Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272760(2) Project MG-17: Turley Levee Setback at RM 37(Right Bank) Project Description The goal of this project is to reconnect the floodplain area of the Green River allowing natural processes to LINKAGES be re-established including creation of side channel ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed habitat. • •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - This project would allow the river to re-establish •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides • access to over 1,300 feet of additional river edge and refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) allow it to create additional side channel and main channel habitat at river mile 37,right bank.The project ® Habitat Management Strategies - would add native vegetation and place large woody •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native debris. vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- The project requires the construction of setback levees channel habitats and/orplacementoflarge woody debris to protect the existing farmland and hard points to along banklines protect properties behind the site from erosion. •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. - Opportunities and Constraints - • Remaining farm land behind the site would need • to be protected from erosion. • This project depends on voluntary participation by property owners through easement,sale,or - other incentives. • Page 7-43 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-12: Levee Setback to Reconnect Floodplain and Allow Channel Migration near RM 36-35.3 - (Right Bank) Project Description This project would remove a levee to reconnect the floodplain and allow channel migration.A revetment would be constructed at the edge of the project area to - protect against undesired erosion.The project would remove Japanese knotweed and revegetate riparian areas. - This project is part the Middle Green River"Blueprint' proposed by King County. Opportunities and Constraints - Project area shown in center ofphototo left of river bend.SE • This project depends on voluntary participation 6reen Valley Road runs through center ofphoto.July 2004 photo. by property owners through easement,sale,or other incentives. - • A portion of this project would occur on land - enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program LINKAGES and thus maybe constrained. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • This project would need to ensure protection of •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) adjacent property and road as part of the leveesetback. i •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained river channels(All-4) . •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and - removing existing armoring(All-6) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment - (M6-3) •Maintaining regional groundwater recharge and base flows to the mainstem Green River(MG-5) - ® 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 - Page 7-44 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - Project MG-73: Hamakam i Levee Breach atRM36(Right Bank) Project Description The goal of this project is to re-connect the floodplain of an existing forested wetland to the river,providing - refuge and rearing for salmonid species. This project would enhance the forested wetland by LINKAGES • connecting it with inflow and outlet channels and ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed providing off-channel habitat,which would signifi- candy enhance fish usage of this site. Large woody •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) debris placement in the channels and wetland may be •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - phased following the stabilization of sediment input refuge,habitat complexity(M6-1) and the establishment of a coniferous riparian cover. ® Habitat Management Strategies - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native Project. vegetation along banks of the moinstem and tributaries •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- Opportunities and Constraints channelhabitatsand/or placement of largewoodydebris - This project depends on voluntary participation along banklines by property owners through easement, sale,or •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features other incentives. - Page 7-45 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-74: Kaech Side Channel Rehabilitation at RM 35(Right Bank) Project Description LINKAGES The goal of this project is to re-habilitate natural processes by re-connecting side channel and wetland ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed refuge and rearing habitat to the river. •Protecting water quality(All-1) •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) This project would enhance the side channel corridor at river mile 35,right bank,by planting and fencing a •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) native plant riparian area.The project would include a - - log and rock weir that would allow fish passage at all ® Habitat Management Strategies elevations and maintain a constant pond level. •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/orplacementof large woody debris Opportunities and Constraints - along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features This project depends on voluntary participation by property owners through easement, sale,or other incentives. • Page 7-46 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project MG-15: - Neely and Porter Levees Setback and Floodplain Reconnection Between RM 35.5 and 34.5(Left Bank) Project Description LINKAGES This project would set back Neely and Porter Levees ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed between river miles 35.5 and 34.5 (left bank) to recon- nect the river to its floodplain and allow channel •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained migration and the conduct of related restoration.This project would also include the addition of logjams and river channels(All-4) - other large woody debris,removal of Japanese knot- •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and weed and other invasive species,and planting of removing existing armoring(All-6) riparian revegetation. •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - Benefits of the project include improved floodplain connection,better access to side channel habitat,and ® Habitat Management Strategies enhanced productivity and spatial structure for •Restore areas with some functioning off-channel habitat, - Chinook spawning and rearing. restore lateral channel migration to create off-channel habitat This project is part of the Middle Green River"Blue- •Restore lateral channel migration to recruit sediments print"proposed by King County. •Restore natural cycle ofsucression and plant diversity of • riparian areas Opportunities and Constraints • This project would need to ensure protection of the adjacent property and road as part of the levee • setback. - • This project depends on voluntary participation by property owners through easement, sale,or other incentives. • A portion of this project could occur on land - enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program, - which could partially constrain the extent of project. • Project involves replacing the Neely bridge with a wider span and lowering the elevation of terraces • that constrain channel migration downstream of the bridge. • Page 7-47 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-16: Ray Creek Restoration at RM 34.2(Right Bank) Project Description This project would enhance the stream corridor throughout the entire length of Ray Creek with plant- ings of native vegetation,control of invasive plant - species,fencing of livestock from riparian areas, creation and re-establishment of connections to off- channel habitats for salmonids,and removal of the fine - sediments and pollutants from the stream. Ray Creek . is a small tributary to the Green River. These actions would reduce sediment impacts,im- prove water quality,and connect additional wetland habitat to the stream. Middle Green River near the confluence with Ray Creek,which flowsinfromtheright.May2005photo. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - Project. Opportunities and Constraints • LINKAGES • This project depends on voluntary participation ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed by property owners through easement,sale,or •Protecting water quality(All-1) other incentives. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore tributary access - •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris - along banklines Page 7-48 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project MG-17. Porter Levee Setback and Floodplain Reconnection Near RM 34 (Left Bank) Project Description Remove the existing training levee and set back the • levee to the toe of the Southeast Green River Valley; Road.The river adjacent to the levee currently provides excellent spawning habitat for Chinook.The project site behind the breached training levee is routinely • flooded in the spring and provides refuge from high • flows for multiple species in an old slough that was recently reconnected to the river.The site also provides over-wintering habitat for juveniles. - This project would reconnect 45 acres of floodplain; large woody debris placement and riparian plantings could be part of the project. Porter levee project showing theoldslough that isperiodically • inundated.The training levee is behind the trees to the left.April This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration 2000photo. Project. - Opportunities and Constraints • The property is in public ownership. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained - river channels(All-4) • •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) - •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment (MG-3) - ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore lateral channel migration •Restore stream processes to create better functioning spawning and rearing tributary habitat - •Restore natural cycle of succession and plant diversity of • riparian areas • Page 7-49 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project MG-18: Setback and Removal of Fenster and Pautzke Levees to Reconnect the Floodplain and - Allow Channel Migration near RM 32(Left Bank) Project Description This project would remove levees,lower the elevation of terraces, and construct engineered logjams to reinstate floodplain connectivity and channel migra- tion.The project would restore relic side-channels and reconnect them to the river and off-channel sloughs. ..= The project also would remove Japanese knotweed and other invasives and revegetate riparian and floodplain . areas with native plants. This project is part the Middle Green River"Blueprint" proposed by King County and a Green/Duwamish = Ecosystem Restoration Project. Green River just upstream from Pautzke Levee showing major log jam.Apri12004photo. Opportunities and Constraints - • The property affected by levee removal is publicly - owned by King County and the City of Auburn. LINKAGES CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) - •Allowing natural disturbance type flows in unconstrained - river channels(All-4) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(AII-6) - •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(MG-1) •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment (MG-3) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore lateral channel migration •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 Page 7-50 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project MG-19: Protection of Functioning Habitat along the Middle Green River Mainstem Project Description Seven locations in the Middle Green River Subwatershed were identified as priority areas to - protect currently functioning habitat.These locations consist of multiple parcels of riverfront,streamfront, floodplain,and upland and tributary properties, and - the areas range in size from 46 to over 200 acres. Protection of these habitats could occur through acquisition,conservation easements,or through tax - incentive programs.Alternative protection measures - could include education and informational workshops for interested property owners. Habitat protection efforts are intended to protect high quality • The seven locations of high value habitat to be pro- riparian habitat like this shown here near Flaming 6eyser State Park. tected are: May2005 photo. - • Kanaskat(river miles 60 to 58) parcels totaling 46 acres; LINKAGES • Green River Gorge additions (river miles 55 to 45) riverfront parcels totaling 164 acres; ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Green River Natural Area additions (river miles 40 •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - to 35) totaling 228 acres; •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and • Lower Newaukum Creek(creek miles 0 to 4) removing existing armoring(All-6) - streamfront parcels totaling 200 acres; •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides • Middle Newaukum Creek(creek miles 4 to 8.5) refuge,habitat complexity(MG-7) streamfront/aquatic (wetland) parcels totaling 100 •Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment acres; (M6-3) • Lower Soos Creek(creek miles 1 to 3) undeveloped •Preserving and restoring spawning and rearing habitat in floodplain properties totaling 44 acres;and lower Newaukum and Soos Creeks(MG-4) • Lower Green River Valley(river miles 35 to 32) ® Maintaining regional groundwater recharge and base floodplain and upland tributary property totaling flows to the mainstem Green River(MG-5) • 65 acres. Habitat Management Strategies - •Protect areas with functioning mainstem,tributary,and off- Opportunities and Constraints channelhabitats for spawning and rearing • This project depends on voluntary participation •Protect areas where the river is exhibiting natural rates of - by property owners through easement,sale,or channel migration and contains habitat complexity • other incentives. •Protect areas where sediment recruitment are currently functioning •Protect functioning riparian areas and plant diversity •Protect cool clean water from surface and groundwater - sources - Page 7-51 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 7-52 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND ACTIONSFOR THE LOWER - Help prevent oil, pesticides,soaps and • Use natural lawn care pet waste from going and avoid fertilizers. down storm drains. Limit lawns and plant - native trees&shrubs. e ,. Maintain urban growth • The Lower Green boundaries and support tributaries is de- River Q smart'growth. - graded,streams are Subwatershed o . channelized,and non- contains a mix of o native plant species industrial, commer- " ��% „ � � ;. � have invaded.Virtu- • cial,and residential land -_.' o `' Levees ally the entire uses as is shown here in �:� ��� subwatershed is in the Kent.A limited amount of Recreate more natural ER GR Urban Growth Area. (See agriculture also remains. and gentler stream �11 Chapter 4 for a more banks b- The levee-confined Green Y setting back 10levees. �-- detailed description of River flows through it.July conditions in the Lower - 2004 photo. Green River - Subwatershed.) The Lower Green River Subwatershed begins at The following portfolio of • river mile 32 near Auburn polices and actions is and extends 21 miles to designed to: river mile 11 in Tukwila. - The diversions of the White Protect and restore habitat that provides - River and the Cedar/Black refugia(particularly side River from the Green River channels,off channels, have had a major effect on and tributary access) flows in the Lower Green. The lower Green River Subwatershed contains a mix of industrial, and habitat complexity - Diminished instreamflow commercial,and residentialland uses as is shown here in Kent.A (particularly pools) for levels,limitation of off- limited amount of agriculture also remains.The levee-confined juvenile salmon over a channel refuge habitat,and Green River flows through it.luly2004 photo. range of flow conditions - loss of sediment recruit- ment are key concerns.The Lower Green River and at a variety of locations (e.g.,mainstem Subwatershed is important for juvenile rearing but channel edge,river bends,and tributary - flood-control levees,water diversions,and urban- mouths); - ization have reduced the amount of habitat avail- • Enhance natural sediment recruitment(particu- able to salmon in the subwatershed,particularly in larly spawning gravels)by reconnecting sedi- terms of off-channel refuge habitats.Some spawn- ment sources to the river; • ing habitat exists in the upper portions of the a Preserve and maintain groundwater inflow from • mainstem above river mile 25.The subwatershed historical White River channel in Auburn;and contains three major tributaries—Springbrook Creek,Mullen Slough,and Mill Creek—and a Modify the Black River Pump Station to improve number of smaller creeks.Water quality in the fish passage(a study of fish passage improve- ments is included in Volume II:Appendix J, - Section J.5). • POLICIES PROJECTS • Page 7-53 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Policy LG 1: - In the Lower Green River,every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and revetments to the maxi- mum 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. Project LG-1: Riverside Estates Side Channel Rehabilitation at RM 28.8(Left Bank) - Project Description This project would re-establish side channel habitat to LINKAGES provide summer rearing habitat and winter refuge - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed while maintaining the existing level of flood protec- - •Protecting water quality(All-1) tion. _ •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) The project would create a groundwater collection •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(Al1-3) pond at the head of the side channel to provide water •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides for low summer flows,replace the existing flap-gated refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) culvert with a new self-regulating tidegate,and con- nect the collection pond with the mainstem of the - ® Habitat Management Strategies Green River with a new channel between the pond and •Restore tributary access the new tidegate.The new channel would be approxi- •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native mately 1,500 feet in length and constructed to permit - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries conveyance of approximately 1-2 cubic feet per second Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- during low flow conditions. channel habitats and/or placement oflarge woody debris along banklines This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Project. Opportunities and Constraints - • This project depends on voluntary participation • by property owners through easement,sale, or other incentives. Page 7-54 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 LG-17 boo LG-19 0�0 LG-16 0120 t 13 LG-14 KI ITON LG-13 1s (17 - 1 LG-10 �— 18' i LG-10 20 •21 22 • .23 24• :r 26• LG 4 - c LG-6 ,• 2s LG-8 .............LG-5 28 1 at♦I� ' r LG-1 ti y 29 �7 30 r � 7 •� OIJB:i9tN 31 32 33. ... _< IIIfn6 FIGURE 7-3 LEGEND Recommended Projects 30 Road �./ River Mile&No. N Lower Green River Subwatershed LG-1 LG-2 Action Project Location/No. 0 1/2 1 Mile Urban Growth Area Line August2005 Subwatershed Boundary Map produced by: King County Incorporated Area Department of Natural Resources and Parks DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Unit Publicly-owned and File: Managed Lands 05O8_W9hab_LGRact.ai Ipre Project LG-2: Olson Creek Restoration at RM 28.5(Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve access to the Olson Creek r tributary from the Green River, restore tributary habitat, restore natural habitat-creating processes, and provide summer and winter rearing and refuge habitat for salmonid species. • The project would remove excessive sediment from the creek,creating a two-stage channel that provides additional stream depth during low flow conditions. • The culvert located under Green River Road would be - evaluated and replaced if necessary.Excessive sedi- ment in the channel appears to be from a major storm , - event that has not re-occurred recently. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. • Opportunities and Constraints • Flows during the summer are colder than the Green River and considered high quality. • The failure of an upstream culvert and erosion Olson(reek looking downstream to one of the - from the area has caused sediment laden pools, historical buildings on theAuburn Parkproperty. reducing the quality of salmonid habitat and the Photo courtesyofU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers. transport capacity in the reach. - LINKAGES - C3a Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting water quality(All-1) •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides • refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) CID Habitat Management Strategies •Restore tributary access by removing fish passage barriers • and modifying tributary mouth configuration • •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Rehabilitate hydrologic processes to maintain adequate • instream flow to provide access to tributaries - Page 7-57 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-3: Horsehead Bend Off-Channel Habitat Restoration at RM 26(Left Bank) Project Description • This project would excavate an off-channel habitat t"T through a terrace in a manner that would avoid potential fish stranding.The channel would be ap- proximately 950 linear feet in length and would follow the old river channel,terminating at a depression located on the east side of the terrace.The project also #, would rehabilitate floodplain wetland habitat,plant native riparian vegetation,and add large woody debris. This project is one of three separate but related - projects in the Horsehead Bend/Horseneck area(see • IL LG-4 and LG-5).The further development and imple- Aerial view of Horsehead Bend.Photo courtesyofU.S.Army Corps mentation of one or more of these projects will require of Engineers. additional discussion among King County land man- agers because the Horsehead Bend and Horseneck parcels are managed for different purposes. Future LINKAGES discussion will identify the best ways to manage the two properties to meet four goals: restoring salmon - GD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed habitat,preserving the agricultural land base,meeting •Protecting water quality(All-1) recreational land uses (by extending the Green River •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) Trail),and providing for flood protection. - •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) Project. - ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native Opportunities and Constraints vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries Deed restrictions on the Horsehead Bend prop- •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- erty,limiting its use to outdoor recreation,would channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris need to be accommodated in order to increase • along banklines salmon habitat as an additional use. •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Page 7-58 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-4: Horseneck Off`-Channel Habitat Restoration at RM 25.9(Left Bank) Project Description This project would excavate backwater off-channel flood refugium to create juvenile salmonid rearing - habitat,restore floodplain wetland habitat, add large woody debris, and plant native wetland and riparian vegetation at the Horsehead/Horseneck site. • This project is one of three separate but related projects in the Horsehead Bend/Horseneck area (see LG-3 and LG-5).The further development and imple- mentation of one or more of these projects will require • further discussion among King County land managers because the Horsehead Bend and Horseneck parcels • are managed for different purposes. Future discussion Horsehead Bend,looking northwest toward Kent.Project area is in will identify the best ways to manage the two proper- centerofphoto where'hors6 jaw"meets the hors6 neck."August • ties to meet four goals: restoring salmon habitat, 2004 photo. preserving the agricultural land base, meeting recre- ational land uses (by extending the Green River Trail), - and providing for flood protection. LINKAGES This project is adjacent to Green/Duwamish Ecosys- tem Restoration Project sites (LG-3 and LG-5). ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed � •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) Opportunities and Constraints •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and • Deed restrictions on the Horseneck property, removing existing armoring(All-6) - limiting its use to agriculture as a Farmland •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Preservation Property,would need to be accom- refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) modated in order to increase salmon habitat as an additional use. ® Habitat Management Strategies - Salmon habitat restoration may provide an •Rehabilitate existing banklinesto create low velocity and/or opportunity to improve drainage on adjacent shallow water habitat during juvenile migration farmland. •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris - along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-59 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-5: NortheastAuburn Creek Rehabilitation at RM 25.6(Left Bank) Project Description . W The project would provide juvenile fish access to - rearing and refuge habitat within Northeast Auburn Creek.The project would eliminate the existing flapgate/culvert and improve the tributary by increas- ing creek habitat diversity.A bridge would be installed to maintain access across the channel.The project also would rehabilitate floodplain wetland habitat,plant native riparian vegetation, and add large woody debris. - The riparian planting zone should extend 50 feet, or as wide as possible,on both sides of the channel. This project is one of three separate but related - Aerial view ofNEAuburnCreekconfluence with the 6reen,looking projects in the Horsehead Bend/Horseneck area (see southwest Photo courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. LG-3 and LG-4).The further development and imple- mentation of one or more of these projects will require • additional discussion among King County land man- agers because the Horsehead Bend and Horseneck parcels are managed for different purposes. Future • discussion will identify the best ways to manage the LINKAGES two properties to meet four goals:restoring salmon ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed habitat,preserving the agricultural land base,meeting recreational land uses (by extending the Green River - •Protecting water quality(All-1) Trail), and providing for flood protection. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) � •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - - •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Project. refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) Opportunities and Constraints ® Habitat Management Strategies The riparian corridor of NE Auburn Creek is dominated by cottonwood for about 2,000 feet •Restore tributary access immediately above the existing flap-gated culvert, •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or providing healthy habitat once fish access is shallow water habitat during juvenile migration restored. - •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native Upstream of the cottonwood,the riparian vegeta- - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries tion is dominated by a monoculture of invasive •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- Himalayan blackberry. channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-60 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • Project LG-6: • Acquisition,Revetment Setback,Floodplain Wetland Restoration and Off Channel Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 25.1 and 24.3(Left Bank) • • • Project Description LINKAGES • Acquire and remove auto wrecking yards to create ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed space for a habitat rehabilitation project. Proposed • actions include removing contaminated soils,re- •Protecting water quality(All-1) • sloping an over-steepened revetment segment along •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) • 78th Avenue S.to create a low bench,restoring a •Preventing newbank/shoreline armoring and fill and floodplain wetland, excavating an off-channel flood removing existing armoring(All-6) • refugium for juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, install- •Protecting and(reating/restoring habitat thatprovides • ing large woody debris,and planting native wetland refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) . and riparian vegetation. ® Habitat Management Strategies • Opportunities and Constraints •Rehabilitate existing banklinesto create low velocity and/or • This project depends on voluntary sale by the shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • landowner.This property is believed to have •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native significant soil contamination that would have to vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • be remediated. •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris • along banklines • •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • Page 7-61 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • • • • Project LG-7. • Lower Mill Creek,Riverview(Formerly Green River)Park,Hawley Road Levee,and Lower Mullen • Slough Restoration Between RM24 and 21.3(Both Banks) • • Project Description These projects are being coordinated by the City of - This suite of projects would be coordinated on lands Kent,King County,and the U.S.Army Corps of Engi- that are adjacent and/or share a floodplain.The goals neers.Sub-projects include: • and nature of the projects are similar. Lower Mill Creek Floodplain Wetland and Off- • Channel Habitat Rehabilitation:This project • Overall goals are to restore habitat along the mainstem includes restoration of the lower 0.3 miles of Mill and lower sections of Mill Creek and Mullen Slough by: Creek and adjacent segments of the currently • • Creating off-channel habitat for rearing and flood armored riverbank.The project would include • refugia and over-wintering habitat; excavation of off-channel habitat on the right • • Reconnecting mainstem and tributaries with bank of Mill Creek and reshaping the stream • portions of the floodplain; banks and the mainstem left bank of the Green River.This would create a more complex channel • • Setting back levees to improve bank conditions and aquatic edge habitat that includes off-channel and create shallow water vegetated benches; habitat and large woody debris.This project would • • Installing anchored large woody debris;and create nine acres of off-channel and riparian • • Controlling invasive plant species and planting habitat adjacent to lower Mill Creek and restore • with native plants. approximately 1,600 lineal feet of lower Mill Creek • • Riverview(Formerly Green River)Park: This - PF.,; project is located opposite from the mouth of Mill Creek,on the right bank of the Green River.The • project would provide summer rearing habitat and high flow winter refuge through excavation of an • off channel area combined with placement of • large woody debris and revegetation.Land is in • public ownership and belongs to the City of Kent. • This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. • • Hawley Revetment:This project would to set back • the over-steepened Hawley Revetment between • river miles 23.5 and 23.3,in order to achieve a E more stable slope angle,create a low,vegetated • View from Riverview Park of Mill Creek confluence with the Green bench,and allow the placement of large woody • River.April2004 photo. debris.Land is in public ownership and is imme- • diately downstream of Riverview Park. • • • • • • • • • • Page 7-62 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Final Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • Lower Mullen Slough(also known as Prentice Nursery Reach of Mullen Slough) at RM 21.4 (Left Bank):This project would improve fish passage - and create a natural habitat for rearing and refuge - from high flows in the Green River mainstem.This project would restore the mouth of Mullen Slough and connect with a nearby pond, creating a new , ,-v flatter-gradient meandering outlet for the pond. �` a • Actions include improving the channel to elimi- nate a summer low flow fish passage blockage, - clearing the site of junk and Himalayan black- berry,planting riparian vegetation,placement of large woody debris,and construction of channel Area of Riverview Park that would be location for constructed off- branches branches (dendrites) for improved flow and channel habitat.Project would connect to the Green River beyond - diversity.This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem the line of cotton wood trees.September 2002 photo. • Restoration Project. • Mullen Slough(Slough Mile 1.8-0.3):This project LINKAGES would create a natural habitat for rearing and refuge from high flows in the Green River CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - mainstem. Restoration along the slough would •Protecting water quality(All-1) include channel meandering,large woody debris •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) placement,and riparian plantings.This project - site is upstream from the Prentice Nursery Reach •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) - project (previous sub-project) and includes about •Preventing new bank/shorelinearmoring and fill and 90 acres from Highway 516 to the head of the removing existing armoring(All-6) slough.This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thatprovides . Restoration Project. refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) • Lower Mill Creek Future Project: The City of Kent has proposed an additional setback of the levee ® Habitat Management Strategies near the mouth of Mill Creek and four acres of •Restore tributary access by removing fish passage barriers - riparian planting. and modifying tributary mouth configuration •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or Opportunities and Constraints shallow water habitat duringjuvenile migration • Although much of the property is presently in •Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by reconnecting habitats to • public ownership,additional parcels may be the mainstem - needed and may have agricultural constraints. •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native However,in several instances landowners already vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries have expressed a willingness to sell. •Rehabilitate remaining wetlands adjacent to mainstem • The river has down-cut over the years and the off- channel • channel excavation will be extensive. •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris - along banklines . •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-63 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Final Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-8: Schuler Brothers Reach Rehabilitation on Mill Creek Between Creek Miles 0.3 and 2.1 LINKAGES Project Description - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed This project would improve about 90 acres along Mill Creek. Habitat improvements would increase channel •Protecting water quality(All-1) diversity,add large woody debris and native vegetation - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) in the riparian corridor,and construct channel •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thotprovides branches (dendrites) along the stream corridor. refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) This project is in response to high temperatures,poor - ® Habitat Management Strategies water quality, and low dissolved oxygen levels that •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native have been a detriment to the survival and rearing of vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries fish in Mill Creek and have probably caused the death - •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off- of fry spawned in Peasley Canyon - channel habitats and/or placement oflarge woody debris along banklines This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Project. - Opportunities and Constraints • This project depends on voluntary participation by property owners through easement, sale,or - other incentives. Page 7-64 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Project LG-9: - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration Between RM20.8 and 20(Left Bank) • Project Description This project would rehabilitate habitat at the Rosso ' Nursery site between river miles 20.8 and 20.0 by Y 4" - constructing an outlet at RM 20.1.Actions would ' - include removing fill, excavating off-channel flood :- •< refugium for juvenile rearing habitat,and planting ' •.r. native wetland and riparian vegetation. Opportunities and Constraints • The City of Kent received a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant to acquire the site but does i - not have a specific proposal for salmon habitat rehabilitation. °-" - View across the Green River toward the Rosso Nursery site. LINKAGES - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • •Protecting water quality(All-1) • •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(Al1-2) - •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or • shallow water habitat during juvenile migration •Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by reconnecting habitats to the mainstem •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native • vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris • along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat feature Page 7-65 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-10: Mainstem Maintenance(including the Boeing Levee Setback and Habitat Rehabilitation)L'.J1 - Between RM 20.5 and 16.3 Project Description Sub-projects include: This project would improve fish habitat along the Lower Green River while providing stable bank and • Boeing Setback and Restoration Between RM 18 - levee conditions to protect significant human and 17.1 (Right Bank): - infrastructure and development.These projects are Set back the Boeing Levee between river miles 18 being coordinated by local jurisdictions,the Green and 17.1,right bank,to enable extensive habitat River Flood Control Zone District,and the U.S.Army rehabilitation.Actions include reshaping the - Corps of Engineers. bankline between the upstream end of the Chris- tian Brothers Revetment and South 212th Street, The majority of the banks in this portion of the river widening the channel cross-section,restoring - have been hardened and trees and other fish friendly channel complexity and meanders,creating a two- - features have been removed to make the river flow stage channel,excavating low benches and without impediment.Riprap or rock bank protections alcoves,installing large woody debris,and plant- have reduced fish habitat along this stretch of the river. ing native riparian vegetation.The proposed - project is within City of Kent open space,which has a 200-foot buffer with restricted development. • Carrot Patch Setback and Restoration: Implement fish friendly,bio-engineered solutions - to levee maintenance problems.Set back the levee - to enable habitat rehabilitation,including reshap- ing the bankline,widening the channel cross- section,restoring channel complexity and mean- ders,excavating low benches and installing large - woody debris,and planting native riparian vegetation. • Russell Road Upper,Lower and Lowest Setback - and Restorations: - Implement fish friendly,bio-engineered solutions to levee maintenance problems.Set back the levee to enable habitat rehabilitation,including reshap- ing the bankline,widening the channel cross- section,restoring channel complexity and mean- ders,excavating low benches and installing large woody debris,and planting native riparian - vegetation. These are Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Projects. Opportunities and Constraints - • This project depends on voluntary participation by property owners through easement,sale,or other incentives. - Page 7-66 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • View north across the Green River looking toward the Boeing levee - at river mile 17.6.April 2005 photo. - LINKAGES - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting water quality(All-1) - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(Al1-6) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) - ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration - •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/orplacement of large woody debris along banklinesSubstitute ecological processes with habitat - features - Page 7-67 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Project LG-11: Acquisition and Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 17.3 and 16.0(Left • Bank)and Between Creek Miles 0 and 0.5 of Johnson Creek :-, Project Description - Key actions for this project include excavation of a flood refugium for juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, -. realignment of the stream channel,improvement of - fish passage, restoration of the wetland complex, - placement of large woody debris,and planting of native wetland and riparian vegetation. Consideration should be given to seeking a voluntary acquisition of river front easements,in combination Looking west toward the project area on the far side of the river. with a partnership and incentives for the property - Johnson(reek is the hockey-stick shaped corridor of darker owner,for additional off-channel habitat.The ease- vegetation in the left third of the image.2001h St crosses the ments would make levee maintenance and improve- 6reen River near the center of the photo.July 2004 photo. ments possible along this important reach of the river. A portion of the property is listed as a Green/ - Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project, identified within the"Mainstem Maintenance"sites for signifi- • LINKAGES cant levee repair and improvement. - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Opportunities and Constraints •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) A large development is proposed for this area and - •Improving tributary access(All-3) is being considered for permitting as of 2005.This • •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and property is subject to future annexation by the removing existing armoring(All-6) City of Tukwila. •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(Low-i) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore tributary access by removing fish passage barriers - and modifying tributary mouth configuration - •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration •Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by reconnecting habitats to the mainstem - •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 •Rehabilitate remaining wetlands adjacent to mainstem channel - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-68 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-12: Briscoe Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 16.1 and 15.8(Right Bank) Project Description Remove the armoring on the Briscoe meander shore- line,excavate flood refugium for juvenile salmonid - rearing habitat,install large woody debris,and plant native riparian vegetation.An existing(landlocked) J levee on the eastern boundary of the park would - provide continued flood protection. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission and cooperation would have to be gained from the City of Kent. - • Park use is relatively low but the impact of pro- posed changes is unknown.Access to the river could be designed as an amenity for the remaining Briscoe Parklooking north.Bike trail to rightis on existing,landlocked levee.Portion of area to left would be excavated to create shallow park area. water refuge habitat February 2005 photo. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and - removing existing armoring(All-6) - •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) • ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • •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 7-69 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-13: Acquisition,Levee Setback,and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 - (Right Bank) Project Description - Acquire additional right of way along the river-ward edge of the business park parking lot between river miles 15.3 and14.7 (right bank) set back the over- - steepened levee, create bench habitat,install large - woody debris, and plant native riparian vegetation. This project would extend downstream from a levee setback project completed in the late 1990s. - Opportunities and Constraints • Acquisition of right of way needed for this project would require the agreement and cooperation of - the property owner(s). Desimone Levee setback of 1998-1999 showing students planting - nativetrees.This type of setback would be replicated just - downstream in the proposed project.luly2003 photo. LINKAGES - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or - shallow water habitat during juvenile migration •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-70 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • Project LG-74: • Off Channel and Wetland Habitat Creation atRM 13.50-12.5(Right Bank) • • Project Description LINKAGES • Create an engineered side-channel between river miles ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • 13.5 and 12.5 (right bank),connecting and enhancing •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) • approximately 10 acres of wetlands located between the Union Pacific and BNSF Railway tracks.The project •Preventing new bank/shoreline ormoring and fill and • would create approximately 24 acres of floodplain removing existing armoring(All-6) • access across seven parcels. It would be engineered to •Protecting and(reating/restoring habitat thatprovides have water in the channel from January to July,the refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) - peak time of juvenile Chinook rearing and migration. • ® Habitat Management Strategies • Opportunities and Constraints •Rehabilitate existing banklinesto create low velocity and/or The side-channel would need to go underneath shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • • the West Valley Highway,the South Longacres •Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by reconnecting habitat to • Road,the I-405 Railroad Bridge and Union Pacific the mainstem • Railroad tracks, and include a water control •Rehabilitate remaining wetlands adjacent to mainstem structure at the inlet to meter the amount of water channel allowed into the side-channel. •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native • Several of the parcels are currently in public vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • • ownership. •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 7-71 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Project LG-15: Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 12.65 and 12.5(Right Bank) � Project Description - Restore historical flood refugia and off-channel rearing habitat on a riverside sheep pasture. Key actions include excavating and reconnecting an abandoned - river channel segment, re-sloping the bankline of both the river side channel and the adjacent levee,installing - instream and bench large woody debris,and planting riparian vegetation. - Opportunities and Constraints • The project area is also scheduled for an expan- sion of the I-405, including a possible off ramp, - Lower Green River looking east.Project area extends to the right; and serve as a mitigation site. • 1-405 is on the left.February2005 photo. • Property is owned by the City of Tukwila. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) - •Protecting and(reating/restoring habitat that provides - refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration •Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by reconnecting habitats to the mainstem i •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris - along banklines •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Page 7-72 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project LG-76: • Gilliam Creek Fish Passage Improvements and Riparian Rehabilitation at RM 12.5(Left Bank) • Project Description This project would eliminate fish passage barriers and improve approximately 2,000 feet of Gilliam Creek to • provide for enhanced rearing and refuge habitat while maintaining the current level of flood protection to therir area.The project would add a fish ladder and self- regulating tidegate to the existing creek outlet,which - currently consists of a flapgate and apron that prevent ` fish passage.The project would widen Gilliam Creek and add gravel,riparian vegetation,and large woody - debris,enhancing approximately 2,000 feet of the - Creek. Project would remove the existing 9 foot flap gate at - Gilliam Creek confluence with the Green River. Photo courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. - Project would remove the existing nine-foot - Gilliam Creek drains approximately 1,900 acres. Its flap gate at Gilliam Creek confluence with - upper basin,contained within the city of SeaTac, is the6reen River.Photo courtesyof U.S.Army subject to poor water quality,erosion of the stream Corps of Engineers. banks,and siltation within the stream corridor.The - lower basin land use within the city of Tukwila is predominantly commercial and high-density residen- tial property with storm drainage directed to Gilliam LINKAGES - Creek. CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) Project. •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) • •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Opportunities and Constraints refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) • This project depends on voluntary participation ® Habitat Management Strategies by property owners through easement,sale,or - other incentives. •Restore tributary access by removing fish passage barriers and modifying tributary mouth configuration •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features •Substitute sediment recruitment by gravel supplemento- tion - Page 7-73 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-17. Levee Setback Between RM 11.7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) Project Description - Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank,without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian - vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints - Permission must be obtained by the City of Lower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7.To • - right is Fort Dent Park showing levee and possible bank set back Tukwila,and implementers will need to work with area.February 2005 photo. the company that manages the soccer complex on • this parcel to design this project in a way that - minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges LINKAGES for implementation. - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or - shallow water habitat during juvenile migration •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute loss of slow water areas by placement oflarge - woody debris along banklines Page 7-74 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-78: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0(Right Bank) - Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an - emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for - the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. • The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank.The project would remove about 200 cubic - yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at - the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks.This small area would then be planted with - appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large Black River confluencewith the Green/Duwamish.8lackRiveris to stumps with root wads would be placed to provide right.Railroad bridges are visible in the distance.February2005 - cover.A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created photo. along the banks of the Black River from the Black River - Pump Station to the confluence. • This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration LINKAGES Project. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(Al1-2) Opportunities and Constraints •Preventing new bank armoring and removing existing • The site has significant infrastructure that will armoring(AII-6) make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive •Protecting and creating/restoring habitat thatprovides - plant species now dominate the site. refuge,habitat comp/exity(Low-1) - • In 2005,volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the ® Habitat Management Strategies south bank of the Black River just west of the Black •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native - River Pump Station. vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries - •Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-75 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project LG-7 9: Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation at Creek Mile 1.0(Both Banks) i 1 j Project Description - f ' a , This project would rehabilitate habitat for rearing and off-channel refuge on Springbrook Creek.Springbrook Creek is a tributary to the Black River.Approximately - 4,500 feet of Springbrook would be improved with riparian plantings,large woody debris,pool construc- tion, channel branch (dendrite) excavation,and,where - appropriate, modification to create a 2-stage (low-and high-flow) channel. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - Lower Springbrook Creek showing lack of native vegetation.Photo Project. courtesy of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Opportunities and Constraints - • Because Springbrook is spring fed,water quality is - LINKAGES generally good. Riparian vegetation is dominated . by invasive plants,however,which do not create ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed shade, refuge or instream diversity. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) • This project depends on voluntary participation - •Protecting and treating/restoring habitat that provides by property owners through easement,sale,or - refuge,habitat complexity(Low-1) other incentives. ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native - vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries •Substitute loss ofslow water areas by placement of large woody debris along banklines - •Substitute ecological processes with habitat features - Page 7-76 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED �1banization s�venet� Much of the Duwamish is heavily • "" industrialized and dramatically - I( Duwamish Super-fund is removing past reconfigured.The lower five miles w cleanup pollution that is harmful has been straightened,dredged, to both people and fish. and heavily armored.View looks northwest from river mile 4.9 Control storm water sources to maintain Factory waste causes toward the South Park Bridge. 1 - water quality and avoid relatively little pollution December2003 photo. recontamination of Runo°;�..< �'�- in the Duwamish today. sediments. ' �� Most pollution today comes from stormwater . runoff. Restore shallow water intertidal habitat,where- habitat in the Duwamish-particularly young fish feed,shelter, ��°'� t1�pMI5N transition zone habitat—is a limiting habitat factor - and adapt to salt water. for the Chinook populations of the watershed. (See Chapter 4 for a more detailed description of condi- tions in the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed.) s the estuary for the Green River,the Duwamish provides critical habitat for Chinook salmon. The following portfolio of policies and actions is Chinook,along with chum,are the salmonid species designed to: • most dependent on healthy estuarine habitat.The Duwamish estuary begins at river mile 11,at the Expand and enhance the estuary,particularly confluence of the Black River remnant with the vegetated shallow subtidal and intertidal - Green River and extends down to Elliott Bay(river habitats and brackish marshes,by restoring mile 0 at the southwest corner of Harbor Island). dredged,armored,and filled areas; • Enlarge the Duwamish estuarine transition zone The Duwamish Estuary is the part of WRIA 9 most habitat by expanding the shallow water and - dramatically transformed by the last 130 years of slow water areas; • development.The upper portion of the Duwamish- Protect and restore habitat that provides refugia above the Turning Basin at river mile 5.5 —has been (particularly side channels,off channels,and diked and reveted,while the lower Duwamish has tributary access)and habitat complexity(par- been extensively dredged and filled.The majority of ticularly pools) for juvenile salmon over a range the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed lies in the of flow conditions and at a variety of locations cities of Seattle and Tukwila.Industrial(43%)and (e.g.,mainstem channel edge,river bends,and - residential(39%) development are the primary land tributary mouths); - uses.The Duwamish is an economic powerhouse for a Enhance natural sediment processes(transport- King County,home to 10%of the jobs in the county while making up just 1%of the land area.As a result delivery); - of development and land use,the Duwamish has lost • Protect and restore water quality(e.g.,tempera- 97%of the habitat it provided 150 years ago.The ture,dissolved oxygen,metals and organics)by Duwamish also suffers from decades of industrial addressing point and nonpoint(specifically pollution that have resulted in the lower five miles of stormwater runoff)pollution sources;and - the river becoming a Superfund cleanup site.Scien- • Protect and improve sediment quality through tific assessment work for this Plan suggests that this the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund loss,degradation,and fragmentation of estuarine cleanup and other cleanup/control efforts. • POLICIES PROGRAMS PROJECTS - Page 7-77 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 \ Policy DU 1: - Endorse the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(Superfund) assessment and cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superf ind area by the responsible parties and - regulatory agencies because it will improve ecosystem health and increase the quality of existing salmon habitat. Policy DU1: - Encourage the Natural Resource Trustees to develop Natural Resources Damages Assessment(NRDA) ap- proaches that allow habitat creation/restoration concurrent with Superfund cleanup of the Lower Duwamish - Waterway.This will accelerate the rate at which mitigation occurs and be more efficient. . \ Policy DU3: Encourage businesses in the Lower Duwamish to address source control issues to minimize water pollution and the potential for sediment contamination or re-contamination. Policy DU4: Encourage private property owners to participate in habitat restoration on their land. Policy DU5: • Encourage the removal of derelict vessels. Page 7-78 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 ;UW-13< 2 SEATTLE 3 • A s � Duw-12 C� 7t 1 5 Duw-11 tti Duw-7 F Duw-10 Duw-6 Duw-9 Duw-8 Duw-4 BURi�i, �� � •9 t DUW-3 Duw-2 �r 10• 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 p 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 TUKW ILA consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse 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. 