ( WRA 9 ) STEERING COMMITTEE AND • August 10, 2005 • Dear WRIA 9 Watershed Forum Members: • �I C i On behalf of the citizen-stakeholder Steering Committee for the Green/ T�,Y ; • Duwamish and Central Puget Sound (WRIA 9)Watershed, we are pleased Auburn Burien to present the Salmon Habitat Plan:Making Our Watershed Fit for a King • Covington to the WRIA 9 Forum of local governments. This plan reflects thousands of • Kent hours of work since 2000 by the Forum, Steering Committee, and supporting • King County working groups and committees. It demonstrates the positive results of our • Normandy Park inclusive partnership to help improve our watershed's health for people and salmon. Renton Moreover,this plan presents a road map, based on sound scientific evidence and the • Seattie collaborative efforts of many, for our watershed's contribution to turning around the salmon • Tukwila decline in Puget Sound. Port of Seattie Our local wild Chinook salmon runs were listed as"threatened"under the federal Vasho• Endangered Species Act(ESA) in 1999 and are clearly in danger. This fact suggests that • Comm /Maury island the underlying ecosystem that supports these remarkable fish also is in jeopardy. It is up to Community Council all of us to recover this important resource for ourselves, for our children, and for our • Covington Water District children's children and to make our watershed truly"fit for a King." • King Conservation District • Tacoma Pubiic Utilities The attached Salmon Habitat Plan reflects many hours of deliberation by the Steering U.S.Army Corps Committee in response to public comment received on the draft Salmon Habitat Plan • of Engineers between March 10 and April 25, 2005. Numerous policies and actions have been revised, - cost estimates have been refined, and a more detailed implementation strategy has been Washington Department developed. The Steering Committee also adopted a watershed-wide prioritization policy • of Ecology that forms the basis for implementing projects. • Washington Department • of Fish and Wiidiife This Salmon Habitat Plan is based on a strong scientific foundation. Using this foundation, Washington Department we have developed an ecological approach that offers solutions in the form of landscape- of Naturai Resources level and site-specific actions that can be implemented by local governments, business, • community groups, and private property owners. • Washington • Environmentai Council For any other questions or information needs regarding the Salmon Habitat Plan, contact Green/Duwamish either Gordon Thomson, WRIA 9 Habitat Plan Manager, gordon.thomsongmetrokc.gov, • Watershed Aiiiance 206-296-8013, or Dennis Clark,Public Outreach Coordinator, dennis.clarkgmetrokc.g_ov, • Trout Uniimited/ 206-296-1909,toll free 1-800-325-6165, TTY 711. • Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Sincerely, The Boeing Company p Y 7).&.3 • Pium Creek Councilmember Dow Constantine Councilmember Re ecca Clark • Timber Company King County City of Covington • Master Buiiders WRIA 9 Steering Committee Co-Chair WRIA 9 Steering Committee Co-Chair Association • South County Chambers cc: Bill Ruckelshaus, Chair, Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board • of Commerce Coaiition Dr. Jeff Koenigs,Director, Washington State Department of Fish& Wildlife • King County Agricuiturai Jim Kramer,Executive Director, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Commission Chris Drivdahl, Governor's Salmon Team Leader • King County Livestock Financial support provided by signers of Watershed Planning Interlocal Agreement for WRIA 9 including: • Oversight Committee Algona,Auburn,Black Diamond,Burien,Covington,Des Moines,Enumclaw,Federal Way,Kent,King County,Maple Valley, • 0209 W95teering(om.ai LP Normandy Park,Renton,SeaTac,Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila • Now remember this, the recovery plan must be a livingdocument. While we must commit to • work to make progress, we recognize that the plans will change as firmer answers become available. To prove or disprove the science undergirding the plan, we must monitor our results, test our hypoth- eses and adaptively manage the changes necessary to meet new data requirements or test new hypotheses. Our knowledge of what to do is not perfect and we should not demand perfection of our plan. We need not await perfection before we decide to act. We know enough to make a huge difference if we proceed on our current knowledge. William Ruckelshaus Keynote speech excerpt Shared Strategies Summit - January 26-27,2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - DOCUMENT ROADMAP: QUICK GUIDE TO THE SALMONPLAN See how the document is organized ' • This matrix and the Table of Contents ' See how the Salmon Habitat Plan addresses harvest and hatchery practices in WRIA 9 ' ' • Chapter 1: Executive Summary(Section 1.11) ' Read an overview of the main points of the Salmon Habitat Plan,and how the Plan addresses Bull Trout and other species • Chapter 1: Executive Summary(Section 1.12) ' • ' • Also see Volume II: Appendix K for a comparison between the recommendations in this Plan and those of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service that will benefit Bull Trout ' Understand what the Salmon Habitat Plan is and is not ' ' • Chapter 2:Introduction ' Understand the WRIA 9 Salmon habitat conservation planning process - Chapter 2:Introduction ' Learn what is being done now to protect and restore salmon habitat - ' • Chapter 2:Introduction Other related information: NearTerm Action Agenda,May 2002 at: - http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WRIAs/9/NTAA.htm ' Learn the characteristics of the WRIA 9 Watershed,causes of salmon decline • Chapter 3: Impacts on Salmonid Habitat in WRIA 9: History,Factors of Decline,and Policy ' Recommendations • See the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment available at: - ' http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WRIAs/9/Recon.htm - • For saltwater habitat information,seethe State of the Nearshore Ecosystem:WRIAs 8 and 9 Iavailable at: • http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/Watersheds/puget/nearshore/sonr.htm Learn about the science behind the actions ' • Chapter 4:Scientific FoundationOther related information:Strategic Assessment at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WRIAs/9/index.htm - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Learn about the ecosystem synthesis approach used in the Plan. I • Chapter4: Scientific Foundation • ' Learn about the specific management strategies that lead to each action • Chapter 5: Habitat Management Strategies ' • Other related information: Functional Linkages Reports(Phase 1 and 2)at:http:// dnr.metrokc.gov/WRIAs/9/StratAssess.htm I - Learn how ecological economics can be used to determine the value of the WRIA 9 ' ecosystems: • Chapter 6: Ecological Economics Foundation - ' Find out what actions are recommended Watershed-wide for all local govern- ments and other partners ' • Chapter 7:Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population ' Find out what actions are recommended for the specific part of the watershed - where you live,work,or play - • Chapter 7:Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population _ I Learn how flexible this plan is and how we can respond to changes in the future. ' • Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy and • Chapter 9:Adaptive Management and Monitoring ' ' • Other related information:Shared Strategies Summit Platform statements at: - ' http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/summit/index.htm - Understand how the actions can be implemented and where the money may ' come from • Chapter 8:Implementation Plan I -�- See who participated in the development of the Habitat Plan I � ' • Acknowledgements section at the beginning of the document(p.iii) I I Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - TABLE OF • Sections Pages List of Steering Committee Members............................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations/Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. vi Glossaryof Terms.......................................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1.0: Executive Summary - Sections Pages • 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 • 1.2 Why Do We Need A Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan ....................................................................................... 1-5 - 1.3 What Do Salmon Need? ...................................................................................................................................... 1-6 - 1.4 What Is Our Goal And Where Are We Now? ....................................................................................................... 1-7 • 1.5 What History Does the Plan Build On? .............................................................................................................. 1-8 - 1.6 What Is the Scientific Foundation For the Habitat Plan? ................................................................................. 1-8 1.7 What Is the Strategy For Habitat Recovery?....................................................................................................... 1-9 . 1.8 What are the Key Salmon Habitat Needs in Each Subwatershed?................................................................. 1-10 • 1.9 What Actions Does the Habitat Plan Recommend To Protect And Restore Salmon Habitat?..................... 1-12 • 1.10 How Much Will Implementation Cost And Who Will Benefit?....................................................................... 1-14 • 1.11 How Are Harvest And Hatchery Considerations Addressed?......................................................................... 1-14 • 1.12 Does the Habitat Plan Also Benefit Bull Trout And Other Species?............................................................... 1-14 - 1.13 How Will Monitoring and Adaptive Management Be Used To Guide Habitat Recovery?............................ 1-15 - 1.14 What Is the Role For Citizens? .......................................................................................................................... 1-15 - 1.15 Next Steps........................................................................................................................................................... 1-16 - Chapter 2.0: Introduction - Sections Pages 2.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Plan Framework...................................................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 What Is the Purpose Of Volume II Of the Habitat Plan? ...................................................................................2-2 2.4 What Is the Legal Foundation for WRIA 9 Watershed Planning? .....................................................................2-3 2.5 What Is the WRIA 9 Organizational Structure?..................................................................................................2-3 2.6 Highlights of Current WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation Actions ..........................................................................2-5 2.7 Salmon Conservation Planning In the Puget Sound Region..........................................................................2-10 - 2.8 WRIA 9 Habitat Planning Strategy....................................................................................................................2-10 2.9 General Scope of the Habitat Plan ...................................................................................................................2-11 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Chapter 3.0:Impacts On Salmonid Habitat In Wria 9: History,Factors Of Decline,And Policy Recommendations Sections Pages 3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................3-1 - 3.2 Human Development History............................................................................................................................3-2 - 3.3 WRIA-Wide Factors of Decline ...........................................................................................................................3-4 3.4 Factors of Decline Specific to Subwatersheds...................................................................................................3-5 3.5 Other Factors of Decline ...................................................................................................................................3-12 - 3.6 Recommended Policies to Minimize Impacts On Salmon Habitat...............................................................3-14 - Chapter 4.0:Scientific Foundation - Sections Pages . 4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................4-1 - 4.2 Guiding Principles for the Scientific Foundation .............................................................................................4-1 - 4.3 Habitat Plan Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................................4-3 - 4.4 Salmonid Ecology and Ecosystem Management..............................................................................................4-4 - 4.5 Scientific Foundation..........................................................................................................................................4-5 - 4.6 Necessary Future Chinook Salmon Population Conditions ..........................................................................4-32 - 4.7 Relationship to Habitat Management Strategies and Actions .......................................................................4-35 - Chapter 5.0:Habitat Management Strategies and Policies Sections Pages 5.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Approach..............................................................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Scientific Basis For Habitat Management Strategies........................................................................................5-4 5.4 Watershed-Wide Habitat Management Strategies............................................................................................5-6 5.5 Subwatershed Habitat Management Strategies................................................................................................5-8 5.6 Habitat Management Strategies and Viability.................................................................................................5-14 5.7 Recommended Policies to Define and Uphold Scientific Goals and Priorities inthe Watershed ...............................................................................................................................................5-15 CHAPTER 6.0:Ecological Economics Foundation Sections Pages - 6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 6-1 - 6.2 Guiding Principles for the Ecological Economics Analysis..............................................................................6-1 . 6.3 Valuation Of WRIA 9 Ecosystem Services ..........................................................................................................6-2 • 6.4 Analysis Of Habitat Plan Actions:Two Case Studies.........................................................................................6-7 - 6.5 Necessary Future Chinook Salmon Population Conditions And Economic - Efficiency Gains Within WRIA 9....................................................................................................................... 6-12 6.6 Results and Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................6-12 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan August2005 - CHAPTER 7.0:Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population • Sections Pages 7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Methodology for Selecting Projects and Programs...........................................................................................7-1 7.3 WRIA 9 Watershed-Wide Programs....................................................................................................................7-3 7.4 Subwatershed-Specific Policies, Programs, and Projects...............................................................................7-16 CHAPTER 8.0:Implementation Strategy - Sections Pages - 8.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................8-1 . 8.2 Authority and Responsibility for Implementation ...........................................................................................8-1 - 8.3 Local Commitments and Federal Assurances...................................................................................................8-2 - 8.4 Priority Projects for the Next 10 Years ................................................................................................................8-6 - 8.5 Funding Strategy for Habitat Projects and Programs .......................................................................................8-6 • 8.6 Aligning Funding of WRIA 9 Priorities with the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan .................................8-25 - CHAPTER 9.0:Adaptive Management and Monitoring - Sections Pages 9.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................9-1 • 9.2 Adaptive Management........................................................................................................................................9-2 - 9.3 Monitoring...........................................................................................................................................................9-7 - 9.4 Types of Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................9-7 Chapter1O.O:References Sections Pages 10.0 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 10-1 - Tables - Pages - Table 3-1: Factors of Decline ............................................................................................................................. ..3-6 Table 3-2: Designated Land Uses in WRIA 9........................................................................................................3-14 - Table 4-1: Assessment Segments of the Green/Duwamish River Used To Analyze Aquatic Habitat Change..4-9 -_ Table 5-1: Viable Salmonid Population Objectives...............................................................................................5-5 Table 5:2: Target for Good Habitat Quality..........................................................................................................5-17 • Table 6-1: WRIA 9 Total Ecosystem Goods and Service Value Estimates ($per year) ........................................6-5 - Table 6-2: Ecosystem Services Enhanced By Habitat Protection and Conservation Measures inthe Nearshore...................................................................................................................................6-11 Table 8-1: Local Government Commitment Options...........................................................................................8-6 Table 8-2: Summary of Priority Projects ................................................................................................................8-7 Table 8-3: Salmon Recovery Funding Board Funded Projects in WRIA 9*........................................................8-20 Table 9-1: WRIA 9 Proposed Monitoring Recommendations............................................................................9-10 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Figures Pages - Figure 1-1: Map of Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) ....................................... 1-4 - Figure 3-1: Duwamish Drainage Prior To 1900 and After 1916..............................................................................3-1 - Figure 3-2: Historical Photograph of Fish Trap on a Green River Tributary - TakenIn 1923 Near Auburn...................................................................................................................3-2 Figure3-3: Land Use Designations........................................................................................................................3-15 - Figure 4-1: Duwamish Transition Zone.................................................................................................................4-13 - Figure 4-2: Green/Duwamish River Juvenile Chinook Salmon Rearing Trajectories ........................................4-31 - Figure 4-3: Logic Train Showing the Relationship of the Hypothesized Necessary Future Conditions - and Conservation Hypotheses with the Habitat Management Strategies and Actions ................4-35 Figure 5-1: Technical Recovery Team Approach to Development Management Strategiesand Actions...........5-2 Figure 7-1: Recommended Actions: Upper Green River Subwatershed............................................................7-19 Figure 7-2: Recommended Actions: Middle Green River Subwatershed...........................................................7-29 Figure 7-3: Recommended Actions: Lower Green River Subwatershed ............................................................7-55 Figure 7-4: Recommended Actions: Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed ...........................................................7-79 Figure 7-5: Recommended Actions: Marine Nearshore Subwatershed...........................................................7-100 Figure 9-1: Six Steps of Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................9-1 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY Steering Committee Members - Rebecca Clark,Councilmember Bob Taylor City of Covington (Co-Chair of Steering Committee) Covington Water District Dow Constantine,Councilmember Jefferson Davis(past member) King County(Co-Chair of Steering Committee) Covington Water District Dwight Pelz,Councilmember Judy Nelson (past member) - King County(past member) Covington Water District Bill Peloza, Councilmember Lys Hornsby (past member) - City ofAuburn Covington Water District • Charles Booth,Mayor Max Prinsen - City ofAuburn(past member) King Conservation District . Stephen Lamphear,Councilmember Judy Taylor City ofBurien King County Agricultural Commission - Joan McGilton,Councilmember/Deputy Mayor Burr Mosby(past member) City ofBurien King County Agricultural Commission Deborah Ranniger,Councilmember Garrett Huffman City of Kent Master Builders Association Tim Clark,Councilmember Peter Orser(past member) City ofKent(past member) Master Builders Association John Wiltse,Mayor(past member) Dick Lowell(past member) - City of Normandy Park Master Builders Association Shawn McEvoy,Councilmember Jeff Light(past member) - City of Normandy Park Plum Creek Timber Company - Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Don Nettleton - City of Renton Plum Creek Timber Company • Richard Conlin,Councilmember Wayne Grotheer City of Seattle Port of Seattle • Margaret Pageler,Councilmember (past member) Thomas Newlon (past member) City of Seattle Port of Seattle Jan Drago,Councilmember(past member) Denise Stiffarm City of Seattle Port of Seattle(past member) Dennis Robertson,Councilmember John Beal City of Tukwila Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance Steven Mullet,Mayor (past member) James Rasmussen - City of Tukwila Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance Len Olive Dee Arntz • Covington Water District Washington Environmental Council • Page - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Doreen Johnson (past member) Art Tasker(past member) - Washington Environmental Council Washington State Department of Natural Resources - Marilyn Tuohy Noel Gilbrough - Washington Trout(past member) US Army Corps of Engineers _ Al Barrie Trout Unlimited/Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Financial Contribution - DeAnna Burnett Keener Financial support for the coordination and develop- South County Chambers of Commerce Coalition ment of this plan was provided,in large part,by the Alex Truchot(past member) local governments that have jurisdiction or manage - South County Chambers of Commerce Coalition resources in Water Resource Inventory Area 9. In addition,the King Conservation District provided John Raeder(past member) substantial financial support both for the scientific - South County Chambers of Commerce Coalition assessments and the development of this plan. - John Kirner - Tacoma Public Utilities Paul Hickey • Tacoma Public Utilities Charles Keller The Boeing Company Brian Winslow The Boeing Company David Sizemore(past member) The Boeing Company • Susie Kalhorn Vashon/Maury Island Community Council - Steve Hirschey . Washington State Department of Ecology Anne Dettelbach - Washington State Department of Ecology Lisa Olson (past member) • Washington State Department of Ecology Kirk Lakey Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Bob Everitt Washington State Department offish and Wildlife - Phil Schneider(past member) Washington State Department offish and Wildlife - Rex Thompson . Washington State Department of Natural Resources - Janet Thompson - Washington State Department of Natural Resources Page ii - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • Report Editors Steering Committee Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Groups that Contributed to the WRIA 9 Gordon Thomson,Lead Salmon Habitat Plan: • Dennis Clark - Holly McCracken Planning Work Group MaryAusburn, City of Normandy Park Paul Bucich, City of Federal Way(past member) - Report Design and Graphics Dennis Dowdy, City ofAuburn(past member) Margaret Duncan,Puget Sound Shared Strategy Laurel Preston,Lead,King County Eric Hagen, City ofAuburn(past member) - Sandra Kraus,King County Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities - Wendy Collins,King County Lys Hornsby, City of Renton Constance Carlson,King County Doreen Johnson,Washington Environmental Council Ben Garrison, Graphic Design Illustration (past member) Paul Krauss, City ofAuburn Kirk Lakey, Washington State Department of Fish and Authors/ Researchers Wildlife ! Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila David Batker,Asia-Pacific Environmental Exchange Mike Mactutis, City of Kent Erin Burgess,Asia-Pacific Environmental Exchange Joan M actut n, City of Burien - Robert Fuerstenberg,King County Aaron Nix, City ofAuburn • Kollin Higgins,King County Jill Moe,King County Judith Noble, City of Seattle Lisa Olson, Washington State Department of Ecology Bill Priest,King County (past member) Lorin Reinelt,King County Lorin Reinelt,King County - Mike Schiewe,Anchor Environmental Don Robinett, City ofFederal Way Paul Schlenger,Anchor Environmental Ron Straka,City of Renton Colleen Srull,King County Brian Winslow, The Boeing Company • Richard Tucker,King County Bill Wolinski, City of Kent(past member) Jennifer Vanderhoof,King County Watershed Coordina- tion Services Team Technical Committee Kathy Wright,King County Karen Bergeron, U.S.Forest Service(past member) George Blomberg,Port of Seattle Watershed Coordination Services Team Jim Brennan,King County(past member) Terry Butler,King County(past member) Dennis Clark Kathryn Gellenbeck, Watershed Coordination Services Linda Grob (past member) • Linda Hanson Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers(past member) Elizabeth Loudon Julie Hall, City of Seattle Holly McCracken Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities Doug Osterman Jon Houghton,Pentec Environmental(past member) Gordon Thomson Kirk Lakey, Washington State Department of Fish and Laura Blackmore (past member) Wildlife Kathryn Gellenbeck(past member) Tom Nelson,King County - Julie Hampden (past member) Lorin Reinelt,King County Elaine Kleckner(past member) Jim Starkes,Pentec Environmental(past member) Jennifer Rice (past member) Bill Taylor, Taylor and Associates - Kathy Taylor,Puget Sound Water QualityAction Team • Gordon Thomson,Watershed Coordination Services Team - Page iii - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Public Outreach Work Group Lower Green River - Charlie Cunniff,Environmental Coalition of South Linda Hanson,Watershed Coordination Services(lead) Seattle Claire Dyckman,King County Doreen Johnson, Washington Environmental Council Len Elliott,Auburn resident - (past member) Larry Fisher, Washington State Department of Fish and Eric Maia,King County Wildlife Noelle Richards, watershed citizen Lori Flemm, City of Kent Parks Department Donald Robinett, City of Federal Way Josh Kahan,King County - Pat Sumption,Friends of the Green River Drew Kerr,King County Darrell Williams,Seahurst Environmental Science Kirk Lakey,Washington State Department of Fish and Center Wildlife - Andy Levesque,King County Mike Mactutis, City of Kent Ad Hoc Subwatershed Groups Tom Nelson,King County Ryan Partee, City of Tukwila - Upper Green River Lorin Reinelt,King County Doug Osterman and Holly McCracken, Dennis Robertson,City of Tukwila Watershed Coordination Services(co-leads) Ruth Schaefer,King County - Karen Bergeron,King County Mike Scuderi, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Don Finney,King County Ron Straka, City of Renton Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities Chris Thorn, City ofAuburn Tom Nelson,King County Patrick Trotter, Consulting Fishery Biologist - Don Nettleton,Plum Creek Timber Company Brian Winslow, The Boeing Company Tyler Patterson, US Forest Service Bill Wolinski, City of Kent(past member) Lorin Reinelt,King County - Bill Strong, US Forest Service Duwamish Estuary - Dennis Clark,Watershed Coordination Services(lead) Middle Green River BJ Cummings,Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition Katie Gellenbeck and Elizabeth Loudon, Charlie Cunniff,Environmental Coalition of South - Watershed Coordination Services(co-leads) Seattle Dee Arntz, Washington Environmental Council Bronwyn Dexter,People forPuget Sound Tom Beavers,King County Margaret Duncan,Puget Sound Shared Strategy Kathy Creahan,King County Glenn Grette;Grette Associates Jefferson Davis, Covington Water District (consultant to Port of Seattle) - Claire Dyckman,King County Wayne Grotheer,Port of Seattle Noel Gilbrough, US Army Corps of Engineers Julie Hall, City of Seattle - Stan Harrelson,Puget Sound Energy Charles Keller, The Boeing Company Robin Heyduk,King County Drew Kerr,King County Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities Sue Meyer,King County Josh Kahan,King County Tom Nelson,King County Drew Kerr,King County Judith Noble, City of Seattle Andy Levesque,King County John Phillips,King County Matt Mactutis,City of Kent James Rasmussen, Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance Tom Nelson,King County Lorin Reinelt,King County - Lorin Reinelt,King County Greg Ruggerone,Natural Resources Consultants Beni Wadsworth,King County (consultant to King County/WRL4 9) Ruth Schaefer,King County - Jeff Stern,King County - Heather Trim,People for Puget Sound Brian Winslow, The Boeing Company Page iv - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - - Marine Nearshore Paul Schlenger,Anchor Environmental and Kollin Higgins,King County(co-leads) • Jim Brennan,King County Bronwyn Dexter,People for Puget Sound Glenn Grette, Grette Associates - (consultant to Port of Seattle) - Julie Hall, City of Seattle Ray Heller,King County Susie Kalhorn, Vashon/Maury Island Community - Council • Kirk Lakey, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Lindsay Malone, Cascade Land Conservancy - Joan McGilton, City of Burien Judith Noble, City of Seattle Lorin Reinelt,King County - Susan Ridgley,Port of Seattle - Don Robinett, City of Federal Way Curtis Tanner, US Fish and Wildlife ServicelPuget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project - Kathy Taylor,Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team - Heather Trim,People for Puget Sound - Photos - Unless otherwise noted,all photos courtesy of King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. r - Page v - GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 ACRONYMSABBREVIATIONS AND - BNSF Railway Burlington Northern Santa Fe NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric (Railway) Fisheries Administration Fisheries - cfs cubic feet per second NOR natural origin recruit CY cubic yards NPDES National Pollution Discharge - Elimination System DSA distinct spawning aggregation Plan WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan - ERP Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project RCW Revised Code of Washington ESA Endangered Species Act RM river mile(s) • ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit SAV submerged aquatic vegetation - Forum Forum of Local Governments SRFB Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board GIS Geographic Information System - TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Habitat Plan WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan TRT Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team - HOR hatchery origin recruit VSP Viable Salmonid Population ILA Interlocal Agreement - WAC Washington Administrative Code - KCD King Conservation District WLRD Water and Land Resources Division LWD large woody debris - WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area MRV marine riparian vegetation Page vi - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - GLOSSARY OF TERMS - 303 (d)list: Lists of all water bodies with impaired alluvial material,bedrock,or other material) that water quality in the United States as required by the obstructs flow and induces deposition. Clean Water Act of 1973. • basin: The area of land that drains water,sediment, • abundance: A measure of the size of the population or and dissolved materials to a common point along a numbers of fish at each life stage. One of four viable stream channel. Synonym for watershed. salmonid population(VSP)parameters. - buffer: An area of intact vegetation maintained action: The process of doing something to achieve an between human activities and a particular natural aim. In this Plan, actions include both projects and feature,such as a stream. The buffer reduces potential - programs. In this Plan,the term actions does not negative impacts by providing an area around the - include policies. feature that is unaffected by this activity. - adaptive management: A dynamic planning and channel migration: The area within the floodplain - implementation process that involves applying scien- where a stream or river has been and will be suscep- tific principles,methods,and tools to improve man- tible to channel erosion and/or channel occupation. agement activities incrementally,as decision makers - learn from experience and as better information and channelization: Straightening the meanders of a river; • analytical tools become available. Adaptive manage- often accompanied by placing riprap or concrete along ment involves periodic modifications of planning and stream banks to fix the stream in its new channel. management strategies-and sometimes goals,objec- tives,and benchmarks-in recognition of the fact that confluence: The junction or union of two or more the future cannot be predicted perfectly. Adaptive streams;a body of water produced by the union of management requires deliberate,careful monitoring several streams. • and analysis of the results of past actions and applica- tion of those results to current decisions. conservation hypothesis: A"best estimate"of how improvements in habitat conditions and processes will alevin: Larval salmonid that has hatched but has not lead to improvements in the four salmon parameters • fully absorbed its yolk sac and generally has not yet critical to viability. emerged from the spawning gravel. conspecific: Of or belonging to the same species. . alluvial: Deposited by running water. current use assessment program: A program designed anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of to preserve open space/natural areas by providing tax their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater incentives to encourage landowners to keep their open . streams to spawn. space-type properties in"current use." Specifically,it seeks to prevent the loss of open space due by taxing anthropogenic:Resulting from the influence of human land at the lower tax rates associated with agricultural - beings on nature or undeveloped uses(see also Public Benefit Rating - System). bank armoring: The artificial application of various materials to protect streambanks from erosion by distinct spawning aggregations: A group of conspe- • running water. Also,the formation of an erosion- cific fish gathered for the purpose of spawning,with - resistant layer of relatively large particles on the fish densities or numbers significantly higher than surface of a streambank. those found in the area of aggregation during the non- reproductive periods.Resident spawning aggregations • bar: Ridge-like accumulation of sand,gravel,or other draw individuals from a relatively small and local area, alluvial material formed in the channel,along the whereas in transient spawning aggregations individu- banks,or at the mouth of a stream where a decrease in als must travel days or weeks to reach the aggregation water velocity induced deposition. Also,a structure (of site. - Page vii • Green/Duwamish and central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 diversity: Differences within and among populations the species. Chinook salmon in Puget Sound are in genetic and behavioral traits. One of four viable considered one ESU by NOAA Fisheries. salmonid population(VSP) parameters. fecundity: The average number of eggs produced by a - drainage area: Total land area draining to any point in female salmon. a stream,as measured on a map,aerial photograph,or other horizontal,two-dimensional projection. fingerling: A salmon that migrated from the river to - the estuary or ocean in its first year of life. Its total age - Ecological Synthesis Approach: A practical approach equals its marine age. of understanding a population within an ecosystem based on empirical observations of how salmon fishmix: The proper mix of substrate(gravel) sizes in - currently use habitats in the overall watershed in the the marine nearshore that forage fish can spawn in. context of current versus historical habitat conditions. floodplain: Lowland areas that are periodically - ecosystem: A biological community of interacting inundated by the lateral overflow of streams or rivers. - organisms and their physical environment. fry: Life stage of trout and salmon between full ab- . ecosystem management: Management that integrates sorption of the yolk sac and a somewhat arbitrary - ecological relationships with sociopolitical values defined fingerling or parr stage,which generally is toward the general goal of protecting or returning reached by the end of the first summer. ecosystem integrity over the long term. - functional linkages: The qualitative and quantitative Ecosystem Restoration Project/Study: In the 1990s, relationships between habitat quantity and quality and the US Army Corps of Engineers,in partnership with the four viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters King County,the cities of the watershed,the of abundance,productivity,diversity,and spatial - Muckleshoot and Suquamish Tribes,state agencies, structure. and local interests conducted the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study to identify steps needed hatchery origin recruits(HOR): Describes all fish that - to restore the ecosystem of the watershed. The result- are not of natural origin. • ing list of 45 projects is called the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Implementation of the hyperosmotic: Having an osmotic pressure higher . first projects began in the early 2000s. than that of the environment. For example,a fish in . fresh water is hyperosmotic to its environment(and Endangered Species Act(ESA): A 1973 Act of Congress hence tends to lose salts and be flooded by water). that mandated that endangered and threatened - species of fish,wildlife,and plants be protected and impervious surface: An impermeable ground cover- restored. age or surface,such as a paved road,roof,sidewalk,or structure,that alters the natural flow and quality of • escapement: The number of fish that have survived all water. - causes of mortality and will comprise the spawning populations. interlocal agreement(ILA): An agreement between two or more governments or other partners defining - estuary,estuarine: Semi-enclosed body of water that shared tasks or responsibilities. This Plan was devel- has free connection with the open sea,and within oped under the terms of an interlocal agreement which seawater is measurably diluted by fresh river signed by all WRIA 9 local governments and the City of - water. Typically provides a greater number of ecologi- Tacoma. - cal niches than either freshwater or marine ecosys- tems. large woody debris(LWD): Large woody material that intrudes into a stream channel. Large pieces of wood - evolutionary significant unit(ESU): A population (or are an important part of the structural diversity of - group of populations) that is reproductively isolated streams. The term usually refers to pieces at least 20 from other conspecific population units,and represent inches (51cm) in diameter. an important component in the evolutionary legacy of • Page viii - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - levee: A long,narrow embankment usually built to necessary future conditions: An hypothesized set protect land from flooding. If built of concrete or of Chinook population and habitat goals and masonry,the structure is usually referred to as a flood targets considered necessary to produce desired - wall. Levees and floodwalls confine streamflow within changes in viable salmonid population (VSP)param- a specified area to prevent flooding. The term"dike"is eters. In WRIA 9,necessary future conditions are used to describe an embankment that blocks an area expected to be refined over time as understanding - on a reservoir or lake rim that is lower than the top of improves regarding the relationships between habitat • the dam. quantity and quality and salmonid population re- sponse. life history: The description of a species'entire life • cycle including rearing,feeding,migratory,and osmoregulation: Control of the volume and composi- • breeding behaviors. tion of body fluids. - life history stage: The distinct periods in the life of a oxbow: A looping river bend or meander cut off from - salmonid. Typically,each life stage is associated with the main flow by a new channel. A crescent-shaped particular habitat needs. Life history stages vary lake formed by the detachment of a river bend from among salmonids. For Chinook,life stages are egg, the main channel. • alevin,fry,smolt,ocean phase(immature),and adult. parr: Young trout or salmon actively feeding in fresh- life history trajectory: Classification of salmonid water;usually refers to young anadromous salmonids . rearing based on estimated body length and approxi- before they migrate to salt water. • mate residence time within rearing habitats. Expres- sion of life history trajectories depends on genetic patch: A sub-unit of a landscape that exhibits consis- diversity(the propensity of juveniles rear in a given tent or homogenous properties that are different from - habitat) and environmental conditions (the existence the surrounding area. In a riverine system,for ex- of habitats necessary for a given trajectory). Five life ample,a patch may refer to a gravel riffle or to a pool. history trajectories have been identified for Green/ It may also refer to a pool:riffle unit that is separated Duwamish River Chinook:marine-direct fry,estuarine from other such units by other types of patches. In - reared fry,lower river-reared fry,marine-direct late meta-population work,a patch is often considered the migrant,and yearling. smallest unit of the landscape relevant to population dynamics. . limiting factor: Single factor that limits a system or • population from reaching its highest potential in terms photic zone: The zone in a water body(lake or ocean) of viable salmonid population parameters. extending from the surface to the depth at which photosynthesis cannot occur due to insufficient light. • logjam: Large accumulations of debris partially or completely blocking the stream channel,creating phragmites: A tall wetland grass also known as com- major obstructions to flow. mon reed. There are both native and non-native - strains of this plant in Washington. Due to its aggres- - marine riparian vegetation: See"riparian." sive tendencies and impact to waterways,the non- native strain was added to the State Noxious Weed List - Mean Lower Low Water: The average height of the as a Class C noxious weed in 2003. • lower low waters over a 19 year period (a tidal datum). piling groups: Groups of pilings,usually vertical meander: The snake-like appearance of the reach of a wooden poles from historical piers or buildings. . stream. More specifically,a stream reach is said to be . meandering if its length is 1.5 times (or more)the policy: As used in this Plan,a"policy"refers to high- length of the valley through which it passes. level guidance related to either goals or methods of achieving those goals. In this Plan,policies are most - natural origin recruit(NOR): A fish that has spent likely recommended for local governments and may essentially all of its life-cycle in the wild and whose address land use regulations,land use incentives, parents spawned in the wild. stormwater management,stewardship/public educa- tion,and internal government practices. - Page ix • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 pool tailout: The downstream end of a pool where the recruitment: The influx of new members into a . bed surface gradually rises and the water depth population by reproduction or immigration. decreases. It may vary in length but usually occurs immediately upstream of a riffle. refugia(plural;refugium—singular): Geographic - locations where a species or population has persisted productivity: A measure of how well the population is during changed or adverse conditions such as glacia- "performing"in its habitat,or the growth rate of the tion. Also,a collection or mosaic of habitat units that - population. One of four viable salmonid population supports a persistent population during normal - (VSP) parameters. environmental perturbations. Refugia occur at scales from tens to thousands of square miles. program or programmatic action: As used in this - Plan,a"program"refers to a body of work requiring rehabilitation: To return to working order or to put staffing and/or funding. For example,a program to back into good condition. In this case,not all charac- provide incentives to private property owners who teristics and functions of an ecosystem will be recov- - voluntarily protect habitat could include determining ered but improvements can be made that approximate . incentives,publicizing them,and awarding them to some undisturbed forms and functions. Continual the property owners. In this Plan,programs focus on human intervention will likely be required because weed control,stewardship/public education,internal restoration of the underlying ecosystem processes has • government practices,and other governmental efforts not occurred. (National Research Council, 1992) - to protect and restore salmon habitat either directly or in cooperation with individuals,groups,businesses, restoration: To return an ecosystem to a close approxi- . and other governments. mation of its condition prior to disturbance;the re- - establishment of pre-disturbance aquatic functions project: As used in this Plan,a"project"refers to on- and related physical,chemical,and biological charac- the-ground efforts to protect,restore,rehabilitate,or teristics. This requires attention to rebuilding the - substitute habitat or the processes that create habitat. entire ecosystem with attention to all functions and - Habitat protection projects typically consist of the characteristics,an objective that may,in practice,be acquisition of specific habitat through fee-simple quite difficult to achieve. (National Research Council, purchase or purchase of a conservation easement. 1992) - Restoration,rehabilitation,or substitution projects consist of improvements to instream,riparian,or revetment: A facing of stone,broken rock, or other upland habitat through planting of native vegetation, material placed on a streambank to minimize erosion • control of weeds,installation of large woody debris, by running water. - setting back or breaching levees,removal of bulkheads, excavating shallow water habitat,gravel supplementa- riffle: Shallow section of a stream or river with rapid tion,and other physical changes that expand the current and a surface broken by gravel,rubble - quantity of habitat or improve its quality. (cobble),or boulders. protection: The maintenance of ecosystem form and riparian: Type of transition zone between aquatic • function together with the attendant processes neces- habitats and upland areas. Typically,lush vegetation - sary for creation and maintenance of the ecosystem. along a stream,river,or Puget Sound shoreline (marine This may also imply management of the ecosystem (or riparian vegetation). of external influences)to maintain natural characteris- tics and function. run size: The total number of adult salmon returning in a given year. Consists of all fish including those Public Benefit Rating System: A program in King harvested,those taken as broodstock for hatcheries, - County that provides incentives to encourage land- and those escaping to spawn in the wild. . owners to voluntarily conserve and protect land resources,open space,and timber. In return for salmonid: Of or relating to fish of the family preserving and managing resources,the land is as- Salmonidae,including salmon,trout,chars,whitefish, - sessed at a value consistent with its"current use" ciscoes,and grayling. In general usage,the term most rather than the"highest and best" and as much as 90% often refers to salmon,trout,and char. for the portion of the land participating in the program (also see current use assessment program). - Page x - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - seep: An area of groundwater flow to the land surface that outlines how this quantity was determined and or surface water. describes the process used to determine the quantity. • setback: The repositioning of a levee or other structure trajectory: See"life history trajectory." away from the edge of the river or stream. Setback levees allow habitat to develop between the levee and transition zone: A location where freshwater from a - the river or stream. river and saltwater from the marine salt wedge mix, - creating brackish conditions. It is also often is where Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: A collaborative the river widens,stream velocities decrease,and effort to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget estuarine mudflats begin to appear. Habitat associated • Sound. Shared Strategy has engaged local citizens, with the transition zone is particularly important for tribes,technical experts and policy makers to create a juvenile Chinook and chum smolts making the transi- Chinook salmon recovery plan for Puget Sound. tion to salt water. The transition zone moves upstream • Shared Strategy is the venue where the WRIA 9 Salmon and downstream in response to the combination of - Habitat Plan will be integrated with other habitat, stream flow and tidal elevations and thus varies over a hatchery,and harvest plans through the Puget Sound 24 hour period and seasonally. Salmon Recovery Plan. - upland: Land areas not immediately adjacent to a - smolt: Juvenile salmon that are in the process of water body. All land exclusive of riparian zones and making the necessary physiological changes for surface freshwater. Uplands are connected to streams i transition from freshwater to saltwater. This is usually through sheet flow on undeveloped or cleared lands • the time the young salmon migrate out of the river into and through stormwater sewers and road drainage the estuary,although they may continue the systems. smoltification process in freshwater after having • reached the estuaries. viable salmonid population: A population that is • naturally self-sustaining and not dependent upon soft armoring: The protection of streambanks or artificial propagation. shorelines through techniques that utilize living and • nonliving plants instead of rock revetments and viable salmonid population(VSP)parameters: The concrete bulkheads. These techniques are considered parameters critical to a viable salmonid population: to have higher value for fisheries,wildlife,water abundance,productivity,diversity in terms of genetics • quality,and aesthetic appeal. and life history,and spatial structure. See separate - definitions for abundance,productivity,diversity,and spatial structure: Both the geographic distribution of spatial structure. fish in a watershed and the physical processes that . lead to that distribution. One of four viable salmonid Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA): Geographic population (VSP) parameters. areas usually corresponding to major watersheds. Washington State is divided into 62 WRIAs for water - stray: An individual that breeds in a population other management purposes. The Green/Duwamish Water- than that of its parents. shed and the small stream drainages from Seattle's Elliott Bay to Federal Way make up WRIA 9. For stray rate: The proportion of a population that con- salmon habitat planning purposes only,Vashon/Maury • sists of strays. Island is included in WRIA 9. substitution: The replacement of ecosystem form and watershed: A basin-shaped area that drains to a • functions with new features that are not supported by central point where it enters a larger river,lake,or the . natural processes. Substitutions require constant ocean. A watershed includes freshwater ground water intervention to maintain the desired functions. and surface waters as well as the marine waters of Puget Sound. Although technically made up of mul- • Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs): The quantity of tiple watersheds or basin,the area in Water Resource a pollutant that can be assimilated by a water body and Inventory Area 9 is often simply referred to as the still meet water quality objectives. The initials TMDL Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. . also refer to the final Water Cleanup Plan document Synonym for basin. - Page xi • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August Z005 i i - 1.1 INTRODUCTION The story of salmon in Puget Sound is one told in rivers,streams,and the marine waters of Puget Sound. Green/Duwamish and Central - That story of migration,spawning,growth, Puget Sound abundance,and decline is a common one, experienced by all of the watersheds in the Puget Watershed (WRIA 9) at a Glance Sound region,including the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(Figure 1-1). - --- -------------------------------------- 5 But the future of this story is in jeopardy.Will people a - century hence view the salmon as a living icon of their • watersheds? Or will it be a historical symbol of a , bygone era that can only be viewed in the wild by traveling to Canada or Alaska? Will future stories - - acknowledge the wisdom and effort of our generation, - which saw problems and boldly solved them? Or will N our descendents shake their heads at our lack of understanding and commitment that left them an M E5 _ - impoverished watershed that functioned poorly for both people and fish? Human population: • No less important is the fact that the present decline in 630,329 (2004 est.) • watershed health that harms salmon also jeopardizes other goods and services that the watershed provides Chinook salmon population: its many human residents at low or no cost:clean, 2,450 to 11,500 adults per year - abundant water,locally-grown foods,forest products, (highly variable) flood protection,recreational opportunities,and great natural beauty.Will we take action to conserve a Appraised land value: • resource that benefits us daily in many ways? $27.6 billion We who share this watershed have an opportunity to Improvements value: shape the answers to these questions as we decide $43.9 billion • whether and how to implement the recommendations of this Salmon Habitat Plan. Square miles: 664 total(575 land area) - After 120 years of intense development,the strains on - fish and the ecosystem of the Green/Duwamish and River miles(mainstem)• Central Puget Sound Watershed began to be apparent 93 to many.We ask much from our watershed.The - ecosystem goods and services it provides include water Puget Sound shoreline miles: - for drinking and industrial purposes,food,forest 90 products,waste assimilation,numerous recreational opportunities,and floodwater retention.For many Value of ecological goods and services per • years,it provided a wealth of salmon,too.As more of year(waste assimilation,recreation,flood these goods and services have been demanded than reduction,etc.): can be sustainably renewed,watershed health has $1.7 billion to$6.3 billion per year - suffered.In response to these stresses and changes in (depending on assumptions) - national,state,and local priorities over the last three decades,we have begun to take better care of the watershed and its ecosystem. - Page 1-1 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 farm,forest lands,parks,and natural areas that make up much of the watershed.Improvements in growth management and stormwater practices helped reduce the impacts of the rapid population growth and - development in the last decade of the 20th century. - The federal government listing of Chinook salmon and - bull trout as"threatened"under the Endangered - Species Act(ESA) accelerated the change in perspec- tive and a greater motivation for action.The Green/ Duwamish summer/fall Chinook and Newaukum - Creek summer/fall stocks are included in the Puget - Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit(ESU) for Chi- nook.This ESU was listed as"threatened"under the ESA in 1999. - In response to these federal listings,the WRIA 9 (Water Resource Inventory Area) Forum of Local Governments - helped fund the creation of this Salmon Habitat Plan - ("Plan") to guide protection and restoration of Chinook salmon and bull trout in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed.The Forum includes - all the local governments-15 cities and King County- in the watershed.The City of Tacoma also is a partner because of the importance of the Green River for its - municipal water supply. - People and fish are never far apartin the watershed,as shown here in Auburn atriver mile 30 on the Green River.July2004 photo. This Habitat Plan recommends actions that should be taken over the next 10 years to protect and restore - Stewardship of the watershed is evolving.For over a salmon habitat,using an ecosystem approach,in the century following European settlement,the watershed Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. was a bank from which resources could be drawn These efforts will complement habitat improvements - seemingly endlessly.The Green/Duwamish and in other parts of Puget Sound and changes to hatchery - Central Puget Sound Watershed offered a bounty of and harvest practices and thereby contribute to the drinking water,fish,forest products,farm products, recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull and minerals.Later,it became a center for commerce trout. - and industry in Western Washington and the water- Even within the watershed,this Salmon Habitat Plan is shed became a sink into which wastes could be poured a piece of a larger picture.Many individuals,non-profit with apparently few consequences.In the 1960s, groups,businesses,and governments have worked environmental protection efforts began to address hard to protect and improve ecosystem health and - some of the consequences of these patterns of use. salmon habitat for years.Some have made long-term Initial efforts focused on specific,obvious problems commitments that will contribute greatly to watershed such as point source water pollution from factories. salmon recovery. Recent recognition of the ecological importance of the entire watershed has resulted in a broader apprecia- This Plan recommends a comprehensive approach to tion of the environmental health and ecological protect and restore salmon habitat in the Green/ integrity of the watershed.Beginning in the 1980s, Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed.It - people in the watershed began to seek to reduce on- provides a strategy to accelerate salmon habitat going sources of harm,protect remaining healthy recovery locally and recommends specific and achiev- - habitats,and restore degraded areas.During the 1990s, able projects,programs,and policies that can be a wide variety of private and public land owners and m implemented within the first 10 years following plan managers committed to being better stewards of the adoption.The Plan relies on an ecosystem approach Page 1-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • um • FIGURE 1-1 • Green/Duwamish and Central • Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) • • • Duwamish Estuary Location Map • Subwatershed 03 04 • 06 - —--------- ----------- • •5 05 • 5N0 Is UNTY • URN 10 • ------------------- OS-Cedar- • ammamish 07 15 KI G COUNTY • ".NDY SEA K • 15 r • 39 • • 10 Middle 12 • : 20 Green River • � .� 11 PIERCE COUN Y % '�• Subwatershed 10-Puyallup-White 38 O • czo VAn_ 26 • •5 r\�77• �.✓ • I D • 30 • • .:'_URN• • • �� : .. 1 . Marine SLACK , .SJ Y •; • .(�o • •"'� '� f`' DIAMON, -4'Nearshore ' --ALGONA 50 • Tacoma• .-.` • 1 - • Subwatershed • , • • Headworks • Howard �� • ��/t't:R..�� - . Hanson Lower • ao . • • Dam • '' • 6 65 • Green River • . „� ';� . • Subwatershed • 1 River Mile • .5 75 10 • 70 • 1 • River Mile at Subwatershed Boundary 80 85 River - Major Road Upper • Urban Growth Area Line N Green River ' 90 River miles were estimated from"Catalog of Washington Subwatershed • f� WRIA 9 Subwatershed Boundary Streams and Salmon Utilization"(Williams et at,1975). • Map produced by: f King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks WRIA 9 Boundary - 0 2 4 6 M1es DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Unit File: • Open Water August 2005 0508-W91-lab-Loc.ai LPRE • 1.2 WHY DO WE NEED A WATERSHED - with a focus on the needs of Chinook salmon.Many if not most of its recommendations also will benefit bull SALMON HABITAT PLAN? trout(also listed as"threatened) and other non-listed - species such as coho salmon and steelhead trout. Native-origin Chinook salmon in the Green/ Watershed ecosystem health and salmon recovery is a Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed couldbecome extinct within our lifetimes. • long-term task that will take decades and may last as - long as a century.While this Plan focuses on actions in In response to this possibility,the National Marine the next 10 years,it provides tools that can be used in Fisheries Service(now known as NOAA Fisheries) the future to develop and evaluate actions.Its adaptive listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus management program,moreover,will provide valuable - information to further refine and target additional tshaurytscha) as a threatened species under the ESA in - March 1999.The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service listed actions.This Plan has a practical, 10-year focus for bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) as a threatened - most actions complemented by a long-term vision and species in November 1999. - enduring tools for further work.These actions and vision,as well as other interesting facts about the Approximately 106 wild salmon stocks in the Pacific watershed,are depicted in the WRIA 9 poster,"Making Northwest are now extinct,214 are at high or - our Watershed Fit for a King." moderate risk of extinction,and others being reviewed - Although the recommendations of this Habitat Plan for listing under the Endangered Species Act. are based on the best collective judgment of its many The causes of decline attributable to human activities - authors,new information in the future should be used include: to refine and modify these recommendations.To be most effective,this Plan should be considered a"living • Hydropower operations; - document." What this means is that when someone • Fishing(harvest); - picks up a copy in 2015,they'll find dog-eared pages, . Poor hatchery practices;and implementation notes jotted alongside project de- scriptions,inserted summaries of new scientific Degradation habitat through land use and information,new project ideas on post-its,project water-use practices. • construction and ribbon-cutting photos inserted between pages,references to monitoring reports for completed projects,and,assuredly,a dust-free cover. The Plan before you is the product of ever-greater #' voluntary cooperation in assessing,planning for,and - acting to meet salmon habitat needs across the water- shed.Local governments,federal and state agencies, business and environmental interests,private property owners,volunteers,and interested citizens have - demonstrated enormous dedication and public spiritedness.They are essential participants in this long,increasingly fruitful endeavor.Good stewardship - of the watershed and its salmon populations in the years ahead will surely rely on continued cooperationMILL _ and shared responsibility. The Green River is the primary source of drinking water for the City of • Tacoma and many of its suburbs.Water is diverted at the Tacoma - Head works at river mile 61.July 2004 photo. - Page 1-5 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 In addition,climatic and ocean changes are respon- Healthy watersheds provide many of these services for - sible for natural variability that provides a background free and in perpetuity and others at low cost.As our of change.Predation of salmon by mammals,birds, watershed is degraded,we lose these services or have and other fish during different life history stages also to pay more to create substitutes (e.g.,stormwater - has an impact on salmon populations. systems to manage runoff exacerbated by large amounts of pavement).Investments in ecosystem Although the relative impact of these factors varies health to benefit salmon and bull trout also will yield among watersheds,habitat loss and degradation are benefits for people.Alternatively,failure to act to - considered contributing factors in the decline of most protect and restore the watershed—which may cause salmonid1 populations (Spence et al.1996). the loss of wild Chinook salmon—will cost us in other ways as well. - Although many people are working today to help salmon in our watershed,more work is needed to arrest the decline of these fish and restore the health of the ecosystem that sustains them.This Habitat Plan 1.3 WHAT DO SALMON builds on existing work and takes advantage of the - latest scientific understanding to chart a course for The needs of salmon are few and straightforward.They habitat improvements over the next 10 years and need: provides tools and information for the years beyond. • Cool,unpolluted water; The watershed Habitat Plan relies on local knowledge • Spawning gravels that are not scoured out by high - and dedication to identify and solve problems in our flows or covered up with deposits of fine sediment; - watershed.It is part of the commitment across Puget • Accessible freshwater habitats—side channels,off- Sound to develop a bottom-up recovery plan that will channel marshes and sloughs,and shallow water meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act areas—that provide food,shelter from predators, while being informed by the knowledge and values of and refuge from high stream flows; - our communities.This Puget Sound-wide plan—the . Nearshore marine habitats that provide food, Shared Strategy—will be the venue for integrating shelter,and migration corridors to and from the habitat solutions for this watershed with other habitat efforts and efforts to address hatchery,harvest,and Pacific Ocean;and hydropower impacts. An opportunity to return to their natal streams at the time they are ready to spawn. - There is another compelling reason for marshalling the - resources and energy to implement this Habitat Plan: Long-term salmon recovery depends on: the health of the watershed.The Green/Duwamish and • Protecting existing high quality habitat; Central Puget Sound Watershed sustains a human population of 630,000 people with goods and services Protecting and improving water quality and m ensuring adequate streaflows; worth billions of dollars. - • Restoring rivers,streams,estuaries,and nearshore - Just a few of these include: habitats that have been degraded,guided by an understanding of population needs,current • Domestic water supply; habitat conditions,and the salmon-producing • Produce and other farm products; capacity of streams,rivers,and the marine - • Forest products; nearshore; - • Mitigation of floods and droughts; • Maximizing access to suitable habitats in the • Detoxification and decomposition of wastes; watershed; • Recreational opportunities;and • Reforming hatcheries so their management supports viable salmonid populations;and - • Aesthetic beauty. • Managing harvest to ensure adequate escapement . of wild-spawning fish. 1.Salmonids include salmon,trout,and chars(including bull trout)from the Family Salmonidae. • Page 1-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - EGGS IN GRAVEL - Female salmon lay2,000 to 4,000 eggs in clean, FRY ALEVIN well-oxygenated gravel. • After they lose the egg sac, In about 50 days,the baby }, - these pine-needle sized fish salmon hatch,but they stay in must feed on their own. the gravel,getting food from a yolk Female sac still attached to their bodies. • grow,they acquire Park'markings to camouflage mselves in the shadyMate //��bbles of the river. The Salmon Cycle 1 _ - SPAWNING SMOLT King salmon change color as they - l l swim upstream to the exact same After 2 to 16 months,these young stream where they were hatched. salmon start their longjourney to - After spawning,the salmon die. • the sea.Their kidneys and gills change Their bodies provide food for animals to prepare them for life in salt water, ADULT KING(CHINOOK)SALMON and valuable nutrients to the streams. • and they turn silver to camouflage Salmon spend about 4 years in Puget Sound themselves in the ocean. or in the ocean where they feed and grow. 1.4 WHAT IS OUR GOAL AND For context,the current target number for spawning - WHERE ARE adult summer/fall Chinook for the Green/Duwamish River watershed is approximately 9,300 Chinook.Of The following long-term (50-to 100-year) population this number,5,800 fish are targeted to spawn in the targets for summer/fall Chinook salmon in WRIA 9 are: river("escapement"),and 3,500 adult fall Chinook are intended for broodstock.Broodstock are artificially • 17,000 spawning adults annually(lower limit); spawned at the Soos Creek Salmon Hatchery. • 27,000 spawning adults (midpoint and adopted - target);and The number of returning fall Chinook to the Green • 37,000 spawning adults (upper limit). River varies tremendously year to year. From 1989 to 2001,total returning fall Chinook naturally spawning Refinement of these targets is expected to occur as in the river ranged from 2,450 to 11,500.Summer/fall - additional analyses are completed.These targets have Chinook returning to the hatchery have exceeded been accepted by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery 9,000 adults every year since 1995,except for 2000, Team(TRT) and by the Washington State Department when approximately 6,000 returned. of Fish and Wildlife(see January 25,2005 letter in Appendix A). In addition to the numerical target focused on abun- dance,the recommendations of the Habitat Plan are - intended to improve the three other viable salmonid • population parameters by: - • Increasing productivity(growth rate) of the population; • Improving diversity in terms of genetic makeup and behavioral traits;and • Improving the spatial structure of the population - - to better distribute fish to take advantage of good - habitat and to lower risk from catastrophic events. - Portions of theMiddle Green River,shown here at river mile 39,provide good spawning and rearing habitat. • Page 1-7 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 1.5 WHAT HISTORY DOES THE PLAN Hundreds of acres of high-quality habitat have been - BUILD ON? preserved through public purchase and innovative incentive programs.Growth management has focused This Habitat Plan is the result of a five-year planning development in the existing urban areas,helping to - effort supported by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee keep rural areas rural for the benefit of rural residents and Forum.The Steering Committee is a cooperative and fish.Meanwhile,countless private landowners effort with members representing the variety of quietly go to the expense and effort of managing their perspectives found in the basin,including govern- land to preserve its habitat value.Finally,thousands of - ment,business,recreation,agriculture,the environ- volunteers have donated their labor to plant native ment,and others.The Forum is the WRIA decision- trees and shrubs and control invasive weeds. making body composed of the 16 local governments in the WRIA 9 watershed plus Tacoma Public Utilities. Chapter 2,Introduction,provides a brief description of - these and other efforts.A more complete summary is Although the Habitat Plan is focused on future steps,it in the 2002 Near-Term Action Agenda(along with two is important to acknowledge the dedication and annual follow-up progress reports),which was devel- - successes to date in this watershed. oped as an interim predecessor to this Habitat Plan. Despite being intensively developed,this watershed The many accomplishments to date are a foundation - still retains a natural ecosystem worth saving and for the hope that the ambitious recommendations of - improving.It also is reaping the fruits of the millions of this Habitat Plan are accomplished. dollars and thousands of hours devoted to salmon habitat and ecosystem health in recent years.These commitments range from local grants from the local 1.6 WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC King Conservation District to over$7.3 million in HABITAT federal and state funds from the Salmon Recovery FOUNDATION FOR THE Funding Board.A partnership between the U.S.Army The recommendations of this Plan rest on a strong Corps of Engineers,Indian tribes,and local govern- foundation of scientific assessment and analysis.A - ments has begun to implement a suite of projects in summary of the current scientific understanding of the the Green/Duwamish Watershed portion of WRIA 9.An watershed is provided in Chapter 4,Scientific Founda- extensive array of farm management practices and tion,and Chapter 5,Habitat Management Strategies. other land use policies,regulations,and programs that are implemented by all local governments also im- This understanding is based on years of study of the prove conditions for fish while preserving sustainable watershed that culminated in a Strategic Assessment agriculture and urban and rural residential areas.For during 2002-2004(King County Department of Natural - example,the development rights for over 13,000 acres Resources and Parks et al.2004).This Strategic Assess- (county-wide) have been acquired through the Farm- ment consists of original research to fill in gaps in land Preservation Program and are therefore protected understanding identified by previous work.It also from development.Improved stormwater manage- includes analysis that helped make sense of a tremen- - ment by cities large and small is contributing to dous amount of technical information and began the reduced impacts on streams from development. process of translating science into policy. Near4—Adlon Agenda The scientific work in the Strategic Assessment was - guided by the: Much of the work done to - improve the watershed 1) Viable Salmonid Population(VSP) framework ecosystem is listed in the 2002 (McElhany et al.2000); - WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda - and two subsequent annual 2) Habitat Plan Substantive Scope and Approach, progress reports. approved by the Steering Committee in 2002;and ® 3) Technical guidance document developed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (2003) for integrated salmonid habitat recovery planning. Page 1-8 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • As the scientific foundation for the Habitat Plan,the These scientific products-information on conditions, Strategic Assessment includes information on: conservation hypotheses,necessary future conditions, • Historical and current habitat conditions; and habitat management strategies-have been - essential tools in identifying,refining,reviewing,and • Salmonid population conditions; revising the actions recommended in this Plan.They • Fish utilization,including juvenile migration and constitute a logic train (Figure 4-3) that link present - rearing patterns,habitat usage,and habitat scientific understanding to recommended future • limiting factors;and actions. - • Water quantity and quality. - The WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnais- 1.7 WHAT IS THE STRATEGY - sance Assessment Report(Kerwin and Nelson(Eds.) FOR HABITAT RECOVERY? 2000) and the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem Report (Brennan(Ed.)2001)were used as raw material for The results of the Strategic Assessment have made • further analysis as part of the Strategic Assessment. possible the identification of clear priorities for work The Strategic Assessment analysis included examining over the next 10 years. the functional linkages between habitat conditions Scientific assessments-summarized in the WRIA 9 and populations and developing conservation hypoth- - eses.Conservation hypotheses area"best estimate"of Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assess- ment(Kerwin and Nelson(Eds.)2000) and WRIA 9 how improvements in habitat conditions and pro- Strategic Assessment(2002-early 2005)-indicate that - cesses will lead to improvements in the four viable there are limiting habitats in the Duwamish Estuary • salmon parameters(abundance,productivity,diver- transition zone;Middle Green,Lower Green, • sity,and spatial structure)that are critical to long-term Duwamish Estuary,and Marine Nearshore survival.The Strategic Assessment also identified Subwatershed rearing habitats;and Middle Green and - necessary future conditions to support a viable popu- upper Lower Green Subwatersheds spawning habitat. • lation of Chinook salmon.The necessary future It also appears that a decline in productivity of the conditions are also essentially hypotheses about what juvenile life stage undermines the viability of the is thought to be necessary habitat to recover the population (King County Department of Natural Green/Duwamish River Chinook population.The - Resources and Parks et al.2004). conservation hypotheses and necessary future condi- tions were ultimately used to develop habitat manage- Based on this understanding,this Habitat Plan adopts ment strategies for each subwatershed(the watershed the following as a 10-year strategy(cited as Policy MSl - is divided into five subwatersheds [Figure 1-1] for in Chapter 5,Habitat Management Strategies and analytical purposes). Policies): The focus of management action(projects and pro- grams) implementation efforts in this Habitat Plan will e'A be on the following limiting habitats that exist within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed: • Duwamish Estuary transition habitat; - • Middle Green River,Lower Green River, - Duwamish Estuary,and Marine Nearshore rearing habitat;and • Middle Green and Lower Green River spawning habitat. Years of scientific assessment have yielded valuable understanding about - how the marine nearshore,estuarine,and freshwater habitats of the • watershed meet salmonid needs.This nearshore beach seining on Vashon/ Maury helped determine salmonid presence.May 2001 photo. - Page 1-9 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 1.8 WHAT ARE THE KEY SALMON HABITAT NEEDS IN EACH f� SUB WATERSHED? Based on the findings of the Strategic Assessment,the - Habitat Plan focuses on actions and policies that - address the following key salmon habitat needs: _ Watershed-Wide Needs - x Prevent and reduce armoring of stream banks and - � ` shorelines; Promote low impact development such as porous pavement,bioswales,and clustered development; Transition zone habitat shown here at the Hamm Creek confluence with Replace culverts that block fish passage on tribu- the Duwamish at river mile 5.0,is critical for Chinook juveniles.July 2002 tary streams; - photo. • Protect and improve water quality by focusing on - "nonpoint"pollution that comes from stormwater runoff from streets,highways,parking lots,roofs, Because of the importance of the Duwamish transition yards,and cleared lands; - zone—where young salmonids make the transition a Allow natural river flows in an unconstrained river - from being freshwater fish to saltwater fish—and the channel where possible;and negative effect on habitat recovery efforts upstream if a severe transition zone restriction does exist,40%of Maintain adequate stream flows. funding for projects and programs will be focused on • Upper Green River Subwatershed the transition zone.The remaining 60%of funding for - projects and programs will be split between rearing Facilitate Chinook salmon and bull trout access - and spawning limiting habitats.For example,if$100 above Howard Hanson Dam and the Tacoma - million became available to implement this Plan,$40 Headworks by providing passage upstream for million would be targeted toward rehabilitation of and adults and downstream for the young fish; increases to transition zone habitat.$60 million would - be targeted toward high priority projects that protect, - restore,rehabilitate,or substitute for rearing and }. spawning habitat. The focus of habitat efforts in these areas will be on increasing the productivity of the population by improving the quality and quantity of habitats identi- fied above. - This strategy is based on current understandings of ■ At river mile 61, the Tacoma how the watershed meets and does not meet the Diversion Dam diverts water to serve - habitat needs of Chinook salmon.Additional informa- customers in Pierce and southern King tion and analysis may lead to changes in how re- County. Three miles upstream, Howard - sources are allocated. Hanson Dam holds back flood waters and stores water for late summer release. Both dams block upstream - fish passage but beginning in 2007, adult salmon migrating upstream will - be collected at the Tacoma Diversion Dam. The fish will be released into the Upper Green River to spawn, opening - up the upper watershed to salmon for the first time since 1911. - Page 1-70 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Proposed fish passage tower Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed - Howard Hanson Dam was not designed for safe • Restore vegetated shallow subtidal and intertidal / downstream passage by young salmon.A new habitats and brackish marshes b restoring / fish passage tower will gather young salmon and Y g - pass them safely around Howard Hanson Dam. dredged,armored,and filled areas; The tower can pass fish regardless of fluctuating - mm water levels in the reservoir. Increase shallow water and slow water"transition - Gr. zone"habitat where salmon transform from A freshwater to salt water fish; Improve sediment quality through the Lower a Duwamish Waterway Superfund cleanup; - Site of proposed tower • Protect and restore water quality through point and nonpoint pollution source control; - Restore off-channel refuge habitat and mainstem - • Protect and restore riparian habitat along the pools in Tukwila;and Upper Green River mainstem and major tributar- Improve natural sediment transport and deposi- ies by restoring the riparian corridor,increasing tion processes. channel complexity,and decommissioning old Marine Nearshore Subwatershed . logging roads; - Remove fish passage barriers such as culverts from • Protect and restore lagoons,spits,and pocket tributary streams;and estuaries where small streams enter Puget Sound; • Protect and restore natural sediment movement • Protect and expand vegetated shallow water by reducing road failures. "nearshore"and marsh habitats; - • Protect feeder bluffs that provide sediment - Middle Green River Subwatershed needed for beach nourishment by preventing and, • Protect and restore side channels,off-channel where possible,removing bulkheads; wetlands,tributary mouths,and pools that • Protect and expand forage fish spawning beaches provide shelter and habitat complexity for young used by herring,sand lance,and surf smelt;and - salmon; • Improve sediment quality,particularly in Elliott - • Protect and restore natural sediment movement Bay. by reconnecting sediment sources to the river; • Protect and restore spawning and rearing habitat `,'' in lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks;and • Maintain regional groundwater recharge and base - flows to the mainstem Green River through forest 9 retention and low impact development. " Lower Green River Subwatershed - Protect and restore side channels,off-channel - wetlands,tributary mouths,and pools that provide shelter and habitat complexity for young salmon; • Protect and restore natural sediment movement by reconnecting sediment sources to the river; • Preserve groundwater inflow from the historical The Habitat Plan calls for the creation of off-channel,shallow-water White River channel;and habitats like the Codiga project in Tukwila.May 2004 photo courtesy of • Modify the Black River Pump Station to improve City of Tukwila. fish passage. • Page 1-11 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Rehabilitate damaged processes and habitats that1.9 WHAT ACTIONS DOES THE HABITAT - .OTECT can be sustained with on-going efforts;and PLAN RECOMMEND TO P AND RESTORE SALMON HABITAT? Substitute processes and habitats that are lost. Chapter 7, Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a In the first 10 years,the Plan recommends: - Viable Salmonid Population,lists the most important a 75 on-the-ground restoration projects; - projects and programs to implement over the next 10 a 57 habitat protection projects(including 50 years to improve the aquatic ecosystem,thereby habitat protection areas on Vashon/Maury Island benefiting Chinook salmon,bull trout,and other and seven King County-proposed"Last Best Places salmonids.Of these projects,those that address the Middle Green'acquisitions);and - limiting habitats for the Green/Duwamish River Chinook population are considered of greatest priority su programs (16 watershed-wide and 14 - and are listed in Table 8-2 (Chapter 8). bwatershed). Actions in this Habitat Plan can be divided into two categories: Programs: A body of work requiring staffing and/ l - or funding.In this Plan,programs focus on stormwater management,stewardship/public education,internal government practices,and other governmental and non-governmental . efforts. Projects: On-the-ground actions to protect, restore,rehabilitate,or substitute habitat or the processes that create habitat. - The Plan recommends an array of projects and pro- grams that watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next 10 years.These actions will: Even more opportunities forcitizen stewardship,such as shown here aithe joint City of Auburn-King County Fenster project,will occur under the • Protect existing processes and habitats that are Habitat Plan.October2004 photo. - working well; • Restore processes and habitats that can be re- 56 of the 75 on-the-ground habitat projects are consid- - turned to good conditions; ered the highest priority because of their importance in addressing habitat limiting factors affecting Chi- nook salmon(Table 8-2). - These recommended actions were identified and Healthy riparian evaluated by people who understand the watershed. - habitat Plants add Each project had to pass both a scientific/technical - structure RIPARIAN HABITAT: salmon need. review and a feasibility review to be included in this so The transition zone between Plants al the water where fish live attract Insects and upland areas. for food and Plan.As with many recommendations in this Plan,it is ew. shade to keep the water cool. expected that these projects will be refined in the years - Poor riparian habitat Lack of native trees and ( to come as ever more scientific information becomes - shrubs allow the water to heat up and allow non-native � � available. invasive weeds like iti..F , "blackberry to take over. - P' f ' Projects are on-the-ground efforts that move earth and - plant trees,including: • Excavating shallow water habitat in estuarine and - marine nearshore habitats; Page 1-12 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Use of BuiltGreenTM and other low impact devel- Preserving native trees and opment practices by developers; shrubs keep erosion rates at natural levels. Overhanging • Habitat restoration projects organized by non- seBluff nt trees keep the beach healthy profit organizations and carried out by thousands dimfor prey fish that salmon of volunteers; Protect eat. • Improved stormwater management by local sediment governments; sources � �✓ Bulkheads • Sound land use planning and growth manage- Bluff erosion is natural. / Cut off ment by local governments; Bulkheads starve i sediment • Fish passage facility construction and operation to beaches of sediment and Eroding the Upper Green River Subwatershed by the U.S. damage beach ecology. V1, beach Salmon and other marine Army Corps of Engineers and the Tacoma Public creatures suffer. Utilities;and • Many other innovative,sustained efforts by individuals,groups,businesses,and governments intended to improve water quality and protect and • Installation of large woody debris in freshwater restore salmon habitat. • habitats; • • Planting of native vegetation in both marine and Finally,the Plan includes policies that provide high- freshwater habitats; level guidance to activities that directly or indirectly • • Control of noxious and invasive weeds throughout affect salmon habitat. the watershed; R • Levee setbacks on the Green River mainstem; 1 • Introduction of spawning gravel in the Green River ZA - mainstem; - • Side channel reconnection in freshwater habitats; and • Removal of bulkheads or replacement with softer forms of shoreline protection in marine nearshore - habitats. Complementing these restoration/rehabilitation/ substitution projects are projects to protect high value - habitat.Depending on the habitat value,location (e.g., next to a migrating channel),and interest of the landowner,these projects will make use of property - acquisition,conservation easements,incentives,and/ • or information and education. The recommended projects in this Plan will comple- ment on-going and planned habitat activities such as: • Good stewardship of streams,shorelines,and - uplands by homeowners; • • Implementing farm plans and other conservation • measures by farmers; • Sustainable forestry practices by small woodlot These Auburn high school students improved habitat by planting trees at owners; Whitney Bridge Park at river mile 40.3 on the Green River.October 2004 • photo. • Page 1-73 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 1.10 HOW MUCH WILL IMPLEMENTATION • ARE COST AND WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? CONSIDERATIONS ADDRESSED? - Implementation of the priority projects (Table 8-2) Effective and efficient recovery of Puget Sound Chi- recommended by this Habitat Plan are estimated to nook populations depends on addressing the causes of - cost from$198 million to$291 million.Implementa- salmonid decline including: tion of all projects recommended by this Plan would . Habitat degradation; - cost from$272 to$389 million.Cost estimates for the policies and programs were not developed. Hatchery practices;and • Harvest management. Chapter 8 of this Plan provides a strategy for imple- menting this Plan's recommendations,including The Habitat Plan currently does not address hatchery - funding scenarios.Additionally,there is a Puget and harvest practices because these are the responsi- - Sound-wide effort being undertaken by Shared Strat- bility of the co-managers (Treaty Tribes and the egy to develop a finance plan for implementing the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife).As - Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.Preliminary of mid-2005,the WRIA 9 partners were informed that - approaches of the Puget Sound-wide effort include a the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife mix of federal,state,and local funding sources to pay had committed to lead the effort to complete the for implementation. integration of habitat,hatchery,and harvest recovery - efforts at both the watershed level and at the Puget - The expenditure of these substantial sums,fortunately, Sound regional level. will benefit far more than the silver fish.WRIA 9 ecosystems produce$1.7-6.3 billion of value in goods Following this so-called"H-integration"effort,it may - and services every year for individuals,communities, be necessary to review elements of this Plan to deter- businesses,and governments within WRIA 9.The value mine whether and how decisions made regarding of salmon restoration and healthy ecosystems to future hatchery and harvest practices affect the habitat- generations is likely to be even greater as the popula- focused recommendations of this Plan. - tion grows and the amount of habitat is reduced(Asia- Pacific Environmental Exchange 2005). Expenditures on the recommendations of the Habitat Plan will help - secure the current stream of goods and services and 12 • • may increase their value. BENEFIT BULL TROUT AND OTHER In addition to addressing the habitat needs of Chinook, this Habitat Plan will also provide habitat improve- ments for bull trout,listed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife - Service as threatened in November 1999.The ecosys- tem approach—with a focus on habitats and the processes that create those habitats—is intended to - benefit all salmonid species. - Very little is known about bull trout presence and use of habitats in WRIA 9 but Appendix K of Volume II - provides a matrix showing how the recommendations in this Plan address the bull trout recovery actions listed in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget • Sound District Population Segment of Bull Trout(U.S. - Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). i • • Page 1-14 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - 1.13 HOW • • ' • 1.14 WHAT IS THE ROLEOF ADAPTIVE TO RECOVERY?GUIDE HABITAT Although the bulk of the recommendations in this Habitat Plan are likely to be carried out through a - Successful implementation of the Habitat Plan actions partnership of governments,the long-term health of • depends on monitoring and adaptive management. the watershed in terms important to both people and fish will be influenced greatly by those who call it - Monitoring of projects will occur at multiple levels. home. • Implementation monitoring will tell us which projects have been carried out.Effectiveness monitoring will In daily life,we who share this watershed have an determine whether the habitat objectives of the project impact on its health.Daily practices in the home,in - have been achieved.Finally,validation monitoring will the yard,and with our cars are magnified by our • confirm whether the actions of this Plan are achieving numbers and concentrated by water.Every volunteer the desired changes in the population parameters of who picks up a shovel to control invasive weeds or abundance,productivity,diversity,and spatial struc- plant native trees is acting for a better watershed. • ture.Worthwhile monitoring is in turn informed at the outset by adaptive management. Ultimately a healthy watershed depends on the actions of all of us in our roles as consumers,business people, - Adaptive management is a systematic process for students,members of myriad organizations,and • continually improving management policies and citizens in a community. practices by learning from the outcomes of actions. Adaptive management embodies a simple imperative: Consequently,this Plan recommends policies and - policies are experiments-learn from them.Adaptive programs to promote ever greater understanding and management recognizes that uncertainty and unex- action by all of us.You can start today by visiting the pected changes are inherent in managing complex watershed website—http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/ • ecological systems.Adaptive management relies on a index.htm—which contains abundant tips and links • problem-solving approach to address this uncertainty for salmon-friendly living. through six steps: (1) assessment, (2) design, (3) implementation, (4) monitoring, (5) evaluation,and - (6) adjustment.The actions recommended in this Plan - and the success of salmon restoration within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed depend on a rigorous monitoring and adaptive man- agement program. Together,monitoring and adaptive management will - provide a stream of information and insight that can - inform course corrections as the recommendations of this Plan are implemented. • The future of salmon is in our hands.Juvenile salmonid in the Duwamish. May 2005 photo. - Page 1-75 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 1.15 NEXT STEPS The publication of this Salmon Habitat Plan com- mences the 90 day review period by the WRIA 9 Forum of Local Governments.The Forum may approve the - Plan or remand it back to the Steering Committee for - further deliberation.However,the Forum cannot make changes to the Plan.Following adoption of the Plan by the Forum, a minimum of five cities representing at - least 70%of the population within the watershed must ratify the Plan before their respective legislative bodies. Only then will the Habitat Plan truly become final. - This Habitat Plan also will be included as a chapter in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan produced through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy. - Within a year of Plan ratification,we will need to develop a detailed implementation plan and begin to - pursue funding.We also need to arrive at agreements - among all of the WRIA 9 participating jurisdictions on how to fund and implement the Plan.As a watershed, what assurances can we make and what risks are we willing to take are fundamental questions that need to be answered. In the long term,use of the action evaluation tools and - the monitoring and adaptive management approach described in this Plan will allow local governments to continue to use the habitat planning process to meld - Plan recommendations with their local regulations, policies,plans,and programs. A lot of hard work lies ahead.Progress to date,how- - ever,and the love that so many people have for the place we call home offers tremendous hope.We know that it is not our generation alone that thrills to the - sight of the mighty Chinook salmon returning to the Green/Duwamish River after years in the ocean. It is not just those of us alive now who enjoy the many benefits of a healthy watershed.Future generations - depend on us to be good stewards and to recognize that clean water and healthy habitat are good for w people and are good for fish. - Let's get to work"making our watershed fit for a King." Page 1-76 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • i i y r a sty � - CHAPTER 2.0 Introduction Salmon area i ., symbol of our time, } icons of the Northwest, and an indicator of environmental quality-a river full of salmon is a healthy river. Before you is the Salmon Habitat Plan for the Green/ In brief,this Habitat Plan: Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(Water Is based on the science of the Strategic Assess- Resource Inventory Area 9 [WRIA 9]).This Plan is the ment(King County Department of Natural Re- culmination of a tremendous amount of work at both sources and Parks et al.2004),the WRIA 9 Habitat - the scientific(assessment) level and at the policy Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment (planning) level.Dozens of people from the watershed (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000),and other efforts have devoted countless hours to develop the science to understand how salmonids use the watershed • and policy that have been distilled in these pages. and the historic and current conditions of this - However,even as the final document in the WRIA 9 watershed; planning process,the Habitat Plan is expected to be a living document that will be modified over time to Reflects input gathered in 2004 and 2005 from members of the Steering Committee;staff from reflect ever greater scientific understanding and to nd to changing policy opportunities and con- local,state,and federal agencies;representatives respond ts. of other businesses and environmental groups; strain- and members of the public;and - Represents a key step by the governments,organi- zations,and individuals of this watershed toward • 2.1 PURPOSEoverall recovery of Chinook salmon and bull trout - in Puget Sound and improved habitat benefiting The purpose of this Habitat Plan is to restore habitat other salmonids. used by Chinook salmon,bull trout,and other salmo- nids in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound - Watershed. FRAMEWORK2.2 PLAN Native-origin Chinook salmon in the Green/Duwamish - and Central Puget Sound Watershed could become The framework for this Habitat Plan is based on three • extinct within our lifetime.Approximately 106 wild organizing strategies as follows: salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest are now extinct, 1) Scientific Framework:The first strategy establishes 214 are at high or moderate risk of extinction,and the scientific framework that guides the evalua- - many are or are being reviewed for listing under the tion of actions and implementation of the Plan. Endangered Species Act. Puget Sound Chinook salmon Beginning with watershed scale data that address and bull trout are included among those considered to the viable salmonid population parameters,the - be at moderate risk of extinction ("threatened").The scientific framework then developed conservation . focus of this Plan is therefore on habitat restoration in hypotheses for each subwatershed and the man- the mainstem of the Green/Duwamish River and in the agement strategies that lead to specific on-the- Central Puget Sound marine nearshore,the habitat ground project and programmatic actions. This • most critical for these species.Although tributaries to logical sequence of evaluating what is required to - the Green/Duwamish system are important,particu- achieve recovery in the watershed is supported by larly as sources of cold,clear water,Chinook salmon the extensive technical work discussed in Chapters typically use only the lower few miles of tributaries. 4 and 5 (which are based to a large extent on the • Should we be working to restore habitat and improve Strategic Assessment and the Ecological Synthesis water quality in tributaries? The answer is an em- Approach described in the Strategic Assessment phatic yes.However,this Habitat Plan focuses its (King County Department of Natural Resources • efforts on the mainstem and marine nearshore be- and Parks et al.2004)) and is the cornerstone of - cause that is where the most difference will be made, future action evaluations and Plan implementa- especially over this plads 10 year timeframe. tion. - Page 2-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Because of this scientific framework we know that: Panel due to the unsuitability of the project- - • The Duwamish Estuary transition zone in the focused evaluation criteria.) vicinity of river miles 5.5 to 7.0 is key to Chinook recovery insofar as there is a likely limiting Of a total of 167 actions evaluated using the - habitat;' feasibility and effectiveness screen, 162 were included in the Plan.Of these actions,75 are on- • Spawning and rearing habitat in the Middle the-ground restoration projects that were first . Green River,Lower Green River,Duwamish evaluated by the Science Panel(of which 56 are Estuary,and Marine Nearshore Subwatersheds priority actions that implement Policy MS1),57 is essential;and are habitat protection efforts (including 50 on • The Upper Green River Subwatershed habitat is Vashon/Maury Island and seven King County- - essential to increasing abundance,diversity, proposed"Last Best Places Middle Green"acquisi- . and spatial structure. tions),and 30 are programs (16 watershed-wide and 14 subwatershed). (A list of additional projects 2) Project Evaluation:The second strategy estab- for future consideration is found in Appendix G of - lishes a science-based approach for evaluating Volume II.) habitat projects contributing to the recovery of Chinook salmon in the Green/Duwamish and 3) Plan Implementation:The third strategy is Plan - Central Puget Sound Watershed.Specifically,the implementation,which includes on-going moni- • WRIA 9 Steering Committee approved the creation toring and adaptive management.A key compo- of a science panel in November 2004 to develop nent of this Plan,monitoring and adaptive man- criteria for the scientific evaluation of habitat agement provides a scientific approach to evaluat- • restoration projects.Meanwhile,draft actions were ing actions that are being implemented for their developed primarily during subwatershed meet- success in recovering Chinook as well as a way to ings held in October and November 2004 and test hypotheses regarding expected outcomes from - attended by members of the WRIA 9 Steering specific actions.This third strategy also ties back to i Committee,Technical Committee, Planning Work the action evaluation tools developed by the Group,and other interested individuals.Applying science panel and the feasibility and effectiveness the criteria to the draft projects,the Science Panel criteria.With these tools,future actions can be - evaluated and scored proposed on-the-ground evaluated regularly and on-going Plan refinement - projects.A separate set of evaluation criteria was can occur. developed for scoring habitat protection actions within the Marine Nearshore and Middle Green - River Subwatersheds. 2.3 PURPOSEOF • The Steering Committee also authorized the OF THE HABITAT PLAN creation of feasibility and effectiveness criteria as The purpose of Volume II of the Habitat Plan is to: . a socioeconomic/political screen for evaluating actions.WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services Provide easy access to additional detail and staff applied the criteria to those actions the background information in support of the Habitat - Science Panel scored in the top two tiers (the most Plan recommendations. This includes back- beneficial projects),and also considered tier 3 ground on the scientific basis for the Habitat Plan actions for inclusion on a case-by-case basis. as well as information on how the Plan was - Programmatic actions developed primarily developed;and - through the subwatershed action identification List projects for further consideration during the meetings also were evaluated using just the second 10 years of the Habitat Plan (2016-2025). feasibility and effectiveness criteria. (Program- Although the projects described in Chapter 7 matic actions were not evaluated by the Science (Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population) of the Habitat Plan are - 1.Preliminary findings at the time of publication of the Habitat Plan indicate that the transition zone may extend from river mile 6.5 to - river mile 4.7 during the critically important time of juvenile salmon migration.Confirmation of this information will lead to adjustments in Plan actions recommended to improve transition zone habitat. - Page 2-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plon—August 2005 priorities for implementation during the first 10 embraced the other five"planks,"the watershed- year of the plan,projects in Appendix G could be planning plank did receive nearly universal support.In considered for implementation during 2006-2015 WRIA 9,all 16 local governments-15 cities and King - if opportunities to conduct them arise and would County-in the watershed (plus Tacoma Public Utili- • be lost if not acted on. It is expected that adaptive ties)provided financial support for the planning management will provide information that allows process and the majority participated in the develop- a re-evaluation of potential projects listed in ing the Habitat Plan. • Appendix G. ' ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE • WRIA 9 WATERSHED . Watershed-focused salmon habitat planning began in 1998 with the creation of the WRIA 9 Steering Commit- The State of Washington passed several laws in 1998-99 tee. King County was nominated by WRIA 9 govern- directing planning efforts to address issues of habitat menu as the"lead entity"in the Green/Duwamish and degradation in fresh and salt water through watershed Central Puget Sound Watershed. King County Execu- tive planning. House Bills 2514 and 2496,and Senate Bill Ron Sims invited representatives of a variety of 5595 identified geographic areas,organizational interests to participate on a citizen-stakeholder structures,and funding mechanisms to develop and steering committee for WRIA 9.The Steering Commit- - implement watershed plans throughout the state. tee was established later in 1998 and consists of • House Bill 2514 was primarily focused on in-stream representatives from local,state,and federal govern- flow issues,whereas House Bill 2496 and Senate Bill ments,the environmental community,businesses,and 5595 were focused primarily on addressing habitat other interests(a complete list of past and present • limiting factors. Steering Committee participants is provided at the beginning of the Plan).The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe The geographic areas identified for these planning was invited to participate but did not do so.Although - efforts are called Water Resource Inventory Areas not active at the policy level,the Tribe and WRIA 9 - (WRIAs).The WRIAs were originally designed as participants have shared salmon habitat information stream inventory areas by the state.Washington State over the years. is divided into 62 WRIAs.The Green/Duwamish and • Central Puget Sound Watershed is WRIA 9. The purpose of the Steering Committee as described in Under House Bill 2496 (and reasserted by Senate Bill the interlocal agreement among all WRIA 9 local governments signed in 2000 is to: - 5595),the State Conservation Commission was tasked - with developing a Limiting Factors Report for each of Work cooperatively to address long-term the Water Resource Inventory Areas in Washington. planning and watershed conservation,and This legislation also called for lead entities in each of develop WRIA-based watershed plans that - the WRIAs to establish a Steering Committee and address watershed protection,restoration and - Technical Committee to identify funding priorities for salmon recovery. salmon conservation and to develop a strategy or plan In addition to developing the watershed Near-Term for addressing salmon habitat limiting factors. Action Agenda(Kulzer(Ed.)2002) and this Habitat The WRIA 9 salmon habitat planning effort was ad- Plan,an important task performed by the Steering vanced by the Tri-County Model Conservation Plan- Committee annually since 1999 has been to select and • ning Program.Beginning in 1998,the Tri-County rank projects within the WRIA as part of the state initiative brought together local governments,environ- Salmon Recovery Funding Board funding process. mental groups,and businesses in Snohomish, King, Steering Committee involvement in this process has and Pierce Counties to address the habitat-related contributed to the receipt of over$7.3 million for 16 factors of salmonid decline.Watershed (WRIA)-based projects in the WRIA. In addition,the challenging - habitat plans were among the six"planks"identified as Process of evaluating the technical strengths of part of habitat-focused recovery efforts.It is notewor- projects and weighing less-tangible social,economic, i thy that while not all local governments in King County and political factors helped prepare Steering Commit- Page 2-3 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 is an integral part of salmon habitat protection and restoration in the Green/Duwamish Watershed portion of WRIA 9 and relies on a partnership between the U.S. �- Army Corps of Engineers and local governments. - The Project Selection and Evaluation Committee managed the annual Steering Committee evaluation - and ranking of projects proposed for funding by the -- Salmon Recovery Funding Board.These projects are an essential part of the WRIA 9 habitat effort. The Science Panel was authorized by the Steering Committee in November 2004 to develop a technical evaluation process and reviewed proposed Habitat - Plan actions for technical merit. - The Steering Committee is the citizen-stakeholder body thatdeveloped this With the exception of the Technical Committee and - Habitat Plan.October 2002 photo. Science Panel,membership on the committees was open to anyone who wished to be involved.Member- - tee members for the difficult task of preparing this ship on the Technical Committee and Science Panel Habitat Plan. was limited to people with specific expertise consistent with the tasks of these groups.All committee meetings - The Steering Committee was supported by a variety of were open to the public.Membership varied over time, committees that have evolved over the years since but in all cases,a common core of people on each 1998 to meet the changing tasks of the Steering Com- subcommittee provided continuity and historical - mittee: perspective. - A Planning Work Group supported the Steering During 1998-2000,King County provided staff support Committee by framing policy questions,developing to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee and supporting - recommendations,responding to public comments, committees.Several State and Federal grants and and working with the Technical Committee to craft and programs helped fund the planning effort during these conduct analyses that moved science into policy. years.However,the inability of King County to con- • tinue to pay for this work and the regional nature of - A Technical Committee assisted the Steering Commit- watershed planning led the local governments to tee by identifying key scientific questions,guiding develop a more equitable and sustainable way to pay research,and evaluating scientific information as it for watershed planning for salmon habitat recovery.' - became available. Beginning in 2001, 16 local governments in WRIA 9 The Public Outreach Work Group supported the entered into an interlocal agreement regarding salmon - planning process by promoting public involvement habitat planning(later,the City of Tacoma-Tacoma - and education.The group advised the Steering Com- Public Utilities also signed the agreement)and estab- mittee on how to best obtain citizen input and how to lishing the WRIA 9 Forum of local governments,the efficiently provide citizens the information they body responsible for executing the agreement. (The needed to make informed decisions during public WRIA 9 Forum was not a wholly new body but rather - input opportunities. the result of merging the predecessor Green/ Duwamish Forum and a portion of the predecessor The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project Central Puget Sound Forum.) This agreement pro- - Management Committee helped manage implemen- vided a mechanism and governance structure for the tation of the 45-project Green/Duwamish Ecosystem joint funding,development,review,and approval of Restoration Project.The Ecosystem Restoration Project WRIA-based watershed plans.The agreement also - 2.King County continues to be the"lead entity"for WRIA 9 but its responsibilities in this role are limited to managing the Salmon • Recovery Funding Board proposal evaluation process. - Page 2-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • established the responsibilities of the parties,the1 2.6 HIGHLIGHTS OF CURRENT , planning products,decision making regarding the I SALMON CONSERVATION ACTIONS Habitat Plan,and how staff services would be pro- vided. Each jurisdiction made an annual financial Much work focused on protecting and restoring contribution to support a small Watershed Coordina- salmon habitat already has occurred in the Green/ tion Services staff provided to the WRIA by King Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(WRIA - County.The maximum financial or resource obligation 9).Those actions that are WRIA-wide are summarized - of any participating eligible jurisdiction under the here to create a backdrop for the actions that are agreement is limited to its share of the cost of develop- recommended in Chapter 7,Proposed Actions and ing plans and does not include the costs of implemen- policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population.In - tation.The Watershed Coordination Services staff was addition,smaller-scale,more limited efforts also are - responsible for working with the partner jurisdictions, contributing to improvements in the watershed and the Steering Committee and its subcommittees,and several are summarized here to provide a more com- the general public to develop both the Near-Term plete picture. - Action Agenda(Kulzer(Ed.) 2002) and this Habitat Plan. A more detailed list of accomplishments in recent years can be found in the following documents avail- - Additional funding in support ofscientific/technical able at the WRIA 9 website(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/ - work for this Plan was provided by the Salmon Recov- Wrias/9/index.htm): ery Funding Board and the King Conservation District. King Conservation District grant revenues have been Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat • and are expected to remain important.Every year,a Conservation:Green/Duwamish and Central portion of the assessment on most property parcels in Puget Sound Watershed—Water Resource Inven- the watershed(currently$5 per parcel but proposed tory Area 9 (May 2002),which summarizes much - for an increase to$10 beginning in 2006) is earmarked of the progress through 2001 (Kulzer(Ed.)2002); - for high-priority activities identified by the Forum.The o 2002 Implementation Progress Report for the Forum typically recommends that these funds be Near-Term Action Agenda(WRIA 9 2003);and spent on on-the-ground projects,property acquisition, - stewardship activities,scientific assessments,and key • 2003 Implementation Progress Report for the - planning steps. Forum-recommended grant applica- Near-Term Action Agenda(WRIA 9 2004). tions are submitted to the King Conservation District Board of Supervisors for consideration for funding. At the grassroots level,there are thousands of moti- vated,informed citizens making a positive difference The interlocal agreement also set forth the approval every day.The watershed is home to countless private process for the final Habitat Plan.Under the approval property landowners whose concern for their land,its - process,the Steering Committee is responsible for resources,and impacts on people living downstream - developing the Habitat Plan.The Habitat Plan will then propel them to be good stewards of land and water. be forwarded to the Forum of local governments, These people variously practice natural yard care, which can approve it or return it to the Steering maintain their septic systems,dispose of hazardous - Committee for further consideration and amendment wastes appropriately,control noxious and non-native - and thereafter return it to the Forum for final approval. invasive weeds,practice sustainable forestry,and leave This maximizes the likelihood that the Habitat Plan a portion of their land"wild"where it can provide an will benefit from a range of citizen-stakeholder per- on-going stream of ecosystem goods and services for - spectives and yet still be embraced by the WRIA 9 local themselves and the broader community. governments. Although a comprehensive examination of all current efforts is beyond the scope of this Plan, a look at what - has been done in recent years by just one community —agriculture—provides a vignette of the range and depth of efforts underway. Unlike many other eco- nomic activities,agriculture is confined to areas with - good soils,which usually coincide with the flood- Page 2-5 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 plains of salmon-bearing rivers and streams. Conse- habitat associated with farmlands,farmers were the - quently,finding ways for farmers and fish to coexist early focus of salmon habitat protection efforts. These has been a priority for King County. Through indi- efforts have required a lot of energy and money from vidual actions and in cooperation with the King farmers that have yielded benefits for all residents of - County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, the watershed. the King Conservation District,the Natural Resource Conservation Service,Washington State University Likewise,there are non-agricultural businesses that • Cooperative Extension,Horses for Clean Water,and have dedicated energy and resources to protecting - the King County Agriculture Commission,farmers environmental health.Many of these businesses have along the Green River and the Enumclaw Plateau have been recognized with EnviroStars certification and can expended considerable effort to reduce the impacts of be found in the King County Green Business Directory. - farming on salmon even in the midst of intense The Master Builders Association of King and - development pressures and the economic uncertainty Snohomish Counties has worked with local govern- that characterizes agriculture. ments and environmental groups to identify and promote BuiltGreenTM,a voluntary program that - recognizes construction that reduces environmental impact,including reduced water consumption and stormwater. - The people of the watershed have spawned a diverse array of community,environmental,and educational groups/programs that create on-the-ground improve- - - ments for salmon,water quality,and environmental protection in general.Some of these groups work on projects or programs across the watershed while • others focus on stewarding streams in their own - backyard.Some groups consist of a few dedicated souls while others involve hundreds and have paid staff.In addition to on-the-ground efforts to protect - and restore habitat,these groups and programs help King Conservation Di.trictstaff work with farmers to develop farm make salmon conservation relevant to the broader stewardship plans to protect water quality and habitat.Photo courtesy of King Conservation District. public. - While the following list may be incomplete,it provides Every dairy in WRIA 9 now has a Washington State a flavor of the array of organizations working to Department of Agriculture Dairy Nutrient Manage- improve the health of this watershed through on-the- - ment Plan. Many farms have developed farm man- ground action,education,and advocacy: - agement plans,which help protect soils,habitat,and water quality. King County's passage of the Livestock • Beach Naturalist Program volunteers; Management Ordinance in 1993 has resulted in • Cascade Land Conservancy; - fencing of streams to keep livestock out. Cooperation . Cascades Conservation Partnership; - between farmers and King County produced the Agricultural Drainage Assistance Program,which Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition; - assists farmers in implementing best management • Earth Ministry; - practices that protect fish and water quality as they • Environmental Coalition of South Seattle; maintain drainage ditches. A 1979 voter initiative has . Environmental Science Center of Burien; - funded the purchase of development rights for thou- sands of acres of agricultural land under the Farmland • Friends of Des Moines Creek; Preservation Program,which guarantees streamside • Friends of Fauntleroy Creek/Fauntleroy Watershed rural land stays in agriculture and prevents urban Council; development that has far greater impacts on fish • Friends of Soos Creek Park; habitat. Because of the relatively healthier salmon - • Friends of the Green River; Page 2-6 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - • Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance; Groups of local governments have teamed up to - • Horses for Clean Water; identify and solve stormwater quality,stormwater • International Marine Association Protecting quantity,and salmon habitat issues in several of the basins that make up the WRIA 9 watershed.Basin Aquatic Life (I'M A PAL); plans have been developed for the Des Moines Creek • Longfellow Creek/Roxhill Bog Community; and Miller/Walker/Salmon Creeks basins.Many of the • Marine Science and Technology Center-Highline actions in the Des Moines Creek basin plan are being • Community College; carried out now.These actions will benefit salmonids • Marine Vo-Tech Center at Seahurst Park-Highline other than Chinook in freshwater environments and School District; improve water quality inputs to the marine nearshore. • Mid-Sound Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group; • Middle Green River Coalition; t - • Normandy Park Community Club -Miller/Walker t • Stream and Wetland { = Restoration Team; • People for Puget Sound; ,y • Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; • Save Habitat And Diversity Of Wetlands • (SHADOW); - • Seattle Aquarium; - • Soos Creek Area Response; • Trout Unlimited; Turning Basin#3 is a Port of Seattle property restored under the Elliott - • Washington Trout; Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel effort.May 2003 photo. - • White Center Ponds Neighborhood; • Vashon-Maury Island Audubon Society;and Serving as a resource to individuals,groups,and local • Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust. jurisdictions,the King Conservation District plays a key role in promoting better stewardship of natural - The energy and talent tapped by these groups has resources in the watershed.Its staff works with protected high-value habitats,restored aquatic re- interested landowners and groups to promote sources,and motivated people to embrace more conservation through demonstration projects, • salmon-friendly personal habits. educational events,technical assistance,and best • management practices for livestock,wildlife,and farm The 16 local governments in WRIA 9 have initiated plans.The King Conservation District also provides policies,programs,and practices that manage or $600,000 in grants annually to high priority salmon - regulate development within their jurisdictional habitat assessment and restoration projects in - boundaries as well as improve their own operations to cooperation with the WRIA 9 Forum of local better conserve salmon habitat.Actions undertaken as governments. of 2001 by jurisdictions,including programs,policies, - practices,or studies,were summarized in Appendix A The Duwamish and Elliott Bay have been the focus of of the Near-Term Action Agenda(Kulzer,Louise(Ed.) multiple efforts to restore degraded habitat.The multi- 2002). agency Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel - restored half a dozen sites during the 1990s and early - More recently,many of the local governments have 2000s.As the major land owner in this area,the Port of updated their regulations to protect habitat and have Seattle has restored several acres of habitat throughout applied for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination the Duwamish and Elliott Bay and incorporates - System Phase II stormwater permits,which require salmon-friendly designs into the redevelopment of its commitments to improved stormwater management. marine facilities.Another major step in the improve- - Page 2-7 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Meanwhile,Tacoma Public Utilities is implementing its s Habitat Conservation Plan in the Upper Green and Middle Green River Subwatersheds.The Habitat Conservation Plan is a 50-year agreement between the .�' utility and NOAA Fisheries and the U.S.Fish and - Wildlife Service that covers water diversion and land management activities such as logging in the Upper - Green River Subwatershed.Among its provisions are the construction (completed in 2004) and operation of a an upstream fish passage facility at the Tacoma Headworks.The Habitat Conservation Plan also - includes habitat projects and monitoring focused on - �`- salmon. A number of initiatives govern forestry practices in Engineered logjams and gravel were placed in the Green River at river mile WRIA 9.The Washington State Department of Natural - 60 in 2003 by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.September 2004 photo Resources and Plum Creek Timber have developed courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Habitat Conservation Plans with NOAA Fisheries and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service that allow them to - ment in the Duwamish will be made by the numerous continue logging using practices that provide im- partners involved in the Lower Duwamish Waterway proved management of riparian areas,wildlife habitat, Superfund cleanup.To date,this long-term cleanup and roads.The Forest&Fish Agreement developed the - effort has assessed sediment pollution in the current forest practices rules that cover private forest - Duwamish and begun clean up in several locations.In lands not managed under a specific habitat conserva- the years ahead,more sites will be cleaned up,reduc- tion plan. ing risks to human health and improving the estuarine - ecosystem on which salmon depend.As part of the Three Washington State agencies have regulatory and Superfund process,it is expected that a natural re- programmatic responsibilities throughout the WRIA sources damages assessment and settlement will lead that have a significant impact on salmon: - to the creation of additional habitat. The Washington State Department of Fish and - Wildlife manages fishery harvests in cooperation At the other end of the watershed,the U.S.Army Corps with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.The depart- of Engineers is carrying out the Howard Hanson Dam ment operates the century-old salmon hatchery Additional Water Storage Project.This project is on Soos Creek as well as rearing ponds at Palmer designed to improve flows in the river and enable and Icy Creek.The agency also enforces fishing - Tacoma Public Utilities to increase the amount of regulations in the freshwater and marine portions water it withdraws from the Green River for its water of WRIA 9. Finally,the agency is responsible for - supply.Construction of amulti-million dollar state-of- issuance of Hydraulic Project Approval permits, the-art Downstream Fish Passage Facility at Howard which regulate when and how construction occurs Hanson Dam began in January 2004.Combined with on shorelines and in water bodies,including lakes, upstream fish passage facilities constructed by Tacoma streams,rivers,and the marine nearshore. - Public Utilities,it will open the Upper Green River to anadromous salmonids for the first time in nearly a • The Washington State Department of Natural century.In addition,3,900 cubic yards of gravel were Resources has land management responsibilities - trucked in and placed in the Green River downstream for state trust timberlands in the Upper Green - of the Tacoma Headworks in summer 2003 and sum- River Subwatershed and aquatic lands in the mer 2004.Placement of 3,900 cubic yards will continue Marine Nearshore Subwatershed. each summer for the foreseeable future subject to - funding and adaptive management.This gravel • The Washington State Department of Ecology is placement will provide vital spawning gravel to substi- responsible for water quality management through tute for the sediment blocked by Howard Hanson management of the 303(d)list and development of - Dam. Water Cleanup Plans(also known as Total Maxi- mum Daily Loads). Page 2-8 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - In addition to its shared responsibility for managing The groups,governments,and programs above have fish harvest,the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe operates a protected and restored habitat with significant help hatchery on Crisp Creek,sponsors habitat restoration from others.From 1999 to 2004,the state Salmon - projects,and advocates for improved management Recovery Funding Board has awarded$7.3 million to and reduction in impacts to fishery habitat and re- 16 projects throughout the watershed to purchase sources. high-value habitat,restore degraded habitat,and assess watershed conditions in support of better - The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,in cooperation with management.These state-federal contributions have local jurisdictions,the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,and in turn leveraged millions of dollars more from other others,is a leader and principal funder of the Green/ sources.As mentioned previously,federal financial - Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.Developed support also has been essential for the Green/ • in the late 1990s,this project crafted an ecosystem Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project and the restoration plan covering the Green/Duwamish Howard Hanson Dam Additional Water Storage Project. . Watershed portion of WRIA 9(it did not include the - Marine Nearshore Subwatershed).The project seeks to: The activities and accomplishments listed above are • Enhance the physical nature of existing degraded merely a summary of most of the major efforts to - habitats; protect and restore salmon habitat in WRIA 9.There - are others not cataloged here due to space limitations - • Improve existing ecosystem functions and pro- but which are contributing to habitat recovery. cesses; It is in this context of existing actions that the recom- • • Address factors limiting fish and wildlife produc- mendations of this Habitat Plan were developed.The tions;and policies and actions listed in the following pages are intended to complement and build on the accomplish- ments and current initiatives listed above. salmon and trout. The tremendous accomplishments by the individuals, • The program will construct a wide variety of habitat groups,and governments listed above have been restoration projects and conduct studies to help guide improving the health of the watershed for several their efforts.Most of the recommended habitat decades.Implicit in the ambitious recommendations - projects of the Ecosystem Restoration Project are of this Habitat Plan is the assumption that the good - included in this Habitat Plan.As of early 2005,the work of the past and present can be matched or federal government had provided nearly$2 million to exceeded in the decades ahead. begin implementing the first of the 45 projects of the - Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Transcending the boundaries of WRIA 9,several agencies and programs are focused on the habitat - challenges in the marine waters of Puget Sound.The y+ Puget Sound Action Team helps coordinate efforts by Washington State and other governmental partners to - protect Puget Sound.The Puget Sound Nearshore - Ecosystem Restoration Project is a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers project with co-sponsorship from state and local governments.It will identify nearshore habitat - acquisition and restoration projects throughout Puget • Sound,including WRIA 9.As part of overall efforts to protect Puget Sound,the Washington State Depart- ment of Natural Resources designated the Maury • Island State Aquatic Reserve as the first such reserve in High quality marine nearshore habitat,shown here south of Point the state in 2004. Robinson,is included in the Maury Island State Aquatic Reserve.Apri12003 photo. • Page 2-9 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 The Habitat Limiting Factors 2.7 SALMON HABITAT PLANNING� and Reconnaissance Assess- IN THE PUGET ment Report answered the � Salmon habitat planning similar to that occurring in question:What do we know - WRIA 9 is also underway in nearby WRIAs.Individual now about salmon and watershed salmon habitat planning is feeding into the salmon habitat in our development of a regional recovery plan.The Puget watershed? It covered both Sound Shared Strategy,providing support to NOAA fresh and salt water habitatsW at Limiting Famrs and - Fisheries in the recovery planning process,is creating for salmonids in the geo- the regional Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan for the graphic boundaries of WRIA Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Chinook 9 (including Vashon/Maury - salmon that ties together harvest management, Island). • hatchery practices,and habitat protection and restora- tion.The efforts of WRIA 9,along with those of other The report provided: WRIAs in the Puget Sound area,will inform and be • A summary of what was known about current and informed by the Shared Strategy. past salmonid species and habitat conditions in - the WRIA for future reference; Ultimately,it is NOAA Fisheries that will decide what is Baseline information for the WRIA(based on data the official recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook. available at the time)for use in the development The recovery plan will set numeric and other goals for and implementation of an adaptive management recovery and the criteria for success,which are aimed approach; - at"delisting"Chinook salmon as"threatened"under the Endangered Species Act. (The U.S.Fish and • Habitat factors contributing to salmon decline, Wildlife Service is responsible for the recovery plan for key findings,and associated data;and bull trout.) • Preliminary guidance for policy makers to deter- mine neat steps,including principles to guide - salmonid recovery. - 2.8 WRIA 9 HABITAT PLANNING STRATEGY Despite the reference to"limiting factors"in the title of the report,the document did not include a thorough - In 2000,the WRIA 9 Steering Committee developed a analysis of factors limiting salmonid populations in four-task strategy for the salmon habitat planning WRIA 9 owing to lack of sufficient data.Nonetheless, challenges it faced.Two tasks culminated in scientific the report compiled and organized a large amount of - reports and two concluded with action plans. information and subsequently provided a foundation - for additional technical assessment and planning Habitat Limiting Factors and ReconnaissanceAssess- efforts in WRIA 9.The report is available on-line at: ment Report(December 2000)As its first task,the http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/Recon.htm Steering Committee and the Washington Conservation Commission teamed up to develop a Habitat Limiting (See Chapter 10 for full reference (Kerwin and Nelson Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report to [Eds.] 2000) . begin to lay the groundwork for the future develop- - ment of ahabitat plan for the WRIA.Many individuals A similar,complementary report,completed in mid- and organizations contributed information to the 2001,provided more detailed information on the report.The bulk of the assembly and writing was done marine nearshore ecosystem of Puget Sound.The - by staff from King County and the Washington Conser- Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem Report is available on-line at: vation Commission. http•//dnr metrokc.gov/wlr/watersheds/puget/ - nearshore/sonr.htm (See Chapter 10 for full reference (Brennan (Ed.)2001) - Page 2-10 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - Near-Term Action Agenda(May 2002) The Action and harvest measures and elements of habitat plans Agenda outlined early,voluntary steps to ameliorate for other Puget Sound watersheds,complementing the some of the factors that were negatively affecting recommendations of this Plan. • salmon and salmon habitat.The Near-Term Action Agenda was a guide to actions that local governments and other implementers could take during the 2002- - 2005 period as resources and 2.9 GENERAL SCOPE - opportunities became WarJerm Action Agenda available.It was an interim tor.Salmon Habitat Conservatlon step that remained in effect Overall Approach - until this Habitat Plan is completed.A number of its The WRIA 9 Steering Committee refined its approach recommendations have been `' �. and the general scope of the Habitat Plan in the course included in this Habitat Plan of several meetings in 2002.The following statement - due to their importance and captures the consensus that was reached at the Sep- continued relevance.It also tember 12,2002,meeting: summarized existing efforts The Habitat Plan will use an ecosystem - by local partners,with a focus approach to watershed management,with a • on the actions by local governments.Two annual focus on federally listed species. The process progress reports summarized additional actions in will include evaluation of ecosystem 2002 and 2003. (See Chapter 10 for full reference interactions,and plan recommendations will - (Kulzer(Ed.)2002)) emphasize restoration ofecosystem processes StrategicAssessment(February 2005)The Strategic where possible. • Assessment was conducted between 2002 and 2005, This approach is expected to produce conditions that - and built upon information in the Habitat Limiting benefit all native aquatic species. Management of Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report non-listed species will focus on preventing future described above.It included research to fill important listings and ensuring that protection of non-listed . information gaps,in particular those concerning the species is not put at risk. • health of Chinook salmon.It resulted in a more com- plete understanding of problems and opportunities in the watershed related to salmon and salmon habitat Geographic Area of Focus - protection and restoration.The Strategic Assessment provides the majority of the scientific foundation for Because the Habitat Plan uses an ecosystem the Habitat Plan and is summarized in Chapter 4, approach,the geographic area of focus is the aquatic - Scientific Foundation. (See Chapter 10 for full refer- ecosystems within WRIA 9 and the landscape-level - ences (King County Department of Natural Resources processes that affect these aquatic ecosystems. and Parks et al.2004)) Where actions address listed species (Chinook and bull trout),the geographic area of focus would be the - Comprehensive Salmon Habitat Plan(August 2005) nearshore,mainstem river,and tributaries where - This Habitat Plan will guide long-term habitat protec- listed species exist or could occur in the future. tion and restoration actions in the watershed and is the final product of the WRIA 9 planning process. The geographic area of WRIA 9 for salmon habitat • Because of increasing understanding of salmonid planning purposes includes the Green/Duwamish habitat restoration issues,a key component of the Watershed proper(divided into four subwatersheds), Habitat Plan is an approach for adaptive management the marine nearshore and uplands from West Point in - that will allow decision-makers to respond to new Seattle to the Pierce County line,and Vashon/Maury - information and opportunities for improving habitat Island(Figure 1-1). in the WRIA.This Habitat Plan will be included in the overall recovery plan for Chinook salmon in Puget - Sound for which the federal government is ultimately - responsible.The recovery plan will include hatchery • Page 2-11 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Watershed Partnerships: - Bull Trout and Other Species Reliable Implementation Elements In addition to addressing the habitat needs of Chinook, The WRIA 9 habitat planning process is both a science- - this Habitat Plan will also provide habitat improve- based and a community-based collaborative effort. In ments for bull trout,listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife tandem with the scientific philosophy described Service as threatened in November 1999.The ecosys- above,it is the philosophy of this approach that the - tem approach—with a focus on habitats and the management actions to achieve and sustain a viable - processes that create those habitats—is intended to Chinook salmon population and a healthy watershed benefit all salmonid species. ecosystem will be reliably implemented. Very little is known about bull trout presence and use Reliable implementation is likely to depend on cre- of habitats in WRIA 9 but Appendix K of Volume II ation of necessary authorities,expression of commit- provides a matrix showing how the recommendations ments,provision for funding and staffing,effective - in this Habitat Plan address the bull trout recovery enforcement,and a dedication to working with the - actions listed in the Draft Recovery Plan for the people of the watershed in a cooperative manner. Coastal-Puget Sound District Population Segment of Bull Trout(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Implementation of this Plan also should foster coordi- nation and integration with other conservation efforts. Recommendations of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Hatchery and Harvest Restoration Project are actually folded into this Plan. - The implementation of others,such as fish passage to - The Habitat Plan currently does not address hatchery and from the Upper Green River,also are considered and harvest practices because these are the responsi- essential to long-term salmon recovery in the water- bility of the co-managers (Treaty Tribes and the shed. - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife).As of mid-2005,the WRIA 9 partners were informed that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Use of Terms - had committed to lead the effort to complete the integration of habitat,hatchery,and harvest recovery In providing policy guidance for WRIA 9 recommended efforts at both the watershed level and at the regional actions,this Plan adopts the same definitions of - level. "should,"and"shall,"as the King County Comprehen- sive Plan.The use of the terms"shall,""will,""should," and"may"in policies determine the level of discretion Habitat Plan Goals exercised in making future and specific land use, - budget,development regulation,and other decisions. - The goals of the Habitat Plan are to: "Shall"and"will"in a policy mean that it is mandatory - • Protect and restore physical,chemical,and to carry out the policy,even if a timeframe is not - biological processes and the freshwater,marine, included."Shall"and"will"are imperative and non- and estuarine habitats on which salmonids discretionary.Therefore, decisions are based on what depend; the policy says to do. - • Protect and restore habitat connectivity where • feasible; "Should" and"may"in a policy means that it provides • Protect and improve water quality and quantity noncompulsory guidance."May"and"should" in a conditions to support healthy salmonid popula- policy means that there is discretion available in - tions;and making decisions. • Provide an implementation plan that supports - salmon recovery. Page 2-12 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - i �ti• .