11 LEGEND N FIGURE 7-4 Road Recommended Projects Urban Growth Area Line 30 • River Mile&No. 0 1/2 1 Mile Duwamish Estuary Sub watershed LG-1 o Action Location/No. August 2005 f� Subwatershed Boundary AMU Map produced by: Incorporated Area King County \ Department of Natural Resources and Parks DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Unit Publicly-owned and File: Managed Lands 0508_W9HP_DUWact.ai Ipre Program D-1: Eliminate Perennial Pepperweed Carry out a comprehensive cooperative weed control - effort to eliminate perennial pepperweed (Lepidium LINKAGES • latifolium),a Class B noxious weed,which has formed a heavy infestation from upstream of North Wind's ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Weir(river mile 6.3)to Herring's House Park(river mile •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) - 1.1).This weed grows well in intertidal and riprapped - areas.Pepperweed control is typically done by hand, ® Habitat Management Strategies making control relatively expensive and time-consum- •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed. ing compared to control of other weeds.This program •Restore native riparian communities - would be carried out by the King County Noxious Weeds Program in cooperation with public and private landowners. _- Program D-2: Eliminate Common Reed from SR 509 Intertidal Wetlands Carry out a comprehensive cooperative weed program - to eliminate non-native common reed(Phragmites australis)at the SR 509 Intertidal Wetlands site and rehabilitate the existing restoration site.This highly- invasive weed is localized at this point and could be - controlled at much lower cost than if it were to spread throughout the Lower Duwamish. - Control options at this site could include excavating as much of the common reed-infested area as possible,as well as some of the existing upland habitat,much of - which is overrun with other invasive plants.This • excavation would slope the banks to a flatter slope The SR 509 wetlands are almost completely filled with common angle and create elevations suitable for mudflat and reed.February 2005 photo. emergent wetland habitats.Control of invasive weeds • in the upland areas would complement these actions. • This comprehensive approach would physically remove a great deal of the common reed and create LINKAGES conditions that favor the formation and maintenance CO Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - of more desirable habitat types. Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) This program would be carried out by the King County ® Habitat Management Strategies - Noxious Weeds Program in cooperation with the land Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed owners. Restore native riparian communities - Page 7-81 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program D-3: Develop a Transition Zone Habitat"Blueprint" Develop a"blueprint"for habitat restoration projects LINKAGES in the Duwamish Estuary transition zone(Figure 4-1). ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - The boundary of the transition zone blueprint •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) should be initially determined using the results of the •Enlarging the Duwamish River estuarine transition zone Duwamish transition zone study that will be com- habitat(Duw-3) - pleted in 2005.Use results from this study and all other - relevant information to further identify and prioritize ® Habitat Management Strategies restoration/rehabilitation/substitution projects— •Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7)and channel edge including those listed in this Plan—for implementa- habitats(upstream of RM 7)to create low velocity and/or - tion. shallow water habitat •Substitute lost slow water/shallow areas,focusing actions at The"blueprint"could incorporate the latest science the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between River with information about willing land owners,economic Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 considerations,and overall feasibility and effectiveness •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed evaluations to identify the best locations for habitat restoration/rehabilitation/substitution projects. To the extent the transition zone encompasses Turning Basin#3 and areas farther downstream,the"blueprint" should be coordinated with Natural Resources Dam- i ages Assessment mitigation associated with the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund cleanup. Periodic refinement of the"blueprint"should take into - account any subsequent scientific findings on the nature and extent of the transition zone. Page 7-82 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Program D-4: - Develop Improvements in DredginglSediment Use Encourage the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to identify strategies for maintenance dredging at _ - Turning Basin#3 that: • Minimize harmful impacts to salmon habitat in - the dredged area; and - • Improve salmon habitat both in the dredged area - and elsewhere in the Duwamish and Marine Nearshore Subwatersheds (e.g.,through the use of clean dredged sediment to expand/improve - shallow water habitat). - Turning Basin,looking southeast from river mile 4.9.Biennial - dredging currently occurs in basin at upper right.December2003 photo. - LINKAGES • ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving sediment quality - ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7)and channel edge habitats(upstream of RM 7)to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat at - •Restore sediment and riparian processes/conditions that - influence shallow water habitat quality •Rehabilitate sediment recruitment from both tidal and riverine processes i • • • • - Page 7-83 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-1: Shallow Water Habitat Creation(15Acres)at RM 11.0-7.0(Both Banks) Project Description - In river miles 11.0-7.0,create a minimum of 15 acres of new off-channel shallow water/marsh habitat,with associated riparian vegetation. - Because of the large size of this project, it may be necessary to conduct it in phases and in multiple - locations (the 15 acres need not be contiguous). - The downstream limit of the project area may be adjusted to match the upstream boundary of the - transition zone definition resulting from the Duwamish transition zone study ending in 2005. Opportunities and Constraints • This project depends on identifying suitable - properties whose owners are willing to sell.Cost of property in this area is high.Even doing the - ''>r' project in phases and multiple locations may - require the simultaneous acquisition of several adjacent parcels to create projects with adequate habitat value and economies of scale. - The Duwamish at rivermile 8.1.Tukwila Community Center is to right.July 2004 photo. LINKAGES - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving water quality(All-1) - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) •Protecting and restoring side channels,off channel habitat,tributary access,and pools(Duw-4) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to - stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools upstream of RM 6)and habitat complexity •Substitute off-channel habitats through creation of wetlands and sloughs - •Substitute lostslow water/shallow areas,focusing actions at the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between River Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 - Page 7-84 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-2: Shallow Water Habitat Creation and Bank Reshaping at RM 10.3-9.9(Right Bank) Project Description LINKAGES This project would create off-channel,shallow-water ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed refuge habitat on the inside of a meander at river miles - 10.3 to 9.9, right bank.The project would acquire •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-1) property from the private landowner,if the company is •Preventing newbank/shoreline armoring and fill and willing to sell,and remove existing structures.The removing existing armoring(All-6) project would re-slope the rock-lined and •Protecting and restoring side channels,off channel - oversteepened bankline to create a low bench and habitat,tributary access,and pools(Duw-4) install large woody debris along the main river bank and within a newly excavated sandy beach landward ® Habitat Management Strategies • from the bank line.Also included would be excavation •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - of shallow, off-channel habitat farther from the chan- •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to nel that would be inundated during winter and spring stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools upstream river stages (about seven feet).The project would add ofRM 6)and habitat complexity - large woody debris in this excavated area and plant •Substitute off-channel habitats through creation of wetlands with native riparian trees and shrubs to provide a flood and sloughs refuge and off-channel habitat for juvenile salmonids. - Alternatively,the entire project area could be exca- vated to provide shallow water habitat that extends nearly to the BNSF Railway embankment at the east - edge of the property. Opportunities and Constraints • This project depends on the business property - owner being willing to sell. - Page 7-85 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-3: Bank Restoration and Revetment Set Back at RM 8.9-8.6;8.4-8.2(Left Bank) Project Description - This project would reshape the revetment at Gateway South at river miles 8.9-8.6 and 8.4-8.2,left bank.A - segment of the Green River Trail would be relocated - westward to allow reshaping of the revetment.The project would place large woody debris and revegetate the river bank with native riparian species. - Opportunities and Constraints • This project depends on voluntary participation by commercial property landowners through - easement,sale, or other incentive to allow removal - of portions of several parking lots in order to set Green River Trail and parking lot that would be setback in back the trail. projectarea.Riveris to left February2005 photo. - LINKAGES - CCD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and - removing existing armoring(All-6) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to - stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools upstream of RM 6)and habitat complexity •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - Page 7-86 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • r��U Project Duw-4: Wastewater Pipeline Crossing Retrofit at RM 8.0 • Project Description �� i,*"'�""�� ! _�' _ ! , • This project would determine the extent to which the wastewater pipeline crossing at river mile 8.0 alters ' _ - salinity upstream.If reducing the profile of the pipe- line crossing will produce significant benefits in terms of extending the transition zone,the project would - rr • retrofit the pipeline to lower its profile. The King County Metro wastewater pipeline crossing at this location during the 1990s was supposed to be - installed below the bed of the river. However,it was installed at a higher elevation and armored with riprap, which forms a rock berm that is partially exposed Riprap being placed over the pipeline during construction.Photo • when low tide coincides with late summer/early fall courtesy of City of Tukwila. . minimum river flows.This barrier may alter upstream water chemistry by limiting the movement of the salt wedge upstream.It is unclear whether this limitation LINKAGES - occurs during the period of downstream juvenile - migration.The barrier may also pose a partial adult ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed fish passage migration barrier at certain river and tidal •Fish passage generally and water quality in terms of stages;further study is needed to confirm whether this salinity - also is an issue. ® Habitat Management Strategies Opportunities and Constraints •The functions and structure addressed by this action do not - Retrofitting the wastewater pipeline would be a directly address habitat management strategies specific to major capital project. It could also require the the Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed addition of a pumping station,which would create greater capital costs and probably substantial on- going operations and maintenance costs. - Page 7-87 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Project Duw-5: 42"d Ave.S.Bank Restoration at RM 7.9-7.1 (Both Banks) Project Description Work with the neighboring community to improve - riparian habitat conditions on the west side of 421 Ave. � S.at river miles 7.9 to 7.3,right bank.Relocate the water main that is presently located under the - riverward(west)edge of 42°d Avenue South to the opposite (east) side of the street in order to allow restoration of a more stable bank angle and/or excava- - tion of low vegetated benches along the river.A mid- - channel island with old wooden pilings exists towards the upstream end of the reach.Large woody debris would be added to this island by chaining them to the - existing pilings and strategically placed anchor rocks. Duwamish looking downstream from pedestrian bridge atrivermile In the northern(downstream portion of this reach), 7.6 toward northern part of project area.February 2005 photo. unpaved parking areas at the top of the bank encroach - into the riparian corridor.This portion of the project • site could be fenced off with a guard rail and/or posted LINKAGES by the City of Tukwila with"no parking"signs to eliminate these impacts and allow the restoration of CCD CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed vegetation(while still allowing pedestrian access to the - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) river). •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and A complementary project would consist of working - removing existing armoring(All-6) with willing property owners at river miles 7.6 to 7.1, ® Habitat Management Strategies left bank,to restore riparian vegetation on residential parcels. If a flat bank toe can be created along the •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed inside bend at river mile 7.3-7.2,it could possibly • •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to support salt marsh vegetation. stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools upstream . ofRM 6)and habitat complexity Opportunities and Constraints • Relocation of the water main would constitute a - major capital project. • On the left bank,project depends on voluntary participation of residential property owners. - Page 7-88 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-6: S.115r"St.Bank Restoration and Revetment Setback at RM 7.2-6.9(Right Bank) Project Description Reshape and revegetate the river bank along South 1151 Street at river miles 7.2 to 6.9, right bank. Set back the revetment where possible.The project would include placement of large woody debris and planting of native vegetation. Further development of this project should include consultation with neighbors who successfully advo- cated for public purchase of a portion of the project site for a future park. - Opportunities and Constraints Looking upstream from East Marginal WayS.bridgetoproject - • This project depends on voluntary participation area.February 2005 photo. - by a commercial property landowner through easement,sale, or other incentive to allow set back - of South 115t'St. LINKAGES - • The eastern portion of the project area is owned ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - by the City of Tukwila for use as a future park. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools - upstream of RM 6)and habitat complexity - Page 7-89 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • Project Duw-7: • Shallow Water Habitat Creation(20 Acres)at RM 7.0-5.5(Both Banks) • • Project Description • At river miles 7.0-5.5,both banks,create a minimum of • 20 acres of new off-channel shallow water/marsh • habitat with associated riparian vegetation. • Because of the large size of this project,it may be • { h necessary to conduct it in phases and in multiple • locations (the 20 acres need not be contiguous). The upstream limit of the potential project area may • be revised based on the results of the Duwamish • transition zone study ending in 2005. Seining to collect juvenile salmon migrants has confirmed • concentrated fish use in theDuwamishtransitionzone.Continued The 20 acres created in this area would be in addition studyin1005willrefinetheboundariesof the transition zone.May to acreage created by project Duw-10:North Wind's • 2005 photo. Weir. • An intermediary step prior to conducting this project • LINKAGES should be the development of aTransition • Zone"`blueprint"based on the boundaries identified • ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed by the Duwamish transition zone study ending in 2005 •Expanding and enhancing vegetated shallow subtidal and (see Duwamish program D-3). • intertidal habitats and brackish marshes(Duw-1) • •Enlarging the Duwamish River estuarine transition zone Opportunities and Constraints • habitat(Duw-3) This project depends on identifying suitable properties whose owners are willing to sell.Cost of • ® Habitat Management Strategies property in this area is high. Even doing the • •Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7)and channel edge project in phases and multiple locations may habitats(upstream ofRM7)to create low velocity and/or require the simultaneous acquisition of several • shallow water habitat adjacent parcels to create projects with adequate • •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire habitat value and economies of scale. • subwotershedSubstitute lost slow water/shallow areas, focusing actions at the mouth of the Duwamish to River • Mile 1,between River Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 • • • • • • • • • • • Page 7-90 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • Project Duw-8: . Riverton Creek Habitat Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Improvement at RM 6.6 (Left Bank) - Project Description tir Rehabilitate habitat within Riverton Creek and im- prove its connection to the Duwamish River to im- prove fish access and provide off-channel rearing and refuge habitat. - This 3.4-acre site is along the lower section of Riverton ► � '' Creek where it meets the Duwamish at about river mile 6.6.The project includes installation of large woody • debris, removal of accumulated sediment,addition of - gravel,and revegetation with native riparian species. In addition,a flapgate at the mouth would be replaced with a self-regulating tidegate to allow normal tidal Coho salmon in Riverton Creek.Photo courtesy of City of Tukwila. - flushing while reducing flooding on Riverton Creek - during high flows in the Duwamish. • This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration LINKAGES Project. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Opportunities and Constraints •Protecting and improving water quality(All-1) - This project also will benefit coho salmon that •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - spawn in Riverton Creek. •Protecting and improving access to tributaries(All-3) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore tributary access by removing fish passage barriers and modifying tributary mouth configuration •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed •Rehabilitate wetlands and sloughs where they currently • exist,including re-connecting those isolated from the river channel or re-establishing wetlands/sloughs - Page 7-91 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-9: Bank Restoration and Revetment Setback at RM 6.6-5.5(Left Bank) Project Description - Set back and restore the river bank at river miles 6.6 to - 5.5,left bank. Revegetate the river banks with native 1 riparian species. • An intermediary step prior to conducting this project should be the development of a Transition Zone "blueprint"based on the boundaries identified by the • Duwamish transition zone study ending in 2005 (see Duwamish program D-3). Looking downstream toprojectareaon thefar(left)bankatriver =. Opportunities and Constraints - mile 6.3.May2005photo. This project depends on voluntary participation - by a commercial property landowner(s) through easement,sale,or other incentive to allow set back LINKAGES of the river bank. - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and . removing existing armoring(All-6) •Enlarging the Duwamish River estuarine transition zone habitat(Duw-3) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed •Substitute habitat features(e.g.,large woody debris)to stabilize banks,create slow water areas(e.g.,pools upstream of RM 6)and habitat complexity Page 7-92 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-10: North Wind's Weir Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation at RM 6.3(Right Bank) - Project Description ,. Create two acres of off-channel,shallow water habitat • in the transition zone at North Wind's Weir, river mile - 6.3, right bank. Project includes excavation of two acres of off-channel habitat and planting of native riparian species. • Soil remediation is occurring in two phases: • First phase for compliance was completed in 2004; and - - • Second phase for fish and wildlife habitat will be completed in 2006,provided funding is available. Soil remediation underway at project site.November 2004 photo. - This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. • Opportunities and Constraints LINKAGES - • Land was purchased by local government partners and has strong support from local government ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed leaders. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) • First phase of soil remediation is completed. •Expanding and enhancing vegetated shallow subtidal and - intertidal habitats and brackish marshes(Duw-1) •Enlarging the Duwamish River estuarine transition zone habitat(Duw-3) • CD Habitat Management Strategies •Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7)and channel edge habitats(upstream of RM 7)to create low velocity and/or • shallow water habitat •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed •Substitute lost slow water/shallow areas,focusing actions at the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between - River Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 - Page 7-93 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-11: Shallow Water Habitat Creation (10 Acres)at RM 5.5-4.7(Both Banks) Project Description - ;,., At river miles 5.5-4.7,both banks, create a minimum - of 10 acres of new off-channel, shallow water/marsh - habitat. Because of the large size of this project,it may be - necessary to conduct it in phases and in multiple locations (the 10 acres need not be contiguous).One possible site for consideration is the Hamm Creek/City Light North property at river mile 5.2-4.9,left bank. The downstream limit of the potential project area Turning Basin at river mile5.3,looking north toward project area. may be revised based on the results of the Duwamish • December2003 photo. transition zone study ending in 2005. An intermediary step prior to conducting this project - LINKAGES should be the development of aTransition Zone - "blueprint"based on the boundaries identified by the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Duwamish transition zone study ending in 2005 (see •Expanding and enhancing vegetated shallow subtidal and Duwamish program D-3). - intertidal habitats and brackish marshes(Duw-1) Enlarging the Duwamish River estuarine transition zone Opportunities and Constraints habitat(Duw-3) This project depends on identifying suitable - properties whose owners are willing to sell.Cost of - ® Habitat Management Strategies property in this area is high. Even doing the •Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7)and channel edge project in phases and multiple locations may habitats(upstream ofRM7)to create low velocity and/or require the simultaneous acquisition of several - shallow water habitat adjacent parcels to create projects with adequate •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed habitat value and economies of scale. •Substitute lost slow watedshollow areas,focusing actions • There maybe opportunities to create/improve off- at the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between channel habitat in aquatic lands outside the - River Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile5.5 shipping channel,possibly in conjunction with sediment cleanup efforts. • Use of the Hamm Creek/City Light North property depends on Seattle City Light agreeing to sell the - property and securing a suitable alternative site i for future substation or electrical generation needs. Page 7-94 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - Project Duw-72: - South Park Bank Restoration and Shallow Water Habitat Creation at RM 3.8-3.7 (Left Bank) - Project Description Rehabilitate a series of small shallow-water habitats at - street ends to create two acres of shallow water and • riparian habitat and increase the shoreline from 1,450 feet to 2,225 feet.This two-phase project was — developed by local community groups in cooperation - with private property owners. Opportunities and Constraints • Residential property owners and neighbors helped - develop project,creating a high level of commu- nity support. Left bank of the Duwamish in South Park showing"Duwamish - Revival'project area.February 2005 photo. - LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(Al1-2) - •Preventing new bank/shoreline armoring and fill and removing existing armoring(All-6) •Expanding and enhancing vegetated shallow subtidol and - intertidal habitats and brackish marshes(Duw-1) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate shorelines to provide shallow water along the - banks of the Duwamish River,particularly in the industrial/ commercial areas between RM 0-1,2-5,and upstream of the Turning Basin(RM 5.5) . •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed - •Substitute lost slow water/shallow areas,focusing actions at the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between River Miles 2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 • Page 7-95 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project Duw-13: Kellogg Island Rehabilitation at RM 1.4-1.2 Project Description - _��; Rehabilitate/reconfigure Kellogg Island and improve riparian vegetation at river mile 1.4-1.2. Reshape +' �� -• Kellogg Island to provide more off-channel and marsh - i habitat by excavating some of the island to provide tt' I t _ more shallow water/intertidal area. Restoration options range from scalping the entire island to re- creating its historic profile to creating several lagoons. - Prior to 1965,the island provided some tidal marsh habitat. Beginning in 1965-1966, dredge spoils were - deposited on the island and this continued until the - mid-1970s. Kellogg Island in 1966 shortly after filling began.Log rafts Opportunities and Constraints - are moored around perimeter of island.Photo courtesy of Port of Seattle. Soil contamination maybe an issue because the - island was built up with dredge spoils,presumably from the Lower Duwamish Waterway. LINKAGES • Kellogg Island is owned by the Port of Seattle, which has no development plans for the site that - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed would preclude the project.The Port wishes to •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) maintain future control over decisions affecting its •Expanding and enhancing vegetated shallow subtidal and land. intertidal habitats and brackish marshes(Duw-1) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Rehabilitate riparian areas in the entire subwatershed •Substitute lost slow watedshallow areas,focusing actions - at the mouth of the Duwamish to River Mile 1,between River Miles2-5,and upstream of River Mile 5.5 Page 7-96 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED • . a Emptysewageat the dock—not - into Puget Sound. """` Protect and restore pocket Preserving native trees and estuaries where salmon rear shrubs keep erosion rates at - (salmon often leave their natal ------ natural levels.Overhanging stream,enter Puget Sound,but Protect shallow B1 trees keep the beach - then re-enter other estuaries for water vegetation fm healthy for prey fish that food and shelter) including eel grass Protect salmon eat. - and kelp beds where sediment young salmon live. sources BulCut kheads Bluff erosion is natural. sediment ff NEARSHORE: / Bulkheads starve beaches Zone exists from the tops of of sediment and damage Eroding - , beaches and bluffs out to the c beach • ,shallow waters of Puget R beach ecology.Salmon and Sound, NEAIC. 0 other marine creatures suffer • T he Marine Duwamish Estuary is substantially degraded,it is likely Nearshore Subwatershed encompasses all the that nearshore habitats have taken on more impor- WRIA 9 shorelines of Puget Sound and streams that tance for juvenile Chinook rearing than they would drain directly to Puget Sound.The mainland have historically. (See Chapter 4 for a more detailed - portion stretches from West Point in Seattle to the description of conditions in the Marine Nearshore - western boundary of the city of Federal Way.For Subwatershed.) salmon habitat planning purposes,Vashon/Maury Island is included in this subwatershed.Much of The following portfolio of policies and actions is • the shoreline has been modified to accommodate designed to: residential and commercial development.Residen- tial(68%) and industrial(10%) development are the Protect,restore,or rehabilitate: • primary land uses on the mainland portion of the - Nearshore sediment transport processes by - subwatershed.Residential development accounts reconnecting sediment sources and removing for 92%of the land use on Vashon/Maury Island. shoreline armoring that impacts sediment Historic and current land use practices have transport; • degraded nearshore habitats,interrupted habitat- - Pocket estuaries (the mouths of smaller - forming processes,degraded water and sediment quality,decreased riparian functions,and intro- salmon-bearing and non-salmon bearing duced non-native species.Some 80%of the main- streams),lagoons,and spits;and - land shoreline and 50%of the Vashon/Maury Island - Sediment quality,particularly in Elliott Bay; shoreline have some form of shoreline armoring (combined average of 64%is armored).The Protect and expand forage fish spawning areas by - nearshore is critical to juvenile salmon for rearing, maintaining/increasing high intertidal zone refuge from predators,transitioning to salt water access and maintaining/increasing the availability habitats,and as a migration corridor to the Pacific of suitable substrate sizes;and Ocean.In a recent study,juvenile Chinook from at Protect and increase the availability of vegetated - least 10 different Puget Sound stocks were identi- shallow nearshore and marsh habitats. - fied in the marine waters of WRIA 9.Given that the (Continued) - POLICIES PROGRAMS PROJECTS • R - Page 7-97 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 RECOMMENDEDPOLICIES AND ACTIONSFOR THE MARINE NEARSHORE The marine nearshore includes a number of pocket - estuaries,such as Judd Creek on Vashon Island,which provide rearing habitat foriuvenile salmonids.August2004 photo. - While much is known about the ecology of the "Habitat Prioritization in Marine Nearshore Areas - marine nearshore,there is relatively less informa- in Support of Juvenile Salmonid Growth and tion about salmonid habitat needs and project Survival in WRIA 9." This project was scheduled opportunities compared to the fresh water ecosys- for completion by December 2005.This study will - tems in WRIA 9.At the time of publication of this incorporate geomorphic data from the - Plan,there were two efforts underway that were Johannessen and MacLennan assessment expected to identify new projects and programs and (above),along with previously collected biologi- help prioritize implementation of all marine cal data to prioritize restoration and protection - nearshore actions,including those in this Plan. actions throughout the marine nearshore. These consisted of: The prioritization and implementation projects in the - • "Inventory and Assessment of Current and marine nearshore in 2006 and beyond should incor- - Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and porate the findings of these two studies.Future Accretion Areas for WRIAs 8 and 9" updates to the Plan should fully integrate these (Johannessen and MacLennan 2005).This findings. - assessment was scheduled for completed by September 2005.In addition to classifying shoreline segments according to their sediment - transport role,the study also will make habitat - protection and restoration recommendations based on sediment transport processes. POLICIES PROGRAMS PROJECTS - u - i NW • Page 7-98 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 5EATTLE NS-1 ► NS-4 SFATTLE r S NS-6 a NS-7 NS'8 AMU. VASHON 3 ISLAND NORMANDY PARK NS-19 NS-9 �g TO NS-11 NS-9 a�94 NS-12 NS-9 NS-9 DE' MOI ' NS-9 AURY ISLAND <t DER L WA NS-16 _ 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 A 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 Q contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. 0 LEGEND FIGURE 7-5 Road NS-2 N Recommended Projects o Action Project Location/No. 4— Marine Nearshore Subwatershed `.o*0k Priority Habitat Protection Area NS-17 0 1 2 Miles r r 4 Urban Growth Area Line August2005 �f� Subwatershed Boundary Map produced by: Incorporated Area King County \ Department of Natural Resources and Parks DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Comm.&Web Unit Publicly-owned and File: Mananged Lands G508_W9HP Near.ai Ipre - \ Policy NS 1: . Encourage nearshore property owners to continue the replacement of creosote pilings and structures with • non-creosote alternatives as well as the removal of obsolete/abandoned facilities that contain significant amounts of creosoted wood. �v Policy NS2: • Encourage the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S.Coast Guard to update oil spill response • plans as new habitat or oceanographic data becomes available. v Policy NS3: Support the implementation of the Miller/Walker and Salmon Creek Basin Plan by the Cities of Burien and Normandy Park,King County,the Port of Seattle,and the Washington State Department of Transportation. - \ Policy NS4: Encourage the fishery co-managers to consider the impacts on salmonids when establishing regulations for the harvest of forage fish(Pacific herring,surf smelt,and sand lance)throughout the WRIA. • \V Policy NS5: • Encourage the removal of derelict vessels. \ Policy NS6: - Actively feed beaches,where appropriate,with sediment where there is a lack of sediment due to interrupted supply from bulkheads or other forms of shoreline armoring. - Page 7-101 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program N-7: Promote Habitat Restoration on Private Property by Offering a"Toolbox"ofNearshore - Habitat Project Designs This program would promote voluntary restoration on Watershed basin stewards could promote the"toolbox" private properties by creating a"toolbox"of stock or and provide or arrange for technical assistance for model habitat designs/techniques that can be applied private property owners seeking to pursue good - to create needed habitats(e.g.,removal of derelict stewardship techniques.A starter list of smaller - docks,revegetation with riparian vegetation).Atten- projects was compiled from projects evaluated by the tion would focus on promotion of restoration when Science Panel in 2004 and 2005.The majority of these opportunities arise,particularly along feeder bluffs smaller projects were originally identified in the draft - and pocket estuaries throughout the subwatershed. report,"Inventory and Assessment of Current and . Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion Accompanying the"toolbox"would be technical Areas for WRIAs 8 and 9" (Johannessen and assistance to landowners who lack funding and MacLennan 2005).This list provides over 100 projects - expertise to manage habitat restoration/ rehabilitation for this program to undertake once it is started.Imple- projects.Types of actions in the""toolbox"could mentation of any of these potential projects would include:removal of unneeded riprap and other depend on the voluntary participation of the property - armoring(bulkheads,groins,etc),removal of un- owner(s).The list of projects can be found in Volume II: • needed fill,removal of derelict pilings and derelict Appendix G. overwater structures,and restoration/rehabilitation of riparian vegetation. This program also could be applied to the lower few - miles of the Duwamish given that habitat there is Armoring and other structures are frequently in need believed to function much like marine nearshore of repair or replacement.However,some existing habitat. - shoreline armoring was not in fact needed or was - placed lower in the intertidal zone than is appropriate. Businesses and private property owners are more likely to consider allowing habitat restoration/rehabilitation on their property if doing so is easy to visualize and can be conducted with the least amount of site- specific design. (Standard models or templates for "soft"armoring are probably not worth creating due to - the need to tailor such projects to site-specific condi- tions.) Incentives may encourage private property owners to - allow habitat improvements on private properties, possibly as part of site redevelopment. Page 7-102 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 ICKV • Discouraging use of structures such as these groins on Vashon - Island is a focus of this proposed program.September2000 photo courtesy of Washington State Department of Ecology. - LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed . •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(Al1-2) - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport i processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4)Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and . tributary stream mouths(Near-5) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore sediment recruitment and transport processes - •Restore shallow water habitats - •Restore/Rehobilitate riparian vegetation and buffers • •Restore/Rehabilitate hydrologic and sediment process • •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgrass and kelp beds by allowing natural processes to occur •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant - communities - •Restore/Rehabilitate salt marshes - •Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water quality impacts - Page 7-103 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program N-2: Create a Soft Armoring Technical Assistance and Cost-Share Program This program would both offer technical assistance on alternative shoreline protection ("soft"armoring) and provide a cost-share program to encourage landown- ers to use these techniques. Bulkhead removal is expensive and the unique nature of each site is not conducive to the use of standard - ''-� models or templates of soft armoring.Consequently, At, `` encouraging use of soft armoring—when some form of r _ beach protection is absolutely necessary—will require - �.�� a personalized approach. - This beach was restored by removing rip rap armoring and replacing Many landowners and consultants are unfamiliar with it with gravel.Photo courtesy of Washington State Department of how to undertake soft armoring approaches.Technical . Ecology. assistance will allow for these alternatives to be con- sidered more often than at present,when the custom- ary response is hard armoring. - Incentives should encourage private property owners to adopt"soft" armoring and/or the addition of habitat LINKAGES improvements as part of site development or redevel- C3a Conservation Hypotheses Addressed opment.The initial focus of this program would be on - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) properties identified as altering sediment recruitment and transport processes or directly impacting marsh - •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and habitat or pocket estuaries. marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore/Rehabilitate sediment recruitment and transport processes •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats - •Restore/Rehabilitate riparian processes and functions - •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgrass and kelp beds by allowing . natural processes to occur •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities - •Restore/Rehabilitate salt marshes - •Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water . quality impacts Page 7-104 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Program N-3: - Create an Incentive Program to Encourage Multiple Family/Neighborhood Use of Docks and Boat Ramps This program would reduce the impacts of docks and boat ramps by encouraging consolidation of several - docks or ramps into one structure that would serve the entire community. Frequently, many shoreline houses j adjacent to one another have their own boat ramps and/or over water structures such as docks.These • structures have a variety of long-lived negative impacts including shading of submerged aquatic vegetation, interfering with sediment transport,and possibly • altering salmonid migration. This program could be instituted both for new con- struction proposals and for consolidating existing A program encouraging shared used of docks and boat ramps - structures as they are repaired or redeveloped.The would help property owners in situations such as this where two financial incentives could include government cost boat ramps are less than 100 feet apart.September 2000 photo share,reduction in permit costs,tax reductions within courtesy of Washington State Department of Ecology. • the Public Benefit Rating System, and technical and - legal assistance.Moreover,this program also could help landowners save money by spreading out the LINKAGES costs of creating and maintaining these structures. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Along with the financial incentives, it is necessary to •Protecting against watershed and upland impacts(All-5) create examples or templates of legal agreements for Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6)Proteding/ access to, maintenance of,and general rules of use of the structures.This would help communities under- increasing vegetated shallow nearshoreand marsh habitats • stand how to share use of such facilities and help to (Near-2) relieve fears of misuse of the rules by a single party. •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport • processes(Near-3) Major redevelopment or repair of older structures may •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas result in further alterations to the shoreline.Where an (Near-4) incentive can be provided to the private-property owner or developer,it may result in a reduction in the ® Habitat Management Strategies overall impacts to a particular area of shoreline. •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitatesedimentrecruitmentand • transport processes - •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats - •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate riparian processes and functions - •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate eelgross and kelp beds by allowing natural processes to occur •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and • associated plant communities - •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate salt marshes •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water quality impacts - Page 7-105 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Program N-4: - Create a Financial Incentive Program to Replace/Repair Failing Septic Systems on Vashon/ - Maury Islands within Quartermaster Harbor Provide incentives to replace or repair those failing LINKAGES septic systems contributing to water quality problems ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - in Quartermaster Harbor on Vashon/Maury Island. •Protecting water quality(All-1) Failing or inappropriately sited septic systems on •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow neorshore and Vashon/Maury Island are known to be a common marsh habitats(Near-2) - problem.These failing systems have been associated - with shellfish harvesting closures and other water ® Habitat Management Strategies quality concerns,especially within Quartermaster •Protect/Restore water quality where state standards are Harbor.While the direct impact on shellfish harvesting being met or exceeded - is a human health concern,the water quality impacts •ProtealRestore eelgrass,kelp and other macroolgae - negatively affect various parts of the ecosystem that supports Chinook salmon.Currently,there is no financial incentive for property owners to repair or - relocate septic systems as long as sewage is not back- ing up into the dwelling. This program would create a financial incentive to fix - problems through cost shares,education,and techni- cal assistance.The program could supplement current efforts by the Puget Sound Action Team,such as the - education program that uses"septic socials"in which - property owners teach other property owners about proper septic system maintenance.Creating a cost share and technical assistance program will enhance the existing education program and be more likely to cause failing septic systems to be replaced. Many properties on Vashon/Maury Island have limited - sites suitable for septic systems.Some residents on Vashon/Maury Island have asked that the Washington State Department of Health and King County Depart- - ment of Development and Environmental Services allow greater flexibility to take these physical con- straints into account and thereby encourage people - with failing systems to fix them sooner. - Page 7-7 06 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - r Program N-5: Citizen Volunteer Forage Fish Monitoring Program This program would both help to fill important data gaps about where forage fish spawn and educate the - public—especially marine shoreline landowners— • about the importance of a healthy nearshore. Forage fish are at the base of the food chain,with many - • declining species in Puget Sound relying on them as a primary food source(including various salmonids, ' marine birds,marine mammals,and other fish).The - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife currently protects all known forage fish spawning r beaches. p - Scientific assessment work provides opportunities to involve and - The program would collect data on forage fish pres- inform the public.August2001 photo. ence/absence,timing,species,use of different sub- strate types,and intertidal and upland habitat condi- tion following protocols developed in other Puget - Sound jurisdictions.Volunteers would be taught about LINKAGES forage fish ecology,beach morphology,and sediment transport process.They will be trained on how to CCD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - sample for forage fish,characterize habitat conditions, •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas and water safety.Results would be published via the (Near-4) web and on CD annually.Data structure would be - constructed to be compatible with Washington State ® Habitat Management Strategies Department of Fish and Wildlife forage fish database •Protect beaches and backshore areas and associated plant and shared with the agency. communities - A number of citizens on Vashon/Maury Island have • expressed interest in such a program.Its implementa- tion would likely attract attention from non-partici- pants and provide opportunities to convey messages - about the importance of protecting and restoring a healthy marine nearshore. - Page 7-7 07 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-1: Pier 90 Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation Project Description There is currently a small amount of shallow water +•' `- +, habitat along the eastern side of Pier 90 in Elliott Bay in t ' _ Seattle.This project would protect and expand that - ;' '� area of shallow water habitat.The land comprising • �.�' _ shoreline east of Pier 90 would need to be purchased. The riprap and fill would be moved in order to create - _ additional shallow water habitat and the shoreline would be planted with riparian vegetation. Opportunities and Constraints - • The road leading to Pier 90 would need to be - relocated,as it is right along the shore and is Site of proposed project east of Pier 90.6aler Street Bridge over the heavily used. BNSF Railway tracks has been constructed since photo was taken. - September2000 photo courtesy of the Washington State Department of Ecology. LINKAGES CCD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(Al1-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas - (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Protect/Restore shallow water habitatsResto . •Restore riparian vegetationRestore beaches,backshore - and ossodated plant communities Page 7-108 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-2: Myrtle Edwards Park Small Pocket Beaches/Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation Project Description This project would create several pocket beaches in LINKAGES Myrtle Edwards Park on Elliott Bay in Seattle and to - the north of the park. Riprap armoring would be ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed removed and the slopes would be graded back to •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) create natural slopes. Pocket beaches would have a •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and - fishmix(sand and gravel) of sediments placed on marsh habitats(Near-2) - them. Some of the riparian area would be planted •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas with native vegetation.A shallow water bench such as (Near-4) that described for Project NS-3 (below) may also be • constructed water-ward of the pocket beaches. CD Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats Opportunities and Constraints •Restore/Rehabilitateriparian vegetation • The project sites are popular,high-visibility parks •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant • owned by the City of Seattle and Port of Seattle. communities - Page 7-709 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-3: Olympic Sculpture Park Tidal Embayment/Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation Project Description This project would create a 0.64 acre tidal embayment at the northern end of the Elliott Bay seawall and an approximately 800 foot long and 15 foot wide habitat - bench between Pier 70 and Myrtle Edwards Park.The -_ - — - habitat bench would be a 15 foot wide lower intertidal (0 to -1 foot mean lower low water)bench along - approximately 770 feet of the buttress that will be - added to re-enforce the seawall.The bench would be a combination of fish mix(sand and gravel) and larger cobbles to provide a setting to support algae growth - and epibenthic/benthic invertebrate production.The . outer face of the bench will slope to deeper depths and Site of proposed Olympic Sculpture Park restoration on Elliott Bay at will provide boulder habitat for understory and over- south end of Myrtle Edwards Park.July2004 photo. story kelp colonization.The riparian area would be - partially planted with native marine riparian vegeta- tion. LINKAGES Opportunities and Constraints - • This project already has the support of the City of CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed Seattle,which owns Myrtle Edwards Park. It would •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) be part of the larger Olympic Sculpture Park •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and redevelopment currently underway.Its habitat - marsh habitats(Near-2) value is complemented by its high visibility and •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas contribution to public awareness. (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore/Rehabilitateshallow water habitats •Restore/Rehabilitate riparian vegetation •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,bockshore and associated plant communities Page 7-110 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-4: Seattle Waterfront Shallow Water Bench Habitat Rehabilitation • Project Description This project is conceptual at this point but is based on the fact that the Seattle waterfront seawall and Alaskan - Way viaduct may be replaced in the future.These • replacements create a rare opportunity to turn the eastern Elliott Bay shoreline into a fish friendly envi- ronment.The project would involve creating shallow - • water habitat benches and fish friendly structures _ along the waterfront.This proposal also encompasses the relocation of the Washington State Ferry system's • Colman Ferry Dock offshore,allowing room for install- ing a shoreline beach.These changes would open up a migration corridor and increase the amount of shallow water area for juvenile Chinook foraging. The central Seattle waterfrontprovides poor salmon habitattoday. - Seawall replacement offers opportunities to improve habitat value. Opportunities and Constraints July2004photo. - The project depends on funding and construction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. LINKAGES - Pier relocation would be required. - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed -Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) -Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) • -Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas - (Near-4) • ® Habitat Management Strategies • •Restore/Rehabilitate riparian vegetation •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities - Page 7-111 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-5: Burien Seahurst Park Shoreline Restoration,Phase H Project Description • Continue shoreline restoration actions conducted in southern portion of Seahurst Park in Burien by remov- ing shoreline armoring along approximately 3,000 feet - of shoreline, restoring natural beach slopes,adding riparian vegetation,and connecting riparian vegeta- tion and sediment supply to the aquatic portion of - ;; r �.� Y c - ��I nearshore.This Phase II would add to the successful y - M Phase I seawall removal/beach restoration conducted in 2004-2005. Opportunities and Constraints The combined project(Phase I and II)would Southern portion of Seahurst Park following removal of a failing result in almost a mile of unarmored shoreline seawall and beach restoration(Phase I).February2005 photo and be one of the largest contiguous lengths of • courtesy City of Burien. unarmored shoreline within WRIA 9. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(AII-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) - •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport • processes(Near-3) •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4) - •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary - stream mouths(Near-5) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore sediment recruitment and transport processes - •Restore shallow water habitats •Restore riparian vegetation •Restore beaches,backshore and associated plant communities - Page 7-112 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-6: Skeeter Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration on Vashon Island Project Description This project would restore the mouth of Skeeter Creek on the northwestern side of Vashon Island.Currently . the mouth is a four foot culvert through substantial fill and bulkheading at the top of the beach.The culvert •�� appears to be a complete fish barrier.The project ` - - would remove the 15 foot tall bulkheading and restore ryy" . a natural beach profile. It is likely that a portion of a driveway would need to be relocated. Opportunities and Constraints Skeeter Creek where it enters Co/vos Passage on the west side of - This project depends on a voluntary cooperation Vashon Island.September 2000 photo courtesy of the Washington with the existing property owner or purchase if the Department of Ecology. owner is willing to sell. LINKAGES - CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Improving tributary access(Al1-3) •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) - CD Habitat Management Strategies •ProtecbRestore shallow water habitat •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated • functions - •Protect/Restore tributary mouths • •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-113 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-7: Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration on Vashon Island Project Description This project would restore the mouth of Cove Creek on the northwestern side of Vashon Island. Puget Sound Energy owns the property where Cove Creek enters • Puget Sound through a bulkhead/culvert combination. King County owns the two parcels upstream.There is a road that leads to and ends at the Puget Sound Energy - property.Since Puget Sound Energy would need the - Cove(reek where it enters Colves Passage on the west side ofVashon road to maintain the equipment on site,the bulkhead/ Island.September 2000 photo courtesy of Washington State culvert would be replaced with a box culvert and the Department of Ecology. road would be moved as far back from the shoreline as - possible. It is also possible that a new road crossing - could be built onto the Puget Sound Energy property off of the adjacent King County property.This would LINKAGES have the stream crossing occurring approximately 150 - feet upstream of the mouth.The northern half of the ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed bulkhead,which is not protecting any structures or •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) road,would be removed.The stream mouth area - •Improving tributary access(All-3) would be planted with riparian and marsh vegetation. - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) Opportunities and Constraints •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and The project depends on the cooperation of the • marsh habitats(Near-2) Puget Sound Energy. •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) . ® Habitat Management Strategies •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated . functions •Protect/Restore tributary mouths •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities . •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-174 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-8: Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries Restoration on Vashon Island • Project Description Dillworth and Gorsuch Creeks enter Puget Sound at 'y # nearly the same location, creating a single fan type • delta on the northeastern shore of Vashon Island.The - creek mouths area approximately 300 feet apart. Both - PP Y P streams are currently in constrained channels for they - lower 150 feet. Both channels would have the bank • armoring(both banks) removed and a meandering Gorsuch and Dilworth Creeks where they enter Puget Sound on the stream channel established. If the property were east side of Vashon Island.Photo courtesy of Washington State purchased,the northern property's house and bulk- Department of Ecology. - head would be removed. • LINKAGES Opportunities and Constraints • This project depends on the voluntary sale of one ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - or two of the parcels by the property owners and •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - the cooperation of neighboring property owners. •Improving tributary access(All-3) - • Purchase of the two properties would make the •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) project much easier and more sustainable by •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and allowing the channels to move around the alluvial marsh habitats(Near-2) • fan over time,but it is still possible to improve •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary habitat conditions while retaining the existing steam mouths(Near-5) buildings. ® Habitat Management Strategies . •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat - •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated functions •Protect/Restore tributary mouths •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant • communities - •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-115 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-9: Mileta,Ellisport,Camp Sealth,Bates,and Tsugwalla Creek Fish Passage Improvements on . vashon Island Project Description This project would restore fish passage to five streams ;+ on Vashon Island by replacing existing culverts with •I, improved culverts or bridges.The streams are Mileta, - i Ellisport,Camp Sealth, Bates,and Tsugwalla Creeks. Restoring fish passage at these locations was evaluated as having likely direct Chinook benefit by opening up ' currently inaccessible habitat to serve as pocket - J �,` , r estuaries.These fish passage blockages were con- firmed in the 2000/2001 Washington Trout field survey of passage blockages across Vashon/Maury Island. Mouth ofTsugwallaCreekshowingfishpassage blockage.June2000 Opportunities and Constraints photo courtesy of Washington Trout. • This project depends on voluntary cooperation of private property owners. - LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Improving tributary access(All-3) •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore access to tributaries •Restore pocket estuaries Page 7-116 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - • • • • Project NS-10: • Ellis Creek Saltmarsh Protection and Restoration on Vashon Island • • Project Description • This project would acquire the salmonid-accessible • saltmarsh and riparian land at the mouth of Ellis Creek • on Tramp Harbor,on the east side of Vashon Island. • There is currently a functioning saltmarsh that is • constrained in size by a dirt road that gives access to • five privately-owned parcels.The five parcels comprise four acres of upland and saltmarsh habitat.The project •.- • would remove the dirt access road, increasing the total • saltmarsh area by approximately 33%. • Purchase (if the property owners are willing to sell) is • required because removal of the access road would Ellis(reek mouth.September 2000 photo courtesy of the Washington • preclude use of the upland parcels. State Department of Ecology. • The newly opened area would be evaluated in the LINKAGES • future to determine if active restoration of the plant community is needed or whether passive restoration ® (onservation Hypotheses Addressed • will suffice to restore the saltmarsh community. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) Opportunities and Constraints •Improving tributary access(All-3)Preventing/removing •• This project depends on the voluntary sale of the armoring and fill(All-6) parcels by the property owners. •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and • marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary • stream mouths(Near-5) • ® Habitat Management Strategies • •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat • •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated • functions • •Protect/Restore tributary mouths • •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities • •Protect/Restore salt marshes • • • • • • • • • Page 7-117 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Project NS-11: Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration of Beach Feeding Processes in Normandy Park Project Description - This project would purchase and restore one of the last major privately-held undeveloped feeder bluffs along the mainland marine shoreline.The project is located - just north of Marine View Park in Normandy Park.The bluff is approximately 1,000 feet long and is made up Undeveloped feeder bluffs that would be purchased.September2000 of 27 separate parcels,totaling 13.5 acres.Three of the - photo courtesy of Washington State Department ofEcology. 27 Parcels are already in public ownership (two owned - by King County and one by the City of Normandy Park).While the upland is not developed,there is a bulkhead along 80%of the shoreline of the bluff.Once - the parcels are purchased,the bulkhead would be w LINKAGES removed to allow for natural sediment beach feeding CD Conservation to occur.Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) Opportunities and Constraints •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) This project depends on the voluntary sale of the •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and parcels by property owners. marsh habitats(Near-2) - •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(Near-3) •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore sediment recruitment and transport processes •Restore shallow water habitatsRestore riparian vegetation - •Restore beaches,backshore and associated plant - communities Page 7-118 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-12: Pocket Estuary Restoration at Mouth of Unnamed Creek in Normandy Park • Project Description This project would acquire two parcels, one on each side of the mouth of an unnamed creek just south of • Marine View Park in Normandy Park. Each parcel has a : house and bulkhead on it,which fill portions of the .'�l�r �,•; intertidal zone.The bulkheads and houses constrain the stream channel to an approximately four to five- foot wide cement walled channel.Once the parcels were purchased the houses and bulkheads would be Unnamed creek flows between two houses in Normandy Park. removed,the slope would be regraded and reveg- September 2000 photo courtesyof Washington State Departmentof - etated. Marsh vegetation would be planted adjacent to Ecology. - the mouth. - Opportunities and Constraints LINKAGES • This project depends on the voluntary sale of the CD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • parcels by property owners. •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) •Improving tributary access(All-3) - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) - •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) CD Habitat Management Strategies - •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat • •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated functions •Protect/Restore tributary mouths •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities - •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-119 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Project NS-73: Massey Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration in Des Moines Project Description - ``° 1 * This project would involve restoring parts of the # - estuary of Massey Creek in Des Moines.Massey Creek r enters Puget Sound just south of the Des Moines - Marina.The project would remove 300 feet of the - ` southern, rock-lined bank of the creek and a small jetty ="�c (about half of that distance is the 'et ; J tY;the other half is the channelized stream).The 150-foot jetty extending - out into the subtidal area would be removed (there is another jetty protecting the Des Moines Marina on the north side of the stream;this project does not propose • Massey Creek empties into Puget Sound between tworockwallsat changes to that jetty).Approximately 150 feet of the - topofphoto.Project would remove smalljettyto south(right).Cityof channel upstream of the mouth would be widened and Des Moines Marina is toleft.September 2000 photo courtesy of meandered away from the northern rock wall to create Washington State Department of Ecology. two natural banks for the creek.The area on both sides - of the creek would be revegetated with upland and - marsh vegetation. LINKAGES Opportunities and Constraints - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed This project depends on either the voluntary - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) cooperation of the current landowner or through a •Improving tributary access(Al1-3) conservation easement on the western half of the - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) property. •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) - •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary - stream mouths(Near-5) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat •Protect/Restore tributary mouths •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-120 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-14: Evaluate How to Improve Habitat Value of Raab's Lagoon/Pocket Estuary on Maury Island • Project Description This project would work with the property owner and people who moor boats in Raab's Lagoon to identify ways to improve its value in terms of salmon habitat. -s Prior to the 1920's, Raab's Lagoon was a properly - functioning subestuary on Quartermaster Harbor on Maury Island. A bulkhead was placed across the mouth to provide a road to Maury Island. Later,this -.► ' bulkhead was partly removed and replaced with a ` - water control structure that allowed for boat moorage - in the lagoon. • This project would involve examination of the lagoon Raab''s Lagoon on Maury Island.September 2000 photo courtesy of - to determine whether and how it could be modified to the Washington State Department of Ecology. improve habitat value for salmonids. This examination would require the participation of the property owner • and those who moor boats in the lagoon to better LINKAGES - understand how it is managed currently,the implica- tion of any potential changes both to current users and ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed the existing habitat,and ways to mitigate the harmful •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) impacts of potential changes. Potential changes could •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) range from modifications of the water control struc- •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshoreond ture operations to restoration of full fish access and marsh habitats(Near-2) - tidal inundation of the lagoon by removing the water - control structure and reestablishing a sand spit across •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport the mouth. If changes to the control structure in- processes(Near-3) creased salinity in the lagoon,salt marsh restoration •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas - could be undertaken where elevations are appropri- (Near-4) ate. The riparian area also could be planted. •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) - Opportunities and Constraints - This project depends on the voluntary coopera- ® Habitat Management Strategies tion by the property owner and lagoon neighbors. •Restore sediment recruitment and transport processesRestore There is a high level of interest in and concern shallow water habitats about this potential project among lagoon neigh- •Restore riparian vegetation - bors. •Restore salt marshes - •Protect/Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities - Page 7-121 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-75: McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration in Des Moines Project Description • This project would remove rock armoring along approximately 150 feet on both banks of McSorley y • 4 Creek upstream from the mouth.McSorley Creek in - Des Moines enters Puget Sound along a heavily modi- feed shoreline at Saltwater State Park.The project would also remove all armoring along the marine - shoreline within 150 on either side of the stream - mouth.The beach fill would be excavated and the beach regraded to a natural slope(similar to the current southern shoreline beyond the existing 150 - McSorley Creek where it empties into Puget Sound at Saltwater State feet of armoring).The area adjacent to the mouth - Park in Des Moines.September 2000 photo courtesy of Washington would be planted with dune grass and other native State Department of Ecology. vegetation. Opportunities and Constraints - LINKAGES This project depends on the cooperation of Washington State Parks.The project would impact ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed some of the park uses (three to five picnic and - •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) barbecue areas),while improving both the natural - •Improving tributary access(All-3) aesthetic values and ecological values of the site. •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) The park and community uses the stream ecology and salmon runs on McSorley Creek as an educa- - •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and tional tool. marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary - stream mouths(Near-5) - ® Habitat Management Strategies •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat - •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated functions - •Protect/Restore tributary mouths •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant communities •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-122 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-76: Dash Point State Park Pocket Estuary Restoration in Federal Way Project Description This project would improve the stream mouth of an i 4 unnamed creek(#0391) that enters Puget Sound ="" a t!'•� through Dash Point State Park in Federal Way.The Y • creek banks are armored from the mouth up to the .; road bridge,200 feet upstream.The project would • remove the armoring on both banks up to either the - foot bridge(100 feet upstream from the mouth) or all the way to the road bridge (200 feet upstream). Be- ' ^ tween the footbridge and the road bridge there is a - building approximately 50 feet from the right bank.An initial part of the project would be to evaluate if the armoring in this reach can be removed without endan- View upstream from mouth of creek#03 9 1,showing armoring that gering that building. would be removed. - Opportunities and Constraints LINKAGES • This project depends on the cooperation of Washington State Parks.The project does not ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed appear to impact any direct park uses (picnicking, •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) - barbecuing,etc) and would improve the aesthetics •Improving tributary access(Al1-3) of the park as well as the ecological values of the •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) stream. •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and - marsh habitats(Near-2) • •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths(Near-5) - ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Protect/Restore shallow water habitat •Protect/Restore intact riparian areas and associated functions •Protect/Restore tributary mouths • •Protect/Restore beaches and backshore and associated plant - communities •Protect/Restore salt marshes - Page 7-723 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-17: Functioning Nearshore Habitat Protection on Vashon/Maury Island Ir' '( t•t-' `' Project Description - y Approximately 50 different locations alongVashon/ Mau Islands have been identified as having high Maury g g habitat resource values worthy of protection (see - �1 •s � � r 41 Figure 7-5 for the approximate locations).This list of locations was developed in part by the Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust. Protection of these nearshore - habitats could occur through purchase,conservation - easements,tax incentive programs,or other changes to property ownership.Alternative protection measures could include education and informational workshops - for interested property owners. - Vashon/Maury Island shoreline showing healthy nearshorehabitat. Given the large list of locations,a further analysis of - September 2000 photo courtesyof the WashingtonState the threat of development to properties in those areas Department of Ecology. should be undertaken to help prioritize the list.The - size and shape of each protection area will be deter- LINKAGES mined through this further analysis,on-site visits, and - discussions with current property owners regarding - ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed whether and how they wish to participate in protection •Protecting and improving riparian vegetation(All-2) efforts. •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) - •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and In addition,there are two high value habitat areas to be W marsh habitats(Near-2) protected on the RIA 9 mainland. One is in the Perkins Lane neighborhood of Magnolia in Seattle and • •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport the other in the city of Normandy Park. processes(Near-3) •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas Opportunities and Constraints (Near-4) •Protecting and enhancing pocket estuaries and tributary This project depends on voluntary participation - by property owners through easement,sale,or - stream mouths(Near-5) other incentives. ® Habitat Management Strategies •Protect sediment recruitment and transport processes •Protect shallow water habitats •Protect intact riparian areas •Protect stream mouths - •Protect water quality where state standards are being met - •Protect cool,clean surface and ground water - •Protect current water quantity from further modification •Protect beaches,backshore and associated plant communities •Protect remaining salt marshes Page 7-124 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-18: Sandford Point Feeder BluffRestoration on vashon Island - Project Description "' ` ? 'v 4r This project would remove a derelict bulkhead just . north of Sandford Point on the west side of Vashon Island. Currently there is a failing creosote pile bulk- head in front of an active feeder bluff.While the bluff behind the bulkhead is still eroding,the bulkhead is - limiting the amount of erosion that is occurring and it - is holding back slide debris. Opportunities and Constraints • There do not appear to be any structures on top of - the bluff that would require protection through a new bulkhead. Site of proposed derelict bulkhead removal(bulkhead not easily - • The project would depend on voluntary coopera- visible in picture).September 2000photo courtesy of the Washington tion of private property owners. State Department of Ecology. - LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(AII-6) - •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas - (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore/Rehabilitate sediment recruitment and transport processes •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats •Restore/Rehabilitate riparian processes and functions •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgross and kelp beds by allowing - natural processes to occur •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities •Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water - quality impacts - Page 7-125 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-19: Tramp Harbor Intertidal Fill Removal on vashon Island Project Description There are currently two large areas intertidal fill located near the public dock along Dockton Road Southwest.The two areas of fill are being held in place - to by old creosote bulkheads.There are no structures on the fill.This project would remove the fill and reestab- lish a natural grade to the shoreline. t � � �. Opportunities and Constraints Y , " _ `` This project would complement a recent King County Department of Transportation project that removed a smaller amount of fill adjacent to a - Sites of intertidal fill removal in Tramp Harbor.The King County pier. • Departmentof Transportation recently removed the smaller filljust It is not clear who owns the intertidal parcels. to the left of the pier.September 2000 photo courtesy of the Purchasing of the two areas or permission from a Washington State Department of Ecology. private property owner(s) may be required. - LINKAGES • ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(AII-6) - •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and - marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas - (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore/Rehabilitate sediment recruitment and transport • processes •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgrass and kelp beds by allowing natural processes to occur - •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities •Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water quality impacts - Page 7-126 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - Project NS-20: Maury Island Fill Removal Project Description � �7 There is currently an area of intertidal fill located - between the Gold Beach neighborhood and the Glacier Northwest gravel pit pier.There are no structures on the fill.The fill appears to be causing some sediment to accumulate on the downdrift side of the fill.The fill :s - also appears to be inhibiting natural erosion of the •J" - adjacent bluffs onto the beach.This project would Site ofriillremovaljust southwest of the 6old Beach Neighborhood. remove the fill and reestablish a natural grade to the September 2000 photo courtesyof the Washington State shoreline. Department of Ecology. - Opportunities and Constraints - This project depends on the cooperation of LINKAGES Glacier Northwest. ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) • •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-2) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport - processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4) • ® Habitat Management Strategies •Restore/Rehabilitate sediment recruitment and transport processes •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats • •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgross and kelp beds by allowing natural processes to occur •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant communities - •Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water - quality impacts r • Page 7-127 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Project NS-21: Sandy Beach Fill and Derelict Pier Removal on Vashon Island Project Description s There is currently an area of intertidal fill and a derelict dock located just south of the Sandy Beach neighbor- hood on the west side of Vashon Island.The fill is in the - form of an intertidal rockery,which appears to be acting as a deeper water bulkhead.This project would remove the fill and the derelict dock and reestablish a - �� a natural grade to the shoreline. Opportunities and Constraints • The dock and the fill appear to be on two different properties. - Site of proposed pierremoval(left)and intertidal fill removal(right) • The project would depend on voluntary coopera- - justsouthof the Sandy Beach neighborhood.September 2000 photo tion of private property owners. courtesy of the Washington State Department of Ecology. - LINKAGES • ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed - •Preventing/removing armoring and fill(All-6) •Protecting/increasing vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats(Near-1) •Protecting and restoring nearshore sediment transport processes(Near-3) - •Protecting and expanding forage fish spawning areas (Near-4) ® Habitat Management Strategies - •Restore/Rehabilitate sediment recruitment and transport processes •Restore/Rehabilitate shallow water habitats - •Restore/Rehabilitate riparian processes and functions - •Restore/Rehabilitate eelgrass and kelp beds by allowing - natural processes to occur •Restore/Rehabilitate beaches,backshore and associated plant r communities . •Restore/Rehabilitate shoreline areas to reduce water - quality impacts Page 7-128 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - ;' x• � .,fit, • , CO � �# xs;� - • Tracking and reporting results,developing appro- priate indicators related to projects and watershed • This chapter provides an overview of the proposed improvements,conducting progress assessments, and issuing final reports; approach and elements for implementation of the - Habitat Plan for the Green/Duwamish and Central • Communicating,cooperating,and negotiating Puget Sound Watershed(Water Resource Inventory with the state and Puget Sound regional recovery Area 9 [WRIA 91).It provides background on the plan implementation body,other governments, organizational structure of WRIA 9 salmon habitat and project sponsors;and - planning and governance,some basic history of the • Fundraising to support both local and watershed- WRIA 9 planning effort that has a bearing on the wide project and program priorities,including proposed approach to Plan implementation,and monitoring and adaptive management. • information about the linkages of the WRIA 9 plan to - the regional Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and To act on the recommendations of this Plan,this federal assurances.This chapter also includes policies chapter proposes the implementation commitments (in italics and indicated by an I-prefix) that establish and efforts appropriate for local governments of - the implementation strategy for this Habitat Plan. WRIA 9• Implementation Functions of Local . Governments 8.2 AUTHORITYAND RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION • Implementing the Habitat Plan by local governments • will include consideration of the following functions: Federal agencies are required to ensure that any actions they fund,permit,or carry out are not likely to . Establishing and managing awatershed-scale jeopardize species that are listed under the Endan- institutional structure,decision process,partici- pant gered Species Act(ESA). Federal agencies must consult norms,and rules governing watershed-wide with the listing agency(NOAA Fisheries or U.S.Fish • decision-making; and Wildlife Service) regarding actions they take that • Identifying,prioritizing,refining,and implement- "may affect"the listed species or its critical habitat. • ing projects and programs; Actions that may affect but are"not likely to adversely • On-the-ground project and program operations affect"the species undergo an informal consultation, and maintenance and guidance to project/pro- while those that are likely to adversely affect the - gram sponsors; species or its critical habitat must undergo more • • Coordinating and integrating with other conserva- lengthy formal consultation.The ESA also prohibits tion,restoration,and development activities in the the"take'of listed species,either through Section 9 watershed,and coordinating and integrating local (for an endangered species) or through Section 4(d) projects and programs into the watershed Habitat (for threatened species). Plan and watershed projects and programs into the • regional Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan;' Citizens,landowners,businesses,and local govern- regional all can be affected by the federal consultation • Protecting habitat through local regulations requirement or the Endangered Species Act prohibi- (adopting,administering,and enforcing them) and tion of take.For example,ESA consultations can affect - voluntary conservation programs; the time it takes to issue a permit,fund a project,or - • Educating and outreaching to citizens on both complete an action when a federal agency is involved. - regional and local projects and programs and Consultation might also affect the conditions on a encouraging citizen participation in and owner- permit or funding or the manner in which a project is ship of both the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan and the Puget completed.The take of a listed species can occur as a - Sound Salmon Recovery Plan; result of many of the everyday activities carried out in Monitoring effectiveness of actions; a watershed,resulting in an ESA violation. • 1. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan includes the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan by reference. • Page 8-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 In WRIA 9,local,state,and federal agencies,environ- Potential implementers will want to know what - mental groups,businesses,and other stakeholders benefits they will receive by making commitments and developed this Habitat Plan primarily to guide and what federal and state agencies will do to support prioritize efforts over the next 10 years to improve commitments.The nature of specific commitments - watershed health and habitat conditions for listed fish and potential benefits is an iterative discussion that - species. (The ecosystem approach adopted in the Plan, will continue beyond approvals of this Habitat Plan. however,should benefit all salmonid species,not just those currently listed under the ESA.) The WRIA 9 From the federal agency standpoint,the ability to - Habitat Plan also is included as a chapter of the Puget provide certainty and regulatory relief to local govern- Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.As such,commitments ments and other implementers is based on several from local participants to implement provisions of the considerations including: WRIA 9 Habitat Plan are also contributing to imple- • mentation of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. • Comprehensiveness,level of detail,and scientific certainty of results; • Comprehensiveness and certainty of commit- 8.3 LOCAL COMMITMENTS ments; - • FEDERAL ASSURANCES • Demonstrated progress in implementing actions; • and Local governments and other WRIA 9 stakeholders • Documented improvements in the viable salmo- have an impressive history of working together to nid population parameters for listed species. protect and restore salmon habitat.The broad level of - commitment that already exists can be shown in the In the case of both technical and policy reviews of the following three examples: March 10,2005 draft WRIA 9 Habitat Plan conducted in spring 2005 by federal agencies,integration of habitat, . • Seventeen local governments jointly funded the hatcheries,and harvest factors of decline was noted as - development of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan through missing,not only in the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan but in an interlocal agreement. Prior to the interlocal those for many watersheds throughout Puget Sound agreement and the listing of Chinook salmon and and in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.The bull trout,the 17 local governments had already federal agencies indicated that the results of proposed been working together for two years on salmon habitat actions will be more certain to achieve results habitat planning and project implementation; when harvest and hatchery actions are integrated into - • The local governments and the U.S.Army Corps of the habitat plans.To help facilitate integration,the - Engineers have been cooperating in the Green/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project for committed to working with others to tailor an ap- eight years;and proach to integrating harvest and hatcheries in habitat - • Local governments have used their own funds and Plans throughout Puget Sound,including WRIA 9. - regionally-pooled funds (e.g.,from a conservation In exchange for making commitments to implement district-wide assessment)to implement habitat the Plan,local governments may want to negotiate projects and programs and to prepare technical benefits and legal assurances with federal and state studies that support the recommendations of this regulating agencies,either through direct negotiations Plan. or potentially through regional efforts (the Puget - Sound region-wide approach to and roles in imple- In order for the watershed to reach its habitat goals, mentation,if any,are unknown at this time).Whatever local governments and other potential implementing approach is taken,WRIA 9 local governments have entities must make commitments to implement the actions recommended by the Habitat Plan.Commit- neither the resources nor the responsibility to fully Commit- recover the populations of its federally-listed fish ment can come in several forms and at varying levels. populations.Recovery will take a long-term partner- ship with federal,state,and local governments,includ- ing significant financial support from federal and state . sources. Page 8-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PlanAugust2005 • • - Expectations for Potential Benefits that Could given credit.Local governments with effective land use be Negotiated with Regulating Agencies plans,regulations,and programs that are consistent with the recovery plan should receive credit for their - It is not clear at this time exactly what assurances— efforts to integrate habitat recovery needs with state whether legal,funding,regulatory,or other—the planning requirements. federal government could or will provide for imple- menting salmon habitat plans at the watershed and Opportunities to receive federal and state grants - local governmental levels.Several options should be through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board should considered by federal agencies as incentives for be linked to Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan implementing habitat plans (particularly if federal implementation.Other funding programs,such as the • agencies determine that the habitat plans meets any Centennial Clean Water Fund and the Washington recovery plan requirements and other federally- Wildlife and Recreation Program,should offer bonus recommended recovery criteria) including: points for projects that implement the recovery plan. • Consultation on the issuance of the recovery plan so that the review of subsequent actions by federal Participation by Other Entities agencies is expedited; • A policy statement that federal agencies will not Local governments have neither the means nor the initiate enforcement actions against parties that authority to implement all the actions necessary to • are making reasonable good faith efforts consis- Protect and restore salmon habitat in WRIA 9.Recovery tent with the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan of salmon must be undertaken by a broad partnership that reaches beyond local governments.To advance - and its component watershed habitat plans; participation of other entities in Plan implementation, • • Adopt reasonable"may affect"and"not likely to public-private partnerships,contracts between local • adversely affect"thresholds for Endangered governments and utilities,funding and assistance from Species Act(ESA) consultations on actions consis- foundations,and funding from the state and federal tent with the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. governments should be pursued. For example,federal agencies could adopt a policy - Other possible tools to facilitate Plan implementation that small land development projects that are covered by federal Clean Water Act requirements by others besides local governments include: - and are consistent with the recovery plan would • Letters of understanding that consider the WRIA 9 • be presumed not to have more than minimum Habitat Plan as guidance when fulfilling related effects on ESA-listed species and,therefore no ESA responsibilities; consultation on the project proposal is needed; . Commitments to implement Habitat Plan actions; - and/or • Legislative or regulatory changes that are recom- • • Adopt a policy that projects consistent with the mended by the Habitat Plan; Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan that"may affect"salmon are presumed to be"not likely to Budget and work program line items that imple- • adversely affect"Endangered Species Act-listed ment Habitat Plan actions; • salmon unless federal agencies find that extraordi- • Letters to appropriate potential partners from the nary circumstances may cause significant adverse WRIA 9 Forum; effects. • Negotiations through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy(or its successor) among federal and state There may be new types of legal assurances that the regulating agencies,co-managers,local govern- federal government could develop and offer as well. ments,and other partners; • Assurances and grants in return for commitments to • Working with state legislators and members of implement the Habitat Plan may be appropriate Congress;and through federal laws other than the Endangered • Requests from citizens,community groups, • Species Act,as well as through state laws and pro- business,and other non-government partners to - grams.Effective implementation by local governments appropriate potential partners. of the provisions of the Clean Water Act is an example of an effort for which local governments should be - Page 8-3 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 governments"as may be required for further action." - - ,, Nonetheless,WRIA 9,Puget Sound Shared Strategy, - and state and federal agencies already have acknowl- edged the importance of working together on the . Habitat Plan iteratively and consequently much substantive discourse and helpful feedback has occurred among these entities over the course of the . development of this Plan.As discussed above,conver- sations and negotiations with regulating agencies for potential negotiated benefits and assurances will occur as part of the state and federal approval processes for - the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan,which in- cludes the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan.It is critical that local WRIA 9 partners have been working hard to develop long-term governments be integral to the discussions about and relationships needed for Habitat Plan implementation.Here,Senator negotiations over the type and level of commitments Patty Murray,the commanding officer of the Seattle District of the U.S. - expected from them. Army Corps of Engineers,and local elected officials celebrate federal funding for the initial projects of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.February 2004 photo. Puget Sound Shared Strategy defined commitment as - "a statement of the willingness of an entity or person to • implement an action or set of actions within a desig- This list is not definitive,but rather begins to generate nated timeframe." Examples of ways to demonstrate ideas in building broad support and partnerships to commitments include: - implement the Habitat Plan. • Demonstrating a history of commitments to - As evidenced in various policies and programs in this actions that have contributed to salmon recovery, • Plan,a significant role is also envisioned for the many • Adopting a clear action plan describing how and citizens who depend on a healthy watershed. In- by whom selected projects will be implemented; creased citizen understanding,support,and • Budgeting for specific projects and programs; volunteerism should increase the likelihood that both . Incorporating salmon recovery actions into local local governments and other entities receive the capital improvement programs (CIPs); support needed to be active implementers of the recommendations of this Plan. Passing a formal resolution pledging to take • actions consistent with salmon recovery goals; and Type and Level of Commitments • Passing regulations that are consistent with local Recommended For Local Governments to salmon habitat recovery goals. - Implement the Plan Local governments of WRIA 9 will need to determine Local governments and other potential implementers their role in and commitments to implementation, . of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan will be expected to make including their continued regional and watershed - commitments to implement actions and monitoring collaboration on planning,tracking,assessing,evaluat- over the next 10 years.In addition,longer term actions ing,and communicating implementation progress and (10-20 years out)that do not have commitments now securing funding,implementing programmatic and - need to be lined up for commitments in the future. site-specific habitat projects and other policy recom- mendations,and monitoring of projects.The level and Pursuant to an interlocal agreement among all local type of commitments can range from no formal governments of WRIA 9,commitments to implement commitments to signed concurrence plans.Generally,the Habitat Plan must follow approval of the Plan by when there are no formal commitments,implementa- the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum and ratification of the tion is difficult to track and less successful.Formal Plan by parties to the interlocal agreement.Indeed, commitments generally increase the likelihood of - these two steps must occur before the Habitat Plan can implementation.The extent to which a WRIA entity be officially transmitted to the state and federal might either receive regulatory relief or assurances against take liability will likely depend on the extent to Page 8-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 . - which the entity commits to taking certain specific Commitments from Local Governments actions that implement the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. - Table 8-1 provides local governments with a range of - commitment options that are not mutually exclusive Provisions of the Puget Sound Salmon (it is the assumption that the state and federal govern- Recovery Plan ments will make solid funding commitments to local - governments in tandem with any local governmental The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan is included as a commitments). chapter of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan by . reference.The Puget Sound-wide plan suggests that Option 1 is probably insufficient to obtain the desired - assurances be based on milestones for reviewing and level of assurances in return for commitments.Option evaluating progress.The crafters of the regional 3 is in all likelihood a minimum commitment to recovery plan believe that both its watershed chapters participate.Option 2,combined with either Option 4 - and the regional elements together meet Section 4(f) or 5,would demonstrate the most definitive commit- recovery requirements of the Endangered Species Act ments,in turn likely resulting in the greatest level of as well as recovery criteria recommended by federal assurances from the federal regulatory agencies. . agencies. As a first step to providing assurances,upon the Next Steps adoption of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan by • federal agencies (both its watershed chapters and the The background information provided above is a regional elements),a conservation agreement would starting point for discussing expectations for and be signed by the federal agencies and the State of commitments to implementing the WRIA 9 Habitat - Washington for the conservation and recovery of listed Plan.Decisions about roles,responsibilities,commit- salmon.The agreement would provide a means to ments,and assurances will be made over the course of formalize shared understanding of commitments that the next several months as this Habitat Plan is consid- would support implementation of this Habitat Plan. ered by the WRIA 9 Forum and local governments for - approvals and ratification,respectively,and as the The conservation agreement would acknowledge that Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan is reviewed by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan is the agreed- federal and state agencies. upon approach for achieving recovery.It would identify key measures that would be monitored for The remaining sections of this chapter provide specific success,the process for adapting to new information, information about priority projects and funding and the initial milestones over a 10 year period during strategies to implement the Habitat Plan and the which progress and results would be evaluated.The governance structure for overseeing and making • agreement also would state the intention of the state implementation decisions.The funding strategies and and federal agencies to jointly pursue funding for local governance structure are key elements to establishing communities to use in implementing the watershed commitments to implement the Habitat Plan. • habitat plans.The agreement would indicate the - support of the recovery plan actions as the appropriate solution for the area in the event of third-party law- suits and identify review points at specific time inter- vals.At each review point,the progress would be evaluated for each watershed,fish population,and the whole Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit.The • federal agencies would determine if additional assur- ances or regulatory relief would be provided.' - 2. Shared Strategy Summit 2005,Draft Platform Statement,Federal Assurances under the Endangered Species Act.January 20,2005. Page 8-5 - Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 TABLE 8-1:Loral Government Commitment Options • Option Option Option 3 Option Option Local governments Local governments continue City/county councils pass City/county councils formally City/county councils ratify or implement the Plan as they coordinated watershed-wide resolutions to formally commit to implementing adopt entire Plan as policy . choose;no formal decision-making process and consider the Plan as guidance particular actions by signing and implement through commitments to actions or pooled funding for operating and best available science for concurrence plan or interlocal local ordinances and capital regional process needs and capital invest- capital improvement agreement.Actions could be improvement programs • ments,possibly through an programs,critical areas undertaken: - interlocalagreement ordinances,comprehensive . By individual jurisdiction plan updates,National (e.g.,specific habitat - Pollutant Discharge projects) Elimination System permits, and shoreline management ' Cooperatively by sub-basin plans (e.g.,joint hiring of basin . steward) • Watershed-wide(e.g., - collaborative analysis of effectiveness monitoring) - Notes: Table 8-1 provides local governments with a range of commitment options that are not mutually exclusive;(it is the assumption that the state and federal govern- . ments will make solid funding commitments to local governments in tandem with any local governmental commitments). Option 1 is probably insufficient to obtain the desired level of assurances in return for commitments.Option 3 is in all likelihood a minimum commitment to participate. Option Z combined with either Option 4 or 5,would demonstrate the most definitive commitments,in turn likely resulting in the greatest level of assurances from the federal regulatory agencies.8.4 • PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS HABITAT PROJECTS-AND PROGRAMS - • This Habitat Plan includes a wide variety of actions This section describes the funding strategy for imple- - that focus on habitat recovery for Chinook salmon, menting the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. bull trout, and other salmonids for the next 10 years. Due to the large number of important projects and the The foundation of the funding strategy is based on four - cost of implementing them,this Plan provides further important provisions of the Habitat Plan that put WRIA . prioritization to guide efforts to recover the Green 9 on the path to habitat recovery in 10 years: River Chinook population.This prioritization is based . Biological needs of the fish; on the provisions of management strategy MS1 (Chap- - Ecological economics analysis; ter 5—Section 5.7) and the tier 1 conservation hypoth- eses.The prioritized habitat projects are listed in Cost estimates of actions;and Table 8-2. • Prioritization of actions. Page 8-6 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - The priority projects listed in this matrix implement TABLE 8-2 management strategy Policy MS1 (Chapter 5-Section 5.7) and the Habitat Plan tier 1 con- Summary of Priority Projects • servation hypotheses. Total costs to implement these priority projects range from $198.3 million to$291.4 million (Note:There is some overlap among Middle Green River, Lower Green River, and Duwamish Estuary projects within each subwatershed-wide category. Costs are adjusted to • avoid double counting). Dutamish Estuarine Transition Zone Viable r Population Parametersr r � r �thesized Necessary Future Conditions No. Habitat Plan Action Location by River Costs Addressed Abundance, DUW-3: Enlarging Duwamish River Estuarine transition zone Restore intertidal mudflats(below Estuarine habitat(transition zone area where 1 Duw-7:Shallow water habitat creation(20 acres) RM 7.0 to 5.5(both banks) $15 million to$26 million - Productivity, habitat by expanding the shallow water and slow water areas RM 7)and channel edge habitats juveniles adjust to hyperosmotic conditions)is - Diversity will enhance habitat quantity and quality of this key Chinook (upstream of RM 7)to create low expanded to encompass 30%of historical habitat 2 Duw-9:Bank restoration and revetment setback RM 6.6 to 5.5 $1,06 million to$1,8 million salmon rearing area,leading to greaterjuvenile salmon velocity and shallow water habitat at area(target is 173 acres)and habitat quality is residence time,greater growth,and higher survival. expected flow levels during juvenile functioning to improve juvenile growth and 3 Duw-10:North Wind's Weir shallow water habitat RM 6.3(right bank) $1.8 million to$2 million survival rate. - migration. 4 Duw-11:Shallow water habitat creation(10 Acres) RM 5.5 to 4.7 $17 million to$43 million 00 ac). Substitute lost slow water/shallow water areas,focusing actions at the - mouth of the Duwamish to RM 1, - between RM 2-5,and upstream of RM 5.5. . Rehabilitate riparian areas in the _ entire watershed. Total: $35 million to$73 million • File Name:0508_W9HP_T8-2A.eps Ipre • • TABLE 8-2 Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Estuary,and Marine Nearshore Rearing Habitat Summary of Priority Projects Viable Salmonid Population Parameters Conservation Hypothesis Strategy Addressed Middle Green River Subwatershed • Abundance, MG1:Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Restore areas with some functioning Refugia is established that provides habitat to 1 MG-1: Upper(Middle)Green River side channels RM 60 $676,000 to$775,000 - Productivity, refuge(particularly side channels,off channels,and tributary off-channel habitat;restore lateral support both juvenile and adult Chinook(RM 2 MG-2: Brunner Slough(Kanaskat North)off-channel RM 58 $1.2 million to$1.4 million Diversity,and Spatial access),habitat complexity(particularly pools)forjuvenile channel migration to create 31.3-45.3). Structure salmon over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of off-channel habitat. creation - locations(e.g.mainstem channel edge,river bends,and tributary 3 MG-3: Flaming Geyser floodplain reconnection, RM 45.1 to 44.3 $2.2 million to$3.4 million • mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and lead to Restore lateral channel migration to side channel connection,and habitat restoration greaterjuvenile residence time,greater growth,and higher recruit sediments. survival. 4 MG-4: Flaming Geyser side channel construction, RM 44 $608,000 to$1.1 million - Restore natural cycle of succession floodplain reconnection - MG3:Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment and plant diversity of riparian areas. 5 MG-6: Newaukum Creek riparian planting and RM 14.3 to 0 $4.3 million to$4.9 million (particularly spawning gravels)by reconnecting sediment large woody debris placement sources to the river will help maintain spawning,adult holding, Substitute sediment recruitment - and juvenile habitat. through gravel and large woody 6 MG-8: Newaukum Creek mouth riparian planting RM 4.3 to 0.3 $938,000 to$1.1 million debris supplementation. and large woody debris • 7 MG-9: Lones Levee removal and channel migration RM 38 $2.9 million to$3.3 million restoration • 9 MG-10: Burns Creek replanting,large woody RM 38 $421,500 to$483,000 debris placement,fencing -_ 10 MG-11: Turley Levee setback,floodplain reconnection RM 37 $195,000 to$222,000 11 MG-12: Levee Setback to reconnect floodplain RM 36 $1.5 million to$2.7 million and allow channel migration 12 MG-13: Hamakami Levee breach to reconnect RM 36 $650,000 to$744,000 Foodplain • 13 MG-14: Kaech Side Channel and wetland reconnection RM 35 $267,000 to$305,000 - 14 MG-15: Neely and Porter Levees setback and RM 35.5 to 34.5 $7.5 million to$13 million • floodplain reconnection - 15 MG-16: Ray Creek replanting,off-channel RM 34.2 $2.2 million to$2.5 million - reconnections,and fencing - 16 MG-17:Porter Levee setback and floodplain RM 34 $974k to$1.1 million reconnection • 17 MG-18: Fenster-Pa utzke setback and floodplain RM 32 $940,000 to$1.7 million reconnection 18 MG-19: Middle Green acquisitions Various $23.7 million to 26.2 million (if all properties acquired) - Total: $51.2 million to$65 million File Name:0508_W9HP_T8-2B.eps Ipre TABLE 8-2 Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Estuary,and Marine Nearshore Rearing Habitat Summary of Priority Projects Viable Salmonid sPopulation Parameters Mile/Reach Addressed Lower Green River Subwatershed . Abundance, LG1:Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Rehabilitate existing bank lines to Mainstem,tributary,and off-channel habitats are 1 LG-1: Riverside Estates side channel RM 28.8(left bank $504,000 to$577,000 Productivity, refuge(particularly side channels,off channels,and tributary create low velocity and shallow water improved to increase juvenile rearing,life-stage Diversity,and Spatial access),habitat complexity(particularly pools)forjuvenile habitat during juvenile migration diversity and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and 2 LG-2: Olson Creek RM 28.5(right bank) $700,000 to$900,000 Structure salmon over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are 3 LG-3:Horsehead Bend RM 26 $605,000 to$692,000 locations(e.g.mainstem channel edge,river bends,and tributary Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by functioning habitats representing 45%of historical mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and lead to reconnecting habitats to mainstem. habitat area. Habitats are side channels(target= 4 LG-4:Off-channel habitat rehabilitation RM 25.9(left bank) $970,000 to$1.8 million greater juvenile residence time,greater growth,and higher 4.5 km),wetlands(target=1185 acres,tributaries survival. Rehabilitate riparian areas by within the valley bottom(target=36 km),ponds 5 LG-5:Northeast Auburn Creek RM 25.6(left bank) $732,000 to$838,000 establishing native vegetation along (target=32 acres),shallow channel edges,large banks of mainstem and tributaries. woody debris jams,and in-channel pools. 6 LG-6:Acquisition,revetment setback,floodplain RM.25.3-25.1 (left bank) $2.8 million to$5.0 million wetland restoration and off-channel habitat i Substitute loss of slow water areas by Hydrologic connection to floodplain,tributaries rehabilitation - creating new off-channel habitats and historical off-channel habitats are restored to and placement of large woody debris achieve 45%of historical habitat area. 7 LG-7:Lower Mill Creek,Green River Park, RM 24-21.3 $4.4 million to$5 million along bank lines. Hawley Road Levee and Lower Mullen Slough 8 LG-8:Schuler Brothers Reach RM 2.1-0.3 $2.5 million to$3 million 9 LG-9:Rosso Nursery off-channel rehabilitation RM 20.8 to 20 $1.0 million to$1.6 million and riparian restoration 10 LG-10:Mainstem maintenance RM 32 to 17 $35 million to$40 million (including Boeing Levee) 11 LG-11:Acquisition and off-channel habitat RM 17.3-16 $11.0 million to$22 million • rehabilitation 12 LG-12:Briscoe Levee setback/off-channel RM 16.1-15.8 $7O0k to$1.2 million habitat rehabilitation 13 LG-13:Acquisition,levee setback, RM 15.3-14.7 $2.6 million to$3.7 million • habitat rehabilitation 14 LG-15:Habitat rehabilitation RM 12.65-12.5 $1.0 million to$1.5 million 15 LG-16:Gilliam Creek RM 12.5 $629,000 to$721,000 16 LG-17:Fort Dent Levee setback RM 11.7-11.4 $200,000 to$330,000 17 LG-18:Black River Marsh RM 11.0 $45,000 to$52,000 18 LG-19:Lower Springbrook Reach RM 1.0 $4.3 million to 5 million Total: $70 million to$94 million File Name:0508_W9HP_TS-2C.eps ]pre • • • • TABLE 8-2 • Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Estuary,and Marine Nearshore Rearing Habitat Summary of Priority Projects I Viable rr • r by River Conservationrr rrConditions • Parameters Addressed I • , - Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed • Abundance, DUW-3: Enlarging Duwamish River Estuarine transition zone Restore intertidal mudflats(below Mainstem,off-channel,and tributary habitats are 1 Duw-7:Shallow water habitat creation(20 acres) RM 7.0-5.5 $15 million to$26 million • Productivity, habitat by expanding the shallow water and slow water areas RM 7)and channel edge habitats improved to increase juvenile rearing,life-stage Diversity will enhance habitat quantity and quality of this key Chinook (upstream of RM 7)to create low diversity and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and 2 Duw-9:Bank restoration and revetment setback. RM 6.6 to 5.5 $1.06 million to$1.8 million • salmon rearing area,leading to greaterjuvenile salmon velocity and shallow water habitat at fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are • residence time,greater growth,and higher survival. expected flow levels during juvenile functioning habitats representing 30%of historical 3 Duw North Wind's Weir shallow RM 6.3(right bank) $1.8 million to$2 million migration. habitat area. Habitats are shallow channel edge, waterr habitat creation • Palustrine and Riverine-tidal wetlands �, • 4 Duw-11:shallow water habitat creation 00 acres) RM 5.5-4.7 $17 million to$43 million (target=267 acres),and off-channel habitat at RM 5.5-4.7(both banks) • (target=5 acres). • 5 Duw-12:South Park bank restoration and RM 3.8-3.7(left bank) $1.6 million-$1.7 million • shallow water habitat creation • 6 Duw-13:Kellogg Island rehabilitation RM 1.4-1.2 $2.5 million to$7.7 million • Total: • $39 million to$82.2 million • • • �I • I • • • • • • • • • I, • • • • • File Name:05O8_W9HP_T8-0.eps Ipre • - TABLE 8-2 Middle Green River,Lower Green River,Estuary,and Marine Nearshore Rearing Habitat Summary of Priority Projects Viable Salmonid Population Location by River r rn Hypothesis Habitat Management Strategy ParametersrrConditions , Addressed Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Abundance, NSP2:Protecting and increasing the availability of vegetated Protect existing functioning Marine sediment recruitment and transport rates 1 NS-1: Pier 90 shallow water habitat rehabilitation Pier 90(Seattle) $2.2 million to$6 million • Productivity, shallow nearshore and marsh habitats will enhance habitat nearshore rearing habitat. approach natural rates to maintain existing habitat Diversity,and Spatial quantity and quality and lead to greaterjuvenile salmon and support habitat development to increase 2 NS-2: Myrtle Edwards Park small pocket beaches/ Myrtle Edwards Park $7.7 million to$8.9 million Structure residence time,greater growth,and higher survival. Restore sediment recruitment and life-stage productivity. shallow water habitat rehabilitation (Seattle) - transport processes. Abundance, NSP3:Protecting nearshore sediment transport processes by Marine habitats are improved to increase juvenile 3 NS-3: Olympic Sculpture Park tidal embayment/ Olympic Sculpture Park $2.5 million Productivity reconnecting sediment sources and removing shoreline Restore shallow water habitats. rearing,life-stage diversity,and productivity. shallow water habitat rehabilitation (Seattle) armoring that impacts sediment transport will lead to greater Marine nearshore habitats include salt marshes, 4 NS-4: Seattle Waterfront shallow water bench Elliott Bay(Seattle) $7.7 million to$8.5 million • prey production,greater juvenile salmon growth and higher Restore riparian vegetation. beaches and backshore,pocket estuaries,and habitat rehabilitation - survival. shallow water habitat. Restore beaches,backshore,and 5 NS-5:Burien Seahurst Park shoreline restoration, Seahurst Park(Burien) $5.3 million to$5.9 million associate plant communities. Marine riparian zone is functioning and effective Phase 2 - buffer widths are established to provide all riparian - functions. 6 NS-10: Ellis Creek saltmarsh protection and Ellis Creek(Vashon Island) $450,000 to$1.6 million restoration on Vashon Island • 7 NS-11:Feeder Bluff protection and restoration of Normandy Park $318,000 to$1 million beach feeding processes in Normandy Park 8 NS-12:Pocket Estuary restoration of Unnamed Creek Normandy Park $600,000 to$2,000,000 in Normandy Park • 9 NS-14:Evaluate how to improve habitat value of Raab's Lagoon(Maury Island) Costs not available Raab's lagoon. - 10 NS-17: Functioning nearshore habitat protection Various locations $11.3 million to$12.6 million - (total cost if all 51 properties were acquired) 11 NS-18:Sandford Point feeder bluff restoration Vashon Island $90,000 to$300,000 on Vashon Island • 12 NS-19:Tramp Harbor intertidal fill removal Vashon Island $90,000 to$300,000 on Vashon Island - 13 NS-20:Maury Island fill removal Vashon Island $45,000 to$150,000 14 NS-21:Sandy Beach fill and derelict pier removal Vashon Island $82,500 to$275,000 - on Vashon Island Total: - $38 million to$50 million File Name:0508_W91HP_T&E.eps Ipre • • TABLE 8-2 Middle Green River and Lower Green River Spawning Habitat Summary of Priority Projects Viable Salmonid Population Location by R ver Conservation Hypothesis Habitat Management Strategy Hypothesized Necessary Future Conditions No. Habitat Plan Action Costs Parameters Mile/Reach Addressed Middle Green River Subwatershed - Abundance, MG1:Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Restore areas with some functioning Refugia is established that provides habitat to (See Middle Green River Subwatershed section of (See Middle Green River - Productivity, refuge(particularly side channels,off channels,and tributary off-channel habitat;restore lateral support both juvenile and adult Chinook(RM Table 7-2. Subwatershed section of Diversity,and Spatial access),habitat complexity(particularly pools)for juvenile channel migration to create 31.3-45.3). Table 7-2) Structure salmon over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of off-channel habitat. All of the projects provide both spawning and rearing - locations(e.g.mainstem channel edge,river bends,and tributary Sediment recruitment and transport rates habitat benefits.) - mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and lead to Restore lateral channel migration to approach natural rates to increase productivity of greater juvenile residence time,greater growth,and higher recruit sediments. spawning areas and to maintain and develop survival. habitats(e.g.pool tail outs,spawning riffles, • Restore natural cycle of succession shallow channel edge)for improving life-history - Abundance, MG3:Protecting and restoring natural sediment recruitment and plant diversity of riparian areas. productivity. Segment target with suitable gravel Productivity (particularly spawning gravels)by reconnecting sediment size is 6,300 cubic yards/year to support spawning sources to the river will help maintain spawning,adult holding, Substitute sediment recruitment habitat(RM 64.4 to 31.3). • and juvenile habitat. through gravel and large woody • debris supplementation. Lower Green River Subwatershed Abundance, LG1:Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides Rehabilitate existing bank lines to Mainstem,tributary,and off-channel habitats are 1 LG-1: Riverside Estates Side Channel RM 28.8(left bank $504,000 to$577,000 Productivity, refuge(particularly side channels,off channels,and tributary create low velocity and shallow water improved to increase juvenile rearing,life-stage Diversity,and Spatial access),habitat complexity(particularly pools)forjuvenile habitat during juvenile migration diversity and productivity(increase egg-to-fry and 2 LG-2: Olson Creek RM 28.5(right bank) $700,000 to$900,000 - Structure salmon over a range of flow conditions and at a variety of fry-to-fingerling survival rates).Targets are locations(e.g.mainstem channel edge,river bends,and tributary Rehabilitate off-channel habitat by functioning habitats representing 45%of historical 3 LG-3:Horsehead Bend RM 26 $605,000 to$692,000 mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and lead to reconnecting habitats to mainstem. habitat area. Habitats are side channels(target= - greater juvenile residence time,greater growth,and higher 4.5 km),wetlands(target=1185 acres,tributaries 4 LG-4:Off-channel habitat rehabilitation RM 25.9(left bank) $970,000 to$1.8 million - survival. Rehabilitate riparian areas by within the valley bottom(target=36 km),ponds establishing native vegetation along (target=32 acres),shallow channel edges,large 5 LG-5:Northeast Auburn Creek RM 25.6(left bank) $732,000 to$838,000 banks of mainstem and tributaries. woody debris jams,and in-channel pools. • Total: Substitute loss of slow water areas by Hydrologic connection to floodplain,tributaries $3.5 million to$4.8 million creating new off-channel habitats and historical off-channel habitats are restored to and placement of large woody debris achieve 45%of historical habitat area. • along bank lines. - Sediment processes and transport rates that produce spawning gravel(RM 25 to 32)are reestablished and improved to increase productiv- ity spawning areas,increase spatial structure and maintain and develop habitats(e.g.pool tail outs, spawning riffles,shallow channel edge)that will increase life-history productivity. Spawning - habitat target with suitable gravel size is 45%of historical levels(5,000 CY/year)for viability of population. File Name:0508_W9HP_T8-F.eps Ipre Strategies for Funding Actions The cornerstone of funding salmon recovery in Wash- -in the First Ten Years ington State is the state Salmon Recovery Funding • Board(SRFB).The mission of the SRFB is to distribute The following strategies are intended to maximize both state and federal funds for salmon habitat projects to funds available over the first 10 years of the Plan and local watersheds through"lead entities." Currently, - the effectiveness with which they are used: there is no other mechanism in the state that serves • Apply funds to the 10-year priority watershed this vital function. projects identified in the Habitat Plan(see Table 8- State law,enacted in 1998,required counties,cities, 2:Summary of Priority Projects); and tribal governments to jointly designate the area for • Maximize existing salmon funding sources and which a habitat project list is to be developed and the draw on additional existing sources that could be, lead entity that is to be responsible for submitting the - but have not been,used for salmon recovery habitat project list to the SRFB for funding.Shortly • priorities; after enactment of these requirements,King County • • Use funds generated in the watershed; was nominated as the lead entity for WRIA 9.The • Aggressively pursue appropriate use of mitigation planning area of WRIA 9 initially was the Green/ funds; Duwamish River Watershed and the direct drainages to • Track success of overall funding,sources,and Puget Sound,including Elliott Bay and its drainages. distribution against desired results;and Over the years,agreements were reached with other watershed groups and communities to include - • If funds fall short of goals,explore alternative Vashon/Maury Island and the Puget Sound drainages sources or change the Habitat Plan implementa- of Federal Way in the WRIA 9 salmon habitat planning tion approach. area.Today,the planning area of WRIA 9 encompasses 664 square miles,including all of the area of WRIA 9 Proposed Funding Level and portions ofWRIAs 8, 10,and 15 (Figure 1-1 of Chapter 1). i • The funding needed in the first 10 years to implement Under the Salmon Recovery Fund Board funding the Habitat Plan priority projects is estimated to be construct,the WRIA 9 Steering Committee has pro- $164 to$333 million.This amount is based on the 10- vided a citizen-based evaluation of the projects and • year priority projects listed in Table 8-2. assessments proposed to protect and restore salmon In addition, 15%of the total capital investment,or$25 habitat in WRIA 9.Since 1999,the WRIA 9 Steering Committee has secured over$7.3 million in SRFB - to$50 million over ten years,is recommended by grants for 16 habitat projects.These SRFB-funded • Puget Sound Shared Strategy to be allocated toward projects have been matched by over$4.2 million of monitoring,adaptive management,and other key local funds.An additional estimated$10.8 million of operational tasks associated with implementation. leveraged funding is anticipated as restoration work advances on the 16 projects.Table 8-3 contains the Sources of Funds in the First Ten Years projects that have been implemented through the • SRFB funding mechanism in WRIA 9. • The following funding source goals would partially contribute to meeting funding needs.Regional,state, and federal funding to make up the balance is dis- R Policy II: • cussed in Section 8.6 below. State Salmon Recovery Funding Board State Salmon Recovery Funding Board funds shall Goal:Maintain a minimum of$1.45 million in annual be targeted toward the highest habitat priorities for - grant appropriations to WRIA 9. the recovery of salmon in WRIA 9 in accordance with the acquisition and project priority system established in Policy MS1,and guided by the • technical habitat management strategies of • Chapter 5. Page 8-19 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Table 8-3:Salmon Recovery Funding Board Funded Projects in WRM 9* - Project Name Project Year SRFB Funds Local Match Total Project Sponsor Awarded Cost 0'Grady Park Stream King County 1999 $100,000 $122,000 $222,000 Restoration Porter Levee Section 1135 King County 1999 $40,000 $150,000 $190,000 - Project North Fork Newaukum Creek King County 1999 $40,000 $81,019 $121,019 - Habitat Site 1/Acquisition King County 2000 $500,000 $1,411,000 $1,911,000 - Big Spring Creek Acquisition King County 2000 $525,000 $95,000 $620,000 Metzler Park Side Channel King County 2000 $450,000 $90,000 $540,000 Acquisition Kanaskat North Acquisition King County 2000 $515,000 $95,000 $610,000 Seahurst Park Sea Wall City of Burien 2000 $82,000 $18,000 $100,000 Assessment Kanaskat Reach Acquisition King County 2001 $795,000 $400,000 $1,195,000 Middle Green Reach King County 2001 $1,011,000 $179,000 $1,190,000 - Acquisition - Habitat Inventory & City of Seattle 2002 $300,000 $90,000 $390,000 - Utilization • Lower Green River Acquisition City of Kent 2002 $975,000 $230,000 $1,205,000 Kanaskat Reach (Phase 3) King County 2002 $596,000 $105,000 $701,000 - Seahurst Park Nearshore City of Burien 2004 $190,500 $897,500 $1,088,000 Restoration Piner Point Acquisition on King County 2004 $398,980 $71,000 $469,980 • Maury Island Newaukum Creek Restoration King County 2004 $788,581 $150,000 $938,581 Total $7,307,061 $4,184,519 $11,491,580 'Includes projects submitted in 1999 to the Interagency Committee's precursor of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Page 8-20 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan-August 2005 • r King Conservation District f - Goal:Double the current assessment per parcel from - $5 to$10,and allocate the revenue as follows: • Double the appropriation to the WRIA Forums. • Double the appropriation to participating local • governments. r - Double the appropriation to the King Conserva- tion District. - WRIA 9-endorsed King Conservation District grant applications are often - Since 1949,the King Conservation District(KCD) has used as a match to leverage funds from othersources,as was done for the - helped citizens manage and protect natural resources Olson Creek restoration in Auburn.Photo courtesy ofCityofAuburn. in King County.The KCD is a non-regulatory agency that provides technical assistance and education to Cedar/Sammamish($690,000),and Snoqualmie • citizens about sustainable agriculture and livestock ($345,000)Watersheds.The Forums make recom- management practices,stream and wetland habitat mendations to the KCD Board of Supervisors protection and restoration,and water quality protec- about how to allocate the grants to a wide range • tion and improvement. of natural resource conservation and manage- ment projects and programs,many of which are The activities of the King Conservation District are oriented toward salmon habitat needs and funded primarily through a$5 per-parcel assessment priorities.The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum recom- - on properties of member jurisdictions within its mends a significant portion of its KCD grant to boundaries(most of King County). (At the time of advance the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Resto- publication of this Plan,discussions were under way ration Project(described below). - about increasing the assessment to$10 per parcel - beginning in 2006 and how to allocate the revenue.) Currently,20%of the assessment(about$575,000)is used for operations,programs,and projects of the v KCD,20%($575,000) is distributed to the originating Policy l2. - local governments for natural resource management and conservation projects and programs,and 60% The King Conservation District assessment allo- (about$1,725,000)is distributed through grants to the Gated and split among the Watershed Forums,as - Watershed(WRIA) Forums for the Green/Duwamish well as the portion of the allocation to local govern- and Central Puget Sound($690,000),Lake Washington/ ments,will be a primary source of funding to implement the habitat actions of the Habitat Plan during the first 10 years of implementation.The • WRIA 9 Watershed Forum and the King Conserva- tion District should work together to integrate the habitat project and program priorities of the two - entities. Grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board have allowed the • protection through acquisition of high value habitat such as this shown - here near river mile 39.May 2005 photo. Page 8-21 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Local Government Contributions - Project Goals: - Goal:Receive targeted federal budget appropriations . Demonstrate historical,current,and future of at least$2.5 million per year. commitments to a collaborative,inclusive plan- ning and implementing process for improving • The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project - (ERP) is the result of eight years of collaborative efforts watershed health and recovering listed species; to improve fish and wildlife habitat.Over the years,all • Establish strong partnerships with state and of the local governments of WRIA 9 have worked with federal governments to fund significant shares of - the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,the Muckleshoot the priority actions identified in the Habitat Plan; - Indian Tribe,and others on this project that identified and 45 restoration sites to improve ecosystem conditions in • Document and receive credit for the significant the watershed.In 2004,Congress provided an initial financial and other contributions that local appropriation of$500,000 to begin construction.An governments have made and will make to water- additional$1.25 million was appropriated in 2005, shed health and salmon habitat recovery in the with the local governments having committed to the development of the Habitat Plan and Near-Term local funding requirements of the program.It is Action Agenda and implementation of early - estimated that$113 million is needed to fully imple- actions.Early actions would include,for example, ment all 45 projects,many of which are focused on matching funds for the Green/Duwamish Ecosys- Chinook salmon habitat restoration.Chinook salmon- tem Restoration Project,matching funds for state focused ERP projects and their locations are included Salmon Recovery Funding Board projects,King - in Chapter 7 of this Plan. Conservation District funding,and other city and county projects and programs. Policy 13: Early in 2000,guided by the Tri-County Model Conser- vation Planning Effort,local governments of WRIA 9 entered into an interlocal agreement(ILA)to establish The Chinook salmon-focused Green/Duwamish a governance,planning,decision making,and funding - Ecosystem Restoration Projects will be included structure for developing,adopting,and ratifying a among the priority habitat capital projects for comprehensive salmon habitat plan.The 17 local implementation during the first 10 years of the governments that signed the ILA are:Algona,Auburn, - Habitat Plan.The primary funding source for Black Diamond, Burien,Covington,Des Moines, - these projects will be direct federal appropria- Enumclaw,Federal Way,Kent,Maple Valley,Normandy tions,matched by local funds primarily through Park,Renton,SeaTac,Seattle,Tacoma,Tukwila,and value of land and King Conservation District King County. - funds allocated to the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum is the central compo- nent of the interlocal agreement governance structure. Each of the 17 member governments is represented on the Forum by either an elected official or senior manager.The Forum functions as the-"board of directors"in implementing the provisions of the ILA, - primarily the development of this WRIA-based Habitat - Plan to address habitat needs for federally-listed fish species.The Forum(with the addition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the table) also functions as - an executive committee for the Green/Duwamish - Ecosystem Restoration Project(described above).The Forum has a chair and vice-chair who are annually selected by its member representatives.The chair of the Forum functions as the chief executive officer, providing day-to-day direction on watershed matters. Page 8-22 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • has been supported by a Project Selection and Evalua- tion Committee in its work to identify Salmon Recov- ery Funding Board projects and the Project Manage- - _ ment Committee in its work to advance the Green/ Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. - The WRIA 9 interlocal agreement creates a funding • mechanism for the above functions of its governance and decision making structure.Each member local government provides a cost share that is based on its - population,geographic area,and the assessed value of - property in the jurisdiction.The total cost-shared amount to support staff and operations is approxi- mately$470,000 annually.About$70,000 is provided North Wind's Wier off-channel habitat construction in Tukwila is one of the annually by the Washington State Department of Fish first projects of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration.Cleanup of and Wildlife for operating expenses associated with the • contaminated soils began in 2004.November 2004 photo. Salmon Recovery Funding Board project identification - function of the Steering Committee.King Conservation - District grants match interlocal agreement operating The Watershed Forum is supported by a seven-mem- funds with$60,000 to$250,000 annually,primarily to ber Management Committee.The Management support planning,education,and stewardship. • Committee functions as the executive committee to - the Forum,developing the annual budget proposal Operating funds are used primarily to support five staff and making management recommendations to the members who are employees of the King County Forum for decision.It is chaired by the Forum chair. Department of Natural Resources and Parks,which - functions as the service provider and fiscal agent of the Pursuant to the WRIA 9 interlocal agreement,the WRIA interlocal agreement(ILA).While employed by King 9 Steering Committee functions as a multiple-stake- County,the ILA staff,referred to as the Watershed holder planning commission that oversaw the devel- Coordination Services Team,work on behalf of all the - opment of this Habitat Plan. (The Steering Committee partners to the ILA. King County provides personnel also functions,under state law,as the citizen-based management of these staff members,but the primary committee that identifies habitat projects and assess- direction of their work occurs through a memorandum - ments for funding by the state Salmon Recovery of understanding among the ILA cost-sharing partners. - Funding Board as discussed above.) The Steering King County executes the memorandum of under- Committee has overseen the development of several standing through the Director of the King County major planning and technical documents-WRIA 9 Department of Natural Resources and Parks,but the - Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assess- Forum acts in its"board of directors"capacity through ment(Kerwin and Nelson 2000);the Strategic Assess- the Forum chair. ment(King County Department of Natural Resources - and Parks et al.2004);and the Near-Term Action The memorandum of understanding establishes the Agenda(WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services specific services and staff to be provided by the King 2002)—on its journey towards the ultimate product County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. authorized by the ILA,this comprehensive Habitat The services include: - Plan.The Steering Committee is led by co-chairs who function as facilitators of the planning process. Forum,Management Committee,and Steering Committee coordination; - The Steering Committee has received support from • Development of the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting - several subcommittees in developing the above Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment,Strategic planning documents,including the Planning Work Assessment,Near-Term Action Agenda,and this Group,Technical Committee,Public Outreach Work Habitat Plan; - Group,and most recently the Science Panel(see . Public outreach;project identification and fund- Chapter 2-Section 2.5 for additional information on ing; the roles and responsibilities of these committees).It - Page 8-23 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration - Project coordination;and �v Policy 16: - • Program management and administration. The following policies are intended to identify Local governments shall consider the priority - and support the cooperative and individual roles habitat projects and programs of the WRIA 9 of the local governments implementing the Habitat Plan as each develops and implements Habitat Plan: local capital improvement programs. - \ Policy 14: RPolicy 17: The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum shall consider the interlocal agreement for the Watershed Basins Local governments shall consider the priority within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 as the habitat projects and programs of the WRIA 9 - primary implementing governance and decision Habitat Plan as each develops and implements making structure of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan.In so land use,community development,and public doing,the Forum should first consider roles and facility plans. tasks associated with implementation,thereupon Forum members should consider one of more of the following service provisions required to sup- port the implementation of the Habitat Plan: E Policy 18: A. Service provision under contract (existing - arrangement); Discussion: B. Creation of anon-profit organization;and C. Shared service provision for WRIAs 8 and 9. The purpose of Policy I8 is to retain established land use,zoning,and habitat project provisions on - An initial evaluation of services should occur in unincorporated lands that were enacted by King year two or three following approval of services to County to protect habitat.On occasion,these make sure the initial course is correct.Subsequent provisions have been removed as a condition of • evaluation may occur on a six-year time frame. annexation. - Policy: Local governments shall execute annexation and - incorporation agreements that are consistent with - and support the priority habitat projects and Policy 15: programs of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. Local governments shall consider the habitat project and program priorities of the WRIA 9 - Habitat Plan as each updates,develops,imple- ments,and enforces land use regulations. Page 8-24 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - . ALIGNING FUNDING OF �v Policy 19: WRIA 9 PRIORITIES WITH THE PUGET \� SOUND SALMON • PLAN - Local governments should coordinate Habitat The costs of recovery actions in WRIA 9 are high. It is Plan implementation with other large-scale estimated that the funding needed to implement the programs and initiatives including but not limited priority capital project actions identified in Table 8-2 • to the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration will range from$198 to$291 million over the first 10 - Project,the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem years of implementation. Appendix I contains the Restoration Project,the Washington State Depart- estimated cost of each capital project action,the total ment of Natural Resources and Tacoma Public cost of projects in each subwatershed,and the rolled- Utilities Habitat Conservation Plans,hatchery and up estimated costs of all projects over the next 10 genetic management plans,the Hatchery Scien- years. Costs have not yet been estimated for recom- tific Review Group recommendations,the Forest mended programs. - Legacy Program and Cascade Foothills Initiative, • King County Noxious Weed Program to reduce In the past several years,WRIA 9 has managed,through invasive species,King County Flood Hazard the funding sources described above,to secure from Reduction Program,the Lower Duwamish Water- $1.4 to$2.5 million annually to implement priority - way Superfund cleanup,Vashon Forest Stewards, habitat actions(of the Near-Term Action Agenda and - and the Urban Forest Program for Ecological pursuant to existing technical guidance).While exist- Restoration.This coordination will focus on the ing funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, best use and timing of WRIA 9 habitat projects, King Conservation District,and other state and federal - programs,and other actions in relation to these programs,together with current local funds used for other programs and initiatives. fish and habitat management actions such as the Conservation Futures Tax program,has been adequate to put WRIA 9 on the road to recovery,current sources - and amounts are not enough to achieve implementa- • E Policy 110: tion of the actions of Chapter 7 in 10 years.It is widely acknowledged that it will be more difficult to raise even current funding levels from existing sources in the near Local governments should promote the cross- future as environmental funding is shrinking or jurisdictional sharing of innovative and proven stagnant at every level of government. - approaches for implementing Habitat Plan - actions. A funding strategy was developed for the Puget Sound • Salmon Recovery Plan to fund priority actions in Puget Sound.A leadership group that was convened by Shared Strategy provided guidance on several key - \ Policy 111: issues and recommended that partners: - • Aim for a doubling from combined current local, Implementers should maintain vegetation at state,and federal funding levels in Puget Sound habitat restoration and protection projects. (estimated to be about$60 million per year)to an Maintenance at both types of projects consists of average of$120 million per year over 10 years • control of noxious weeds and other non-native (with the greatest increases in funding from the invasive plants and deterrence of undesired uses state and federal governments); such as dumping and occupancy that can damage Maximize existing salmon funding sources and - habitat value. draw on additional existing sources that could be - used for salmon recovery priorities such as • mitigation dollars,federal farm programs,and public and private grant programs; • Redirect a portion of mitigation funding toward • recovery plan priorities,especially in highly - Page 8-25 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 urbanized watersheds that have the greatest - opportunities for mitigation; Policy 113: - • Distribute funds across Puget Sound to address both scientific and policy issues;and • Maintain the contributions to salmon recovery of During the first year of implementation,local - local governments. governments shall develop and consider a menu of funding ideas for implementing priority habitat It is not known which priority actions of WRIA 9 will actions of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. - be considered as priorities cross-Puget Sound. It is - likely,however,that the$120 million per year target for Puget Sound offers meaningful funding opportunities for WRIA 9.A smaller group of regional - leaders,including representatives from WRIA 9,will - continue to address the many issues associated with Policy 114: the regional funding strategy. 9) a With the likely funding need cross-Puget Sound so During the first three years of the Habitat Plan, high—indeed with the cost of habitat recovery so federal,state,regional,and local governments will high in WRIA 9 alone—it behooves WRIA 9 to align appropriate funding sources with the - examine its own dedicated funding sources to priority habitat projects and programs of the implement the priority actions of the Habitat Plan. Habitat Plan.When applicable,other stakeholders, The ecological economics analysis that was performed including businesses,corporations,land trusts, - for WRIA 9 (Asia-Pacific Environmental Exchange conservancies,and non-profits,are strongly - 2005) demonstrates a vast amount of value provided encouraged to align funding with the by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound recommendations of the Habitat Plan. Local Watershed to its citizens.Moreover,the analysis governments will seek untapped or underused - suggests that salmon restoration in WRIA 9 will funding sources for salmon projects. enhance at least 23 highly valuable ecosystem - services.Chapter 6,Ecological Economics Foundation,provides more information on how the ecological economics analysis that was performed in - WRIA 9 can help substantiate funding for implementing the Habitat Plan. Policy 115: The following policies address how to fund Habitat - Plan implementation and complement policies I1, 12, Pursuant to monitoring and adaptive - and I3 described above: management recommendations of the Habitat Plan, - progress on implementation should be coordinated among federal,state,regional,and local governments and other stakeholders.Open - Policy 112: communication and honest assessment of progress will be used to ensure that the public understands and supports Plan implementation Local governments will support examining and that implementation stays on track. - funding options and a financing strategy for identifying priority habitat projects and programs throughout Puget Sound.The WRIA 9 Watershed - Forum will seek representation on the regional • leadership group and its subcommittees that will be tasked with the examination of options and identification of priorities. - Page 8-26 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - 3) Projects that are within the Agricultural Produc- tion District,but not on farmland that is within - Poltcy 116: the Farmland Preservation Program,shall be • implemented third and shall follow the prin- - An appropriate level of mitigation funding should ciples of Habitat Plan Policy I18 (below). be re-directed(either on-site or off-site, During the second 10 years of the Habitat Plan,pro- whichever is applicable) toward Habitat Plan posed projects that negatively affect tillable surface • priority actions in the distinct habitats outlined in may be reconsidered.Reconsideration shall happen • Policy MS1 in Chapter 5(Duwamish Estuary after there has been an evaluation of the results of the transition zone habitat;Middle Green River, agricultural restoration projects that have occurred Lower Green River,Duwamish Estuary,and without negatively affecting existing tilled soils.This - Marine Nearshore rearing habitat;and Middle evaluation shall occur as a part of the adaptive man- Green River and upper Lower Green River agement process. spawning habitat). Cities benefit from farming and the products that - farming near the cities provides.Cities also benefit Approach to Habitat Project Implementation from the low-density requirements in farming and in the Agricultural Production Districts of rural areas that complements the density directed to - WRIA 9 the Urban Growth Area.It behooves cities to do what • they can to help the County administer programs that Agriculture is a critically important land use and help keep agricultural land and farming in WRIA 9. commercial enterprise system that must be preserved - in tandem with salmon recovery in WRIA 9.Indeed, one only need float the Green River between Flaming Geyser State Park to Highway 18 (an area that is wholly E Policy 117: - within a King County Agricultural Production District) to gain a sense of how agriculture has already contributed to salmon recovery(see Chapter 2- Implementation of the King County Livestock Manage- Section 2.6 for discussion of the role of the agricultural ment ordinance should be supported by cities.This - community in salmon habitat recovery).This reach of ordinance,which is implemented by King County, the river is remarkably undeveloped,with broad seeks to improve and protect riparian areas in agricul- sweeps of unfragmented habitat and room for the tural areas through setbacks,compliance monitoring, river to move.While the Habitat Plan documents and cost sharing. - factors of decline in the Middle Green River and it lists many capital projects to restore and augment natural features and processes that will help salmon in the - Middle Green,the fact remains that this portion of the - river has benefited from agricultural zoning and farming when compared to alternative land zoning and uses. • For the first 10 years of the Habitat Plan,the construc- tion of the priority habitat rehabilitation projects identified by the Middle Green"Blueprint" (Chapter 7) • for the mainstem Green River shall be sequenced as follows: - 1) Projects located on existing public land shall be implemented first; 2) Project located within the Rural and Urban • Growth Areas shall be implemented second; The Upper Green Agricultural Production District,located between river and miles 43 and 34,ensures continued agricultural land uses adjacent to the - Middle Green.September 2002 photo. - Page 8-27 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • �v Policy 178: • • Jurisdictions shall protect,enhance,and restore - high quality salmon habitat in the Agricultural Production Districts while retaining the agricul- tural lands zoned for protecting and maintaining the viability of agriculture.Jurisdictions and - agencies shall work with agricultural landowners in the Agricultural Production Districts to: • • Correct water quality problems resulting from • agricultural practices,including: • -Implementing best management practices • for livestock and horticulture. - -Planting riparian corridors as needed where temperature is a water quality issue for • salmonids. • • Prevent any further removal of forested • riparian buffers. • • Continue riparian plantings,levee and • revetment setbacks,relocation of channels • and construction of off-channel refugia, limiting the scope of projects such that future • farming on non-forested acreage is not • precluded through acquisition unless: • -Projects are on lands that are not farmed or deemed as farmable;or • -Projects also present benefits for farmland such as reducing bank erosion. • • Encourage landowners to pursue voluntary • sustainable actions for fish,farms,and soils. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 8-28 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • I�. i CHAPTER 9.0 Adaptive Management and Monitoring 21 3 q - g z,I _ 16I 1T '9 19 i •.1 INTRODUCTION Adaptive management recognizes that uncertainty and unexpected changes are inherent in managing com- The Habitat Plan is meant to guide local actions over Alex ecological systems.Adaptive management is a problem-solving approach to address this uncertainty the next 10 years to move habitat conditions in the that relies on six steps (see Figure 9-1): 1)assessment, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed • (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 [WRIA 91)towards 2) design,3) implementation,4) monitoring,5) evalua- - tion,and 6) adjustment.Assessment involves defining conditions that will support salmon recovery.The Plan the problem,selecting indicators,and assessing reflects the best available information at the time of alternative management actions.Design involves the - completion,but there is still much to be learned development of a management experiment and the through Plan implementation efforts.' identification of expected outcome for the different • actions.Implementation of actions follows within the • Adaptive management is a systematic process for context of learning from expected action outcomes. - continually improving management policies and Monitoring is carried out to determine the effective- practices by learning from the outcomes of projects ness of the actions in meeting the goals or outcomes. and programs(Marmorek 2003).Adaptive manage-ment embodies a simple imperative:policies and Data from monitoring are evaluated and compared to • actions are experiments—learn from them (Lee 1993). expected outcomes and results are interpreted to - analyze unexpected outcomes.Decision makers adjust - goals and/or actions in response to new information to more effectively address Plan goals. FIGURE 9-1: Six Steps of Adaptive Management ASSESS Define the problem and rm, - identify uncertainties • DESIGN - ADJUST mm Identify actions and expected outcomes ` - IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT • Compare results to expected outlines - MONITOR 4 - 1. An aspect of adaptive management and monitoring are scientific studies that tell us more about the watershed.A list of possible . studies for the WRIA 9 Watershed is found in Appendix I. i Page 9-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 9 2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 9. Commitments:What commitments will key - players provide that are necessary for Habitat Plan Adaptive management is an integral component of implementation? implementation.An adaptive management framework includes an institutional structure that,in combina- passive Versus Active Adaptive Management tion with monitoring and evaluation,can be used to - judge progress in achieving Plan goals and objectives. Literature about adaptive management notes that The framework also explicitly lays out how information there are two key options for implementation:passive from monitoring and evaluation efforts will guide or active."Passive"adaptive management is a more - decisions about future strategies and actions. formal approach where historical information is used to select the best alternative management actions. The adaptive management literature identifies the Ecosystem response to the action(s) is observed and basic elements of an adaptive management based the action is adapted accordingly.A major drawback of - program to implement a plan such as this Habitat passive adaptive management is that it confounds Plan.The draft platform statement on implementation (mixes together) environmental and anthropogenic from the Shared Strategy Summit(dated January 20, (human-caused) effects because replicates and - 2005) also identifies the necessary elements of an con- trols are not utilized.This often leads to conflict over - adaptive management plan for Puget Sound salmon whether ecological responses are due to environmen- recovery plans that are quite similar to the compo- tal or anthropogenic effects. nents included in the WRIA 9 Technical Strategy(2003). - Using these background materials,the basic elements "Active"adaptive management is a systematic process of an adaptive management program for WRIA 9 can of modeling,experimentation,and monitoring to be summarized as follows: compare the outcomes of alternative management actions(Farr 2000).Here,multiple management 1. Goals:What goals for salmon does the WRIA 9 actions are applied to the landscape following a Habitat Plan aim to achieve? rigorous experimental design that allows scientists and 2. Hypotheses:What are the hypotheses regarding managers to compare ecosystem response to alterna- - life stages that are thought to be limiting recovery tive management actions.Through experimental . of the salmon populations in WRIA 9? design,active adaptive management accelerates the 3. Strategies:What habitat,hatchery,and harvest rate of learning about managed ecosystems,allowing strategies will be used to address the primary managers to select more effective actions and reduce - factors hypothesized to be limiting recovery of the economic and ecological cost of resource manage- WRIA 9 salmon populations? ment. In active adaptive management,managers design actions to discriminate between alternative - 4. Actions:What specific actions are included in the approaches,and thus reveal the"best"management WRIA 9 Plan to implement the strategies and achieve objectives? action. 5. Measures:What metrics will be used to indicate Both passive and active adaptive management require - population status and the effectiveness of actions careful implementation,monitoring,evaluation of aimed at improving the population status? results,and adjustment of objectives and practices. 6. Communication and Decision Making:How will Active adaptive management usually allows more i key people be made aware of the results of actions reliable interpretation of results,leads to more rapid . on salmon? learning,and is recommended for implementation in 7. Institutional Structure:What is the institutional WRIA 9 wherever feasible. It also leads to more cer- structure that supports the implementation of the tainty that actions are leading to desired or expected - Habitat Plan and clearly defines roles and respon- outcomes. - sibilities for each element? - 8. Resources:What are the resources necessary to - carry out each element of the Habitat Plan over the necessary time period and geographic area? Page 9-2 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - WRIA 9 Adaptive Management Plan Elements - Using the basic elements of an adaptive management program noted above as a framework,the summary E responses to the organizing questions for WRIA 9 are presented below.More detail is presented in the WRIA • _ 9 Strategic Assessment(King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004). • `` "e Goals:What goals for salmon does the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan aim to achieve? r The overall goal for WRIA 9 (Steering Committee 2002) ,,. is to protect,rehabilitate,and enhance habitat to support viable salmonid populations in response to the Endangered Species Act listing of Chinook salmon Adaptive management requires careful planning to ensure that monitoring provides useful data for future management decisions. and bull trout using an ecosystem approach.This approach will also benefit other non-listed aquatic • species.More detail on other goals and objectives are - presented in Chapter 4-Section 4.3. Recognizing Uncertainty in Plan The recommended preliminary long-term population . Implementation target for Chinook salmon is 27,000 spawning adults (King County Department of Natural Resources and Despite significant efforts to assess and evaluate Parks et al.2004).Refinement of the planning target salmonid populations and to develop a plan of action will occur as additional analyses are completed. - to protect,restore,rehabilitate or substitute aquatic Increasing productivity of the natural origin recruit habitats,considerable uncertainty still exists in population is the short-term priority goal,with the determining the effectiveness of these collective intent of maintaining or improving the current adult actions. If this uncertainty is acknowledged and recruits per spawner ratio of 2.3.The longer-term goal - understood to be a consequence of the inherent is to enhance the spatial structure of the Chinook complexity of the ecological systems being addressed, population because of the significant losses in spatial it is possible to plan for it in monitoring and adaptive structure that have occurred over time.With improve- management efforts.These uncertainties originate in ments to spatial structure,greater diversity,particu- the unpredictability of the response of salmonids to larly with respect to life history trajectories,will also habitat management actions,the limits of existing follow.Addressing spatial structure and diversity is a analytical techniques to accurately describe the long-term process,but it should begin now.An impor- - response,and the varying and often long time frames tant objective will be to expand the spawning aggrega- necessary for data collection and monitoring efforts to tions for natural origin recruits by increasing the measure the response (WRIA 8 2004). If this number of suitable habitat patches for successful - uncertainty is recognized,it is possible to capitalize spawning.The existing life history trajectories should • on it in adaptive management and monitoring efforts be conserved and the opportunity for expression of by turning new knowledge into more effective actions historical life history trajectories should be enhanced. in the future.Actions that carry the greatest More detail on the goals for the viable salmonid • uncertainty,but also great potential for benefits, population(VSP)parameters are presented in the should receive emphasis in monitoring and adaptive Strategic Assessment(King County Department of management efforts. Natural Resources and Parks et al.2004). Habitat - targets have also been developed for the five . subwatersheds to support a viable Chinook popula- tion.More detail on these targets can be found in Chapter 4-Section 4.6. - Page 9-3 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 recovery.It is important to recognize that these hy- potheses represent habitat conditions that are believed necessary to achieve a viable salmon population. - Throughout implementation,monitoring,and evalua- tion,these hypotheses can be tested and refined to reflect improved understanding of habitat conditions --- and population response. • - �--°--r'- Strategies: What habitat,hatchery,and harvest strate- gies will be used to address the primary factors hypoth- - - esized to be limiting recovery of WRIA 9 salmon popula- tions? - -- -- The WRIA 9 Plan is designed to increase rearing and spawning habitat in the fresh water areas of the Juvenile salmonid survival studies have provided information on life watershed and rearing habitat in the estuary and - stages limiting survival.Shown here is a screw trap for juvenile capture in marine nearshore. Habitat management strategies in Kent.2003 photo. fresh water environments include protecting or restoring natural channel geomorphology,sediment - Hypotheses:What are the hypotheses regarding life recruitment,off-channel habitats,tributary habitats - stages that are thought to be limiting recovery of the and inaccessible mainstem segments,refugia,riparian salmon populations in WRIA 9? areas,water quality,and water quantity.In marine and It is hypothesized that Duwamish estuary transition estuarine nearshore areas,strategies focus on shallow - zone habitat;Middle and Lower Green River, water habitats,riparian areas,sediment recruitment, • Duwamish estuarine,and marine nearshore rearing habitat formation and maintenance,migrational habitat;and Middle Green and upper Lower Green passage,water quality,sediment quality,pocket spawning habitat are the most limiting habitats estuaries,water quantity(including springs and - affecting Chinook recovery in the WRIA 9 watershed. seeps),submerged aquatic vegetation,beaches and WRIA-wide,the primary factors hypothesized to be backshore,and salt marshes.More detail on these contributing to the reduced quantity and quality of strategies is presented in Chapter 5,Habitat Manage- - rearing and spawning habitat include shoreline ment Strategies and Policies. - armoring(conservation hypothesis All-6),instream flows (All-4),and riparian zone conditions (All-2). (See In planning for rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids Chapter 4-Section 4.5 for information on the conser- in the Middle and Lower Green River,Duwamish - vation hypotheses.) In the five subwatersheds(Figure estuary,and marine nearshore,it is important to take 1-1),Chinook salmon access above the dams (conser- into account the habitat needs of both hatchery and vation hypothesis UG-1),natural sediment recruit- natural origin salmon.This includes habitat capacity - ment in the Upper and Middle Green(UG-4,MG-3), and availability of prey,particularly as related to - habitat that provides refugia(side channels,off chan- potential competition between hatchery and natural nels,and tributary access) and habitat complexity over origin(wild)fish.Several strategies are being consid- a range of flow conditions and at a variety of locations ered for management of hatchery effects,including - (Duw-4,LG-1,MG-1),preserving/restoring habitat in timing of hatchery releases and management of the - lower Newaukum and Soos creeks(MG-4),expanding hatchery broodstock.Under an integrated approach, and enhancing the estuary,particularly shallow the goal would be to reduce hatchery origin recruit subtidal and intertidal habitats,the transition zone, escapement to the spawning grounds to 30%or less - and natural sediment process (Duw-1, Duw-3,Duw-5), (for perspective,under a segregated approach,the goal - and protecting and restoring nearshore sediment would be 5%or less). transport and shallow water habitat(Near-3,Near-2) are key factors to be addressed.Finally,improving Harvest strategies also could be altered to maximize - harvest practices to target hatchery salmon and release the catch of hatchery fish and minimize catch of naturally-produced salmon(conservation hypothesis natural origin recruits.A strategy to employ live NH-1) and modifying hatchery practices (NH-2) are capture techniques to harvest hatchery salmon and - seen as important actions to support and achieve release natural salmon would reduce mortality of - Page 9-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 . naturally-produced salmon while providing the Spatial Structure. opportunity to harvest a greater percentage of hatch- . Spawning surveys to determine if spawn- • ery fish.This also would reduce straying of hatchery ing aggregations are expanding; - fish to the spawning grounds. • Juvenile outmigration to gauge whether Actions: What specific actions are included in the WRIA 9 the timing and percentage of fry/finger- Plan to implement the strategies and achieve objectives? lings outmigrants changes with better • Freshwater projects include levee setbacks,construc- quality habitat and changes in flow tion of side channel and off channel habitat,floodplain management;and connections,large woody debris placement and gravel - supplementation,riparian revegetation,and improved Utilization of rearing habitats by juvenile • management of water quantity and quality.Estuarine salmonids in the river,estuary,and projects include revetment setbacks,creation of marine nearshore (expensive and highly shallow water habitat,vegetation rehabilitation, variable). - improvement of water quality,and noxious weed 2. Determine if water quality is improving for critical control. Marine nearshore projects include creation or parameters (e.g.,temperature,dissolved oxygen) rehabilitation of small pocket beaches,shallow water and reaches (e.g.,key spawning and rearing areas - habitats,tidal embayments,and salt marshes,im- of the Middle and Lower Green River,and tributar- - proved access for salmonids to tributaries,encourage- ies); ment of soft armoring of shorelines (where armoring is 3. Determine if flow conditions have improved in absolutely necessary),and improved management of terms of meeting instream flow targets (e.g., septic systems.Habitat protection using a variety of conservation flows from the Howard Hanson Dam • techniques is also recommended to protect existing functioning habitat.See Chapter 7 for more detail on Additional Water Storage Project,achieving more proposed WRIA 9 actions. natural flow regimes); • 4. Determine the change in specific habitat types Measures: What metrics will be used to indicate popula- identified in the Necessary Future Conditions tion status and the effectiveness of actions aimed at analysis(e.g.,estuarine wetland habitat,braided . improving the population status? What data will be channels,side channels,shallow channel edge collected to track progress in the metrics over time? habitat,large woody debris jams,in-channel - Indicators of changes in population and habitat pools). (Specific information on targets for hypoth- conditions could be measured as follows (more detail esized Necessary Future Conditions can be found is found in Section 9.4 below,Table 9-1,and Table 5-1- in Chapter 4-Section 4.5);and 5. Implementation monitoring to determine whether 1. Determine if the priority viable salmonid popula- projects and programs are being implemented per - tion (VSP) parameters (productivity and spatial the Plan and whether projects are accomplishing structure) are increasing during the first 10 years of the anticipated results from a biological stand- implementation.Measures could include the point.Focus should be on actions where the following: uncertainty of outcomes and potential for benefits . Productivity. is greatest. • • Otolithsz studies to find contributions of - life history types to adult returns;and • • Smolt trapping at river mile 34.5 (Wash- ington State Department of Fish and Wildlife) and perhaps lower downstream combined with adult numbers on the • spawning grounds to estimate lambda • values,which measure the growth rate of the population. - 2. A bone-like structure found in the inner ear of fish.Otoliths record daily rings that are correlated with fish growth.The increase - in Strontium in otoliths can be used to estimate entry to brackish marine waters. Page 9-5 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Communication and Decision Making: state or federal agency,non-profit group,or some combination of partners.Guidance on successful How will key people be made aware of the results of adaptive management efforts recommends involve- - actions on salmon? ment from the following types of groups:managers, - ecological experts,stakeholders,biometricians,policy How will the increase in understanding of how the makers,and operational staff. freshwater nearshore ecosystems work affect decisions - about strategies and actions in the WRIA 9 plan? Many adaptive management efforts also note the importance of having an independent science group The WRIA 9 Steering Committee, Forum,Planning involved in the process that is not subservient to the - Work Group,and Technical Committee or their succes- management group.This group may be involved in sors,and the citizens and landowners of the watershed monitoring decisions,review of data and interpreta- will be the target of communication efforts.The tion,and formal peer review(either integrated into the Steering Committee, Forum,and member jurisdictions process or in review of draft documents).Other - (cities in WRIA 9,King County)will be the primary guidance emanating from decision support systems decision makers with respect to implementation of efforts suggests the importance of"integrators"who actions related to habitat.Any entity involved in can communicate and work with decision makers, implementation of actions will also be making deci- stakeholders,and technical experts.This guidance - sions about its roles and responsibilities in implemen- should be considered in the development of an institu- tation.The co-managers—Washington State Depart- tional structure to oversee Plan implementation, ment of Fish and Wildlife,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe including adaptive management and monitoring.The and other tribal interests—will be the primary deci- institutional structure for implementation is expected sion makers with respect to hatchery and harvest to be developed and refined in late 2005-early 2006. issues. Resources:What are the resources necessary to carry out - Ongoing communication with external parties about each element of the Habitat Plan over the necessary time progress toward the Plan goals will be essential to period and geographic area? ensure success.Clear messages and accurate informa- An estimate of the resources to carry out Plan imple- tion about the results of habitat actions will help mentation over the next 10 years can be found in maintain the support of funding entities,elected Chapter 8 and Volume 11-Appendix 1.The components - officials,and citizens.Consideration should be given to of the adaptive management and monitoring program communication at both the local jurisdictional and are still being developed and the costs are not yet WRIA-wide levels.The Public Outreach Work Group or completely known.Some coarse level detail on specific its successor will help support and carry out the monitoring program elements are contained in Table - communication efforts. 