=ax CHAPTER 3.0 Impacts on Salmonid Habitat in WRIA 9: History, Factors of Decline, and Policy Recommendations eft Ai�LJBBE e "Ar t, c 3.1 INTRODUCTION Water Resource Invento Area 9 (WRIA 9) consists of the Green/ emptiesake Washington Inventory Elliott ` empties through the Duwamish Watershed and Central Puget Sound Watershed(Figure 1- say Seattle Ship Canal.The Cedar • 1).The Green/Duwamish River flows over 93 miles from the Cascade ' River empties into the lake.The Black - Mountains to Elliott Bay,and the Green/Duwamish River watershed Harbor River is extinct. covers 482 square miles.The Central Puget Sound Watershed,the Island smaller portion of WRIA 9,consists of the short independent stream ��� Renton - basins that drain to Puget Sound from West Point south to the Pierce �LAd� ��Cedar County line and the associated shorelines of Puget Sound.Also �I P included in WRIA 9 for salmon habitat planning purposes is Vashon/ � • Maury Island.' The land area of the Central Puget Sound watershed C - totals 93 square miles and the marine waters make up an additional r� Kent Diverted south in ■ 1916,the White River 89 square miles.Overall,the planning area of WRIA 9 encompasses �L replaced the Stuck 664 square miles of land and water. `�K River. • mement Auburn For ease of reference in this Habitat Plan,this entire area is referred to ay ■ Gen River as the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed or White r 4r— simply WRIA 9. Tacoma �'• Tapes ' oew mishPresent 1, Nearsho a Mltltlle Green conditions • Lower Green Upper Gre - N Before the Ship Canal was built in 1916, Lake Washington - •,-L � Elliott was 8 feet higher and Bay Seattle drained into • King County WRIA 9 Subwatersheds ■ the Black River. - Tidal WRIA 9 is divided into five subwatersheds for planning purposes flats (Figure 1-1): G Renton • Upper Green River(Green/Duwamish river miles 93+to 64.5); ` `s� Cedar ack • Middle Green River(Green/Duwamish river miles 64.5 to 32); River LP� Large spring flows • Lower Green River(Green/Duwamish river miles 32 to 11); r meant chronic flooding in this • • Duwamish Estuary(Green/Duwamish river miles 11 to 0);and Kent area before the Howard Hanson - • Marine Nearshore. �l Dam was built on ;�, the Green River in Contra meat Auburn 1961• These subwatersheds are described in Section 3.4. Bay ■ • G3een River WRIA 9 is bordered on the north by the Lake Washington/Cedar/ / Stuck Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8) and to the south by the Puyallup/ ■ River �z White River Watershed(WRIA 10). Historically,the Green River joined TacomaA - the White River in Auburn.Farther downstream,in Tukwila,the uyQllu TA- Lak s P °P, • Cedar/Black Rivers joined the Green/White Rivers to form the `bRjver PP Duwamish River,which meandered 15 miles farther to empty into Conditions in 1906 Elliott Bay(Figure 3-1).The three major rivers drained a watershed of FIGURE 3-1:Duwamish Drainage Prior to 1.Vashon/Maury Island is in two different WRIAs for planning purposes:1)WRIA 1900 and After 1916 • 9 for salmon habitat;and 2)WRIA 15(Kitsap)for water supply. - Page 3-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 about 1,600 square miles.The area draining into Elliott 3.2 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HISTORY — Bay today is about 30%of the size it was a century ago. The physical characteristics of WRIA 9 have been Between the retreat of the ice 12,000 years ago to 1850, affected by a legacy of development and human human history and land use in the watershed was the activities in the watershed.These alterations have story of the Indian tribes.Duwamish,Suquamish,and - affected important habitat forming processes and other Salish peoples developed a lifestyle centered on - shaped existing salmonid'habitat throughout the the annual runs of the salmon and steelhead.The fish watershed. occupied a central role in their economic,cultural,and spiritual lives. - European settlement began in 1851 in the Duwamish `As habitats shrink, they are no estuary area(Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000).WRIA 9 - longer capable of supporting was one of the first areas of Puget Sound extensively . populations large enough to settled by immigrants in the late 18t'century. Beginning in the 1880s,extensive logging occurred maintain themselves;many are across much of the watershed and agricultural land - locally extirpated even though use expanded south to fill much of the Kent Valley from some attributes of the habitat Tukwila to Auburn.Small towns such as Kent and remain." Auburn were established to serve the farmers. The 19fl'century and the early 20th century brought King County Department ofNatural river channelization for navigational purposes,diver- sion of major Green/Duwamish tributaries for flood abatement and water supply,construction of diversion - The habitat changes in WRIA 9 are well documented. dams for municipal water needs,and filling of tide- The area and continuity of native vegetation has been lands for development.The Duwamish estuary was transformed from the original composition and arrangement to alternative structures and functions. • This transformation and its effects are described in the Best Available Science Report(King County Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Parks 2004a).Some of - the transformation processes that have occurred over - the past century are continuing today as the human population growth of WRIA 9 increases. This chapter includes the following elements: - • Section 3.2 provides a brief description of the history P the watershed;of human development in _f • Section 3.3 highlights impacts on salmonids and their habitat at the watershed level; • Section 3.4 describes factors of decline specific to 7 ? • each subwatershed; '. • Section 3.5 characterizes the factors of decline beyond the scope of this Plan;and FIGURE 3-2: .. - • Section 3.6 outlines policies that serve as guidance photograph of Fish Trap on a Green River Tributary Taken In for protecting salmonid habitat and/or minimiz- 1923 NearAuburn.(Property of White River Valley Museum, ing further degradation. Auburn.) 2.Salmonids include salmon,trout,and chars(including bull trout)from the Family Salmonidae. - Page 3-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • • • Time intensively dredged and filled During the middle of the 201'century,economic • line between 1900 and 1940,con- development fostered further construction of levees • 12,000 BC tinuing to a lesser degree until and dams to reduce flooding,construction of roads Ice age ends and the Puget the• 1970s. and other transportation infrastructure,and Indus- Sound glacier retreats. trial,commercial,and residential development. • Thousands of years Between 1906 and 1916,the Howard Hanson Dam and its storage facility were before present Indian peoples thrive on the White and Cedar/Black Rivers constructed in 1962.Tacoma Public Utilities ac- • salmon and other resources were diverted from the Green/ quired a well field along the North Fork tributary of • of the watershed. Duwamish River.The White the Green River in 1975 to provide an alternate • 1851 River was diverted in 1906 for source of drinking water during times of high First settlers arrive in • Duwamish estuary area. flood control,and the Cedar turbidity in the Green River.Bulkheads,seawalls, 1866 River was diverted between 1912 and piers were added to the nearshore environment. • Population of valley starts and 1916 when the Hiram M. An estimated 64%of the nearshore has some form of • to grow in earnest. Chittenden Locks were con- armoring to accommodate residential and commer- 1870s structed and the level of Lake cial development.Although armoring has occurred • Major railroads build lines. Washington was lowered (Figure on Vashon/Maury Island,it has occurred to a lesser • 1880-1910 Major logging occurs. 3-1).The re-routed Cedar River extent than on the mainland. • 1888 provides water to operate the • Northern Pacific Railroad locks.Tacoma Public Utilities In the early 200'century,the region experienced a constructs east-west line completed its headworks dramatic increase in human population,predomi- • through the watershed. (diversion dam) in 1913 to draw nantly in urban areas in the western one-third of the 1889 65 cubic feet per second worth watershed.As the Puget Sound population centers • Washington granted • statehood. of water from the Green River for continued to expand through the 1970s, 1980s,and 1895 its water supply,and the total 1990s,WRIA 9 experienced increasing urbanization • Duwamish East Waterway diversion capacity was subse- throughout what would become the Urban Growth construction begins. quently increased to 113 cubic Area under the King County Comprehensive Plan • 1900 feet per second(Culhane et al. (King County 2004).Smaller cities in the Middle Extensive logging on Vashon Is. • 1995).The White and Cedar/ Green River Subwatershed such as Black Diamond 1902 Black River basins combined and Enumclaw were joined b Covington d Maple • Green River Hatchery y on an p • completed. previously comprised approxi- Valley in the 1990s as rapid population growth and 1906 mately 70%of the watershed in development shifted eastward.In 2004,the popula- • Majorflooding in rivers total acreage and contributed a tion in WRIA 9 was estimated at 630,000 (adapted during fall and winter;log commensurate amount of flow from Puget Sound Regional Council data).About • jam forces White River south. g g 1909 to the lower Green/Duwamish 89%of the population lives within the Urban Growth • Harbor Island,at the time River.Because of these two Area and 11%live in the Rural Area.Land develop- the world's largest diversions,the area presently ment estimates indicate the biggest areas of future artificial island,is • completed in 1909. draining into Elliott Bay is development will be in the Middle Green River 1911 approximately 482 square miles, Subwatershed and along the nearshore.Black • The White River is which is about 30%of the size it Diamond is the city projected to have the greatest completely diverted to was a centuryago.The i in housing development in the Middle • Puyallup River to reduce g e reduction increase ousg • flooding problems in drainage area has increased Green River Subwatershed over the next 20 years 1913 salinity levels in and decreased (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000). • City of Tacoma the size of the Duwamish completes its Headworks • water diversion dam on estuary. the upper Green River. • 1916 1917 1919 1954 1963 1977 1990 1999 2015 • Lake Washington Ship Dredging fills Private levee Seattle and King Co. Howard Hanson Federal Clean Washington Federal listing of Significant Canal completed.Cedar more Duwamish construction development plan Dam is Water act State Growth chinook salmon habitat 2055 River diverted to Lake intertidal areas begins all along recommends the completed. generally halts Management and bull trout as improvements - Washington.Most of and the the Howard Hartson ing Major floods filling of Act promotes threatened accomplished Wheal by • atershed Black River dries up. East/West Green/Duwamish Dam, , acres in c are freshwater or denser, species; in first 10 for people Waterways are rivers to prevent farmland to eliminated. marine smarter protection is years of and fish. • finished. flooding. industrial area,river wetlands growth. required. Habitat Plan. dredging and • estuary filling. - Page 3-3 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • During the last 30 years of the 201'century,govern- 3.3 WRIA-WIDE FACTORS OF DECLINE ment agencies and the public began to support envi- ronmental protection measures and growth manage- Factors of decline are the natural and human caused ment.The federal government passed environmental factors that contribute to the decline of salmonids legislation to protect undeveloped land,wetlands, (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000).Several factors of shorelines,and endangered species habitat.State and decline have been identified throughout the five - local government began to embrace policies to man- subwatersheds of WRIA 9.Two of these factors of age development growth an protect shorelines,unde- decline are considered WRIA-wide in effect:land use veloped land,wetlands,and farmlands. For a more alterations and water quality changes.These wide- extensive history of human development,land uses, spread factors of decline in the WRIA are described in - and environmental protection measures in WRIA 9,see this section.Section 3.4 contains information on Part II of the Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnais- conditions and factors of decline specific to each • sance Assessment Report(Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] subwatershed. 2000).For a synopsis of some of the significant current efforts to recover salmon and their habitat,see Chapter Some of the causes attributable to human activities 2,Introduction. include: Table 3-2 in Section 3.6 of this chapter summarizes the • Hydropower operations and other impacts from - percentages of designated land uses in WRIA 9 by dams; - subwatershed.For a spatial representation,refer to the . Over-exploitation from fishing(harvest); Land Use Designation Map (Figure 3-3) in Section 3.6. . poor hatchery practices;and • Degradation of habitat through land use and "By intentionally and uninten- water-use practices. tionally altering how landscapes In addition, climatic and ocean changes are work, modern human societies responsible for natural variability that provides a transformed whole regions into background of change.Predation of salmonids by - mammals,birds,and other fish during different life new worlds to which salmon are history stages also has an impact on salmon not well adapted." populations. Montgomery 2003 Although the relative impact of these different factors varies among basins and river systems,habitat loss and degradation are considered contributing factors in - the decline of most salmonid populations(Spence et - al.1996). The potential impacts of harvest and hatcheries are - described in Section 3.5. This Habitat Plan addresses,to the extent practicable, - human impacts on salmonids with regards to the - habitat within the watershed planning area. Page 3-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - General Factors of Decline 3., FACTORS OF DECLINE SPECIFIC TO SUBWATERSHEDS Human development and activities over the last 150 - years have resulted in significant physical changes to Some factors of decline relate specifically to different WRIA 9.These changes have resulted in many direct subwatersheds within WRIA 9.Conditions and factors and indirect impacts to salmonid habitat structure and of decline specific to each subwatershed are • function,as well as to habitat forming processes. summarized in this section (see Figure 1-1 for a map Watersheds with a high degree of urbanization are less showing the subwatersheds). likely to have good stream health,whereas watersheds - with a low degree of urbanization are more likely to Upper Green River Subwatershed good stream health(Booth et al.2002).Impacts on salmonid habitat in WRIA 9 linked to human interac- tions include: Older culverts are difficult 'r,�� .•� forfishto swim through - • Extensive urbanization coupled with industrial, 7. e and can blow out,causing "� vu - agricultural,and residential development has sedimentation. reduced channel and shoreline complexity added Decommission ' unneeded forest roads impervious surfaces,filled wetlands,and altered - stormwater runoff patterns throughout the Replacement - watershed; • Loss of riparian vegetation has affected habitat suitability and formation as well as the base of the salmonid food chain by decreasing the recruit- ment potential for large woody debris,increasing a,m o temperature,and reducing leaf and insect inputs Replacing old culverts to the river; r with box culverts will j help open up stream • Levees and revetments sever the connections habitat. - between the mainstem river and off-channel - habitats such as side channels,off-channel The Upper Green River Subwatershed contains the sloughs,and tributary mouths; headwaters of the Green River and represents approxi- • Bulkheading in the marine nearshore has effects mately 45%of the area and stream mileage of the - similar to levees/revetments,but also has cut off Green/Duwamish Watershed.The river flows generally - much of the sediment supply to marine habitats; west and northwest from the Cascades through 30 • Water withdrawals lower the quantity of water in miles of steep,densely forested valleys (Figure 7-1). the river and its tributaries;and Howard Hanson Dam is located immediately below • Many of the connections between the river and its the confluence of the North Fork Green River with the - floodplain and other riparian areas have been Green River at river mile 64.5.When filled,the Howard - eliminated through development infrastructure Hanson reservoir inundates 4.5 miles of mainstem and (e.g.,dams,roads,railroads,sewers,etc.).This 3.0 miles of tributary habitat. isolation of the mainstem channel from adjacent - floodplains and habitats has altered the natural The primary purpose of the Howard Hanson project, • functions provided by these areas.Functions that operated by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,is flood have been altered include perennial and seasonal control.The Corps operates the project to prevent off-channel habitat and refuge,groundwater flood flows over 12,000 cubic feet per second at Auburn - recharge,flood infiltration,and supply of gravel and to provide a minimum flow of 223 cubic feet per and large woody debris. second from the dam.This lower flow ensures that 110 Table 3-1 provides greater detail on the relationship cubic feet per second passes through the Palmer between activities and factors of decline.These factors stream gage,located downstream of the Tacoma - generally apply to all freshwater,estuarine,and Headworks. (Culhane et al. 1995).The reservoir is kept - nearshore environments.Those that are unique to the estuarine and/or nearshore environments are noted. - Page 3-5 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 TABLE 3-1:Factors of Decline - Examples of Activities or Factor of Decline Description Impacts Related to Factor of Decline Reduced Water Quality Changes to temperature, dissolved oxygen, chemical Stormwater runoff, lack of shade due to loss of riparian - and microbiological contaminants and nutrients, vegetation, increases in impervious surfaces, use of synthetic suspended sediment/turbidity pesticides/fertilizers in agricultural and residential/commercial settings, aquaculture,waste water and historic industrial - effluent Modified Hydrology Alterations in water storage and flow via surface Stormwater runoff, water withdrawals, diversions, dams, (does not apply to marine water (e.g., lakes, streams, and wetlands) or ground reservoir inundation, increases in impervious surfaces, altered - nearshore) water timing and magnitude of flows, frequency of side-channel - connectivity, accessibility of habitat to fish, channel stability, constrained salmonid migration due to low flows, reduced or - degraded wetland functions - Alteration of Sediment Changing the movement of sand, gravel, and other Clearing and grading practices, forestry activities, and Transport Processes sediment downstream or along marine shorelines construction practices contributing increased levels of fine sediments; dams, roads and vegetation removal activities - affecting the frequency and magnitude of landslides or rate of erosion; sediment starvation and scouring; bulkheads and armoring of marine shorelines - Hydromodification Changes to the channel or banks of the river; Bank hardening, levees, loss of large woody debris, dams, - includes changes in the amount of in-channel large channel straightening, dredging, filling, habitat woody debris fragmentation, loss of side channel and other off channel habitats, loss of channel and habitat complexity, loss of Estuarine: Changes to estuarine tributary and connection to floodplain, loss of channel migration, distributary channels accessibility of habitat to fish, reduced or degraded wetland Nearshore: Changes to independent channels or functions - banks Loss of Habitat in Migratory Degradation or elimination of shallow-water habitats, Shoreline armoring, dredging, filling, and overwater Corridor(Nearshore) such as mud flats, eelgrass, and kelp beds structures Degraded Riparian Condition Absence of or altering the presence of native Bank hardening, shoreline armoring, overwater structures, vegetation along the shorelines increase in impervious surfaces, vegetation removal, - competition from invasive/noxious weeds, agricultural and forestry practices, reduced riparian habitat functions (shading, bank stability, nutrients, etc.) - Reduced Sediment Quality Increased presence of metals, organics, and other Stormwater runoff, malfunctioning septic systems, point - (Estuarine) substances in sediments at levels that exceed source discharges, agricultural practices, oil spills, historic and standards or affect food chains ongoing industrial/commercial discharges - Alteration of Habitat- Interruption or other modification of processes that Shoreline armoring; development on top of and below banks, - Forming Processes form nearshore habitat, such as sediment transport bluffs, and beaches; changes in flow due to diversion of (Nearshore) and freshwater input rivers or streams Fish Passage Barriers Limiting the accessibility of a stream or river reach Culverts, dams, drops in water levels, dikes, levees, flapgates to fish - Non-Native Species Introduction of plant and animal species whose Fishery management stocking, intentional introduction of - natural distribution did not include Puget Sound gamefish by anglers,and liberation of baitfish by anglers; introducing non-native vegetation Nearshore: Ballast water discharge, packing materials from foreign seafood, intentional or unintentional establishment by - the aquaculture industry Source:Kerwin and Nelson(Eds.)2000 - Page 3-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Proposed passageowerdownstream fish passage facilities at Howard Hanson Dam as part of the Additional Water Storage Project. • Howard Hanson Dam was not designed for safe The upstream fish passage facility was completed in downstream passage by young salmon.A new - 00 fish passage tower will gather young salmon and 2004 by Tacoma.Test passages of fish are expected in pass them safely around Howard Hanson Dam. 2006 with regular operation beginning in 2007. - The tower can pass fish regardless of fluctuating m� water levels in the reservoir. c, The primary land use in the Upper Green is forestry Man (99%).The upland vegetation is a patchwork of old growth,second growth,and recently logged areas. - The placement of forest dirt roads and railroads 4 - immediately adjacent to the mainstem and streams in - Site of proposed tower the subwatershed has reduced or degraded riparian - habitat functions such as providing shade and input of - large woody debris.Streamside roads also have re- duced the creation of new habitat by limiting lateral - low during most of the winter to capture and delay channel migration.Increased rates of erosion and runoff.In the spring,the reservoir is allowed to fill. alteration of sediment transport processes due to Reservoir water is released during the summer to logging and road building have also resulted in aggra- - provide water for Tacoma's municipal water supply, dation(sediment build up)in reaches in the Upper - which is withdrawn three miles downstream,and Green River Subwatershed that has,in some instances, augment summer low flows to benefit salmonids. resulted in flows going subsurface during the late - Since 1962,Tacoma Public Utilities has diverted summer(U.S.Forest Service 1996). between 75 and 113 cubic feet per second of water from the mainstem Green River at river mile 61 to .? - meet the needs of the rapidly expanding population in ..r. - Puget Sound (Washington State Department of Ecology 1980). In 1985,the Washington State Department of Ecology granted a water right permit to - Tacoma for an additional 100 cubic feet per second • diversion(priority date 1933),subject to the minimum instream flows for the Green River.Water withdrawals by Tacoma now also are governed by the terms of its - 50-year Habitat Conservation Plan. The water withdrawals and flow control affect the • timing and magnitude of instream flows,reduce the • base flows,and can lead to changed channel morphol- ogy as well as a loss of connectivity with the floodplain (Spence et al. 1996).These factors lead to an overall - reduction of quality and quantity of salmon habitat = (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000). " Sediment(gravel)and large woody debris transport &i`<- _ - from the Upper Green to the Middle Green is curtailed �`•� ' by the Howard Hanson project(the effects of this are Y -- discussed further in the Middle Green River ... Subwatershed subsection below). At present,Howard Hanson Dam and the Tacoma - Headworks block upstream fish passage to and down- The Upper Green River,shown here at river mile 81,contained some • stream passage from the Upper Green Subwatershed. pool-riffle habitat.August2001 photo. This is expected to change with the completion of - Page 3-7 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Logging practices near Green River tributaries have gl� g P - reduced riparian habitat functions (such as shade and ; instream large woody debris),increased sedimentation .g (in particular the introduction of fine sediments into - the systems via on-going erosion),decreased water quality,and altered stream hydrology.A railroad and . , extensive logging road network has also resulted in numerous fish passage barriers. Middle Green River Subwatershed f ,14- Fences keeping livestock out of streams&proper - a % manure management Gravel can flow - allows farms and fish to H ," past dams co exist. a Lake Meridian in Kent,looking east. This area of the Middle Green River 9q� t water Subwatershed is undergoing extensive urbanization.July2004 photo. - a diversion Gravel dam 9vio� for spawning 4 Dams,levees,revetments,and residential and agricul- tural land use along the mainstem in this - Addinganchoredlogs provides good shelter E GR Subwatershed have changed the natural flow regime, - for salmon and trout. lOp� caused sediment starvation and scouring,reduced the amount and size of large woody debris,reduced - y channel complexity,reduced side channel and other - off-channel habitats,and reduced or degraded riparian The Middle Green River Subwatershed extends from habitat functions. Howard Hanson Dam at river mile 64.5 to river mile 32, just downstream of the confluence of Soos Creek with Howard Hanson Dam completely blocks large woody the Green River.Tacoma Public Utilities operates its debris and sediment(gravel) from the Upper Green drinking water diversion dam ("Headworks") at river from reaching the Middle Green and beyond.As a - mile 61.Below the diversion dam,the Green River result,there is a gravel deficit because winter flows - flows between steep forested valley walls before flush sediments downstream of Howard Hanson Dam emerging from the mouth of the Green River Gorge at with no replenishment from the Upper Green.This has the upstream end of Flaming Geyser State Park(river resulted in channel incision(downcutting) and subse- - mile 45.6).Newaukum Creek flows in from the south at quent armoring(removal of smaller sediments leaving - river mile 40.7.The river flows through a broad valley bare rock or large boulders).Lack of sediment has a about a mile wide on average to its confluence with significant effect on spawning in the river downstream. Soos Creek at river mile 33.9.Levees and revetments Armoring is believed to have altered the reach between - constrain channel migration in significant portions of river mile 61 and river mile 57 and may be affecting the the reach below Flaming Geyser State Park(Figure 7-2). river downstream of the Green River gorge(Perkins 1993; Perkins 2000).Significant channel incision may - The major land uses in the Middle Green River are reduce the amount of available rearing habitat by - residential(50%),forestry(27%),and agriculture increasing the amount of time that side channels are (12%).The Middle Green River Subwatershed includes disconnected from the mainstem during low flows. the cities of Covington,Maple Valley,Black Diamond, Because of this,coupled with a reduction in coarse - Enumclaw,and a portion of Kent,and is bisected by sediment inputs from upstream,sand-sized material . the Urban Growth Area Line.' (which is not suitable for spawning) now comprises a much larger proportion of the total bedload. 3. Note that municipal boundaries do not follow watershed and/or Subwatershed boundaries. Refer to Figure 1-1 for boundaries of - cities in relation to the subwatershed and watershed boundaries. - Page 3-S - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • Despite the many problems described above,the Lower Green River Subwatershed Middle Green River mainstem retains some of the best spawning and rearing habitat left in the watershed. Help prevent oil, pesticides,soaps and Residential,agricultural,and some urban develop- use natural lawn care pet waste from going and avoid fertilizers. down storm drains. ments along Soos Creek,Newaukum Creek,and other Limit lawns and plant - tributaries to the mainstem have reduced and de- native trees&shrubs. graded wetland and riparian functions.Similarly,these A Maintain urban growth activities have reduced forest cover and increased ® boundaries and support 0 smart'growth. impervious surfaces leading to hydrologic disruption - - to stream flow,channel degradation,increased sedi- mentation,and decreased water quality.Road con- aer�a` struction and protection measures for private property - have rechanneled streams,limited their lateral migra- l Levees - tion,and created barriers to fish passage.The amount EE� and size of large woody debris have also been limited. Recreate more natural ER GR Non-native plant species encroach on riparian habitat and gentler stream - in some areas,degrading the quality of habitat. banks by setting back I•� levees. • The Lower Green River Subwatershed begins at river • mile 32 and extends downstream to river mile 11,the confluence with the old Black River.The subwatershed is characterized by a broad,flat floodplain across • which the river meanders.Historically,the White River, - the Cedar/Black River,and the Green River all joined in this reach to form a single large river.The White River was diverted by a log jam in 1906 to flow south through - the Stuck River to join the Puyallup.This diversion was made permanent in 1911 with the construction of a -- � retaining wall in Auburn.Approximately 80%of the - Lower Green River Subwatershed has a levee or revet- ment on at least one bank in response to periodic The Middle Green River,shown here near river mile 39,contains the best flooding.Springbrook Creek,Mill Creek,and Mullen - remaining spawning and rearing habitat.Note recently recruited large Slough are the major tributaries of the Lower Green woody debris(trees that fall in the river).May2005 photo. River(Figure 7-3). Residential land uses constitute about half of the - subwatershed area with industrial and commercial - uses comprising about 27%.Mixed uses,parks,and agriculture comprise the remaining land uses.A portion of the cities of Algona,Auburn,Federal Way, - Kent,Renton,SeaTac,and Tukwila are located within • the Lower Green River Subwatershed.4 - Urbanization,water diversions,levees,and revetments • on the mainstem have gradually lowered the flood- plain and resulted in disconnection of off-channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands from • 4. Note that municipal boundaries do not follow watershed and/or subwatershed boundaries. Refer to Figure 1-1 for boundaries of cities - in relation to the subwatershed and watershed boundaries. - Page 3-9 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed - 7 `banization• - V� Runoff from streets nnn G _ Duwamish Super-fund s cleanup is removing past pollution that is harmful to both people and fish. fl Control storm water sources to maintain R, * Factory waste causes e. water quality and avoid r _, 1� y relatively little pollution recontamination of '/ in the Duwamish today. sediments. ' �l Most pollution today da, 1 comes from stormwater runoff. The Lower Green River,shown here at river mile 16 in Kent is mostly Restore shallow water leveed and its banks host more invasive weeds than native plants. intertidal habitat,where young fish feed,shelter, Prot��c� pl,�l • February 2005 photo. and adapt to salt water. p - the mainstem.Juvenile fish migrating downstream The Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed begins at river have few places to take refuge from high flows. mile 11,which is the historical confluence of the Black - River and the Green/White River,and ends at the - The river is starved of large woody debris and conse- mouth of the river where it empties into Elliott Bay. quently lacks associated instream habitat complexity, The Duwamish Estuary historically contained over such as pools and riffles.Low flows,associated with 4,000 acres of tidal marshes and intertidal mudflats. - water withdrawals and the diversion of the White River, Major tributaries to the Duwamish include Hamm have exacerbated low flow conditions and contributed Creek and Riverton Creek.The upper portion of the to adult salmon migration problems.The loss of Duwamish(above river mile 5.5) has levees and - mature native riparian vegetation has been accompa- revetments (originally to protect agricultural lands but - nied by extensive amounts of non-native plants.These which now protect residential/commercial areas), same human activities and developments have caused whereas the lower Duwamish industrial area has been chronic water quality problems,particularly in the dredged and filled to support navigation and water- - tributary streams. dependent businesses.Approximately 42%of the Duwamish is comprised of industrial land uses and 29%is comprised of residential land uses.Parts of the cities of Tukwila and Seattle are located within this - subwatershed(Figure 7-4). The Duwamish Estuary has been dredged and - channelized,and 97%of the estuarine mudflats, - marshes,and forested riparian swamps have been filled.The Duwamish Estuary was filled between 1900 - and 1940 to create Harbor Island and the East and West - Waterways,largely to support industrial and shipping activities.Most of the lower five miles of the Duwamish has little or no native riparian vegetation remaining. - Development patterns and land uses have also signifi- cantly polluted water and sediments in the remaining channel via stormwater and wastewater effluents and historic industrial contaminants. - Page 3-10 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • • • -• Development and shoreline modifications in the Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Duwamish,combined with river diversions upstream, have resulted in a reduction of transition zone habitat, . the location where juvenile salmonids make the �- transition from fresh water to salt water.The almost • complete loss of marshes and swamps has significantly f • reduced the ability of this part of the watershed to -= support juvenile rearing.Lack of riparian vegetation, Empty sewage at extensive infestations of non-native plants, the dock-not Treated • into Puget sound. sewage armoring,and piers mean that the shoreline Protect and restore pocket . habitat remaining is of poor quality. estuaries where salmon rear ;- (salmon often leave their natal - stream,enter Puget Sound,but — Protect shallow Taken together,these changes dramatically then re-enter other estuaries for " ' -" water vegetation reduced the quality and quantity of estuarine food and shelter) including eel grass and kelp beds where • habitat,which is particularly important to juvenile young salmon live. Chinook salmon. • NEARSHORE:Zone exists from the tops of beaches • and bluffs out to the shallow waters of Puget Sound. SHORE • The Marine Nearshore Subwatershed encompasses the Puget Sound shorelines of mainland WRIA 9 including • _ - Elliott Bay,Vashon/Maury Island,and the small streams that drain directly into Puget Sound.The northern boundary of the Marine Nearshore ,' ._r—ate Subwatershed is West Point in the city of Seattle,and • `-- r-' " _� v the southern boundary is the King-Pierce County line • just west of Dumas Bay in the city of Federal Way.The ..•�" ✓ seaward boundary of the marine nearshore is the outer Looking southwest over the Lower Duwamish,showing its straightened limit of the photic zone (approximately 100 feet below • alignment.Kellogg Island is at center.July 2004 photo. mean lower low water),or the depth beyond which there is insufficient sunlight for active photosynthesis. However,the subwatershed itself includes the deeper • waters of Puget Sound as well.The major streams in • this subwatershed include Longfellow,Fauntleroy, • Salmon,Miller/Walker,Des Moines,Massey,McSorley, Lakota,and Joe's Creeks (Figure 7-5). • • Along the mainland,residential development com- prises 68%of the subwatershed and industrial land uses comprise 10%.Residential land uses and zoning • accounts for 92%of the lands on Vashon/Maury • Island.Most of the mainland portion of the subwatershed is incorporated into the cities of Seattle, • Burien,SeaTac,Normandy Park,Des Moines,and - Federal Way.5 • • 5. Note that municipal boundaries do not follow watershed and/or subwatershed boundaries. Refer to Figure 1-1 for boundaries of • cities in relation to the subwatershed and watershed boundaries. - Page 3-11 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • �•w 3.5 OTHER FACTORSOF • _ This Habitat Plan provides strategies and actions for protecting and restoring salmonid habitat as one piece of the overall effort to recover threatened salmonids in - Puget Sound.Yet there are other factors of decline at - play in the watershed as a result of hatchery opera- tions,harvest,predation,and climatic/oceanic 1, changes.Human-controlled factors of decline within this list are hatchery and harvest operations,which are . described in this section. Local governments do not have the authority to effect direct change for hatchery operations and harvest The marine nearshore on the mainland shown here in West Seattle,is practices.However,discussions between local govern- characterized by intense urban development Juiy2004 photo. ments and those with decision-making authority - about the implications of these activities on habitat - will benefit overall Plan implementation.This discus- Development and shoreline modifications in sion is expected to occur in the first years of imple- nearshore areas has resulted in the loss of nearshore mentation of the Plan. habitat and marine riparian vegetation and discon- nected nearshore habitats from habitat-forming - processes(sediment sources,hydrology,riparian Hatchery Operations - vegetation,etc.),similar to the impacts described previously in the Middle and Lower Green River The earliest purpose for hatcheries was to produce Subwatersheds subsections.The nearshore on the large numbers of fish for harvest to compensate for • mainland also has been affected by urbanization in the declines in wild salmon populations.As salmon small drainages that empty directly into Puget Sound. habitat was altered or destroyed by dams,forestry,and These streams suffer from lack of riparian vegetation, urbanization,hatchery production was viewed as a extensive infestations of non-native plants,excessive way to mitigate for lost natural production. - sedimentation,high storm flows,and serious water quality problems. Impacts of artificial production on wild salmon populations likely include,but are not limited to: - Bulkheads and seawalls have filled shallow water habitats,and these changes have resulted in reduced • Genetic impacts,which affect the loss of diversity juvenile rearing area,loss of marine riparian vegeta- within and among populations and reproductive tion and associated invertebrate food sources,and success in the wild; - isolation of the nearshore aquatic environment from a Ecological impacts,such as competition with wild sediment sources.In Elliott Bay,piers shade shallow populations,predation,and disease;and water habitat,which reduces the productivity of that - habitat and may alter salmonid migration patterns. Demographic impacts that directly affect the physical condition,abundance,distribution,and The effect of these changes has been to reduce the survival of wild fish. - quality and quantity of nearshore habitat available to - The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife salmonids. and the Treaty Tribes ("co-managers"s),along with - federal fisheries officials play a major role in the Puget - Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project launched by Congress in 2000 (Hatchery 6. The Boldt Decision(United States v.Washington)established the co-manager(Tribal and State)construct for managing fishery - resources within Washington. - Page 3-12 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - . Scientific Review Group 2005).The federally-appointed The peak recorded harvest landed in Puget Sound Hatchery Scientific Review Group was tasked with the occurred in 1908,when 95,210 cases of canned Chi- review and oversight of hatchery reforms for state, nook salmon were packed.This corresponds to a run - tribal,and federal hatcheries throughout the state.The size of approximately 690,000 Chinook salmon at a - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife also time when both ocean harvest and hatchery produc- completed,in conjunction with the other co-manag- tion were negligible.Recent mean spawning escape- - ers,a Hatchery Resource Management Plan in 2004 ments totaling 71,000 correspond to a run size entering • that developed specific,scientific criteria for Chinook Puget Sound of approximately 160,000 fish. Based on hatchery operations on a regional basis. an exploitation rate of one-third in intercepting ocean fisheries,the recent average potential run-size would be 240,000 Chinook salmon(Pacific Salmon Commis- sion 1994). Harvest impacts to Puget Sound Chinook were historically very high.In its 1992 annual report, - The management of salmon harvest is a complex the Pacific Salmon Commission estimated that for the - undertaking that occurs at multiple scales.Intercept- 1982-89 brood years,the ocean exploitation rates on ing fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia are natural stocks averaged 56-59%and total exploitation managed cooperatively by Canada and the United rates averaged 68-82%.On some stocks,exploitation - States in compliance with the Pacific Salmon Treaty rates exceeded 90%. - (Pacific Salmon Commission 1999),a process that is overseen by the Pacific Salmon Commission.Outside Escapement(the number of adults reaching the (ocean) and inside(Puget Sound and state rivers) spawning grounds) to rivers in Puget Sound is moni- - fisheries in Washington,Oregon and California,are tored by the co-managers.The escapement goal being managed by the Secretary of Commerce via the North used for naturally spawning Green River Chinook is of Falcon Process,which is overseen by Pacific Fisher- 5,800 fish.This goal,derived by averaging the esti- • ies Management Council. mated numbers of spawners over a 12-year period - from 1965 to 1976,was established in 1977.Annual The Pacific Fisheries Management Council(2000) management recommendations for fisheries in this acknowledges the following effects of harvest practices area are developed according to the Pacific Coast - on salmonids and their habitat: Salmon Plan of the Pacific Fisheries Management - Reduction of the number of fish returning to the Council.The recommendations are provided to the river to spawn(escapement) and the amount of Secretary of Commerce,who implements these mea- carcasses that enhance smolt growth and survival sures within U.S.waters (the Exclusive Economic Zone) • through the contribution of significant amounts of if they are found to be consistent with the Magnuson— nutrients to streams; Stevens Act(1996) and other applicable laws.It is • Commercial or recreational fisheries of important important to note that the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan prey for salmon (e.g.,herring,sardine,anchovy, provides for the modification or annual management squid,smelt,groundfish and crab) may lead to a objectives for those stocks,including the Puget Sound reduction in salmon populations.In addition, Chinook,that are managed under federal court order. - fisheries of important prey for pinnipeds'could increase pinniped predation on salmon;and • Vessel operations and the use of fishing gear can - reduce the quality of habitat through increasing - sedimentation,damaging redds (spawning egg nests in stream gravel),causing bank erosion,and increasing turbidity. - 7. Pinnipeds are marine mammals with flippers,such as seals,walruses and sea lions. Page 3-13 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 3.6 RECOMMENDED POLICIES TO MINIMIZE 4) Reducing Impacts of Human PopulationIMPACTS ON SALMON HABITAT Growth and Development;and 5) Promoting Citizen Education and Stewardship In a significantly altered system such as WRIA 9, capital improvements to restore, rehabilitate, and Using Innovations to Promote Habitat - substitute habitat cannot protect and increase Protection/Restoration - biodiversity alone.These actions must be complemented by and supported with a sound The policies in this category are designed to promote approach to land use and land use related activities. habitat protection/restoration within the current - The policies in this section provide guidance for regulatory framework,recognizing that relevant protecting, minimizing and preventing further regulations and policies are not designed exclusively degradation of salmonid habitat in WRIA 9. for the protection of salmonid habitat. Local govern- - ments have the authority to interpret and apply land - The policies have been organized under the following use regulations/policies and provide incentives.They categories: can also encourage state and federal agencies to apply 1) Using Innovations to Promote Habitat Protec- their regulations/policies in ways that would provide - tion/Restoration; greater benefit to salmonids and their habitat in WRIA 9. 2) Protecting and Improving Hydrology and - Water Quality/Quantity; The following table (3-2) and figure (3-3) are 3) Removing Barriers to Fish Passage; references for the following policy(IN I). TABLE 3-2:Designated Land Uses in WRIA 9 DesignationsPercentage of Percentage Nearshore Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of of Green/ Subwatershed Upper Green Middle Green Lower Green Duwamish (excluding Land Use River River River Estuary Vashon/Maury Percentage of Agriculture 11 5 4 - Commercial 1 10 1 6 - Forest Lands 100 26 - Industrial 1 17 44 10 - Mixed Use 1 5 2 4 - Residential 50 50 29 68 92 - Mineral Resources 2 1 - Other 2 7 10 4 - Parks and 5 6 4 8 2 - Open Space Percent of 0 22 100 100 100 0 Subwatershed in - the Urban Growth Area . Page 3-14 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • • AND • FIGURE 3-3 • Land Use Designations • I.tllUtt • l;rj Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed(WRIA 9) • �` z LAND USE CATEGORIES OTHER • . Industrial Parks&Open Space :5 L • Commercial Tribal Lands • �'- _ Q Mixed Use Water ;euR N ° Residential Rural Inside UGA Utility&Transportation Right-of-Way • ti j - Residential Rural Outside UGA River - Vashon • NORMANDY ( _ f� Major Road Island PARK 4 Agricultural j • - �;. Commercial Forestry %./'% WRIA 9 Boundary • Mineral Resource Lands Open Water • KENT Urban Growth Area Line COVINGTO•• • MAPLE ev* ,�. @ VALLE Y RAL • WAY • a • DIAM ND.. .., i •• Tacoma orks Howard • ..., :.. � � Ham en� �� Ig�e ,a +% � ii✓� D � 1 r • • F • • • Data SOUIC¢S: - Generalized land use:Puget Sound Regional Council,2004. Other data:Standard King County Datasets,February 2005. • Produced by. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks • 0 2 a 6 Miles GIs and WLRD Visual Communications and Web Unit File Name: - August 2005 0508_W91-lab_LU.ai Ipre • • • Policy IN 1: 9J Policy IN4: • Discussion: Support new and existing incentives to protect Refugia are geographic locations or a collection of salmon habitat.Such incentives for local govern- habitat units that support a persistent population ments to choose from include but are not limited to: during normal environmental perturbations.They • Mitigation banking and water rights acquisition • are important for long-term survival of fish popu- to protect habitat; - lations. • Fee simple land acquisition and land exchange; - Policy. • Development rights purchase and transfer of • Local governments shall encourage activities development rights; within the designated land uses of WRIA 9 that: • U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service Legacy program,Wetland Reserve Program, • Maintain,restore,and rehabilitate natural Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, watershed and ecological processes; Washington State Department of Fish and • Facilitate the expansion of refugia;and Wildlife Small Forest Landowner Incentive • Enhance connectivity between refugia or from Program; - the headwaters to Puget Sound. • Small Forest Landowners Riparian Easements • (RCW 76.13.140); - • Public Benefit Rating System(PBRS); - • Tax credit for water conservation/wastewater reuse,sales tax exemptions,and tax reductions • \ Policy IN2: for riparian and forest protection and restora- - tion; • Support a shorelines exemption for properties • Conservation easements; • affected by salmon habitat restoration projects that • Surface water fee reduction for landowners would relocate the location of the ordinary high with properties that are at least 65%forested water mark. and have no more than 10%impervious - surface;and - • Streamlined permitting for single-family rural residential landowners using stewardship programs. \ Policy IN3: Support bioengineering alternatives for shoreline bank stabilization and flood control facilities where feasible.See King County's Best Manage- E Policy IN5: ment Practices regarding bioengineering for - guidance. Local governments should review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt - written best management practices that protect - salmon and salmon habitat. - Page 3-17 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 s Protecting and Improving Hydrology and Water Quality/Quantity(Water Quality/ Quantity Policies) The loss of cool,clean water and altered hydrologic - cycles are key factors of decline for salmonids. Development often leads to increases in - impervious surfaces that reduce groundwater - recharge and increase stream flows during storms, pollution,water withdrawals,excessive sediment input,and loss of forest cover,which all have been - connected with degraded hydrology,water quality, and quantity.8 The following policies are designed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of - development. - This Green River Flood control Zone District levee setback project at river mile 22 in Kent used bioengineering techniques.March 2004 photo. - Policy WQ 1: - Policy 1N6: In the Rural Area,'King County should work to • keep basin imperviousness below 10%or utilize Local governments should evaluate shorelines and best management practices to maintain an equiva- critical areas under public ownership prior to sale lent stormwater runoff potential.At least 65%of - or exchange out of public ownership in light of each stream basin surface area should be pre- WRIA 9 salmon habitat priorities. served as natural forest cover.In the Urban Growth Area,local governments should strive to reduce impervious surfaces and increase forest cover to - the extent possible. Recommended practices include: . • Managing and maintaining storm drainage - systems to minimize the transport of pollut- ants into receiving waters; • Using low impact development techniques to manage stormwater from new(or re-) devel- opment; - • Promoting infiltration of clean stormwater - runoff where soils allow;and • Retaining and/or planting natural vegetation to promote infiltration and reduce flooding. - 8. Please refer to Chapter 4,Scientific Foundation,for an explanation of water quantity and quality impacts. Also,see Part II of the • Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report(Kerwin and Nelson(Eds.)2000)and the DraftAssessment of CurrentWater Quantity Conditions in the Green River Basin(Northwest Hydraulics 2005)for more detailed descriptions on the causal relationships. 9. The"Rural Area"and the Urban Growth Area'are defined under the King County Comprehensive Plan.(King County 2004). The • Urban Growth Area Line divides the two areas(See Figure 1-1 and Figure 3-3). King County is the only local government that has jurisdiction over the"Rural Area." - Page 3-18 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Policy WQ2: Policy WQ3: - Local jurisdictions and developers should reduce the Manage ground water in conjunction with surface volume of stormwater runoff through use of low water to provide adequate surface water flows and impact development techniques. Low impact water temperatures for salmonids.Within the • development includes the use of: urban areas,provide access to public wastewater • Native vegetation and small-scale treatment treatment systems to reduce use of on-site sewage systems to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff (septic) systems in areas with a direct ground water connection to river and streams.In the Rural close to where it originates; Area,promote the best affordable on-site sewage • Clustering of buildings and narrower and systems.Local governments should coordinate as shorter roads to reduce total impervious areas appropriate with water and sewer districts and - and leave larger areas in native vegetation; state agencies to: • • Infiltration in urban areas (e.g.,bio-swales, natural drainage systems,and vegetated"eco" • Study,map,and analyze key groundwater roofs);and resources and recharge areas and use this • Porous or permeable paving materials. Porous information in land use planning and environ- - paving materials are suitable for use in areas mental review; • with well-drained soils and significantly reduce . Protect against negative impacts on desig- or eliminate the need for stormwater sewer nated critical recharge areas (see Habitat Plan hookups.Suitable uses include sidewalks,trails, policies and programs addressing impervious - residential driveways,residential streets,and surface reduction,stormwater management, parking lots. retention/addition of native vegetation,and water conservation and reuse); • ti -'Y • Manage the mix of ground water and surface water consumption seasonally to maximize the benefits to salmonid habitat and ground - water recharge; - WAa Develop drought preparedness guidelines that minimize the impacts on salmonid habitat by identifying an optimal mix of ground and surface water withdrawals;and y Limit or preclude mining and other significant 4. = excavation activities below the water table or where removal of material would deplete r critical soil materials that store,filter,or - i convey groundwater resources. • Bio-swales,such as these at the King County Library in Auburn,infiltrate stormwater on site and reduce stormwater flows to streams.September 2002 photo. - Page 3-19 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Removing Barriers to Fish Passage - Policy WQ4: • Policy FP 1: - Local governments should assess current surface water management standards,facilities,and programs and strengthen them where necessary to Local governments should evaluate fish passage - reduce entry of sediment and other pollutants to barriers within their jurisdictions,assess which - salmon streams. barriers are most important to remove based on the suitability of potential salmonid habitat that would be opened,and add the high priority barrier Policy WQS: - removals to Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). \ Discussion: - Reclaimed wastewater is water treated to such a • high level that it can be used safely and effectively Policy FP2: for non-drinking water purposes such as landscape and agricultural irrigation,heating and cooling, Local governments should replace culverts with and industrial processing.Reclaimed water is bridges or arched-culverts that have natural available year-round,even during dry summer streambed material in the course of planned - months or when drought conditions can strain maintenance and/or improvements. other water resources.The King County Regional Wastewater Services Plan calls for expanding the - production and use of reclaimed water as a valu- able resource. Reclaimed water could potentially: Reducing Impacts Of Human Population Growth And Development (Land Use) • Enhance or maintain fish runs consistent with the regional Endangered Species Act response; • Supply additional water for the non-potable Policy Policy LU 1: and indirect potable uses;and 9 ) a • Preserve environmental and aesthetic values. - Uphold the growth management and concentra- Policy: tion principles of the King County Countywide Planning Policies (1994).Specifically,support - Develop uses for reclaimed and reused wastewater maintaining the current Urban Growth Area Line to reduce water demand. until 2015. Replacement Road Box culvert `V PolicyLU2: Encourage use of the Built GreenTM building program (or comparable programs)to provide - incentives for developers (private and public). - Replacing old culverts with Incentives could include reductions in impact fees, box culverts will help open reduced or waived permit costs,and/or reduced up stream habitat. buffer widths. - Page 3-20 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • through mechanisms such as the WRIA 9 Steering �— Committee and formal public involvement efforts. • ` Policy LU3: This level of commitment to soliciting and using the • input of people with a range of opinions should - New roads and infrastructure should be critically continue as part of the adaptive management/ evaluated for likely salmon habitat impacts,and implementation phase of this Plan. road building,clearing and grading within land- slide hazard areas should be avoided or mini- mized except where necessary for public health Education/Information and safety. Watershed partners should promote greater aware- ness of the watershed,its resources-including salmon—and how people depend on and affect - those resources.This should be done through educa- tion and information that: R Policy LU4: • Promotes understanding of the geographical - boundaries of our watershed and promotes a Local governments should adopt the Tri-County "sense of place;" Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines for maintenance of • Increases awareness of how a healthy watershed existing infrastructure or an equivalent set of benefits people through improved water quality, - reduced flooding,greater recreational and practices. aesthetic benefits,and other ecosystem services; - • Informs them about the major health problems of the watershed; Promoting Citizen Education and Stewardship . Informs them about the impacts of personal - choices on watershed health(e.g.,single family The public has a vital role to play in the protection and bulkheads on the marine nearshore,removal of restoration of salmon habitat in WRIA 9.Governmental trees a runoff); and non-governmental projects to protect and restore - salmon habitat will be undermined or overwhelmed • Explains what governments,businesses,non- unless many of the 630,000 people of the watershed profit organizations,and private property owners - help protect and restore healthy habitat. are doing to protect and restore habitat;and - • Gives a periodic status report of the health of the Citizens should be enlisted to be partners in caring for watershed and its salmon populations. the watershed and its salmon in three main ways: People who have this information will be more likely • By informing and educating them about the watershed,its problems,and efforts needed to to support watershed preservation-through steward- protect and restore it; ship,personal behavior changes,or political support- than those who do not. • By involving them in stewardship of habitat protection/restoration sites;and This information/education effort would be carried • By taking voluntary personal action in daily life to out by WRIA 9 and cross-WRIA partners (e.g.,Shared - reduce harmful practices. Strategy for Puget Sound) using print and electronic media and personal contacts/presentations.It also In addition to the three approaches listed above,on- includes simple techniques such as posting interpre- going dialogue with the public is necessary so that the tive signs at protection/restoration projects so people • WRIA 9 partners hear about opportunities for new are more aware of on-the-ground projects being projects,new ways of protecting and restoring habitat, created with their tax dollars and/or volunteer labor. and public views of what is working and what should - be improved.WRIA 9 watershed efforts have been • characterized by a commitment to public input - Page 3-21 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Enhancement Group,and local stream groups and " " 4 professional staff at the cities and King County,the King Conservation District,Washington State Univer- } sity Cooperative Extension,and Puget Sound Action Team.Additional stewardship is unlikely to occur - without additional people working to organize and publicize volunteer opportunities or support private property owners. • Beyond the obvious improvements on the ground from increased stewardship,the experience of wielding a - shovel or controlling weeds creates a greater sense of - understanding of and responsibility for the parts of the watershed in public ownership.This is expected to • Stewardship programs,such as this forest stewardship class by King gradually increase the level of public support for futurehabitat efforts. County,give private property owners the information to help make good - habitat management decisions.March 2003 photo. �EOEgq - Stewardship . 