9-1.More detailed information will be available when Institutional Structure:What is the institutional structure the monitoring and adaptive management plans are • that supports the implementation of the Habitat Plan further refined and additional information is available - and clearly defines roles and responsibilities for each from local jurisdictions,resource agencies,and others. element? Resources are expected to come from a combination of local,state,and federal sources,together with some - The institutional structure consists primarily of the funding from private resources,non-profits,and other WRIA 9 Steering Committee,a multi-stakeholder non-governmental organizations. group that includes representation from local,state, - and federal governments,businesses,and environ- Commitments:What commitments will key players - mental and community groups,and the WRIA 9 provide that are necessary for Habitat Plan implementa- Forum,a caucus of local governments represented by tion? elected officials from the 17 member jurisdictions. The implementing entities will be making commit- These groups or their successors will be responsible for ments in conjunction with ratification of the WRIA 9 overseeing implementation of the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan after approval by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee - Plan. Implementation of individual on-the-ground and Forum (see Chapter 8 for further discussion). projects will vary and could be carried out by the Those making the commitments are expected to be - private property landowner,local government,a Tribe, local governments that are members of the Forum and Page 9-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - other implementing entities that could include state Funding for this component of the Plan is currently and federal agencies,businesses,non-governmental uncertain. Leadership will be required at both the organizations,and other groups.These commitments policy and technical levels to implement this essential - will become clearer by the end of 2005.Separate element of adaptive management. commitments related to hatcheries and harvest will be the purview of the co-managers as noted above and - will be integrated into the Plan with the assistance of 9.4 TYPES OF MONITORING - the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is expected that local jurisdictions will work with The Independent Science Panel (2000) recommended - federal and state governments to negotiate potential three different types of monitoring to support salmon - benefits and assurances for different levels of commit- recovery efforts in Washington State,which have been ment.Making greater commitments may well result in adapted for application in WRIA 9: greater potential assurances,but it is recognized that 1. Implementation Monitoring—confirms that - this will need to be worked out at both the local and management actions (e.g.,projects,programs, regional Puget Sound levels. guidance)were implemented. (Did proponents - implement the project as proposed?); - Further Refinement of the WRIA 9 Adaptive 2. Effectiveness Monitoring—monitors the status Management Plan and trends of habitat characteristics to assess - whether desired performance objectives are being • The WRIA 9 adaptive management plan is still evolv- achieved. (Did the management actions result in ing.It is expected to be discussed and further devel- improved habitat conditions?).Effectiveness oped in late 2005-early 2006 as part of the early imple- monitoring can occur at two levels: - mentation of the Plan. • direct(Are specific project actions achieving - anticipated outcomes?) and 9.3 MONITORING • cumulative(Is the sum of all actions within a - study area or segment achieving the anticipated - Monitoring allows measurement and evaluation of the outcomes?);and success of actions aimed at protecting,restoring,and rehabilitating habitat.Benefits of monitoring include: 3. Validation Monitoring—confirms that manage- ment actions and restoration projects produced - • Providing certainty that money is spent effectively the desired change in population conditions and on priority actions; status. (Do all actions taken together support the • Showing that the actions are achieving desired overall recovery of the Green River Chinook objectives;and population in terms of the viable salmonid popula- - - • Assessing progress towards WRIA goals for habitat tion parameters?). and populations. Ralph and Poole(2002) recommend designing moni- toring experiments in a hierarchical fashion to eluci- - For monitoring to fulfill its key role in the context of date responses at different spatial scales.Applied to adaptive management,on-the-ground projects must WRIA 9,this would include three distinct spatial scales: be planned within the context of a monitoring experi- 1. Site scale,encompassing a single management or ment (Ralph and Poole 2002).Specifically,the monitor- restoration project; • ing experiment must test hypotheses about the effects 2. Segment scale,encompassing specific stream/ - of particular management actions. riparian,floodplain,and hillslope complexes It is only through monitoring data that federal agencies (segments were identified for the Green/ Duwamish River mainstem and the marine - will be able to come to a de-listing decision based on nearshore in the Strategic Assessment [King the recovery of Chinook salmon and bull trout popula- County Department of Natural Resources and tions. However,this level of monitoring and decision parks et al.2004]);and - making has not been carried out before in WRIA 9. 3. Watershed or WRIA scale. - Page 9-7 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 At each spatial scale,there should be a monitoring website at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/ - purpose,monitoring questions and objectives,appro- NTAA.html.Such reports should contribute to a sense priate monitoring variables,and design criteria to aid of accountability because they help measure the extent selection of individual sampling sites. to which local governments and other partners actu- ally carry out the recommendations of the Habitat - Monitoring will be integral to Plan implementation for Plan. WRIA 9.The information generated should provide - specific information to inform decisions based on The template for tracking implementation monitoring - management questions or hypothesis testing and be information will be completed upon approval of the available in a timely manner for use by decision WRIA 9 Plan and could be adapted from the tracking makers.Monitoring is particularly critical when form used for the Near-Term Action Agenda. - dealing with complex issues involving salmon conser- vation because resources are limited,accountability is important,and uncertainty is sometimes high due to Effectiveness Monitoring - lack of basic understanding of relationships between - habitat and population response or the effectiveness of Effectiveness monitoring provides the basis for deter- proposed or implemented actions.Linking monitoring mining whether action outcomes are achieved and - to actions of highest importance or related to greatest how project and program designs can be improved for - uncertainty provides decision makers with data that future implementation.Monitoring objectives,ap- can: 1) help provide certainty that money is spent on proaches,and protocols related to monitoring specific the most critical actions;2) show that actions are project types have been developed by Washington - achieving objectives;and 3) describe progress towards State (Johnson et al.2001) and could be applied in - goals (WRIA 8 2005). WRIA 9.Direct effectiveness monitoring will occur at the project or site scale,while cumulative effectiveness monitoring will occur at the segment or watershed - Implementation Monitoring scale.Draft priorities for effectiveness monitoring will be proposed by the WRIA 9 Technical Committee and Implementation monitoring is necessary to track reviewed by the Steering Committee.Specific monitor- - which management actions have been implemented, ing plans will be developed upon completion of the - including basic information(e.g.,who,what,where, WRIA 9 Plan and prioritization of actions for imple- cost).It is anticipated to be a relatively simple checklist mentation. summary that includes the type of action,the specific - objectives of the action,the reach or segment affected, Preliminary recommendations for direct and cumula- the focus of the action (e.g.,length of levee or revet- tive effectiveness monitoring are summarized in Table ment setback,area of riparian zone re-vegetated,area 9-1.This table includes information about the moni- - of off-channel habitat created),the anticipated out- toring questions,type of monitoring,and parameters. - comes of the action,and the costs.Information should be developed by implementing entities,but use common definitions and standard forms,and then Validation Monitoring - compiled at the WRIA level. Validation monitoring is used to confirm that manage- To support this type of implementation monitoring, ment actions produce the desired change in popula- - the WRIA 9 Forum of local governments should coordi- tion conditions and status at the overall population - nate among its members and work with local,state, level.For WRIA 9,this is primarily the Green River tribal,and federal agencies;businesses;community Chinook population in terms of the four viable salmo- and environmental groups,and other organizations to nid population parameters:abundance,productivity, - report annually on steps taken to implement the spatial structure and diversity.A second part of valida- Habitat Plan.This type of monitoring was recom- tion monitoring will be carried out at the Evolution- mended in the Near-Term Action Agenda(Kulzer(Ed.) arily Significant Unit level for Puget Sound Chinook • 2002).Following its recommendation,annual reports and the constituent 22 populations.The validation - were compiled to record habitat actions taken in WRIA monitoring approach will be developed in cooperation 9 in 2002 and 2003 (these are posted at the WRIA 9 with the region upon completion of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. - Page 9-S - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • e • e Proposed WRIA 9 Monitoring e Recommendations Integration of Monitoring Efforts WRIA 9 does not currently fund a comprehensive In the further planning and implementation of WRIA 9 • monitoring program.Through grants from the King monitoring efforts,opportunities should be examined e Conservation District and Salmon Recovery Funding to integrate environmental monitoring efforts to • Board and through resources from local jurisdictions achieve efficiencies in responding to both the Endan- • and resource agencies,the WRIA has partially funded a gered Species Act(ESA) and Clean Water Act require- combination of salmonid studies,habitat inventories, ments.This could include National Pollutant Dis- • and water quantity and quality assessments in the charge Elimination System(NPDES),Total Maximum • watershed.There also have been extensive technical Daily Load(TMDL),and ESA-related monitoring data generated by individual jurisdictions and resource activities.Opportunities for coordination include e agencies in WRIA 9 including spawner surveys,smolt water quantity,water quality,land cover information, e trapping,and additional habitat studies carried out by and possibly habitat measures.These options should e Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and be fully explored and evaluated in the context of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. negotiations related to monitoring with regional,state, • and federal partners. e A sustained monitoring effort will need to be well designed to address the range of monitoring elements. • It will probably be funded by a combination of local, • state,and federal sources.Preliminary recommenda- tions for monitoring in WRIA 9 to achieve the goals noted above—providing certainty that money is spent • effectively on priority actions,showing that the actions • are achieving desired objectives,and assessing • progress towards WRIA goals for habitat and popula- tions—are presented in Table 9-1.The table includes e information on: • Types of monitoring(including monitoring e questions); e Recommended monitoring; • Status of existing monitoring; • Planning level cost estimates;and • Tasks for coordination during Plan implementa- tion. Coordination of Monitoring Between Agencies • • Monitoring is being carried out by many jurisdictions, • resource agencies,and independent parties. It is critical that this monitoring be coordinated to reduce e duplication and redundancy,increase the effective use • of resources in scientific studies and monitoring,and • yield the greatest amount of information to inform decision making.This coordination should occur at • both the WRIA level and the regional (Puget Sound) • level.It will also be important to ensure greater consis- tency between efforts by developing common proto- cols,coordinating training,having common quality e assurance and control programs,and coordinating e data management and analyses. Page 9-9 eGreen/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • Page 9-70 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 - • • TABLE 9-1 • WRIA 9 Proposed Monitoring Recommendations • Coordination • Implementation • Direct Effectiveness* project Actions: • There are a few monitoring programs geared towards • Sample by project type -per Salmon Recovery Funding Board— • WRIA 9 Technical Committee or successor should coordinate • Did the action(s) result in the anticipated habitat response? The following are the types of project actions: evaluating the direct effectiveness of projects or to improve costs range from $4,000 (rip-rap removal) to $175,000 (off- monitoring protocols and results with the Salmon Recovery • Are salmon present and how are they using the site? future designs. However, the majority of monitoring conducted channel habitats and wetlands) Funding Board staff. 1. levee setbacks/floodplain connection at the project scale is that required by permit conditions. Some • 2. side-channel habitat qualitative/semi-quantitative assessment of individual projects Total cost will depend on type and number of plan actions; Coordination of project direct effectiveness monitoring efforts • 3. large woody debris placement may be carried out by implementing entities. representative monitoring expected both in WRIA 9 and within should also occur at the regional (Puget Sound Evolutionarily 4. gravel supplementation Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit Significant Unit) level. • 5. improving water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen) • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is monitoring the effectiveness 6. riparian revegetation of gravel and wood supplementation, including intensive gravel King Conservation District grant ($30,000) approved to support • 7. creation of shallow water habitat monitoring from 2004-2009 that involves cross-section surveys, pilot program to develop monitoring program design and some • 8. noxious weed control gravel patch mapping, pebble counts, and redd mapping baseline monitoring for two projects 9. creation of salt marshes/mudflats (estimated $40,000 annually). Habitat monitoring by the Corps • 10. soft shoreline armoring listed below is also geared to evaluate effectiveness of gravel Total Direct Effectiveness Cost: and large woody debris projects. Estimated annual range may vary from $400,000-500,000 • Note: Prioritization of project actions for monitoring to be based depending on the number and types of projects • on uncertainty regarding habitat and population response • The Lower Newaukum Creek restoration project recently implemented. [Note: some of these costs could possibly relationships funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) was be covered as part of overall project costs.] • Monitoring plan would include clear statement of goals and selected for more rigorous monitoring using the "Protocol for • objectives, questions to be answered, hypotheses, response monitoring effectiveness of in-stream habitat projects" developed indicators, monitoring design, decision criteria, sampling by the SRFB. • approach, specific methods,testing for significance, data management and reporting. • • Cumulative Effectiveness* Adult salmon spawner surveys: Adult spawning surveys: Spawning surveys: Spawner surveys and smolt traps: Middle/Lower Green River, Upper Green River (after passage), Detailed adult spawner surveys have been carried out by Estimated costs are $40,000 annually; long-term funding is Technical Committee or successor should work with the co- Chinook Salmon Newaukum and Soos creeks Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in expected to be quite firm (given high priority on stock managers and federal entities for assessment of Green River • • Is the distribution of spawning Chinook increasing in the the Green River mainstem in river miles 25.4-61 since 1999. assessment work by Washington State Department of Fish and population status. Work to stabilize state/federal funding for Green River, tributaries, and side channels? Newaukum Creek surveys are carried out in river miles 0-3.8. Wildlife). High probability of funding through 2014. smolt traps and spawner surveys beyond 2010. Technical - Additional surveys are needed in Soos Creek to quantify Committee work with co-managers to coordinate local - Is the productivity of Chinook salmon life history trajectories spawning of this sub-population. monitoring protocols and efforts. increasing? • Corps doing redd mapping surveys in river miles 56.5-61 from • Have changes to habitat improved egg to outmigrant survival 2003-2008 (different from WDFW surveys in that individual • (i.e. improved juvenile distribution across habitats in Chinook redds are mapped). Middle/Lower Green and Duwamish)? • Smolt(screw)trapping: Smolt(screw) trapping: Smolt(screw) trapping: $100,000 annually per trap. NOTE: • Mainstem Green River at river mile 34.5 Approx. $100,000 per trap annually for the Green River. Past and funding needed for 2011-2015. current funding has come from Corps, WDFW and Salmon • Possibly at river mile 18 also in some years Recovery Funding Board. Funding for 2006-2010 for mainstem trap is likely from the Corps as part of the Howard Hanson Dam • Additional Water Storage Project. (Second trap would be lower - cost = $50,000) • Juvenile migration and distribution: Juvenile salmonid studies occurred in 2002, 2003, and 2005 Juvenile migration and distribution: Juvenile migration and distribution: • Duwamish seining to examine migration, growth and habitat use in the Lower $100,000 200,000 on a bi-annual basis Funding uncertain for ongoing juvenile salmonid studies (Studies Green and Duwamish (2003 and 2005 efforts were $100- Otolith study costs estimated at —$50,000-100,000 depending on to date funded by King Conservation District and Salmon • Otolith studies 200,000). This could continue every 2-3 years to characterize number of samples Recovery Funding Board grants and in-kind support from King juvenile survival, migration and timing, and variability for County and Seattle). • Juvenile snorkel index reaches different conditions. • Juvenile distribution (electrofishing, traps, hydro-acoustics) Experimental otolith study was carried out by Volk and • Ruggerone (2004) —need to assess results and fine tune • (Otolith study would be used to examine fish growth in relation recommended monitoring to fish density and to estimate residence time in Duwamish • estuary [by measuring strontium levels in the otholiths]. More detail on the otholith study can be found in the Chinook Total Annual Chinook Cumulative Monitoring Costs • Salmonid Research framework [p. 45-461. Examination of adult —$250,000-$350,000 otoliths can be used to determine productivity of different life • history trajectories.) • • 0508_W9HP_T9-1a.eps Ipre Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habito t Plan—August 1005 • • • TABLE 9-1 • WRIA 9 Proposed Monitoring Recommendations • Coordination • „ Implementation • Cumulative Effectiveness* Habitat Surveys: Habitat Surveys: Habitat Surveys: Habitat Surveys: Habitat- Are the segment level habitat attributes (e.g., side Monitor change in habitat as targeted in Necessary Future • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is carrying out habitat • Corps monitoring to be covered by Green/Duwamish • WRIA 9 Steering Committee and Technical Committee should • channel habitat, shallow water habitat, riparian cover, large Conditions (NFC) Analysis: carry out monitoring by subwatershed monitoring from river mile 64.5 to 32 from 2001 to 2050 (every Ecosystem Restoration Project funding and Howard Hanson Dam coordinate with Corps and other local entities in habitat • woody debris per kilometer) improving as projected by and representative segments every 5-10 years. five years starting in 2001). Parameters monitored include pool Additional Water Storage Project for river miles 32-64.5 and monitoring. implementation of actions? area, large woody debris, riffle particle size, canopy cover, river miles 70-85. • Middle/Lower Green bankfull width, etc. • Steering Committee could request that WRIA 9 be included as • Assess increase in side channel and off-channel habitat area Monitoring for Lower Green and Duwamish mainstem and an urban example for the Governor's Salmon Team • in Segments 3 and 4. • Corps is carrying out habitat monitoring in river miles 70-85 marine Nearshore estimated at $150,000-200,000 on a once recommendations for a comprehensive watershed monitoring • from 2005-2050 (same parameters as noted above). every five year basis (this includes assessment of changes in strategy. This included a recommendation for intensive • Assess increase in large woody debris jams and pieces in habitat quantity for NFC conditions shown for various monitoring of target watersheds for cumulative effects for habitat. • segments 3, 4 and 6. • Tacoma Public Utilities is carrying out annual large woody representative segments). • debris monitoring in river miles 32-61. • Assess increase in in-channel pools in segments 3, 4, and 6. • Baseline monitoring of Lower Green (2003), Duwamish • Assess increase in hydrologic connection to floodplain and (2004), and Marine Nearshore (2004-5) was carried out as part side channel habitats in segment 4. of the WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment (funded in part by King • Conservation District and Salmon Recovery Funding Board Duwamish grants). • Assess increase in estuarine habitat (transition zone area) • accessible to juvenile salmonids. • Assess increases in palustrine and riverine tidal wetland • habitats (area). • Assess increases in riparian zone coverage in native • vegetation (area or length of streambank). • Assess increases in shallow subtidal and intertidal habitats and brackish marshes (area). • Watershed - Are basin level habitat attributes such as forest Watershed-wide: Watershed-wide: Watershed-wide: • cover, impervious surfaces and riparian conditions improving Marine Nearshore King County recently completed a high altitude multispectral Multi-spectral every 5 years • Steering Committee should encourage local governments to as anticipated by implementation of the actions in the plan? • Assess increases in marine sediment recruitment and flight (as compared to landsat) for approximately $320,000. $246,000 —$320,000 (averaged at $49,200-64,000 per year). continue funding existing permanent flow gauging and water • transport rates. quality monitoring stations. • Are watershed-wide conditions related to flow, water quality, Misc. field and habitat assessments —field and habitat Flows—U.S. Geological Survey costs estimate flow gauging and overall stream health improving? • Assess increases in marine nearshore aquatic habitats assessments are being conducted by individual jurisdictions using stations cost $14,000 per gauge annually. King County stream • Coordination with other WRIAS in King County can reduce • including salt marshes, other shallow water habitats and various protocols and analysis tools. The macroinvertebrate gauging and water quality sampling is expected to continue for multi-spectral analysis costs submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage (area). indicators, using B-IBI (benthic index of biotic integrity), uses a foreseeable future, with perhaps minor adjustments in stations. • standard protocol and analysis technique. King County did There are no new permanent gauges or water quality stations • Watershed-wide: benthic sampling at 70 sites in Green/Duwamish watershed in recommended at this time. • Multi-spectral analysis - high altitude preferred over landsat 2002 and 2003 for B-IBI. Benthic sampling will continue in • for both basin and jurisdictional level analyses 2005. -Forest cover • -Impervious Area Flows are currently being measured by U.S. Geological Survey Total Annual Cumulative Habitat and Watershed-wide • -Riparian forest cover (USGS) gauging stations (Palmer, Auburn, Newaukum) and (not including stream gauging and water quality individual jurisdictions, particularly King County (continuous sampling) Monitoring Costs: $396,000-520,000 every fifth • Flow gauges stream gauging at 14 sites in Springbrook, Soos, Jenkins, year • -Peak flows Covington, Mill, Des Moines, Miller, and Salmon Creeks). -Low flows Selected monitoring of streamflows by cities. • -Flashiness Protocols for installation, operations,and reporting vary. USGS • has a standard data and reporting format and data are available • Other and transparent. Estimated annual operation costs for USGS • -Water quality (dissolved oxygen,temperature, etc.) stations are $14,000. Installation of telemetry for real-time data • -Macro invertebrates is approximately $13,000. • King County does monthly stream sampling at 15 sites in Green River mainstem, Newaukum, Soos,Jenkins, Crisp, Springbrook, • Covington, Mill Creeks for water quality analysis. • *At all levels of monitoring and evaluation,data management resources will be necessary for the following tasks: statistical design of habitat and population monitoring,regional data sharing,consistent protocols,quality assurance/quality control(QA/QQ of data collection and analysis. Costs do NOT include regional data management. • Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • • i+ r "/�y� 4 � � 1 4� .%J l R - .0 REFERENCES Full Reference In-Text Notation Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.2004a. Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Anchor Environmental - Survey Report.Prepared for WRIA 9.King County,WA. 2004a Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.2004b.Marine Shoreline Inventory Report WRIA Anchor Environmental - 9. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities and WRIA 9. 2004b Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.2005. Prioritizing Potential WRIA 9 Watershed- Anchor Environmental Wide Habitat Actions:Identification of Limiting Habitat and Recommendations 2005 Regarding their Priority. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee.King County, WA. Anchor Environmental L.L.C.and Grette Associates.2005a. Prioritization of Anchor Environmental Potential WRIA 9 Habitat Projects. Report to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. and Grette Associates • King County,WA 2005a • Anchor Environmental L.L.C.and Grette Associates.2005b. Final.Addendum to Anchor Environmental A Strategy for Prioritizing Potential WRIA 9 Habitat Actions.Report to the and Grette Associates WRIA 9 Steering Committee.King County,WA. 2005b Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.and Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.2004. Anchor Environmental. Evaluation and Assessment of Hatchery and Wild Fish Interactions in WRIA 9, and Natural Resources - Draft Report. Prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Committee.April,2004 Consultants 2004 Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.and Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.2003. Anchor Environmental • Toward an understanding of functional linkages between habitat quality, and Natural Resources • quantity, and distribution,and sustainable salmon populations:A review of Consultants 2003 analytical approaches and recommendations for use in WRIA 9.Contract • Report 030067-01-2.Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.,Seattle,Washington 98101. Asia-Pacific Environmental Exchange. 2005. Ecosystem Services Enhanced by Asia-Pacific - Salmon Habitat Conservation in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Environmental Sound Watershed.Final Report. Prepared for WRIA 9 and King County. Exchange 2005 - Bagley, C. 1929.History of King County.Washington.The S.J.Clarke Publishing Bagley 1929 Company,Chicago.p.711 - Benda, L.,D.Martin,and D.Schreffier.2004.Core Areas:A Framework for Benda et al.2004 Identifying Critical Habitats for Salmon.King County WLRD.Seattle,WA. - Berge, H.and B.Mavros.2001.King County Bull Trout Program 2000 Bull Trout Berge and Mavros 2001 Surveys. King County Water and Land Resources Division.Seattle,Washington. 42 pp. Bergeron, K.2004 Upper Green Historical and Current Habitat Conditions. Bergeron 2004 - Seattle,WA. Blomberg,G.,C.Simenstad, and P.Hickey. 1988.Changes in Duwamish River Blomberg et al. 1988 . Estuary Habitat over the Past 125 Years. In First Annual Meeting on Puget - Sound Research. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,Seattle,WA. . Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and C.R.Jackson.2002. Forest cover,impervious- Booth et al.2002 surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts.Journal of the American Water Resources Association.38:835-845. Page 10-1 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 Full Reference In-Text Notation Boumans, R., R.Costanza, M.Wilson and S. Liu.2004.Integrated assessment Boumans et al.2004 and valuation of ecosystem goods and services provided by coastal systems. Biology and the Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin . Ireland (accepted and in press). Brennan,J.S. (Editor).2001.Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Brennan (Ed.) 2001 - Nearshore Ecosystem:Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands, (WRIAs 8 and 9). Report prepared for King County - Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle,WA. - Brennan,J.,K.Higgins,J.Cordell,and V.A.Stamatiou.2004.Salmonid species Brennan et al.2004 - composition,timing,distribution,and diet in nearshore marine waters of WRIA's 8 and 9 in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.Seattle,Washington, 164 pp. - Cederholm, C., D.Houston,D.Cole, and W.Scarlett. 1989.Fate of coho salmon Cederholm et al. 1989 (Onchorhynchus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams.Canadian Journal of - Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1347-1355. City of Seattle Salmon Team.2003.Seattle's urban blueprint for habitat City of Seattle Salmon - protection and restoration.City of Seattle.Seattle Washington.December Team 2003 2003. Collins,B.,and A.Sheikh.2004.Historical Aquatic Habitats in the Green and Collins and Sheikh 2004 Duwamish River Valleys.UW Department of Earth &Space Sciences. Costanza, R., R.d'Arge, R.de Groot, S.Farber,M.Grasso, B.Hannon,K. Costanza et al. 1997 Limburg,S.Naeem, R.O'Neill,J. Paruelo, R.Raskin, P.Sutton,and M.van den Belt. 1997.The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. • Nature 387:253-260. Culhane,T.,A. Kelly,and J.Liszak. 1995.Draft: Initial watershed assessment, Culhane et al. 1995 - Water Resources Inventory Area 9,Green-Duwamish watershed.Open-File Report 95-01.Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office, - Water Resources Program.Prepared with Science Applications International - Corporation, Shapiro and Associates,Taylor Associates,and Environmental Systems Research Institute.54pp.Available online at: - www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9500I.pdf Cutler,J.2000.Personal communication with Jennifer Cutler in a letter to S. Cutler 2000 - Madsen.Quoted in Kerwin and Nelson (Editors):WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Report (King County Department of Natural Resources,2000). Daily,G. (Editor). 1997.Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Daily (Ed.) 1997 Ecosystems.Washington D.C.:Island Press. . Dunne,T.and W.E.Dietrich. 1978. Hydrology, Sedimentation, Channel Dunne and Dietrich Migration, and Flood Diking Along the Green River.A River of Green,Jones 1978 - and Jones. Report to King County. Farr, D.2000. Defining Active Adaptive Management.Adaptive Management Farr 2000 . Experiment (AME) Team.www.ameteam.ca.Alberta,Canada Page 10-2 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 - NotationFull Referen(e In-Text Faulkner,S, (Editor). 1997. Howard Hanson and Smay Creek Watershed Faulkner (Ed.) 1997 Analysis (draft). Plum Creek Timber Company, Seattle,WA. Fox, M.2001.A new look at the quantities and volumes of instream wood in Fox 2001 • forested basins within Washington State.Masters Thesis.University of • Washington,Seattle,Washington. - Goetz, F.,G.T.Ruggerone,and B.Taylor.2003. Draft report: Migration timing, Goetz et al.2003 residence time, and growth of natural and hatchery juvenile Chinook salmon and mainstem and off-channel habitats of the Duwamish River and Elliott • Bay,Washington.Seattle District,U.S.Corps of Engineers. Goetz, F.A.and E.Jeanes.2004.Bull Trout in the Nearshore,Preliminary Draft. Goetz and Jeanes 2004 • Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle Washington. Hahn, P.and T.Cropp.2003. Assessment of Chinook salmon spawning Hahn and Cropp 2003 escapement in the Green River via mark-recapture and redd surveys,2002.Six and twelve-month progress report.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,Washington Hatchery Scientific Review Group.April 2005.Puget Sound and Coastal Hatchery Scientific - Washington Hatchery Reform Project: Progress Report to Congress. Review Group 2005 - Hatchery Scientific Review Group.2004.Hatchery Reform:Principles and Hatchery Scientific Recommendations of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group. Long Live the Review Group 2004 Kings.Seattle,WA. - Healey,M.C. 1991.Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Healey 1991 tshawytscha).Pp.311-393 in Groot,C.and L.Margolis, eds. 1991.Pacific - salmon life histories.UBC Press,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:564 pp. - Herrera Environmental Consultants,Anchor Environmental and Northwest Herrera Environmental Hydraulic Consultants.2004.Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment et al.2004 Years 2001-2002 Water Quality Data Report. Prepared for King County - Department of Natural Resources and Parks.King County,WA. Hilbert,V.J.Miller, and Z.Zahir (Editors).2001. Puget Sound Geography, Hilbert et al. (Eds.) 2001 - Original Manuscript from T.T.Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington.375 pp. Hatchery Scientific Review Group/Washington Department of Fish and Hatchery Scientific Wildlife/NWIFC Technical Discussion Paper#1: Integrated Hatchery Programs Review Group et al. dated June 3,2004. 2004 Independent Science Panel.2000. Recommendations for Monitoring Salmonid Independent Science Recovery in Washington State.Olympia,Washington. Panel 2000 Johannessen,J.and A.MacLennan.2005.Inventory and Assessment of Current Johannessen and • and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion Areas for WRIAs 8 MacLennan 2005 • and 9.Report by Coastal Geologic Services Inc.for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Page 10-3 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • Full Reference In-Text Notation • Johnson et al. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Johnson et al. 2001 Pacific Northwest—Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for • Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, • Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 211 pp. • Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson (Editors). 2000. Habitat limiting factors and Kerwin and Nelson • reconnaissance assessment report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget (Eds.) 2000 • Sound watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. • (Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/Recon.htm) • King County. 2004. King County Comprehensive Plan.Adopted 2000 King County 2004 • (Amended 2004). • King County. 2002. Last Best Places in the Green River Watershed: (Background reference • Preservation Priorities for Ecologically Important Lands in the Green River only) • Watershed between the Tacoma Diversion Dam and the City of Auburn. Seattle, WA. • King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2004a. Best King County • Available Science: A Review of Science Literature. King County Executive Department of Natural • Report. Resources and Parks • 2004a • King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2004b. Upper Green King County • Historical and Current Habitat Conditions. Seattle, WA. Department of Natural Resources and Parks • 2004b • King County Department of Natural Resource and Parks. 2003. Lower Green (Background reference • River Corridor Assessment. 24 pages plus appendices. only) • King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 King County • Watershed Coordination Services. 2004. Historical and Current Salmonid Department of Natural • Population Conditions in WRIA 9. Resources and Parks and WRIA 9 2004 • King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, WRIA 9 Watershed King County • Coordination Services, and WRIA 9 Technical Committee. 2004. Draft WRIA 9 Department of Natural • Strategic Assessment Report—Scientific Foundation for Salmonid Habitat Resources and Parks et Conservation. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. June 2004. al. 2004 • Kulzer, L. (Editor). May 2002. Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Kulzer (Ed.) 2002 - Conservation: Green/Duwamish River and Central Puget Sound Watershed. • Lakey, K. 2004. Salmon Recovery Plan - Harvest and Hatchery (WRIA 9) - Lakey 2004 • Draft. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for Lee 1993 • the Environment. Island Press.Washington D.C. • • • • Page 10-4 - Green/Duwamish and Central PugetSound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 • • Full Referen(e In-Text Notation Levings, C. D., C. D. McAllister, and B. D. Chang. 1986. Differential use of the Levings et al. 1986 - Campbell River Estuary, British Columbia, by wild and hatchery-reared juvenile chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 43: 1386-1397. - Malcom, R. 2002.Annual variation (1997-2000) in the distribution of spawning Malcom 2002 Chinook in the mainstem Green River (WRIA 09.001), King County, • Washington, Draft Report. Ecocline Fisheries Habitat Consulting LTD. • Burnaby, BC Canada. - Marmorek, D. 2003. Making it Work: Strategies for Effective Watershed Marmorek 2003 Management. Workshop Presentation. City of Seattle. February 2003. • Martin, D., L. Benda, and D. Shreffler. 2004. Core Areas:A Framework for Martin et al. 2004 Identifying Critical Habitat for Salmon. Development of salmonid conservation strategies, Phase 1, Project No. T01426T. Prepared for King - County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. May, Christopher W. 1996.Assessment of Cumulative Effects of Urbanization May 1996 - on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion: Implications for Salmonid Resource Management. 383 p. • McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright and E.P. McElhany et al. 2000 Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of i Evolutionarily Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- - NWFSC-42. • Montgomery, D.R. 2003. King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon. Montgomery 2003 • Westview Press, Cambridge, MA. 290pp. - Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Myers et al. 1998 • Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neeley, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, • Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- • NWFSC-35. 443pp.Available on the Internet at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm35/. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. 1996. Coastal NOAA Fisheries 1996 Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance for Comprehensive Salmon - Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast. NOAA, Portland, OR. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National National Research • Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Council 1992 Nehlsen,W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific Salmon at the Nehlsen et al. 1991 • Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. - Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 2. - Nelson, T.S., G. Ruggerone, H. Kim, R. Schaefer and M. Boles. 2004. Juvenile Nelson et al. 2004 Chinook Migration, Growth and Habitat Use in the Lower Green River, Duwamish River and Nearshore of Elliott Bay 2001-2003, Draft Report. King • County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Seattle, Washington. - Page 10-5 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Full Reference In-Text Notation Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, Inc.March 2005.Draft Assessment of Northwest Hydraulics Current Water Quantity Conditions in the Green River Basin.Prepared for the 2005 • WRIA 9 Steering Committee.King County,WA.99pp. Pacific Fisheries Management Council.2000.Amended Section of the Pacific Pacific Fishery - Coast Salmon Plan. Management Council 2000 Pacific Salmon Commission.June 30, 1999.Pacific Salmon Treaty 1999.The Pacific Salmon - Pacific Salmon Agreement,signed between the United States and Canada. Commission 1999 Vancouver, British Columbia.Available online at: - http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/psc99.htm. Pacific Salmon Commission.November 1994.Joint Chinook Technical Pacific Salmon - Committee 1993/94 Ninth Annual Report.Report TCCHINOOK (94)-1. Commission 1994 Vancouver, British Columbia. Pacific Salmon Commission.November 1993. 1992/93 Eighth Annual Report.. Pacific Salmon Vancouver, British Columbia. Commission 1993 Perkins, S.J.2000.Geomorphic evaluation of gravel placement in the Green Perkins 2000 • River,Washington.Prepared for Jones & Stokes Associates,Inc and U.S.Army - Corps of Engineers,Seattle District.Perkins Geosciences.52 p. Perkins,S.J. 1993.Green River Channel Migration Study.King County Perkins 1993 Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle WA. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team.2004.Independent populations of Puget Sound Technical Chinook salmon in Puget Sound.Final Draft.National Marine Fisheries Recovery Team 2004 - Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center,Seattle,WA. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team.2003. Integrated Recovery Planning for Puget Sound Technical - Listed Salmon:Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound. Recovery Team 2003 R2 Resource Consultants,Inc.2002.Middle Green River Baseline Habitat R2 Resource - Monitoring—2001 Data Report.Prepared for U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Consultants 2002 Seattle District. R2 Resource Consultants,Inc.2001.Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream R2 Resource Habitats Middle Green River,Washington 2000 Data Report.Prepared for U.S. Consultants 2001 Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.Redmond,WA.July 19,2001.63 pp. Ralph,S.C.and G.C. Poole.2002.Putting Monitoring First: Designing Ralph and Poole 2002 Accountable Ecosystem Restoration and Management Plans. In Restoration of - Puget Sound Rivers edited by D.R.Montgomery,S.Bolton,D.B.Booth and L. Wall.UW Press, Seattle,WA 2002 Roche,J.and M.McHutchison (Editors) .1998.First Fish First People: Salmon Roche and Tales of the North Pacific Rim, University of Washington Press. McHutchison (Eds.) . 1998 - Ruggerone,G.and E.Jeanes.2004.Salmon Utilization of Restored Off-Channel Ruggerone and Jeanes - Habitats in the Duwamish Estuary,2003.Prepared for U.S.Army Corps of 2004 i Engineers.May 2004. Page 10-6 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 NotationFull Referen(e In-Text Ruggerone, G.T., D.Weitkamp, J. Noble, J. Hall, L. Reinelt, K. Gellenbeck, and Ruggerone et al. 2004 T. Nelson. 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework: Identifying - Key Research Questions about Chinook Salmon Life Histories and Habitat Use in the Middle and Lower Green River, Duwamish Waterway, and Marine Nearshore Areas. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Prepared by - Natural Resources Consultants, Inc., Parametrix, Inc., and the WRIA 9 Technical Committee. Seattle, WA. - Sanderson, B., J. Davies, K. Lagueux, T. Beechie, L. Holsinger, and M. Sanderson et al. 2004 Rukelshaus. 2004. Potential capacity of Puget Sound watersheds to support spawning Chinook salmon. (manuscript in prep.) Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, L. Kishimoto, and P. Topping 2002. 2000 Green River Seiler et al. 2002 Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation. Washington Department of Fish • and Wildlife, Fish Program, Science Division, Olympia, Washington. 57 pp. • Shared Strategy. 2002. Chinook Planning Targets and Ranges. Shared Strategy 2002 Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2001.A Shared Strategy for Recovery of Shared Strategy 2001 - Salmon in Puget Sound. Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Simenstad et al. 1982 • Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pages 343-364 In: V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press, New York. - Sobocinski, K.L. 2003. The impact of shoreline armoring on supratidal beach Sobocinski 2003 fauna of central Puget Sound. MS Thesis, University of Washington School of - Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. 83 pp. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novotzki, 1996.An Spence et al. 1996 - Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. Taylor Associates and King County Department of Natural Resources and Taylor Associates and - Parks. 2004. Green/Duwamish Watershed Water Temperature Report. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks - 2004 - TerraLogic GIS and Landau Associates. 2004. 2004 Lower Duwamish Inventory TerraLogic and Landau • Report. Seattle, WA. 2004 • Toft, J•, J. Cordell, C. Simenstad, L. Stamatiou. March 2004. Fish Distribution , Toft et al. 2004 Abundance, and Behavior at Nearshore Habitats along City of Seattle Marine Shorelines, with an Emphasis on Juvenile Salmonids. Prepared for Seattle - Public Utilities, City of Seattle. Wetland Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. SAFS- UW-0401. March 2004. - Toth, S., P. Reynolds, C. Coho, M. O'Connor, K. Doughty, M. Fox, E. Cupp, J. Toth et al. 1996 Metzger, G. Laurie, and D. Ellinson. 1996. Lester Watershed Analysis. Plum • Creek Timber Company, Seattle, WA. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 1907. Duwamish-Puyallup Surveys, Sheets 11- U.S.Army Corps of - 15 and Sheet 30. Engineers 1907 • Page 10-7 - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August2005 Full Reference In-Text Notation U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and King County. 2000. Draft Programmatic U.S.Army Corps of Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Restoration Plan - Green Engineers and King Duwamish River Basin Restoration Program, King County, Washington. County 2000 - U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Green/Duwamish River Basin General (Bacground reference Investigation Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report. Seattle District, only) • Seattle,WA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986.Ambient water quality criteria U.S. Environmental - for dissolved oxygen. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Protection Agency 1986 Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sound District Population Segment of Bull Trout. Volume I of II: Puget Sound Service 2005 - Management Unit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL. Service 1990 http://www.nwi.fws.gov. U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Green River watershed analysis. Final Report plus U.S. Forest Service 1996 - Appendices A-H. Prepared by the US Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, North Bend Ranger District. - 492 pp. - Washington State Department of Ecology. 1980. Green-Duwamish River Basin Washington State - instream resources protection program, including proposed administrative Department of Ecology rules, and supplemental environmental impact statement (Water Resource 1980 Inventory Area 9). 158 pp.Available online at: - http://www.e!:y.wa.gov/pubs/80irrp9.VdL Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Washington Department - Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock of Fish and Wildlife and inventory. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Western Washington Washington. Treaty Indian Tribes - 1993 Watson, G., Toth, S., Hillman, T., and W. Platts. 1997. Implementation of a Watson et al. 1997 - method to detect the presence of bull trout. Pages 421-425 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta). Weitkamp, D., G. Ruggerone, L. Sacha, J. Howell, and B. Bachen. 2000. Factors Weitkamp et al. 2000 • Affecting Chinook Populations, Background Report. Prepared by Parametrix Inc., Natural Resource Consultants, and Cedar River Associates for the City of - Seattle, June 2000. 224 pp. Williams, R.W., R. M. Laramie, and J.J.Ames. 1975.A catalog of Washington Williams et al. 1975 - streams and salmon utilization, WRIA-09. Washington State Dept. of Fisheries. - 34 pp. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon WRIA 8 2005 • Conservation Plan. Page 10-8 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 i • • • Full Reference In-Text Notation • WRIA 8. 2004. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) WRIA 8 2004 • Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Public Review Draft. Nov. 2004. • WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services. March 2005. Draft Salmon Habitat WRIA 9 2005 • Plan—Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering • Committee. i WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services. 2004. Progress Report on WRIA 9 2004 Implementation in 2003 of the Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat i Conservation. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 62pp. • WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services. 2003. Progress Report on WRIA 9 2003 • Implementation in 2002 of the Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat • Conservation. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 49 pp. • WRIA 9 and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2004. WRIA 9 and King • Necessary Future Conditions for WRIA 9. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering County Department of Committee. King County, WA. Natural Resources and • Parks 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - Page 10-9 • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—August 2005 • • • • The salmon came riding home • Home from long journeys through the great seas • How magnificent they flash " Look, home is just up there Push on a little more :;z x • Weaving the waves together, the salmon Dance in small,joyful jumps r Scales shine a bright silver Riding the rhythm o the breaking waves g Y f g They twist their bodies and leap Mieko Chikappu • Translated from Ainu .� Salmon Coming Home in Search of Sacred Bliss • Source: Roche and McHutchinson (Ed.) 1998 • • • The following provided funding for the preparation of this publication: t Coot a DF DES�O • " ' MY OF AUBURN =� �� • WASHINGTON i40 -- /r With?, ? • Tk ay.f • MAP��L LEY cm of \ • Enumclaw K D 9 AKENT antcau«vaebnasaet w„�,�,,,� King County • ,s • ............ �'N't� `S'EATAC TACOMAWATER City of Seatde ..�a�..�. �.��T,.. 1908 • • Alternative formats available Document File Folder:WLRNT7...WRIA9/0508_W9HabPlan/ Ipre • Location:King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Voice:206-296-1920 TTY Relay:711 WLR Visual Communications and Web Unit Archives • • SALMON HABITAT PLAN VOLUME II : APPENDICES • -C f ��.. ,mot♦ ` Y , Nr ow J I +QUA•x _I y +,.., r•r -"';♦. - ;I."'�^m 'may. �,, �•: GreenlDuu is�i•a � . n ntral:Puget Sodnd•lVYatpr,'�he F_ r Vt�ater ls ` r�Q :. � r�totT.Area + GREEWDUWAMISH \ •�� - ' + ',„. .- "''" *-�,+�, - '` • i4,„4 r CENTRAL PUGET SOUND T r q ram. ._ ii•F yl WATERSHED a * • S- Y h»<` fit, +' _' t r>l p w - .� ,� . �� � ' August 2005 t •� Table of Contents A. Letter of Commendation from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.............. 1 - B. WRIA 9 Commitments and Assurances................................................................................. 3 C. Public Involvement Activities in 2004-2005........................................................................ 12 • D. Prioritizing Conservation Hypotheses and Habitat Management Strategies........................ 22 E. Summary of Tiered Conservation Hypotheses..................................................................... 25 F. Relationships Between Habitat Management Strategies and Conservation Hypotheses...... 39 G. Projects for Future Consideration......................................................................................... 44 H. Feasibility and Effectiveness Prioritization of WRIA 9 Habitat Actions............................. 54 1. Overview of Site-Specific Costs........................................................................................... 62 J. FUTURE STUDIES.............................................................................................................. 84 J.1 Juvenile Salmonid Studies.................................................................................................................................84 J.2 WRIA 9 Chinook salmon research framework.................................................................................................87 - J.3 Middle Green River Flow Investigation............................................................................................................91 K. Habitat Plan Recommendations That Benefit Bull Trout..................................................... 