0* c Volunteers affix 4-inch plastic _( A buttons with this image next to • Thousands of people contribute to the health of the ~` ''^ Federal Way storm drains as y watershed through being good stewards of its land and 0 41 0 'prompts"forsalmon-friendly ouMQ�? behavior. - water.These people include: • Farmers who conserve soil and protect water - quality; Personal Action in Daily Life - • Forest owners who practice sustainable forest practices; With over 630,000 persons sharing the WRIA 9 water- • Individual property owners who keep a portion of shed,the collective impact of daily actions is tremen- - their property,especially streamside areas,in dous,for good or bad.Individuals make a big differ- - native vegetation; ence in watershed health as they conserve water, • Schools that make stewardship projects a part of practice natural yard care,follow good car mainte- the curriculum;and nance and washing practices,and make other modest • • Volunteers who plant native trees,water plants, changes in their daily activities. - and control invasive weeds at habitat restoration Encouraging and sustaining voluntary changes in daily - sites throughout the watershed. behavior will require more than just information and awareness.There is an increasing body of information Expansion of stewardship is vital to increase the (identified through"community based social market- throughout the watershed.Increased and improved amount and quality of healthy salmon habitat ing")that indicates that providing information alone - stewardship needs to occur on a voluntary basis on or encouraging changes in attitudes alone(e.g., through advertising) are not sufficient to create both private and public lands.This will require greater changes in personal behavior. - support and recognition of property owners who are good stewards of privately-owned land and re-doubled programs to encourage voluntary changes in people's efforts to recruit and retain volunteer stewards for habits frequently benefit when they rely on a series of public lands. steps that: Much private property stewardship and all steward- • Identify the barriers to change; ship on public lands is made possible by the volunteers - at non-profit groups such as Horses for Clean Water, Seek to either remove as many barriers as possible People for Puget Sound,Mid-Sound Regional Fisheries or overcome them through tools such as gaining - Page 3-22 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • commitment,providing"prompts"to remind people of better practices,establishing norms, relying on periodic communication,establishing Policy ES 1: - incentives,developing personal contacts,asking • neighbors to talk to neighbors,and improving Support vigorous education/information efforts to convenience; promote greater awareness of the watershed,its • Pilot test the program to evaluate the overall resources-including salmon-and how people - approach and make changes needed before depend on and affect those resources.School - committing greater resources; districts are encouraged to include watershed • Conduct the program;and concepts and salmon recovery into school cur- ricula,where feasible,and include watershed • Evaluate the success of the program by measuring stewardship as a community service opportunity. actual changes in behavior(as opposed to what • people say they do). The Natural Neighborhoods Yard Care Program devel- oped and carried out by local jurisdictions is a good E Policy ES2: - example of a program that relies on this approach. New or expanded programs to promote personal Support programs that foster stewardship among - action should have as many of the following attributes private property owners,including providing - as possible: information at local public events,one-on-one consultation and development of farm/forest/ • The program focuses on changing specific behav- conservation plans,and hosting classes and - iors that contribute to salmon habitat problems workshops on practices that protect and restore (rather than general environmental education); the health of land and water. • The program focuses on the most significant factors of salmonid decline; • The program focuses on the behaviors easiest to • change; R Policy ES3: - • The program is designed to address a large per- centage of the total problem,either across the Increase the number of volunteer stewardship WRIA or within a given stream basin or nearshore events,better promote the events,and strive to • reach;and retain volunteers over time for salmon restora- • • The program is the most cost-effective means of tion/protection projects on public lands. • changing the behavior. • The preceding lengthy description of the public role in - the watershed partnership is intended to underscore the importance of citizen attitudes and actions in recovering salmon habitat.Governments alone cannot save salmon;success also depends on contributions • big and small by many of the people who live,work, and play in the watershed. - Given the previous considerations,the Habitat Plan recommends the following policies related to educa- tion,stewardship,and personal action: - Page 3-23 • Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 \ Policy ES4: Develop,continue,expand,and improve programs . to encourage positive personal action in daily life including: • Natural yard care(water conservation,reduced use of pesticides,improving soil,careful plant - selection,natural lawn care); - • Good car maintenance (fixing oil/coolant leaks, - recycling of used oil); • Maintenance of septic systems; • Minimize paving in single-family household uses such as driveways and patios and instead w rely on pervious materials; - • Use of toxic-free products or methods to clean - roofs,sidewalks,decks,and driveways; • Salmon-friendly car washing by individuals and charity groups(keeping soap and oil out of storm drains); • Pet waste cleanup; . • Beach use etiquette(not damaging marine life when tidepooling,leaving large woody debris and drift logs in place); • Patronizing of EnviroStars businesses;and - • Other practices of people in their daily lives that are identified as having a significant impact on watershed health. r Page 3-24 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 LV o r g.. con ',� - •t� 'I �a 'e t '. "s • 4.1 INTRODUCTION See Figure 4-3 for a visual presentation of the logic train that includes the elements described above. The scientific foundation for the Habitat Plan for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed - (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 [WRIA 91) is built 4.2 GUIDINGPRINCIPLES FOR - upon knowledge of Chinook salmon,other salmonids, THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION and habitat conditions within the watershed.This information is summarized in the WRIA 9 Strategic The guiding principles for the scientific foundation • Assessment Report (King County Department of included the following: Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004),which repre- • Viable salmonid population(VSP)parameter sents the scientific information used to support framework(McElhany et al.2000); - development of policies and actions in the WRIA 9 . Habitat Plan Substantive Scope and Approach, - Habitat Plan to address salmonid habitat needs.This approved by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee in chapter of the Habitat Plan summarizes the key 2002;and components of the Strategic Assessment relevant to • the Plan. Technical guidance document developed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (2003) for The approach and guiding principles used to carry out integrated recovery planning. the scientific work in the Strategic Assessment were - influenced by several previous decisions by the WRIA 9 Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) in WRIA 9 Steering Committee,including use of the viable salmonid population(VSP) framework,the Habitat The viable salmonid population (VSP) guidance - Plan substantive scope and approach,and the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT)technical (McElhany et al.2000)was developed by NOAA Fisher- Sound to guide conservation and recovery efforts.The VSP guidance documents.The scientific foundation approach is intended to help establish delisting goals includes information regarding historical and current and the specific delisting criteria for the Puget Sound habitat conditions,salmonid population conditions, and water quantity and quality.Specific information is Evolutionarily Significant Unit.NOAA Fisheries will use available on fish utilization,including juvenile migra- this information to determine how many and which tion and rearing patterns,habitat usage,and habitat populations are necessary for a viable Evolutionarily Significant Unit.WRIA 9 technical work will help - limiting factors and factors of decline.This informa- inform this determination.The VSP document con- tion was used to examine the functional linkages between habitat conditions and populations and help tains guidelines for each parameter that a salmonid guide the development of conservation hypotheses Population must demonstrate in order to be consid- ered viable.At the heart of the VSP concept are four - and habitat-planning actions. (Functional linkages are parameters that describe a viable salmonid popula- the qualitative and quantitative relationships between habitat quantity and quality and the four VSP param- tion: - eters of abundance,productivity,diversity,and spatial • Abundance:defined simply as population size or structure.) The Strategic Assessment report provides numbers of fish at all life stages; recommendations regarding necessary future condi- . Productivity:defined as how well the population - tions to support a viable population of Chinook is"performing"in its habitat,or the growth rate of - salmon,as well as necessary future habitat conditions the population; by subwatershed.The necessary future conditions, • Diversity:defined as differences within and themselves,are also essentially hypotheses about what is thought to be necessary habitat to recover the Green among populations in genetic and behavioral River Chinook population.The conservation hypoth- traits (e.g.,life history trajectories);and eses and necessary future conditions were then used to • Spatial Structure:defined as both the geographic develop habitat management strategies by distribution of fish in a watershed and the physical - subwatershed (see Chapter 5) to guide the develop- processes that lead to that distribution. ment of policies and actions (see Chapter 7) included in this WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. - Page 4-7 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • In conducting research and studies to fill in - information and data gaps,research focused on listed species following the viable salmonid population(VSP) guidelines,but information was also collected on other salmonid species when - feasible and within budget constraints. Puget Sound Regional Recovery Plan and Technical Guidance The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound is a regional effort focused on the development of a collaborative recov- ery plan for Puget Sound Chinook and other listed - f.,�� -` species.The group represents federal,tribal,state,and Coho(top)and Chinook(bottom)outmigrating juveniles sampled in the local governments working towards common Duwamish transition zone.May 2005 photo. objec- tives,as follows(Shared Strategy 2001): • The recovery and maintenance of an abundance Information about these VSP parameters were used to of naturally spawning salmon at self-sustaining, - help guide research efforts,develop conservation harvestable levels; - hypotheses,and determine hypothesized necessary • The broad distribution of naturally spawning future conditions to support viable salmonid popula- salmon across the Puget Sound region;and tions. • Genetic diversity of salmon at levels consistent with natural evolutionary patterns. - Habitat Planning Approach The Shared Strategy effort is supported by the Puget The WRIA 9 Steering Committee approved an overall Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT).The TRT is an - independent scientific body convened by NOAA - approach to habitat planning in 2002.The Committee Fisheries to develop technical delisting criteria and specified the following: guidance for salmon recovery planning in Puget • The Plan will use an ecosystem approach to Sound.The TRT serves as science advisors to groups - watershed management,with a focus on federally- such as WRIA 9 charged with developing measures to - listed species.The process will include evaluation achieve recovery goals.Specifically,the TRT developed of ecosystem interactions,and the Plan recom- technical guidance for watershed groups in Puget mendations will emphasize restoration of ecosys- Sound regarding integrated recovery planning for - tem processes where possible.This approach is listed salmon(Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team expected to produce conditions that benefit all 2003).The document describes the biological content native aquatic species.Management of non-listed of a recovery plan to fulfill Endangered Species Act species will focus on preventing future listings and requirements and address broader recovery goals.It - ensuring that protection of non-listed species is also specifies that the approach to recovery planning not put at risk; should address the concept of a viable salmonid • Because the Plan will use an ecosystem approach, Population (VSP),including the four parameters: - the geographic area of focus will be the aquatic abundance,productivity,diversity and spatial struc- - ecosystems within WRIA 9 and the landscape-level ture.Shared Strategy will present its plan to NOAA processes that affect these aquatic ecosystems. Fisheries,which will ultimately provide the official Where actions address listed species (Chinook and regional recovery plan for Chinook salmon. - bull trout),the geographic area of focus would be . the nearshore,mainstem river,and tributaries where listed species exist or could occur in the future;and - Page 4-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • Healthy GOALSOBJECTIVES ripsrian 1 4.3 HABITAT PLAN habitat - Plants add RIPARIAN HABITAT: salmon, ed. Habitat Plan goals and objectives were also • The transition zone between Plants also the water where fish live attract insects and upland areas. ,+ for food and established by the Steering Committee to guide shade to keep Ihewate"°°' the planning efforts.These included an overall Poor riparian habitat�- 1 Lack of native trees and Dal o , • shrubs allow the water to 1 g ,f urspecificgoals and associated objectives heat up and allow non-native invasiveweeds like 1 as follow$: blackberrrry to take over. OVERALL GOAL: - Protect,rehabilitate,and enhance habitat to support viable salmonid populations in response - to Endangered Species Act listing of Chinook salmon and bull trout using an ecosystem approach.This approach will also benefit other non-listed aquatic species. - GOAL: GOAL: - Protect and restore physical,chemical,and biological Protect and improve water quality and quantity conditions processes and the freshwater,estuarine,and marine to support healthy salmonid populations. nearshore habitats on which salmonids depend. - Objectives: Objectives: • Reduce processes and inputs that degrade water quality where • Protect and restore natural ecosystem processes;where possible, restoration is not possible,consider sustainable engineered • Enhance riparian vegetation to improve water quality - solutions; conditions where possible;and - • Protect currently functioning habitat, • Encourage management of water withdrawals and ground wa- • Protect and restore headwater areas,streams,and wetlands ter recharge to maintain cool water inputs in key areas. where feasible, • Encourage management of flows to support habitat-forming • processes,and GOAL: • • Encourage management of land use changes and development Provide an implementable plan that supports salmon standards to minimize impacts. recovery. Objectives: • Promote informed,sustained commitment of key watershed interests; • GOAL: • Implement an adaptive management approach to respond to Protect and restore habitat connectivity where feasible. changes and to ensure continued effectiveness; - • Develop a strategy to secure adequate funding for implementa- Objectives: tion, • Encourage maintenance and protection of corridors that link • Obtain support of WRIA 9 interlocal agreement member habitats and(re)connect freshwater,estuarine,and saltwater jurisdictions,federal and state agencies,Tribes,the agricultural habitats and their associated zones,as required by salmonids community,and the business community in their recovery - during all life stages; efforts, - • Connectside channels and floodplain areas to the mainstem • Provide public outreach and education,and engage the public where feasible;and in stewardship,restoration,and enhancement activities; • Restore fish access where limited by dams,culverts,revetments • Coordinate with otherWR1A 9 planning activities;and and other barriers,where feasible. • Provide management actions that are doable,practical,and effective. Page 4-3 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 4.4 SALMONID ECOLOGY AND marine nearshore habitats).The bulk of the informa- - •SYSTEM MANAGEMENT tion available in WRIA 9 covers adult spawning(loca- tion,timing,number of redds [spawning egg nests]) - Chinook salmon and other salmonids (including bull and juvenile rearing(diet and growth,out-migration - trout)require use of and access to distinct aquatic timing,aggregations of juveniles).More limited habitats for each phase of their life cycle:adult matura- information is available on habitat capacity(spawning tion and migration,spawning,incubation of embryos or rearing),predation,and egg-to-fry survival. - and alevins,emergence of fry,juvenile rearing,and - The Green/Duwamish River is used by bull trout for smolt migration.To protect and restore habitat for salmonids,the natural processes that produce the foraging,but no spawning populations have been detected.Bull trout have been observed on the features and characteristics of aquatic habitats must be maintained or restored.The contribution of habitat mainstem up to Newaukum Creek and it is presumed loss and modification on the current status of salmo- that bull trout utilize the Green River up to the Tacoma nid populations is documented in Spence et al. (1996). Headworks at river mile 61 (Lakey 2004). - Intrinsic to this philosophy is that a holistic watershed The ecosystem management philosophy of the Habitat and ecosystem approach is essential for preventing plan includes eight components: further habitat degradation,maintaining habitats that are relatively intact,aiding in the recovery of species at 1) It seeks to be sustainable by virtue of main- risk of extinction,and benefiting many other aquatic taining the ecosystem structures and processes - organisms. necessary to provide the habitat needs of - Chinook salmon and other salmonids(versus Understanding the aquatic habitat needs of Chinook solely focusing on single-species manage- salmon requires a solid understanding of salmonid ment). - population biology and how salmonids utilize habitat. 2) It contains clearly defined goals and desired A conceptual model of natural Green River Chinook future conditions necessary for sustainability salmon is included in Ruggerone et al. (2004).The (see Section 4.5). conceptual model includes information on life history diversity such as(1) migration and spawn timing of 3) It is founded on sound ecological principles and based on the best science and models returning adults, (2)the age composition of adults,and (3) the residence time and body size of juveniles in currently available,taking into account the different parts of the watershed(e.g.,river,estuary, characteristics and challenges of the water- shed. • EGGS IN GRAVEL - Female salmon lay 2,000 - v to 4,000 eggs in clean, FRY ALEVIN well-oxK enated gravel. • After they lose the egg sac, In about 50 days,the babyi these pine-needle sized fish salmon hatch,but they stay in - must feed on their own. the gravel,getting food from a yolk sac still attached to their bodies. - grow,they acquire ark markings to camouflage r themselves in the shady - The Salmon Cycle pebbles of the river. r: SPAWNING SMOLT = -- King salmon change color as they - swim upstream to the exact same After 2 to 16 months,these young stream where they were hatched. salmon start their long journey to �� After spawning,the salmon die. - the sea.Their kidneys and gills change Their bodies provide food for animals to prepare them for life in salt water, ADULT KING(CHINOOK)SALMON and valuable nutrients to the streams. - and they turn silver to camouflage Salmon spend about 4 years in Puget Sound themselves in the ocean. or in the ocean where they feed and grow. - Page 4-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - 4) The complexity and connections of watershed 1 4.5 SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION processes are a major factor in determining the number,characteristics,and geographic The WRIA 9 Habitat Plan is based on scientific research - distribution of the current and historical and analysis of the salmonid population and habitat salmonid populations and,therefore,in conditions in the watershed.This section describes the making habitat management decisions. scientific foundation that underlies the Plan,the 5) It seeks to increase ecological capacities,not a research that was conducted in order to prepare the - particular state,over the long term in recogni- Plan,and the rationale underlying the hypothesized • tion of environmental change and evolution. necessary future conditions to support a viable salmo- This management approach supports conser- nid population of Chinook.Although the WRIA 9 vation and recovery of anadromous salmonids Technical Committee had a reasonable amount of - throughout Puget Sound because connectivity information about salmon habitat at its disposal when among habitats is maintained,allowing the it began the Strategic Assessment,more information invasion of vacant habitats,sufficient genetic was necessary,especially concerning the Green River - diversity to allow successful colonization of Chinook salmon population. Research focused prima- these habitats,and refugia from which dis- rily on Chinook following the viable salmonid popula- persal can occur. tion (VSP) guidelines.Information pertaining to other 6) Both spatial and temporal scales were taken salmonid species was collected when feasible and into consideration when evaluating the within budget(requiring 20-30%more effort than that - ecosystem processes of the watershed.This expended on Chinook only). allows an understanding of the behaviors of the processes at a given location due to man- agement actions and other human-induced Ecological Synthesis Approach perturbations. (Salmonid Ecology and Current Versus �- The seventh and eighth components of the ecosystem Historical Habitat Approach) management approach are related to implementation. In carrying out the Strategic Assessment,the Technical Committee needed to develop an approach for linking • 7) The Habitat Plan recognizes that humans are the quantity and quality of habitat to salmon popula- part of the watershed's ecosystem,as well as its tion parameters in a spatially explicit manner.Phase 1 source of most significant challenges to of what was termed the functional linkages evalua- - sustainability.It takes into account social and tion"included reviewing and comparing a number of - economic systems of the watershed. analytical models and tools for carrying out this task. - 8) It acknowledges that the scientific understand- Some of the tools are built on statistical relationships ing of the ecosystem will continue to grow and among parameters and some are scientific models current models and paradigms of ecosystem built from a general understanding of how ecosystem - function and structure will be refined as more processes work and the interaction between variables. is learned.Adapting to new information as it Seven approaches were selected for review and com- becomes available and acknowledging limits parison based on their stated purpose,history of use, - to scientific understanding are central to the and potential for use in WRIA 9:Ecosystem Diagnosis - ecosystem management construct of this Plan. and Treatment(EDT), EDT-Light,SHIRAZ(a salmon habitat and life-cycle model),Qualitative Habitat Assessment(QHA),Salmonid Watershed Assessment - Model(SWAM),Cumulative Risk Initiative(CRI),and a - synthesis of available science related to salmon ecology and historical versus current habitat,which was named the"Ecological Synthesis Approach." - The Phase 1 report(Anchor Environmental and Natural Resources Consultants 2003),concluded there - is no obvious choice,nor a choice upon which WRIA 9 - should depend exclusively.However,two options were - Page 4-5 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 recommended for further consideration:SHIRAZ by Section 2 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- - itself or coupled with other statistical tools such as rizes the historical habitat and salmon population Cumulative Risk Initiative(CRI),or the Ecological conditions in WRIA 9.An effort to compile and analyze Synthesis Approach.The Technical Committee re- historical salmonid population conditions was under- viewed the Phase 1 report and chose the Ecological taken to gain an understanding of Chinook and other Synthesis Approach.The ability to provide information salmonid species and to assist with estimating histori- that would be useful in the development of habitat cal abundance,life cycle productivity,life history and - management strategies and actions for the Habitat genetic diversity,and spatial distribution.By examin- - Plan was an important consideration in this decision. ing how the river,floodplain,and estuary functioned The Technical Committee concluded that the Ecologi- historically,insight was gained on how the Green River cal Synthesis Approach,in concert with adaptive salmonid species adapted to their habitat and how - management and monitoring plans could meet the historical habitat conditions supported a viable • needs of WRIA 9. population.In addition,a historical reconstruction of riverine and estuarine environments of the Upper The Ecological Synthesis Approach does not use a Green River,Middle Green River,Lower Green River, - single model,but relies on information from as many and Duwamish Estuary was created.This information sources as possible,including information on current served as a benchmark or template for defining and historical habitat quantity and quality and fish hypothesized necessary future conditions that support - use,habitat limiting factors analyses,statistical mod- long-term viability of Green River Chinook salmon. - els,and scientific models as available.It provides a The findings of these analyses are presented in Collins series of conservation hypotheses to guide the devel- and Sheikh 2004,Bergeron 2004,and King County opment of habitat management strategies and actions. Department of Natural Resources and Parks and WRIA - In contrast to the other models reviewed,the Ecologi- 9 2004(See Chapter 10 for full references). - cal Synthesis Approach is a less structured approach that does not have an underlying framework or a series Section 3 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- - of assumed functional relationships upon which rizes the findings on current conditions,with an - decisions are made.Instead,it is a practical approach emphasis on aquatic habitat,water quantity,water based on empirical observations of how Chinook quality,and salmonid population conditions.This salmon currently use habitats in WRIA 9 in the context information is drawn from the Habitat Limiting - of current versus historical habitat.Conservation Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report - hypotheses about fish use and habitat,based on (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000) and numerous available science,will be tested through quantitative Strategic Assessment reports (Anchor Environmental monitoring projects. 2004a,Anchor Environmental 2004b,Herrera Environ- mental et al.2004,King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2004a,King County Department Overview of Key Components of Natural Resources and Parks 2004b,R2 Resource - of the Strategic Assessment Consultants 2002,Taylor Associates and King County - Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2004,and The Strategic Assessment Report is a summary of the TerraLogic and Landau 2004).Some information is technical work carried out in support of the WRIA 9 focused on the Green/Duwamish River mainstem, - habitat planning effort. It is available online at http:// such as the aquatic habitat reports,and some informa- dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/StratAssess.htm.This tion is more watershed-wide,such as water quality chapter presents information from the Strategic conditions.Because of time and resource constraints, Assessment by subwatershed instead of by topic.This information on nearshore habitat conditions and - is done to make it easier for the reader to track the water quantity conditions is incomplete.Information available information and focus on a particular geo- on current conditions was used to compare with graphic area of interest.For purposes of providing an historical conditions, and it also serves as a baseline - overview of the Strategic Assessment and laying out for monitoring changes over time as the Habitat Plan the sections that follow,this section provides a brief and related actions are implemented. overview of the components of the Strategic Assess- ment(King County Department of Natural Resources - and Parks et al.2004). Page 4-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Section 4 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- research questions.Most of the information used in rizes the analysis comparing historical and current the model was from WRIA 9 studies,but information habitat conditions.This comparison was used to from other watersheds also was used to support • identify and quantify how aquatic habitats have assumptions regarding Chinook ecology when WRIA 9 changed over time and provide information to support watershed information was lacking.The model dis- development of necessary future habitat conditions. cusses Chinook life history for different stages(adult, - The focus for the aquatic habitat included mainstem egg,juvenile) and alternative juvenile life history - and tributary channels and in-channel wood for the trajectories. Upper Green River,Middle Green River,Lower Green River,and Duwamish Estuary Subwatersheds.These Section 6 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- findings also were used to support the development of rizes the functional linkages evaluation examining the • conservation hypotheses,establish necessary future relationships between habitat conditions and salmo- habitat conditions targets,and guide habitat restora- nid populations.Functional linkages are defined here tion efforts.The findings are presented in full in the as qualitative and quantitative relationships between • Comparison of Historical and Current Habitat Condi- habitat quantity and quality and the four viable tions in WRIA 9 (King County Department of Natural salmonid population parameters.The evaluation leads Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 2004). to the development of conservation hypotheses that - provide a basis for habitat management strategies and - Section 5 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- management actions.The Ecological Synthesis Ap- rizes the findings of numerous independent salmonid proach provides a way to link quantity and quality of studies carried out over the past four years and synthe- habitat to salmon population parameters in a spatially • sizes and connects important information related to explicit way.The functional linkages evaluation is a salmonid ecology in WRIA 9.Studies carried out synthesizing step in the sequence of technical tasks during or after 2000 differed from past studies because that support habitat planning in WRIA 9. a program was initiated in that year to mass mark - juvenile Chinook released from the Soos Creek hatch- Section 6 also includes conservation hypotheses.A ery.Mass marking made it possible to distinguish conservation hypothesis is an estimate of how im- hatchery Chinook from natural Chinook,allowing provements in habitat conditions and habitat-forming • interactions between hatchery and naturally spawned processes will lead to changes in the four viable - fish to be studied.Most recent studies focus on Chi- salmonid population(VSP) parameters.As more nook migration timing and relative abundance and information becomes available during Plan implemen- growth,which can be used to indirectly assess WRIA- tation,these hypotheses will be tested and refined to - wide habitat use.In addition,similar baseline data reflect improved understanding of habitat conditions . were concurrently collected for other non-target and population response.A total of 34 conservation salmonid species,including coho and chum salmon. hypotheses in seven categories—the five • subwatersheds,watershed-wide,and non-habitat - Numerous studies and key findings that contribute the hypotheses—were developed that will be tested understanding of salmon ecology in WRIA 9 are through a monitoring and evaluation program (see summarized below,including:Anchor Environmental Appendix E).These conservation hypotheses were • and Ruggerone et al.2004,Berge and Mavros 2001, evaluated based on seven criteria:viable salmonid • Brennan et al.2004,City of Seattle Salmon Team 2003, population (VSP) parameters,overall population Goetz et al.2003,Goetz and Jeanes 2004,Hahn and viability,salmonid life stages affected,magnitude of Cropp 2003,Malcom 2002,Ruggerone et al.2004, effect,hypothesized necessary future conditions, - Nelson et al.2004,R2 Resource Consultants 2001, certainty,and habitat factors of decline. Ruggerone and Jeanes 2004,Seiler et al.2002, Sobocinski 2003,Toft et al.2004,Weitkamp et al.2000, This evaluation resulted in prioritization into three - and Brennan(Ed.) 2001.A description of the current tiers for purposes of identifying relative importance • knowledge regarding Chinook life cycle use of habitat (see Appendix D).Tier 1 conservation hypotheses are in WRIA 9 is contained in the Conceptual Model of the relatively more important than Tier 2 conservation WRIA 9 Research Framework(Ruggerone et al.2004). hypotheses,which are relatively more important than - The conceptual model is a tool to assist recovery Tier 3 conservation hypotheses. . planning and provides guidance for developing Page 4-7 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Section 7 of the Strategic Assessment report summa- The sub-sections below are organized by subwatershed - rizes the necessary future conditions to support a and present information on historical and current viable salmonid population in WRIA 9 with a focus on habitat conditions,changes in habitat conditions,fish Chinook salmon (WRIA 9 and King County Depart- utilization,conservation hypotheses and necessary - ment of Natural Resources and Parks 2004).Using future conditions.Also included is information on - scientific guidance for population recovery developed water quantity and water quality and the watershed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team,NOAA Chinook salmon population. Fisheries,and Shared Strategy,viable salmonid popu- lation(VSP)goals and objectives were established for the Green River Chinook population.Using ecosystem The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget and habitat guidance from many sources,the VSP Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) - goals were translated into more explicit ecosystem and - habitat goals that form the basis for strategies and Historical Conditions actions in the Green/Duwamish River and WRIA 9. Prior to European influence,the greater Duwamish Using information from historical and current habitat watershed was approximately 4,077 km2 and included - and population conditions,including data on salmo- the White River,Black River,Cedar River,Green River, - nid utilization of habitats,the necessary future condi- Duwamish River,Sammamish River,and Lakes Wash- tions are targets from management strategies and ington and Sammamish,as well as numerous other actions can be developed.As mentioned at the begin- salmon spawning tributaries.The historical watershed • ning of this chapter,the necessary future conditions contained approximately 3,060 km of streams acces- are themselves hypotheses. sible to fish (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and King County 2000). By 1916,the historical watershed had Finally,Section 8 of the Strategic Assessment report been reduced by 70%and accessible streams reduced - summarizes key findings from the Strategic Assess- by 93% (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and King ment and addresses key questions linking the conser- County 2000).The White and Cedar rivers were vation hypotheses developed in the functional linkages reengineered and diverted in the early 1900s and the - work to the viable salmonid population and habitat Duwamish River was straightened in 1906.The con- goals identified in the necessary future conditions struction of the Ship Canal in 1916 lowered water levels work.This section summarizes the overall scientific in Lake Washington that lead to the dewatering of the foundation for the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. Black River and blocked migration of salmonids to - Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish via the Duwamish River. W ---------------------------------•, Of the major drainages listed above,the WRIA 9 • watershed today consists only of the Green/Duwamish Duwamish River watershed.For analytical purposes,present-day Nearshore Middle Green WRIA 9 is divided into the five subwatersheds de-er Green scribed below In addition, 13 assessment segments Upper Greenwere identified for analyzing the Green/Duwamish River mainstem aquatic habitat(Table 4-1).Thefollowing subsection is a summary of water quantityAL and quality conditions in the watershed. N - Water Quantity and Water Quality . Water quantity conditions,including instream flows, - King County WRIA 9 Subwatersheds groundwater,habitat-forming flows,and out-of- stream water use affect the quality and quantity of habitat available for different salmonid life stages. . Historical changes combined to have a profound effect - on water quantity conditions,including the diversion of the White River in 1906,the Cedar/Black River in 1913,the construction of the Tacoma Headworks - Page 4-8 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 (diversion dam) in 1911-1913, and construction of the mainstem.As a result of the Howard Hanson Dam, Howard Hanson Dam for flood control in 1962. In floods greater than 12,000 cfs (formerly the two-year addition,there were extensive land use changes that event at the U.S.Geological Survey Auburn stream - converted forests to urban, industrial,and agricultural gage) have been prevented,while the duration of uses,as well as numerous smaller water diversions and moderate flows (3,000 to 5,000 cfs) has increased due groundwater withdrawals that affected water quantity to metered release of floodwaters stored behind the - conditions. Diversion of the White River in particular dam.' - reduced summer low flows because of the loss of glacial meltwater.Tacoma Public Utilities continuously diverts Urban development in the Duwamish Estuary, Lower up to 113 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Green River,and Middle Green River Subwatersheds - TABLE 4-1:Assessment Segments of the Green/Duwamish River Used To Analyze Aquatic Habitat Change River Segment Assessment Subwatershed Historical Channel Current Channel Type Slope i Description 0-1.5 1 Tidal Delta Duwamish Estuarine Artificial Constrained 0.09 1.5-11 2 Duwamish Valley Duwamish Estuarine Artificial Constrained 0.003 11-31.3 3 Lower Green Valley Lower Green Palustrine (river mile 25 Artificial Constrained 0.05 - to 11); Floodplain 31.3-45.3 4 Middle Green Valley Middle Green Unconfined Floodplain Unconfined Floodplain 0.23 45.3-57.6 5 Green Rive Gorge Middle Green Large Contained Large Contained 0.85 57.6-60.5 6 Boulder Zone Middle Green Unconfined Floodplain Unconfined Floodplain 0.60 60.5-64.4 7 Eagle Gorge Middle Green Large Contained Large Contained 0.75 64.4-72.7 8 Reservoir Plus Upper Green Unconfined Floodplain Seasonally Inundated 0.55 72.7-77.0 9 Smay Valley Upper Green Unconfined Floodplain Unconfined Floodplain 0.72 77.0-77.9 10 Mile Canyon Upper Green Large Contained Large Contained 0.02 - 77.9-84.1 11 Lester Upper Green Unconfined Floodplain Unconfined Floodplain 0.83 - 84.1-88.3 12 Intake Valley Upper Green Unconfined Floodplain Unconfined Floodplain 1.50 - 88.3-93.6 13 Headwaters Upper Green High Gradient Confined High Gradient Confined 11.30 *River miles are estimated from Williams et al 1975 • 1. For much of this chapter,metric measurements are used in keeping with scientific practice and the information in the Strategic Assessment and other scientific reports.However,English measurements are used for locations along the river[river miles]and flow[cubic feet per second].) - Page 4-9 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 has resulted in substantial increases in stormwater — May mean the river has less ability to create - runoff from small tributary streams and subbasins. new side channel habitat,reducing habitat for This in turn has contributed to larger and more fre- salmon as well as recruitment of gravel from the quent peak flows during the winter and reduced floodplain;and - recharge of shallow aquifers that formerly sustained — May mean the river has less ability to maintain - flows during the late summer and fall.Water withdraw- existing side channels and recruit wood into the als and diversion of springs or other surface water channel,reducing overall habitat quality. sources also serve numerous cities and water districts - in the Lower and Middle Green River Subwatersheds. Durations of moderate flood flows (greater than These withdrawals,together with exempt wells further 5,900 cubic feet per second)were longer by 39%. reduce the water available to streams and the This increased duration of flows: mainstem.An analysis of natural flow conditions, conducted as part of the Reconnaissance Assessment — May increase frequency or duration of scour of (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000),revealed the following riverbed gravel. Effects are compounded as - fewer side channels (where scour would be less) findings: - are being created so more of the population • Flows less than 302 cubic feet per second occurred spawns in the mainstem. • 49%more often and summertime means and Water quality conditions in the watershed are - annual minimum extremes were consistently summarized from recent water quality reports longer.This flow regime: (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000,Taylor Associates — Reduces spatial habitat for rearing,decreases and King County 2004,Herrera Environmental et water depth in riffles,glides,and pools and may al.2004).Data were compared to Washington - constrain upstream adult Chinook migration; State water quality standards (WAC 173 20IA), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency water — Reduces water velocity,potentially constraining quality criteria and appropriate toxicity screening - downstream juvenile movement;and thresholds to assess potential for biological — May decrease wetted width of river available for significance.Temperature and dissolved oxygen spawning,forcing Chinook to spawn closer to are the parameters of greatest concern to salmo- the thalweg(deepest part of the river),where nids.The following represent some key findings of - scour potential is generally greater. the temperature assessment(Taylor Associates and King County Department of Natural Re- • The annual minimum flow occurred two weeks sources and Parks 2004): earlier,in late August rather than mid-September. _ All 17 mainstem locations exceeded the 2003 - This timing of low flow: State water quality temperature standards for — May affect timing of upstream adult migration; 10 or more days during the 2001,2002,and/or and 2003 water years,with average exceedances — May create warmer,more stressful instream ranging from 0.4 to 3.5°C; - conditions where temperatures already can - exceed salmon preferences. — Temperature data for 52 of the 86 monitoring stations violated the applicable 2003 State - • Flood peaks were reduced,with no flood flows temperature standard on some or frequent - above 11,000 cubic feet per second at the Palmer occasions; gage below the Tacoma Headworks (compared to one day flows ranging up to 18,000 cubic feet per — Station TM-7(Meridian Valley Creek) had the - second(and peak flows even higher) and exceed- highest temperature exceedance with an ing 11,000 cubic feet per second in one out of average exceedance of 23.1°C which can be every six years).This reduction in peak flows: lethal for salmonids.Stations COI (Covington Creek) and GRT02 (Springbrook Creek)had - average exceedances of 21.5°C and 21.4°C, respectively,which have the potential for migration blockage;and . Page 4-10 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • - An additional 29 stations had average A11-2(Tier 1):Protecting and improving riparian exceedances between 18 and 21°C (potential for conditions by adding native riparian vegetation and impairment),with four sites greater than 20°C. controlling invasive species will enhance habitat • quality by improving water quality,stabilizing Adult migration is a key life history stage affected by streambanks,providing overhanging vegetation and current temperature exceedances.Exceedances during large woody debris,and contributing organic matter, • adult migration may also indicate inadequate early fall nutrients,and terrestrial prey items,thereby leading to • cooling required to support adequate spawning, greater juvenile salmon growth and higher survival; incubation,and rearing temperatures.Coho and steelhead subyearlings and steelhead yearlings that AH-4(Tier 1):Allowing natural flows (including low - remain in freshwater throughout the summer after flows and habitat-forming flows)in a relatively uncon- - emergence are another key life stage affected by strained river channel will enhance habitat diversity temperature exceedances. and provide habitats that can support spawning and rearing salmon at a greater variety of flow conditions, • Dissolved oxygen is an important water quality param- thereby leading to expanded salmon spatial distribu- eter for salmonids and other aquatic life.Washington tion,greater juvenile salmon growth,and higher State standards require that dissolved oxygen concen- survival. [Note:May be less applicable to the marine - trations exceed 9.5 milligrams per liter(mg/L) in nearshore.]; - freshwaters designated for core salmonid rearing and 8.0 mg/L in freshwaters designated for noncore A11-6(Tier 1):Preventing new bank/shoreline salmonid rearing(WAC 173 201A).Dissolved oxygen is armoring and fill and removing existing armoring,fill, • a 303(d)listed parameter for each of the four major and other impediments (e.g.,levees)will enhance streams(Springbrook,Mill,Soos,and Newaukum habitat quality and quantity and lead to improved Creeks).Among all sites monitored,dissolved oxygen juvenile salmon survival,spatial distribution,and - concentrations ranged from 3.0 to 13.7 mg/L during diversity; - baseflow and from 1.5 to 14.3 mg/L during storm flow. Among the four major stream sites,the dissolved All-1 (Tier 2):Protecting and improving water quality oxygen standard was exceeded with the greatest (e.g.,temperature,dissolved oxygen,turbidity,and - frequency in Springbrook Creek.The dissolved oxygen chemical contamination conditions)by addressing - standard was never exceeded at the Soos and point and nonpoint(specifically stormwater runoff Newaukum Creek mouths,although few samples were and agricultural drainage)pollution sources will collected during summer base flow when the lowest enhance habitat quality and lead to greater juvenile - dissolved oxygen concentrations would be expected. salmon growth,disease resistance,and survival. Improved water quality will also enhance survival of For most salmonid life stages (juvenile rearing and adult salmon,incubating salmon eggs,and salmon - migration and adult migration),slight,moderate,and prey resources,such as forage fish; - severe production impairment occur at 6 mg/L,5 mg/ L,and 4 mg/L,respectively(U.S.Environmental A11-3 (Tier 2):Protecting and improving access to Protection Agency 1986).Acute mortality occurs at 3 tributaries will increase the quantity of available - mg/L.The minimum values observed at four sites habitat,particularly for juvenile Chinook and coho during baseflow(Springbrook Creek, Black River,Mill salmon,and lead to expanded salmon spatial distribu- Creek tributary to Springbrook,and Soosette Creek) tion,greater juvenile salmon growth,and higher and one site during storm flow(Newaukum Creek survival;and tributary)were 4 mg/L or below,leading to potential severe impairment to salmonids. A11-5 (Tier 2):Preserving and protecting against watershed and upland impacts by implementing low - Watershed-Wide Conservation Hypotheses impact development techniques,including minimiz- Based on the results of the habitat and population ing impervious surfaces,will maintain habitat quality - analyses,six conservation hypotheses were developed by helping maintain flow and reduce sedimentation, that are potentially applicable to all subwatersheds in thereby leading to greater salmon survival. - WRIA 9.Three of these were rated as Tier 1 hypotheses • and three were rated as Tier 2 hypotheses: - Page 4-11 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Watershed-Wide Priorities made that any one limiting habitat is more important • As an initial approach to developing watershed-wide than the others,or should be singled out as the most guidelines,the Science Panel'considered how alterna- important factor. tive population models and structures,along with selected habitat limiting factors, might be used as a On May 12,2005,the Steering Committee adopted the basis for making decisions about watershed-wide three priority geographically-specific limiting habitats priorities (Anchor Environmental and Grette Associ- noted above and supported the slight prioritization of - ates 2005a).Several assumptions have been consid- the transition zone habitat over the other areas for - ered that influence the relative importance of certain Project implementation within the first 10 years of the geographic areas and types of habitat management Habitat Plan (see Policy NISI in Chapter 5).Specifically, the Duwamish Estuary transition habitat will have a actions over others.Assumptions include the basis of different life history trajectories(genetic vs.environ- 40%weighting in terms of overall action funding,while - mental) and the potential existence of"limiting the other two areas (spawning and rearing habitats) habitats"that limit the effectiveness of habitat actions will have 30%weightings each.An adaptive manage- that improve survival upstream. Four limiting habitats manage- ment approach will be taken so that relative weights - were considered,including: and geographic specificity can be altered in accor- dance with changing conditions and scientific discov- • Duwamish Estuary transition zone habitat; eries. (See Figure 4-1 for the estimated location of the - • Middle Green and upper Lower Green River Duwamish transition zone.) . spawning habitat; - • Middle Green River,Lower Green River, Duwamish Estuary,and marine nearshore rearing habitat;and - • Howard Hanson Dam,which impedes salmon - migration and affects downstream habitat forma- tion(e.g.,gravel transport,altered flow regime). In making decisions about watershed-wide priorities it . is important to recognize that increasing productivity of the Chinook population is a key short-term (i.e. 10 year) priority(see Chapter 5),while over the long term • (i.e.50 years or more),lack of spatial structure is most threatening the viability of the Chinook population. With improvements to spatial structure,greater diversity will also follow.While developing spatial . structure is a longer-term process,it is recognized that it needs to begin now. Solving the fish passage,gravel,and large woody debris - transport issues at Howard Hanson Dam(and fish passage at the Tacoma Headworks) is a significant opportunity for expanding spatial structure and - diversity.However,it was recognized that these issues are being addressed by U.S.Army Corp of Engineers and Tacoma Public Utilities projects in the near-term - timeframe of the Habitat Plan,and thus they were not - considered further in this prioritization.Review of the evidence supporting the other three potential limiting habitats indicated that a compelling case could not be - 2. A group of scientists convened in late 2004 to develop a process and review proposed habitat actions in WRIA 9 for technical merit. • Page 4-12 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • • ,yam � �•. _�` -� y • A.,,. r f ,f ' a • � d o • � x i l k �! i •^ 1 s All 16 • I 4{L �•SS, Ask �,-_ '" �"�a,,,,�_ �/r ��� ;;aka• ,; • �" - .a r • • FIGURE 4-1 • Documented Duwamish Transition Zone o W River Mile and Number • (Estimated from"Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization"(Williams,et al. 7975). - N uo • \ j Duwamish Transition Zone (Rm 7.0-5.5,according to data in Strategic Assessment) 0 1/4 1/2 Mile Additional Likely Transition Zone - Auaust 2005 (According to preliminary data in 2005) Page 4-13 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • location(King County Department of Natural Re- sources and Parks 2004b).There are five assessment segments within the Upper Green River from river mile W „ (RM) 64.5 to 88.3.Segment 8 (RM 64.5 to 72.7) is the - lowest segment of the Upper Green River,including those areas between RM 64.5-69 that are completely inundated or seasonally inundated by Howard Hanson - reservoir.The North Fork Green River is a major - tributary within this segment.The channel is con- strained along approximately 22%of the channel length from railroad lines and logging roads that - prevent lateral channel migration.Segment 9 (RM 72.7 - to 77) is unconfined and flows through a low gradient, broad alluvial valley and floodplain and contains one Uppcore area for spawning as predicted by Martin et al. December bergGree 03p over5egment9(rivermiles72.7 77),lookingwest (2004).Segment 10 (RM 77 to 77.9) is a confined (V- shaped photo. shaped valley with little to no floodplain) segment that flows through a steep,gradient(0.6%) floodplain.This Upper Green River Subwatershed reach appears to be effectively transporting sediment - and channel width has decreased over time.Segment Historical Conditions 11 (RM 77.9 to 84.1) is located within glacial alpine Historically,the Upper Green River Subwatershed deposits and the channel is unconfined within the provided extensive spawning and rearing habitat for valley bottom,with a gradient of 0.8%and contains - salmon and trout.There were approximately 7,735 km one core area for spawning as predicted by Martin et of mapped stream channels,including 267 km of fish- al. (2004).Segment 12 (RM 84.1 to 88.3) is a confined bearing streams (U.S.Forest Service 1996).It is as- segment with inclusions of lower gradient,broad - sumed that the upper watershed supported mostly alluvial valley portions and contain two core areas for spring Chinook(adult Chinook that begin spawning spawning as predicted by Martin et al. (2004).Rail- migration in the spring),coho,winter and summer roads and forest roads constrain the mainstem chan- - steelhead,and resident trout,although the lower reach nel in several segments. - may have supported fall Chinook(adult Chinook that Change in Habitat Conditions begin spawning migration in the fall) as well.Impor- tant overwintering habitat and refugia for these species In the Upper Green River,the interaction between included areas with reduced water velocities,relatively sediment supply and transport capacity has - constant year-round temperatures,and protection influenced the change in channel pattern.The from predators.According to Cutler(2000),the pre- mainstem substantially increased between 1901 and sumed upstream extent of use by Chinook,steelhead, 1997 in active channel width and channel area in - and coho was estimated to be approximately river Segments 8,9,and 11. In Segment 8,the increase in - mile 91.8,where the stream gradient steepens substan- channel width and area appears to be a function of tially(see Figure 7-1 for location of river miles).His- sediment deposition in channel bars due to the torically,large woody debris in the streams may have reduction in transport capacity at,and upstream of, - ranged from 240 to 2,080 pieces per kilometer the reservoir low-water stage. In Segments 9 and 11, (Cedarholm et al. 1989; Fox 2001).These quantities excess sediment from Smay Creek and road-related would have provided a critical structure and habitat failures (Faulkner(Ed.) 1997),and sediment from - complexity. Sunday and Twin Camp creek(Toth et al. 1996), - respectively,appear to be the primary cause of Current Conditions channel widening.These analyses showed substantial Current habitat information on the Upper Green River increase in sediment load.Segment 8 (river mile 64.5- - is limited to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions in 67.8) is now seasonally inundated by Howard Hanson - the mainstem.Channel characteristics vary by reach reservoir.The primary change in channel edge over and were calculated from the 1998 mapped channel time has been the construction and maintenance of logging roads and the railroad (the modern-day BNSF - Page 4-14 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - Railway). Revetments constructed of riprap were expand Chinook distribution,diversity,and enhance placed along the channel edge to protect the road and abundance in the river; (2) Restoring salmon above railroad grade from channel erosion. Between river Howard Hanson Dam without the use of hatchery • miles 61.5 and 88,over 22%of the channel edge is outplants or returning hatchery adults will recover - impacted by these revetments. Chinook without bypassing important evolutionary processes (i.e.the selection of the fittest adults for - Fish Utilization spawning,and juveniles for incubation). [Note:The - At present,Chinook adults are not placed upstream of alternative hypotheses were not scored and tiered.Final the Howard Hanson Dam,so natural production does decisions on which fish to pass upstream are dependent not occur in the Upper Green River Subwatershed.The upon NOAA Fisheries, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe plants about 400,000 and the co-managers(Washington State Department of - marked Chinook fry in the upper watershed in late Fish and Wildlife and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe).AJune March(Anchor Environmental and National Research 8,2004,letter from NOAA Fisheries to Tacoma Public Council 2004).The survival rate of these fish is thought Utilities advised that their preliminary recommenda- - to be very low because of downstream passage prob- tion is to pass upstream of Howard Hanson Dam all • lems posed by passage through Howard Hanson Dam, natural and hatchery-origin Chinook,as well as other as well as high river flow during the spring salmonids, with the exception of summer run steelhead outmigration season,which coincides with reservoir and Atlantic salmon.Also,the Hatchery Scientific - refill(Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000).Some marked Review Group recommendations for the Green River hatchery subyearling Chinook were captured in spring Population propose the continued management of the 2000 at the screw trap at river mile 34.5 (Seiler et al. population as an integrated stock(Hatchery Scientific 2002).Larger hatchery Chinook juveniles have been Review Group 2004).] - observed moving downstream through Howard Hanson Dam during the late fall and early winter when UG-4(Tier 1):Protecting and restoring natural sedi- the reservoir level is dropped to"run of the river" ment recruitment process by reducing the amount of - conditions in preparation for storage of winter flows slides and road-borne sediment from forest roads will • (Anchor Environmental and Natural Resources Con- enhance salmon migration,spawning success,and sultants 2004).Bull trout surveys were carried out in juvenile rearing. the Upper Green River Subwatershed by Plum Creek - fisheries biologists in the mid-1990s (Watson et al. UG-2(Tier 2):Protecting and restoring/enhancing 1997) and King County in 2000 (Berge and Mavros habitat(e.g.,side channels,pools) along the Upper 2001),but no bull trout were observed. Green River mainstem and major tributaries(e.g., North Fork,Smay Creek)by restoring the riparian - Conservation Hypotheses corridor will enhance habitat quality and lead to Based on the results of the habitat and population greater residence time and survival (after the establish- analyses,four conservation hypotheses were devel- ment of populations above Howard Hanson Dam). oped for the Upper Green River Subwatershed.Two of UG-3 (Tier 2):Establish a bull trout population above - them were rated as Tier 1 hypotheses and two as Tier 2 Howard Hanson Dam by providing passage upstream - hypotheses: (trap and haul)beyond Howard Hanson Dam and the UG-1 (Tier 1):Establishing/restoring Chinook salmon reservoir for returning adults and downstream passage for the progeny increase habitat quantity and expand - access above Howard Hanson Dam by providing spatial structure.). [Note:Final decisions on which fish passage upstream(trap and haul)beyond Howard to pass upstream are dependent upon NOAA Fisheries, Hanson Dam and the reservoir for natural origin U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,and the co-managers - Chinook and downstream passage for the progeny as (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and - well as first generation hatchery fry will increase Muckleshoot Indian Tribe)] habitat quantity and expand salmon spatial structure. (Alternative Hypotheses: (1)Augmenting restoration of - salmon populations above Howard Hanson Dam by introducing out-of-basin spring Chinook from a neighboring river system(possibly White River)to • replace the extirpated Green River spring Chinook will - Page 4-15 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Necessary Future Conditions The riparian zone is functioning and effective - There are five assessment segments within the Upper buffer widths are established to provide all ripar- Green River Subwatershed.They are Reservoir Plus ian functions (shade,bank stabilization,sediment (Segment 8,river mile 64.5-72.7),Smay Valley(Seg- control,organic litter,large woody debris,nutri- ment 9,RM 72.7-77.0),Mile Canyon(Segment 10, ents,and microclimate) (Segments 8,9, 10, 11, RM 77.0-77.9),Lester(Segment 11,RM 77.9-84.1) and and 12). Intake Valley(Segment 12,RM 84.1-88.3).The hypoth- esized necessary future habitat conditions identified Middle Green River Subwatershed for the Upper Green River Subwatershed follow: - • Core areas (Martin et al.2004)predicted as likely - to provide source population structure are tar- geted as refugia for both adult and juvenile Chinook(Segments 9, 11,and 12); - • Natural rates of lateral channel migration are g reestablished to create and maintain functioning aquatic habitats that represent about 65%of historical levels at any given time (Segments 8,9, 11,and 12);3 - • Hydrologic connection to floodplain and side - channel habitats are restored to achieve access to about 65%of historical habitat areas at any given time(Segments 9, 10, 11 and, 12); Looking west over the Middle Green River Subwatershed,showing themix - • Natural rates of sediment recruitment are reestab- of forests and farms along the river between river miles 45 and 32.July lished to increase productivity of spawning areas 2004 photo. and to maintain and develop habitat.Large woody debris quantity and distribution are increased Historical Conditions after the channel begins to return to equilibrium The Middle Green River Subwatershed historically conditions(Segments 8,9, 11,and 12); provided excellent spawning and rearing habitat that • Water quality meets State standards to increase supported multiple salmonid species.From river productivity of spawning areas (e.g.,increase egg- mile 32 to 45 (see Figure 7-2 for location of river miles), to-fry and spawner-to-spawner productivity) and the historical channel incised(downcut)through the to increase juvenile life stage productivity.Stream wide alluvial valley bottom while migrating through- temperatures comply with water quality standards out.This channel migration created a sinuous and for rearing and migration for Sunday Creek braided channel,with significant amounts of off (Segments 8,9, 11,and 12); channel habitat that was used for juvenile rearing.The - • Mainstem,off channel,and tributary habitats are mainstem channel edge habitat was abundant and improved to increase juvenile rearing,life stage pools were large and frequent.There was potentially diversity,and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and 50 km of mainstem channel edge habitat(Collins and fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Habitats include Sheikh,2004).There were approximately 29 hectares of - braided channels,side channels,shallow channel side channels in the Middle Green River,providing edges,large woody debris jams,and in-channel potentially 52 km of channel edge habitat and the pools.Targets are functioning habitats represent- necessary refuge to escape high velocity flows that can - ing 65%of historical habitat area at any give time result from the steep valley bottom of this section of - (Segments 8,9, 11,and 12);and 3. For the Upper and Middle Green River Subwatersheds,the hypothesized necessary future conditions identified refer to targeting - 65%of historical habitat at any given time.This target emanates from work by Reeves et al.indicating that at any given time about a third of - river habitat is of sufficiently high quality to support source areas of the population,another third is of moderate quality and may exhibit sporadic spawning,and the remaining third is of low quality and does not support spawning at all.Applying this to the Green/Duwamish - watershed,it would be desirable to have two-thirds(about 65%)of the potential habitat patches in a river segment available,with suitable to moderately suitable habitat at any given time(King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004). - Page 4-16 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • the river.The mainstem channel also provided juvenile District comprises 74%of the valley and more than rearing habitat in shallow areas along the channel edge half of the forested valley bottom (636 hectares)has and within large woody debris jams.The vegetation been converted to agriculture.The river no longer - along the river and tributaries was dense and over- migrates freely throughout the valley due to 27 levees hanging the low-water line as described in the mid- and revetments (totaling 8.7 km) and regulated flows. 1860s General Land Office notes (Collins and Sheikh The current 100-year floodplain is 52%of the historical - 2004).These tree species would have contributed to floodplain and is now a mosaic of forest and agricul- • large woody debris within the river system and pro- tural lands.Accessible floodplain forests have been vided the habitat complexity needed to support a reduced by 72%. viable population. - All four assessment segments in the Middle Green - Current Conditions River had a reduction in total channel area.Channel Middle Green channel characteristics vary by reach area for Segments 4 and 7 is about 34%less than and were monitored as part of surveys performed in historical conditions;Segment 6 is about 29%less.This - late summer 2001 (R2 Resource Consultants 2002). reduction in channel area is likely a result of bank There are four assessment segments from river armoring and reduction of flood flows.In Segment 5, mile 31.3 to 64.5.Key habitat attributes were moni- the channel area and width stayed relatively constant tored in six reaches of the Middle Green River(RM 32 due to confinement of the Gorge.The levees that - to 64.5)including bankfull width,canopy cover,pool protect roads,a railroad,and private property constrict habitat(location and dimensions),large woody debris, the channel and prevent the river from meandering. and riffle particle size distribution.The bankfull width The levees also change the flow dynamics,often ranged from 33 to 45 meters in the Middle Green River. increasing velocity and reducing the ability of the river - Canopy cover was generally about 15%,except in to dissipate energy and sediments. Segment 5 (Green River Gorge,RM 45.1 to 57.6)where it averaged 26%.Pool spacing ranged from nine An of changes to tributaries,focusing on - channel widths per pool in Segment 5 to 34 channel channel edge,was completed for the valley bottom of widths per pool in portions of Segment 4 (Middle Segment 4.Overall,tributary channel edge decreased Green Valley,RM 32 to 45.1).Pools represented about by 19%;however,Unnamed Creek 0098/0099 de- creased18 to 27%of the total habitat area.Large woody debris by about 45%.All of the losses occurred in - was most common in the lower reaches of Segment 4 headwaters that are completely contained within the (RM 32 to 40),which contained several logjams floodplain.Historically,the headwater of Unnamed composed of more than 100 pieces of large woody Creek 0098 appears to have connected to the mainste debris.Gravel was abundant between RM 32 and 45, m and was likely maintained through frequent where dominant riffle particle size was 42 to 69 mm. flooding.This remnant side channel still exists,but is - no longer connected to the mainstem.Juvenile Chi- Substantial amounts of gravel were present in pool tailouts,small point bars and along channel margins nook likely utilized this side channel during high flow • downstream of a large landslide near RM 49.Upstream events and reared in the creek.Historically,side of RM 49,gravel was scarce,consisting mostly of channels were the dominant type of channel edge cobbles due to the loss of gravel recruitment from creating an extensive network that exited and entered above Howard Hanson Dam over the past 40 years.In the mainstem.Most of the side channels were north of - Segments 6 and 7 (RM 57.6 to 64.4),gravel deposits at the river and were likely created by overbank flows pool tailouts were rare and several low gradient riffles branching through alluvial deposits of the valley m were largely devoid of gravel. bottom.Historically,there was about 54 k of side - channel,compared with 13.4 km today(a 75%reduc- Change in Habitat Conditions tion),a significant loss of habitat resulting from flood - In the Middle Green River Subwatershed,a valley control efforts and land use changes. bottom change analysis was performed for Segment 4 Fish Utilization (river mile 32 to 45.3),because of the availability of • historical habitat conditions.The forest that once One of the few studies aimed at assessing juvenile covered the valley bottom has become fragmented, salmonid habitat use was carried out by the U.S.Army and today only about 40%of the valley bottom is Corps of Engineers in the Middle Green River forested.The King County Agricultural Production Subwatershed.The purpose of this study,conducted Page 4-17 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 between 1998 and 2000,was to elucidate life history This bimodal pattern was also observed with varying - characteristics and salmonid habitat use of the Middle ratios of fry/fingerling abundance in 2001-2003 Green River and help Howard Hanson Dam managers (Nelson et.al 2004).Flows appear to influence the fry/ identify strategies to minimize flow manipulation fingerling ratio in any given year,with more fry cap- - effects upon salmonids (112 Resource Consultants tured during periods of high winter and early spring - 2001).Sampling focused on shallow mainstem lateral flows,when downstream migration is likely to be habitats,defined as mainstem and off channel habitats passive rather than volitional.Nelson et al. (2004) also with water depths less than 1.5 meters.Chinook fry observed fry movement during moderate flow,which - were found to use mainstem habitats much more than suggests that active migration could also be occurring. off channel habitats.Moreover,Chinook preferred The larger natural fingerlings are thought to be more shallow,low-velocity stream edge areas with ample physiologically prepared to enter marine waters and - structural cover.There was a tendency for the smaller, thus tend to spend less time rearing in the lower river . younger,Chinook fry(less than 50 mm in length)to and estuary prior to marine residence. initially use shallow areas and gradually shift into deeper water as they grew.By late March,fry were Data from spawning surveys conducted from 1997 to - found in slow-velocity(below 2.0 feet per second) 2002 were used to map redd(spawning egg nest) habitat created by deep scour pools formed by boul- density and it was determined that about 80%of ders and mats of woody debris.Chinook were also Chinook redds occurred in the Middle Green River - found in off channel habitats (areas separated from the mainstem.These redds were from a mix of hatchery - mainstem by a vegetated island or abandoned flood- and naturally produced adults,with about 60%attrib- plain such as wall base channels or old oxbows). uted to adults from the Soos Creek Hatchery and Icy Creek Ponds (Anchor Environmental and Natural - .