96 • • • • • A. LETTER OF COMMENDATION FROM WASHINGTON • STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE • • • • • i State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND VALDUFE • Me Aft Addmss: 600 C.apW Way N•Olympia,WA 9MI-1091•(360)902-M,TDD(360)W2 2207 • Main offim Location: t4atural Resourc s au4&V•t t t t Waa*Vwn St"t SE•Olympia,WA • January 25,2005 • • • The Honorable Steve Mullet Mayor,City of Tukwila • Chair,GreentDuwamish Forum Office of the Mayor • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila,Washington 98188 • Dear Mayor Mullet: • The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)commends the excellent work • completed in WRIA 9 and your commitment to salmon recovery. The active participation of 15 local governments,Tacoma Public Utilities,and the citizens of King County is a substantial step • toward salmon recovery and,more generally,for assuring that future generations can continue to • enjoy the natural resources of King County. The WRIA 9 Technical Committee has provided analyses that help define for you the technical basis for salmon recovery planning. The scientific • foundation used by the WRIA 9 Technical Committee for establishing Viable Salmonid Population(VSP)goals and objective,as well as the necessary future habitat conditions,follows • guidance that was developed by the Puget.Sound Technical Recovery Team(TRT),National • Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Fisheries,and Shared Strategy for Puget _ Sound. The WDFW supports the WRIA 9 Technical Committee's preliminary planning ranges and • mid-point for spawning abundance. WDFW concurs with the use of the TRT population • viability calculations at approximately 17,000 as the lower bound on adult spawners(equilibrium abundance)with the upper limit near 37,000, WDFW also concurs that using a population mid- point of 27,000 spawning adults for equilibrium abundance is a reasonable preliminary planning • target. Refinement of the planning target can and should occur as additional analyses are completed. As noted in WRIA 9 documents,productivity,diversity,and spatial structure are • also important determinants of population viability,and WDFW is prepared to discuss these in • greater detail with appropriate technical staff. • Perhaps more importantly,the identification of key areas for restoration efforts is a critical step in the development of a recovery plan. WDFW understands that WRIA 9 technical staff have • prioritized three areas: (1)the Duwamish Estuary transition zone in the vicinity of River Miles • (R.M)5.5 to 7.0;(2)spawning and habitat in the Middle and Lower Careen sub-watersheds;and • • • • The Honorable Steve Mullet - January 25,2005 Page 2 (3)rearing habitat in the Middle and Dower Green River. WDFW agrees that these should be focal points for restoration efforts,but also wishes to reemphasize the importance of protecting existing habitat throughout the watershed. As noted.in WRIA 9 documents,nearshore areas in - King County are also important for the recovery of many populations of Puget Sound chinook. WDFW believes that hatcheries can be an effective tool to help achieve conservation and harvest • objectives in WRIA 9,but only when used in conjunction with habitat protection and restoration. The federally sponsored Hatchery Scientific Review Group(HSRG)and co-managers have • developed tools to identify scientifically defensible combinations of habitat improvements, harvest constraints,and hatchery programs that are consistent with policy objectives and constraints. We believe that application of these tools might help develop a recovery plan that - successfully integrates hatcheries,harvest,and habitat,and would be pleased to provide a workshop for WRIA 9. WDFW also continues to evaluate and implement improvements to hatchery programs,including: (1)incorporation.of natural-origin broodstock to maintain - population fitness; and(2)improved release strategies to reduce the potential for competition in the estuary. Please contact Jim Scott at(360)902-2736 if you wish to schedule a workshop on all-H integration or Bob Everitt(425)775-1311 if you have more general questions regarding - WDFW's perspectives on salmon recovery in WRIA 9. - Si er - Jeff P, o gs,Ph. . for cc: The Honorable R becca E.Clark The Honorable Do onstantine Doug Osterman,Green./Duwamish Watershed Coordinator - Jim Kramer,Shared Strategy Margaret Duncan, Shared Strategy Mary Ruckelshaus,N©AA Fisheries - Isabel Tinoco,Muckleshoot Tribe Jay Zischke,Suquamish Tribe Bob Everitt - Phil Anderson Lew Atkins Greg Hueckel Mamie Tyler Kirk Lakey Jim Scott 2 • B. WRIA 9 COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES • Commitments and Assurances What expectations are requested of federal and state governments and other non-local government entities in exchange for implementation of the plan by local governments? What type and level of commitments are recommended.for local governments to implement the plan? Introduction When species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies are required to ensure any actions they fund, permit or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Federal agencies must • consult with the listing agency (NOAA Fisheries or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) regarding actions they take that "may affect"the listed species or its critical habitat. Actions that may affect but are "not likely to adversely affect" the species undergo an informal consultation, while those that are likely to adversely affect the species or its critical habitat must undergo more - lengthy formal consultation. The ESA also prohibits the "take" of listed species, either through - section 9 (for an endangered species) or through section 4(d) (for threatened species). Private citizens, landowners, businesses and local governments can all be affected by the federal - consultation requirement or the ESA prohibition of take. For example, ESA consultations can - affect the time it takes to issue a permit, fund a project, or complete an action when a federal agency is involved. Consultation might also affect the conditions on a permit or funding, or the manner in which a project is completed. The take of a listed species can occur as a result of many of the everyday activities carried out in a watershed, resulting in an ESA violation. Implementation of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan will offer many benefits to both fish and humans. But to ensure implementation, local governments will need to offer some level of commitment. In exchange for these commitments, local governments will have expectations - from other entities. In particular, local governments hope to negotiate potential benefits and - assurances with the federal and state governments. In addition, there are potential actions that federal and state agencies, the co-managers of the fisheries resource, and other non-local- government entities can choose to implement that will help benefit salmon and people in WRIA - 9. Clearly, these benefits, expectations, and commitments are all intertwined and interconnected. - There will need to be a dialog among appropriate parties to define and refine the final commitments and expectations that will benefit salmon recovery. This public review draft offers recommendations in both areas to begin the dialogue with the appropriate parties to obtain a greater level of assurances. Local jurisdictions and stakeholders in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) have a strong history of working together to conserve salmon habitat. The broad level of commitment that already exists can be shown in the following three examples. First, 16 local • governments in the watershed are beginning their fifth year of a five-year interlocal agreement to 3 jointly fund planning for protection and restoration of salmon habitat across the watershed. Second, local jurisdictions and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been cooperating in the - Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Third, local governments have designated - King Conservation District grants to fund shared watershed priorities through habitat projects, technical studies, and stewardship opportunities. In order for the watershed to reach its goals, local governments and participating stakeholders must make some type of commitment to implement actions proposed in the plan. Commitment can come in several forms and at varying levels. Before making any commitment, potential implementers will need to evaluate the actions to which they are committing. Potential implementers will want to know what benefits they will receive if they do make a commitment - and what federal and state agencies can offer to support such commitments. This will continue to be an iterative discussion among the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, WRIA 9 Forum, local governments, regulating agencies, citizens, businesses, Puget Sound Shared Strategy, and other interested partners leading up to plan approval and ratification. From the federal agency standpoint, their ability to provide certainty and regulatory relief is based on several factors: - 1. The comprehensiveness, level of detail and scientific certainty of results proposed in a recovery plan, 2. Comprehensiveness and certainty of commitments for implementation, 3. Demonstrated progress in implementation of actions called for in the Plan, and 4. Improved status/trends for populations listed under the ESA. Like climbing the rungs on a ladder, the more progress that is made toward achieving the four criteria, the higher the level of certainty or regulatory relief that could be offered. At the time of the anticipated adoption of the plan by the federal agencies, the factors mentioned above will only be partially met. It is anticipated that the plan will actively evolve over time and that - substantial progress could be made on all four factors over the first years of implementing the - plan. What expectations are requested of federal and state governments and other non-local government - entities in exchange for implementation of the plan by local governments? In exchange for making commitments to implement the plan, local governments may want to seek to negotiate benefits and legal assurances with federal and state regulating agencies. One - avenue to start that discussion is through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy. - The Puget Sound Shared Strategy is a collaboration among several levels of government, including federal agencies responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act, the state, and the tribes, as well as other stakeholders. Shared Strategy intends to develop a recovery plan - at the Puget Sound scale that incorporates the WRIA 9 plan, similar efforts from groups in other watersheds, and plans for harvest and hatchery management from the co-managers of the fisheries resource (i.e., the tribes and the state). This intergovernmental collaborative 4 • development of the recovery plan for a listed species is unique in the country. Shared Strategy - appears to be the venue through which the regulating agencies will engage in plan review and • discussion of legal and other assurances and benefits for local governments. Because local governments are participating in the planning, the Steering Committee recommends that they set forth requests and expectations for what might be appropriate assurances and benefits in exchange for supporting the recovery plan that the Endangered Species Act requires the federal • government to develop. In addition, local governments alone will not have the resources or the opportunity to fully protect and restore Chinook salmon habitat in WRIA 9. Therefore, the implementation • partnership will need to extend throughout the public sector to the private and non-profit sectors - as well in order to reach the ultimate goal of salmon recovery. Expectations for Potential Benefits that Could Be Negotiated with Regulating Agencies It is not clear at this time exactly what assurances -- whether legal, funding, regulatory, or other- - the federal government could or will provide for implementation of salmon conservation plans • at the watershed level. Because the federal and state regulating agencies and the co-managers are participating in the Puget Sound Shared Strategy, that may be the appropriate forum where the discussion on these proposed assurances can occur. - Interests in the business community and local governments would like several options considered - as incentives from the federal government for implementing the recovery plan. 1. Programmatic consultation on the issuance of the recovery plan so that subsequent - actions by local governments and business that require review by the Services can get - expedited treatment. 2. A policy statement that the Services will not initiate enforcement actions against parties who are making reasonable good faith efforts to act in ways consistent with the recovery - plan. This would not preclude citizen suits but might discourage them. 3. Adopt reasonably "may affect" and "Not likely to adversely affect" thresholds for ESA consultation on actions consistent with the recovery plan. For example, NOAA Fisheries • could adopt a policy that small land development projects that are covered by CWA - Section 404 nationwide general permits or regional general permits and are consistent with the recovery plan would be presumed not to have more than de minimus effects on ESA-listed salmon and therefore no ESA consultation is needed unless the Corp decides - the project "may affect" salmon in more than a de minimus way. 4. Adopt a policy that projects consistent with the recovery plan which "may affect" salmon are presumed to be "not likely to adversely affect" ESA listed salmon unless either the Corps or NOAA Fisheries finds that extraordinary circumstances cause significant - adverse effects. 5 These are just several examples for consideration and significant research and policy analysis will be required to determine if these suggestions are possible and what conditions need to be - met for them to become an option used by the federal government. It must also be recognized - that there may also be new types of legal assurances that the federal government could develop and offer as well. It should be proposed that assurances and grants in return for commitments to implement the - plan may be appropriate through federal and state laws and programs other than the Endangered Species Act, e.g.,under the Clean Water Act and through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater permits. The state could take into account the tangible results of plan implementation that support meeting the requirements of other laws and regulations such as - through updates of critical areas ordinances, comprehensive plans, and zoning ordinances - required under the Growth Management Act and through shoreline master plans required under the Shoreline Management Act. For example, it is recognized that effective implementation of the GMA goes hand in hand with commitment to plan implementation and that local - governments with robust land use policies and programs receive "credit" for this commitment as - well. In addition, it is recommended that opportunities to receive federal and state grants through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board process could be linked to plan implementation, and that other - grants such as the Centennial Clean Water Fund and the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program could offer bonus points for projects that implement the plan. Potential Actions to Be Implemented by Non-Local-Government Entities Local governments have neither the means nor the authority to implement all the actions necessary to protect and restore salmon habitat in WRIA 9. Recovery of salmon will be undertaken by a broad partnership that reaches beyond local governments to include citizens, homeowners, community groups, non-profit agencies, businesses, developers,public agencies, • and the co-managers. The comprehensive action lists and the project list as well as the proposal on monitoring and measures provide a wide range of recommendations that look to a wide range of implementers. For example: NOAA-Fisheries and the co-managers could conduct validation monitoring (i.e., are Chinook recovering at expected levels across the Puget Sound region). The - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could continue its efforts to fund and implement the Ecosystem Restoration Project The Washington Department of Transportation could further its work to minimize impacts of road widening and bridge building on salmon habitat. Non-governmental organizations could implement particular habitat improvement and stewardship projects. More - developers could design and build low-impact developments. - Seeking Support from Non-Local Government Entities for Plan - Implementation To acknowledge the need for participation by public agencies, businesses, and non-governmental organizations in order to implement particular actions and monitoring tasks, it may be appropriate to seek a show of support such as through public-private partnerships, funding and assistance from foundations, plan endorsement at public review sessions, assistance with public - outreach, and political support. Steering Committee members have noted that since junior taxing districts need to be in compliance with local governments, it can be expected that water and sewer districts would implement the plan through contract relationships with utilities. 6 - - Other possible tools to demonstrate support of plan implementation include: ■ Letters or memoranda of understanding from agency heads or program managers to - formally consider the WRIA 9 plan as guidance when fulfilling their related responsibilities • Commitments from agencies and other partners to implement particular actions or • monitoring tasks • Legislative or regulatory changes as requested in specific plan actions ■ Budget and work program line items to fulfill specific plan actions. A show of support and participation by public agencies and other non-local-government entities could be sought through various means such as: • Listing the actions and monitoring tasks requested in the draft plan; - ■ Letters to appropriate potential partners from the WRIA 9 Forum; ■ Negotiations with appropriate parties through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy process that includes federal and state regulating agencies, co-managers, local governments, and other partners; - • Working with state legislators and members of Congress; and • Requests from citizens, community groups, business, and other non-government partners to appropriate potential partners. Neither of these lists is definitive; rather, the purpose is to generate ideas to build support for a broader WRIA 9 partnership. What type and level of commitments are recommended for local governments to implement the plan? - The WRIA 9 plan has been developed through a collaborative effort among 16 cities, two - counties, scientists, citizens, representatives from business and community groups, and public agencies. The planning work has been funded by 16 local governments, and it is anticipated that local governments will have a key role in implementation of the plan as well. - Local jurisdictions and other WRIA 9 partners will be expected to make commitments to implement actions and monitoring over the 10-year plan horizon. In addition, longer term actions (10-20 years out) may not have commitments now, but there needs to be a process to line up commitments in the future. - Before commitments can be finalized, this plan will continue to evolve through the following stages: input and feedback received during the current public review process; discussion and approval by the WRIA 9 Forum; and review and ratification by local jurisdictions. As discussed earlier in this chapter, conversations and negotiations with regulating agencies (possibly through Puget Sound Shared Strategy) for potential negotiated benefits and assurances will be critical to determining the type and level of commitments acceptable to local governments. - What Is Meant By Commitments Puget Sound Shared Strategy has defined commitment as "a statement of the willingness of an - entity or person to implement an action or set of actions within a designated timeframe. - Examples of ways to demonstrate commitments include: • Past history of commitments -- what has already been done on behalf of salmon recovery?; ■ Clear action plan describing how and by whom selected projects will be implemented; • Budgeting for specific actions or projects; - • Incorporating salmon recovery actions into local capital improvement projects; • Passing a formal resolution pledging to pursue salmon recovery goals; and - • Passing regulations that are consistent with local salmon recovery goals."i Three main areas in which individual local governments will need to determine what role and - commitment they want to make towards implementation are: • Continued regional collaboration on tracking, assessing, evaluating, and communicating implementation progress and securing funding; ■ Implementation of actions at the landscape and site-specific levels proposed in the comprehensive and project lists; and - ■ Monitoring of individual actions and contributing data and resources to the evaluation at the larger scale. Examples from Other Similar Planning Efforts • It is useful to review briefly how other watershed and basin protection and restoration groups - have chosen to structure commitments. The level and type of commitments cover a continuum from no formal commitments to signed concurrence plans. Starting at the low end of the continuum, implementation is informal and left to the discretion of individual implementers. At a step up on the continuum, implementers made commitments to coordinate with other agencies - where needed to carry out actions. The next step shows allocation of existing funding, staff, and other resources through budgets and work programs. This demonstrates commitment without necessitating formal agreements. One step more formal is written implementation plans in which implementers individually or together specified how they would implement their actions. The - Shared Strategy for Puget Sound,April 2004. Commitments and Conditions. Seattle,WA - 8 . high end of the commitment continuum lists signed or adopted concurrence plans in which implementers agreed to execute specified actions in their area or under their authority. • Because the plans reviewed here are in varying stages of ratification and implementation and because accountability has not always been considered, it has been difficult to do an analysis of which type of commitment has been most successful. Generally speaking, when no formal commitments followed plan commitment, implementation has been difficult to track and less • successful, while the more formal or stronger the commitment, the more likely the plan is to be carried out. • Expectations from Puget Sound Shared Strategy Because Shared Strategy is the venue through which the regulatory agencies are engaged in plan review, it makes sense to review what specifically they are seeking as commitments. Shared Strategy has proposed the following as a mechanism to move the discussion forward. Initial Steps for Federal Certainty The recommendation for discussion is to create milestones to review and evaluate progress with the possibility of increasing federal certainty or regulatory relief at each milestone. A staged • review of progress and the provision of assurances would need the flexibility to provide support for the whole region, individual watersheds and specific sectors of the region. Some individual sectors or watersheds may be further along then others in their understanding and commitment to address the threats to the salmon and they should be rewarded with additional assurances. • As a first step, upon the adoption of the Puget Sound recovery plan by the federal services, an - agreement could be signed by the federal agencies and the State of Washington for the conservation and recovery of the salmon. "Conservation agreements" are not specific to the ESA but provide a means to formalize shared understanding of commitments that could support • implementation of the plan. The conservation agreement would acknowledge that the Puget Sound recovery plan with its implementation commitments is the agreed upon approach for achieving recovery. The conservation agreement would identify key measures that would be monitored for success, the • process for adapting to new information and the initial milestones over a 10-year period where progress and results would be evaluated. The agreement would also state the intention of the state and federal agencies to jointly pursue funding for local communities. Finally, the agreement could indicate the support of the recovery plan actions as the appropriate solution for the area in - the event of third party lawsuits. The agreement would identify review points at specific time - intervals, like at three, five and ten years. At each review point the progress would be evaluated for each watershed, fish population and the whole region. Based on the four factors mentioned in the previous section, the federal agencies would determine if additional assurances or regulatory - relief could be provided (Shared Strategy, 2005). � 9 Commitments from Local Governments Five options are provided below which offer a continuum of level of commitment. These are not mutually exclusive options. 1. Local 2. Local 3. City/county 4. City/county councils 5. City/county - governments governments councils pass formally commit to councils ratify or implement the Plan continue resolutions to implementing particular adopt entire Plan as they choose; coordinated formally consider actions by signing as policy and no formal watershed-wide the Plan as concurrence plan or implement through commitments to decision-making guidance and best interlocal agreement. local ordinances - actions or regional process and available science Actions could be and capital process pooled funding for for capital undertaken: improvement - operating needs improvement programs and capital programs, critical -By individual jurisdiction investments, areas ordinances, (e.g., specific habitat • possibly through comprehensive projects) an interlocal plan updates, - agreement National Pollutant -Cooperatively by sub- Discharge basin (e.g.,joint hiring of Elimination System basin steward) permits,and shoreline -Watershed-wide (e.g., - management plans collaborative analysis of effectiveness monitoring) - The first two options at the lower end of the continuum (no formal commitments and coordinated - regional process) are probably insufficient to obtain the level of assurances that participating partners desire. The middle option of local government councils passing resolutions to formally consider the plan as guidance (3, above) is in all likelihood a minimum commitment to - participate. Either of the last two options along the continuum—local government councils • commit to implement particular actions or ratify/adopt the entire plan as policy will in all likelihood result in the greatest level of assurances form the federal and state regulatory agencies as they provide the greater level of certainty for recovery. The more assurances desired from the federal government, the stronger the commitments will need to be. As a corollary, the stronger the commitments implementers are willing to make, the more benefits and rewards they should accrue. The level of commitment could vary by type of action, e.g., specific capital improvement projects could merit formal concurrence commitment - while land use policies might be considered as guidance for implementation of policies and - programs required under other laws. Next Steps As stated earlier, this is just the beginning of the discussion of expectations and commitments. The discussion will continue during the current public review process and when the WRIA 9 Forum and local governments formally review the plan in 2005. In addition, conversations will need to progress with the Puget Sound Shared Strategy, federal and state agencies, the co- - managers, and other partners. References • Shared Strategy for Puget Sound,April 2004. Commitments and Conditions. Seattle, WA • 10 • Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, January 2005. Federal Assurances under the Endangered • Species Act. Draft Platform Statement for Shared Strategy Summit. • 11 • • • • C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES IN 2004-2005 • • 1. Public Involvement Goals • In January 2004, the WRIA 9 Steering Committee approved the Public Involvement Plan to • support work on the Salmon Habitat Plan. (The entire Public Involvement Plan is available on- • line at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/Public_Involvement_Plan_2004.pdf.) • The goals of public involvement were to: • • Inform people about salmon habitat problems and the evolving response to those • problems in their watershed • • Incorporate public suggestions, local knowledge, and citizen volunteer efforts into the • WRIA 9 Habitat Plan to maximize the likelihood that the Plan can and will be • implemented • • Encourage citizens to get directly involved in helping salmon habitat and encourage them • to support actions carried out by local governments • • 2. Public Involvement Guidelines • The Public Involvement Plan listed the following guidelines that were followed as much as • possible by staff in conducting public outreach: • • Seek input before decisions are made. • • Ask questions that the public can answer(topics such as community priorities) rather • than detailed scientific/technical questions. (We should be open, however, to technical - information offered by the public if we can verify it [e.g., fish presence in a certain • stream]). • Focus on decisions and key issues, rather than feelings, when asking for input. • • Ask only when there is a clear process for gathering input, collating or summarizing it, and presenting it to decision makers. This guideline is particularly important if scientific • conclusions differ considerably from social and economic values. • • Ask only when decision makers can and will consider public input and apply it to the • decision making process. • • Inform the public how their input was received, how it was considered, and what • decisions were made. This guideline is particularly important if scientific conclusions • differ considerably from social and economic values. • • Public information/education about the watershed ecosystem and how people are part of • it is an essential part of public involvement because: • It can help motivate participation(either personal action or planning input) • • • A basic understanding of the scientific/technical problems will help people offer - good input • Communicate simply and succinctly, at a level to ensure that basic scientific information • will be meaningful to the average person. • 12 • • Habitat planning is not inherently exciting. Those we contact should be encouraged to • provide input but if they are not interested, an option should be provided: personal • behavior change. Moreover, people's actions tend to shape how they view themselves and what they care about. If we are successful in encouraging this change, it increases the likelihood that asking for planning input at a later date will result in planning • participation. Finally, persuading people to make changes in their daily lives requires • explaining the habitat problems and what causes them. Wherever possible, approach people using existing forums (e.g., Chambers of Commerce, service clubs, regular community events, etc.). - Emphasize the value of the Habitat Plan in terms of improved water quality, healthier environment, and greater quality of life in our streams, rivers, and the Puget Sound shoreline, not just for today but for future generations. The Public Involvement Plan noted that: While decision makers should use public input, they are neither bound by it nor limited to • it. The public should understand that decision makers will make choices in light of • scientific facts, scientific uncertainty, fiscal constraints, legal requirements, and public input. Public input also will come through the participation of every Steering Committee member. • Equally important, decision makers should recognize that citizens who offer their opinion will want to know how the input was used and why decision makers make the choices they do. Based on the goals and guidelines, the Public Involvement Plan identified potential • audiences/participants. While the general public was the ideal audience, only smaller subsets of • the public could be reached using mass media techniques given cost and fragmentation of the market. Consequently, staff concentrated on reaching specific audiences that were believed to be more likely to be interested and take the time to either offer comments or take steps in their own • lives to help salmon habitat. Because of limited time and resources, suggested • audiences/participants were grouped in tiers by priority. 3. Public Involvement Activities in 2004 to Develop the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan The following list summarizes the outreach activities carried out in 2004 pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Involvement Plan: - Public Open Houses and Workshops to Develop the Draft Habitat Plan Workshop #1: July 8, 2004 -- topic: introduction to watershed habitat planning 13 • Science Seminar: July 29, 2004 -- presentations on the latest findings about salmon habitat needs in the watershed - • Workshop#2: October 12, 2004 -- topics: brainstorm possible actions to protect and restore salmon habitat; ranking of feasibility and effectiveness criteria • Vashon/Maury Island Workshop: November 3 -- topics: brainstorm possible actions to . protect and restore salmon habitat with a focus on the Puget Sound marine nearshore • Workshop #3: November 30, 2004 -- topic: evaluating pros/cons of possible habitat actions - Postcard Notification In September 2004, postcard notices announcing the October and November public meetings and the on-line survey were mailed to 6,540 addresses. The mailing list was drawn from the King - County Assessors database and included nearly all people who own property on the Puget Sound - shoreline or on freshwater rivers, major streams, and lakes in WRIA 9. Recipients also included people from a variety of King County Water and Land Resources Division mailing lists. E-mail Notification Multiple a-mails were sent out beginning in July 2004 to notify a mailing list of citizens who had asked to be notified of information and comment opportunities on the Habitat Plan(the initial list was about 125 names long and grew to over 200 by the end of the year). - CoveragelOutreach • King County Journal, "Salmon Recovery Workshop Tonight," July 8, 2004 - • Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Getting Involved," July 28, 2004 - • Daily Journal of Commerce, "Two-year salmon study completed," August 3, 2004 • KPLU radio story, "Changed River," August 4, 2004 • Renton and Kent Reporters, "Salmon plan," October 6, 2004 • Seattle Times, "Here and Now Column: Salmon Habitat Workshop," October 11, 2004 - • Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber, "School of Fish News," October 27, 2004 - • Vashon-Maury Island Loop, "Salmon Habitat Workshop," November 3, 2004 ■ Voice of the Valley, "Salmon Habitat Plans under development," November 23, 2004 ■ King County Journal, "Workshop, Open House Focus on Salmon Habitat,"November 28, . 2004 • KPLU radio story, "Salmon Plan,"November 29, 2004 Newsletter Articles - • Fall 2002 "Downstream News" newsletter from King County Water and Land Resources Division • Fall 2003 "Downstream News" newsletter from King County Water and Land Resources Division - • Spring 2004 "The Conservation Connection"newsletter from King Conservation District - • October 2004 Kent Chamber of Commerce newsletter (linked to article on web) ■ Fall 2004"Downstream News" newsletter from King County Water and Land Resources Division • November 2004 City of Kent Newsletter - 14 - Cable Television Readerboard Announcements (prior to most of the meetings) Channel 77 (Puget Sound Access) City of Auburn • City of Burien • ■ City of Enumclaw • City of Federal Way City of Renton Web Presence All outreach events and opportunities were regularly posted on WRIA 9 web page: littp:lldnr.metrokc.trov/Wriasl9/index.htm (as of January 2005, the WRIA 9 web site was ranked #2 out of 1.3 million on Google when searching for"salmon habitat") About half of the cities in WRIA 9 and King County included meeting notice information on their web calendars or home pages. - The website includes nearly all of the scientific materials and planning documents generated - during the development of the Habitat Plan in 2002-2004. On-line Survey • To encourage people to comment who were not interested in or able to attend an open house or workshop, an on-line survey was created, extensively beta-tested, and went live on September 12, 2004 and used through the end of 2004. It was filled out on the Internet by 106 persons and another 3 persons filled out paper copies. No one complained about its length or any difficulties experienced in filling it out on-line. The survey included questions intended to gauge knowledge • and opinions. Some of the information was intended for use in developing the draft Habitat Plan recommendations while other information was collected for future use in analyzing how to explain the resulting plan. Watershed Science Seminar Video The watershed science seminar on July 29, 2004 was videotaped. Three of the most accessible presentations were edited into a one-hour video—"Hot Science, Cool Fish" -- with explanatory captions and cutaways to views of the watershed. The video announced the October 12 and - November 30 public meetings. This video was distributed to city and county cable channels and was broadcast well over 100 - times during October—December on the following channels during prime viewing times to snag - the channel surfer: ■ Puget Sound Access, Channel 77 ■ City of Auburn, Channel 21 ■ City of Burien, Channel 21 • • City of Enumclaw, Channel 21 • City of Kent, Channel 21 • City of Renton, Channel 21 • King County, Channel 22 - 15 Fact Sheet for Jurisdictions City-specific fliers on the planning process were distributed to cities in spring 2004 for - distribution (offered to all cities but provided only to those who reviewed and edited them): • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Burien - ■ City of Enumclaw • City of Normandy Park ■ City of SeaTac • City of Tukwila Signage Temporary plastic signs (about 150) announcing the watershed planning process and encouraging salmon-friendly behavior were placed in parks and other public places next to - rivers, stream crossings, and the Puget Sound shoreline in August and September 2004: - ■ King County • Tukwila • Auburn ■ Normandy Park - • Des Moines • Vashon-Maury Park District • Kent • Renton - • Burien • SeaTac City Council Briefings - • City of Algona, April 27, 2004 • City of Auburn, September 7, 2004 (televised on City cable channel 21) • City of Burien, March 15, 2004 (televised on City cable channel 21) • City of Enumclaw, October 2003 - • City of SeaTac, April 13, 2004 • City of Normandy Park, April 13, 2004 • City of Tukwila, March 1, 2004 • King County Council, April 12, 2004 (televised on County cable channel 22) - Presentations to Community Groups • South King County Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers, February 11, 2004 ■ Auburn Rotary, June, 2, 2004 - • Green River Community College, October 12, 2004 • Auburn First United Methodist, October 19, 2004 • Washington State University Cooperative Extension Salmon Class,November 10, 2004 • Fauntleroy Watershed Council,November 10, 2004 - • Auburn Sunrise Kiwanis,November 17, 2004 - • South King Housing Issues Group of the Master Builders Association,November 18, 2004 Tabling at Community Events • Tukwila Backyard Wildlife Festival, May 1, 2004 • Covington Drinking Water Festival, May 8, 2004 16 • Kent Fishing Experience, May 15, 2004 - • Auburn Clean Sweep, June 5, 2004 • • Steel Lake Fishing Derby, June 12, 2004 • SeaTac International Days, June 27, 2004 • Covington Days, July 24, 2004 - ■ Enumclaw Salmon Festival, October 16, 2004 - ■ Duwamish Superfund Annual Community meeting, October 21, 2004 Elected Official Outreach - Continued and expanded state and local support for watershed habitat protection and restoration - is a priority. To keep elected leaders informed about the work of the Habitat Plan, WRIA 9 teamed up with the volunteer group LightHawk to take legislators and local elected officials on flights of the watershed. In December 2003 and July 2004, one-hour watershed flights gave 12 - elected officials the opportunity to see for themselves the patterns of land use and locations of • salmon habitat in the watershed and were preceded by briefings on the ground on WRIA planning. 4. Public Involvement Activities in 2005 to Review and Revise the Draft - Salmon Habitat Plan • The following list summarizes the outreach activities carried out in 2005 pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Involvement Plan to review, revise, and improve the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan: Public Review Period and Notification of Release of Draft Salmon Habitat Plan In January 2005, a 45-day public review period was decided on for the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan. It would begin on Thursday, March 10, the date of release for the Draft Plan and would continue through Monday, April 25. The dates for three open houses/public meetings were also - identified: March 22 in Renton, March 23 in Auburn, and March 31 on Vashon Island. Meetings were scheduled early in the review period to maximize the opportunities for publicity(it is easier to get media attention for public meetings as events rather than the beginning of comment periods) and provide more time for people to comment after they had been introduced to the - Draft Plan at the meetings. Postcard Notification • In late February 2005, postcard notices announcing the public review period, three public - meetings, and on-line comment form were mailed to 6,550 addresses. The mailing list was drawn from the King County Assessors database and included nearly all people who own property on the Puget Sound shoreline or on freshwater rivers, major streams, and lakes in WRIA 9. Recipients also included people from a variety of King County Water and Land - Resources Division mailing lists. E-mail Notification - Multiple a-mails were sent out to notify a mailing list of citizens who had asked to be notified of • information and comment opportunities on the Habitat Plan (approximately 200 persons). The identical notice was mailed to about a dozen persons who requested mailed, rather than e-mailed notification. These e-mails included: • Advance notice of the comment period and meeting, January 20, 2005 17 • Announcement of release of the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan, beginning of comment period, and public meetings, March 10, 2005 - • Announcement of availability of initial public comments and reminder of two weeks remaining in comment period,April 11,2005 Letter Notification Some proposed projects in the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan would require the participation or potentially affect private property landowners. To personally notify the property owners (other - than those already aware of the proposed projects due to contacts with local government staff), parcel searches were conducted using King County iMap and letters were sent to: • 31 business owners/tenants along the Green/Duwamish in Tukwila (March 11) - ■ 30 property owners along the Duwamish on 42nd Ave. S. in Tukwila (March 11) • 24 property owners on Vashon/Maury Island(March 18) - NewspaperlNews►etter Coverage - Numerous news releases, calendar notices, and op-eds tailored to specific communities were prepared and distributed to a dozen daily and weekly newspapers and newsletters covering the communities in the WRIA 9 watershed. Not all used the materials provided but the following coverage resulted: - • Auburn Reporter, "You Can Help Make a Healthier Watershed" op-ed and calendar - notice "Time to Comment on Fish Program,"March 9, 2005 • South King Housing Issues E-newsletter, March 11, 2005 ■ Kent Reporter, "You Can Help Make For a Healthier Watershed" op-ed, March 16, 2005 - • Renton Reporter, "You Can Help Make a Healthier Watershed" op-ed, March 16, 2005 - • City of Burien newsletter, March 2005 • Highline Times/Des Moines News, "Public May Comment on Salmon Plan at Open Houses" article and community calendar notice, March 16, 2005 ■ Seattle Post Intelligencer, "Getting Involved," March 16, 2005 • Voice of the Valley, "Public Asked for Help with Draft Salmon Habitat Plan," March 16, 2005 • Seattle Times, Here &Now calendar notice, March 22, 2005 ■ Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber, "Salmon Habitat Plan: Vashon is Key to the Kings," - March 23, 2005 • The Loop (Vashon-Maury Island), March 23, 2005 • KPLU radio news story "Salmon Plan," March 24, 2005, http://www.publicbroadcastin�;.net/kplu/news.newsmain'?action=article&ARTICLE ID= - 753757 • ■ KPLU radio news story"Fish Plan," March 24, 2005, http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kplu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID= 753758 • Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber, "Draft Salmon Plan Discussion Set for Thursday at - Land Trust," March 30, 2005 ■ City of Renton"Neighborhood News" e-notice, April 4, 2005 • South King Housing Issues E-newsletter, April 15, 2005 18 - Display Advertising - Display advertisements announcing the public review period, public meetings, and web comment form were run in the following local newspapers: ■ Auburn Reporter, March 9, 2005 • Kent Reporter, March 16, 2005 - ■ Renton Reporter, March 16, 2005 - • King County Journal, March 16, 2005 • Highline Times/Des Moines News, March 16, 2005 • West Seattle Herald/White Center News, March 16, 2005 - • Federal Way News, March 16, 2005 - • Enumclaw Courier-Herald, March 16, 2005 Magnolia Herald, March 16, 2005 • Seattle Times, March 16, 2005 • Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 16, 2005 - • Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber, March 23, 2005 Cable Television Readerboard Announcements - Readerboard announcements were requested of all the cities with cable television channels. - Broadcast was confirmed by the Cities of Federal Way and SeaTac. Broadcast by other cities and Puget Sound Access (Channel 77) is unknown. - Web Presence - All outreach events and opportunities were regularly posted on WRIA 9 web page: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/'index.htm (as of January 2005, the WRIA 9 web site was ranked #2 out of 1.3 million on Google when searching for"salmon habitat") • The following jurisdictions placed links to the Draft Habitat Plan on their home pages or elsewhere on their websites during February—April 2005 • Auburn - • Burien - • Covington ■ Des Moines • Enumclaw ■ King County (multiple locations) - • Renton • ■ Tukwila The website also includes nearly all of the scientific materials and planning documents generated - during the development of the Habitat Plan in 2002-2005. City Council and Other Briefings ■ Burien, March 7, 2005 (televised on City cable channel) - • King County Agriculture Commission, March 10, 2005 • ■ Renton, March 14, 2005 (televised on City cable channel) • Kent, March 15, 2005 • Covington, April 19, 2005 • 19 Public Open Houses and Meetings to Review the Draft Salmon Habitat Plan ■ March 22, 2005 (Renton) -- topic: introduction to Draft Habitat Plan and public comment on it ■ March 23, 2005 (Auburn) -- topic: introduction to Draft Habitat Plan and public comment on it ■ March 31, 2005 (Vashon Island) -- topic: introduction to Draft Habitat Plan and public comment on it, with focus on marine nearshore issues On-line Comment Form To encourage people to comment who were not interested in or able to attend an open house/public meeting, an on-line questionnaire was posted March 10—April 25, 2005. It was filled out on the Internet by 13 persons. No one complained about its length or any difficulties - experienced in filling it out on-line. The questionnaire included responses where people could write out their comments on the Draft Habitat Plan. 5. Public Involvement Results and Use: 2004 Public input was sought on two major points: - • What actions do you think should be included in the Habitat Plan? (Input on Developing Alternatives from the Public Involvement Plan) • What social/economic/political evaluation criteria—called"feasibility and effectiveness criteria" in the jargon of the plan—should be used to evaluate potential actions? (Input - on Social/Economic/Political Criteria from the Public Involvement Plan) - The majority of the public comments were received between mid-September and the end of - November 2004. This input was summarized. Available on-line (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/HabitatPlanPubliclnput.htm#2004input) are: • Spreadsheet listing all comments received at open houses/workshops and comments from the on-line survey • Summary of web survey results - Public input was used in the fall of 2004 in two ways: • Suggestions for possible actions (projects, programs, policies) were grouped by subwatershed and submitted to each of the subwatershed teams that developed draft - recommendations in September-November 2004. (Suggested actions applicable - watershed-wide were provided to all subwatershed groups.) These possible actions were "raw material" for the team members to consider as they created their list of actions. A number of these actions were subsequently developed and included in this draft Habitat Plan. - ■ Comments on the "feasibility and effectiveness criteria"received as of October 13 were presented to the Steering Committee on October 14 and informed their discussion and subsequent changes to the draft criteria. At the November 30 workshop, the public was asked to test the feasibility and effectiveness criteria on several sample actions. This test - was subsequently repeated the following night with the Steering Committee itself. The . 20 - • • • • similar results affirmed the value of the criteria, which were subsequently used to review • project and program-type actions before they were included in the Draft Habitat Plan. • • 6. Public Involvement Results and Use: 2005 • Public input was sought on four major points, agreed to by the Steering Committee at its March • 10, 2005 meeting: • What projects, programs, and policies in the draft Habitat Plan do you most strongly • SUPPORT and want included in the final Habitat Plan? • • What projects, programs, or policies in the draft Habitat Plan do you DISAGREE with? • WHY do you disagree? How would you CHANGE the action to make it acceptable? • • What project, program, or policy would you ADD to the Habitat Plan? In other words, WHAT IS MISSING from the draft Habitat Plan? • ■ Do you have questions or comments about the SCIENCE underlying a project,program, • or policy? • People were welcome to provide other questions, comments, or suggestions regarding the draft • Habitat Plan in addition to responding to the questions above. • • During the public review period March 10—April 25, 2005, many comments were received from • individual citizens, environmental groups, businesses, local governments, state and federal agencies, and individual Steering Committee members. • • All comments—regardless of source—were organized by staff and posted on the watershed web • site at: http:!/dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/HabitatPlanPublicInput.htm. Comments were organized so they would correspond to the relevant parts of the Draft Habitat Plan. • • Comments were read by the subcommittees of the Steering Committee as they reviewed and • revised the Draft Habitat Plan during April—June 2005. Steering Committee members read the • relevant comments as they discussed revising specific parts of the Habitat Plan. • The Steering Committee made decisions about revising the Draft Habitat Plan in light of • scientific facts, scientific uncertainty, fiscal constraints, legal requirements, and public input. • Many public comments led the Steering Committee to make significant changes to the Habitat Plan, resulting in a final plan that is practical and effective. • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 • • • • • • D. PRIORITIZING CONSERVATION HYPOTHESES • AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • • Prioritization of conservation hypotheses developed in the functional linkages evaluation and the • habitat management strategies is a key step in preparing to develop and evaluate actions for • inclusion in the Habitat Plan. • • Conservation Hypotheses • The 32 individual conservation hypotheses (CHs) are being prioritized based upon seven criteria, • including Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)parameters and viability, salmonid life stages affected, magnitude of effect, necessary future conditions, certainty and factors of decline. This • will result in priorities by subwatershed, watershed-wide ("all"), and non-habitat hypotheses. • These priority CHs could then be further prioritized on a watershed-wide basis. Possible criteria • for further prioritizing CHs at the watershed-wide level include contribution to overall Chinook • viability, magnitude of effect, and certainty. • Subwatershed Habitat Management Strategies (HMS) • From the prioritization of the CHs, we can also prioritize the habitat conditions and/or processes • in the subwatershed Habitat Management Strategies (HMSs). For instance, LG-1 (Protecting and • creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge (particularly side channels, off channels, and tributary access) for juvenile salmon at a range of flow conditions) was identified as a high • priority CH. This rating would translate into a high priority for three habitat conditions (channel geomorphology, tributary habitat and access, and water quantity) that support this CH. Further • prioritization of the HMSs could occur at the habitat condition or strategy (protect, restore, • rehabilitate, substitute) level. For instance, if the channel geomorphology condition moves us • closest to implementation of LG-1, it would be a higher priority. Similarly, if restore and • rehabilitate were key components of attaining the necessary channel geomorphology condition, they would also be identified as higher priorities. • Criteria for prioritizing strategies could include spatial applicability (e.g., subarea, RMs), • temporal considerations (e.g., sequencing), and certainty of achieving habitat conditions. • • Draft Criteria for Prioritizing Conservation Hypotheses • Does the CH address the VSP parameters identified as a priority for viability? (ratings: Low= • neither P or SS; Med. = P or SS; High =both P and SS or all 4 VSP parameters) What is the total number of salmonid life stages (egg, alevin, fry, fingerling/smolt, freshwater • adult/spawner) directly affected by the CH? (ratings: 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 life stages) • What is the potential magnitude of effect of the CH in leading to improved life stage productivity • and overall viability? (ratings: Low, Med., or High magnitude of effect) • Does the CH address protection and/or restoration of process or processes that support and maintain habitat, habitat structure or habitat function? (ratings: Low = habitat function only; • Med. = habitat structure and function; High=process) • Does the CH address specific habitat conditions identified in the Necessary Future Conditions • analysis (ratings: Low= 1; Med. =2, High= 3 or more conditions) • • 22 • • What is the certainty of the CH in achieving the desired habitat or improved VSP conditions? (ratings: Low, Med., or High certainty) Does the CH address a factor of decline substantially limiting viability? (ratings: Low = factor of decline, but not necessarily limiting; Med. =factor of decline somewhat limiting viability; High = factor of decline substantially limiting viability) Table D-1: Prioritization of Conservation Hypothesis By Watershed-Wide, Subwatershed And Non-Habitat Hypotheses (Scoring: H = 5, M/H =4, M = 3, L/M = 2, L = 1, life stage = #) Cons. VSP #of Magnitud Proces Habitat Certainty Factor Overall Hyp. Paramete Life a of s, Conditio in of Score - rs for Stage Effect Structu ns in Achievin decline viability s re, NFC g limiting Functio analysis viability • n A11-1 M 5 M M/H L M M 22 - All-2 H 5 H H H H H 35 All-3 H 5 H H M M M/H 30 - All-4 H 5 H H H M/H H 34 - All-5 M 5 M H H M/H M 28 • All-6 H 5 H H H H H 35 Near-1 M 2 M M L L/M L/M 16 - Near-2 H 2 H M L M/H H 25 Near-3 M 2 H H H M/H M/H 28 . Near-4 M 2 M M L M M 18 • Near-5 H 2 M/H M L M M 21 - Duw-1 H 3 H M H H H 31 Duw-2 M 3 M/H M L M M 20 - Duw-3 H 3 H M H H H 31 Duw-4 H 3 M/H M M H M 26 • Duw-5 H 3 H H M M/H H 30 - Duw-6 M/H 3 M/H M/H L M/H M 23 • LG-1 H 5 H M H H H 33 LG-2 H 5 M/H M/H H M M 29 LG-3 M 5 M H L M M 23 LG-4 H 5 L/M M L L L 18 . MG-1 H 5 H M H H H 33 - MG-2 M/H 5 M H H M M 28 • MG-3 M 5 H H H H H 33 MG-4 H 5 H M H M/H M 30 • MG-5 M 5 M H H M/H M 28 MG-6 M 5 M N/A L M M 18+ . UG-1 M/H 5 H N/A L H H 25+ - UG-2 H 5 H M H M/H M 30 . UG-3 M/H 5 H N/A L H H 25+ UG-4 H 5 H H H H H 35 Non-Hab- M 1 H N/A M M M 18+ - 1 23 Non-Hab- M 3 H N/A M M M 20+ - 2 - Non-Hab- M 2 L/M N/A N/A L/M L/M 11+ 3 Priority Conservation Hypotheses (By Tiers) Considering The Seven Categories (34 Total) • Tier 1 (16 total) Tier 2 (11 total) Tier 3 (7 total) All-2, All-4, All-6 All-1, All-3, All-5 --- Near-2, Near-3 Near-5 Near-1, Near-4 • Duw-1, Duw-3, Duw-5 Duw-4, Duw-6 Duw-2 • LG-1 LG-2 LG-3, LG-4 MG-1, MG-3, MG-4 MG-2, MG-5 MG-6 UG-1, UG-4 UG-2, UG-3 --- NH-1, NH-2 --- NH-3 - 24 - E. SUMMARY OF TIERED CONSERVATION HYPOTHESES Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty 'tier 1 All-2 Protecting and improving riparian All-1 Juvenile Increase food availability Abundance Improved riparian Restore/ conditions by adding native riparian foraging/ Improve predator refuge Productivity conditions will enhance Moderate vegetation will enhance habitat rearing Expand physiological prey availability Rehabilitate/ quality by improving water quality, Juvenile refugia LWD recruitment will Low-Moderate stabilizing streambanks, providing migration Expand high energy/flow enhance pool and overhanging vegetation and large Adult holding refugia spawning habitat woody debris (LWD), and Adult Enhance migration Enhanced prey contributing organic matter, spawning corridor availability will enhance nutrients, and terrestrial prey items, Enhance rearing habitat growth and survival thereby leading to greater juvenile Improve spawning Juvenile salmon will use salmon growth and higher survival. ground quality for shade of improved salmonids as well as riparian corridor and forage fish in nearshore eventually LWD provided areas from riparian vegetation Pollution abatement will provide refuge from Soil stability fish and bird predators Erosion control Forage fish egg survival Wildlife habitat is higher on shaded Organic/nutrient inputs beaches LWD inputs/habitat Salmon utilization of structure tributaries will increase Microclimate with improved conditions Prey production 25 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty All-4 Allowing natural flows(including All-1 Egg Improve egg-to-fry Abundance Natural disturbance Restore/ low flows and habitat-forming All-3 incubation survival Productivity creates more diverse and Moderate flows)in a relatively unconstrained Low-1 Juvenile Enhance rearing habitat Diversity complex habitat for river channel will enhance habitat Mid-1 freshwater Expand spawning ground Spatial salmon diversity and provide habitats that Mid-5 rearing availability Structure Habitat complexity can support spawning and rearing Adult holding Improve spawning enhances productivity salmon at a greater variety of flow Adult ground quality and increases life history conditions,thereby leading to spawning Enhance rearing habitat diversity expanded salmon spatial Scour impacts on redds distribution,greater juvenile salmon are excessive and limit growth, and higher survival. egg-to-fry survival (Note: Less applicable to marine nearshore] All-6 Preventing new bank/shoreline Near-2 All lifestages Increase prey production Abundance Increased habitat area, Preserve/High armoring and fill and removing Near-3 Increase refugia Productivity complexity, and diversity Restore/ existing armoring,fill and other Near-4 Provide high energy/flow Diversity would result in increased Moderate impediments(e.g., levees)will refuge Spatial species abundance, enhance habitat quality and Enhance migration Structure productivity, and diversity quantity and lead to improved corridor juvenile salmon survival, spatial Expand rearing habitat distribution, and diversity. Near-2 Protecting and increasing the All-6 Juvenile Increase food availability Abundance Restoration of shallow Restore/ availability of vegetated shallow foraging/ Improve predator refuge Productivity water habitats will Moderate nearshore and marsh habitats will rearing Enhance migration Spatial increase the production enhance habitat quantity and Juvenile corridor Structure of prey items consumed quality and lead to greater juvenile migration Enhance rearing habitat Diversity by juvenile salmon. salmon residence time, greater Juvenile Enhanced prey growth, and higher survival. predator availability will enhance avoidance survival. Near-3 Protecting and restoring nearshore A11-6 Adult/ Increase food availability Abundance Restoration of nearshore Preserve/High sediment transport processes by subadult Enhance migration Productivity processes will increase Restore/ reconnecting sediment sources and foraging corridor the production of prey Moderate removing shoreline armoring that Juvenile Enhance rearing habitat items consumed by impacts sediment transport will foraging/rear Increase and enhance juvenile salmon. lead to greater prey production, ing forage fish spawning Enhanced prey greater juvenile salmon growth and habitat availability will enhance higher survival. survival. 26 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Duw-1 Expanding and enhancing the Near-2 Early Increase food availability Abundance Improved estuarine Restore/ Duwamish estuary, particularly Duw-3 estuarine Improve predator refuge Productivity habitat will increase Moderate vegetated shallow subtidal and rearing of Enhance migration Diversity residence time,growth, Rehabilitate/ intertidal habitats and brackish subyearling corridor Spatial and survival Low-Moderate marshes by restoring dredged, and yearling Enhance rearing habitat Structure Restoration of shallow Substitute/ armored, and filled areas,will outmigrants Expand physiological water habitats will Low enhance habitat quantity and transition zone increase the production quality and lead to greater juvenile of prey items consumed salmon residence time, greater by juvenile salmon. growth, and higher survival. Enhanced prey availability will enhance survival. Duw-3 Enlarging the Duwamish River Duw-1 Brackish Increase food availability Abundance Fish will expand habitat Restore/ estuarine transition zone habitat by water Expand physiological Productivity use to areas that are Moderate expanding the shallow water and rearing of fry transition zone Diversity newly available Rehabilitate/ slow water areas will enhance and Increase refugia The limited extent of the Low-Moderate habitat quantity and quality of this fingerling life Expand rearing habitat salinity transition zone Substitute/ key Chinook salmon rearing area, stages due to modifications of Low leading to greater juvenile salmon the Lower Duwamish residence time, greater growth, and River reduces salmon higher survival. residence time and growth Improved estuarine habitat will increase residence time,growth, and survival 27 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Duw-5 Protecting and restoring natural All-8 Freshwater Increase food availability Productivity The Duwamish is lacking Preserve sediment process(supply- Near-3 and Expand physiological Abundance sediment quantity due to transport-delivery)will increase the Low-2 estuarine refugia Diversity supply interruption at Substitute quantity and quality of available Mid-3 rearing of Expand and enhance Spatial HHD, flow regulation and juvenile salmon rearing habitat, Up-4 juvenile shallow water refuge structure hydromodification of river including salmon prey production. salmon Enhance juvenile and stream banks. migration corridor from Localized erosion of estuary to marine stream banks continues nearshore to occur but does not provide the natural quantity or size distribution which would occur naturally. The lack of supply coupled with regular maintenance dredging for ship navigation is resulting in a degrading estuary and reducing sand/mudflat habitat which is important for salmon rearing. Low-1 Protecting and creating/restoring All-3 Egg Increase food availability Abundance Loss of habitat that Restore/ habitat that provides refuge All-6 incubation Improve refugia from Productivity serves as refuge in the Moderate particularly side channels,off Duw-4 Freshwater predators Diversity Lower Green River limits channels,and tributary access), Mid-1 rearing Expand physiological Spatial freshwater productivity, habitat complexity(particularly Adult holding refugia Structure diversity and spatial pools)for juvenile salmon over a Adult Provide high flow refuge structure range of flow conditions and at a spawning Enhance migration Lack of refuge habitat in variety of locations(e.g., mainstem corridor upper estuary causes channel edge, river bends, and Improve spawning salmon to migrate tributary mouths)will enhance ground quality downstream prematurely, habitat quality and quantity and particularly during high lead to greater juvenile salmon flow events residence time, greater growth, and higher survival. 28 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Mid-1 Protecting and creating/restoring All-3 Egg Increase food availability Abundance Lack of refuge habitat in Restore/ habitat that provides refugia All-6 incubation Improve predator refuge Productivity causes salmon to Moderate (particularly side channels,off Duw-4 Freshwater Expand physiological Diversity migrate downstream channels, and tributary access), Low 1 rearing refugia Spatial prematurely habitat complexity(particularly Adult holding Provide high energy/flow Structure pools)for salmon over a range of Adult refuge flow conditions and at a variety of spawning Enhance migration locations (e.g., mainstem channel corridor edge, river bends, and tributary Improve spawning mouths)will enhance habitat ground quality quality and quantity and lead to greater salmon residence time, greater growth, and higher survival. Mid-3 Protecting and restoring natural Low-2 All life Expand rearing habitat Abundance Improved spawning Restore/ sediment recruitment(particularly stages availability Productivity habitat in the Lower Moderate spawning gravels)by reconnecting Expand spawning ground Green River will increase Substitute/ sediment sources to the river will availability spawning and increase Low help maintain spawning, adult Improve spawning egg-to-fry survival holding, and juvenile rearing ground quality Natural sediment habitat. recruitment will improve access to tributaries Mid-4 Preserving and restoring spawning All-2 All life Increase food availability Abundance Improved habitat quality Preserve/High and rearing habitat in lower All-3 stages Improve predation refuge Productivity in tributaries will lead to Restore/ Newaukum and Soos Creeks will Mid-2 Provide high energy/flow Diversity increased fish use, Moderate increase habitat quality and refuge Spatial extended rearing time in quantity,thereby increasing Improve spawning Structure freshwater, and productivity and spatial structure of ground quality increased survival Green River Chinook salmon. Newaukum and Soos creeks can provide quality habitat for wild salmon 29 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Up-1 Establishing/restoring Chinook All life Expand rearing habitat Productivity Availability of expanded Restore/ salmon access above HHD by stages Expand spawning habitat Diversity habitats will lead to Moderate providing passage upstream (trap Spatial expanded salmon Substitute/ and haul)beyond HHD and the Structure distribution and life Moderate reservoir for natural origin Chinook history diversity and downstream passage for the progeny as well as first generation hatchery fry will increase habitat quantity and expand salmon spatial structure. (Alternate Hypothesis: Augmenting restoration of salmon populations above HHD by re-introducing spring Chinook from a neighboring river system (possibly White River) will expand Chinook distribution, diversity, and enhance abundance in the river.) (Alternate Hypothesis: Restoring salmon above HHD without the use of hatchery outplants or returning hatchery adults will recover Chinook without bypassing important evolutionary processes (i.e., the selection of the fittest adults for spawning, and juveniles for incubation). [Note: Final decisions on which fish to pass upstream are dependent upon NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and the co-managers(WDFW and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe)] 30 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed yp Type/Relative Certainty Up-4 Protecting and restoring natural Near-3 Adult Improve egg survival Productivity Upper watershed Preserve sediment recruitment process by Duw-5 spawning Increase food availability Spatial sediment regime is being Restore reducing the amount of slides and Low-2 Adult Enhance rearing habitat structure adversely affected by road-borne sediment will enhance Mid-3 migration Improve spawning Abundance forest practices. salmon migration, spawning Juvenile ground quality and success and juvenile rearing. incubation access Juvenile rearing Resident rearing Non- Employing live capture techniques Adult Increase adult survival Abundance The ability to keep fish N/A Habitat to harvest hatchery salmon Reduce interbreeding Productivity alive and distinguish -1 (marked)and release natural Diversity between hatchery and salmon will reduce mortality of natural salmon will allow naturally-produced salmon while more natural fish to be providing the opportunity to harvest released a greater percentage of hatchery By limiting catch of fish and thereby reducing straying natural salmon, higher of hatchery fish to the spawning percentage of hatchery grounds. population can be harvested [Note: Ranking of this hypothesis is Interbreeding has led to based on the presumption of a decreased productivity, segregated stock] abundance, and diversity of natural Chinook Non- Modifying hatchery practices(e.g., Adults Reduced hatchery and Abundance Reducing difference N/A Habitat more natural rearing conditions, Fry wild fish interactions Productivity between hatchery and -2 smaller releases, release timing Smolts Increase spawning by natural salmon while also and location,genetic management, natural origin adults reducing spatial and etc.)and improving the temporal overlap will attractiveness of hatcheries to reduce negative returning hatchery adults will lead interactions on wild fish to reduced interactions between survival hatchery-and naturally-spawned Chinook salmon, and enhance production of naturally spawned Chinook. Tier 2 31 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty A11-1 Protecting and improving water All-2 All lifestages Improve egg survival Abundance Degraded water quality Rehabilitate/ quality(e.g.,temperature, Low-3 (both salmon and forage Productivity reduces the production of Low-Moderate dissolved oxygen,turbidity, and fish) prey items consumed by chemical contamination conditions) Increase food availability juvenile salmon. by addressing point and nonpoint Expand physiological Enhanced prey (specifically stormwater runoff and refugia availability will enhance agricultural drainage)pollution Enhance resistance to growth and survival. sources will enhance habitat quality disease Degraded water quality and lead to greater juvenile salmon Enhance migration influences juvenile growth, disease resistance, and corridor salmon fitness and survival. Improved water quality Enhance rearing habitat disease resistance. will also enhance survival of adult Improve adult homing Degraded water quality salmon, incubating salmon eggs, and upriver migration influences adult homing and salmon prey resources, such survival and upriver migration as forage fish. Pollution abatement survival. Soil stability Improved water quality Erosion control will contribute to adults having more energy for gamete development, upriver migration, and spawning that will lead to higher egg incubation survival. All-3 Protecting and improving access to Low-4 All lifestages Increase food availability Abundance Salmon utilization of Restore/ tributaries will increase the quantity Expand areas providing Diversity tributaries will increase Moderate of available habitat, particularly for refuge from predators Spatial with improved access juvenile Chinook and coho salmon, Provide high energy/flow Structure and habitat condition and lead to expanded salmon refuge Increased utilization will spatial distribution, greaterjuvenile Enhance migration lead to longer residence salmon growth, and higher survival. corridor times and higher survival Expand rearing habitat Expand spawning ground availability 32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Habitat Related VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Lifestages Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty All-5 Preserving and protecting against All-1 All Lifestages Maintain food availability Abundance Degraded watershed Restore/ watershed and upland impacts by All-2 Maintain physiological Productivity conditions and functions Moderate implementing Low Impact Low-3 refuge reduce the quantity and Preserve/High Development techniques, including Mid-2 Maintain migration quality of instream minimizing impervious surfaces, Mid-5 corridor habitat will maintain habitat quality by Maintain rearing habitat Reduced quantity and helping maintain flow and reduce Maintain adult homing quality of instream sedimentation, thereby leading to and upriver migration habitat reduces greater salmon survival. survival productivity and diversity of salmon Near-5 Protecting and enhancing pocket All-3 Adult Increase food availability Abundance Increasing spatial Preserve/High estuaries(i.e., small non-natal foraging Maintain or expand Productivity diversity of available Restore/ smaller estuaries, lagoons, and (cutthroat, physiological transition Diversity habitats will support Moderate spits)and salmon-bearing and non- and possibly zone Spatial greater life history salmon bearing tributary mouths by others) Structure diversity maintaining/restoring tributary Prey Enhancing pocket mouths will increase quantity of key production estuaries will lead to habitat and lead to greater juvenile Juvenile increased growth and salmon growth and survival. transition survival Migration Juvenile foraging/ rearing Duw-4 Protecting, creating, and restoring All-3 Freshwater Increase food availability Abundance Lack of refuge habitat in Restore/ habitat that provides refugia All-6 and estuary Improve predator refuge Productivity upper estuary causes Moderate (particularly side channels, off Low-1 rearing Expand physiological Diversity salmon to migrate channels, and tributary access), Adult holding refugia Spatial downstream prematurely habitat complexity(particularly Provide high flow refuge Structure pools)for juvenile salmon over a Enhance migration range of flow conditions and at a corridor variety of locations(e.g., mainstem Improve spawning channel edge, river bends, and ground quality tributary mouths)will enhance habitat quality and quantity and lead to greater juvenile salmon residence time, greater growth, and higher survival. 33 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Duw-6 Protecting and improving water All-1 Freshwater Increase food availability Abundance Degraded water quality Rehabilitate/ quality(e.g., temperature, and estuary Enhance resistance to Productivity reduces the production of Low-Moderate dissolved oxygen, metals and rearing disease prey items consumed by organics)by addressing point and Adult holding Enhance migration juvenile salmon. nonpoint(specifically stormwater corridor Enhanced prey runoff) pollution sources will Enhance rearing habitat availability will enhance enhance habitat quality and lead to Improve adult homing growth and survival. greater juvenile salmon growth, and upriver migration Degraded water quality disease resistance, and survival. survival influences juvenile Improved water quality will also Pollution abatement salmon fitness and enhance survival of adult salmon, disease resistance. and salmon prey resources. Degraded water quality influences adult homing and upriver migration survival. Improved water quality will contribute to adults having more energy for gamete development, upriver migration, and spawning that will lead to higher egg incubation survival. Low-2 Restoring and enhancing sediment Mid-3 Freshwater Expand rearing habitat Abundance Reduced sediment Restore/ recruitment(particularly spawning rearing availability Productivity recruitment limits the Moderate gravels)by reconnecting sediment Adult holding Expand spawning ground Diversity availability of suitable Substitute/ sources to the river will reduce Adult availability Spatial spawning habitat Low channel downcutting, increase spawning Improve spawning Structure Improved spawning shallow habitats, improve access to ground quality habitat in the Lower tributaries, and improve spawning Green River will increase habitat, thereby leading to greater spawning juvenile salmon residence time, Natural sediment greater growth, and higher survival. recruitment will improve access to tributaries 34 Habitat Related List le WSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Trted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy a ge Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Mid-2 Protecting against watershed and All-1 All Lifestages Maintain food availability Abundance Degraded watershed Preserve/High upland impacts by implementing All-2 Maintain physiological Productivity conditions and functions Low Impact Development All-5 refuge Diversity reduce the quantity and techniques (see All-5)will be Mid-4 Maintain migration Spatial quality of instream particularly beneficial in the sub- Mid-5 corridor Structure habitat watersheds of tributaries that Maintain rearing habitat Reduced quantity and provide spawning (e.g., Improve adult homing quality of instream Newaukum and Soos Creeks) and upriver migration habitat reduces and/or rearing habitat(e.g.,Jenkins survival productivity and diversity and Covington Creeks)will of salmon increase habitat quality and quantity and promote utilization of non-mainstem habitats and prevent creating additional stressors that limit survival. Mid-5 Maintaining regional groundwater All-1 All life Increase food availability Abundance Groundwater provides an Preserve/High recharge and base flows to the All-5 stages Maintain holding area Productivity important source of cold mainstem Green River through All-7 quality water which contributes forest retention and Low Impact Low-3 to keep river Development will maintain Mid-2 temperatures lower spawning and rearing habitat. Mid-4 Degraded watershed conditions and functions reduce the quantity and quality of instream habitat Reduced quantity and quality of instream habitat reduces productivity and diversity of salmon 35 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Up-2 Protecting and restoring/enhancing All-2 Egg Improve egg survival Abundance Improved habitat in Preserve/High habitat(e.g., side channels, pools) Up-1 incubation Increase food availability Productivity upper watershed will Restore/ along the upper Green River Juvenile Enhance rearing habitat Diversity enhance fish survival and Moderate mainstem and major tributaries rearing Improve spawning Spatial lead to extended (e.g., North Fork, Smay Creek) by Adult holding ground quality Structure residence times and restoring the riparian corridor will Adult increased survival enhance habitat quality and lead to spawning Runs are re-established greater residence time and survival in upper watershed (after the establishment of populations above HHD]). Up-3 Establish bull trout population All life Expand rearing habitat Diversity Upper watershed Restore/ above HHD by providing passage stages Expand spawning habitat Spatial provides habitat to Moderate upstream (trap and haul) beyond Structure support bull trout HHD and the reservoir for returning adults and downstream passage for the progeny increase habitat quantity and expand spatial structure. Note: Final decisions on which fish to pass upstream are dependent upon NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and the co-managers(WDFW and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) Tier 3 Near-1 Protecting and improving sediment All-1 Juvenile Increase food availability Abundance Sediment quality reduces Preserve/High quality, particularly in Elliott Bay will Duw-2 foraging/ Enhance resistance to Productivity the production of prey Restore/ enhance habitat quality and lead to rearing disease items consumed by Moderate greaterjuvenile salmon growth and Juvenile Increased growth juvenile salmon. Rehabilitate/Lo higher survival. migration Enhanced prey w-Moderate availability will enhance survival. 36 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Targeted Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Near-4 Protecting and expanding forage All-6 Juvenile Increase food availability Abundance Expanded forage fish Preserve/High fish spawning areas by Near-2 foraging/ Enhance rearing habitat Productivity spawning areas will lead Restore/ maintaining/increasing high Near-3 rearing to greater prey Moderate intertidal zone access and Adult availability for juvenile maintaining/increasing availability foraging and adult salmon. of suitable substrate sizes will lead Enhanced availability of to greater juvenile salmon growth forage fish prey will and higher survival. enhance salmon survival Duw-2 Protecting and improving sediment All-1 Early Increase food availability Abundance Sediment quality reduces Rehabilitate quality will enhance habitat quality Near-1 estuarine Enhance resistance to Productivity that production of prey /Low-Moderate and lead to greater juvenile salmon rearing of disease items consumed by growth, disease resistance, and subyearling juvenile salmon. higher survival. and yearling Enhanced prey outmigrants availability will enhance Adult survival. migration Adult holding Low-3 Preserving and maintaining All-1 Freshwater Maintain rearing habitat Abundance Water quality Preserve/High groundwater inflow from historical rearing Enhance migration Productivity downstream of the White White River channel will contribute Adult holding corridor River is limiting to maintaining river flows and good productivity water quality,thereby leading to White River groundwater greater juvenile and adult salmon continues to provide a survival. significant inflow during low flow periods Low-4 Modifying the Black River Pump All-3 Freshwater Expand rearing habitat Abundance Water quality and Restore/ Station to allow fish passage will rearing Productivity quantity is adequate to Moderate increase habitat quantity and lead Diversity support juveniles to greater juvenile salmon Spatial residence time and growth. Structure Mid-6 Restoring Chinook salmon access Up-1 All life Expand rearing habitat Abundance Salmon will spawn in Restore/ between the Tacoma Diversion stages Expand spawning habitat Diversity reach if allowed access Moderate Dam (TDD)and Howard Hanson Spatial Dam (HHD)by providing passage Structure upstream and downstream at the TDD for natural origin Chinook will increase habitat quantity and expand spatial structure. 37 Habitat Related Lifestages VSP Management ID Draft Conservation Hypothesis Conservation Targeted Targeted Functions Parameters Key Assumptions Strategy Hypotheses Addressed Type/Relative Certainty Non- Reducing harvest of nonsalmonid Adult Foraging Abundance Forage fish are a primary N/A Habitat commercially and recreationally foraging Productivity component of Chinook -3 important species(e.g., Dungeness Juvenile diets as they get larger crab, and forage fish)will lead to foraging than 150mm. Reducing greater prey availability for juvenile direct harvest of a prey and adult salmonids item will increase its availability to Chinook and increase growth and survival Note:1)Strategy type and degree of certainty as defined in the"Integrated Recovery Planning for Listed Salmon:Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound"by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and Shared Strategy Staff Group(Draft February 3,2003). Relative certainty was presented based on an increasing uncertainty of success in achieving VSP parameters in order of the strategy types from protect(least uncertainty),restore,rehabilitate,to substitute(most uncertainty). Yellow highlight denotes references cited by Technical Committee without a full citation provided. 38 • w • F. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CONSERVATION HYPOTHESES • • UPPER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED - Habitat Condition and/or Process Addressed in Habitat Management Strate ies • Channel Water quantity geomorphology Sediment Off-channel• Access to Upper Refugia Riparian areas Tributary habitats Water Quality and timing of Reservoir Conservation (pools,LWD,riffles) recruitment habitats Watershed runoff w Hypothesis (All Segments and (All Segments and (All Segments and (Segments 9,11 and (All Segments and (All Segments and • Tributaries) Tributaries Tributaries 12 and Tributaries) Tributaries (All Segments) (All Segments) Tributaries (All Segments) (Segment 8) • Up-1 (adult and juvenile fish ✓ • passage around HHD) Up-2 (refuge habitat and ✓ • habitat complexity) • Up-3(establish bull trout population above HHD) • Up-4(sediment processes) ✓ • All-I (water quality) • • All-2 (riparian zone) ✓ • All-3 (tributary access) • • All-4(natural flows[high and low]) • All-5(Low Impact • Development etc) All-6(no armoring,fill,etc) ✓ • • STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES Protect areas where Protect areas where Protect areas that Protect functioning Protect late seral Substitute Protect areas that Protect areas with Protect cool clean Rehabilitate fringe • the river is exhibiting sediment have functioning mainstem and off- riparian timber upstream and provide currently functioning riparian water habitat of the • natural rates of recruitment and off-channel habitat channel stands downstream passage functioning conditions seasonally channel migration transport processes and exhibit natural environments. (e.g.,trap and haul) spawning and Restore riparian inundated area • and contains habitat are currently riverine processes to Restore riparian rearing habitat Restore riparian and upland forests surrounding • complexity functioning maintain habitat. Restore ecological conditions by vegetation and Howard Hanson Restore lateral processes to create allowing natural Restore fish forest roads Restore hillslope reservoir; • Restore hillslope Restore areas that and maintain cycle of succession passage to processes by rehabilitate channel migration; hydrology and have some functioning tributaries(e.g. Rehabilitate forest removing reservoir flow • restore riparian stability; restore functioningoff- spawning and Rehabilitate areas culvert replacement logging roads failing/high risk conditions to better conditions by p g p gg g • allowing natural riparian conditions channel habitat; rearing habitat; of early and mid- or replacement with logging roads support rearing cycle of succession restore lateral restore riparian seral riparian timber bridge); restore • Substitute gravel channel migration conditions by stands stream channels Rehabilitate forest Substitute habitat • Restore hydrologic recruitment through to create new off- allowing natural where degradation logging roads features to create processes to create LWD channel habitat. cycle of succession has occurred from refuge from • habitat complexity supplementation. concentration of predators • Substitute habitat Substitute Substitute streamflow; restore features(e.g. LWD) hydrologic ecological and riparian conditions w processes by by allowing natural to create pools and creating off-channel hydrological cycle of succession • collect sediment habitat processes by creating key Rehabilitate • habitats and habitat riparian conditions features • (e.g. revegetation) • • • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan—August 2005 39 • • • MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED - Habitat Condition and/or Process Addressed in Habitat Manage ent Strategies Sediment recruitment and Natural channel Off-channel Habitat Tributaries habitats and Water Quantity transport(spawning geomorphology (side channels,secondary inaccessible mainstem Refugia Riparian Areas Water Quality (e.g.channel scour,low (pools,LWD,riffles) substrate,shallow channel channels) habitats summer flows) Conservation edge habitat) Hypothesis (Segment 7, Soos Creek, (Segments 4,6, 7) (All Segments) (Segments 4 and 6) Netivaukwn Creek, as well (Segment 4) (Segments 4,6,7) (All Segments) (All Segments) as smaller tributaries such as Burns Ck,Cris Ck - Mid I (refuge habitat and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ habitat complexity) Mid-2(Low Impact ✓ ✓ Development etc) Mid-3 (sediment ✓ ✓ ✓ recruitment) • Mid-4(Newaukum& Soos ✓ Creek habitat) Mid-5(groundwater ✓ ✓ recharge and base flows) Mid-6(fish access between ✓ TDD and HHD) All-I (water quality) ✓ ✓ ✓ All-2 (riparian zone) • All-3 (tributary access) ✓ All-4(natural flows [high ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - and low]) All-5(Low Impact ✓ ✓ ✓ Development etc) - All-6(no armoring,fill,etc) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES • Protect areas with Protect areas where Protect areas with functioning Protect areas with Protect areas with Protect functioning Protect water quality from Protect cool clean water functioning mainstem, sediment recruitment off-channel habitat and natural functioning spawning and functioning mainstem and riparian areas and plant further modification where from surface and tributary,and off-channel processes are currently riverine processes are rearing habitat off-channel habitat and diversity State standards are being groundwater sources habitats for spawning and functioning functioning to maintain habitat- exhibit natural riverine met or exceeded;protect to create functioning succession and plant rearing; protect areas where Restore stream processes processes to maintain Restore natural cycle of cool clean water from Restore instream flows of spawning and rearing diversity of riparian areas the river is exhibiting natural Restore lateral channel Restore areas with some habitat surface and groundwater tributaries to support rates of channel migration migration to recruit functioning off-channel habitat; sources spawning and rearing habitat; restore natural Restore riverine and contains habitat sediments restore lateral channel migration Rehabilitate hydrologic habitat - cycle of succession and processes to create and complexity to create off-channel habitat processes to create areas Restore degraded water Restore lateral channel areas mainstem and off-channel plant diversity of riparian maintain functioning - Rehabilitate hydrologic for plant colonization; quality conditions to meet Rehabilitate instream migration to create habitat processes to recruit Rehabilitate hydrologic habitat rehabilitate riparian or exceed State standards flows of mainstem to - sediment processes to create off-channel Rehabilitate downstream conditions where riverine support spawning and complexity habitat and maintain hydrologic Rehabilitate hydrological processes can not maintain rearing habitat juvenile passage; Rehabilitate hydrologic Substitute sediment connection to mainstem channel rehabilitate riparian processes to support natural cycle of succession - processes to create habitat recruitment through gravel conditions functioning habitat (e.g.revegetation) • complexity and LWD supplementation. Substitute hydrologic processes by creating off-channel habitat Substitute ecological and Substitute ecological Substitute upstream adult g g - Substitute habitat features passage at the Tacoma hydrological processes by processes with habitat (e.g. LWD)to create pools Diversion Dam and Soos creating key habitats and features(e.g. LWD). and habitat complexity Creek Hatchery(e.g. trap habitat features and haul) - GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan—August 2005 40 • LOWER GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHED - Habitat Condition and/or Process Addressed in Habitat Management Strate ies - Channel Geomorphology Sediment Transport and (pools,riffles,channel edge Conservation Recruitment habitat,LWD jams,channel Riparian Areas Wetlands Tributary Habitat and Access Water Quality and Quantity Hypothesis migration,shallow water,low (spawning substrate,shallow velocity) channel edge habitat) • Low-1 (refuge habitat and habitat complexity) Low-2 (sediment processes) ✓ Low-3 (groundwater inflow) ✓ i • Low-4(Black River pump station) All-1 (water quality) ✓ • All-2 (riparian zone) ✓ i All-3(tributary access) All-4(natural flows[high ✓ / - and low]) All-5(Low Impact ✓ Development etc) All-6(no armoring,fill,etc) Vol STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES- STRATEGIES - Protect areas that provide low Protect areas with no Protect functioning riparian areas Protect functioning wetlands that Restore tributary access by Protect cool clean water sources that velocity and/or shallow water habitat levees/revetments where some and plant diversity provide habitat,hydrologic,and removing fish passage barriers and can provide refuge(e.g.,White River during juvenile migration;protect sediment recruitment is occurring. water quality functions modifying tributary mouth hyporheic flow) - functioning off-channel habitat. Rehabilitate riparian areas by configuration Rehabilitate sediment recruitment establishing suitable native Rehabilitate remaining wetlands Restore degraded water quality Rehabilitate existing banklines to processes. vegetation along banks of mainstem adjacent to mainstem channel and Rehabilitate hydrologic processes to conditions • create low velocity and/or shallow and tributaries. lower Mill Creek to support juvenile maintain adequate instream flow to water habitat during juvenile Substitute sediment recruitment rearing provide access to tributaries; Rehabilitate riparian conditions to migration; rehabilitate spawning through gravel and LWD Substitute ecological processes with rehabilitate sediment recruitment to provide buffers; rehabilitate habitat; rehabilitate off-channel supplementation. habitat features(e.g. LWD). Substitute by creating new wetlands reduce channel downcutting instream flow in tributaries and habitat mainstem; rehabilitate water quality - Substitute sediment recruitment by by augmenting with cool clean water Substitute loss of slow water areas gravel supplementation by creating new off-channel habitats • and/or placement of LWD along banklines. S - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan-August 2005 41 DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED - Habitat Condition and/or Process Addressed in Habitat Manage ent Strategies Off-channel Habitats Conservation ,Riparian Areas (Palustrine estuarine, Shallow Water Habitats Sediment Recruitment Sediment Quality Migrational Passage Water Quality Hypothesis riverine-tidal wetlands, sloughs,blind channels) Duw-1(shallow subtidal ✓ and intertidal habitat) Duw-2(sediment quality) V/ Duw-3(estuarine transition zone) • Duw-4(refuge habitat in ✓ freshwater intertidal area) Duw-5(sediment processes) - Duw-6(water quality) • All-1 (water quality) ✓ - All-2(riparian zone) i All-3(tributary access) - All-4(natural flows[high and low]) All-5(Low Impact Development etc) All-6(no armoring,fill,etc) ✓ STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES - Protect existing shallow channel habitat,particularly in Protect existing shallow Protect"clean"sediment Protect existing quality Protect off-channel wetlands Protect existing Protect water temperatures the existing shallow water areas at the Turning Basin and water habitats. areas from contamination riparian zones. and sloughs.These habitats shorelines without to ensure safe salmon Kellogg Island,and those that exist in isolated patches. have largely been created and overwater structures and migration,particularly for - Maintain existing sinuosity upstream of RM 7. Rehabilitate sediment Rehabilitate Protect connections include Cecil B. Moses Park, minimize the occurrence adults. recruitment from both contaminated sediments. between riparian and Herrings House Park,T-105, of overwater structures. - Protect sediment and riparian processes/conditions that tidal and riverine aquatic areas(e.g.,no Highway 509 wetlands,Hamm Protect existing water - influence shallow water habitat quality processes. armoring) Creek,and Puget Creek Restore shoreline areas quality from wetlands. where pilings and pollutants/contaminants. • Restore intertidal mudflats(below RM 7),channel edge Substitute loss of natural Restore native riparian overwater structures can habitats(upstream of RM 7),and marshes(estuarine and sediment recruitment communities Protect upland and riparian be removed. Restore processes to detain freshwater)to create low velocity and/or shallow water processes. processes/conditions that and filer stormwater runoff • habitat at expected flow levels during juvenile migration. Restore riparian-aquatic influence off-channel habitats Rehabilitate overwater (e.g.,riparian and marsh connections structures to reduce habitats) Restore sediment and riparian processes/conditions that Rehabilitate wetlands and impacts on fish Rehabilitate water quality - influence shallow water habitat quality Rehabilitate riparian areas sloughs where they currently migration/behavior. through controlling and functions in the entire exist,including re-connecting contaminant introduction. Rehabilitate shorelines to provide shallow water along subwatershed. those isolated from the river Substitute loss of non- the banks of the Duwamish River,particularly in the channel or re-establishing shaded,shallow water Substitute for natural industrial/commercial areas between RM 1.5-5 and Substitute habitat features wetlands/sloughs lost during migration corridors and water treatment, upstream of North Winds Weir. (e.g. LWD)to stabilize development. rearing areas. particularly for • banks,create slow water commercial/industrial Substitute lost slow water/shallow areas,focusing areas(e.g.,pools upstream Substitute off-channel habitats - actions at the mouth of the Duwamish to RM 1,between of RM 7)and habitat through creation of wetlands activities,as well RMs 1.5-4,and upstream of RM 7. complexity. and sloughs. transportation corridors. • Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan—August 2005 42 • MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED - Habitat Condition and/or Process Addressed in Habitat Mana ement Strategies Beaches and Backshore Sediment Recruitment and Shallow Water Habitats Water Quality and ` (natural beach and :;.. Conservation Transport(habitat (natural depth/elevation Riparian Areas Tributary Streams and Quantity;freshwater Submerged Aquatic backshore form; Salt Marshes Hypothesis formation and contours of beaches and (including LWD} Pocket Estuaries -inputs including springs, Vegetation SAV accumulation of organic YP g (maintenance) flats) seeps,small streams debris and large wood; establishment of natural vegetation) Near-1 (sediment quality) Near-2(vegetated shallows ✓ - and marshes Near-3 (sediment processes) Near-4(forage fish habitat) ✓ Near-5(pocket estuaries) ✓ All-I (water quality) ✓ All-2(riparian zone) ✓ • All-3(tributary access) ✓ All-4(natural flows[high ✓ and low]) All-5(Low Impact Development t All-6(no armoring,fill,etc) ✓ STRATEGIES ` STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES STRATEGIES - Protect sediment Protect remaining shallow Protect intact riparian areas and Protect tributary stream Protect water quality Protect existing eelgrass, Protect beaches and Protect remaining salt - recruitment and transport water habitat associated functions mouths and the where State standards are kelp,and other macroalgae backshore areas and marshes processes through protection hydrologic and sediment being meet or exceeded; associated plant S of existing bluffs and Restore shallow water Restore riparian vegetation and processes responsible for protect cool,clean Restore eelgrass and kelp communities(e.g., Restore salt marshes - sediment drift cells to create habitats(e.g., remove buffers to achieve a suite of formation and surface and ground water; beds by allowing natural halophytes) shallow water habitat(e.g. structures;remove fill,or functions maintenance of small protect current water processes to occur Rehabilitate/Substitute - beach feeding bluffs) fill in dredged areas) stream mouths,estuaries, quantity from further Restore beaches, salt marshes,vegetation, backshore and associated - Rehabilitate/Substitute riparian and deltas modification Rehabilitate/Substitute hydrology,and sediments Restore sediment Rehabilitate/Substitute ecosystem processes and SAV by transplanting plant communities;riparian • recruitment and transport shallow water habitats(e.g., functions Restore hydrologic and Restore water quality to eelgrass and sediment processes • processes through re- beach nourishment) sediment process; restore meet or exceed State connecting feeder bluffs in tributaries(e.g.,reduce standards; restore water Rehabilitate/Substitute - armored areas and restoring confinement/remove quantity beaches,backshore,and sediment drift constraints). associated plant Rehabilitate shoreline communities . Rehabilitate/Substitute Rehabilitate hydrologic areas to reduce water sediment recruitment and process of tributaries to quality impacts(e.g., transport processes(e.g., mimic natural conditions reduce impervious area, - beach nourishment) contaminant runoff)and improve pollution abatement functions(e.g., riparian vegetation, treatment) - Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan-August 2005 43 • • • i G. PROJECTS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION i The purpose of this appendix is to list projects for further consideration during the second ten years of the Habitat Plan(2016-2025). Although the projects described in chapter five of the i Habitat Plan are priorities for implementation during the first ten year of the plan,projects in i appendix G could be considered for implementation during 2006-2015 if opportunities to conduct them arise and would be lost if not acted on. It is expected that adaptive management will provide information that allows a re-evaluation of potential projects listed in this Appendix. • • i Upper Green River Subwatershed i ID# Name and Location i UG3 North Fork Green River tributary improvements (El. 1147-1777) UG4 Protecting/improving riparian conditions in the North Fork Green River(El. 1177 to 1240) • UG5 Protecting/improving riparian conditions in the North Fork Green River(El. 1240 to 1320) UG6 Page Mill Pond and Creek habitat restoration(spring-fed tributary to the North Fork Green River) UG7 Piling Creek riparian and instream improvement(near mouth of North Fork Green River) i UG8 Charley Creek riparian and instream improvement(near mouth of North Fork Green River) i UG9 Cottonwood Creek riparian and instream improvement(near mouth of North Fork Green River UG9a Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load water quality restoration plan projects in areas on the 303(d) list i UG10 Gale Creek tributary improvements(El. 1147 to 1777) i UG11 Large woody debris placement(RM 68) i UG12 Upper reservoir sub-impoundment project(West of railroad crossing of Green River and south of access road#5500) i UG13 Riparian and instream improvement to Phase I and II pool raise zone (RM 69.5-71.0, at confluence with i Howard Hanson Reservoir) i UG14 Riparian and instream improvement to Phase I and II pool raise zone (RM 71-73) UG15 "Welchers"large woody debris placement(RM 73 to 73.8) i UG17 Large woody debris placement(RM 75) i UG18 "Champion Creek"large woody debris placement(RM 78) i UG19 "Hot Springs"large woody debris placement(RM 79) i UG20 "6 mile"large woody debris Placement(RM 80 to 80.7) i UG21 Standing timber retention within reservoir inundation zone (--RM67) UG22 Sedge planting within reservoir inundation zone(—RM67) UG23 Protect/revegetate RM 68 to 74 i UG24 Riparian improvements(RM 77.8 to 79.6 LB(including RM 79 +/- (Hot Springs field)) i UG25 "Air strip"riparian improvements(RM 83 to 84) • UG26 Riparian vegetation restoration(RM 84.2 to 86) i UG27 `Power corridor"riparian improvements(2.75 miles upstream of the Sunday Creek confluence) UG28 Rehabilitation of timber stands(RM87 to 88) UG31 Olsen Creek culvert replacement(—RM 74) i UG32 Gold Creek culvert replacement(near RM 75) i UG33 May Creek culvert replacement(between RM 74 and 75) - UG34 Maywood Creek culvert replacement(near RM 75) • • 44 ID# Name and Location UG36 Green Canyon Creek culvert replacement(intersection of Green Canyon Creek and road 5500 - (—RM79)) UG37 "Airfield" large woody debris placement(RM 83.8) - UG38 Northeast Creek fish culvert replacement(up from RM 84 and halfway up East Creek) UG39 Intake Creek culvert replacement(Intake Creek(up from--RM 86)) - UG41 Strategy to protect habitat quality(RM 75.5 to 77) - UG47 Relocation of 90-degree"dog leg"(+/-RM 81) . UG48 Restoration of mainstem channel alignment(RM 87) UG51 Protection of off-channel habitat(RM 84) UG52 Protection of off-channel habitat(RM 84.1 to 85) UG53 Protect cool, clean sources of water in the North Fork Green River - UG54 Protect cool, clean sources of water from RM 84.1-93.6 - UGxx Engineered log jams at RM 70-71; +/-RM79 - UGY Fish carcass"nutrient"supplementation (above Howard Hanson Dam) Middle Green River Subwatershed - ID# Name and Location - MG9 MG9 Sinani Slough Not rated because project is completed MG15 Lake Meridian Outlet - MG16 Meridian Valley Creek Relocation MG17 Middle Green River LWD - MG18 j MG18 Tacoma Diversion Dam(TDD)logjams Not rated because project is completed . MG23 TTD downstream passage - MG24 Howard Hansen Dam Trap and Haul MG25 Cosgrove Property Riparian Planting - MG26 Ewing Property Riparian Planting MG27 White Property Riparian Planting MGA3 Middle Green Blueprint—floodplain reconnection, revetment removal/setback, meander logjam, gravel - addition, invasive plant control,and riparian revegetation MGB1 Middle Green Blueprint—revetment setback,floodplain reconnection, logjam addition, Japanese knotweed removal, gravel addition, and riparian revegetation - MGB2 Setback of levees to reconnect floodplain and allow channel migration near RM 41. MGB2T Middle Green Blueprint—Crisp Creek enhancement, Crisp Creek tributary enhancement MGC1 Middle Green Blueprint—logjam addition,Japanese knotweed removal, riparian revegetation, O'Grady terrace reforestation, and channel migration zone buyout - MGC1T Middle Green Blueprint—Burns Creek restoration - MGD1 Middle Green Blueprint—Loans and Turley levees setback, Burns Creek mouth, logjam/wood addition, Japanese knotweed removal,and riparian revegetation MGD2T Middle Green Blueprint—Tributary 09.0098(conservation easement,fencing, revegetation) - MGE1 Middle Green Blueprint—Auburn Narrows side channel-Phase 2, Mueller revetment setback, - logjam/wood addition, Japanese knotweed removal, and riparian revegetation MGE1 T Middle Green Blueprint—Soos Creek confluence(lower mile) No# Brown Floodplain Restoration Project. (Newaukum Creek RM 7.3) No# Johnson Floodplain Restoration Project. (Newaukum Creek RM 7.4) No# LDS Floodplain and Wetland Restoration Project Newaukum Creek RM 6.5—7) - 45 - ID# Name and Location - No# Newaukum Creek Project 2 (Newaukum Creek RM 4 to 6) - No# Protect and restore areas being surplused by the Washington Department of Natural Resources: 1)78 acres in 3 parcels adjacent to and south of the Green River Natural Area, 2)38 acres southwest of • Bass Lake Lower Green River Subwatershed ID# Name and Location - LG1 Foster Golf Course to Fort Dent Bridge conifer underplanting (RM 10.80-11; RM 11.3-11.8) - LG2 Maule Avenue acquisition and off-channel habitat rehabilitation - LG4 Office Park conifer underplanting (RM 11.7-12.4) LG5 Family Fun Center: Revegetation LG6 SR-405 Interurban Avenue Interchange riparian reforestation (RM 12.4-12.6) LG7 Road ROW abandonment and revetment setback - LG9 68th Avenue South flap gate retrofit LG10 Best Western revetment setback; LWD LG11 Lower West Valley Highway Meander Bend revetment setback and excavation off-channel habitat - LG12 Upper Christensen Road-Strander Bridge revegetation and conifer underplanting (RM 12.6- 13.25) LG13 Levee floodwall setback(RM 13 to 13.2 and 13.95 to 14.3) LG14 RR Bridge bench area reforestation (RM13.5) - LG15 Marriott Residence Inn conifer underplanting (RM 13.20-13.5) LG16 Upper West Valley Highway meander bend acquisition: Revetment setback and off-channel habitat rehabilitation - LG17 NC Machinery ROW Acquisition and riparian habitat rehabilitation - LG18 Minkler Avenue forebay underplanting (RM 13.9) - LG19 Upper West Valley Highway meander bend revegetation (RM 13.8-13.9) LG20 Pump Plan bench reforestation (RM13.9-14.15) - LG21 Christianson ROW acquisition, levee setback, and habitat rehabilitation LG22 Segale parking lot ROW acquisition, levee setback, and habitat rehabilitation - LG24 Upstream end of Desimone Levee ROW Acquisition, levee setback and habitat rehabilitation - LG25 Upstream end of Segale Levee setback and habitat rehabilitation - LG28 Angle Lake Outlet fish passage restoration LG29 Downstream end of Christian Brothers revetment setback and habitat restoration LG32 S.228th Street off-channel swamp acquisition and habitat rehabilitation (RM 17.10-21.30) - LG33 Orillia Acquisition, fish passage blockage removal, and off-channel habitat rehabilitation • LG34 South 228th Street off-channel swamp acquisition and habitat rehabilitation - LG36 Kent Golf Course: Narita/Myers levee setback - LG37 Keng Golf Course: Frager Road revetment setback LG39 Upper Frager Road Acquisition: Revetment setback and habitat restoration LG40 Hawley Road floodplain wetland and off-channel habitat rehabilitation - LG42 Kent Airport:Acquisition, levee setback, and habitat rehabilitation • LG43 Milwaukee acquisition: Levee setback and off-channel habitat rehabilitation - LG44 259th Street acquisition: Levee setback and habitat rehabilitation LG46 Breda Levee setback and habitat rehabilitation - 46 ID# Name and Location LG47 Central Avenue acquisition: Floodplain habitat rehabilitation and off-channel refuge . LG53 Green Valley Road revetment setback - LG54 Cooter Pond fish passage restoration and off-channel habitat rehabilitation . LG55 Reddington Levee: Fish passage restoration and off-channel habitat rehabilitation LG56 Dykstra Park Levee setback and habitat rehabilitation LG57 Valentine Revetment setback and habitat rehabilitation LG58 Dykstra/Riverside/Galli Levee: Setback and habitat rehabilitation - LG59 S. 104th Street revetment setback and habitat rehabilitation (RM 30.10-30.50) - LG60 'Pig Farm"floodplain wetland rehabilitation - LG61 Mueller Levee removal, Phase 2(RM 32.2-32.6) LGD Upper Springbrook Creek(S. 55th Street to SR 167) LGE Mill Creek East LGF Garrison Creek(4 sites) LGH Merlino Reach - LGI Wetland 5K Reach(Mill Creek,north of Goedeke reach) • LGJ Goedeke North Reach(Mill Creek at Highway 8 to Main Street in Auburn) LGL Meridian Valley Creek LGM Lake Meridian Outlet LGP West Hill Springs channel improvement(completed) - LGQ Green River Natural Resource Area enhancement project(RM18.25-19.3) - LGR Port of Seattle wetland mitigation - Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed ID# Name and Location - DUW1 Protect areas with relatively healthy vegetation - DUW2 Trail setback and revegetation(RM 10.7 to 11.1) DUW3 Revegetation of understory at Foster Golf Course(RM10.8 to 11.5) DUW4 Side channel construction(RM 10.6 to 10.7) DUW5 Revetment setback at Foster Golf Course(RM 9.85 to 10.1 and 10.45 to 10.6) - DUW7 Riparian revegetation(RM 9.0 to 9.1) - DUW9 Revetment setback; LWD; revegetate(RM 8.7 to 8.9) - DUW10 Noxious weed control (RM 8.3) DUW11 Codiga Farm Restoration Project and bank retrofit DUW13 125th Street revetment setback DUW14 Revegetation at Link light rail crossing(RM 8) - DUW15 Revegetation (RM 7.3 to 8.0) - DUW19 Gateway North revegetation; LWD(RM 6.55 to 6.85) - DUW20 Revetment setback; LWD; revegetate(RM 6.55 to 6.85) DUW21 Cecil Moses Park sill retrofit DUW22 Rubber Tire Bank rehabilitation DUW28 Hamm Creek daylighting . DUW31 Derelict vessel removal - DUW33 Duwamish Waterway Park - 47 - ID# Name and Location - DUW34 Georgetown Pump Station - DUW35 Soften armoring RM 2.0 to 5.5 • DUW36 1st Ave. South bank layback DUW38 Puget Creek Protection DUW39 Puget Creek mouth daylighting DUW40 Revegetation at Terminal - DUW41 Spokane St. Bridge shallow water habitat • DUW42 Longfellow Creek mouth daylighting - DUW43 T-108/LaFarge bank restoration DUW45 Riverton Creek Upper Basin Restoration DUW46 Southgate Creek Restoration Phase II DUW47 Southgate Creek Restoration Phase III daylighting • DUW48 Southgate Creek Restoration Phase IV - Duw49 City Light South: excavate shallow water habitat Marine Nearshore Subwatershed - ID# I Name and Location - Marine Nearshore Project Starter List for Program N-1 (Section 7.4) 47 Remove 12 creosote piles immediately west of the Vashon Ferry Terminal 48 Remove 16 creosote piles west of Vashon Ferry Terminal - 58 Remove 8 creosote piles between Scales Corner and Glenn Acres. 59 Remove 9 creosote piles just north of Glenn Acres . 63 Remove 6 creosote piles at Glenn Acres 68 Remove 12 creosote piles from lower subtidal just north of Vashon Landing 69 1 Remove concrete piles just south of Vashon Landing - 72 Remove 5 creosote piles just downstream of the outlet to Point He er Marsh. 73 Remove 16 creosote piles between Point He er and Ellisport Creek. - 79 Remove 5 creosote piles in Tramp Harbor along Dockton Rd SW. - 80 Remove 6 creosote iles'/z mile East of Portage along Maury Island 90 Remove—10 creosote piles between Gold Beach and Glacier Gravel Mine. - 97 Remove 2 creosote piles at Dockton Head. 102 Remove 12 creosote piles from lower intertidal—subtidal 1000 ft west of the county dock at Dockton. 104 Remove 2 creosote piles just north of Dockton Park. - 107 Remove 2 creosote piles 1500 feet southwest of the mouth of Mileta Creek. 109 Remove 2 creosote piles just south of Portage within Quartermaster Harbor. . 113 Remove 10 creosote piles near SW Quartermaster DR just west of unnamed creek/marsh 121 Remove 9 creosote piles, approximately 800 feet north of Quartermaster Yacht Club. 122 Remove 6 creosote piles on the north side of the neck of the Burton Peninsula. - 123 Remove 3 creosote piles on the northern side of Burton Peninsula, just waterward of 99 Ave. SW 124 Remove 3 creosote piles on the northern side of Burton Peninsula, near 95th PL SW. - 125 Remove 16 creosote piles from intertidal,just east of the Burton Public Boat ramp. 127 Remove 2 creosote piles near the mouth of Fisher Creek. 129 Remove 10 creosote piles and rubble from intertidal between Fisher and Shawnee Creeks - 130 Remove 12 creosote piles approximately 1,500 feet south of Lost Lake Park. 132 Remove 4 creosote piles, approximately 1,000 feet West of Neill Point. - 133 1 Remove 15 creosote piles, approximately 2,000 feet East of the Tahlequah Ferry Landing. 134 Remove 2 creosote piles just east of the Tahlequah Ferry Landing. 136 Remove 15 creosote piles adjacent to dock at Spring Beach - 137 Remove 12 creosote piles waterward of dock at Spring Beach 139 Remove 18 creosote piles just north of Camp Sealth - 148 Remove 2 creosote piles at Lisabeula Park 156 Remove 16 creosote piles in subtidal area near Cove. 157 Remove 16 creosote piles in intertidal area near Cove. - 48 JD# Name and Location 160 Remove 3 creosote piles--800 feet north of Cove. - 161 Remove 12 creosote piles just south of point"light"on USGS maps. 163 Remove 15 creosote piles and dock just north of point"light"on USGS maps. 169 Remove 3 creosote piles between point"light"and Peter Point. - 28 Remove 30 creosote piles along shore at the Perkins lane slide. 31 Remove 20 creosote piles near sewer outfall south of Perkins Lane slide - 32 Remove 20 creosote piles near Seacrest Marina. 82 Remove 30 creosote piles East of Fern Heath 87 Remove 32 creosote piles at the Southwest end of Gold Beach. - 88 Remove 20 creosote piles west end of Gold Beach 93/94 Remove relict piles east of Rosehilla. - 92 Remove 26 creosote piles and pier remnants at Sandy Shores 105 Remove 20 creosote piles at the mouth of South Dockton Creek 106 Remove 25 creosote piles just north of the mouth of North Dockton Creek. - 110 Remove relict wharf piles at Portage inside Quartermaster Harbor. 119 Remove 25 creosote piles in Judd Creek estuary just downstream of old barge. - 138 Remove 35 creosote piles at the North side of Camp Sealth 153 Remove 12 creosote piles and derelict pier between Robinwood Creek and Garden Creeks 174 Remove 5 creosote pilings and relict dock just south of Sylvan Beach - 67 Remove approximately 100 creosote piles from lower intertidal between Beal Creek and Gorsuch Creek - 74 Remove 5 dolphins, 80 creosote piles, concrete rubble at the mouth of Ellis port Creek. 85 Remove creosote piles and failed pier just East of Gold Beach 86 Remove 50 creosote piles at Gold Beach - 98 Remove 50+creosote piles in intertidal between Dockton Head and Dockton Boat ramp. 103 Remove 70 creosote piles just west of Dockton boat ramp - 135 Remove derelict pier and 50 creosote piles west of Tahlequah ferry terminal 176 Remove 70 creosote piles at Sylvan Beach 29 Remove 35 creosote piles and boulders from intertidal,just East of the Perkins Lane slide. - 55 Remove 8 creosote piles and two relict structures about 500 feet north of Aquarium site. 51 Remove 20 piles and riprap extending into intertidal at Cowley - 118 Remove 4 concrete structures and 10 creosote piles in intertidal at Judd Creek Estuary. 172 Remove 3 creosote piles and intertidal rockery from about 1000ft south of Sylvan Beach 35 Remove creosote piles and consider removing groins 2000 feet northwest of the mouth of Miller Creek - 37 Remove 15 creosote piles and consider removing groins about 3000 feet south of the mouth of Miller Creek Estuary - 46 1 Remove 30 creosote piles and failed creosote bulkhead about 750 feet West of Vashon Ferry Landing 49 Remove creosote piles and failed bulkhead 1000 feet West of Dolphin Point 56 Remove 2 creosote piles and failed bulkhead just North of the Aquarium Site. - 64 Remove 10 creosote piles and failed bulkhead 2000 feet North of Point Beals 65 Remove 20 creosote piles and failed bulkhead 2000 feet South of Point Beals. 99 Remove creosote pilings,failed bulkhead, derelict house in intertidal just East of Dockton Head. 151- Remove 8 creosote piles and bulkhead 2000 feet south of Robinwood Creek. 152 1 - 154 Remove 12 piles and bulkhead remnants at point"tide"as labeled on USGS maps. 155 Remove 8 creosote piles and bulkhead remnants 1200 feet North of point"tide"as labeled on USGS maps. - 179 Remove failed bulkhead and 4 creosote pilings 2300 feet south of Point Vashon. 53 Remove 11 creosote piles and failed bulkhead—land sliding occurring behind bulkhead at Cowley - 54 Remove 16 creosote piles and bulkhead in intertidal, 1000 feet north of Aquarium site. 84 Remove creosote piles (dolphins)from subtidal, revegetate riparian and bank crest area at Maury - Island Marine Park. - 91 Remove creosote piles, dolphins and pier; re-vegetate marine riparian at Glacier Gravel Mine(Pier replacement in process of permitting. Undertake this project if replacement does not take place) - 25 Purchase property; remove abandoned cabin, bulkhead and associated debris,just North of Perkins Lane Slide. 