• Resources Consultants 2004).The subwatershed has two larger tributaries and several smaller tributaries that also provide spawning habitat and rearing habitat r for salmonids.The Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek x .y subbasins currently provide significant spawning - f habitat and some rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. Other documented tributaries used by salmonids are - x' Unnamed Creek 0098/0099,Burns,Crisp,and O'Grady - creeks. Although there are no recent studies of bull trout - habitat use in WRIA 9,several captures of adult bull trout have occurred near the mouth of Newaukum Creek,one as recently as February 2004 (Berge and - Mavros 2001;Goetz and Jeanes 2004).A sport fisher- The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife strew trap has man also captured two adult bull trout in October 2001 provided valuable information about juvenile salmon migration.May at river mile 33.8 (personal communication with Hans 2005 photo. Berge,King County). - However,many of these habitats became disconnected Conservation Hypotheses from the mainstem at flows of less than 850 cubic feet Based on the results of the habitat and population per second. analyses,six conservation hypotheses were developed - for the Middle Green River Subwatershed.Three of - Juvenile outmigration has been studied by Washington them were rated as Tier 1 hypotheses,two as Tier 2 State Department of Fish and Wildlife and King County hypotheses,and one as a Tier 3 hypothesis: since 2000 at river mile 34.5 using a screw trap.Seiler et - al. (2002) found a strongly bimodal pattern of juvenile MG-1 (Tier 1):Protecting and creating/restoring Chinook outmigration,with one large peak of fry(35- habitat that provides refugia(particularly side chan- 45 mm) from January to March,and a second smaller nels,off channels,and tributary access),habitat - peak of fingerlings(70-80 mm) from May through June. complexity(particularly pools) for salmon over a range • Page 4-18 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 of flow conditions and at a variety of locations (e.g., Valle)l(Segment 4,river mile 31.3-45.3), Green River mainstem channel edge,river bends,and tributary Gorge(Segment 5,RM 45.3-57.6),Boulder Zone mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and (Segment 6,RM 57.6-60.5),and Eagle Gorge(Segment - lead to greater salmon residence time,greater growth, 7,RM 60.5-64.4).The hypothesized necessary future and higher survival. habitat conditions identified for the Middle Green River Subwatershed follow: - MG-3(Tier 1):Protecting and restoring natural sedi- . Refugia are established that provide habitat to • ment recruitment(particularly spawning gravels)by support both juvenile and adult Chinook(Seg- reconnecting sediment sources to the river will help maintain spawning,adult holding,and juvenile rearing ment 4); - habitat. • Water quality and quantity meet State and instream flow standards to increase productivity MG-4(Tier 1):Preserving and restoring spawning and of spawning areas(e.g.,increase egg-to-fry and • rearing habitat in lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks spawner-to-spawner productivity) and to increase • will increase habitat quality and quantity,thereby juvenile life stage productivity(Segments 4,5,6, increasing productivity and spatial structure of Green and 7); River Chinook salmon. Sediment recruitment and transport rates ap- proach natural rates to increase productivity of - MG-2 (Tier 2):Protecting against watershed and spawning areas and to maintain and develop upland impacts by implementing low impact develop- habitat(e.g.,pool tail outs,spawning riffles, ment techniques(also see conservation hypothesis All- shallow channel edge) for improving life history . 5)will be particularly beneficial in the sub-watersheds productivity.Sediment target with suitable gravel of tributaries that provide spawning(e.g.,Newaukum size is 6,300 cubic yards/year to support spawning and Soos Creeks)and/or rearing habitat(e.g.,Jenkins habitat(Segments 4,5,6,and 7); • and Covington Creeks)will increase habitat quality Natural rates of lateral channel migration are • and quantity and promote utilization of non- reestablished to create and maintain functioning mainstem habitats and prevent creating additional stressors that limit survival. aquatic habitats that represent about 65%of historical levels at any given time(Segments 4 MG-5 (Tier 2):Maintaining regional groundwater and 6);4 recharge and base flows to the mainstem Green River Natural disturbance events are less restrained to - through forest retention and low impact development support the creation of new habitats and to recruit • will maintain spawning and rearing habitat. sediment and large woody debris (Segments 4 and 6); MG-6(Tier 3):Restoring Chinook salmon access Mainstem,off channel,and tributary habitats are - between the Tacoma Headworks and Howard Hanson improved to increase juvenile rearing,life stage Dam by providing passage upstream and downstream diversity,and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and at the Tacoma Headworks for natural origin Chinook fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are func- - will increase habitat quantity and expand spatial tioning habitats representing about 65%of histori- • structure. [Note:see notes for conservation hypothesis cal habitat area at any given time. Habitats include UG-1 above regarding species recommended for braided channels,side channels(target= 16 km in upstream passage.] Segment 4),shallow channel edges,large woody debris jams (target=50 pieces/km),and in- - Necessary Future Conditions channel pools(target=6 channel widths/pool) There are four assessment segments within the Middle (Segments 4 and 6); Green River Subwatershed.They are Middle Green Hydrologic connections to floodplain and side channel habitats are restored to achieve access to - 4. For the Upper and Middle Green River Subwatersheds,the hypothesized necessary future conditions identified refer to targeting - 65%of historical habitat at any given time.This target emanates from work by Reeves et al.indicating that at any given time about a third of river habitat is of sufficiently high quality to support source areas of the population,another third is of moderate quality and may exhibit - sporadic spawning,and the remaining third is of low quality and does not support spawning at all.Applying this to the Green/Duwamish watershed,it would be desirable to have two-thirds(about 65%)of the potential habitat patches in a river segment available,with suitable to • moderately suitable habitat at any given time(King County DNRP et al.2004). - Page 4-19 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PlanAugust 2005 about 65%of historical habitat areas at any given eventually ended up in the tributaries,wetlands,and - side channels,providing refuge during flood events time(Segments 4 and 6); and serving as rearing habitat.The majority of the • The riparian zone is functioning and effective floodwaters flowed to the east and fed the Springbrook - buffer widths are established to provide all ripar- Creek drainage complex and re-entered the system ian functions (shade,bank stabilization,sediment through the Black River.Floodwaters from the histori- control,organic litter,large woody debris,nutri- cal White River fed the Mill Creek drainage complex. ents,and microclimate) (Segments 4,5,6,and 7); Sand and gravel bars were common (totaling 15 - • Sub-populations of natural origin recruits in hectares) in the reach between river miles 25 and 32 Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek are maintained (see Figure 7-3 for location of river miles) directly to protect against catastrophic risk and the downstream of the White River confluence (U.S.Army - maintenance of spatial structure within the Corps of Engineers 1907).These gravel bars and large - population(Segment 4); woody debris created shallow habitat for juveniles and • Sources of cool,clean water from surface and suitable spawning habitat that still persists today. ground water are maintained (Segment 5);and At approximately river mile 18,Hilbert et al. (Eds.) • Provide access to additional spawning areas (2001) describes the Indian village of Stook that means between river miles 61.1 and 64.4 to increase "a big jam of logs." In the mid-1860s,the mainstem - productivity and abundance by expanding spatial channel was wide(about 72 meters) and covered about structure (Segment 7). 316 hectares.Historically,the river migrated through- out the floodplain,leaving behind oxbows and wet- Lower Green River Subwatershed lands.Tributaries provided important habitat and - accounted for approximately one-third of total chan- nel area and 62%of channel edge.There were approxi- mately 1,700 hectares of wetlands and black cotton- wood was the most abundant tree species(Collins and - Sheikh 2004). Current Conditions - __ There is one assessment segment in the Lower Green - - A_ River,which encompasses the entire length of the Green River in this subwatershed.Key habitat attributes were monitored in sample four reaches. • Monitored attributes included bankfull width,bank - } conditions,canopy cover,riparian vegetation,pool z. habitat,large woody debris,and riffle particle size distribution.In general,the observed habitat - conditions reflect extensive alterations to the river and - The Lower 6reen River,shown here atriver mile 17.5 in Kent,is mostly floodplain from dam operations,and urban and leveed,lacking in native trees,and overrun by non-native weeds such as agricultural development.Key findings of the survey Himalayan blackberry.Apri12005photo. (Anchor Environmental 2004b)were: • Historical Conditions • Instream habitat quality and quantity for juvenile The wide,low-gradient valley bottom of the Lower and adult salmonids is significantly impaired; - Green River was historically a mosaic of floodplain • The channel is confined throughout the Lower - forest and wetlands.The Black,White,and Green rivers Green River,with extensive riprap bank armoring;were all tributaries of the lower Green River,resulting • Habitat types are generally homogenous and off in frequent floods. During flood events,the Lower channel habitat is limited; Green River overflowed its banks creating a network of . The dominant pool forming factors are manmade ephemeral streams that fed the wetlands and tributar- structures,such as riprap and bridge abutments; - ies within the valley.It is likely that some juvenile salmon were carried along in the floodwaters and Page 4-20 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • Spawning size gravels occur only in the upper Sheikh 2004;U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1990).In the third(river mile 25-32)of the segment; present Southcenter Mall area,there was a large • The connectivity between the riparian zone and wetland(159 hectares),but it has been completely instream habitats is limited by levees; filled except for a small area.There was also a 109 hectares wetland further south on the west side of the • The riparian zone is dominated by invasive river that was described as a"cranberry marsh"by the - species and lacks native vegetation;and General Land Office.This wetland was unique because - • Numerous stormwater and tributary outfalls it was symbolized on the General Land Office plat map discharge to the river. with numerous springs.Today,this area remains largely undeveloped and is drained by Johnson Creek, - Anchor Environmental(2004b) summarized condi- but it is slated for development as part of a large tions by noting that gradual channelization of the river project planned for the area. in the last century has resulted in substantial losses in the quality and quantity of mainstem spawning,winter Historically,tributaries were the dominant type of - and summer rearing,and adult holding habitat. channel edge in the Lower Green River because of the Encroachment of land use,roads,trails,and levees to geologic and glacial processes that formed the river. the river margins has greatly reduced the extent of Flooding was common,creating a network of flood • existing or potential riparian habitat.Bank tree cover is channels that fed the tributaries and wetlands.Tribu- - sparse,and existing non-native vegetation provides taries provided important habitat and accounted for little cover for fish.The average ordinary high water approximately one-third of total channel area and 62% mark width ranged from 26 to 39 meters in the Lower of channel edge (Collins and Sheikh 2004).Side - Green River.Median canopy cover varied from 34 to channels contributed about 6.5 km of channel edge • 44%.Large pool(width greater than 50%of the ordi- habitat.Today,the tributaries are heavily altered due to nary high water mark width) spacing ranged from 16 development of the floodplain and are rarely fed by channel widths per pool from river mile 27 to 32 to 254 floodwater.Approximately 20%of Springbrook Creek is - channel widths per pool from river mile 11 to 16.Large contained in drainage ditches and its confluence is pools represented 10-16%of the total habitat area from upstream of the Black River Pump Station,a partial fish river mile 16 to 32,but less than 1%from river mile 11 passage barrier. • to 16.The dominant pool-forming factor throughout - most of the river was riprap.Total wood pieces(logs Fish Utilization and rootwads) ranged from 11 pieces/km between Nelson et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook in the river miles 27 and 32,and 43 pieces/km between river Lower Green River during 2001-2003,focusing on - miles 16 and 19. Log jams were only found between timing,growth rates,and relative abundance of river miles 19 and 27,with two observed. hatchery and naturally-produced Chinook.Natural • Chinook passed through the Lower Green River quickly - Change in Habitat Conditions (hours to days)from late winter to late summer with • The Lower Green River valley bottom has been dra- peaks for fry and fingerling migration coinciding • matically altered from a once densely-forested flood- closely with the Middle Green.Flows seem to play an plain with numerous large"swampy"wetlands scat- important role in the residence time within this reach. tered throughout.The most obvious and significant - land cover change has been urban development.It is estimated that about 60%of the valley bottom is either The problem with levees high density(100%impervious)or low density(50% - impervious) development.Road density is 8.1 km/km2 Flood Levee banks - plain and there are 69 road crossings of the river.This development has resulted in clearing of the floodplain forest(about 87%)and filling of wetlands (about 40%). - Historically,there were several large wetlands located in the major tributary drainages and numerous smaller wetlands were scattered throughout the valley.The River current total area of historical wetlands was estimated at 1,495 Levees help reduce flooding. But during peak river flows,a faster current can scour • hectares,compared to 927 hectares today(Collins and away gravel and structure needed by salmon. . Page 4-21 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Flood control facilities (e.g.,levees)have severely LG-3(Tier 3):Preserving and maintaining groundwa- - limited the ability of Chinook to find refuge during ter inflow from the historical White River channel will high flows,resulting in juveniles being prematurely contribute to maintaining river flows and good water flushed downstream to the estuary.River flows in 2001 quality,thereby leading to greater juvenile and adult - were unusually low during the winter and early spring, salmon survival. - and it appears that a higher proportion of fry may have reared in the Middle and Lower Green River compared LG-4(Tier 3):Modifying the Black River Pump Station to the proportions of fish that reared there during 2002 to improve fish passage will increase habitat quantity - and 2003 (Nelson et al.2004).In recent years,about 3.5 and lead to greater juvenile salmon residence time and million hatchery Chinook fingerlings were released growth. annually in WRIA 9.These fish typically travel through the Lower Green River at a time when smaller and Necessary Future Conditions - much less abundant natural fingerlings are present, There is one assessment segment within this thus the more abundant and larger hatchery fish may subwatershed:Lower Green Valley(Segment 3,river prematurely force natural fish to the estuary.As a result mile 11.0-31.35).The hypothesized necessary future of such interactions,hatchery fish likely have a com- habitat conditions identified for the Lower Green - petitive advantage(at a minimum,due to fat reserves) Subwatershed follow: over their natural conspecifics if the food supply is limited. Water quality and quantity meets State and - instream flow standards to increase productivity - Conservation Hypotheses of spawning areas (e.g.,increase egg-to-fry and Based on the results of the habitat and population spawner-to-spawner productivity)and to increase analyses,four conservation hypotheses were devel- juvenile life stage productivity; • oped for the Lower Green River Subwatershed.One Sediment processes and transport rates that was rated as a Tier 1 hypothesis,one as a Tier 2 hypoth- produce spawning gravel (river mile 25 to 32)are esis,and two as Tier 3 hypotheses: reestablished and improved to increase productiv- ity in spawning areas,increase spatial structure, - LG-1 (Tier 1):Protecting and creating/restoring and maintain and develop habitats (e.g.,pool tail habitat that provides refuge(particularly side chan- outs,spawning riffles,shallow channel edge)that nels,off channels,and tributary access) and habitat will increase life history productivity.Spawning complexity(particularly pools) for juvenile salmon habitat target with suitable gravel size is about - over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of 45%of historical levels (5,000 cubic yards/years) locations (e.g.,mainstem channel edge,river bends, for viability of population; and tributary mouths)will enhance habitat quality and - quantity and lead to greater juvenile salmon residence Mainstem,tributary,and off channel habitats are improved to increase juvenile rearing,life stage time,greater growth,and higher survival. diversity and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and - LG-2(Tier 2):Restoring and enhancing sediment fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are func- recruitment(particularly spawning gravels)by recon- tioning habitats representing about 45%7 of necting sediment sources to the river will reduce historical habitat area.Habitats include side - channel downcutting,increase shallow habitats, channels (target=4.5 km),wetlands improve access to tributaries,and improve spawning (target=763 hectares),tributaries within the habitat,thereby leading to greater juvenile salmon valley bottom(target=36 km),ponds - residence time,greater growth,and higher survival. (target= 13 hectares),shallow channel edges,large - woody debris jams,and in-channel pools; 5. The boundary for this segment is at the historical confluence of the Green River with the White River,just downstream of the - boundary between the Lower and Middle Green River Subwatersheds. - 6. Estimated from general guidance by Perkins(2000). - 7. Loss of historical watershed area,and by rough extension the loss of flow,was used to determine the target habitat percentage. Above the historical confluence of the white and Green rivers,approximately 55%of the contributing area was in the white River drainage area;therefore a target of 45%of the historical habitat of the Lower Green River was established as the reference condition,which is equiva- lent to the remaining contributing area after diversion of the white River. • Page 4-22 . Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • Hydrologic connections to floodplain,tributaries Island.Blind tidal estuarine channels(i.e."dead-end" and historical off channel habitats are restored to channel connected at only one end)provided the most achieve access to about 45%of historical habitat channel edge on the Duwamish with the mainstem - area;and providing the next largest amount of channel edge • The riparian zone is functioning and effective habitat(Collins and Sheikh 2004).Information from buffer widths are established to provide all ripar- other estuaries in the Northwest(Simenstad et al. 1982, ian functions (shade,bank stabilization,sediment Levings et al. 1986,Healey 1991)suggests that it was - control,organic litter,large woody debris,nutri- likely an important rearing habitat for multiple life ents,and microclimate). histories of Chinook salmon.Numerous small chan- nels in the estuary were bordered by key dense marsh i vegetation that contributed to the production of Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed salmon prey. Historical Conditions Current Conditions The historical Duwamish River estuary was small Channel characteristics in the Duwamish River vary by - relative to other estuaries in Puget Sound due to its reach and were monitored as part of surveys per- unique topography(Collins and Sheikh 2004).The formed in 2003 and 2004 (TerraLogic and Landau 2004, narrow floodplain in the upper part of the Duwamish Anchor Environmental 2004a). Habitat attributes - River valley likely funneled the floodwater from the included riparian vegetation,invasive species, - watershed and resulted in overbank flooding and the overwater structures,bank armoring,large woody debris,and pilings.In general,observed habitat conditions reflect extensive alterations to the upper • (RM 5.7 to 11)and lower(RM 0 to 5.7) Duwamish River • (see Figure 7-4 for location of river miles).The average wk width of the channel was 50 meters in the upper river. There are three large pools with a spacing of one pool per 59 channel widths.Over 90%of the lower Duwamish is armored(60%with riprap;24%with steel or concrete bulkheads).About 48%of the shoreline has • no vegetation;30%is Himalayan blackberry;nearly • 10%is landscaped;6%is other invasive shrubs;and 3% is immature deciduous vegetation.Approximately 87% of the shoreline has greater than 75%impervious • surface in the area adjacent to the river.There are 56 piling groups,49 pieces of large woody debris,includ- ing two large accumulations,and 14 occurrences of • The banks of the Lower Duwamish,shown here looking downstream at Japanese knotweed.Kellogg Island and the Turning river mile 2.0,are intensively used for industry and commerce.September Basin are two of the areas that have little or no 2002 photo. armoring and are higher in habitat quality.A number of investigations within the Duwamish River have • creation of"swampy marshes" (freshwater wetlands). documented sediment contamination with polychlori- • Similar to conditions in the Lower Green River nated biphenyl(PCBs),polycyclic aromatic hydrocar- Subwatershed,these floodwaters likely carried with bons(PAHs),phthalates,inorganics,and organotins.In them juvenile salmonids that used these wetlands as 1997,the natural resource trustees for the Duwamish • rearing habitat.At the lower end of the river where it River initiated an investigation to evaluate the extent • becomes tidally influenced,there were several types of and severity of PCBs in the sediments of the waterway. tidal marshes that contained different plant communi- The major findings indicated that almost 71 of the 350 ties.Collins and Sheikh(2004) classified them as acres sampled,or just under 20%of the waterway,were • riverine-tidal marshes and they totaled approximately estimated to have PCB levels that exceed the state 166 hectares in the mid-1860s.There were approxi- standards. mately 175 hectares of estuarine wetlands in the mid- - 1860s,primarily downstream of present day Kellogg • Page 4-23 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Change in Habitat Conditions Fish Utilization • The valley bottom of the Duwamish differs in the lower Several year classes of Chinook(fry,yearlings,and - valley versus the upper valley(see river miles noted possibly two-year-old fish)were found in the above).Historically,the upper valley resembled the Duwamish Estuary between January and September in lower Green River with natural levees depositing along 2002 and 2003 (Nelson et al.2004,Goetz et al.2003, - the riverbanks,whereas the lower valley riverbanks are Ruggerone and Jeanes 2004).Two peaks in abundance lower in elevation than the rest of the valley bottom. occurred in the estuary:the first,composed of fry,was Today,armoring and levees have mostly altered the observed from late February to early March,and the - natural riverbanks.Historically,this area was prone to second for fingerlings occurred between mid-May and - flooding and these floodwaters supported about 200 mid-June.Subyearlings were consistently captured at hectares of freshwater wetlands that have been de- river mile 5.5 and 6.5,which has been postulated to be creased to about 7 hectares In addition,historically a critical estuarine transition zone where the river and - there were riverine-tidal forested and scrub-shrub salt wedge initially mix.This transition zone is also - wetlands but these are completely gone (Blomberg et where the river widens,velocities decrease,and al. 1988;U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). estuarine mudflats begin to appear.The boundaries of the existing transition zone are being refined at the - Estuarine habitats were extensive historically but are time of publication.Chinook salmon utilize estuaries currently found only in small patches.Historical to acclimate to marine water and to grow in a relatively estimates of estuarine mudflats were 900 hectares and food-rich environment where predators are often less - estuarine wetlands were 174 hectares.Filling of wet- abundant.In general,smaller salmon(e.g.,fry) are - land and marsh habitats began in 1895.Today there are likely to rear in estuaries for longer periods,before only about 1%of mudflats and 11%of tidal marshes moving into marine nearshore areas. remaining.The filling of the mudflats and the straight- ening and widening of the former channel completely Natural origin fry(marked at lower Soos Creek in - altered the estuarine habitat.A healthy estuary pro- winter 2003)were found in the transition zone within vides transition zone habitats that aid juvenile salmon one to 31 days(53%of the fry were found within 1-4 - in osmoregulation(adapting to saltwater),growth,and days) after release (Nelson et al.2004) and may rear in - survival.The transition zone is characterized by a this area to fingerling size before migrating out to mixing of fresh and saltwater.This mixing creates Elliott Bay during the outmigration peak in June.This brackish water that supports a unique ecology.A much scenario,if confirmed,would amount to an estuarine - greater expanse of this transition zone habitat was residence of up to five months,much longer than . historically available closer to and within Elliott Bay commonly believed.From observing peak catch data prior to regular dredging,reduced freshwater flow from in 2002 and 2003,most natural fingerlings arrived in river diversions,and extensive filling of historical the estuary in May to acclimate and feed for several - intertidal areas in the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. weeks,before departing to marine waters.Nelson et al. The freshwater-salt water mixing zone has been vastly (2004) reported that Chinook growth rates in the reduced in size and moved upstream to its current Duwamish estuary in 2003 were initially steady,but - location.The Strategic Assessment defines the current increased to rates between 0.44 and 0.54 mm/day from - location of the transition zone between river miles 7.0 April through June,except for three weeks from mid and 5.5.Additional data generated in 2005 suggest the May to early June,when hatchery Chinook occupied location during the outmigration of juvenile salmonids the area.During this time of hatchery fish residence, - may be between river miles 6.5 and 4.7 or 4.8 (Figure 4- growth rates dropped 75%to 0.13 mm/day,indicating - 1).The final results of this study will be used to help the existence of a juvenile density-dependent depres- determine the location of projects intended to reha- sion in growth. bilitate/substitute transition zone habitat.Dredging - for maintenance of navigation now leaves only a thin In addition to reduced growth rates,natural origin margin of tide flats along the shoreline with an artifi- Chinook fingerlings may have been physically dis- cially deepened central channel from about river placed as well.This phenomenon was apparent in the - mile 5.0 to Elliott Bay.The one exception to these transition zone (Nelson et.al 2004),and in restored off - narrow slices of intertidal habitat is at Kellogg Island channel estuarine habitats (Ruggerone and Jeanes (river miles 1.1-1.4). 2004).These results suggest that there is a shortage of available food and habitat capacity as a result of - Page 4-24 . Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - competition between hatchery and natural Chinook in Duw-4(Tier 2):Protecting,creating,and restoring the estuary,especially in the transition zone. habitat that provides refugia(particularly side chan- Ruggerone and Jeanes(2004) demonstrated that nels,off channels,and tributary access)and habitat - restoration of large amounts of off channel habitat is complexity(particularly pools) for juvenile salmon necessary to have a measurable effect.This finding is over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of based on an estimate that only 0.16%of the three locations(e.g.,mainstem channel edge,river bends, million hatchery Chinook,and 0.16 to 0.33%of the and tributary mouths)will enhance habitat quality and - natural subyearling Chinook population used the five quantity and lead to greater juvenile salmon residence off channel restoration sites these authors sampled in time,greater growth,and higher survival. the Duwamish estuary in 2003. Duw-6(Tier 2):Protecting and improving water - Since 2000,nine sub-adult(mean size 290 mm) and quality(e.g.,temperature,dissolved oxygen,metals one adult(585 mm)bull trout have been captured in and organics)by addressing point and nonpoint the Duwamish River.The large adult was captured in (specifically stormwater runoff)pollution sources will May 2003 near Kellogg Island (river mile 1.0);the sub- enhance habitat quality and lead to greater juvenile - adults were captured in the transition zone (river salmon growth,disease resistance,and survival. mile 5.5)in August and September 2000 and Septem- Improved water quality will also enhance survival of - ber 2001 (Goetz and Jeanes 2004). adult salmon,and salmon prey resources. - Duw-2(Tier 3):Protecting and improving sediment Conservation Hypotheses quality will enhance habitat quality and lead to greater Based on the results of the habitat and population juvenile salmon growth,disease resistance,and higher - analyses,six conservation hypotheses were developed survival. for the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed.Three were rated as Tier 1 hypotheses,two as Tier 2 hypotheses, Necessary Future Conditions and one as a Tier 3 hypothesis: The Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed contains two assessment segments Tidal Delta(Segment 1,river Duw-1 (Tier 1):Expanding and enhancing the Duwamish estuary,particularly vegetated shallow mile 0.0-1.5) and-Duwamish Valley(Segment 2,river • subtidal and intertidal habitats and brackish marshes, mile 1.5-11.0).However,they are being treated as one - segment for the necessary future conditions since their by restoring dredged,armored,and filled areas,will enhance habitat quantity and quality and lead to goals and targets are similar.The hypothesized neces- greater juvenile salmon residence time,greater growth, sary future habitat conditions identified for the _• and higher survival. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed follow: Duw-3 (Tier 1):Enlarging the Duwamish River estua- ' Water quality meets State standards to prevent rine transition zone habitat by expanding the shallow recontamination of sediments and provide cool, water and slow water areas will enhance habitat clean water required for healthy salmonid habitat, quantity and quality of this key Chinook salmon including juvenile and adult migration; - rearing area,leading to greater juvenile salmon resi- • Sediment recruitment and transport rates ap- dence time,greater growth,and higher survival. proach natural rates to improve and maintain • existing habitat and support habitat development Duw-5(Tier 1):Protecting and restoring natural (estuarine and riverine mudflats and marshes) sediment process(supply-transport-delivery)will increase the quantity and quality of available juvenile that will increase life stage productivity; salmon rearing habitat,including salmon prey produc- • Sediment quality meets State sediment manage- tion; ment standards and achieves conditions consis- tent with the State/Federal cleanup process to improve life stage productivity; • Impediments (e.g.,overwater structures)to Chinook and salmonid migration are reduced; • Mainstem,off channel,and tributary habitats are • improved to increase juvenile rearing,life stage diversity,and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and - Page 4-25 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PlanAugust2005 fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are func- tioning habitats representing about 30%e of historical habitat area.Habitats include shallow channel edge,Palustrine and Riverine-tidal - wetlands(target= 108 hectares),and off channel habitat(target=2 hectares); • Estuarine habitat(transition zone area,where juveniles adjust to hyperosmotic conditions) is - expanded to encompass about 30%of historical - habitat area(target is about 70 hectares) and habitat quality is functioning to improve juvenile growth and survival rate;and - • Riparian zone is functioning and effective buffer - widths are established to provide all riparian functions(shade,bank stabilization,sediment Abouthalf of theshoreline of VoshowMaury Island,shown here atPiner control,organic litter,large woody debris,nutri- Pointon Maury Island,is unarmored.July2004 photo. - ents,and microclimate). sand spit.The northern portion was a salt marsh - (about 18.9 hectares) fed by a large tidal network that - Marine Nearshore Subwatershed entered on the western side of the cove.Undeveloped shorelines along the marine nearshore of Puget Sound Historical Conditions supported a diversity of shoreline habitats including - mud flats,eelgrass meadows,sand spits,estuaries, - While a complete WRIA 9 marine nearshore historical beaches,and riparian areas. In general,shallow water habitat analysis has not yet been completed,a section marine nearshore habitat was more prevalent,and from Elliott Bay to West Point was reconstructed sub-estuaries were more numerous and in a more (Collins and Sheikh 2004).There were three small tidal natural state(e.g.,Smith Cove in Elliott Bay,Raab's marsh complexes:West Point,Smith Cove,and the Lagoon on Maury Island),providing a high level of present-day Occidental Square area of Seattle.Smith habitat diversity for different life stages of Chinook - Cove was the largest and protected at the mouth by a (e.g.,fry migrants).There are limited data on the historical distribution of submerged aquatic vegeta- tion (e.g.,eelgrass and kelp). Current Conditions Information on current aquatic and riparian habitat conditions in the marine nearshore is summarized from the Marine Shoreline Inventory Report(Anchor - Environmental 2004b) and the Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem s (Brennan(Ed.) 2001).The attributes mapped included: substrate,marsh habitat,aquaculture and shellfish - harvest areas,energy,sedimentation(net shore drift), freshwater inputs,marine riparian vegetation(MRV), large woody debris,shoreline armoring,impervious • surfaces,overwater structures and marinas,boat - ramps,jetties,breakwaters and groins,and marine The marinenearshore includes the completely developed central Seattle rails.A total of 151 km of marine shoreline was inven- waterfront.July2004 photo. - 8. Loss of historical watershed area,and by rough extension the loss of flow,was used to determine the target habitat percentage. • Above the historical confluence of the Black and present-day Green rivers,approximately 70%of the contributing area was in the Black and - White River drainage areas;therefore a target of 30%of the historical habitat of the Duwamish River was established as the reference condition,which is equivalent to the remaining contributing area after diversion of the white and Black rivers. • Page 4-26 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 toried.Approximately 59%of the MRV consisted of early February,the juvenile(fry) catch declined before trees,28%was grass/landscaped and 10%had no peaking again from mid-May to late June,coinciding vegetation.There was marsh habitat along 8%of the with the fingerling outmigration from the river.The • shoreline,with 6%patchy dune grasses,and only 1.5% use of shallow water habitats was also observed in a native high marsh habitat.Large woody debris and study conducted by Toft et al. (2004).Based on these drift logs were present along 14.7 and 21%of the studies and previous assessments (e.g.,Brennan (Ed.) shoreline,respectively.No wood was present along 2001),Chinook salmon appear to occupy the marine • 64%of the shoreline.Armoring was present along 63% nearshore nearly year round. of the shoreline.There were 250 identified overwater structures, 122 boat ramps,and 142 jetties,groins,or Although juvenile Chinook appear to be shoreline - breakwaters.Vashon/Maury Island and Federal Way oriented,they are quite broadly distributed,and - had the greatest extent of MRV as trees with 73 and readily cross the open waters of Puget Sound.Further- 69%,respectively.The greatest extent of shoreline more,juvenile Chinook do not simply leave the river armoring occurred in Seattle(90%) and the least - amount of armoring occurred in Federal Way(42%) • and on Vashon/Maury Island(50%). I - Change in Habitat Conditions - Historically,Elliott Bay provided vital habitat for both t . juvenile and adult salmonids.It was recorded that in the 1860s,this area was abundant with salmon(Bagley 1929).It provided approximately 350 hectares of - tideflats and three small tidal marshes.These marshes have been filled and highly altered,as have most of the tideflats.Some of the northern portion of Elliott Bay - retains some unarmored shoreline,mostly along bluffs of the Magnolia neighborhood.In addition,the west- ern side of Elliott Bay(West Seattle)has lost much of September2001tomach photo. sofjuvenilesalmonidsrevealed their food sources. the middle to high intertidal habitat due to bank September2001 photo. - armoring and urban development;some tidal flats still exist at lower elevations.A more complete analysis of and head north through Puget Sound to the open sea. changes in habitat conditions for the marine nearshore Based on recaptures of coded wire tagged fish,Green is pending the outcome of the Puget Sound Nearshore River Chinook appeared to disperse into Puget Sound • Ecosystem Restoration Project assessment of historical around mid-June,at the same time coded wire tagged conditions and changes in habitat conditions and a fish from other river systems increased in the catch WRIA 9 study examining changes in sediment sources, (Nelson et al.2004).Outside of Elliott Bay,Green River - erosion,and accretion along the marine nearshore. Chinook were found in higher numbers south of Elliott - Bay,compared to northern sampling sites.This sug- Fish Utilization gests that oceanographic influences (e.g.,winds, Beach seine surveys were conducted in 2001-2002 surface currents)may play a significant role in distri- • along marine shorelines in WRIA 9 to fill data gaps and bution within nearshore areas.In addition,coded wire characterize juvenile Chinook utilization of the marine tagged juvenile salmonids recaptured in WRIA 9 nearshore (Brennan et al.2004).Juvenile Chinook were originated from 16 different hatcheries in nine WRIAs, captured throughout the study area,and there were no illustrating the potential importance of the WRIA 9 - significant differences in catch rates between the marine nearshore to multiple stocks of Chinook. - mainland and Vashon/Maury Island.There were also A detailed examination of juvenile Chinook feeding no significant differences at various tidal elevations, habits along marine shorelines (Brennan et al.2004) indicating that juveniles move up and down along the revealed a large component of terrestrial insects in shoreline with the tide,primarily using shallow water • habitats.In 2003,natural-origin Chinook were also their diet(50%numerically overall),with an even surveyed along Elliott Bay shorelines and at the mouth higher seasonal component(about 80%)by weight for - of the Duwamish Estuary(Nelson et al.2004).After one size category.Similar results were found by Toft • Page 4-27 • Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 et al. (2004) along Seattle's marine shoreline.Over the show a prevalence of bull trout prey species (e.g., • course of the year,juvenile Chinook diets are com- smelt,herring,sandlance,and shiner perch) that posed of diverse prey that are of benthic,pelagic,and depend on the marine nearshore for spawning habitat. terrestrial origin.The prey composition varies season- ally and with fish size,with smaller fish feeding prima- Conservation Hypotheses rily on epibenthic and pelagic organisms and the Based on the results of the habitat and population largest size category of fish(>150 mm) feeding prima- analyses,five conservation hypotheses were developed rily on other fishes (e.g.,herring and sand lance). for the Marine Nearshore Subwatershed.Two were - rated as Tier 1 hypotheses,one as a Tier 2 hypothesis, Toft et al. (2004) investigated the abundance and and two as Tier 3 hypotheses: behavior of juvenile salmon at sites with different - shoreline modifications(e.g.,bank armoring, Near-2(Tier 1):Protecting and increasing the avail- - overwater structures) along Seattle's marine shoreline ability of vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh in 2003.The study found that substrate type and slope habitats will enhance habitat quantity and quality and are the most influential factors for fish densities when lead to greater juvenile salmon residence time,greater - shoreline modifications extend into the upper inter- growth,and higher survival. tidal zone.However,shoreline modifications extending into subtidal areas have the largest effect on fish Near-3(Tier 1):Protecting and restoring nearshore densities and behaviors by truncating the shallow sediment transport processes by reconnecting sedi- - water zone.In the absence of shallow water habitat, ment sources and removing shoreline armoring that Toft et al. (2004) observed that juvenile salmonids were impacts sediment transport will lead to greater prey forced into occupying deep water areas and exhibit a production,greater juvenile salmon growth,and - higher amount of schooling behavior.In addition, higher survival. - juvenile salmon avoided areas under overwater structures. Near-5 (Tier 2):Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries (i.e.smaller non-natal estuaries,lagoons,and - Given the temporal and spatial use of the marine spits) and salmon-bearing and non-salmon bearing nearshore and apparent consumption of the same tributary mouths by maintaining/restoring tributary types of food resources(Brennan et al.2004),it is mouths will increase quantity of key habitat and lead - apparent that hatchery and wild fish compete for the to greater juvenile salmon growth and survival. - same resources.While little is known about resource limitations,partitioning,or potential behavioral Near-1 (Tier 3):Protecting and improving sediment changes resulting from these interactions,it is likely quality,particularly in Elliott Bay,will enhance habitat - that wild juvenile Chinook are at a disadvantage.In quality and lead to greater juvenile salmon growth and studies by Brennan et al. (2004) and Nelson et al. higher survival. (2004),wild Chinook were smaller in size,occurred in - significantly lower numbers,and apparently competed Near-4(Tier 3):Protecting and expanding forage fish - for the same spatial and dietary resources as their spawning areas by maintaining/increasing high hatchery counterparts during the same time periods. intertidal zone access and maintaining/increasing availability of suitable substrate sizes will lead to - A recently draft report on bull trout ecology in the greater juvenile salmon growth and higher survival. nearshore (Goetz and Jeanes 2004) states that"[B]ull trout in the Puget Sound can undertake rapid,directed Necessary Future Conditions - migrations that may exceed 250 km using the There are nine assessment segments in the Marine - nearshore marine shorelines as pathways." The only Nearshore Subwatershed:five assessment segments on direct data in this report regarding the utilization of the mainland and four assessment segments on the WRIA 9 by bull trout was a single fish captured at islands.The hypothesized necessary future habitat Lincoln Park in West Seattle in April 1998.However, conditions identified for the Marine Nearshore - due to the highly migratory behavior of these fish, Subwatershed follow: many important inferences for WRIA 9 can be drawn from data collected in other nearshore areas.Espe- Water quality of tributaries meets State standards - cially important are the bull trout diet studies that to increase productivity of pocket estuaries and Page 4-28 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - marine nearshore areas to increase juvenile and ranges for the Puget Sound Region provided by the adult life stage productivity; Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Shared Strat- • Marine sediment recruitment and transport rates egy 2002).Target maximum population growth rates approach natural rates to maintain existing have been identified that range from 2.3 to 3.8 recruits - habitat and support habitat development to per spawner for various Puget Sound river systems. increase life stage productivity; - The greater Duwamish watershed included the White, • Sources of cool,clean water from groundwater Black,Cedar,Green,Duwamish,and Sammamish supporting marine nearshore springs and seeps rivers,as well as numerous other salmon spawning • are maintained; tributaries. By 1916,the watershed was reduced to 30% - • Impediments (e.g.,overwater structures) to of its former size,thus greatly altering spatial structure Chinook and salmonid migration are reduced; and affecting other viable salmonid population (VSP) • Marine nearshore habitats are improved to parameters,including genetic and life history diversity, increase juvenile rearing,life stage diversity,and abundance,and productivity.Historically,the spatial • productivity.Marine nearshore habitats include distribution for Chinook spawning in the Green River salt marshes,beaches and backshore,pocket ranged from river mile 24 to river mile 91.3,including estuaries,and shallow water habitat;and reaches within the Lower,Middle,and Upper Green • Marine riparian zone is functioning and effective River Subwatersheds. Before construction of the buffer widths are established to provide all ripar- Tacoma Headworks in 1911,it is believed that Green ian functions. River spring Chinook and possibly summer/fall Chinook used the Upper Green River for spawning and - rearing.Without historical spawning data,assump- - Chinook Salmon Populations tions of spawning distribution in the Upper Green River are based on the spawning patches (core areas) Historical Conditions predicted by Martin et al. (2004).The historical spatial The following section summarizes information from structure of rearing habitat for Green/Duwamish Historical and Current Salmonid Population Condi- Chinook has not been documented,but juvenile - tions in WRIA 9 (King County Department of Natural salmonids likely utilized most of the watershed.As Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 2004).Historical discussed previously,the aquatic habitats of the - abundance estimates for independent populations Green/Duwamish system included hundreds of such as the Green River Chinook salmon are difficult to hectares of tidal wetlands and intertidal flats,hundreds determine since available data from the early 1900s is of kilometers and a dense network of tributaries and on fish catch or pack data for Puget Sound as a whole. side channels,and a dynamic mainstem(Blomberg Myers et al. (1998) reviewed fish canning data from the et al., 1988;Collins and Sheikh 2004;Kerwin and early 1900s and observed a peak harvest in 1908 that Nelson,2000). Depending on the life history trajectory, resulted in 95,210 cases of Chinook salmon,corre- the length of residence by juvenile salmonids in these sponding to a peak Chinook run size of approximately aquatic habitats varied. 690,000.Based on this historical peak catch,an esti- - mate of historical abundance for the Green/Duwamish Chinook salmon display the greatest diversity in life - history patterns of the Pacific salmonids.Since there is watershed was made using comparative watershed virtually no reliable historical data or information on - size (and flow),resulting in an estimate of maximum the life history of Green River Chinook,a conceptual • run size of 37,700 Chinook and a minimum run size of model was developed for historical diversity using 9,000 to 11,000.A different method used by NOAA assumptions based on current knowledge,hatchery Fisheries estimated potential historical Chinook records,and historical habitat conditions that likely - spawner capacity for the Green River at 45,200 existed prior to 1900.The Green River is believed to - (Sanderson et al.2004). have historically supported two independent popula- No reliable historical information is available on tions of Chinook salmon,a stream-type and ocean- productivity,in terms of recruits per spawner for Puget type (Nehlsen et al. 1991;Washington Department of - Sound Chinook.The best information available that Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty can be used for representing historical productivity are Indian Tribes 1993;Puget Sound Technical Recovery • the Chinook spawner abundance planning targets and Team 2003).Stream-type Chinook salmon,commonly • Page 4-29 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 referred to as spring stocks,return to their natal river • Estimates of historical population size are quite - principally in spring and early summer,several variable but independent methods put the histori- months prior to spawning.Ocean-type,commonly cal maximum run size at approximately 37,700; referred to as summer/fall stocks,principally enter . Current mean natural origin run-size estimates freshwater during the late summer and fall,just a few vary between 11,200 (Puget Sound Technical days or weeks before spawning. In addition to the two Recovery Team 2004)and 14,700 (Weitkamp et al. Green River populations,there were probably a 2000) (Note:these numbers include escapement minimum of three other independent Chinook popu- plus all harvest of natural origin Chinook); - lations within the greater Duwamish basin,including • those in the Cedar River,White River,and North Lake It has been estimated that annually an average of - Washington (King County Department of Natural 5,700 Chinook have returned to the river to spawn - Resources and Parks 2004,Puget Sound Technical naturally and 8,200 have returned to the hatcher- Resources and 2004). ies from 1968-1997 (Kerwin and Nelson [Eds.] 2000); • For adults,variations in return and spawn timing are Natural origin recruit spawner estimates vary as - behavioral patterns that help to differentiate ocean- well but the Technical Recovery Team calculated type from stream-type Chinook salmon,as well as the mean of natural origin recruit spawners from create greater diversity within a population that can 1993 to 2002 at 1,737;and - reduce its risk of extinction due to natural disaster.It is Productivity estimates are also variable with a - difficult to know for certain the historical return and cohort replacement ratio as calculated by the spawn timing,but estimates are summarized from Technical Recovery Team showing a recruit/ Historical and Current Salmonid Population Condi- spawner ratio of natural origin recruits that varies - tions in WRIA 9 (King County Department of Natural between.02 and 23 with a negative trend. Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 2004).Lacking specific data on the historical life history diversity of The spatial distribution of Chinook spawning in the Green River juvenile Chinook,it is assumed that all the Green River was altered as a result of construction of - current five juvenile life histories would have been the Tacoma Headworks.Mainstem spawning is limited - present historically in the Green River,with some to downstream of river mile 61.1,compared to ap- trajectories being more common than they are today. proximately river mile 88 historically.The control of - Information on historical populations of other salmo- flow and flood events combined with flood control - nids can be found in Historical and Current Salmonid levees/revetments has resulted in the mainstem being Population Conditions in WRIA 9(King County De- narrower,with reduced spawning substrate,and thus partment of Natural Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 spawning habitat patches are likely smaller.The - 2004).Section 7 of the Strategic Assessment summa- diversion of the White River and Cedar River and the • rizes the findings related to Chinook viable salmonid dewatering of the Black River have fragmented the population parameters in WRIA 9 and presents goals historical spatial structure.The diversion of the White and rationale on these parameters to support a viable River eliminated the replenishment of spawning - population in the future. gravels at its historical confluence,affecting spawning downstream of river mile 31.3.The current spawning Current Conditions distribution is a continuum of spawning throughout - The abundance and productivity analyses carried out the Green River from river mile 25.4 to 60.8 with - for the Green River population by the Puget Sound patches of very high density,as compared to the Technical Recovery Team and the WRIA 9 Technical expected spatial arrangement of discrete patches Committee revealed several interesting and sometimes separated by long stretches of no spawning.Chinook - ambiguous outcomes: spawning also occurs in the lower reaches of - Newaukum and Soos Creeks. Hatchery practices have • The population of the Green River is greatly altered spawning distribution of the Green River affected by hatchery origin fish;the number of Chinook population by contributing hatchery origin - hatchery origin fish spawning naturally varies recruits to natural spawning areas,including high considerably—from about 30%to over 70%in a density spawning near Soos Creek and the Icy Creek given year; rearing ponds.Though the Green River Chinook - population has not experienced the same decline in - Page 4-30 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 naturally spawning adults that has occurred in other the Chinook population to a high degree of risk since Puget Sound rivers,these numbers are masked by the the majority of spawning(82%) is contained within the high hatchery stray rate onto the spawning grounds. mainstem from river mile 61.1 to 33.0. Dam failure, - landslides,and chemical/oil spills all pose threats to - The dams have blocked upstream migration of adults the spawning and rearing population within this and limit juvenile rearing distribution in the Upper segment of river. Green.Significant habitat loss has occurred in the • Middle Green River limiting available refuge and Spring Chinook salmon have been extirpated from the rearing habitat and reducing residence time and Green/Duwamish watershed and only the fall stock spatial structure.A total of fourteen types of cata- remains.A shift in return time has occurred that is - strophic events(natural and/or anthropogenic)were largely attributed to hatchery practices.The mean - identified when evaluating extinction risk to the Green peak return timing to the hatchery racks is October 4 River Chinook(see WRIA 9 and King County Depart- compared to two-weeks later in the mid-1940s and ment of Natural Resources and Parks 2004).Spatial and historical estimates of natural return peak occurring in - temporal characteristics for each catastrophe along the third week of October.Five juvenile life history with their effects on the population were examined. trajectories have been identified(Figure 4-2);however, High probability catastrophes include chemical or oil only two of those trajectories,estuarine-reared fry and spills,landslides,major floods,and disease outbreak. marine-direct fingerling,are common today.A yearling - The current spatial distribution of spawning subjects life history trajectory continues to be present,but it is FIGURE 4-2: Green/Duwamish Riverluvenile Chinook Salmon Rearing Trajectories RARE? - (>105 mm) COMMON - (70-95 mm) fie► • COMMON . (70-95 mm) COMMON? • - • (70-95 mr, • .. tit ABUNDANCE? �**ttIntl (40-50 mm) - UPPER RIVER LOWER RIVER ESTUARY PUGET SOUND - Page 4-31 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 now rare;it is believed that this trajectory may have released,a more confident estimate of target equilib- - been common in the past since a spring stock was rium run size can be made.The following is a brief likely present.Lower river-reared fry and marine-direct summary of abundance goals: fry appear to be uncommon today,although histori- In the near term (over the next 10 years),a more cally they may have been more abundant because of critical target should be the number of natural - greater genetic diversity and habitat complexity. origin recruit spawners in the system. In the Green Significant loss of habitat in the estuary and lower river River,the number of natural origin recruits is has likely had a negative impact on habitat capacity, small and could become smaller with increasing hatchery influence.From 1993 to 2002,the Techni- growth rate,residence time,and survival,especially cal Recovery Team calculated the mean of natural • among trajectories or life history types that rear in freshwater or the estuary for longer periods.These origin recruit spawner escapement to be 1,737. changes have likely reduced or eliminated behavioral The population appears to be very near the - variation by forcing juveniles to move through the river "critical population threshold"and should be - faster as they searched for adequate rearing habitat increased to the upper values suggested in the and food while avoiding predators.Major riverine viable salmonid population guidelines—1,000 to diversions within the historical Greater Duwamish 4,200/year;and watershed have reduced the number of independent A concomitant effect of low population size is the - Chinook populations from five to one,with the Green loss of distinct spawning aggregations (DSA) as River fall Chinook population the only one remaining. population numbers fall.Given the low numbers Straying and gene flow among the five populations of natural origin recruits (NORs),it is likely that - have been severely reduced due to human actions that many once-distinct aggregations have been lost. - have isolated the populations.A significant amount of The number of DSAs may have fallen by a factor of genetic interchange between natural and hatchery 10 or more based only on the historical population origin Chinook has occurred through constant inter- size.The current number should rise as the • mingling on the spawning grounds during the past number of NORs is increased and the DSAs should - century. disperse throughout the available habitat. To a large extent,the overwhelming presence of hatchery origin recruits (HORS) on the spawning4.6 NECESSARY FUTURE CHINOOK • ground may mask a decline in productivity of natural SALMON - POPULATION C• • origin recruits (NORs).Calculations by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team for long and short- This subsection summarizes the necessary future term productivity show considerable variation de- . viable salmonid population goals and rationale to pending on the assumption used for hatchery origin - support a viable population in WRIA 9 (WRIA 9 and recruit reproductive success.If hatchery origin recruits are assumed to be as effective as natural origin re- King County Department of Natural Resources and cruits,then both short-and long-term trends in Parks 2004). In the absence of Puget Sound Technical median growth rate(lambda) are considerably less - Recovery Team goals for abundance for the Green than 1.The actual value of hatchery origin recruit River population,a precautionary approach was used effectiveness probably lies between 0 and 1,and both - based on the historical run size estimates.This was short- and long-term trends would then be closer to coupled with the population viability calculations from and just below 1.This short-term trend is disturbing the Technical Recovery Team(approximately 17,000 for most independent populations of Puget Sound Chi- and should be adjusted upward.The importance of productivity is mirrored by the emphasis it received nook)to establish a range for population viability,with from the WRIA 9 Technical Committee,placing pro- - a lower bound of 17,000 adults and an upper bound ductivity at the top when ranking viable salmonid near 37,700.Since there is always considerable mea- population parameters for effect on population surement and model error in these calculations,a viability in the Green River.The following is a brief reasonable target for the population might lie near the summary of productivity goals: - midpoint of these estimates at about 27,000 adults.When historical and current capacity estimates are Given the estimated value of natural origin recruit • made,and the results of the habitat modeling exercise breeders,the short term decline in productivity by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is finalized and Page 4-32 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - becomes problematic.If the target of 1,000 as an effective population size for natural origin recruits Chinook.These patch recovery goals should focus on providing suitable rearing habitat for juveniles; is used,then the rate of growth to achieve this - target in 15 years is approximately 1.05.Given the Soos and Newaukum Creeks are occupied by error in estimating lamda and the error in hatch- Chinook and have become established spawning ery origin recruit effectiveness,a growth rate of aggregations.Since occupied patches were lost in • 1.05 should be considered a minimum value; the mainstem,these tributaries have become new • Consistent with the expansion of spawning elements in the spatial structure of the popula- tion.These areas should be protected as aggrega- the number of suitable habitat patches for spawn- • aggregations for natural origin recruits(NORs), tions,reducing the risk from catastrophes affect- ing should be higher as well.The case could be ing the mainstem;and • made that the number of suitable patches for Refugia are areas within a watershed that provide NORs must at least quadruple to achieve the persistent habitat conditions that support the natural origin recruit abundance target.If replace- population during environmental perturbations. • ment of hatchery origin recruit spawners with In the Green River,capturing multiple aggrega- - natural origin recruit spawners is factored in,an tions of the spawning and rearing population into increase in the number of natural origin recruit refugia in the Upper and Middle Green mainstem, occupied patches of at least 50%seems warranted; the Duwamish Estuary,and the marine nearshore - and would assist in the maintenance of spatial struc- • The reoccupation of patches and the reduction in ture within the population. • the effect of hatchery origin recruits on natural • Diversity,a result of local adaptation,is often consid- origin recruit productivity can only be accom- ered to be the hallmark of salmon populations. Diver- plished if the number of hatchery origin recruits sity encompasses population and sub-population - on the spawning ground is reduced. Following the differentiation:variation within a population related to recommendations of Technical Discussion Paper size,fecundity,age structure,life history types and #1 (Hatchery Scientific Review Group et al.2004), trajectories,and genetic variation.By most accounts, - the goal for an integrated hatchery program (the an early(spring-type) run of Chinook once occupied - current approach for the Green River Chinook the Green River upstream of the Green River Gorge and population) is to reduce the hatchery origin the dams,but it is now considered to be extinct by the recruit escapement to the spawning grounds to Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team.In addition,the • 30%or less of the naturally spawning population expression of life history types and trajectories has - in any given year. been reduced as habitats throughout the river(includ- Spatial structure is important for at least three rea- ing the estuary and nearshore) have been modified sons: (1) the distribution of sub-population units and lost.The following is a brief summary of diversity throughout suitable habitats (spawning and rearing) goals: reduces the risk posed by catastrophic events; (2) the • Since the existing life history types are the basic - wide distribution allows normal rates of demographic material for future adaptation of the species,the • processes—immigration,emigration,gene flow—to existing life history trajectories must be con- occur between population sub-units;and (3) spatial served; - structure within a population can lead to increased . The opportunity for the expression of historical • diversity of life history trajectories.The following is a life history trajectories should be enhanced.This brief summary of spatial structure goals: would require the recovery of historical habitat - • A significant contribution to population viability types and some proportion of their quantity in can be achieved by recovering spatial structure of several areas of the river:Upper,Middle,and - spawning and rearing salmon above the dams; Lower Green,Duwamish Estuary,and marine - • Recovery of spatial structure below the dams is nearshore; warranted also.This would bring occupied Increase variability in age structure for the popu- patches into closer proximity and allow interac- lation.This includes an increase in the proportion tions among more numerous local aggregations of of 5-and 6-year old spawners and an increase in • yearling outmigrants; • Page 4-33 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • The recovery of an early run life history type in the Non-Habitat Conservation Hypotheses - Upper Green River should be considered to expand both life history types and trajectories in Based on the results of the population analyses,three the Green River.This could also provide significant conservation hypotheses were developed to address - conservation value to the Puget Sound Evolution- non-habitat conditions (e.g.,hatchery,harvest of - arily Significant Unit and the South Sound geo- salmonids,and harvest of prey species).Two were graphic area; rated as Tier 1 hypotheses and one was rated a Tier 3 • Expand the run and spawn timing for the existing hypothesis: - fall Chinook population to more appropriately Non-habitat-1 (Tier 1):Employing live capture tech- mirror the historical timing;and niques to harvest hatchery salmon(marked) and - • Other components of diversity are not as well release natural salmon will reduce mortality of natu- - studied as age structure and life history trajecto- rally-produced salmon while providing the opportu- ries.These other components (e.g.,size,fecundity, nity to harvest a greater percentage of hatchery fish age at migration) should be studied for negative and thereby reducing straying of hatchery fish to the - trends over time as part of an adaptive manage- spawning grounds. [Note:Ranking of this hypothesis is - ment program. based on the presumption of a segregated stock. Chinook in the Green/Duwamish,however,currently The WRIA 9 Technical Committee agreed that it is are managed as an integrated stock.] - necessary to look at both short-term and long-term needs in evaluating the viable salmonid population Non-habitat-2(Tier 1):Modifying hatchery practices parameters that most threaten viability.They deter- (e.g.,more natural rearing conditions,smaller releases, - mined,using information from the Strategic Assess- release timing and location,genetic management,etc.) ment,that the short-term concern is productivity of and improving the attractiveness of hatcheries to natural origin recruit spawners and that both spawn- returning hatchery adults will lead to reduced interac- ing and rearing habitat quantity and quality will need tions between hatchery origin and natural origin - to be addressed.Over the long-term,spatial structure Chinook salmon,and enhance production of natural was identified as the viable salmonid population origin Chinook. parameter most threatening the viability of the Green - River Chinook population. Non-habitat-3(Tier 3): Reducing harvest of non- salmonid commercially and recreationally important species (e.g.,Dungeness crab,and forage fish)will lead to greater prey availability for juvenile and adult - salmonids. Page 4-34 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - 4.7 RELATIONSHIP TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES D ACTIONS - Chapter 4 has summarized the scientific foundation for development of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. In par- ticular,the information on historical and current - habitat and salmonid population conditions,fish • utilization,water quantity,and water quality was used to develop the conservation hypotheses and hypoth- esized necessary future conditions for WRIA 9.These - priority conservation hypotheses and hypothesized - necessary future conditions were then used to develop habitat management strategies by subwatershed (Chapter 5) and habitat actions (Chapter 7) as part of - the logic train for developing the recommendations of this Habitat Plan (Figure 4-3). F16URE 4-3:Logic Train Showing the Relationship of the Hypothesized Necessary Future Conditions and Conservation Hypotheses with the Habitat Management Strategies and - Actions - NECESSARY CONSERVATION FUTURE CONDITIONS HYPOTHESES VSP goals Watershed-wide - Habitat targets •Subwatershed Non-habitat • HABITAT • MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES - Habitat condition -Processes - (protect,restore, rehabilitate, ACTIONS - substitute) •Projects - Regulatory Education - Study - Page 4-35 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Page 4-36 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - a _ CHAPTER 5.0 Habitat Management Strategies and Policies 3 ` ■I A A w, - 5.1 INTRODUCTION A watershed and fish population in excellent condition might suggest an emphasis on protecting the system The habitat management strategies described in this from future harm.On the other hand,a watershed that chapter provide the link between the conservation has suffered considerable damage,some of it irrevers- - hypotheses and hypothesized necessary future condi- ible,may suggest rehabilitation as a primary strategy. ("Protection"and""rehabilitation"are defined below.) - bons described in Chapter 4 and the habitat policies,projects,and programs recommended in Chapter 7. The appropriateness of a strategy maybe"tested"by Development of the habitat management strategies is considering the relationship among the componentsthat link watershed and population attributes in the a necessary component of the logic train (Figure 4-3) - that provides the focus on what has to be done to degraded state to the same attributes in the recovered - state.If the existing conditions and the hypotheses accelerate habitat recovery for Chinook salmon,bull trout,and other salmonids in the Green/Duwamish that are derived from them are valid and clearly - and Central Puget Sound Watershed (Water Resource reflected in the strategy,and the actions proposed and - Inventory Area 9 [WRIA 9)).This chapter also includes outcomes predicted can be logically derived from thestrategy,then it is reasonable to conclude that the a list of management policies that are applicable strategy is (in a logical sense) appropriate. In the case - throughout the watershed (Section 5.7) that provide of salmonid conservation,the development of habitat guidance to implement the habitat management strategies and ultimately the management actions. management strategies is intended to complement - hatchery and harvest strategies in attaining viable salmonid population(VSP) goals—abundance, productivity,diversity,and spatial structure (see - 5.2 APPROACHSection 4.2 for elaboration on VSP)—necessary to - reach salmon recovery(the"supra-goal"or overall goal).The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team approach is portrayed in Figure 5-1. � Guidance Although the development of a strategy should be The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team was created driven primarily by the working hypotheses,legal, by NOAA Fisheries to provide technical support and cultural,and socio-economic factors will influence the - analysis for Chinook recovery in Puget Sound. choice and implementation of strategies as well. Funding considerations,public support, opportunity, According to the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Political expediency,and legal necessity all will play a Team(2003), A strategy describes the general role in the development of the management strategies • approach that,when viewed in the context of the and the subsequent actions derived from them. working hypothesis,is likely to improve the status of Nevertheless,the biological conditions and the the population.Strategies are not specific actions,but hypotheses linking the habitat conditions to recovery • provide guidance for subsequent identification of should remain the focus of any habitat management projects and/or management actions." strategy.The strategies described below are essentially derived from the working biological hypotheses and A strategy is mainly a coherent approach for may have to be modified to reflect the constraints - developing,choosing, and implementing particular listed above. • actions to reach specific objectives and is intended to accomplish a general goal.A complete strategy should also be useful for prioritizing and sequencing actions - across the several spatial scales of a watershed. A strategy might answer,for example,the question "Given the condition of the population and the goals • for recovery,and recognizing the history and condition of the watershed and its habitats,what guidance or principles can be derived that will direct appropriate • management actions to achieve the goals?" i Page 5-1 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 FIGURE S-1: Technical Recovery Team Approach to Development Management Strategies and Actions - VSP (Viable Salmonid Population) 000. VSP Goals Management Attributes Strategies for: Actions for. •Habitat •Habitat •Hatchery , •Hatchery Watershed •Harvest Conditons ► y Hypotheses •Hydra •Harvest Habitat Landscape Hydra Given the lack of complete knowledge about salmon applied to reaching habitat objectives and viable populations and their relationships with habitat salmonid population goals: - conditions,and given the unpredictable nature of the variation across the many habitats that salmon must • Protect where habitat is presently fully functional, occupy(fresh water to estuarine to marine),there supported by natural processes,and supportive of - remains considerable uncertainty in the task of VSP parameters; - salmon recovery.Competent strategies will recognize . Restore where habitat is impaired but full function and accommodate this uncertainty in three ways: can be achieved and the supporting role of natural • A strategy,itself,may be precautionary in that it processes can be recovered; stipulates protection of natural ecosystem pro- • Rehabilitate where habitat is impaired and resto- cesses and functions that are considered more ration of full function and supporting processes is - reliable in meeting the viable salmonid population not feasible but specific improvements to func- objectives; tions and supporting processes can be achieved; • A strategy may be conservative in that it specifies and - some degree of redundancy in actions or guides Substitute where function is required but habitat - decision makers to actions that are well-tested features are irretrievable and supporting pro- and whose outcomes are largely predictable and cesses cannot be recovered. with low risk to the populations;and As a corollary to the four proposed Puget Sound • Habitat management strategies may contain Technical Recovery Team general management strate- multiple,alternative actions to accomplish stated gies,the National Research Council(1992) proposes objectives;the actions themselves may have the following definitions for the terms used by the varying degrees of certainty in achieving the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team in its guidance: - objectives or some maybe experimental,with - higher risk to populations but with greater poten- Protection: (Also preservation)The maintenance - tial recovery outcomes as well. of ecosystem form and function together with the attendant processes necessary for creation and The uncertainty in actions arises from a combination maintenance of the ecosystem.This may also of external(to the action) influences,the experimental imply management of the ecosystem (or of nature of the actions themselves,and environmental external influences)to maintain natural character- - and demographic variability that clouds the effective- istics and function; ness of the actions.In the case of strategies and - actions,adaptive management is critical to successful • Restoration:To return an ecosystem to a close attainment of the strategic objectives and to the overall approximation of its condition prior to distur- goals (see Chapter 9,Adaptive Management and bance;the re-establishment of pre-disturbance - Monitoring,for further discussion of the importance of aquatic functions and related physical,chemical, • adaptive management). and biological characteristics.This requires attention to rebuilding the entire ecosystem with The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team proposed attention to all functions and characteristics,an - four general management strategies that should be Page 5-2 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - objective that may,in practice,be quite difficult to maintain the action to achieve viability goals,and the achieve; goals may be quite restricted—productivity but not diversity,abundance but not spatial structure,for - • Rehabilitation:To return to working order or to example.Thus,certainty in the outcome of the (most put back into good condition. In this case,not all artificial) actions for population viability decreases characteristics and functions of an ecosystem will from protection to substitution and will require - be recovered but improvements can be made that increased monitoring and evaluation to assure suc- - approximate some undisturbed forms and func- cess. tions.This is similar to,but not the same as, enhancement in the view of the National Research - Council.Continual anthropogenic intervention WRIA 9 Approach will likely be required because restoration of the underlying ecosystem processes has not occurred; The approach taken in WRIA 9 differs in some respects - and from the approach of the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team.In this Plan,the strategies were not • Substitution:The most artificial of the strategies in derived sequentially from the hypotheses as suggested - the view of the Puget Sound Technical Recovery by Figure 5-1.Rather than take the intermediate step of • Team.This is the replacement of ecosystem form crafting causal hypotheses and general strategies,the and functions with new features that are not conditions work of the WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment supported by natural processes.Substitutions (King County Department of Natural Resources and - require constant intervention to maintain the Parks et al.2004)was translated directly into conserva- - desired functions. tion hypotheses that respond more discretely to habitat change and to improvement of viable salmonid - Protection is the most important strategy in areas of population (VSP) parameters.Thus,the conservation - the watershed where the form and function of habitats, hypotheses are not strictly the same as the Puget and the processes that support them,are largely intact. Sound Technical Recovery Team-proposed"hypoth- An important consideration is to determine the eses but are intended to accomplish much the same - appropriate boundaries of the ecosystem that requires purpose.However,because no single overall strategy - protection.Restoration is the preferred strategy in links conditions to VSP outcomes,it is difficult to those areas where the impairments to habitat function obtain a"collective"view of the actions as they link to can be identified easily and remedies that recreate the VSP outcomes,to evaluate uncertainty,or to evaluate • undisturbed form and the supporting processes can be the effects of alternative strategies.Also,it should be accomplished (this may occur adjacent to protected noted that WRIA 9 has undergone considerable change areas,for example,where restoration may be used to over the last 150 years and single strategies—even - enlarge the function of the protected area).Rehabilita- some multiple strategies—are unlikely to be success- - tion is preferred where impairments to form and ful in the face of such enormous change.Once devel- function are the result of constraints that cannot oped,the conservation hypotheses were assembled feasibly be altered but where certain functions (but not into groups by subwatersheds.A close reading of the - the full suite of functions) and processes can be conservation hypotheses by watershed and - reliably improved.Substitution should be used where subwatershed,however,allows the strategies implicit habitat form and function,and the supporting pro- in the conservation hypotheses to be understood.The cesses,have been irretrievably altered or lost com- conservation hypotheses for the watershed in general, - pletely(this is likely to occur in the most degraded and for each of the subwatersheds,can be found in areas of the watershed where human infrastructure Chapter 4;the management strategies,grouped by has replaced the natural infrastructure and supporting subwatershed,can be found below in Section 5.5 and - processes no longer operate). in Volume II:Appendix F. In the progression from protection to substitution, Once the management strategies were developed, confidence in the sustainability and success of actions specific habitat actions (projects and programs) and - to meet viability goals decreases (uncertainty in- policies were formulated to meet the objectives of the creases).Furthermore,the more artificial the action, strategies (these actions are presented in Chapter 7).At the greater is the investment necessary to fashion and the level of habitat actions,the Puget Sound Technical - Page 5-3 - GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Recovery Team guidance is consistent with the work of strategies are carried downscale into the segments of - the National Research Council(1992),Spence et al. the river within each subwatershed to provide the (1996),and NOAA Fisheries (1996).In short,the greater spatial distinctness necessary for crafting guidance for habitat restoration suggests a preferred appropriate habitat actions.Actions that implement - kind and sequence of habitat actions (see Chapter 4— the subwatershed strategies are addressed in - Section 4.2).This same order—working from the basic Chapter 7. formative processes—may be applied to rehabilita- tion actions as well and may even be useful when Habitat actions alone cannot account for the sum of - considering priorities for protection provided the— recovery in this or any other watershed,however.The "process areas"and functional boundaries of the history of watershed and salmon management is far ecosystem can be determined.Such an attempt was too complex to unambiguously attribute declines to - made in the Green/Duwamish River by delimiting river any one or two factors.To be sure,the present condi- - segments based on valley form and geomorphic tion of viable salmonid population(VSP) parameters attributes.These""response segments"represent units in the WRIA 9 population reflects recent human of the riverine ecosystem at a meso-scale(in between intervention. Habitat degradation is one of many - the subwatershed scale and the project scale)within activities that have affected Chinook populations in which particular habitat management actions are WRIA 9 and habitat actions to remedy the degradation, likely to produce similar habitat and population though absolutely necessary,are a part of a larger plan - responses that are distinct from other segments.Thus, that includes harvest and hatchery actions as well.The - a gravel-bedded segment in a flat and wide valley will integration of all actions through the Puget Sound respond to the placement of large woody debris much Salmon Recovery Plan will be critical to successful differently than will a steeper,bedrock segment of the implementation of this Habitat Plan. - river. In WRIA 9—as in most watersheds in Puget Sound— a single strategy is insufficient to address the range of 3 SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES necessary habitat conditions needed throughout the basin.Although a single strategy may dominate a watershed or subwatershed,the variety of conditions ��9 has been committed to producing this science- - present in WRIA 9 requires a combination of strategies based Habitat Plan since the signing of an interlocal that are complementary and responsive to the degree agreement in 2000. Building on early reconnaissance of change (complementarities may be one of the assessments of the riverine and nearshore ecosystems, - strengths of the approach used in this Plan).The utility the Strategic Assessment(see Chapter 4)was devel- ofgeneral strategies is their applicability in a hierarchi- devel- oped to fill data gaps and provide the substantive cal fashion from the watershed to the subwatershed to technical foundation for the Habitat Plan(King County the river segment.By applying the strategies in this and WRIA 9 2004).The final synthesizing tasks of the • way,actions maybe assembled and sequenced for Strategic Assessment—the functional linkages evalua- greatest effect. From the headwaters of the Green River tion and necessary future conditions—are the prede- above Howard Hanson Dam to the remnants of the cessors to development of habitat management - Duwamish River estuary to the nearshore environ- strategies.From the information contained in the - ments of the mainland and of Vashon/Maury Island, Strategic Assessment comes the basis for combining area-specific combinations of these strategies have the watershed conditions and viable salmonid popula- been assembled to address the kind and severity of tion (VSP) attributes (Figure 5-1) into the working - anthropogenic (human-caused) alteration to the hypotheses.At the same time,the functional linkages habitats of WRIA 9. Strategies have been formulated for work established the conceptual and empirical rela- tionshipseach of five sub-areas within WRIA 9:the Upper Green between the habitat conditions of the River Subwatershed,the Middle Green River watershed and the VSP parameters. - Subwatershed,the Lower Green River Subwatershed, Although no quantitative model'was used to evaluate the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed,and the Marine N the quantitative changes to the VSP parameters earshore Subwatershed(see Figure 1-1).These - 1.Quantitative models such as the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT)and SHIRAZ were considered earlier in the development of this Plan. - Page 5-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • resulting from changes to habitat,the conceptual deemed critical to setting the population on an early model—embodied in the Ecological Synthesis Ap- trajectory toward recovery.Table 5-1 contains a sum- proach—is a powerful and scientifically logical mary of the Necessary Future Conditions for the four - framework for making a qualitative assessment.It is viability parameters of Green River Chinook.These are • thought that such a framework,where the reasoning essentially the VSP objectives that are required for the and empirical evidence that link habitat attributes and population to achieve viability.Both short-term(10 population attributes are clear and scientifically years) and longer-term(50-100 years) objectives are • sound,is a necessary first step in the crafting and use listed in the table.A more detailed discussion can be of a quantitative model in any event.The Ecological found in Section 7 of the Strategic Assessment(King Synthesis Approach relies on multiple sources of County Department of Natural Resources and Parks et - information,historical and current,to develop numer- al.2004). • ous conservation hypotheses from which strategies and actions can be derived(see Chapter 4—Section 4.5 What emerges from the Strategic Assessment(2004) is for a more complete discussion of the approach);the a picture of a watershed and its attendant population - conservation hypotheses,in effect,are the synthesis, that has been altered dramatically from its historical the framework for recovery.The third and final part of condition.As for the VSP parameters,abundance has the Strategic Assessment,and the objectives toward declined significantly and hatchery origin fish make up - which the Plan is directed,is contained in the Neces- the preponderance of the population;productivity of - sary Future Conditions.The Necessary Future Condi- the population is slightly less than one,a signal of a tions report (WRIA 9 and King County Department of declining population;the location and number of Natural Resources and Parks 2004) provides the spawning aggregations (i.e.indicators of spatial • population and habitat objectives that,when attained, structure)have diminished substantially due to the - should result in recovery of the WRIA 9 population to loss of access to the Upper Green River;and diversity viability.The report also contains more immediate has diminished slightly,unless the possibility of an objectives for productivity and abundance that are early spawning life history trajectory(stream-type or • TABLE 5-1:Viable Salmonid Population Objectives - , Objective Long-TermObjective VSP Parameter i to i to 100Notes Abundance Increase natural origin recruit(spawners to Equilibrium spawner numbers to 27,000 The number of distinct spawning 1,000 to 4200 per year) aggregations should rise as well. Productivity Increase the population growth rate for Population growth rate is 1.0 at the The long-term growth trend for the natural origin recruits to 1.05 until the equilibrium value of 27,000 population isjust below 1.0;productivity - critical threshold for abundance is passed has been noted as the most critical VSP attribute at this time. - Spatial Structure Increase the number of distinct spawning Distinct spawning aggregations above the The increase in spatial structure below - aggregations in the Middle Green River Howard Hanson Dam the dam and recovery above the dam Subwatershed will reduce the risk to the population and • might provide differential selective - regimes. • Diversity Protect existing life history types;increase Re-establish an early spawning life history There is uncertainty about an early life - variability in age structure type(spring)upstream of Howard Hanson history type in the Upper Green River Dam;re-establish the historical run and Subwatershed.Expansion of the fall type spawn timing for the fall population to areas upstream of Howard Hanson Dam may replace. Page 5-5 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 spring Chinook) is taken into account. If this stream 5.4 WATERSHED-WIDE HABITAT - type Chinook life history trajectory truly was present inMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES the Upper Green River,its extirpation represents a significant reduction in the overall diversity of Green Virtually all areas and habitats within the watershed River Chinook and an important loss of diversity to the have been modified by human action to a greater or Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).The lesser extent.Probably the most severe modifications - decline in productivity,especially of the juvenile life to habitat have taken place in the Duwamish Estuary stage,has been highlighted as the viable salmonid and Lower Green River Subwatersheds as tidal areas - population parameter most responsible for the current and floodplains were reclaimed,shore and bank-lines status of the population. hardened,major tributaries were diverted,and the Perhaps two historical changes with the most signi river channelized for navigation and flood control. fi- - cant VSP implications are the ecological The completion of Howard Hanson Dam altered the discontinuities posed by the re-direction of the Cedar/ flow regime for the Middle and Lower Green River and Black and White Rivers out of the watershed and the prevented the upstream migration of anadromous construction of Howard Hanson Dam that separates salmon into the river above Eagle Gorge (see the the present river into two distinct parts.The result has Strategic Assessment [King County Department of been a significant change in all VSP parameters of Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004] for a complete Chinook in the Green/Duwamish River system. explanation of the changes in the WRIA 9).Very few - Diversity and spatial structure probably have been habitats or riparian areas remain in a fully functional altered the most.The implications for viability of the condition and those few that are mostly intact are current population in WRIA 9 are unknown. Even small and fragmented.In this watershed,the viability accepting these changes as irreversible,the present of the population is threatened by multiple habitat - WRIA 9 watershed is a highly altered system;from the factors distributed throughout the life history pathway dramatic change in the hydrologic regime,to the loss of the population.In applying the strategies proposed of approximately 97%of estuarine habitat,to the by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team,it extensive levee and revetment system,the river became clear that there is no single strategy that,if ecosystem is greatly diminished compared to its applied,will result in habitat conditions sufficient to historical condition.It is quite likely that at least some sustain a viable population.There are,of course, of the former functions,and the processes that sup- habitat areas that deserve protection and other areas - ported them,are irretrievable.The emphasis conse- where the complete loss of habitat features would,to quently rests on rehabilitating those characteristics of sustain productivity or life histories,require a substitu- the ecosystem that remain.This should become more tion of new features for old. apparent as the strategies for the subwatersheds are - examined. Given the degree of alteration and landscape change, the Habitat Plan acknowledges that large areas of the river ecosystem must be repaired for the population to - even approach viability.Protection of the remaining - functional habitat,while certainly necessary and consistent with Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team guidance,would be relatively ineffective if used alone. - Restoration likewise requires a high probability of reversibility for both form and function and presup- poses that basic processes such as hydrology,sediment - transport,or gene flow can be recovered to their pre- - disturbance conditions.To do so requires a relation- ship between landscape and river ecosystem that exists in only a few places in WRIA 9. - Consequently,the dominant strategy in this watershed must be that of rehabilitation,especially to increase (from a functional standpoint)the habitats available to - Page 5-6 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - Chinook.The emphasis on this strategy is supported and rearing habitat.The same strategy calls for im- by a close reading of the conservation hypotheses for provements to water quality,riparian habitats,and the watershed and subwatersheds:a focus on improve- habitat structure throughout the river,and for shore- - ment of water quality,riparian zones,and river fea- line rehabilitation in the nearshore environment.At tures.In virtually all subwatersheds,rehabilitation of the very least,much of the riverine environment must the current conditions is required simply to stem the be re-structured to provide functional connections - on-going loss of viability caused by the interruption of between the marine environment and the less affected - habitat-forming processes.An examination of the habitats of the Middle and Upper Green River. actions proposed(in Chapter 7) also suggests the primacy of rehabilitation since the actions tend to be It is in the Middle Green River Subwatershed that a - mainly structural and limited in their influence on the strategy fundamental to salmon habitat conservation - rate,magnitude,frequency,and spatial arrangement of is being recommended and where the multiple habitat dominant watershed processes. management strategies of the Plan converge.From the melding of the work of NOAA Fisheries in the West - Following rehabilitation in strategic importance are Coast Conservation Guidance with that of Benda et al. protection measures intended to prevent further harm (2004)in the Core Areas work(which provides a to functional habitats.However,the fully functional framework for identifying critical habitat for salmon), - habitats found in WRIA 9 are rare and infrequent and is derived the likely area for historical refugia for Green - do not comprise the greater part of habitat types or River Chinook.In this meaning,a refugium is an area habitat area.An exception could be in the Upper Green of population persistence,an area of significant River and Marine Nearshore Subwatersheds where habitat and population diversity,and an area from • some relatively undisturbed(or sufficiently recovered) which the population can send recruits to recolonize - habitat and riparian areas occur. adjacent habitats.Refugia are net producers of salmon and are the centers or cores of population viability.The - Next in the strategic order is restoration(in the strict rebuilding of such refugia is considered critical to long- sense of the term as defined by the National Research term viability of the population.Such an area is Council and the Puget Sound Technical Recovery proposed for the entire Middle Green River Team).In the Upper Green River Subwatershed,where Subwatershed but it will require protection of the • most key processes are at least present,restoration will remaining habitat forms and the extensive rehabilita- - be feasible.From the findings of the Strategic Assess- tion of areas now bordered by levees and revetments ment,it would seem that few other areas exist where and thus now abandoned by the flow-modified river.In - this management strategy could be applied this instance,rehabilitation enlarges the protected - successfully. areas and brings the form to a spatial scale commen- surate with the necessary function of refugia. In this way,the spatial scale of the population is enhanced - Implications for Viability and life history diversity may benefit. The strategy of rehabilitation recognizes the limita- tions to viable salmonid population (VSP)parameters - that can be achieved through protection and restora- - --- -------------------------------------- tion strategies,the two approaches that carry the least 5 risk to the population and the greatest probability for Duwamish • success.Nevertheless,the attributes of a viable popu- Nearshore Middle Green - lation(see Table 5-1) set out in the NecessaryFuture �+� Lower Green Conditions objectives,require management actions so Upper Green throughout the watershed,some of them in the most i highly disturbed areas.The Duwamish Estuary transi- tion zone,so-called because it provides a salinity = L- N gradient from fresh to marine waters that allows for • osmotic adjustment,is one such area and critical for o - out-migrating juveniles.The rehabilitation of this area will,it is hypothesized,increase productivity of the King County WRIA 9 Subwatersheds population by providing more suitable transitioning - Page 5-7 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 The viable salmonid population (VSP) objectives for STRATEGIES - MANAGEMENT the Upper Green River Subwatershed are ambitious: re-establish an early life history(spring) type in the The habitat management strategies become clearer upper Subwatershed;failing that,extend the current - when the scale of application moves into the range of the fall type into the Upper Green to increase subwatersheds and down-scale into the segments. their spatial structure (there are five historical core Furthermore,the role of each subwatershed in habitat areas in this subwatershed,found in Segments attaining a viable salmonid population in WRIA 9 9, 11,and 12,according to Benda et al. [2004])2 and - becomes more coherent with the management increase the productive capacity of the Upper Green strategies,and the subsequent actions are more easily River Subwatershed for both adult and juvenile Chi- understood at this scale. nook(in Segments 8,9, 11, 12). Plans are already under - way to return fall Chinook adults to the Upper Green - River Subwatershed and discussions about the re- Upper Green River Subwatershed establishment of a spring-type continue. Except for the Howard Hanson Dam at its lower end, Unlike the other subwatersheds,conditions in the - the Upper Green River Subwatershed retains the basic Upper Green are probably more amenable to restora- and fundamental physical and hydrological processes tion since much of the habitat change in the river is the - required for habitat recovery.The rates and magni- legacy of land use and management and the local - tudes of these basic processes have been altered— intrusion of the railroad and forest roads into riparian some significantly—by land use and management, habitats and the channel.As land use practices and the construction of a railroad and forest roads,and by forest management have changed(under the umbrella - the barrier to upstream migration posed by the of the Tacoma Public Utilities Habitat Conservation Howard Hanson Dam.While these are not insignifi- Plan and new forest practice rules),the degraded cant,at least the effects of land use(mainly forestry) conditions of the Upper Green River Subwatershed can be alleviated over time through more ecologically- landscape are expected to improve with time. Further - based forest management practices.The effects of actions to repair and remove inappropriate roads forest roads and of the railroad are local but severe in would also push improvement and recovery.This will, riparian habitats and at the revetments constructed to of course,require some time but as landscape condi- - protect the road grades where they impinge on the tions improve,so will the basic processes of hydrology - river.The barrier to upriver migration imposed by the and sediment supply and movement.With the removal Tacoma Headworks diversion dam some three miles of these and other impediments to process,restoration below Howard Hanson Dam has prevented anadro- outcomes may be achieved by patiently allowing the - mous fish access to the Upper Green for over 90 years; passive recovery of habitat function.Certainly this - because of the inaccessibility beyond the diversion, could be abetted by actively forcing system responses Howard Hanson Dam has no fishway to allow adult with active intervention.Both strategies are apparent - migrants access to the Upper Green.For population in the approach to the Upper Green River . viability,the result has been catastrophic:an early life Subwatershed. history form of Chinook(stream-type)that probably once inhabited the upper river has been extirpated,the In sum,the habitat management strategies for the - spatial structure of fall Chinook has been reduced to Upper Green River Subwatershed are: the lower river only,and an extensive habitat area that supported significant productivity was lost.The Rehabilitation in this subwatershed is focused • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reclaimed some of that primarily on the recovery of landscape and - productivity and spatial structure for juvenile fall riparian conditions as precursors to habitat Chinook by releasing marked juveniles above the recovery.Forest land recovery,road rehabilitation Howard Hanson Dam each spring. and riparian habitat rehabilitation are considered fundamental to sustainable habitat recovery.This - is particularly true for sediment source control and transport where forest roads and past harvest 2.See Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 for the river mile equivalents of the assessment areas("Segments"). - Page 5-8 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - the time of publication.If populations are to be re- established in the Upper Green River - Subwatershed,successful operation of thes - facilities for adults and juveniles will be essential. Tests of these facilities are planned for 2006 with �r operation scheduled to begin in 2007. t ' Middle Green River Subwatershed The Middle Green River Subwatershed comprises four segments extending from river miles 31.3 to 64.5 (although the subwatershed itself extends only to river • mile 32).The lower segment(4)flows through a wide =_ alluvial valley;the channel is gravel-bedded and Restoration of streams through removal of failed or undersized culverts,as historically meandered and braided throughout the i shown here at Sweeney Creek,will improve fish passage.October 2003 lower gradient reaches producing considerable lateral photo courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. habitat diversity.That movement is now much re- stricted by levees and revetments at strategic bends in practices have increased the volumes and rates of the river.A dramatic exception is the riverbend com- - delivery of sediment to the river channel(Seg- plex near O'Grady Park that has moved laterally some - ments 8,9, 11,and 12); hundreds of feet in the last decade.The upstream • Restoration of habitat processes is a follow-on segment(5) flows through the Green River Gorge and strategy(to landscape rehabilitation)when is much steeper than the lower reach and confined by - conditions in the channel and riparian habitat high canyon walls.Further upstream is a short boul- - favor interventions to reset channel processes and der-dominated segment(6),followed by another short habitat forms.This strategy complements reha- segment(7)through Eagle Gorge. By all accounts,this bilitation by focusing on particular process- subwatershed contained the most diversity of habitats - function relationships such as large woody debris and was the most heavily used for spawning by Chi- recruitment and riparian condition.Once basic nook and other salmon species.Work done by Benda et forcing processes such as sediment movement al. (2004) suggests that this subwatershed(especially approach more natural rates,the addition of large segment 4) contained the core habitat for the fall - woody debris,for example,will hasten the process Chinook population of the Green River and probably of habitat formation(Segments 9, 11,and12); acted as a refugium for the population.Present condi- • Protection,even in this subwatershed,is focused tions show a marked decrease in channel habitat - diversity,in off channel(lateral)habitat diversity, mainly on structural features of the habitat and floodplain connectivity,riparian forest,and large • landscape—spawning areas,side channels,and woody debris accumulations.The recovery of function - late seral timber stands (older forests).Significant in this reach is deemed critical to achieving viability for habitat elements remain in Segments 8,9, 11,and the Green River population.With this in mind,the re- establishment of habitat conditions sufficient to regain land management activities.These areas can serve - as templates and guides for rehabilitation and the refugia function in Segment 4(river miles 31 to 45) - restoration,and as short-term refuges as the is the main objective for this subwatershed. system undergoes recovery;and The recovery of this subwatershed is critical for all - Substitution is a minor habitat strategy in this viable salmonid population(VSP) attributes;without - subwatershed but is important for providing ease sufficient function here,population viability will be of access for Chinook migrants into and out of the difficult,if not impossible to achieve. Primary among Upper Green River Subwatershed past the dams. the VSP objectives for this area are diversity and - Upstream trap and haul fish passage facilities were spatial structure,followed by productivity,especially - completed at the Tacoma Headworks in 2004. for the fry to out-migrant life stage.If the diversity of Downstream fish passage facilities for juveniles at life history trajectories (Figure 4-2) can be increased, Howard Hanson Dam are under construction at • Page 5-9 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Overall,the strategies provide for a distribution of - habitat types and functions that mirrors the historical template in all but historical capacity.The capacity - objective is set at 65%of the historical habitat capacity - value.This means that,at any given time,at least 65% of the historical habitat capacity must be fully func- tional to support viability. Together,the strategies - ' should create a marked difference in channel form and function and provide considerably more diversity and capacity in this subwatershed. In sum,the habitat management strategies for the Middle Green River Subwatershed are: r. '�"' f Y�- �' Rehabilitation as the dominant strategy is cen- Gravel supplementation began in the Middle Green,shown here at tered on the recovery of hydrologic processes as a Kanaskat,with a pilotprojectin 2003.September2003 photo. primary way to create and maintain habitat diversity and complexity,riparian structure,and - and the spatial structure of spawning aggregations sediment transport and deposition processes. and juvenile rearing areas expanded through There are no targets for hydrologic rehabilitation increases in habitat diversity and volume,then although there are outcomes for habitat structure - productivity should show a commensurate increase and complexity(see the Necessary Future Condi- and abundance should rise due to the concomitant tions in Chapter 4—Section 4.6). To this process- increase in capacity(all other effects held constant). based rehabilitation is added the direct rehabilita- tion of particular habitat types and riparian - The habitat management strategies in this structure throughout the subwatershed,particu- subwatershed,more than in any downstream,are larly in Segment 4.The strategy provides for a based on the recovery of underlying river,stream,and distribution of habitat types that mirrors the riparian processes that support habitat function.It is historical template and should achieve the neces- - clear from the analyses and conservation hypotheses sary capacity to support viability; that the altered flow regime is considered a major influence on these processes and thus on the forma- • Protection and restoration are secondary but - tion and persistence of habitat form and function.The necessary strategies to pursue in this objective of the management strategies,therefore,is to subwatershed.There are significant areas of the come as near to the historical template as possible for river and its floodplain where the influence of land - habitat structure and function working within the use and flood management is minimal.While - current flow regime template until that template can these areas could not be considered undisturbed, be modified to more closely resemble the normative they represent the best remaining habitats and flow regime.Until that occurs,the primary strategy for afford the best opportunities for restoration, - this subwatershed remains rehabilitation.This is provided they are protected from further en- - closely followed by protection of those habitat areas croachment.Some areas are already in public (channel and riparian)with the least anthropogenic ownership and provide immediate opportunities. influence in order to prevent further influence.Resto- Restoration should be employed to expand the - ration is limited to these same protected areas since functions of the protected areas;and they afford the best opportunity for actually restoring form and function;substitution is a minor habitat Substitution,while a minor strategy in most - strategy in this subwatershed but important to the respects,is critical for replacing the volumes of replacement of gravel volumes captured by Howard gravel once delivered to the lower river from the reaches upstream of Howard Hanson Dam.In Hanson Dam. - concert with the rehabilitation of large woody - debris,the augmentation of gravel will greatly influence channel form and function throughout the Middle Green River Subwatershed. - Page 5-10 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • Lower Green River Subwatershed Chapter 4-Section 4.5 summarizes conditions in the • Lower Green River noting that channelization over the - last century has resulted in substantial losses in the quantity and quality of mainstem spawning,winter and summer rearing,and adult holding habitat(i.e. • large,channel-wide pools).Riparian habitats have been lost to roads,levees,and various encroaching land uses.The result for viable salmonid population • parameters has been a reduction in productivity and os" 'oo - spatial structure as habitat elements that supported spawning aggregations and juvenile aggregations have been lost.If the historical habitat conditions are an - indication,this subwatershed once provided extensive Levee setbacks,such as the Pipeline project at river mile22 by the Green - areas for juvenile rearing and growth.In particular,off River Flood Control Zone District,are rehabilitation projects that improve channel sloughs and backwaters presented large areas riparian vegetation and create benches inundated by floods.March 2004 - for flood refuge and summer feeding.By extension,the photo. • extent and diversity of the once-common off channel habitats in this subwatershed may have supported a In sum,the habitat management strategies for the greater diversity of life-history trajectories than occurs Lower Green River Subwatershed are: - today.The recovery of these viable salmonid popula- tion(VSP) attributes is keyed to the achievement of a Rehabilitation remains the main strategy in this set of hypothesized necessary future conditions that subwatershed.The objectives of this strategy are: would require extensive rehabilitation and restoration large pool structure in the mainstem river, - of habitats.The VSP objectives for this subwatershed reconnection of existing but disconnected side - reflect the goal of increasing population productivity channels and sloughs,shallow,bank-edge habitats watershed-wide.Along with the estuary and nearshore, along the river margin,riparian habitats,and - the Lower Green River is a critical juvenile growth area. areas suitable for flood inundation; - The habitat management strategies reflect the intent to recover those habitats that are most associated with Substitution objectives are floodplain wetlands, juvenile productivity and meet the targets set in the side channels,and floodplain ponds.These • hypothesized necessary future conditions for this habitats will have to be recreated from semi- subwatershed.These habitats include mainstem developed areas of the existing floodplain and will channel pools,side channels,ponds and wetlands,and require designs for specific functions; shallow water channel edge. • Protection objectives are limited to locations Given the extent of channel and floodplain modifica- where habitats and channel forms have been the tion and the intensive development of the surrounding least affected by land use and channel manipula- - landscape,there is little opportunity for habitat tions.This,in essence,protects marginally func- protection at the scales and magnitudes necessary to tional habitats that are scattered throughout the influence viable salmonid population parameters. watershed.To achieve greater function,these Protection will be an important secondary strategy but habitats will require some intervention;and • will be limited to relatively small areas that are now . Restoration options are probably the most severely • somewhat disconnected from the processes that limited of any strategy in this subwatershed. support them.The opportunities for restoration are as Especially for the river system,the spatial scale limited as the protection options so,once again, necessary for restoration of the segment function - rehabilitation is the dominant strategy throughout this is unavailable.More local restoration,provided a subwatershed.In the more intensively developed and logical"unit"for this strategy can be found,is constrained areas of the subwatershed,such as the possible only in very few places,and will likely be - lowermost urban and suburban areas,substitution of restoration of form only(closer to the definition of - habitat types is likely to be the main strategy em- rehabilitation). ployed. - Page 5-I I - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed subwatershed is to increase the capacity and produc- tivity of the estuary in order to increase juvenile Of all the subwatersheds,the estuary of the Duwamish productivity(and thus population productivity and River has undergone the greatest change in habitat abundance).If the capacity can be increased (to - capacity,diversity,and productivity when compared to approximately 30%of the historical capacity)this may - its historical condition.This has almost certainly also create the opportunity for the expression of the affected productivity,diversity,and,to a lesser degree, (presumed)lost life history type.A second objective is - abundance of the Green River Chinook population the increase in habitat diversity within the - (although the magnitude of these changes is uncer- subwatershed.The strategic objective of greater tain).The decrease in productivity,assessed as the habitat diversity will afford both spatial and temporal viable salmonid population(VSP)parameter most separation for juveniles entering the estuary and - linked to the decrease in population viability in the should effectively expand both productivity and spatial - Green River,can be closely associated with the loss of structure of the juvenile population.There is strong estuarine capacity and productivity;some of this effect evidence from terrestrial ecosystems that more diver- can be seen in the estuarine transition zone.It is also sity yields higher productivity;furthermore,greater - likely that a juvenile life history trajectory—that of habitat diversity potentially provides for spatial estuarine-reared fry(Figure 4-2)—has been lost separation of the juveniles using the estuary and may completely from this subwatershed.One of the objec- enhance survival based on reduced competition for - tives of the habitat management strategies in this space and food(carrying capacity).A possible out- - come of increased capacity and diversity is the produc- tion of a greater number of life history trajectories in the juvenile population.Whether an increase in the - habitat capacity to a third of the historical capacity is - �: � enough to elicit this life history response should be the subject of research and monitoring. More than in any other subwatershed,substitution is a likely and viable strategy in the Duwamish Estuary. Historical development of the estuary has reduced the - area and locations available to recreate the habitats - lost.Moreover,the fundamental processes associated with estuarine habitats have been grossly altered and are,for all practical purposes,irretrievable.Thus,to - achieve the objectives,new habitats will have to be cut from the whole cloth of the developed landscape and these habitats will not completely resemble the histori- cal forms.There are few options for restoration,fewer - for protection;rehabilitation and substitution will,of necessity,form the strategies for estuarine recovery. However,the uncertainty of achieving the VSP at- - tributes is high and the work of sustaining these - habitats will fall to human intervention and not to natural processes. In sum,the habitat management strategies for the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed are: • Rehabilitation and substitution are the dominant - strategies in the estuary.The extent of alteration The Herrings House Park off channel habitat created by the City ofSeattle and the disconnection between landscape pro- is an example of the type of habitat substitution possible in the Duwamish. cesses and habitat formation,even from tidal - December2003 photo. processes,has probably caused an irretrievable Page 5-12 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • • • alteration in the rates and magnitudes—and • locations—of most historical estuarine functions. Preserving native trees • Without the fundamental supporting functions in and shrubs keep erosion • place,VSP parameter attributes are unlikely to Blu rates at natural levels. improve.These functions will have to be repli- s im nt Overhanging trees • cated through rehabilitating the remnants of keep the beach habitats that remain,and through the creation of Protect healthy for prey fish • new habitats to substitute for old;and sediment that salmon eat. • sources Bulkheads • • Protection and restoration are secondary strategies Bluff erosion is Cutoff in this area.Few opportunities exist for the rotec- sediment • PP P natural. Bulkheads tion of complete functional areas together with starve beaches of Eroding • their attendant processes and the habitats tend to sediment and damage beach • be small remnants or have been,themselves, beach ecology. created or rehabilitated.Because of the same Salmon and other marine. • landscape constraints,restoration is also a limited creatures suffer. • option in this area.Virtually no areas remain that • possess the requisite attributes for a restoration strategy to be effective. can provide pulses of nutrients that can increase • salmon productivity,such areas were more common • The choice of strategies is largely dictated by the along the shoreline of WRIA 9 system than they are • constraints on both effectiveness and opportunity in today.The overall capacity of the nearshore environ- this subwatershed.Although there should be an ment has apparently declined due to particular habitat • optimistic view of the possibilities for recovery,the losses and the gaps between the now-productive areas • initial strategies must be premised on both the degree have tended to increase.Juvenile salmon,feeding of historical change and the constraints to future constantly as they move along the shoreline,require a • change,at least in the short-term. For the life of this continuity of productive habitat areas as they make • Plan,the recovery of VSP objectives in this portion of their way to the open ocean.In this case,the spatial • the watershed lies in the ability to undo much of the structure of habitat is critical to improving the produc- damage accumulated over the past 100 years. tivity of the overall marine nearshore. • • In sum,the habitat management strategies for the Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Marine Nearshore Subwatershed are: • • The marine nearshore plays a significant role in the life The rehabilitation of currently degraded shoreline • history of Chinook salmon.Out-migrating juveniles habitats is paramount.The emphasis in this tend to hug the nearshore environment,feeding in the strategy is on the formative processes of erosion, • shallows prior to their off-shore movements when they sediment transport,and deposition along the • have attained a suitable size.They are widely distrib- shoreline.The strategy recognizes that a variety of uted along the shoreline,occupying a variety of constraints are in place that does not permit full • habitats over broad areas.This dispersal tends to restoration in most shoreline areas of the main- reduce the risk associated with catastrophic events land.A second rehabilitation objective is an - such as oil spills,for example.The risk would be much increase in specific habitat types,particularly of higher if the fish were concentrated in only a few salt marshes,stream deltas (pocket estuaries),and • discrete habitats.In terms of viable salmonid popula- eelgrass beds.A third objective is the rehabilita- tion(VSP) objectives,the management strategies of tion of riparian zones along the shorelines to • the nearshore environments of WRIA 9 are organized provide leaf litter,insect fall,and large woody around protecting and rehabilitating habitats that debris to the nearshore zone; • support juvenile productivity and protecting and Protection,although a secondary strategy,is the • recovering a broad distribution of habitats that sup- primary strategy in those areas where substantial • port the spatial structure of juveniles.These are not habitat areas remain intact.A good part of the separate objectives.Although the recovery of particular Vashon/Maury Island shoreline meets this crite- • habitats-such as salt marshes and pocket estuaries- • Page 5-13 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • e v4• t F 'r "raw/_ _ `.�'� • /w - r^' ,w. Rehabilitation of the nearshore was the focus of removing a failing sea wall -(bulkhead)at Burien's Seahurst Park in 2004-2005.'Before"photo on left; 'after"photo on right.Photos courtesy city of Burien. - rion along with some smaller habitat remnants on 5.6 HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES the mainland nearshore; ANDVIABILITY - • Restoration is the third strategy and probably the . most useful along portions of the Vashon/Maury In WRIA 9,with its history of development and man- Island shoreline where only structural(not land agement,reaching the viable salmonid population use) impediments to the recovery of habitat (VSP) objectives requires a substantial improvement in - processes occur.Shoreline sediment transport and the long-term performance of the ecosystem.From a - storage,for example,can be influenced by the watershed-wide perspective,this increase in perfor- placement of woody debris,potentially modifying mance in WRIA 9 will necessarily be accomplished the beach slope and grain size of the sediment to through the somewhat imperfect(from an ecosystem - recover a lost function.In these areas,restoration standpoint)vehicle of rehabilitation.A strategy of can be useful to enlarge already-functioning areas rehabilitation is not as certain as one grounded in and increase the capacity of the shoreline for protection or even in restoration but it is the only - juvenile rearing.Although the Vashon/Maury strategy available to the WRIA 9 system.This choice is - shoreline presents opportunities for significant not made for the sake of expediency but rather be- restoration,few of these areas remain along the cause much of the landscape that affects habitat built shoreline of the mainland and restoration is structure and function in all subwatersheds has been - not a primary strategy in these areas;and irretrievably altered.Only in the Upper Green River - • Substitution may be a viable strategy in the most Subwatershed,and to some lesser degree on the built-up areas of the nearshore environment. shorelines of Vashon/Maury Island,have many of the Opportunities for restoration and rehabilitation basic processes been retained (although they too have - tend to be scarce along the developed shoreline been greatly altered).The"space"required for ecosys- but smaller,more dispersed areas to create habitat tem protection or restoration is unavailable in most of pockets may be found. this watershed but sufficient attributes remain that a - concerted effort to reset the functional performance of - This order recognizes that a functional marine the watershed could be successful.The system will be nearshore environment,sufficient in capacity,diver- less than it was—without the White and the Cedar/ sity,and productivity will necessarily integrate reha- Black,flow through the Duwamish has been reduced - bilitation,protection,substitution,and restoration by some 70 percent—but the habitat objectives seek - strategies.The absence of any one strategy will prob- to rebuild a river system in balance with that fact.What ably reduce the success of the remaining strategies to that portends for viability is unknown.The portions of support the VSP objectives.Although there is greater the river that were the core of Chinook populations, - uncertainty in the rehabilitation approach,there are the Middle and Upper Green River Subwatersheds,still no credible alternatives in so altered an environment. retain important elements of habitat and landscape Page 5-14 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - that supported—and still support—the population. 5.7 RECOMMENDED POLICIES These areas will be required to bear the viability AND UPHOLD SCIENTIFIC GOALS burden in the recovered river,as well. PRIORITIES Three elements in the habitat strategies are critical to The following policies provide guidance for the imple- achieving viability: mentation of the habitat management strategies • The reconnection of the Upper Green River discussed in this chapter. In particular,these policies • Subwatershed to the rest of the watershed to address the viable salmonid population (VSP) guid- - increase abundance,productivity,and spatial ance provided by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery structure is paramount.This will provide consid- Team discussed earlier in this chapter. Key to imple- erable resiliency to the population as habitat menting this guidance is productivity of juvenile - capacity and habitat diversity increase.Cata- Chinook as a short-term(10 year)goal. The long term • strophic risks to the population should decline as (50 to 100 years)goal for the watershed is to increase the population re-establishes in the Upper Green spatial structure and diversity. River.Population diversity stands to benefit - significantly with access to the upper watershed by the current population and even more if an early life history(spring)type can be established - upriver of Howard Hanson Dam; - The rehabilitation of habitat conditions in the • Upper and Middle Green River Subwatersheds will provide refugia from normal environmental variation and assure the persistence of the popu- lation even if satellite areas lose sub-groups (these refugia will be critical during drought cycles);and • The increase in the capacity of the Duwamish estuarine transition zone will address one of the - primary issues for productivity in the lower river. Taken together,the successful attainment of these - three goals should increase significantly the . probability that Green River Chinook will achieve the viability targets set forth in this Habitat Plan. - Page 5-75 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 \v Policy MS 1: - Discussion: - The purpose of Policy MS1 is to provide guidance on where to focus initial efforts to recover Chinook in - WRIA 9. Primary Habitat Limiting Factors: - The primary habitat limiting factors responsible for the poor population viability characteristics,particularly - productivity and spatial structure,in this watershed,as reflected in high priority conservation hypotheses,are: • Transition Zone Habitat in the Duwamish River Estuary; - • Rearing Habitat in the Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Duwamish River,and Marine Nearshore; - and • Spawning Habitat in the Middle Green River and upper Lower Green River. Top Tier Watershed-Wide Priority Actions and Priority Geographic Areas: - Actions to address transition,rearing,and spawning habitat in the specific areas listed for each are the top - tier of priority actions and geographic areas (see Table 8-2 in Chapter 8 for summary of priority actions).The actions of this Plan within these areas have the highest estimated potential to improve productivity in the - short-term and spatial structure and diversity in the long-term,which are the express watershed-wide goals • of this Plan. Policy MS1 does not address the Upper Green River Subwatershed because this Plan is deferring,over the • next 10 years,to the actions being taken by Tacoma Public Utilities and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to improve habitat conditions in the Upper Green River Subwatershed and remove upstream and downstream fish barriers at the dams. The Upper Green River Subwatershed,however,is the single most significant - opportunity to recover spatial structure in WRIA 9. Over the long term,the Upper Green River may provide - an opportunity to re-establish a spring Chinook life history type. There is also,over time,a possibility of reserving the Upper Green River Subwatershed for a segregated naturally spawning Chinook population free of hatchery origin recruits. - Policy: The focus of management action implementation efforts in this habitat plan will be on the following distinct habitats that are limiting viable salmonid populations in WRIA 9: - • Duwamish Estuary transition zone habitat; - • Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Duwamish Estuary,Marine Nearshore rearing habitat;and - • Middle Green and upper Lower Green River spawning habitat. - Because of the importance of the transition zone and the negative effect on habitat recovery efforts up- stream if a severe transition zone habitat limitation does exist,40%of funding for management action - recovery efforts will be focused on the transition zone. The remaining 60%of funding for management - action recovery efforts will be split 30%for the rearing habitats and 30%for the spawning habitats as de- scribed above.This allocation of funding would apply over the first 10 year period of the Habitat Plan(i.e. annual funding allocations could vary from this distribution) and would be subject to change as part of - adaptive management. Page 5-76 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - . Policy MS2: • Discussion: - The purpose of Policy MS2 is to establish a goal for instream recovery projects.The policy is directed toward improving habitat quality in streams that feed the main stem WRIA 9 River. i - Policy: • The following"Target for Good Habitat Quality"for instream habitat conditions contained in Table 5-2 should be considered for all lowland,forested streams in WRIA 9 with a bankfull width less than-32 feet and a slope of less than 5%. At a minimum,it should be the goal to improve streams with currently poor habitat quality • to fair quality and those with fair quality to good quality for each of the instream habitat parameters listed. TABLE 5-2:Target for Good Habitat Quality Instrearn Habitat Salmonid Life- Indication of Poor Target for Fair Target For Good - Parameter Phase Influenced HabitatQuality HabitatQuality Habitat Quality %Pool Habitat Rearing <30% 30-50% >50% (Surface Area) Pool Frequency Rearing >4/Bankfull Widths 2-4/13ankfull Widths <2/Bankfull Widths - (Bankfull Width-Spacing) Large Woody Debris Frequency Rearing <1/Bankfull Widths 1-21 Bankfull Widths >21 Bankfull Widths (Bankfull Width-Spacing) %Key Large Woody Debris Rearing <20% 20-40% >40% i (Diameter<1.64 feet) Pool Cover(%) Rearing <25% 25-50% >50% Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen/ Rearing <60% 60-80% >80% - Dissolved Oxygen Interchange(%) Pebble-Count D10(inches) Spawning and Incubating <.11 inches .11-.43 inches >.43 inches - Fine Sediment(%<0.03 inches) Spawning and Incubating >20% 15-20% <15% Source:May 1996,p.199 - Page 5-17 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 u - Policies MS3 and MS4: Discussion: - The purpose of Policies MS3 and MS4 is to address the VSP objectives proposed by the Puget Sound - Technical Recovery Team.The WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment(2004),Section 7.4.6 establishes the necessary - future habitat and salmon population conditions to support a viable population of Chinook salmon.These conditions cannot be achieved without appropriate land use designations and appurtenant protective measures.Land use actions in WRIA 9 can mostly influence productivity,diversity,and spatial structure. - Strategic Assessment sections 7.4.5 and 7.4.5 (King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004) provide valuable context for Policies MS3 and MS4 and should be referred to for additional information. - MS3 Policy: Spatial structure goals shall be achieved through land use by: • Protecting functioning habitat in the Upper and Middle Green River and the Nearshore of Vashon/ Maury Island; • Assessing,designating and protecting five areas of spawning structure above Howard Hanson Dam and . ,Tacoma Headworks as Special District Overlays with appurtenant regulations to protect and restore - these areas for re-occupation by both spawning and rearing Chinook; • Attaining at least 65%of historical habitat patches for occupancy by spawning and rearing Chinook in river miles 32 to 45.1 and river miles 57.6 to 64.4 in the mainstem Green River; • Protecting the riparian zones of Soos and Newaukum Creeks as spawning and rearing areas for the mainstem Green River in case of detrimental human and natural events;and - • Protecting,restoring,and rehabilitating high and moderate quality habitat in the Upper and Middle - Green River mainstem,the Duwamish Estuary,and the marine nearshore. MS4 Policy: • Diversity and Productivity targets shall be achieved by recovering and protecting historical habitat types - and patches and some proportion of their quantity in all sub-watersheds of WRIA 9 as provided in Section - 7.4.6 of the Strategic Assessment(2004). Page 5-78 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - zt O .. O AF4 ui6 • 6.1 INTRODUCTION an estimate of high and low ranges in the dollar value of these ecosystem services in WRIA 9.As will be The ecological economics foundation for the Habitat described later,these estimates probably understate the dollar value of ecosystem services.The second Plan for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget portion of the analysis examines the link between - Sound Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 habitat conditions in WRIA 9,conservation hypoth- . [WRIA 9]) is based on the fact that improvements in eses,and the enhanced value of ecological services. habitat conditions for Chinook salmon and other Specific habitat actions,the expected improvement in salmonids also restore a large basket of associated habitat conditions,and the dollar value of associated • ecosystem services which are of significant financial value.These services include natural stormwater ecological services enhanced by the habitat actions are estimated in the second portion of the analysis. regulation,flood protection,drinking water produc- - tion,recreational opportunities,aesthetic value,waste This work was based on the conservation hypotheses • treatment,and a wide variety of other identified highly and hypothesized necessary future conditions summa- valuable ecological services.Thus,achieving the rized in Chapter 4,Scientific Foundation,and the Habitat Plan goals and objectives (Chapter 4—Section proposed actions(Chapter 7). - 4.3)both secures salmonid viability and contributes to - economic prosperity and security for present and future generations.Salmon habitat actions enhance and restore economically productive natural capital 6.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES • providing services such as flood protection at least FOR THE ECOLOGICAL cost.The alternative is to replace self-maintaining ECONOMICS ecosystems with capital-intensive infrastructure,such • as flood control or stormwater facilities funded by The guiding principles included the following: • taxpayers and which require ongoing maintenance.A . The framework and methodology for identifying healthy,efficient local economy depends on healthy and valuing ecosystem services (Daily, (Ed.)1997, ecosystems and the services they provide. and Boumans et al.2004);and - This chapter summarizes the relevant components of a • The conservation hypotheses,habitat informa- study conducted for WRIA 9 titled Ecosystem Services tion,and other socio-economic data specific to Enhanced by Salmon Habitat Conservation in the WRIA 9. • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (Asia-Pacific Environmental Exchange 2005).The approach,guiding principles,and results of this work Ecosystem Services Valuation Framework and - were reviewed,commented upon,and accepted by the Methodology Steering Committee. The framework and methodology for conducting The Seattle-based Asia-Pacific Environmental Ex- ecosystem service valuation have been widely dis- change (since re-named Earth Economics),with the cussed in the academic literature.In brief,taking the University of Vermont Gund Institute for Ecological lowest and highest dollar value range per acre for each Economics,worked with the WRIA 9 Watershed vegetation type(coniferous forest,woody wetland, - Coordination Services Team to estimate the value of etc.) established in the academic literature and multi- ecosystem goods and services produced within the plying it by the acreage provides rough low and high Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. dollar estimates for the value of ecological services The consultant team also developed and analyzed case provided by an ecosystem. - studies for two habitat restoration projects. More specifically,using Geographic Information The ecological economics analysis included two parts: System(GIS) data for WRIA 9,the acreages of forest, - an overview of ecological services and benefits within grass and shrublands,agriculture and pasturelands, WRIA 9 and an analysis of the enhancement of these wetlands,urban areas,lakes,ponds,rivers and services through restoration/rehabilitation actions. streams,and ice and rock were multiplied by the The first analysis included the identification of valu- estimated production per acre for each identified - able ecological services produced within WRIA 9 and ecosystem services.Peer reviewed journal articles were - Page 6-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 reviewed for each GIS classification and the values - F WRIA 9 associated with each of 23 ecological services.The high VALUATION • ECOSYSTEM and low values for each ecosystem type and ecological service were selected to provide the high and low range Habitat Plan actions to restore viable salmonid popu- estimates.A benefit transfer methodology was applied lations also will preserve and restore 23 categories of to the GIS data to calculate a range of dollar values of ecosystem goods and services identified in the Green/ • ecosystem services provided annually within WRIA 9. Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. This method is inexpensive.Though the range is large, Healthy ecosystems produce goods and services for indicating a lack of precision,the methodology does free and in perpetuity.They are essential to maintain- provide a broad picture of the value provided by the ing a healthy economy and livable communities within full range of ecosystems within WRIA 9.It also permits WRIA 9 Ecosystem goods and services enhanced by an examination of how habitat improvements for Habitat Plan actions include: • salmonids will reduce flood risk,produce higher water quality,and increase recreation among other services . Flood protection; - and thus contribute to the additional enhancement of economic value within WRIA 9. • Natural stormwater maintenance; - • Drinking water production and filtration; - The ecosystem valuation techniques developed within . Reduction of pathogens and pollutants; environmental and natural resource economics are • Waste absorption; widely accepted by the economics profession and in U.S.courts of law.All of the reference papers and • Storm protection; - valuation studies for the WRIA 9 study were peer • Biodiversity preservation; reviewed and published in academic journals.A • Nutrient regulation; majority of the valuation techniques used in studies - referenced in the study involve direct market pricing, Increased production offish,shellfish,timber, and replacement and avoided costs, and travel costs. Ina other food and raw materials few cases,contingent valuation figures are used. • Nursery and refugia services; • Erosion control; Conservation Hypotheses and Scientific • Biodiversity; Information • Aesthetic value (beauty);and - • Recreational opportunities for fishing,hunting, • The ecological economics analysis was based on the boating,hiking,bird watching,and educational conservation hypotheses and habitat information and scientific benefits. developed for the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan.WRIA 9 Water- - shed Coordination Services Team selected the specific The ecological economics analysis for the Habitat Plan case studies to be examined.The conservation hypoth- is the first full valuation of the benefits provided by eses and expected future conditions resulting from ecosystems within WRIA 9. implementation of specific actions formed the basis for the ecological economics analysis and were directly The ecological economics study gives a more complete drawn from the specific habitat actions proposed. picture of the results of implementing the Plan recom- mendations.People will receive many other benefits in - The Habitat Plan goals and objectives established by addition to ensuring the viability of Chinook salmon, the Steering Committee were also adopted as guiding bull trout,and other salmonids.The purpose of principles of the study(Chapter 4-Section 4.3). valuing ecosystem services is to assist decision makers in recognizing all costs and benefits associated with - alternative actions.The ecosystem infrastructure is a - capital asset,and decisions about ecosystem services impact the maintenance of ecosystem infrastructure. Without valuing ecological services,vast amounts of - benefits and the systems that produce them may be overlooked.This may result in significant losses and Page 6-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - real financial costs born by taxpayers,governments, which includes the addition of chlorine or the use of businesses,individuals,and communities over time. ozone or ultraviolet light to disinfect water supplies.) Often,economic analysis has omitted ecological goods Because upland watershed ecosystems provide water - and services,giving them an implicit value of zero.In filtration for free,these municipally-protected water- turn,this error can lead to sub-optimal,if not very sheds save local ratepayers money every time they turn costly,outcomes in terms of land use patterns,infra- on the tap. - structure expenses,private property damage,or public - safety hazards. The quality,quantity,reliability,and exact mix of goods and services provided by ecosystems within water- sheds are highly dependent on the particular structure and health of those ecosystems.This is one of the most critical issues to understand about the production of goods and services by ecosystems within watersheds. r Degraded ecosystems require initial restoration _ investments to reestablish viability and ecosystem - service production.Healthy,intact ecosystems are self- organizing and provide valuable ecological goods and services on an ongoing basis("in perpetuity")at no cost to humans.This is very different than all forms of human-produced goods and services(cars,houses, • energy,telecommunications,etc.),which have ongoing maintenance and end-of-life disposal costs.The s delivery of ecosystem goods and services depends on the maintenance of a specific arrangement of ecosys- - _ f' tem components that constitute a particular"struc- ture." For example,the steel,glass,plastic,rubber,and _ - gasoline that comprise a car must retain a very par- - ticular structure in order to provide the service of t 5 transportation.If the same car were simply a pile of -� constituent materials,it could not provide the service • �- of transportation,though all the necessary parts are 4 ..� present.Healthy ecosystems require no"assembly"to produce goods and services,cutting out the costs of human-made capital and maintenance costs.Restor- ing ecosystems does,however,require initial invest- - ments. Until the extensive development associated with The Green River,shown here at river mile 47,is popular with boaters.May European settlement,the natural capital,goods,and 2001 photo. services produced by ecosystems within WRIA 9, including wild salmon,were abundant and self- For example,New York City,confronted with declining maintaining.They were so abundant and productive, - drinking water quality,invested$1.5 billion in water- in fact,that"natural capital"was simply taken for shed restoration.While an enormous sum,this invest- granted.Wild (natural origin) salmon are more than an ment avoided the construction of a filtration plant that indicator species.Salmon are a valuable economic - had a capital cost of$6 billion-four times greater— asset in and of themselves.At one time,it was only a - plus annual maintenance costs.This analogy is fitting: shortage of boats and nets that limited the catch of New York City,Seattle,and Tacoma are among the few "unlimited"wild salmon.Today boats,nets,and cities in the U.S.that do not have to filter their munici- fishing lures are abundant and a shortage of natural - pal water because they own and/or manage their capital—wild salmon—is the limiting factor. . watersheds. (Filtration is different from treatment, - Page 6-3 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Healthy ecosystems,healthy economies,and healthy Flood protection and biodiversity are an ecological - communities are all necessary to maintain and raise service and good,respectively,that are not diminished the high quality of life that citizens within WRIA 9 by an increasing number of persons benefiting from enjoy.As ecosystems are degraded,quality of life is them. - degraded and citizens pay significant socio-economic • costs.For example,either property owners suffer Table 6-1 provides dollar estimates for the acreages of greater losses from increased flooding and other land cover within WRIA 9. damage or cities and counties must replace previously - free ecosystem services with increasingly expensive engineered solutions.Increased expenses from lost Net Present Value of Ecosystem Services in ecosystem services include increased water filtration WRIA 9 - costs,stormwater management,flood control,endan- • gered species restoration,landslide damage,and other This continuous annual flow of benefits is worth a problems resulting from a degraded environment. great deal. Economists calculate the total value of a - flow of annual benefits to people today as the net . Ecosystems are the most economically efficient present value.This is a measure in today's dollar value production systems for many critical public goods and of this year's benefits plus today's estimated dollar services.For example,healthy riparian areas filter value of the future"discounted"benefits.This calcula- . drinking water,move the vast majority of stormwater, tion of net present value is widely used both business - recharge aquifers,and replenish surface waters at no and government. Future benefits are"discounted"to cost. Replacing these services with engineered solu- reflect the view that most people value a dollar that will tions requires costly capital projects such as levees, be received a year from now as worth less than one - stormwater systems,and water filtration facilities. received today(because today's dollar can either be spent now'—providing immediate satisfaction—or saved,earning interest).Using the U.S.Army Corps of - Dollar Value Of WRIA 9 Engineers standard 3.5%discount rate,the net present - Ecosystem Goods and Services value of WRIA 9 ecosystems is worth$48-180 billion. Improving the health of WRIA 9 ecosystems would The ecological economics study shows that WRIA 9 increase this value and reduce public and private - ecosystems produce$1.7-6.3 billion of value in goods expenditures necessary to replace degraded ecosystem - and services every year for individuals,businesses,and services. governments within WRIA 9.These values are underes- timates because not all services have been valued. - Value Produced Over a 100 Year Period If ecological goods and services were like other goods and services (food,housing,transportation),each of Unlike human-produced capital investments,healthy - the 630,000 persons in WRIA 9 (2004 estimate)would ecosystems do not depreciate or require maintenance receive on average ecological goods and services worth costs.Once healthy,they are self-maintaining.Thus,a $2,700-10,000 every year. However,the average value restored watershed provides filtered water indefinitely - per person in WRIA 9 is in fact much larger because for future generations,whereas a filtration plant - many ecological services are"non-consumable." requires capital expenditures,maintenance,and Averaging value assumes that the value each person eventually depreciates requiring further capital expen- receives is like a piece of a pie—if one person eats the ditures.This difference in the nature of human- - piece of pie,no one else can eat it.Some ecosystem produced versus natural capital justifies treating the goods and services are not consumed,however. economic benefits of ecosystem restoration differently Although the estimate of aesthetic value may be based than traditional capital expenditures.Using a zero - on how much people actually pay for view property,in discount rate(rather than a 3.5%discount rate) over - fact there is far more aesthetic value provided than the 100 years offers another view on value:the value to sum of differential view property prices paid,divided people today of today's flow of benefits and the value by the population.One person viewing the Green River to someone in the future of that future flow of benefits. - from a public area and gaining aesthetic benefits does With a zero discount rate over 100 years,the value of - not preclude anyone else from enjoying the same view. WRIA 9 ecosystem services is$171-637 billion.A zero Page 6-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - - TABLE 6-1.WRIA 9 Total Ecosystem Goods and Service Value Estimates($per year) kosystem Category Low Value High Value . Forest $1,295,829,783 $4,775,863,101 • Grasslands and Shrub Lands 322,366,481 1,237,833,147 Agriculture and Pasture 6,405,977 23,135,736 - Urban 7,208,896 38,084,051 • Lakes,Rivers,Ponds and Reservoirs 4,200,049 26,156,494 Wetland 25,367,121 89,705,403 Coastal 5,472,559 29,444,372 . Rock 24,599,206 84,280,699 Total Values $1,691,450,072 $6,304,503,003 • discount rate assumes that the value of a glass of clean water to a person today is equal to the value of a glass of clean water to a person a year from now or to . another person in 100 years. Ideally, far more than 100 years of benefits will be garnered and thus this value still represents only a small slice of the potential value • that healthy WRIA 9 ecosystems can produce for future - generations. - Value in the Short Run and the Long Run In the short run, ecosystems provide critical and highly _ - - valuable services.In the long run,they are even more - valuable. Human-built capital,such as a car,requires ALI maintenance and depreciates over time.After provid- Clean wateris critical for human enjoymentof the marine nearshore, - ing valuable service a car becomes garbage or recy- shown hereatRedondo Beach in Des Moines.July 2003 photo. • cling.The great-grandchildren of current generations will likely obtain little use from the cars now being driven. However,they will unquestionably benefit from - the drinking water,flood protection,salmon,and - recreation provided by healthy ecosystems. Ecosystem services are rising in value (increasing in scarcity and economic importance) relative to built capital. Pre- served and restored ecosystems are self-maintaining - and produce value into perpetuity. - Page 6-5 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Difficulties In Dollar Valuation And Service - Identification Value Ranges are Underestimates Although easily identified as valuable,many ecological The dollar estimates of the value produced by natural • services are difficult to value in dollars.For example, systems are inherently underestimates.Not all benefits dollar values can be established for water filtration identifiable are valued or fully valued,as explained services provided by a forest,whereas it is very difficult above.In some cases,there are few valuation studies to fully capture the dollar value of aesthetic pleasure for particular goods or services and some are outdated. - that humans gain from looking at the forest,nor every In recent decades,the values of ecosystem services aspect of the forest's role in supporting the intricate have risen faster than inflation.In addition,these are web of life.Part of aesthetic value can be captured by renewable goods and services where most of the value - measuring the difference in property values where is held in the future.For these reasons,the high and - people have"view"property or live next to healthy low estimates in value are underestimates of the true ecosystems compared to properties that do not range in value of ecosystem services. Ecological service provide these aesthetic benefits.In this case,stream- valuations are not intended to capture all value but - side property owners pay a measurable premium price rather to serve as markers somewhere below the for aesthetic value.However,many others benefit from minimum value of the true social,ecological,and this aesthetic amenity without having to pay for it and economic value of an ecological service. - thereby provide a transaction that can be measured. Similarly,the cultural value of salmon—especially for Indian people—obviously exists and is significant. Return on Investments in Salmon Habitat However,a dollar valuation of non-market"cultural Protection and Restoration - value"is difficult to estimate.Finally,many valuable ecological services may not be identified yet.For This analysis demonstrates the tremendous value that example,the full importance of the stratospheric accrues to people in WRIA 9 from existing ecosystem - ozone layer was not known until the 1970s,while goods and services.The money spent to protect and chemicals that harmed it had been produced since the restore salmonid habitat is an investment that pays 1930s.There may yet be significant ecological benefits many financial dividends.Dollars spent for salmon from healthy WRIA 9 ecosystems that are unidentified. restoration also buy benefits in flood protection, • stormwater management,recreation,and other services with clear dollar values.This information can improve the economic efficiency of the conventional - economy. WRIA 9 ecosystems have always provided vast - amounts of value at zero or low cost.This changed - once these ecosystems began to be degraded and it became necessary to replace some of these ecosystem services with human built infrastructure.This value, • though previously unaccounted for,lays a foundation - for a healthy economy within WRIA 9.Without clean water,air,flood protection,natural stormwater main- tenance,etc.,the conventional economy could not - function as efficiently.Investing in the restoration of Healthy watershed ecosyste ms incur less this natural capital improves the economic efficiency damaging flooding.February 1996 photo. of the conventional economy.Individuals and busi- nesses will spend less on taxes,utility fees,or damage - repair if healthy ecosystems within WRIA 9 can provide significant services for free.This perspective may result in the determination that ecosystem maintenance is in - fact a"least cost"approach to providing many crucial - services,such as flood protection.Ecosystem restora- tion avoids significant infrastructure capital and Page 6-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August Z005 - • operations and maintenance costs and provides quantity and quality of watershed ecosystems. benefits through self-maintaining ecosystems.Salmon Investments in ecosystems are often superior to habitat restoration is a least cost investment that traditional capital investment because they - meets several objectives: provide a higher rate of return,do not depreciate, and the returns involve far less uncertainty. • Achieves the requirements of the Endangered Investments in ecosystem health yield large • Species Act by restoring viable salmonid popula- benefits in the near and distant future. • tions.Doing so should reduce the likelihood of federal regulations and provide certainty to It was beyond the scope of the study to demonstrate businesses,local governments,and individual the full dollar value of all ecosystem services associ- - citizens.This greater certainty will improve the ated strictly with salmon restoration actions.However, • environment for private and public investment. it is clear that supporting salmonids will increase the (The extent to which the Puget Sound Salmon annual value of ecosystem goods and services pro- Recovery Plan will meet the requirements of the duced within the watershed and could significantly • Endangered Species Act is yet to be determined. reduce other infrastructure costs.Failure to protect NOAA Fisheries will make this determination and and restore salmonid habitat would incur significant may decide whether to provide assurances that ecosystem service losses and require larger invest- Habitat Plan partners will be protected from third- ments to meet endangered species requirements - party lawsuits.See Chapter 8 for further discus- should additional salmonids be listed under the sion on assurances.); Endangered Species Act. • Maintains the value of the existing stream of goods and services that flow from the land and Further ecological economic analysis to examine the water ecosystems of the watershed in their present benefits and avoided costs associated with salmonid condition. From this perspective,the costs of habitat improvements would be helpful. protecting and restoring ecosystems are similar to - the regularly-scheduled maintenance and peri- odic repair of an automobile.Prudent owners 6.4 ANALYSIS OF HABITAT undertake these costs (which are avoidable in the PLAN ACTIONS:TWO CASE STUDIES short term) to maintain the long-term reliability • and use of their vehicle and avoid catastrophic Two case studies were examined based on the conser- and expensive failures(e.g.,engine failure due to vation hypotheses and specific habitat protection/ lack of regular oil changes).While illuminating, restoration/rehabilitation projects recommended. • however,this analogy nonetheless understates the Depending on the action,some subset of associated - value of ecosystem goods and services over time. ecological services would be affected by these salmo- Unlike an automobile,which almost always nid habitat recovery actions. depreciates even with regular care,maintenance - of current ecosystem health would result in an The WRIA 9 conservation hypotheses identify the - increase in value over time as the human popula- habitat conditions that are important or critical for tion of the watershed increases,driving up de- salmon recovery based on best available science.To mand for the same basket of goods and services; establish the ecosystem services enhanced by specific • Avoids the necessity of further replacements of projects,two habitat projects were examined with - human capital for natural capital (e.g.,the con- respect to each of the 23 identified ecological services. struction and operation of flood prevention Each measure associated with a project will enhance, levees,stormwater management systems,etc.to reduce,or have no effect on each ecological service. • replace natural"water management systems"of For example,one measure identified in the North - mature forests,highly porous soils,wetlands, Wind's Weir project (see below) is increasing vegetated streams,and rivers).Ecosystem maintenance can shallow water and marsh habitats and intertidal zone thus be viewed as a least cost means of obtaining a access.This specific habitat measure improves 15 . vital set of economic goods and services within ecological services including water filtration,waste - WRIA 9;and treatment,and refugium services.Minimizing impervi- • Enhances the value of the ecosystem goods and ous surfaces improves six identified ecological ser- services by creating net improvements in the vices.With the latest science as a basis and providing - Page 6-7 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 information on the area and habitat type changes Fresh water flowing into the Duwamish Estuary has - expected,economic methods can be used to estimate been reduced by 70%owing to the diversion of the the change in economic value.The valuation of White and Cedar/Black Rivers.With reduced fresh ecological services enhanced was further comple- water flow and channel dredging,salt water has . mented with other economic analyses including intruded,effectively pushing the transition zone examining potential loss of investments and other upstream from its historical location.The establish- methods. ment of heavy industrial uses in the transition zone - has replaced riverine-tidal,estuarine,and palustrine • wetlands with impervious surfaces.The original Case Study 1:North Wind's Weir Shallow Water stream edge has been replaced by levees,revetments, Habitat Rehabilitation Analysis and other armoring,turning slow-moving edge habitat - into unrestrained downstream flows.In addition,the - Duwamish estuary riparian vegetation is of low habitat quality and has been mostly replaced by non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry.With these - changes,transition zone habitat has been degraded and confined.Spatial structure,residence time,and the habitat available for refugia and rearing functions - in the Duwamish estuary have therefore been reduced . and constrained(WRIA 9 and King County Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Parks 2004).High densities of fish have been observed utilizing what is . left of this specific habitat. - North Wind's Weir,looking downstream atlowtide.Projectsite is toright. Current conditions in the transition zone suggest it is a - Iuly2000photo. critical threshold point.Overall increases in salmonid . survival rates in the watershed are dependent on the In coastal river systems,the confluence between fresh availability of sufficient transition zone habitat to water flowing downstream and salt water pushed accommodate fish while they adjust from fresh to salt - inland by the tides creates an estuarine transition water.Under the present conditions of greatly reduced zone.Transition zone wetlands and off-channel areas transition habitat,the benefits of increased salmon are a critical ecosystem in the life history of salmonids, productivity upstream may be lost in the transition especially Chinook salmon.Transition zone habitat is zone.Viewed alternatively,improvements in the - where juvenile salmonids adapt from fresh to salt quality and quantity of transition zone habitat will water. ensure that investments in spawning and rearing habitat upstream(and rearing habitat in the marine - Sufficient habitat space,shelter,and food must be nearshore) are realized in terms of improvements to available in the transition zone for salmon to linger, the viable salmonid population parameters of abun- osmoregulate(physically change to adapt to salt dance,productivity,diversity,and spatial structure. water),and grow to survive for salt water conditions. - Due to habitat improvements upstream,increasing The Shallow Water Habitat Creation at North Wind's numbers of juvenile salmon may survive the fresh Weir at River Mile 6.3 (Chapter 7-Section 7.4,Project water journey downstream only to find inadequate Duw-10),located in the Duwamish estuary transition - habitat in the transition zone. zone,is one project that will address the need to expand transitional zone habitat.By excavating In the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed,the transition shallow water habitat on two acres and adding emer- zone has been significantly altered for human use, gent and upland native vegetation,the project will • leading to considerable losses in critical transition increase off channel wetlands and sloughs and in- zone salmon habitat. (See Chapter 4,Scientific Foun- stream shallow and slow water habitat in the transition dation,for additional description of current Duwamish zone.This restoration will enhance the quantity and transition zone habitat and the factors that have quality of habitat in the transition zone,ameliorating - decreased,degraded,and shifted its location.Figure 4- some problems described above.The expected com- 1 shows the location of the known transition zone.) Page 6-8 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - - bined acquisition and construction costs for this conditions identified in the Habitat Plan.Given a project total$3.8 million. constrained budget and the scientific knowledge • of habitat functions,current constraints,and - Though economic methods are based on marginal desired future conditions,where should scarce analyses and not well suited for measuring a threshold public dollars be allocated to create the greatest for extinction,four different approaches to valuing the benefit for salmonid restoration? This approach - expansion of transition zone habitat were applied and also assumes that relieving the most constraining • are summarized below.These analyses justify signifi- limiting habitat factors on salmonid populations cant expenditures on actions to reclaim transition will provide the highest initial returns.Assuming zone habitat: for analytical purposes a budget of$100 million - over the next decade for salmon restoration in • Expenditures for salmon protection and restora- WRIA 9,an expenditure of over$19 million for the tion within WRIA 9 to date are in the tens of recovery of the first two acres of transition zone - millions of dollars.Total expenditures over the would be justified.This is far higher than the - next 10 years could be$272-389 million if all actual cost of the project. It also indicates that the projects were implemented (the cost of the restoration/rehabilitation of at least several highest priority projects is expected to be$198 to additional acres is justified. (The North Wind's - $291 million).The value of these investments Weir project is one of several projects to improve could be lost or markedly diminished without transition zone habitat; an additional 30 acres of securing sufficient transition zone habitat for the transition zone habitat creation is proposed - increased numbers of juvenile salmonids pro- [projects Duw-7 and Duw-11].) This analysis • duced upstream; needs further refinement but holds promise as a • • Scientific analysis suggests that continued salmo- tool to assist decision making.As noted in Chap- nid declines are likely without improvements to ter 5—Section 5.7,improvements to transition transition zone habitat to boost productivity.As a zone habitat are given greater emphasis (40%of • result,if increased transition zone habitat is not overall funding over the first 10 years of the Plan) • created now,the federal government may require than improvements to rearing(30%) and spawn- the creation of transition zone habitat at a future ing(30%) habitats. date as it responds to the Endangered Species Act. - If salmonid populations decline further in the Overall,these four analyses underestimate the value of meantime,it may require a larger restoration of salmon habitat restoration associated with the North transition zone habitat to restore viable salmonid Wind's Weir project because the transition zone is - populations; critical natural capital,improvements here are un- • Ecosystem services also would be enhanced with avoidable in achieving viable salmonid populations, - increased transition zone habitat.The valuation of and the lack of transition zone habitat is placing a subset of ecosystem service values produced by natural origin estuarine-dependent salmonids such as the North Wind's Weir project provides a net Chinook in threat of extinction.Natural origin Chinook present value for the project of$384,000 to$1.4 face a state of crisis in ecological terms.Values under - crisis conditions rise rapidly.This subtlety is not million (using a 3.5°lo discount rate).A zero discount rate(giving equal value to the goods and captured in traditional economic analysis,which is • based on marginal changes and marginal values. service benefits enjoyed by future generations) provides values of$1.35-23.72 million in net value Meeting the goals of this Plan should protect and for the project,depending on the time horizon restore enough of the critical natural capital in each critical habitat type to eliminate this state of crisis. considered.This partial analysis does not account - for the value of securing a viable Chinook popula- tion,which has both intrinsic benefits (having the fish) as well as benefits in terms of legal certainty; and . • The fourth economic methodology applied to the • North Wind's Weir project was experimental and is based on assumptions about allocating a limited budget to produce the desired future - Page 6-9 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Case Study 2:Armoring in the Marine stretch of Puget Sound shoreline has also been heavily - Nearshore Analysis impacted by filling,bulkheads, riprap,vegetation clearing,and other modifications. The marine nearshore is critical to salmonids.It - provides habitat for juvenile salmon as they leave the Several programmatic and project actions in Chapter 7 Green/Duwamish River and enter the oceanic phase of would contribute to the removal of shoreline armoring. their lives.Nearshore ecosystems where terrestrial and These actions would have two primary effects: - aquatic ecosystems meet(to a depth where light penetrates) are tremendously productive.In general, • Restoration of erosion and sedimentation pro- they are the most biologically productive ecosystems cesses that create habitat;and (in terms of annual biomass production) on a per acre . Restoration of estuarine floodplains,salt marshes, . basis in the world.They provide food and materials, mudflats,deltas,spits,and brackish side channels. oxygen,waste treatment,storm protection,recreation, high aesthetic and recreation value,and many other Table 6-2 shows the ecosystem services enhanced by services.Globally,coastal ecosystems were estimated the restoration of sediment processes and creation of - to provide over$12.5 trillion in benefits in 1997 floodplains,marshes,flats,estuaries and deltas,spits, (Costanza et.al. 1997). and side channels.The double star indicates a great Despite the great amount of value identified,there are increase in value. still a large number of benefits the nearshore provides To provide an example of the interaction between the that are clearly valuable but have not yet been valued. disruption of coastal processes and critical salmon Thus,any benefit transfer valuation of nearshore habitat,a regression model was run examining the - ecosystem services is necessarily significantly below quantity of submerged aquatic vegetation and shore- the true value.Peer-reviewed valuation studies repre- line disturbance due to boat access and shoreline senting 25 ecosystem services associated with particu- armoring. (Regression models are statistical tools that lar land forms and habitats in the nearshore have been measure the change in one variable with changes in - conducted.However,there are over 150 other identi- other variables.) An initial and partial estimate of the fied ecosystem service/habitat/landform associations total value of ecosystem services provided by sub- for which no valuation studies exist.The value of merged aquatic vegetation alone shows that armoring, - ecosystem services produced in the nearshore is high docks,and boat launches have contributed to the loss and consequently any benefit transfer valuation of of$44 million annually in Puget Sound.The marine nearshore ecosystem services is necessarily signifi- nearshore of WRIA 9 is one of the most heavily ar- cantly below the true value. mored and developed areas along Puget Sound and - Another critical factor in this analysis is the lack of accounts for a large portion of Puget Sound-widelosses.Removal of armoring also supports two salmon understanding of the dynamic oceanographic and conservation hypotheses that would increase the biological processes that relate structure,function, quantity and value of ecological services provided. process,and value in the nearshore. Depending on the site,oceanographic effects on WRIA 9 conservation hypotheses in the nearshore,as sediment transport,submerged aquatic vegetation, and other dynamics,these salmon restoration actions - throughout WRIA 9,support the strengthening of in the nearshore would likely produce high economic healthy ecosystem processes and resulting habitat benefits. features.This produces a corresponding rise in the - value of enhanced ecosystem goods and services.With This analysis gives an idea of the value of a relatively these considerations,the ecological economics study small subset of ecological services in the nearshore,yet - authors identified ecosystem services of two conserva- many landscape and ecosystem services have not been tion hypotheses associated with the restoration of the considered and are not included in this analysis. - nearshore environment. Because barriers such as riprap,bulkheads and fill disrupt or change natural wave action and sediment WRIA 9 has a diverse range of marine nearshore transport,they have an influence far beyond the landscape and habitat features:from mud flats to immediate area affected. Eelgrass beds naturally shift bluffs to beaches and from grass to kelp and other as sediments shift. However,if sediment supply is cut - submerged aquatic vegetation.On the other hand,this pp y Page 6-10 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - i - TABLE 6-2:Ecosystem Services Enhanced By Habitat Restoration Measures in the Nearshore Creation of estuarine floodplains, salt marshes,mudflats,deltas,spits, Ecosystem Service Enhanced Restore Sediment Processes and braddsh fide channels Gas regulation - Disturbance prevention - Nutrient regulation Waste treatment Refugium function ** ** Nurseryfunction ** ** • Food * * - Ornamental resources Aesthetic ** ** Recreation ** ** Cultural and artistic information - Spiritual and historic information - Science and education • Increase in Value Great Increase in Value off(e.g.,by a bulkhead) or severely disrupted in - movement by a barrier(e.g.,a jetty),there may be great - cumulative effects and the losses of ecosystem ser- vices.Alternatively,the benefits from restoration may be several magnitudes larger than estimated within a - static analysis. To fully understand the value of these ecosystem - services requires a dynamic analysis beyond the scope - - of this analysis.This would provide a much clearer _ understanding of the full ecosystem service effects of - disrupting coastal processes and restoring them. - WRM 9 includes 90 miles of marine shoreline,shown here off Normandy Park.May2003 photo. - Page 6-11 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • other capital replacing natural processes should be6.5 NECESSARY FUTURE - SALMONPOPULATION • • reduced with greater ecosystem restoration and health. • • Because many ecological services are produced at the AND watershed level,WRIA 9 is the right scale for managingWITHIN WRIA 9 - these watershed-related services. - The hypothesized necessary future conditions for - viable salmonid populations (Chapter 4—Section 4.5) can enhance economic efficiency within WRIA 9.The 6.6 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION WRIA 9 ecological economics analysis demonstrates - the vast amount of value provided by the WRIA 9 The implementation of WRIA 9 Habitat Plan policies - watershed to its citizens ($1.7-6.3 billion annually with and actions will enhance and increase the value of a net present value of$48-180 billion).Salmonid ecosystem goods and services provided in the water- habitat restoration also protects and enhances a full shed.The most significant goods and services are flood basket of 23 valuable ecosystem services. protection,natural stormwater management,drinking water production and filtration,reduction of patho- - The provision of watershed-related services including - stormwater management,public drinking water,flood gens and pollutants,waste absorption,storm protec- protection,recreation,and other benefits,or the tion,biodiversity preservation,nutrient regulation, - replacement of these watershed services with built increased production of fish,shellfish,and other food - infrastructure has been split among a variety of general and raw materials,erosion control,aesthetic value, and special-purpose governments.This diffusion of and recreational fishing,hunting,boating,hiking,bird costs has hidden the true impact of the degradation of watching,and educational and scientific benefits. - ecosystem goods and services.Greater cooperation WRIA g investments in ecosystem protection and between these governments across WRIA 9 could both restoration(natural capital)will enhance a great further enhance salmonid recovery and reduce the number of highly valuable goods and services.These costs of flood damage,stormwater management,and ecosystem services are rising in value(increasing in other services.This would increase the overall eco- scarcity and economic importance) relative to built nomic efficiency of providing watershed-related capital.Preserved and restored ecosystems are self- - services. maintaining and produce value into perpetuity. WRIA 9 presently provides a formal venue for coopera- The alternative to habitat protection/restoration is tion between King County, 15 cities,and Tacoma further degradation of natural capital in WRIA 9. Public Utilities and it provides an informal opportunity Watershed citizens will then have to choose between - for exchange of information and coordination with a one of two options: larger group of entities including the King Conserva- tion District, Port of Seattle, Boeing,and citizen . Replacing lost ecosystem services with engineered restoration groups.As this coordination is strength- solutions (e.g.,flood control facilities,increased ened and efficiencies identified,its members can stormwater infrastructure)that require large reduce the overall cost burden of salmon habitat capital investments and maintenance;or protection and restoration and watershed ecosystem maintenance.Each of the Habitat Plan goals,objec- Forgoing the lost services and suffering an in- - tives,policies,and actions are associated with the creasing risk of damage (e.g.,from flooding), health of the watershed.The health of the watershed which requires reconstruction costs and higher also influences potential costs or benefits in other insurance costs. - areas where local governments,businesses,and other - institutions experience either costs or benefits.If the A partial estimate of the value of ecosystem goods and watershed continues to be degraded,citizens,busi- services within WRIA 9 is$1.7-6.3 billion annually with nesses,and governments must either pay more to a net present value of$48-180 billion over 100 years at - replace lost ecosystem services,or suffer economic a 3.5%discount rate.The$1.7-6.3 billion figure yields damage from greater flood damage or stormwater annual benefits per capita of$2,700-10,000.However, pollution.The costs to various governments to build this figure captures only the value to today's genera- - levees,water filtration plants,stormwater systems,and tions.People living in 2100 will value clean water - Page 6-12 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - - produced in 2100 much more highly than today's Removal of armoring in the marine nearshore will people value clean water in 2100 because today's increase the quantity,quality,and total value of habitat people probably will not be alive in 100 years.Using no in the nearshore ecosystem.Valuation studies for some - discount rate,the value is$171-637 billion over 100 ecosystem service/habitat/landform associations for years.The value to future generations beyond 100 years the nearshore exist,but over 160 nearshore systems in the future is far greater. identified as valuable are lacking peer-reviewed • valuation studies. Despite this,the value of ecosystem • As markers of social capital,the population,educa- services produced per acre in the nearshore is believed tional level,employment levels and distribution of to be among the highest of any ecosystem type. labor between sectors were examined.The WRIA 9 Habitat Plan measures related to removal of armoring - planning process and initial protection/restoration were examined and the ecosystem services enhanced • projects have brought governments,communities and identified.Some land cover types produce over individuals together,strengthening this social capital. $140,000/year/hectare considering two categories of ecological services.A regression analysis of armoring, - Markers of built capital examined include roads, boat launches,and docks in relation to submerged buildings,industries and businesses,and other prop- aquatic vegetation shows that one foot of armoring erty.The total value of taxed property within WRIA 9 is reduces submerged aquatic vegetation coverage/ - $71.5 billion.Of this,$43.9 billion consists of improve- hectare by.003 percent,based on Puget Sound coastal - ments on property(built capital) and$27.6 billion of Geographic Information System data.Submerged land value(social and natural capital).It has taken aquatic vegetation is valued at producing$46,950/acre about 150 years to accumulate the$43.9 billion of taxed (1997 dollars).Consequently,armoring results in losses - built capital stock in WRIA 9. of$29.75/foot,which means a loss of over$43.9 million annually across Puget Sound from the loss of The costs of restoration and benefits of habitat im- submerged aquatic vegetation ecosystem services • provements are not necessarily born equally by every- alone.The costs of armoring for perhaps one hundred • one within the watershed. Equity issues are increas- other services/habitat/landform associations are as yet ingly important considerations in salmon protection unmeasured. and restoration.While an analysis of equity issues was • beyond the scope of the ecological economics study, The bottom line is that the greatest socio-economic decision makers are encouraged to consider patterns of implication of salmon habitat recovery is securing costs and benefits as the recommendations of the healthy ecosystems,which provide vast public and - Habitat Plan are implemented. private benefits.Understanding the value that flows to - the people of the watershed from healthy ecosystems The Shallow Water Habitat Creation at North Wind's provides important context for making decisions about Weir at River Mile 6.3 project was evaluated with four where and when to make investments in salmon - methodologies and found to be economically justified habitat and how to share those costs.This analysis . based on the protection of current and future invest- shows that making expenditures on habitat in areas ments;the risk of future Endangered Species Act where costs are high are justified in terms of the high requirements for transition zone acquisition;the value of ecosystem goods and services produced in - (underestimated)value of ecosystem services provided areas where those services are scarce (e.g.,the by the North Wind's Weir project($384,000 to$23.7 Duwamish Estuary transition habitat). Implementa- million,depending on the discount rate and time tion of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan will enhance the • horizon);and the analysis of expenditure priorities economy and quality of life for citizens in WRIA 9 by - based on a limited budget ($19 million in expenditures enhancing natural capital and the stream of ecosystem on the transition zone were justified).The Duwamish goods and services generated by that capital.All three transition zone meets the criterion of critical ecological forms of capital—natural capital,human-built - capital in crisis.No current marginal valuation meth- capital,and social capital—must be healthy to - odology alone can gauge the value of critical natural maintain a healthy economy and high quality of life. capital at a threshold of nearly total loss.A policy objective throughout WRIA 9 should be to keep all - ecosystems healthy enough to remain outside crisis status. - Page 6-13 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 CHAPTER 7.0 Proposed Actions and Policies to Achieve a Viable Salmonid Population J Y Mks 1� 8 - A hallmark of the Water Resource Inventory Area 9 - 7.1 INTRODUCTION (WRIA 9) habitat planning process is that it has estab- The actions and policies presented in this chapter lished and adopted two project evaluation screens- define what it will take to begin to restore Chinook one for science and one for feasibility—that can be used to evaluate future projects.This is an important - salmon and ecosystem health in the Green/Duwamish consideration in implementation of the Habitat Plan. - and Central Puget Sound Watershed(WRIA 9) and to The actions in this chapter passed through one or both begin to meet the population targets recommended in of these screens as part of the development of this Chapter 4,Scientific Foundation. Plan.As knowledge of the watershed and salmon Actions in this chapter include both programs and recovery science increases and as funding priorities projects. Projects are on-the-ground efforts to protect, change,the Plan must be flexible enough to consider • restore,rehabilitate,or substitute habitat or the new actions and reconsider previously evaluated processes that create habitat. Projects can be divided actions.Establishing the criteria and methodology for into two types: evaluating the ecological benefit and feasibility of - proposed projects is therefore an essential tool for Plan • Protection efforts that rely on acquisition,incen- implementation and adaptive management. tives,stewardship,or other tools to preserve the - existing habitat value;and - • Restoration,rehabilitation,or substitution efforts METHODOLOGY • that seek to improve the habitat value of degraded SELECTING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS habitat.These may involve earthmoving both in - and out of the channel,removal of noxious weeds, • planting of native vegetation,and placement of Technical/Scientific Evaluation of Projects large woody debris. In November 2004,the WRIA 9 Steering Committee - This chapter also includes policies specific to each directed Watershed Coordination Services staff to - subwatershed that provide support for the actions and establish a Science Panel that would develop a process guidance for the development of future projects. and review proposed projects for technical merit. (The (Watershed-wide policies are listed in Chapter 3.) detailed results of the Science Panel evaluations are Chapters 4 and 5 described the scientific"logic train" contained in Prioritization of Potential WRIA 9 Habitat Projects (Anchor Environmental and Grette Associates (Figure 4-3) for development of projects and programs 2005a and 2005b)). Previously,draft habitat projects - presented in the following pages.The habitat manage- were developed by ad hoc committees,with each - merit strategies described in Chapter 5,in particular, focusing on one of the WRIA 9 subwatersheds:Upper provide the connection between the viable salmonid Green River,Middle Green River, Lower Green River, population (VSP) objectives,conservation hypotheses, Duwamish Estuary,and Marine Nearshore. The - and the projects recommended in this chapter.The Science Panel charter included an open invitation to Ecological Synthesis Approach,also described in all members of the WRIA 9 Technical Committee,as Chapter 4 (Section 4.5),is the basis for that"logic well as technical staff from local governments. - train." - The first priority of the Science Panel was to develop This Habitat Plan acknowledges the need to increase and refine a suite of criteria that captured key technical the certainty that the recommended actions in this considerations that would distinguish among habitat chapter will be effective.Monitoring and adaptive - management(described in Chapter 9) are key tools for Projects and identify high priority projects that were, - on a technical basis,expected to make the greatest increasing certainty and constitute the testing of contribution to salmon conservation. A starting point - understanding required under the Ecological Synthesis for developing these criteria was to consider the same - approach.Another key component to achieving criteria developed and used by the WRIA 9 Technical certainty is the ability to refine recommended actions Committee for prioritizing the Strategic Assessment and consider new projects and programs as political, conservation hypotheses. Through an iterative process - ecological,and funding conditions change. of applying the criteria to sample projects and refining - Page 7-1 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 the criteria,approximately 200 potential habitat mately to the adoption of Policy MS (Chapter 5- - projects were prioritized within the WRIA 9 Section 5.7)by the Steering Committee to address subwatersheds. watershed-wide priorities. As ranking of each individual project proceeded,it Because of the much lower predictability of habitat became apparent that there were several types of results associated with programs (as opposed to projects included in the WRIA 9 broad definition of projects),the technical screen described above was not - "habitat projects"that were uncertain in outcome; applied to programs. - therefore,ranking them would be equally uncertain. Consequently,these were not rated by the Science Panel. Other types of projects,such as habitat protec- Feasibility and Effectiveness Evaluation of - tion,and in particular land acquisitions that did not Projects and Programs have any associated restoration activity(i.e.those proposed for protection only),presented a different In addition to the Science Panel project evaluations, . problem,but were likewise not amenable to rating the WRIA 9 Steering Committee authorized Watershed within the project criteria. Land protection needed to Coordination Services staff to evaluate projects and be evaluated on what would be lost if not protected programs for their political and socioeconomic feasi- - rather than what would be gained if restored. Accord- bility.This evaluation served as a secondary screen - ingly,an alternative approach was developed based on focused on community values and a"reality check"for characteristics of the individual parcels proposed for those actions that may be scientifically sound but protection. Of the various tools available for habitat impractical or unwise from a political,social,or protection,acquisition of the habitat is both com- economic perspective.Applying this screen to poten- - monly used and has a high level of predictability of tial projects and programs would help: results (i.e.placing the land in public ownership will • Prioritize the most feasible/effective projects and preclude development or other actions that would programs; harm habitat). Consequently,the Science Panel . Identify those actions that have problems and assumed the use of this tool for protection projects. (It correct those problems;and is likely that protection of high value habitats will be carried out using a mix of acquisition,conservation Identify actions that are fatally flawed. - easements,tax incentives,transfer of development rights,education,and other innovative approaches In November and December 2004,the Steering Com- that meet the needs of landowners and stretch scarce mittee approved a set of 11 feasibility and effectiveness - public dollars.) One evaluation approach was devel- criteria.The feasibility and effectiveness screening oped for marine nearshore acquisitions and one was criteria fell into three broad categories: developed for fresh water riverine acquisitions. 1) Determining Serious Flaws; Finally,as the process of rating and ranking individual 2) Prioritizing Projects/Programs;and - projects on a subwatershed-by-subwatershed basis 3) Other proceeded,it became clear that the rankings were most appropriately reviewed in the context of the A complete description of the feasibility and effective- subwatersheds and not across the entire WRIA 9 ness criteria is found in Appendix H. watershed. However,recognizing this limitation did In January and June 2005,in accordance with the not lessen the need for a way to inform decisions about priorities among subwatersheds.After consider- direction of the Steering Committee,Watershed able discussion,the Science Panel developed a contin- Coordination Services staff reviewed draft projects and programs using these criteria.The approach used by gency approach based on alternative models of - p Watershed Coordination Services staff was similar to population structure and based on the consideration - of habitat limiting factors.' This approach led ulti- that used by the WRIA 9 Technical Committee to 1.This is described in more detail in the watershed-wide guidance section and Table 10 in:Prioritization of Potential WRIA 9 Habitat - Projects (Anchor Environmental and Grette Associates 2005a)and in Prioritizing Potential WRIA 9 Watershed-Wide HabitatActions: Identification of Limiting Habitat and Recommendations Regarding their Priority(Anchor Environmental 2005). Page 7-2 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - - prioritize conservation hypotheses and by the Science Panel to prioritize on-the-ground,non-programmatic projects.Unlike the Science Panel evaluations,the feasibility and effectiveness evaluations did not result There are a variety of programs that can occur across - the watershed that would contribute to the recovery of in a numerical ranking.Instead,the goal was to determine whether a project would be included in the ecosystem health.The 17 WRIA-wide actions listed - project list for the Habitat Plan. here are programmatic in nature and range from public education and stewardship to incentives to Each project or program was screened individually regulations and regulatory enforcement. without consideration of combined or cumulative impacts.Generally,if a project or program had serious These programs are intended to complement the on- flaws it was eliminated from inclusion in the Plan.This the-ground habitat restoration and protection typically required at least two negative responses to Projects.Many programs will both improve habitat criteria within the serious flaws category.However,a conditions and increase awareness,understanding, professional judgment was ultimately arrived at for and support for a healthier watershed. each project or program,and in some cases a project with two or more serious flaws may still have been Because of their similarities,the first nine program- - included in the Plan because of its overall importance program- matic actions are education/stewardship programs to the watershed and an assumption that the serious that were evaluated as a group using the feasibility and flaws could be reduced or overcome.The prioritizing effectiveness criteria discussed previously. projects/program category allowed for an evaluation of • timing and cost considerations.The'other"category • addressed coordination and support considerations. • Of a total of 167 actions evaluated using the feasibility - and effectiveness screen, 162 were included in the Plan.Of these actions,75 are on-the-ground restora- tion projects that were first evaluated by the Science - Panel(of which 56 are priority actions that implement - Policy MS1),57 are habitat protection efforts (includ- ing 50 habitat protection areas on Vashon/Maury Island and seven King County-proposed"Last Best - Places Middle Greed'acquisitions),and 30 are pro- grams (16 watershed-wide and 14 subwatershed). (A list of additional projects for future consideration is • found in Appendix G of Volume II.) - Page 7-3 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Program WIN-1: Conduct Shoreline Stewardship Workshops and Outreach Offer shoreline property owners shoreline design LINKAGES workshops to provide information they can readily use ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed to be better stewards of their property.There would likely be different workshops for different parts of the •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) watershed such as Puget Sound beaches and bluffs, Green/Duwamish River mainstem,tributary streams, ® Habitat Management Strategies - and lakes.Topics covered could include a tailored mix •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - of the following: •Protect areas with healthy riparian habitat - • Natural yard care; • Shoreline planting design/beach and bluff vegeta- tion management; Workshops/material distribution should first be - • Noxious/invasive weed management; focused on the areas where the threats to existing high • Aquatic weed management; quality habitat are greatest and areas thought to be • "Softer"shoreline armoring alternatives to vertical limiting habitat factors for salmonid populations. wall bulkheads; . • Salmon-friendly dock design for small,residential Materials that help property owners make good docks; decisions about their property should complement workshops.These materials could include videos, - • Environmentally-friendly methods of maintaining brochures,workbooks,direct mailings,"welcome" boats,docks,and decks;and packets,notices accompanying property tax bills,and • Porous paving options and stormwater manage- websites. ment on single-family parcels. - As a complement to the workshops,people who own Workshops should be designed to help participants property on a stream,river,lake,or Puget Sound identify and remove the barriers to adopting salmon- shoreline should be offered a free evaluation of the - friendly shoreline practices.Follow-up with partici- condition of their riparian habitat.This approach - pants should occur to encourage people to act and should maximize the likelihood that the property determine what obstacles continue to stand in the way owner will act on the resulting information.Evalua- of salmon-friendly behavior. tions and technical assistance could be provided by - county/city basin stewards and organizations such as - Workshops could be tailored to meet the salmon King Conservation District and Washington State habitat needs for: University Cooperative Extension. • Marine nearshore beach/bluff vegetation(WRIA 9 - already has developed a workshop on this topic - that could be adopted for other topics); • Marine nearshore erosion control/soft armoring; • Urban small streams; • Rural small streams; • Rural Green River mainstem;and • Lakes (WRIA 8 already has developed a workshop on this topic). - Page 7-4 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Program WW-2: Increase/Expand Water Conservation Incentive Programs Increase water conservation campaigns promoting LINKAGES the use of more efficient toilets and appliances and - water use practices. Expand efforts directed at better ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed landscape irrigation.Offer free landscape irrigation •Maintaining adequate flows during low flow periods will audits for high water users.Offer free indoor water to greater solmonid survival(All-7) - conservation kits for households. ® Habitat Management Strategies A key role should continue to be played by the Saving •Protect cool dean water from surface and groundwater Water Partnership,which includes the City of Seattle, sources - Highline Water District,Soos Creek Water and Sewer - District,and several other water districts serving WRIA 9.The Partnership already promotes water conservation through education and incentives. Program WW-3: - Increase/Expand Natural Yard Care Programs for Landscapers - Offer educational programs for landscape designers, • contractors,groundskeepers,and property managers LINKAGES about the benefits of and practices of natural yard care ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed and use of native/riparian vegetation.Different - programs could address the needs of different Protecting water quality(All-1) audiences:design vs.maintenance,preservation of •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) topsoil vs.building healthy soil,plant selection vs. - plant care.Explicitly address the tradeoffs between ® Habitat Management Strategies - conventional and natural yard care practices.Existing •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contami- models for such programs are trainings offered by nonts Seattle Public Utilities on irrigation systems and the • Washington Association of Landscape Professionals. - Page 7-5 - Green-Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program WW-4: Increase/Expand the Natural Yard Care Program for Single Family Homeowners Expand the existing Natural Yard Care program to LINKAGES promote the value of native riparian vegetation for stream health and the cost savings of native drought- ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed tolerant vegetation for upland areas.Through a series •Protecting water quality(All-I) of neighborhood workshops,the program focuses on •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) promoting better lawn and garden care among neigh- bors by removing barriers to change.It builds on the ® Habitat Management Strategies five messages promoted beginning in the early 2000s •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contami- by local agencies: nants 1. Build healthy soil; 2. Plant right for your site; decreased maintenance,and keeping up with the - 3. Practice smart watering; Puget Sound regional landscape style. 4. Think twice before using pesticides;and The program should also encompass the aesthetic 5. Practice natural lawn care. benefits of designs incorporating shade gardening, - native plants,xeriscaping(drought-tolerant plant use), Promote the program by advertising benefits such as rain gardening(gardens that use runoff from roofs), healthier conditions for children and pets,improved and smaller lawns. - pest and disease resistance,reduced watering and • smaller water bills,better wildlife/bird life habitat, The messages of this program can be promoted using the techniques described in Program WW-1. Program WW-5: • Promote the Planting of Native Trees Promote the planting of native trees.Coordinate with LINKAGES nurseries,home improvement centers,and arborists to <3D Conservation Hypotheses Addressed develop a marketing campaign promoting the benefits of native trees.Offer native trees as part of neighbor- Protecting water quality(All-1) hood improvement projects. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) ® Habitat Management Strategies - Promote the benefits of trees and increased forest - cover.Such benefits include shade in summer,in- •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contami- creased property values,improved salmon/wildlife/ nants bird habitat,and improved groundwater recharge. Cities may wish to identify desired percentages of tree cover to achieve to provide a goal to work toward and measure progress. - Page 7-6 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Program WIN-6: Promote Better Volunteer Carwash Practices Local jurisdictions should promote volunteer LINKAGES carwashes that keep soapy and oily water out of the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • storm drain system through: •Protecting water quality(All-1) • Promoting use of car wash kits.The kits include a catch basin and pump to direct the wastewater to ® Habitat Management Strategies the sanitary sewer.Modest incentives or publicity •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contomi- • should be used to reward those who use the kits; nants • and - Encouraging use of car wash coupons for fundraisers(e.g.,through the Puget Sound Carwash Association Charity Carwash Program). Program WW-7: • Increase Public Awareness about What Healthy Streams and Rivers Look Like and How to - -- Enjoy Recreating on Them - Increase public awareness about what healthy streams LINKAGES and rivers look like and practices to be avoided when - recreating on them.These efforts should emphasize ® conservation Hypotheses Addressed • that healthy rivers include large amounts of large •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) woody debris and have abundant native trees and •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides shrubs on their banks.To make up for the lack of refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) • wood,restoration projects include placement of wood in streams and rivers.Protecting native vegetation ® Habitat Management Strategies along stream and river banks will encourage the •Protect areas that provide low velocity and shallow water growth of large trees that can fall into the streams in habitat during juvenile migration - the long run.Most healthy streams and rivers have salmon in them year round.Messages should empha- size that when enjoying rivers and streams,people Outreach at shows/conventions for fishing, - should avoid: hunting,and off-road vehicles; • Signage along accessible sections of healthy • Removing large woody debris; shoreline or restored shorelines,especially in • Damaging streamside vegetation; parks; - • Driving through stream beds; • More widespread distribution to streamside - • Damaging salmon redds (spawning egg nests)by property owners and boaters of existing brochures walking on them or dragging anchors through such as King County's"Large Woody Debris and them;and River Safety"and the U.S.Department of Agricul- • Disturbing spawning salmon by staying out of the ture Forest Service's"Large Woody Material:The - river and keeping dogs out of the water. Backbone of a Stream;"and • • Warning signs regarding existing and potential log This education should rely on: jams and installed large woody debris to notify • Articles in local media; recreational river users,including kayakers, • "tubers,"boaters,and anglers. (Signs do not • Public service announcements; reduce the need to design projects to minimize • School materials/presentations; the risk to recreational river users.) • Page 7-7 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program WW-8: - Increase Involvement of Volunteers in Habitat Stewardship Increase citizen participation in stewardship programs LINKAGES that involve volunteers in restoring,maintaining,and ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed monitoring habitat protection and restoration projects. •Protecting water quality(All-7) Continued grant assistance to non-governmental groups •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2)will support their volunteer organization. CD Management Strategies Involving volunteers helps: •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contaminants • Provide additional resources to restore and steward - habitat,stretching project construction and mainte- nance dollars; • Provides the hand labor especially needed for work- . Expand the pool of regular volunteers by provid- ing with native and non-native plants; ing greater feedback on progress and targeting - • Educates people about the role of habitat in salmon these individuals for specific projects; - recovery and environmental protection in general; • Expand the number of new volunteers by seeking • Creates a larger constituency for salmon recovery groups of volunteers from entities such as since people who volunteer on salmon habitat churches,schools,homeowners associations, - projects are more likely to support governmental businesses,service clubs,and other civic groups; - efforts to protect and restore salmon habitat;and • Improve the efficiency and integration of volun- • Contributes to a sense of community and place. teer recruiting,referral,and registration across the watershed(and perhaps across WRIA 8 and 9);and Non-governmental groups,King Conservation District, . Provide staff at both non-governmental groups - and several local jurisdictions have considerable experi- and governments that supports successful volun- - ence in recruiting and organizing volunteers locally.To teer stewardship programs. continue and expand volunteer stewardship,these part- ners should work to: • Program WW-9: - Green/Duwamish Volunteer Revegetation Program - The Volunteer Revegetation Program in the Green/ LINKAGES - Duwamish River Watershed will support riparian planting projects through a partnership between the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and local jurisdictions. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - This program would improve fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Green/Duwamish River basin by C3a Habitat Management Strategies providing significant quantities of native plants to •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contami - volunteer groups for replanting the riparian habitat Hants along the mainstem Green River and its tributaries. - Control of invasive plant species and maintenance will be essential to the success of these projects. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Page 7-8 • Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 . Program WW-10: • Support/Expand the Natural Resource/Basin Steward Programs Support and expand the natural resource/basin LINKAGES steward programs that work with private landowners ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - to protect and restore salmon habitat and rural re- source lands.Expanding these types of efforts will Protecting water quality(All-1) increase the number of people voluntarily improving •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) the health of their land and water. • ® Habitat Management Strategies Key tasks for the stewards include: •Protect areas with healthy riparian habitat • • Responding to citizen inquiries concerning their •Restore riparian vegetation and buffers watershed,water quality,and salmon; •Restore beaches,backshore and associated plant • Identifying and securing necessary grant funding communities • for restoration and acquisition projects recom- mended in the Habitat Plan; • Working with other jurisdiction staff and non- • Middle Green (Soos) governmental groups to accomplish WRIA-wide 1 steward—shared by Black Diamond,Covington, projects recommended in the Habitat Plan; and Maple Valley • • Promoting voluntary stewardship on private • Lower Green River Subwatershed - properties by working one-on-one with property 1 steward—shared between Tukwila,Renton, Kent, owners to develop farm,forest,and other volun- Algona,and Auburn tary and mandatory land management plans; . Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed - • Coordinating and implementing on-the-ground 1 steward—Seattle staff - projects,including volunteer opportunities;and . Marine Nearshore Subwatershed - • Creating public education opportunities. 1 steward—new shared by Burien,Des Moines, Major existing stewardship efforts that should be Federal Way,Normandy Park,and SeaTac continued include: • Vashon/Maury Island 1 steward—existing(King County) • • City stewardship programs (offered mostly by - larger cities); The stewards would be employed by and under the • King County Basin Stewardship,Forestry,and direction of local jurisdictions of the watershed. The Agriculture programs;and basin steward programs will assist with implementa- • King Conservation District programs. tion of the Habitat Plan. - This proposal would expand existing programs to Stewards could be provided by re-allocation of existing - staff(e.g.,Black Diamond,Covington,and Maple provide dedicated stewards to cover all parts of the Valley could each allocate 0.3 share of an existing - WRIA 9 watershed as outlined below: employee's time to stewardship tasks) or jointly • Upper Green River Subwatershed funding a steward position(s) at the subwatershed/ - 1 steward WRIA level through an interlocal agreement.The • Middle Green River Subwatershed stewards could be provided under contract by King 1 steward—existing(King County) Conservation District,King County,a city,or a- non- * Middle Green(Newaukum) profit organization. 1 steward—existing(King County) - Page 7-9 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PlanAugust2005 Program WW-11: Expand/Improve Incentives Programs Expand existing incentives and develop new incentives LINKAGES for property owners to protect salmon habitat.The desired outcome of this project is to increase aware- ness and use of existing incentive programs.This •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) project should occur in two phases: •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(NS-3) Phase I:WRIA 9 jurisdictions should evaluate their •Preserving and maintaining groundwater inflow(LG-3) - application of incentives for habitat protection;and •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides Phase II:Using the information developed in Phase 1,a refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - WRIA-wide effort should be considered to enhance the ® Habitat Management Strategies effectiveness of incentives.Incentive options to •Protect cool clean water from surface and groundwater i evaluate include the following: sources • Enhance the use and efficacy of the King County •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contami- Transfer of Development Rights Program through- nants out WRIA 9.This could include sponsoring a workshop to facilitate information exchange.It is important that transfers occur within the WRIA so that the density impact and benefit occur in the • Improve the ease/speed of permitting for land same watershed; owners protecting habitat; - • Educate property owners about King County • Waive the cost of permits for restoration projects current use assessment programs and encourage or projects with a substantial restoration compo- - them to enroll to protect salmon habitat; nent; - • Develop or continue fee reduction programs that • Offer zoning flexibility; - promote forest cover protection; • Enhance the awareness and use of the cost-sharing • Develop or continue fee reduction programs that program offered through the King County Agricul- - promote low impact development; tural Program;and • Publicize the King Conservation District's adminis- . Publicize information about incentive programs - tration of the U.S.Department of Agriculture's on websites and in public displays. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which provides incentives to restore and enhance - salmon habitat on private rural lands; - Page 7-10 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - = Program WW-12: -- Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations - Improve enforcement of existing regulations that LINKAGES protect salmon and salmon habitat.Complying with - existing and future regulations is an important tool to ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed ensure long-term protection of salmon habitat in the •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) watershed.All levels of government should ensure that •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport implementing and complying with policies and processes(NS-3) - regulations are sufficient to achieve their purpose, •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - consistent with long-term salmon habitat protection. refuge,habitat complexity aG-1) Local jurisdictions and state and federal regulatory •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thatprovides agencies should: refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) • Identify where inadequate compliance/enforce- ment is occurring and identify the root causes; ® Habitat Management Strategies • Inform citizens about how to report violations •Protect areas with healthy riparian habitat - using existing hotlines,websites, and complaint •Protect areas that provide low velocity and shallow water response programs; habitat duringjuvenile migration • Publicize egregious violations; •Protectexistingwaterqualityfrompollutants/contomi- • Support and encourage the prosecution of viola- nonts tions; • Revise ordinances to ensure jurisdictions have the - ability to enforce regulations in a fair and equi- table manner; • Adopt fines that are commensurate with the harm done or cost of restoration; • Require that violators fully restore the habitat they - degraded; - • Provide adequate staff to conduct field inspec- tions,provide technical assistance,and pursue enforcement as needed to ensure widespread - compliance; - • Participate in interagency coordination,technical - assistance,and public outreach for more compli- cated regulatory environments; and • Develop performance measures for enforcement activities in order to track progress over time and - provide information that will help revise enforce- ment efforts as needed. - Page 7-11 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Program WW-73: Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Porous Concrete Improve water quality generally and reduce the LINKAGES volume of stormwater runoff through low impact CCD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed development including use of porous paving materials. •Protecting water quality(All-1) Promote infiltration to the maximum extent possible as the preferred means of stormwater volume control. •Protecting against watershed and upland imparts(All-5) •Protecting against watershed and upland impacts by - Low impact development techniques can mitigate the implementing low impact development techniques harmful effects of increased impervious surface area (MG-2) on stream flows and groundwater recharge.They also reduce the need for retention/detention ponds with ® Habitat Management Strategies the associated costs,maintenance,and risk of mos- •Protect cool clean water from surface and groundwater quito-borne illness. sources Low impact development includes the use of- - • Native vegetation and small-scale treatment - systems to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff close to where it originates; • Clustering of buildings and narrower and shorter - roads to reduce total impervious areas and leave larger areas in native vegetation; • Green roofs and rain gardens; - • Topsoil preservation;and - • Porous or permeable paving materials in areas with well-drained soils.Porous pavement options are not suitable in redevelopment sites where - there is unremediated soil contamination. Local governments can promote low impact develop- ment techniques through incentives or require their - use in certain instances.Local governments should modify their stormwater ordinances and fee structure to promote or require the use of low impact develop- ment techniques where compatible with site charac- teristics. (See also Policy WQ2 in Chapter 3.) In addition,local governments should use low impact - development techniques for municipal purposes wherever practical and desirable to reduce stormwater volumes and demonstrate the usefulness of low impact - development. Pagel-72 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Program WW-14: • Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built Green TM Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon Encourage the use of the Built GreenTM building LINKAGES - program through incentives provided by local govern- ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed(WW-14) ments to developers. Built GreenTM provides check- lists for building single family houses,multi-family •Protecting water quality(All-1) housing,communities,and remodels. Sections of the •Protecting against watershed and upland impacts(All-S) - checklists that improve water quality and salmon ® Habitat Management Strategies(WW-14) habitat include site preparation,stormwater manage- ment,and homeowner operations and maintenance. •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contaminants In exchange for reaching certain point thresholds for •Protect native vegetation in riparian areas - the relevant Built GreenTM sections,local jurisdictions - could provide developers with incentives such as reduced permit costs,reduced impact fees,reduced - or flexible buffer widths,and other changes that will - encourage voluntary participation.Active promotion of these incentives by jurisdiction planning/permit- ting departments may be necessary to encourage • wide-spread use. Built GreenTM has been used to develop 4,600 build- ings to date. It is a voluntary program created by the - Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties with the participation of King County, other local governments,and environmental groups. - Page 7-73 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas Develop and implement a coordinated natural areas LINKAGES("open space") identification and protection program. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Once key properties are identified and prioritized, •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) pursue grant funding or other means to preserve and protect target areas.Acquisition of additional natural •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport areas should include provision for necessary site processes(NS-3) - management and maintenance. •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity a6-1) Because this coordinated effort would necessarily be a •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides collaborative process,it should include the creation of refuge,habitat complexity(MG-7) - a stakeholder group.The group would include elected •Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the - officials from local jurisdictions and representatives mainstem and major tributaries(UG-1) from citizen groups and businesses to identify and pursue funding. ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contaminants Essential prioritization criteria would include those •Protect native vegetation in riparian areas emphasizing upland and riparian habitat characteris- - tics important to salmonid health. •Protect cool deon water from surface and groundwater sources . The Transfer of Development Rights Program and the . King County Green Print provide opportunities for the - identification and potential acquisition of key habitat. Page 7-74 . Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program WW-16: - Develop Salmon Restoration Tools Consistent with Agricultural Land Uses Develop a suite of tools that will allow and encourage LINKAGES voluntary projects by farmers to protect and restore ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed habitat while preserving agriculture.Although the •Protecting water quality(All-1) - primary focus of the program would be the larger •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) farms on the Green River mainstem,it also could include smaller,"hobby"farms adjacent to tributary •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - streams.King County Basin Stewards,County agricul- refuge,habitat complexity o-7) tural programs staff,and WRIA 9 staff should work with •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides the agricultural community to prepare incentive and refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - public outreach programs tailored to the issues of farms.The program would likely: ® Habitat Management Strategies •Protect existing water quality from pollutants/contaminants • Identify and contact willing farm owners and work with them individually to develop ideas so that Protect native vegetation in riparian areas they are personally invested in solutions to •Restore water quality where degraded conditions exist - specific problems involving their land; •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - • Work with King Conservation District on appro- priate incentives programs linked with farm plans; - • Prepare a grant application to the King Conserva- tion District for a WRIA 9 Agricultural Opportunity Work with members of the agriculture community - Fund to pay for a significant percentage of costs to identify and remove blocking culverts or other - associated with restoration of mainstem Green barriers that limit fish use of habitat. River properties(including fencing if livestock are involved),control of invasive plant species,native - plants for riparian buffers,short term irrigation of - newly planted areas (if appropriate),woody debris and other costs associated with riparian corridor restoration; • Use first projects as demonstration sites and work . with property owners to make sites visible or available for other property owners to see.Include cooperating farms in tours of restoration sites so - decision makers and other interested citizens can - see the contributions being made by farmers (and have a greater opportunity to purchase from farmers who make voluntary sacrifices in produc- tion); - Work with incentives programs (e.g., Public Benefit Rating System,Native Growth Protection Easements,Conservation Reserve Enhancement - Program,etc.) for members of the agriculture . community willing to restore mainstem proper- ties; • Promote existing stewardship programs such as - those offered by the King Conservation District, - Washington State University Cooperative Ex- tension,and Horses for Clean Water;and - Page 7-75 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 POLICIES,PROGRAMS, PROJECTS The remainder of this chapter lists policies,programs, and projects specific to each of the five WRIA 9 - subwatersheds. Each subwatershed subsection begins with a brief - introduction to the subwatershed.For more informa- tion on the characteristics and habitat issues in each subwatershed,please see Chapters 3 and 4. While all of the following projects are important to - protecting and restoring salmon habitat,Table 8-2 lists the priority projects that implement watershed-wide . management strategy Policy MS1 (Chapter 5—Section - 5.7) and the tier 1 conservation hypotheses in each subwatershed. Page 7-16 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE UPPER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED • 1y Older culverts are difficult for fish to swim through • r and can blow out,causing The Upper u4,A sedimentation. working closely Green River _�A * Y with Tacoma Public • Decommission Subwatershed is an unneeded forest roads o/ Utilities to implement the • historically signifi- P mitigation requirements cant and currently under the Howard Hanson • Replacement untapped source of \ ►t ��.� Dam Additional Water spawning and i ao,<.h GR Storage Project,which will rearing habitat for I dam ��' R open the Upper Green River Chinook salmon and a PE to anadromous fish access - �P for the first time in nearly a other salmonids.The • subwatershed contains Replacing old culverts century. (See Chapter 4 for a the headwaters of the with box culverts will more detailed description of - help open up stream Green River,and repre- habitat, conditions in the Upper sents about 45%of the Green River Subwatershed.) - Green/Duwamish River watershed area and The following portfolio of stream mileage.Chinook policies and actions is • access to this designed to: - subwatershed has been • Facilitate Chinook salmon blocked by the Tacoma �e � and bull trout access above Headworks diversion Howard Hanson Dam by - dam and the Howard providing passage upstream Hanson Dam.The (trap and haul)beyond primary land use is Howard Hanson Dam and - commercial forestry. Howard Hanson Dam influences the movement of water,fish,and the reservoir for adult - Individual parcels and sediment throughout the watershed. Chinook and other salmo- roads are owned by nids and downstream Tacoma Public Utilities, passage for their progeny; • the U.S.Forest Service,private timber companies, . Remove instream barriers to fish passage(e.g., - the BNSF Railway,and the Washington State culverts); Department of Natural Resources.Although much of the subwatershed contains good habitat,other • Protect,restore,and enhance habitat along the - habitats have been reduced,blocked,and/or Upper Green River mainstem and major tributar- degraded by streamside roads and the railroad, ies (e.g.,North Fork,Smay Creek)by restoring the through inundation from Howard Hanson Dam's riparian corridor,increasing channel complexity, - reservoir,and by logging practices.Tacoma Public and decommissioning logging roads;and - Utilities and Plum Creek Timber have 50-year Protect and restore natural sediment recruitment Habitat Conservation Plans that require protection processes by reducing slides and road-borne of threatened salmonids and other salmonids and sediment. - their habitat.The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers is - POLICIES PROGRAMS PROJECTS I oft • Page 7-17 • Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 V Policy UG 1: - Encourage commitments made between private forest land owners and the U.S.Forest Service to regularly maintain cost-share roads.Maintenance efforts should include goals to add riparian vegetation,replace/ improve culverts,restore hillslope stability,prevent new bank armoring and fill,and reduce existing armoring and fill over time.Private forest landowners should coordinate these commitments with their"Road Mainte- nance and Abandonment Plans"filed with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. \v Policy UG2: - Support forest management and harvest rotation programs that minimize impacts on salmonid habitat - while maintaining viable silviculture.Encourage forest landowners to meet(and/or exceed)the require- ments of the Forest&Fish Agreement,Habitat Conservation Plans,and other agreements that require protection of salmon habitat. - \ Policy UG3 Discussion: BNSF Railway owns and operates railroad tracks that are constricting the Green River in the Upper Green River Subwatershed.WRIA 9 should follow the example of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration - Project,which developed a Salmon Recovery Funding Board proposal for WRIA 10 in coordination with BNSF - Railway. E a Policy UG3: Initiate discussions with the BNSF Railway to identify mutual benefits for railroad operations and salmon - habitat. Page 7-18 - Green-Dummish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • • • LEGEND • Road 30 • J River Mile&No. Decommission,reroute,or improve logging roads to FUG 11 improve habitat conditions. Exact locations yet to be determined. 0 Action Project Location/No. Subwatershed Boundary • 'J1 Railroad Publicly-owned and Managed Lands _J Note: This subwatershed is outside the Urban • 6.3 Growth Area Line,so the Urban Growth Area UG 64 % Line is not shown. P • 65 *6 6 67'0' T_ • 68 1 • 469 R El • • -74 7 A r 77 A • 85 A 84 CIV • 83 86 79 86 - 82 8 The information included on this map has been compiled by staff from A� a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such 89 information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special, indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse 71' of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. 90 11117777T17177777.771 91 Map produced by: AND 1�7 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 92 DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Uni t File: 0508-W9HP-UGRact.ai 1pre N • 0 1 2 Miles FIGURE 7-1 August 2005 Recommended Projects • I Upper Green River Subwatershed - Program U-7: - Develop a Strategy to Protect and Restore Habitat in the Upper Green River and its Tributaries Conduct a planning effort to develop a long term, LINKAGES - comprehensive approach to protecting and restoring - ecosystem processes in the Upper Green River CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Subwatershed,in particular for river miles 88 through -Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained 67.While protecting habitat and habitat-forming river channels(All-4) • processes in this river reach should be considered,the •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and primary goal would be ecosystem process restoration removing existing armoring(All-6) (including for land that is acquired).The purpose is to -Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the • provide suitable spawning and rearing habitat over mainstem and major tributaries(Up-2) - time for salmonids that are given access to the Upper Green River Subwatershed (project UG-4). CID Habitat Management Strategies -Restore lateral channel migration to create new off-channel - Identify specific restoration actions on specific sites habitat that would provide incremental,long-term progress -Restore lateral channel migration in areas of the Upper Green toward restoring ecological processes to benefit where the channel is unnaturally confined and habitat- salmonids consistent with conservation hypotheses forming processes are not functioning - and habitat management strategies (see list at the end of this program description).The strategy should incorporate the latest science with information about - willing landowners,economic considerations,and - overall feasibility and effectiveness evaluations to The priority areas for restoring/facilitating channel identify the best locations for habitat projects.The migration are: planning effort should complement other plans and - River miles 88.3 to 77.9 (both banks); - programs that are in place in the Upper Green River Subwatershed and therefore must involve Tacoma - River miles 77.9 to 76.2 (right bank);and Public Utilities, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,U.S. - River miles 73.5 to 72 (right bank). - Forest Service, private forestland companies,and King - County. The priority area for creating/restoring off-channel habitat is: During the development phase of this Habitat Plan, River miles 84.1 to 67.75 - field checks were performed to verify where recom- mended habitat management strategies could be employed.These areas were given the highest ranking by the Science Panel for their potential value in pro- tecting functioning habitat and/or restoring habitat- forming processes that would benefit salmonids. • One project for restoring channel migration and one - for off-channel habitat creation should be chosen as model projects.With monitoring and adaptive man- agement,the following projects could become more - cost-effective over time. - Page 7-21 - Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project UG-1: Revegetation of Sunday Creek 2.75 Miles Up from RM 84.1 (Both Banks) Project Description - Replant a 2.8-mile stretch along Sunday Creek with small riparian-type shrubs and plants.The planting zone would be 100 feet wide on both sides of the - channel. Plants will need to be selected for their small Y size in order to avoid interference with Bonneville Power Administration power lines.Add more complex- ity to instream habitat by installing large woody debris - (one piece for every two bank widths). The project site begins near the location where the - Bonneville Power Administration power lines cross - Sunday Creek,2.75 miles upstream of the Sunday Sunday Creek showing lack of shade-providing vegetation. Creek confluence with the Green River at river mile - July2003 photo. 84.1.Sunday Creek is located approximately 2.5 miles - upstream of the old townsite of Lester.This project would require close coordination with the Bonneville Power Administration. - LINKAGES - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Project. •Protecting water quality(All-1) - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) Opportunities and Constraints •Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the • Bonneville Power Administration requires that the mainstem and major tributaries(Up-2) project use only small plants because they will not interfere with power line operations. - ® Habitat Management Strategies • Sunday Creek will continue to have high tempera- Restore water quality(temperature) ture problems until an adequate level of riparian •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation is established. vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- - channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-22 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project UG-2: Instream Habitat Improvement Between RM82 and 73 - Project Description Improve instream channel salmonid habitat between LINKAGES river miles 82 and 73.This project would include - placing meander,bar apex, and barb log jams, install- ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed ing large woody debris,and reconnecting/improving •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) side channels.This area was verified through scientific •Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the field checks as a high priority area for improving mainstem and major tributaries(Up-2) - natural channel morphology to benefit salmonids. ® Habitat Management Strategies Opportunities and Constraints •Substitute ecologicalprocess with habitat features(e.g., • The City of Tacoma will implement this install large woody debris) • 'Additional Water Storage Project"in coordination with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. • Page 7-23 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project UG-3: - Culvert Replacements in Gale and Boundary Creeks near RM 67 Project Description - R Implement the Gale Creek and Boundary Creek culvert replacement projects together to access three miles of s spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and coho . salmon, steelhead trout, and possibly bull trout.The - mouth of Gale Creek is located near river mile 67. Boundary Creek joins Gale Creek about one mile upstream from the Howard Hanson reservoir.This - '� -r habitat is accessible from the reservoir.The projects >=i include gravel supplementation to provide suitable ` "':_ -• �; spawning material and large woody debris placement - �„�_ in order to create resting pools and trap gravel. . Gale creek from the culvert crossing.August 1999 photo. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. - LINKAGES Opportunities and Constraints ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • The City of Tacoma has committed to implement- Improving tributary access(All-3) ing the Boundary Creek culvert replacement. - •Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the • The projects are in the engineering and design - mainstem and major tributaries(Up-2) stage and are expected to be implemented in 2005. ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore fish passage to tributaries •Substitute habitat features to create pools and collect - sediment Page 7-24 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project UG-4: Fish Passage To and From the Upper Green River Subwatershed - Project Description To increase spatial structure and genetic diversity of the Green River Chinook population,this action • reintroduces Chinook salmon above Howard Hanson Dam through a trap-and-haul system,and provides a - facility for safe downstream passage of juvenile salmon.The City of Tacoma completed the upstream ""--- ' - fish passage facilities at its Headworks Dam in 2004. }•> The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers is nearing comple- tion of a downstream juvenile fish passage facility at - Howard Hanson Dam.Both facilities are anticipated to - be operating in tandem within a couple of years,and successful reintroduction is anticipated within the first 10 years of the Habitat Plan. Upstream fish collection facility under construction at Tacoma • Headworks.July 2004 photo. In the future,possible policy discussions may include: - 1) Introducing a spring Chinook population into the LINKAGES - Upper Green River Subwatershed; (3D Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • 2) Isolating the hatchery stock from the Upper Green •Establishing/restoring Chinook upstream and down- Chinook population to create a self-sustaining wild stream salmon access past Howard Hanson Dam(Up-I) Chinook population;and CD Habitat Management Strategies • 3) Introducing adult Chinook salmon above the •Substitute fish passage for adults and juveniles Headworks Dam after filtration of Tacoma's water supply. Opportunities and Constraints • Under its 50-year Habitat Conservation Plan, Tacoma Public Utilities is committed to operating - the upstream fish bypass collection facility and will transport salmonids above Howard Hanson Dam.The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will - operate its downstream fish passage facility at - Howard Hanson Dam as part of the"Additional Water Storage Project." - NOAA Fisheries gave Tacoma Public Utilities a preliminary recommendation in June 2004 to pass upstream all natural and hatchery origin Chinook, . coho,sockeye,pink,and chum salmon;cutthroat - trout;and natural-origin steelhead.The co- managers will make the final decision on which fish species to transport above Howard Hanson - Dam in 2006. . Page 7-25 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project UG-5: Restore/Rehabilitate Habitat Through Forest Logging Road Improvements Project Description - Support implementation of the U.S. Forest Service/ Washington State Department of Ecology agreement on road maintenance and abandonment.Many - hillside roads in the Upper Green River Subwatershed - have met or exceeded their life span,lack adequate drainage,and have a high risk of failure in flood conditions. Consequently,the roads would need to be - replaced or removed before their failure negatively impacts the mainstem river or stream habitat. Potential actions would be to restore hillslope pro- - cesses by removing failing/high-risk logging roads, recontouring and revegetating slopes,restoring natural drainage,and replacing culverts. Potential sponsors - are the owners of the roads, namely the timber compa- nies,the U.S.Forest Service,and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Opportunities and Constraints - • The U.S. Forest Service has a Memorandum of - Agreement with the Department of Ecology for The Upper Green River Subwatershed has nearly 1,000milesof roads maintenance and abandonment plans, logging roads,some of which would be decommissioned.August which is in its seventh year of a 15-year process. . 2004 photo. Fish passage is the first priority followed by de- commissioning roads. LINKAGES • The U.S. Forest Service has already decommis- ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed(UG-5) sioned eight miles of roads that scored"High"in - their risk assessment study. Some funding may be •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) leveraged through the Salmon Recovery Funding •Improving tributary access(All-3) Board,as was done in Pierce County.Timber •Protecting,restoring,and enhancing habitat along the companies in the area (e.g.,Plum Creek Timber) - mainstem and major tributaries(Up-2) may also provide funding towards cost-share •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment roads. process(Up-4) • This project is constrained by joint-ownership in a checkerboard pattern (158 of the 975 miles of - ® Habitat Management Strategies(UG-5) roads) and limited funding,so implementation - •Restore riparian vegetation and forest roads would likely require greater coordination than •Restore hillslope hydrology and stability other types of projects. •Restore hillslope processes by removing failing/high risk logging roads • •Rehabilitate forest logging roads - Page 7-26 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED • Fences keeping livestock - out of streams&proper The manure management allows farms and fish to Gravel can't flow • 1 ma- co-exist. pdH ; past dams w 'ori of gym' �7 R. 4 Water Y divirsion • existing Chinook ,� Gravel _, l w�9o� for spawning �dam�-�� y .,t•�fY1 salmon spawn- - ing in WRIA 9 � • occurs in the ` '� 4� ^4 Middle Green River Adding anchored logs R Subwatershed.Juvenile provides good shelter ��EG The Middle Green River,shown here at O'Grady Chinook salmon and other for salmon and trout. Park,is one of the best salmon river reaches in the salmonids also use Middle P. Puget Sound.August2003 photo. • Green River habitats extensively for rearing.The subwatershed extends from long-term,comprehensive approach to recovering Howard Hanson Dam (river mile 64.5)to river mile ecosystem processes in the section of the Green River • 32 just east of Auburn.It has two major tributaries- that extends from the outlet of the Green River Gorge Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek-and numerous (river mile 46) downstream to about the eastern city smaller tributary streams.Much of the area is limits of Auburn(river mile 32). • unincorporated,but it also includes the growing cities of Covington,Maple Valley,Black Diamond, The following portfolio of policies and actions is and Enumclaw.A significant portion of Kent also designed to: lies within the Soos Creek basin.The major land Protect and restore habitat that provides refugia - uses in the subwatershed are residential,forestry, (particularly side channels,off channels,and and agriculture.Two Agricultural Production tributary access) and habitat complexity(par- Districts are in the Middle Green River ticularly pools) for juvenile salmon over a range - Subwatershed and the largest concentration of of flow conditions and at a variety of locations - dairy farms in King County is on the Enumclaw (e.g.,mainstem channel edge,river bends,and Plateau.Several state and local parks abut the river, tributary mouths); preserving mostly forested lands,and providing • Enhance natural sediment recruitment(particu- - popular recreational opportunities for boaters, larly spawning gravels)by reconnecting sediment • anglers,picnickers,and campers.The two upstream sources to the river; dams,revetments/training levees,flow diversions, and residential and agricultural land uses have had • Protect and restore spawning and rearing habitat adverse effects on salmon habitat in the Middle in lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks;and Green.These changes include flow regime alter- • Maintain regional groundwater recharge and ations,reduced sediment recruitment,loss of side base flows to the mainstem Green River. channels and wetlands,loss of floodplain connec- tivity,degraded riparian areas,loss of large woody For the first ten years of the Plan,the priority for debris,and barriers to fish passage. (See Chapter 4 implementation of projects will be first to implement for a more detailed description of conditions in the projects on public lands,secondly to implement - Middle Green River Subwatershed.) projects on lands within the Rural and Urban Growth - Areas,and third to implement projects on lands Some of the actions listed in this subsection are within the Agricultural Production District(see - part of the Middle Green River`Blueprint,"which is "Approach to Habitat Project Implementation in the - a planning effort by King County Water and Land Agricultural Production Districts of WRIA 9"in Resources Division with the goal of developing a Chapter 8). - POLICIES PROGRAMS PROJECTS • Page 7-27 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Policy MG 1: For habitat restoration projects calling for the addition of large woody debris,particularly in the mainstem, placement of wood should be done in a way that minimizes any risk to river users such as boaters and swim- - mers. Program M-1: - Enumclaw Plateau Dairy Nutrient Management Program Protect water quality in agricultural areas by creating markets for manure.This would be done by facilitating LINKAGES - the export of manure from dairy farms and off the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Enumclaw Plateau,to prevent excess nutrient runoff into waterways,and to improve nutrient management •Protecting water quality(All 1) on farms. ® Habitat Management Strategies The program could rely on a biogas digester, •Protect water quality from further modification where State - composting system,or other technologies.A biogas standards are being met or exceeded digester would capture energy that could be marketed •Restore degraded water quality conditions to meet or as green power.Either process could produce an end exceed State standards product that could be used for fertilizer and would have lower risk of nutrient runoff than unprocessed - manure applied to fields.In addition to benefits to water quality,this program could benefit farmers who are currently constrained by the amount of land - needed to manage manure.Other benefits include - converting waste to a resource and the potential to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This program would be run by the King County De- partment of Natural Resources and Parks in conjunc- tion with King Conservation District,Natural Resource - Conservation Service,King County Solid Waste Divi- • sion,and private dairy farmers.The King County Agriculture Program has done a feasibility study and (at the time of publication) is soliciting proposals for - this program.Dairy farmers in the Enumclaw Plateau have expressed interest in this program. Page 7-28 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 LEGEND Road 30 • River Mile&No. • • 13 - Urban Growth Area Line 120 ,q `o00*"e Subwatershed Boundary • � toi Incorporated Area Publicly-owned and 9•8 Managed Lands - 8,? � Action Project Location/No. - Priority Habitat Protection Area - • 7 These seven locations were MG-19 identified as priority areas to - �- protect currently functioning habitat,and r range from 46 to over 200 acres.Protection ti. mj through acquisition depends upon the • - 1 voluntary cooperation ofproperty owners and available financial resources. • 4 AM . Map produced by: • 30 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks ,i`--T- � \ DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Unit MG-18 031 :; 2 File: � 0508_W9HP MGRact.ai Ipre 32 tvl 1 ' •34 MG-16 — MG-15 *3s 3 - MG-11 - NOTES: .� 1. River miles estimated from"Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization",(Williams et al.1975). - 2.The information included on this map has been • compiled by staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.King County makes no - representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of • such information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost • profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information FIGURE 7-2 - contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information iles nCo map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Recommended Projects - K Middle Green River Sub watershed • • = Program M-2: • __ Middle Green River Gravel Supplementation Program The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Tacoma Public - Utilities, King County,and other local governments LINKAGES should continue gravel supplementation in the Middle Green River on an annual basis or in conjunction with ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed specific projects. •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment - (MG-3) In 2003,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Public Utilities initiated a program of annual gravel ® Habitat Management Strategies • placement in the channel reach immediately below the •Substitute sediment recruitment through gravel Tacoma Headworks,which is located at river mile 61. supplementation The quantity of gravel placed is 3,900 cubic yards annually for a duration of 50 years.In addition,ap- proximately 8,000 cubic yards of gravel supplementa- tion on an annual basis is planned as part of Howard Hanson Dam operations for the next 50 years under intended to make up the deficit resulting from four • the terms of the Additional Water Storage Project.The decades of operation of Howard Hanson Dam.Gravel - quantity of gravel placed would be approximately would be placed between the Tacoma Headworks and equal to the bedload deposited annually in the Howard Flaming Geyser Bridge (river mile 43). Finally,gravel Hanson reservoir(approximately 12,000 cubic yards placement is recommended in conjunction with the - per year). In addition,it is recommended that 272,000 proposed Middle Green"Blueprint"projects between - tons of gravel be distributed through the zone of river miles 45 and 32 (Projects MG-3,MG-4, MG-12, existing sediment depletion. This gravel would be and MG-18). • _- Program M-3: Middle Green River Large Woody Debris Supplementation Program The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Tacoma Public Utilities, King County,and other local governments - should continue large woody debris placement or LINKAGES supplementation in the Middle Green River on an ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed annual basis or in conjunction with specific projects. •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) This Howard Hanson Dam operations project would place large wood in the mainstem river to provide the ® Habitat Management Strategies basis for formation of specific logjam types. Large •Substitutelossofslowwaterareasbycreatingnewoff- - woody debris would be placed at approximately 73 channelhabitatsand/orplacementoflarge woody debris sites within the mainstem Green River between the along banklines Tacoma Headworks and the city of Auburn. In addi- •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features tion,bar apex log jams or engineered log jams are • planned as a part of the Middle Green"Blueprint" projects between river miles 45 and 32 (Projects MG-3, MG-4, MG-12, and MG-18). - Page 7-31 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program M-4: -- Side Channel Reconnection Program Initiate a side channel rehabilitation/reconnection program that concentrates efforts from river miles 45 LINKAGES - to 32. Side channels and other off-channel habitat would be created or enhanced by excavation in the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed currently functioning floodplain.Side channels would •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides be excavated at strategic locations listed below.Be- refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - cause these efforts would occur over a long period of time and would require monitoring and maintenance, ® Habitat Management Strategies a programmatic approach is necessary. •Rehabilitate hydrologic processes to create off-channel - habitat and maintain hydrologic connection to mainstem Projects in the short term (first 10 years) could include: channel • River mile 40.4 (right bank); - • River mile 38.6 (left bank); • River mile 37.7 (left bank); and • River miles 34.6 to 34.0 (across from Porter Levee) (right bank). Page 7-32 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - Project MG-1: Middle Green River Side Channel Restoration/Rehabilitation at RM 60 Project Description • This project has two goals: 1) Restore natural ecosystem processes of sediment supply and transport to side channels (and the mainstem) at two - locations,and 2) Restore natural ecosystem processes of large woody debris recruitment,transport, and structure in the side channels (and mainstem) in the • vicinity of river mile 60. This project would construct pool/riffle habitat sequences within the designated side channels to - increase channel complexity,create salmon spawning habitat,and enhance rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. Lateral and bar apex jams would be • constructed. i► Additional components of this project include: • Underplanting the riparian corridor with native conifers; • Constructing a large logjam at the head of one of Project area showing the lack of suitable spawning - the side channels; gravel.Photo courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. • • Altering flow regulation at Howard Hanson Dam to provide suitable flows in side channels during the salmon spawning and incubation seasons; • Constructing supply bars of spawning-sized gravel LINKAGES at the upstream ends of side channels;and � ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - • Additions of large woody debris to be transported •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) to and within side channels by existing river •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) hydraulics until conifer underplantings mature i and provide a source of naturally recruited large •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat thatprovides • woody debris. refuge,habitat complexity(W 1) This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration ® Habitat Management Strategies - Project. •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries Opportunities and Constraints •Substitutelossofslowwoterareosbycreatingnewoff- • This project depends on voluntary participation channel habitatsand/or placement of large woody debris by property owners through easement, sale,or along banklines • other incentives. •Substitute habitat features to create pools and collect sediment . •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-33 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • Project MG-2: • Brunner Slough (KanaskatNorth) • Off-Channel Habitat Construction near RM 58(Right Bank) • Project Description • This project would excavate a 3,600 linear foot channel • in a currently existing swale to create a new channel • approximately 10 feet wide.At the upper end of the • channel,ground water would be daylighted and gravel would be placed to construct a french drain for the • ground water to drain through to the channel.An 18- • inch layer of gravel would be placed on the bottom of • the channel throughout its length to encourage spawning. Large tree trunks with root wads would be • placed throughout the channel but especially at the Project area showing the existingswale.Photo courtesy of mouth to provide cover.Areas disturbed during • U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. construction would have riparian plantings.The rest of • the site is covered in native trees so no addition • planting would be needed. • LINKAGES The goal of this project is to provide off-channel winter • and summer rearing and refuge habitat. • ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) Project. • ® Habitat Management Strategies Opportunities and Constraints • •Rehabilitate hydrologic processes to create off-channel Much of the property is in public ownership. • habitat and maintain hydrologic connection to mainstem • channel •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- • channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris • along banklines • •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to • create pools and habitat complexity • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 7-34 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • - Project MG-3: - Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection,Side Channel Connection,and Habitat Restoration Between RM 45.1 and RM 44.3(Right Bank) Project Description This project would excavate a portion of the floodplain to reconnect the floodplain with the river between - river miles 45.1 and 44.3,right bank.The project would excavate a connection between the wall-base side channel inlet and the mainstem and construct logjams - to reinstate channel migration.This project also - includes gravel addition,eradication of Japanese knotweed and other invasive species,and planting riparian vegetation. - This project is part of the Middle Green River"Blue- print"proposed by King County and is a Green/ Flaming Geyser State Park showing a portion of the project - Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. area on right(north)bank of the Green River.August2004 - Opportunities and Constraints photo. • The property is in public ownership. • Because of high use of this reach by recreational LINKAGES . boaters,logjams would need to be engineered and ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed placed in a manner that minimizes risks to boater � safety. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-Z)Allowing • natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained river • Projects MG-3 and MG-4 may be combined for channels(All-4) cost savings and efficiency. •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides - • Proper sequencing of projects MG-3 and MG-4 refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - would need to be considered. •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment • (MG-3) CCU Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore areas with some functioning off-channel habitat, restore lateral channel migration to create off-channel habitat - •Restore lateral channel migration to recruit sediments - •Restore natural cycle ofsuccession and plant diversity of riparian areas •Substitute sediment recruitment though gravel and large woody debris supplementation - Page 7-35 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-4: - Flaming Geyser Side Channel Construction,Floodplain Reconnection,near RM 44 - (Right Bank) Project Description This project would construct a side channel to increase the amount of off-channel habitat near river mile 44, right bank.The project would excavate portions of the - ` surrounding floodplain to connect side channels with - floodplain and mainstem and construct logjams to reinstate channel migration. This project also includes gravel addition,eradication of Japanese knotweed and other invasive species,and planting riparian vegetation. - Flaming Geyser State Parkin the general vicinity of the This project is part of the Middle Green River"Blue- projectarea.May2005 photo. print"proposed by King County. - Opportunities and Constraints LINKAGES • The property is in public ownership. • Because of high use of this reach by recreational CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed boaters,logjams would need to be engineered and - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(Al1-2) placed in a manner that minimizes risks to boater - •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained safety. river channels(All-4) • Projects MG-3 and MG-4 may be combined for •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides cost savings and efficiency. refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) • Proper sequencing of projects MG-3 and MG-4 •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment would need to be considered. - (M6-3) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore areas with some functioning off-channel habitat, restore lateral channel migration to create off-channel habitat - •Restore lateral channel migration to recruit sediments - •Restore natural cycle of succession and plant diversity of riparian areas •Substitute sediment recruitment though gravel and large woody debris supplementation S Page 7-36 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project MG-5: Flaming Geyser Slide Sediment Management at RM 43(Left Bank) - Project Description The project goal is to eliminate a large source of fine • P J g g sediment from this reach of the river, improving - downstream spawning success and juvenile habitat for - salmonids. How this project would be carried out has not yet been determined. - The slide,located just downstream of Flaming Geyser Park at river mile 43 on the south side (left bank) of the Green River,has recently contributed significant - quantities of fine sediments to the river. Aerial view of landslide.Green River is at top of picture. Currently the slide has a face that is several thousand Photo courtesyof U.S.Army(orps of Engineers feet long and approximately 300 feet high and in any - given year can place thousands of cubic yards of fine material in the Green River.The slide activity,releasing LINKAGES fine sediments that choke the spawning gravel and - significantly reduce the flow of water and oxygen CID Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - getting to the salmon eggs,may have a negative impact •Protecting water quality(All-1) on Chinook spawning and rearing. CCD Habitat Management Strategies • This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration •Restore degraded water quality conditions Project. • Opportunities and Constraints • The slide is large and potential solutions will be - complex. - Page 7-37 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-6: Newaukum Creek Restoration Between Creek Miles 0.0 and 14.3(Both Banks) Project Description - _, y' The project goal is to restore process-based ecological functions that include wetland and riparian restora- tion on the Enumclaw Plateau.This project would - improve riparian habitat with the following actions: - �£ Enhance and expand the degraded plateau - wetlands adjacent to Newaukum Creek by con- structing wetlands and removing invasive plants and re-planting with native vegetation,which will - provide structural diversity for the wetlands and increase flow attenuation; • Enhance and expand the riparian vegetation zone of the plateau section of Newaukum Creek to - provide a strip of healthy riparian vegetation up to - 200 feet wide; • Protect stream buffer areas to exclude livestock through fencing;and Newaukum Creekshowing lack ofmature Restore and create connections to off-channel - native trees and shrubs.Photo courtesy of wetland habitats for salmonids. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. - LINKAGES Opportunities and Constraints CCD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • This project depends on identifying suitable •Protecting water quality(All-1) properties and landowners willing to participate in •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) restoration projects. - •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) •Preserving and restoring spawning and rearing habitat in lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks(MG-4) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-38 i Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-7. Big Spring Creek Restoration • Project Description This project would re-locate a major section of Big Spring Creek(tributary to Newaukum Creek) from the • current ditched system into a channel consistent with - its historic route.The stream re-alignment will reduce pollution coming from road ditches and a dairy and connect the stream and wetland to improve off- channel rearing areas.Placement of large woody debris pieces will promote process formation and improve instream habitat complexity.The project will - enhance riparian conditions by planting conifers and - creating off-channel wetland connections to the Big Spring(reek showing lack of mature native trees and stream,especially the pastured wetland to the south of shrubs.Photo courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Southeast 424th Street.The project also would fence areas adjacent to the stream to exclude livestock and • protect riparian vegetation. - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration LINKAGES Project. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Opportunities and Constraints •Protecting water quality(All-1) • This project depends on voluntary participation •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - by property owners through easement,sale,or •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thatprovides other incentives. refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the moinstem and tributaries •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features r • Page 7-39 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • Project MG-8: Newaukum Creek Mouth Restoration Between Creek Miles 0.0 and 4.3(Both Banks) • Project Description • • This project has two components: 1) placing large woody debris and planting native trees along the lower • 4.3 miles of the creek,and 2)reconfiguring the lower r K 1,800 feet of the creek near the mouth. • In the first component,large woody debris would be • c strategically placed along the length of this reach,with w " f a goal of approximately 500 pieces of large woody • 3 i debris per stream mile.Large woody debris would be • sized to the stream,flows,and gradient.Within 200 feet • of each bank,underplant conifer trees among existing deciduous trees to serve as a source for future large • Y a ll woody debris recruitment.Approximately 400 trees per • acre would be planted.The project would control • invasive species,especially Japanese knotweed (small infestations) along this reach. • In the second component,in the lower 1,800 feet of • Newaukum Creek,an in-channel project would restore channel and floodplain conditions by restoring a • b a>t t he—onfluence with the, historic meander,setting back a berm,and naturaliz- • Newaukum Creek a hec co Green River,just ing the floodplain area to allow the creek to be more downstream of the projectarea.May20o5 photo. mobile,form deep pools,and help establish a variety • of diverse habitats. • LINKAGES The project would also include the following: • CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Reconnect an historical side channel(Plemmons •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation 01-2) Meanders)to Newaukum Creek and install large • •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides woody debris and boulder debris jams;and • refuge,habitat complexity(M6-1) • Place large woody debris into key positions in • •Preserving and restoring spawning and rearing habitat in Newaukum Creek in a three mile stretch above the • lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks(M64) Whitney Hill Bridge stream crossing. • (3D Habitat Management Strategies Opportunities and Constraints • •Restore riparian areas by establishing suitable native a This reach is actively used by Chinook for spawn- • vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries ing and rearing. •Restore stream processes to create better functioning . This project depends on identifying suitable • spawning and rearing tributary habitat • properties and landowners willing to participate in restoration. • • • • • Page 7-40 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • Project MG-9: - LOJI Lones Levee Removal near RM 38(Right Bank) Project Descriptions The goal of this project is to restore natural channel - migration processes,consistent with current flow - regimes of the Green River,by removing Lones Levee at river mile 38,right bank.With the levee removal,the Green River would be allowed to re-occupy and reset - old meander bends and channel migration zones, - improving the diversity of habitat for salmonids and other species. • The project would be implemented through the following activities: - • Remove Lones Levee to match the existing ground elevations; Lones Levee,looking downstream.Some large trees grow on the • Construct a setback revetment/levee on the levee.Burns Creek flows in from right September2002 photo. - terrace just above the old meander bend to protect - private property from potential channel migra- LINKAGES tion; • Realign lower Burns Creek, if needed; ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Install engineered log jams and large woody debris •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - near the upper end of the levee removal area and •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained - within the old meander bend/channel-migration river channels(All-4) zone; and •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and • Remove the existing access road that crosses the removing existing armoring(All-6) old meander bend. •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment Project. (MG-3) - Opportunities and Constraints ® Habitat Management Strategies • Remaining farm land behind the site would need •Restore lateral channel migration r to be protected from erosion. •Restore stream processes to create better functioning • Easements for project construction currently exist spawning and rearing tributary habitat • for this property. •Restore natural cycle ofsuccession and plant diversity of riparian areas - Page 7-41 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 ProjectMG-70: Burns Creek Rehabilitation at RM 38(Right Bank) Project Description The project goal is to enhance salmonid habitat in Burns Creek while reducing property damage associ- LINKAGES ated with flooding and filling of the channel with fine sediments from an adjacent landslide. - CID Hypotheses Addressed � •Protecting water quality(All-1) The project would improve riparian vegetation, - increase in-stream habitat complexity,provide addi- •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(AII-2) tional riparian cover,and manage fine silt through the •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(AI1-3) following actions: •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thatprovides . Planting native riparian vegetation; refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) • Installing large woody debris; • Fencing to prevent livestock access to the creek - ® Habitat Management Strategies and riparian areas; •Restore tributary access • Removing invasive plant species;and •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native • Removing fine sediment. - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries At present,the creek, impacted by a slope failure (Bell •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- Ravine),is deficient in habitat diversity,in-stream channel habitats and/orplacementof large woody debris woody debris, riparian vegetation, and spawning � along banklines gravels. Pools and spawning gravels have filled with - sand and the dredging of these sediments to maintain - driveways crossing the creek has taken place. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - Project. Opportunities and Constraints - • This project depends on voluntary participation - by property owners through easement,sale,or other incentives. • Controls of the slide are unknown. r Page 7-42 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 -