26 Remove failed bulkhead, pieces of the houses, bathtub and riprap at Perkins Lane Slide - 30 Remove relict bulkhead and debris forming groin from intertidal East of Perkins Lane Slide 34 Remove creosote bulkhead at Brace Point - 39 Remove failed bulkhead just North of Des Moines Creek remove rock and debris from beach 41 Remove failed bulkhead near the Masonic Home of Washington 49 - ID# Name and Location - 42 Remove failed bulkhead,2000 feet South of the mouth of McSorely Creek. 43 Remove failed bulkhead,2200 feet South of the mouth of McSorely Creek. 44 Remove bulkhead,2400 feet South of the mouth of McSorely Creek. - 45 Remove bulkhead, 5000 feet West of the mouth of Lakota Creek. 50 Bulkhead removal at NE Vashon Park - 57 Creosote bulkhead removal at Aquarium site 61 Remove creosote and concrete bulkhead from intertidal 800 feet North of Glen Acres Creek mouth 62 Remove failed concrete bulkhead and groins 500 feet North of Glen Acres Creek mouth • 112 Remove several small rock groins and protruding bulkhead with fill about 2000 feet East of the mouth of Tsu walla Creek. - 117 Remove concrete debris and failing bulkhead about 700 feet West of the mouth of Tsu walla Creek 141 Remove bulkhead materials creosote wood from backshore, 600 feet North of Shipwreck point. 142- Remove concrete and timber bulkhead,800 feet North of Shipwreck point. • 143 144- Remove telephone poles, creosote, bulkhead;about 1000 feet North of Shipwreck Point. • 145 146- Remove failed bulkhead and creosote piles,2000 feet southwest of the mouth of Christensen Creek • 147 149- Remove riprap/bulkhead,400 feet South of"Stump"point. 150 - 162 Remove concrete rubble wall,600 feet South of"light"point. 178 Remove remnants of failed bulkhead, 1500 feet North of Sylvan Beach - 183 Purchase 2 vacant parcels and remove bulkhead, North of Des Moines Beach. Remove 500 feet of gabion wall in tramp harbor in the upper intertidal zone adjacent to the mouth of - 184 Ellis port Creek. 111 Enhance mini-estuary, remove 14 creosote piles and associated fencing and other debris, eradicate invasive species at small unnamed creek mouth 2000 feet East from the mouth of Tsu walla Creek • 126 Remove creosote logs from marsh at SE point of Burton Peninsula. Remove lumber and associated anthropogenic debris derived from slide including riprap at the - 27 Southern end of the Perkins Lane slide. - 52 Remove extensive riprap over intertidal,about 1000 feet South of NE Vashon Park. 75 Remove creosote bulkhead,fill and rockery over intertidal,just North of Public Fishing Dock in Tramp • Harbor. 77 Remove fill and creosote bulkhead, just South of Public Fishing dock in Tramp Harbor. 81 Remove downed shed on backshore, about 2500 feet West of Fern Heath. - 89 Remove large concrete block/footing, 1500 feet Northeast of the Glacier dock. 96 Remove creosote LWD across intertidal just South of Dockton head. - 100 Remove creosote dock/barge East of Dockton Head. 114 Remove concrete rubble, 1200 feet East of the mouth of Tsu walla Creek. 115 Remove creosote log secured to beach just West of the mouth of Tsu walla Creek. - 120 Remove derelict barge/cannery barge/cannery at the mouth of Judd Creek. 128 Remove creosote wood collection serving as"home-made"bulkhead, 700 feet South of the mouth of i Fisher Creek 131 Remove ecology blocks from intertidal, just Southwest of Neill Point. 140 Remove house remnants in backshore,just North of Shipwreck Point - 164- Remove boulders from older rock wall off of the intertidal,just East of Point"light"on USGS maps. 165 - 167 Remove dock stored on intertidal, just Northwest of the mouth of Skeeter Creek 171 Remove steel structure from intertidal zone just West of Fern Cove. 173 Remove creosote pier and derelict structures, 750 feet South of Sandy Beach. 185 Retrofit Stormwater Pipe-put underground and remove intertidal fill—(.2 acres of fill)just west of the marina. 71 Eradicate invasive species(Rubus discolor, Cytisus scoparius, and phragmites)from marsh at Point He er 170 Eradicate invasive species(Cytisus sco arius from marsh at Peter Point - 60 Remove creosote wood groin, 1700 feet North of Glen Acres. 70 Remove concrete groins,at Klahanie. • 83 Remove rock groins,2000 feet West of Luana Beach 95 Remove wood groin at"Low" 175 Remove groin field, just South of Sandy Shores derelict pier. - 177 Remove remnants of 6 wooden groins, just north of Sandy Shores derelict pier. - 50 ID# F Name and Location NS17 Salmon Creek Dam removal and culvert replacement. - NS20 Jetty Removal in Normandy Park NS30 Remove failing bulkhead at Collier property on Maury Island NS32 Remove invasive vegetation and plant native species in the marine riparian zone at Maury Island - Marine Park. 15A Remove 14 piles at near the end of 51 st Ave SW in Federal Way. - 8a Remove 20 creosote piles from intertidal just West of Dumas Bay Park. 17A Remove approximately 50 creosote piles and failed creosote soldier pile bulkhead 300 feet West of Dash Point State Park 10A Remove decaying barge and 2 creosote dolphins from the intertidal zone near the Palisades Retreat Center - 1A Remove fill, bulkhead and pavement over intertidal zone about 2,200 feet Northeast of the mouth of Lakota Creek. 11A Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead from intertidal zone in front of the Palisades Retreat Center. 2A Remove concrete footings of relict boat ramp about 1,800 feet Northeast of the mouth of Lakota Creek. 4A Remove concrete rubble in the intertidal zone and upper beach, 300 feet North of the mouth of Lakota - Creek 6A Remove creosote logs and 12 piles on beach east of stream mouth/wetland complex at Dumas Bay - Park. 9A Remove heavily creosoted dolphin that is on shore, just West of Dumas Bay Park. 12A/ Remove buried tires in intertidal zone(appears to be some form of shoreline armoring)West of the - 13A/ Palisades Retreat Center. 14A - Others • NS1 Protect feeder bluffs along 0.75 mile shoreline of south Discovery Park and adjacent area to south by purchasing them. NS11 Fairmont Creek restoration - NS14 Schmitz Creek restoration NS16 Relocate WSF Fauntleroy Dock offshore and install a shoreline beach. This would open up migration corridor, increase the amount of shallow water area, and allow sediment and wood longshore transport. - NS19 Protect waterward side of Three Tree Point Road. Area is currently in City of Burien right-of-way; - however, potential legal action may be forthcoming to make it private property NS23 Dumas Bay restoration via removal of 700 ft of shoreline armoring in Dumas Bay, reconnection of sediment supply to aquatic areas, and planting of riparian vegetation - NS35 Create rearing habitat with LWD in lower mainstem of Shinglemill Creek - NS39 Restore 6.27 acres of property in key nearshore zone at Eagle Landing and provide interpretive signs for education. • NS41 Beall Creek Fish Passage Improvement; Rehabilitate or replace diversion structure to allow fish - passage as well as water withdrawal NS42 Brown Acquisition. Acquire 9.11 acre parcel adjoining Seahurst Park; parcel contains artesian headwaters of salmon bearing stream. - NS45 Walker Creek Water Right and Land Acquisition NS46 Piner Point acquisition. Acquire 5 properties totaling 6 acres encompassing Piner Point on Maury Island - NS47 Walker Creek Wetland Acquisition. Acquire key property that include headwaters of Walker Creek, a . 51 - ID# Name and Location • salmon bearing steam . NS48 Salmon Creek By-pass Line/outfall modification. Restore storm water and peak flow water quality and quantity • NS49 Treat Lake Hicks with alum for invasive aquatic weeds-must be repeated every 3 years - NS50 Acquire key parcels on Mallard Lake - NS51 Mallard Lake Wetland Water Quality Treatment - NS52 Provide native plantings and fecal coliform level signage on Mallard Lake NS53 Improve water quality in Salmon Creek by utilizing existing undersized detention facility at$108th and - 10th - NS54 Daylight water channel from White Center Regional Pond to Mallard Lake • NS57 Construct regional detention facilities and provide regulations for control of Miller Creek NS58 Use combination of regulations, retrofits and capital projects for highways, roads and high-density - developments to improve water quality on Miller Creek. - NS59 Complete combination of estuary restoration, culvert replacement, sewer manhole relocation, concrete weir removal and property or easement acquisition on Miller Creek - NS61 Restore Dockton Park by replacing deteriorating cross tiles and catch basins, and repair or remove - bulkhead. - NS62 Acquire approximately 40 acres on Judd Creek to protect and conserve best spawning reach NS63 Portage salt marsh habitat restoration project NS65 Lower Shinglemill Creek habitat restoration. NS66 Restore degraded in-stream, riparian and wetland habitat with cooperative property owners in the West • fork of Judd Creek. - NSP9 Establish minimum instream flows for salmonid streams on Vashon and Maury Islands NSP1 Programmatic purchasing of key parcels(-800 acres)in the Judd Creek watershed that contain . 0/NS3 coho/chum/cutthroat spawning habitat, riparian buffers, and headwater springs. 4 - 52 Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study Projects (Not Included in Habitat Plan) Name Upper Green River Subwatershed Northeast Creek Culvert - May Creek Culvert - Olsen Creek Maywood Creek - Gold Creek Middle Green River Subwatershed Meridian Valley Creek - Lake Meridian Outlet • Lower Green River Subwatershed - Mill Creek East Mill—Goedeke North Reach - Mill—Wetland 5K Reach Mill—Merlino Reach - Upper Springbrook Creek - Garrison Creek Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Elliott Bay Nearshore - 53 • • • • • H. FEASIBILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS • PRIORITIZATION OF WRIA 9 HABITAT ACTIONS • • • 1. Evaluation Approach • In addition to the Science Panel action evaluations, the WRIA 9 Steering Committee recognized the need to evaluate actions for their political and socioeconomic feasibility. This evaluation • would serve as a secondary screen focused on community values. It would offer a"reality • check" for those actions that may be scientifically feasible but impractical or unwise from a • political, social, or economic perspective. Feasibility and effectiveness criteria would help identify actions that were practical, realistic, fair, and likely to be implemented if the Habitat • Plan is approved. Using the feasibility and effectiveness criteria would help: • • • Prioritize the most feasible/effective actions • M Identify those actions that have problems and correct those problems • Identify actions that are fatally flawed • • At the October 14, 2004, Watershed Services Coordination (WSC) staff provided possible • frameworks and suggested 22 draft "feasibility and effectiveness" criteria to start the discussion. These criteria had earlier been developed by the Public Outreach Work Group and reviewed by • the Planning Work Group. At the October 14 meeting, the Steering Committee agreed to an • overall approach in which most actions would be evaluated qualitatively against most of the • feasibility and effectiveness criteria. Steering Committee members reviewed each of the proposed criteria and revised and adopted the majority. The Steering Committee rejected several • proposed criteria and added several new ones. The Steering Committee also authorized WSC staff at the same meeting to conduct a draft evaluation of actions using the resulting feasibility • and effectiveness criteria later in the fall. In response to the concerns of individual Steering • Committee members regarding the large number of criteria and using suggestions by individual Steering Committee members, WSC staff subsequently identified nine criteria as being the most • valuable to use. Staff identified these priority criteria by evaluating each criterion in terms of. 1) - the relative importance of each criterion and 2) the extent to which information is available to • make a good evaluation of each action in terms of each criterion. • At their November 18, 2004, meeting, the Steering Committee agreed with this revised list of nine criteria. The Steering Committee asked staff to add two additional criteria to address "cost • of action" in dollars and"negative financial impacts or other negative impacts to private property owners and other citizens." This produced a final list of 11 feasibility and effectiveness criteria. These criteria were tested against sample actions at first the November 30, 2004 public workshop • and then at the December 1 and 9, 2004 meetings of the Steering Committee. The results from • the two exercises were similar. • In January 2005 and June 2005, in accordance with the direction of the Steering Committee at its • October 14, 2004, meeting, WSC staff reviewed draft actions using the feasibility and • effectiveness criteria. The approach used by WSC staff was similar to that used by the WRIA 9 • Technical Committee to prioritize Conservation Hypotheses and by the Science Panel to • • 54 • prioritize on-the-ground actions. Actions were evaluated by subwatershed. Following a description of the action by the WSC subwatershed lead, each WSC staff person rated the action - independently. This approach was used to avoid a sway in opinion before an individual decision - could be made and to compensate in part for the smaller and less diverse perspectives of the WSC staff team as compared to the entire Steering Committee. The rating was then discussed to reconcile differences based on a simple majority, although consensus was typically reached on - most actions. Notes were also reflected on the "Master"rating sheet for each action. Unlike the - Science Panel evaluations, the feasibility and effectiveness evaluations did not result in a numerical ranking. Instead, the goal was to determine whether an action would be included in the action list for the Habitat Plan. Similar to the Science Panel criteria, the feasibility and effectiveness criteria are based on "guiding principles" considered during development of the criteria. These guiding principles include: Timing: Can the action be effective within ten years of plan implementation. There are multiple - socioeconomic factors that influence project timing. A number of these are included in the feasibility and effectiveness criteria. Uncertainty: Socioeconomic uncertainty is different than the scientific uncertainty linked to the - NRC guidelines considered by the Science Panel. Socioeconomic uncertainty is linked to timing and is determinative of"serious flaws"that may exclude an action from the action list. 2. Criteria The feasibility and effectiveness screening criteria fell into three broad categories: • Determining Serious Flaws; • Prioritizing Actions; and • Other. Generally, if an action had serious flaws it was eliminated from inclusion in the action list. This typically required at least two negative responses to the criterion within the serious flaws category. However, a professional judgment was ultimately arrived at for each action, and in some cases an action with two or more serious flaws may still have been included in the action • list because of its overall importance to the subwatershed and an assumption that the serious flaws could be reduced or overcome. The prioritizing actions category allowed for an evaluation of timing and cost considerations. The "other" category addressed coordination and support considerations. The criteria and a brief rationale for each criterion are described below. - Determining Serious Flaws 1. Is the proposed action free of unacceptable risks to human health and safety? - The purpose of this criterion is to account for hazards specifically to humans that may result if an action were implemented. For example, placement of large woody debris (LWD) might pose a hazard to boaters in certain settings. - 55 - • 2. Is the proposed action free of unacceptable risk to private/public property? The purpose of this criterion is to account for hazards to property that may result if an action were implemented. For example, removal of a levee or seawall might expose a property to - unacceptable risk if some alternative form of protection were not provided. Evaluations of these • criteria for some actions were based on the assumption that use of standard engineering practices would be sufficient to avoid or minimize such risks. 3. Is the action politically feasible? The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the potential political support for an action. For example, a regulation requiring substantial shoreline setbacks might lack political feasibility. This is a criterion, however, that could be evaluated differently if the political climate changed - for a given issue or action. This criterion was also included to ensure adequate consideration of - community support, which is an important factor in granting decisions by the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Evaluations using this criterion are often but not always correlated with evaluations using criterion 11 below. - 4. Is the action free of potential negative impacts on land use? The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate whether an unintended, undesirable land use impact would result if an action were implemented. For example, creating an off-channel habitat could - change the location of shoreline jurisdiction affecting an upland property that previously did not fall within shorelines jurisdiction, and thus restrict the use of that property. This criterion was not intended to encompass intended changes to land use that might be seen as negative by some people. For example, the deliberate preservation of high value habitat lands or the purchase of - degraded properties for habitat projects was not considered a negative impact although it would - certainly restrict future land use on the subject properties. S. Is the action free of potential negative financial impacts to private parties? - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate whether an unintended financial impact would result if an action were implemented. Under the Shorelines example cited in the previous criterion, limiting the use of an upland property could also have a negative financial impact. In practice, a negative response to this criterion was often correlated with a negative response to criterion 4 - above. Prioritizing Actions 6. Will the proposed action benefit salmon in the next 10 years? The purpose of this criterion is to determine if the action would provide a benefit to salmon within the first ten years of habitat plan implementation, the near-term horizon identified by - Shared Strategies. While this Habitat Plan is a long-term plan, it emphasizes early ambitious actions to accelerate the pace of habitat recovery and meet the expected requirements of NOAA Fisheries. 56 7. Is there urgency to the action for non-scientific reasons? - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate whether an action needs to be acted upon sooner than later so as not to lose an opportunity. "Non-scientific" in this case turned out to be a synonym for"non-salmon." For example, a property within the Urban area identified for acquisition may - also face development pressure and failure to acquire it sooner rather than later might see the - opportunity lost forever. 8. Are there other benefits to people (ecosystem goods and services)? The purpose of this criterion is to determine whether there are ancillary benefits that accompany the action such as open space, habitat for other species, and water quantity and quality improvements. 9. Cost The purpose of this criterion is to determine an approximate capital and/or annual programmatic costs of the action if feasible. In many cases cost estimates were not available or did not include - factors such as Net Present Value, opportunity cost, or value of the ecosystem service being - addressed. Other 10. Can the action be coordinated with other actions? The purpose of this criterion is consideration other"big initiatives" the action could be - coordinated with. This criterion focused on"big initiatives" such as the Green/Duwamish - Ecosystem Restoration Project, Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan, Lower Duwamish Superfund cleanup, and others. Coordination could touch on funding, timing, and project features. I.I. Is there support from affected people? - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate whether those people most immediately affected(i.e. property owner, neighbors)would likely support the action. In practice, a"low" evaluation corresponded to expected opposition to the action, a "medium" evaluation corresponded to - mixed support and opposition, and a"high" evaluation corresponded to expected widespread . support. This was among the most subjective of rankings given that many of the actions evaluated have not yet been publicized. 3. Actions Of a total of 150 actions evaluated using the feasibility and effectiveness screen, 142 emerged as strategic actions for the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. Actions fall into three categories: 1) those on the ground projects that require construction, 2)property acquisitions, and 3)programs. Programs - include a broad array of efforts including stewardship program, public education/outreach, incentives, and regulations (A number of actions offered as programs via the subwatershed meetings were determined by WSC staff to be policies or studies and therefore were not evaluated using the feasibility and effectiveness screen). Of the actions, 53 are on the ground - 57 actions that were first evaluated by the Science Panel, 57 are property acquisitions, and 32 are • programmatic actions. Ideally, the programmatic actions would have been evaluated for their - scientific and technical merit before being evaluated for feasibility and effectiveness. However, time constraints prevented the use of such a screen. Moreover, the scientific/technical screen used for on-the-ground projects would have to be revised to accommodate the qualitatively - different nature of programmatic actions. Programmatic actions could be further evaluated using • a scientific and technical screen between the draft and final habitat plan. It is important to note that the evaluation using feasibility and effectiveness criteria did reveal substantial problems with some of the actions listed below. However, the importance of the - actions and the belief that many of the flaws can and should be overcome has led to the inclusion of the actions. For example, a number of habitat rehabilitation/substitution projects in the Duwamish and on the Green River mainstem are currently infeasible due to their impacts on shoreline boundaries. This obstacle,while formidable, is inherently a political/regulatory - problem that can be solved and, given the pattern of development in the watershed, must be - solved to allow projects that ranked high scientific/technical grounds. Acquisitions: All 51 Vashon/Maury Island acquisitions and six King County proposed Last Best Places Middle Green acquisitions passed the feasibility and effectiveness screen. Ecological Restoration Projects (ERP): All Chinook oriented ERP projects that are not limited by an FPP (Farmland Preservation Property) designation are considered WRIA 9 "Actions." Because these ERP projects are funded and in many cases underway they were not evaluated - under the feasibility and effectiveness screen. Actions that did not pass the feasibility and effectiveness screen: NS3- Remove armoring-South Magnolia MG 132-Levee setback because of FPP designation - LG 48-NE Auburn tributary fish passage because of FPP designation LG 55-Reddington Levee because of FPP designation - NSP 9-Set minimum flows of Vashon and Maury Island streams because Chinook benefits - are small NSP 10-Judd Ck. conservation program - D 15-Protect Puget Ck basin D 16- Protect Hamm Ck basin - 58 Science Panel Evaluated Actions that Passed Feasibility and Effectiveness - Screen (12/04) _ Action Action Description • ID - UG1a Provide Chinook access above Howard Hanson Dam - U G30& Gale Creek and Boundary Creek culvert replacement . UG44 Creation of off-channel habitat RM 77.9-88.3 - UG40 Creation of off-channel habitat RM 67.75-75.5 UG50 Restoration off-channel habitat RM 67.75-84.1 • C� UG29 Gale Creek culvert replacement a UGX USFS road decommissioning UG16 Mainstem Green River El. 1240- 1480 - UG42 Restore lateral channel migration RM 72-73.5 right bank UG43 Restore lateral channel migration RM 76.2-78.5 • UG45 Restore lateral channel migration RM 79.3-80.5 left bank UG49 Restore lateral channel migration RM 87-88 left bank UG46 Restore lateral channel migration RM 80.7+-right bank . Middle Green Blueprint-floodplain reconnection,side channel inlet connection, site- MG Al specific LWD, meander logjam,gravel addition, invasive plant control,and riparian - reve etation Middle Green Blueprint-side channel construction/floodplain reconnection, meander MG A2 logjam, gravel addition, invasive plant control, and riparian reve etation - MG D2 Setback of Hamakami, Horath, and Kaech levees, logjam/wood addition,floodplain reconnection,Japanese knotweed removal, and riparian reve etation - MG D3 Middle Green Blueprint-Neely and Porter levees setback, logjam/wood addition, - floodplain reconnection,Japanese knotweed removal, and riparian vegetation MG E2 Pautzke levee removal, logjam/wood addition,floodplain reconnection,Japanese - knotweed removal, and riparian reve etation MG 1 Porter levee setback - LG8 Sheep pasture acquisition: Revetment setback and off-channel habitat rehabilitation Nelson Side-Channel LG30 Boeing Levee setback and habitat rehabilitation(combined with Frager Rd(LG 32)and - Russell Rd LG 31projects) LG27 Johnson Creek/Gunter Levee Acquisition and off-channel habitat rehabilitation revised - LG35 Rosso Nursery site off-channel rehabilitation and riparian restoration a� LG45 Auto wrecking yard acquisition: revetment setback,floodplain wetland restoration; and off-channel habitat rehabilitation - LG26 Briscoe Meander Levee setback and off-channel habitat rehabilitation LG3 Fort Dent Levee setback - LG23 Downstream end of Desimone Levee ROW Acquisition, levee setback and habitat rehabilitation LG52 Horsehead Bend off-channel habitat rehabilitation - DUW26 Shallow water habitat at RM 5.5-7.0 (large version;20 acres) - DUW30 Cease maintenance dredging in Turning Basin area RM 5.0-5.5 DUW44 Hamm Creek/City Light North estuary/shallow water habitat(large version; 15 acres L DUW6 Off-channel and reshaped bank construction RM 9.9-10.3) - DUW16 42nd Street revetment setback; LWD; reve etate w DUW27 Hamm Creek/City Light North estuary/shallow water habitat small version; 7 acres - _- DUW23 North Winds Weir: Create 2 acres of off-channel habitat E b Shallow water habitat at RM 5.5-7.0 CU DUW25 small version; 5 acres p DUW37 Kellogg Island rehabilitation DUW8 Wastewater pipeline crossing retrofit RM 8.9 • DUW17 I South 115th Street revetment setback; LWD; reve etate DUW24 Reve etation of LB--RM 7.3-8.0 DUW12 Gateway South revetment setback - 59 Action ID Action Description South Park Duwamish Revival - DUW32 NS18 Seahurst Park shoreline restoration, Phase 2 - 2 NS4 Expand shallow water habitat east of Pier 90 - NS64 Raab's Creek and estuarine restoration � NS27a Open access by replacing culverts at mouths of Mileta Creek, Ellisport Creek, Camp z Sealth, Bates, Tsu walla, and Dilworth creeks NS5 Olympic Sculpture Park Tidal Emba ment and Shallow Subtidal Habitat co NS6 Pocket beaches in Myrtle Edwards Park and north - NS9-10 Create shallow water bench habitat at multiple locations along Seattle waterfront NS 26 Salt marsh and protection and restoration at mouth of Ellis Ck. Notes: a)Providing upstream passage for Chinook to access the Upper Green River did not rank as a Tier 7 action;however,it is - an assumed action to precede all other Upper Green proposed actions. The scoring of all other Upper Green proposed actions assumed that passage for Chinook will have been provided. Please note that these two proposed actions in the Duwamish estuary are smaller versions of proposed actions that were scored higher. Programs that Passed Feasibility and Effectiveness Screen (12/04) a - Action Action Description ID • a) c - a MGP-1 Enumclaw Plateau Dairy Nutrient Management Program L - D-1 Eliminate perennial pepperweed CU � w - o D-2 Eliminate phragmites Promote habitat restoration on private property by offering a "toolbox"of near shore NSP-1 restoration habitat projects. Cz 0) NSP-2 Create soft armoring technical assistance and cost-share program. • z Create a financial incentive program to encourage multiple family/neighborhood use NSP-3 over water structures and boat ramps. • U NSP-4 Create a financial incentive program to replace/repair failing septic systems at - Quartermaster Harbor. WW-1a- Ten Education/outreach programs including stewardship workshops, water - 1j b conservation programs, natural yard care programs, and expanded basin steward program. WW 2 Expand/Improve incentives programs(e.g., TDR, PBRS, forest cover and low impact - development fee reduction. Q WW-3 Improve enforcement of existing land use regulations. • WW-4 Modify Shoreline Management Act to Encourage Habitat Restoration WW-5 Increase use of low impact development and porous concrete. - WW-6 Promote development according to Built Green Checklists. - WW-7 Develop a coordinated open s ace acquisition program WW-8 Develop salmon restoration tools consistent with agricultural land use. • WCS staff determined that those programmatic actions proposed for the he Upper,Middle,and Lower Green were actually a - combination of polices and studies and as such are reflected in the relevant sections in this plan. 'The ten actions were evaluated as a whole because of their similarities and the same identical outcome if evaluated individually. 60 Use of the Evaluation Tools for Future Actions A hallmark of the WRIA 9 Habitat Planning process is that it has established and adopted two action evaluation screens that can be used to evaluate future actions. This is an important - consideration in implementation of the habitat plan. As our knowledge of the watershed and salmon recovery science increases and as funding priorities change the habitat plan must be flexible enough to consider new actions and reconsidered previously evaluated actions. Establishing the criteria and methodology for evaluating the scientific and feasibility and • effectiveness of proposed actions is therefore an essential tool for plan implementation and - adaptive management. 61 • • • • • 1. OVERVIEW OF SITE-SPECIFIC COSTS • • • PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE RANGE OF SITE SPECIFIC PROJECTS • Introduction • The purpose of the preliminary cost estimate range is to provide "ballpark" costs,not actual • costs, of the projects included within the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan. The WRIA 9 Habitat Plan • projects are high priority, site specific projects selected from a comprehensive list of projects and • actions. The list of projects was developed through a sequence of subwatershed-focus and public meetings with participation of local stakeholders,jurisdictional staff, environmental and business • representatives, project experts, and citizens. The projects were reviewed by the WRIA 9 • Science Panel for technical merit, and screened by the WRIA 9 staff members for feasibility and • effectiveness flaws. The project proposals were developed without consideration of costs, in • order to identify projects and actions with the highest benefit to Chinook salmon. Costs are preliminary estimates in 2005 dollars and are not inflated for future years. • • This is a preliminary and partial cost estimate range. The project list will likely change as design • plans evolve and projects are added or subtracted over time. Estimated costs are based upon early concepts as well as currently available project proposals. Most project concepts will be • developed as public and local government comments are incorporated into the plan. • • Several of the proposed projects are large, encompassing several segments. A few types of habitat projects, including riparian planting and fencing, have been in wide use for years and few • variables affect costs. These conditions result in greater predictability and precision in • estimating costs. Other types, such as major floodplain and estuary restoration projects, are more • experimental in nature and variable in characteristics, with costs that are much more difficult to • predict. Because of the variability in the precision of the estimates and the inherent difficulty of generalizing about costs of widely differing projects, there are bound to be cases where the cost • estimates appear to be off or even incorrect. The costs estimates will be revised as additional • information on the project scope, design, materials, permitting and other factors become • available. • The costs of salmon recovery in this region will be high, but when implemented, the plan will • address recovery concerns over a large geographic area and over a long period of time. • The cost estimate range for the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan projects was developed using the Primer on Habitat Project Costs (Evergreen Funding Consultants, 2003). Assumptions about average project conditions were made so as to cost projects in groups, rather than individually. The • reliability of the group subtotals depends to an extent on the validity of the assumptions used to - assign projects to groups. Non-average characteristics of the projects may not be apparent until the design and engineering process is advanced. Additional project cost information was • provided from other sources including the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study Final • Feasibility Report (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October, 2000); Howard Hanson Addition • • 62 • • Water Storage-Phase I (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July, 2000), as well as personal communications from project managers. These cost estimates should be regularly updated and refined as the projects are developed. As budgets are developed for individual projects, real costs should be substituted for the estimates. Table 1-1: WRIA 9 Habitat Plan Project Cost Estimate Range Summary - Group Group Description Number projects Cost Estimate Range - Acquisition Low High Low development potential,far from an urban • A2 area 1 $149,400 $298,800 - Low development potential, close to an urban A3 area 1 $720,000 $1,440,000 - Medium development potential, medium amenity • A5 value 2 $1,139,000 $2,715,000 Medium development potential, high amenity - A6 value 1 $180,000 $280,000 Al _High development potential, high amenity 3 $16,600,000 $30,337,000 - Very high development potential, medium A17 amenity value 1 $9,000,000 $18,000,000 - Easement on very high development potential, - A19 medium amenity 2 $9,990,000 $19,650,000 Mixed Combined categories 2 $35,094,419 $42,276,507 Floodplain - F2 _Complex reconnection; low stream ener 1 $148,000 $259,000 - F3 Channel reconstruction; low stream energy 2 $192,000 $279,000 - F5 Complex reconnection; medium stream energy 1 $70,000 $100,000 - F6 lChannel reconstruction; medium stream ener 2 $650,000 P1,300,000 - F7 Simple reconnection; high stream energy 1 $130,000 $200,000 F9 Channel reconstruction; high stream energy 3 $1,880,000 $2,820,000 Streambank Streambank improvements on medium - waterways S5 with moderate earthmoving 1 $198,000 $330,000 - Streambank improvements on medium - waterways S7 with substantial earthmoving 2 $1,367,000 2,420,000 - Streambank improvements on large waterways - S8 with moderate earthmoving 7 $5,453,600 $9,543,800 - Streambank improvements on large waterways - S9 with substantial earthmoving 8 $12,921,729 $20,084,474 Large Woody Debris - 63 - Group Group Description projiectr Cost Estimate Range . Wood placement(large logs) in medium W6 _waterway 1 $450,000 $630,000 • Wood placement (medium logs) in large W8 aterwa 2 J$240,000 $420,000 • W9 Wood placement(large logs)in large waterway 4 $595,000 $680,000 Riparian • Enhancement Simple riparian enhancement; easily R1 accessible site 1 $30,000 $60,000 Somewhat complex riparian enhancement; easily - R2 accessible site 4 $330,000 $660,000 Complex riparian enhancement; easily • R3 accessible site 1 $66,000 $99,000 Simple riparian enhancement; somewhat - R4 accessible site 1 $450,000 $900,000 - Somewhat complex riparian enhancement; R8 difficult access to site 1 $4,500,000 7,500'000 Estuarine Undeveloped site- moderate excavation/average E2 transportation distance 1 $32,000 $48,000 Somewhat developed site- moderate • E5 excavation/average transportation distance 5 $9,000,000 $18,000,000 - Somewhat developed site-considerable • E6 excavation/moderate transportation distance -r 3 $3,150,000 $8,400,000 - Highly developed site-substantial excavation/ E9 moderate transportation distance 2 $10,589,744 P32,709,232 Nearshore N6 Major reconstruction; average distance 1 10 $1,387,500 4,625,000 • Other • U.S. Army Corps of . Engineers Additional • Water Storage Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water - Project Storage 1 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 - Ecosystem Restoration Study+ Evergreen ERS + EC Consultants 1 $335,890 $445,926 - Personal Communication 3 $6,372,610 7,225,558 Project cost information (Some project costs may ERS be listed under other headings) 26 $33,184,840 $37,934,165 Complex - project S9 project used as base 1 $1,400,000 $2,800,000 Contamination clean-up/removal; road No cost relocation; bridge - information replacement; housepurchase; house removal; 5 - ERS + KC DUW-10 1 $1,790,000 $2,049,000 • 64 • • • Group Group Description Number Cost Estimate Range • Projects • Culvert • replacement Evergreen Consultants 3 $651,000 $1,259,800 • SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board 3 $2,845,662 $3,216,823 • GRFCZD Green River Flood Control Zone District 3 $35,715,000 $40,889,401 • SAM costs Seattle Art Museum and similar projects 3 $18,128,208 $20,425,570 • EC&GRFCZ Evergreen Consultants and Green River Flood 1 280,000 $420,000 • Control Zone District • Total $272,406,602 $388,731,056 • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 65 • • Table 1-2: WRIA 9 Habitat Plan Project Preliminary Cost Estimates Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code I and Location Units Costs Upper Green River Subwatershed UG-1 Revegetation of Sunday Creek: Re-plant $2,815,960; $2,815,960 $3,013,077 $3,223,993 ERS costs + 13% 2.9-mile stretch along Sunday Creek with ERS small riparian plants to improve salmonid habitat/temperature, add large woody debris; RM 84.1 UG-2 Instream Habitat Improvement: Reconnect 1 side- Improve channel and riparian area, place channel, 2 locations meander jams, bar apex jams, barb jams, 50'x300 for .75 acre introduce woody debris, reconnect side channels; RM 82-73, El. 1240-1480 UG-2A Woody debris W6: 9 RM $450,000 $540,000 $630,000 $50,000- $70,000 per RM; UG-213 Side channel F7: 1 acre $130,000 $165,000 $200,000 $130,000- $200,000/ acre UG-3 Culvert Replacements in Gale and $285,890 + 1 bridge + $335,890 $389,479 $445,926 ERS costs(+13%)for Boundary Creeks: Implement culvert $50-$100K culvert Gale Creek bridge; EC replacements; near RM 67, Road 5530 and costs for Boundary Creek 5530A @ mile- bottomless arch post 11.5 UG-4 Fish Passage To and From the Upper U.S. Army $45,000,000 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 This is a downstream fish Green River subwatershed: Provide Corps of passage facility at Howard Chinook access Engineers Hanson Dam; Tacoma above Howard Hanson completed the fish ladder dam; and trap-and-haul system RM 64.5 to pass fish upstream over the dams. Project scheduled for completion in near future. Cost estimate from U.S. ARMY Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage 66 Project Project Name,Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs Project in 2005. UG-5 Restore/Rehabilitate Habitat Through $36,500/RM 10 miles $365,000 $380,000 $395,000 S2-$100/lineal foot Forest Logging Road Improvements: Support implementation of US Forest Service/Washington State Department of Ecology road maintenance and abandonment. Specific location TBD 5 Projects Total Estimated Subwatershed Costs $49,096,850 $49,487,556 $49,894,919 Middle Green River Subwatershed MG-1 Upper(Middle) Green River $676,870; $676,870 $724,251 $774,948 ERS Construction Costs+ Side Channels: Restore natural process of ERS 13% sediment supply/transport and large woody debris to 2 side channels; RM 60 MG-2 Brunner Slough (Kanaskat $1,180,850; $1,180,850 $1,263,510 $1,351,955 ERS Construction Costs + North): Provide off-channel winter and ERS 13% summer rearing and refuge habitat for salmon/trout; RM 58 MG-3 Flaming Geyser Floodplain Washington State Park Reconnection, Side Channel Connection, land and Habitat Restoration: Excavate portion of floodplain to reconnect floodplain with river, side channel inlet connection, site-specific large woody debris, gravel addition, invasive plant control, and riparian revegetation; RM 45.1-44.3 MG-3 A Floodplain Reconnection; S7: $150- 4,600' $1,150,000 $1,265,000 $1,840,000 Includes some planting 400/lineal edge and wood foot; removal; MG-3 B Side channel inlet connection; F3: $60- .6 acre $36,000 $45,000 $54,000 90K/acre; channel reconnecti on; MG-3 C Site specific logjam W9 (@50% 10 log $350,000 $370,000 $400,000 addition; Reach-wide logjam and wood to account structures 67 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs addition; for F8 wood)$35- 40K per structure; MG-3 D Gravel addition ERS costs 6,000 $169,500 $177,975 $186,450 tons MG-3 E Japanese knotweed Planting for 45 acres $450,000 $675,000 $900,000 removal; riparian revegetation; area beyond S7 area; R4: $10- 20K/acre MG-4 Flaming Geyser Side Channel Construction, Floodplain Reconnection: Construct a side channel to increase amount of off-channel habitat; includes floodplain reconnection, meander logjam, gravel addition, invasive plant control, and riparian revegetation; RM 44 MG-4 A Bank setback ST $150- 1450 $217,000 $398,750 $580,000 400/lineal lineal feet foot; ; MG-4 B Side channel construction; F3: $60- 2.5 acres $156,000 $187,500 $225,000 90K/acre; MG-4 C Reach-wide logjam and wood addition; W9 (@50% 1 log $35,000 $37,500 $40,000 to account structure; for F8 wood)$35- 40K per structure MG-4 D Gravel addition; ERS costs 6,000 $169,500 $177,975 $186,450 tons MG-4 E Japanese knotweed removal;A14-riparian R1: $5- 6 acres/ $30,000 $45,000 $60,000 revegetation; 10K/acre; planting MG-5 Flaming Geyser Slide: Eliminate large $3,796,800; $3,796,800 $4,062,576 $4,346,956 ERS construction cost+ source of fine sediment from reach; RM 43 ERS 13% MG-6 Newaukum Creek: Restore process-based $4,348,240; $4,348,240 $4,652,617 $4,978,300 ERS construction cost+ ecological functions including wetland and ERS 13% riparian restoration; RM 0-14.3 (both banks) 68 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs MG-7 Big Spring Creek: Re-locate a major $1,116,440; $1,116,440 $1,194,590 $1,278,212 ERS construction cost+ section of creek away from roadside ditch ERS 13% into channel consistent with historic route; MG-8 Newaukum Creek Mouth Restoration: $938,581; $938,581 $1,004,281 $1,074,581 Salmon Recovery Funding Place large woody debris, control invasive SRFB Board Grant plants, plant native plants; RM 0.3-4.3 Application Costs; cost increases 7% between categories MG-9 Lones Levee Removal: Restore natural $2,913,140; $2,913,140 $3,117,059 $3,335,254 ERS construction cost+ channel migration processes, consistent ERS 13% with current flow regimes of the Green River; RM 38 MG-10 Burns Creek: Enhance salmonid habitat in $421,490; $421,490 $450,994 $482,564 ERS construction cost+ Burns Creek while reducing property ERS 13% damage associated with flooding and channel aggradation (sediment buildup); RM 38 MG-11 Turley Levee Setback: Reconnect $194,360; $194,360 $207,965 $222,522 ERS construction cost+ floodplain area of the Green River allowing ERS 13% natural processes to be re-established including creation of side channel habitat; RM 37 MG-12 Levee Setback to Reconnect Floodplain GRFCZD-costs for levee and Allow Channel Migration: Remove removal = $1,000/lineal levee to reconnect floodplain, allow channel foot, levee setback= migration and construct revetment at edge $1,500 of project to protect against erosion; RM 36 MG-12 A Acquisition A2: $1,800- 83 acres $149,400 $199,200 $298,800 $3,600 MG-12 B Hamakami revetment removal/setback to S8: $400- 1,500' $600,000 $825,000 $1,050,000 Green Valley Road; $700/lineal levee foot setback MG-12 C Horath Levee setback to Green Valley S8: $400- 1,000, $400,000 $550,000 $700,000 Road; $700/lineal foot MG-12 D Kaech Levee setback to Green Valley Road' S8: $400- 700' $280,000 $385,000 $490,000 $700/lineal foot MG-12 E Logjam and wood addition W9: $70- 1 LWD $70,000 $75,000 $80,000 80K/ jam in 69 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs # of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs structure addition to wood in levee setback MG-12 F Floodplain reconnection south of Green Included in Valley Road, and Green Valley Road levee Relocation/floodplain reconnection; setback costs MG-12 G Japanese knotweed removal and reach- R2: $10- 4 acres $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 wide invasive plant control; Riparian $20K/acre additional revegetation management invasive control and planting MG-13 Hamakami Levee: Re-connect floodplain of $649,750; $649,750 $695,233 $743,899 ERS construction cost+ existing forested wetland to river, providing ERS 13% refuge/rearing for salmonids; RM 36 MG-14 Kaech Side Channel: Re-connect side $266,680; $266,680 $285,348 $305,322 ERS construction cost+ channel and wetland for refuge and rearing ERS 13% habitat MG-15 Neely and Porter Levees Setback and Floodplain Reconnection: MG-15 A Levee setback and floodplain reconnection S8: $400- 5400 feet $2,160,000 $2,970,000 $3,780,000 700/lineal foot MG-15 B Replace Neely Bridge Info not Longer structure needed available for channel migration MG-15 C Logjams and large woody debris W8: $40- 2 log jams $80,000 $110,000 $140,000 70K per structure MG-15 D Riparian vegetation restoration R8: $30-50K 150 acres $4,500,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000 Required acreage not per acre provided in description; planting provided in levee setback so this is additional MG-15 E Acquisition A3:$2,400- 300 acres $720,000 $960,000 $1,440,000 Acquisition is complex $4,800 because some properties in FPP 70 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs MG-16 Ray Creek: Restore riparian corridor and $2,241,920; $2,241,920 $2,398,854 $2,566,774 ERS construction cost+ allow natural processes to be re-established ERS 13% to enhance salmonid rearing/refuge within the stream MG-17 Porter Levee Setback and Floodplain $974,000;E $974,000 $1,022,700 $1,071,466 ERS Project construction Reconnection: Removing existing levee RS cost+ 13% and setback to toe of Green River Valley Road; RM 34 MG-18 Setback and Removal of Fenster and GRFCZD-costs for levee Pautzke Levees to Reconnect Floodplain removal =$1,000/lineal and Allow Channel Migration: Remove foot, levee setback= levees, lower elevation of terraces, and $1,500 construct logjams to reinstate floodplain connectivity and channel migration; RM 32 MG-18 A Remove levee; Floodplain reconnection S8: $400- 1,650' $660,000 $907,500 $1,155,000 $700/lineal foot MG-18 B Logjam and wood addition W8: $40- 4 large $160,000 $220,000 $280,000 70K per wood structure jams MG-18 C Reach-wide invasive plant control; riparian R2: $10- 12 acres $120,000 $180,000 $240,000 revegetation; 20K/acre (reduced for levee removal area) MG-19 Acquisitions to Protect High Total Quality Habitat: Seven locations in Middle acres: Green Subwatershed to protect currently undeter- functioning habitat; mined $23,739,000 24,925,950 26,172,248 19 Projects Total Estimated Subwatershed Costs $56,160,521 $62,827,328 $70,410,701 Lower Green River Subwatershed LG-1 Riverside Estates Side $503,980; $503,980 $539,259 $577,007 ERS Project construction Channel: Re-establish side channel to ERS cost+ 13% provide summer rearing habitat and winter refuge and maintain flood protection; RM 28.8 71 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs LG-2 Olson Creek: Improve access to tributary City of $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 City of Auburn ERS from Green River, enhance habitat, restore Auburn cost Project natural processes, provide summer/winter est. rearing and refuge habitat for salmon; RM 28.5 LG-3 Horsehead Bend: Excavate off-channel $604,550; $604,550 $646,869 $692,149 ERS Project construction habitat for rearing/refuge; ERS cost+ 13% RM 26 LG-4 Off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation: Excavate off-channel flood refugium, restore floodplain, wetland, add woody debris, revegetate; "horsejaw/horseneck"site; RM 25.9 LG-4 A Channel re-connection F 6: $100- 1,500 $250,000 $375,000 $500,000 200K per lineal feet acre; of off channel x 50'width =2.5 acres LG-4 B Levee setback S8: $400- 1,800, $720,000 $990,000 $1,260,000 $700/lineal ft LG-5 NE Auburn Creek: Eliminate existing $732,240; $732,240 $783,497 $838,342 ERS Project construction flapgate and culvert, daylight and enhance ERS cost+ 13% tributary by increasing creek diversity; install bridge to maintain access across channel; riparian vegetation; RM 25.6 LG-6 Acquisition, Revetment Setback, Floodplain Wetland Restoration and Off- Channel Habitat Rehabilitation:Acquire and remove auto wrecking yards; remove contaminated soils, re-slope revetment, restore floodplain wetland and off-channel refuge, install woody debris and riparian vegetation. rehabilitation; RM 25.1-24.3 LB LG-6 A Acquisition A 5: $24k- 34 acres $815,000 $1,632,000 $2,040,000 $60K/acre LG-6 B Revetment setback S 9: $700- 2,600' $1,820,000 $2,210,000 $2,600,000 $1,000 72 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs LG-6 C Off-channel habitat F 2: $40- 3.7 acres $148,000 $203,500 $259,000 70K/acre LG-6 D Contamination removal Unknown Costs not available; possible grant for clean-up LG-7 Lower Mill Creek, Riverview(Formerly Green River) Park, Hawley Road Levee, and Lower Mullen Slough: Restore habitat along the mainstem and lower sections of Mill Creek and Mullen Slough; RM 24-21.3 LG-7 A Lower Mill Creek: Restoration of lower.3 SRFB $968,400 $1,016,820 1,067,661 Costs from SRFB grant miles of Mill Creek and adjacent segments application of armored riverbank; excavation of off- channel habitat, reshaping stream banks and Green River bank; LG-7 B Riverview Park: Excavate off-channel area, $337,870; $337,870 $361,521 $386,827 ERS Project construction add large woody debris and revegetation; ERS cost+ 13% LG-7 C Hawley Revetment: Set back oversteeped GRFCZD: .2 of mile $1,584,000 $1,694,880 $1,813,521 Cost increases= 7% revetment, create low vegetated bench, $1,500/ install large woody debris; lineal foot LG-7 D Lower Mullen Slough (Also known as $379,680; $379,680 $406,258 $434,696 ERS Project construction Prentice Nursery Reach): Restore mouth of ERS cost+ 13% Mullen Slough to create a new flatter gradient; LG-7 E Mullen Slough: Restore slough by $820,380; $820,380 $877,807 $939,253 ERS Project construction meandering channel, add large woody ERS cost+ 13% debris, riparian planting; LG-7 F Lower Mill Creek Future Project: Additional EC& 4 acres $280,000 $350,000 $420,000 Planting and levee setback; GRFCZD planting; 200' levee LG-8 Schuler Brothers Reach: Increase channel $2,577,530; $2,577,530 $2,757,957 $2,951,014 ERS Project construction diversity including dendrites, add large ERS cost+ 13% woody debris and riparian vegetation; RM 2.1-0.3 on Mill Creek; LG-9 Rosso Nursery Off-Channel F9: $200- 5.4 acres $1,080,000 $1,350,000 $1,620,000 Negotiations for purchase Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration: $300K/acre along of property continuing. Remove fill, excavate off-channel refuge, river; revegetate; RM 20.8-20, LB 73 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs LG-10 Mainstem Maintenance(including Boeing ERS GRFCZD: costs for levee Levee Setback and setback=$1,500/lineal Habitat Rehabilitation): Improve fish foot habitat along Lower Green River while providing stable bank and levee conditions to protect human infrastructure/development. RM 32-17 LG-10 A S9: $700- .7 miles= $554,400 $1,016,400 $1,478,400 Levee has been setback; 1,000/lineal 3,696' need to complete foot riverbank work LG-10 B GRFCZD 4.3 miles $34,056,000 $36,439,000 $38,990,000 GRFCZD: costs for levee =22,704' setback= $1,500/lineal foot LG-11 Acquisition and off-Channel Habitat Rehabilitation of Johnson Creek: Excavate flood refuge for juvenile salmonid habitat, realign stream channel, improve fish passage and restore wetland complex; RM 17.3-16.0 and RM 0-0.5 Johnson Creek LG-11 A Acquisition of levee easement A19: $300- 30 acres $9,000,000 $13,500,000 $18,000,000 $600K/acre LG-11 B Off-channel habitat(Johnson Creek re- F6: $100- 4 acres $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 alignment) $200k/acre LG-11 C LWD W9: $70- 2 $140,000 $150,000 $160,000 $80K/ structures structure LG-11 D 7 acre embayment-levee setback and More 1400 $1,400,000 $2,100,000 $2,800,000 creation of shallow water habitat complex lineal feet than S9: $1,000- used at low end of calcs. LG-11 E Wetland restoration R2: $10- 7 acres $70,000 $105,000 $140,000 $20K/acre LG-12 Briscoe Levee Setback and Off-Channel Levee setback- use Habitat Rehabilitation: Remove armoring GRFCZ for upper end of on shoreline, excavate flood refuge, install costs; 1,000'off channel x large woody debris, plant riparian 50'width = 1.15 acre vegetation; RM 16.10- 15.8 74 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs LG-12 A Levee setback S8: $400- .3 RM = $633,600 $871,200 $1,108,800 $700/lineal 1,584 ft lineal feet; LG-12 B Off channel reconnection F5: $70- 900'off- $70,000 $85,000 $100,000 $100K/acre channel = 1 acre LG-13 Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat S 9: $700- .7 RM = $2,587,200 $3,104,250 $3,696,000 Riverfront ROW easement Rehabilitation: Setback over-steepened $1,000/lineal 3,696 acquisition levee, create bench habitat, install large foot; lineal feet woody debris, plant native riparian vegetation; Downstream end of Desimone Levee, RM 15.3-14.7 LG-14 Off Channel and Wetland Habitat Creation: Construct side-channel connecting 10 acres of wetlands; RM 13.5- 12.5, (right bank) LG-14 A Side-Channel Construction F-9: $200- 3 acres $600,000 $750,000 $900,000 $300K/acre LG-14 B Wetland rehabilitation R2: $10- 10 acres $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $20K/acre LG-15 Habitat Rehabilitation: Restore historic flood refugia and off-channel rearing habitat in a riverside sheep pasture owned by City of Tukwila; RM 12.65-12.5 LG-15 A Side channel reconnection F-9: $200- 1acre $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300K/acre LG-15 B Levee setback S9: $700- 1,200 $840,000 $1,020,000 $1,200,000 $1,000 lineal feet LG-16 Gilliam Creek: Eliminate fish barriers and $629,410; $629,410 $673,469 $720,612 ERS Project construction improve approximately 2000 feet of creek ERS cost+ 13% while maintaining flood protection; RM 12.5 LG-17 Levee Setback: Set back Fort Dent levee to S 5: $150- .1,320 $198,000 $264,000 $330,000 create low vegetated bench (without $250/lineal lineal feet affecting soccer fields or trail), add riparian foot; vegetation and large woody debris; RM 12- 11.15 LG-18 Black River Marsh: Improve site as $45,200; $45,200 $48,364 $51,749 ERS Project construction emergent marsh, improving access for ERS cost+ 13% salmonid refuge and rearing; RM 11 75 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs LG-19 Lower Springbrook Reach: Create natural $4,361,500; $4,361,500 $4,666,805 $4,993,481 ERS Project construction habitat for rearing and storm refuge; RM 1.0 ERS cost+ 13% 19 Projects Total Estimated Subwatershed Costs $70,206,940 $82,788,856 $95,268,512 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Shallow Water Habitat Creation (15 Acres): Create a minimum of 15 acres of off-channel shallow water/marsh habitat, with riparian vegetation; RM 11-7.0 DUWA (both banks) All2: $400- Values increased per N. DUW-1 A Acquisition $731 K/acre 15 acres $6,000,000 $8,250,000 $10,965,000 Wind's Weir property cost E5: $250- DUW-1 B Off-Channel area $450K/acre 10 acres $2,500,000 $3,500,000 $4,500,000 DUW-2 Shallow Water Habitat Creation and Bank GRFCZD: $1,500 per Reshaping: Create off-channel, shallow lineal foot for levee water refuge habitat, and set back and setback, reshape bank, add large woody debris, revegetate; RM 10.3-9.9 DUW-2 A Acquisition All2: $400- 3.5 acres $1,400,000 $1,925,000 $2,559,000 $731 K/acre DUW-2 B Off-Channel area E6: $300- 2 acres $600,000 $1,100,000 $1,600,000 $800K/acre DUW-3 Bank Restoration and Revetment S 9: $700- .5 RM = $1,848,000 $2,244,000 $2,640,000 Setback: Reshape/setback revetment at $1,000/lineal 2640 Gateway South add large woody debris, foot lineal feet revegetate, re-locate trail; RM 8.9-8.6; 8.4-8.2 (left bank) DUW-4 Wastewater Pipeline Additional evaluation Crossing Retrofit: Determine extent of needed alteration of salinity; retrofit if necessary; RM 8.0 DUW-5 42nd Ave. S Bank Restoration: Work with S 9: $700- .7 miles= $2,587,200 $3,696,000 $4,435,200 GRFCZD: $1,500 per community to improve riparian habitat $1,000/lineal 3,696 lineal foot for levee conditions; relocate water main and create foot lineal feet setback. shallow bench for habitat; add large woody debris and riparian vegetation; RM 7.9-7.1 (both banks) 76 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs DUW-6 S. 115th St. Bank Restoration and S 9: $700- .3 RM = $1,108,800 $1,584,000 $2,376,000 Highest cost based on Revetment Setback: Reshape and $1,000/lineal 1584 GRFCZD$1,500/lineal revegetate river bank, set back revetment, foot lineal feet foot add large woody debris, revegetate; RM 7.2- 6.9 (right bank) DUW-7 Shallow Water Habitat Creation (20 Acres): Create minimum 20 acres off- channel shallow habitat; RM 7.0-5.5 DUW-7 A Acquisition All2: $400- 23 acres $9,200,000 $12,650,000 $16,813,000 $731 K/acre DUW-7 B E5: $250- 20 acres $5,000,000 $7,000,000 $9,000,000 Off-Channel area $450K/acre DUW-8 Riverton Creek Habitat Improvement: $257,000; $257,000 $275,000 $294,000 ERS Project construction Rehabilitate habitat, improve connection to ERS cost+ 13% Duwamish River for fish access and off- channel rearing/refuge habitat; RM 6.6 DUW-9 Bank restoration and revetment Setback: Includes acquisition of 25 Setback and restore river bank, revegetate; acre; 20 acres restored RM 6.6-5.5 DUW-9 A Acquisition of easement A 19: 3.3 acres $990,000 $1,320,000 $1,650,000 5,808 lineal feet with 25' $300,000- acquired buffer $600,000/ac re DUW-9 B Revegetation of LB; RM 6.6-5.5 R3: $20- $66,000 $82,500 $99,000 $30K/acre DUW-10 Shallow Water Habitat at North Wind's 2.6 acres $1,790,000 $1,915,300 $2,049,000 $1,790,000 = current cost Weir: Create 2 projection acres of off-channel shallow water habitat; RM 6.3, RB DUW-11 Shallow Water Habitat Creation (10 Acres): Create a minimum of 10 acres of new off-channel, shallow water/marsh habitat. It may be necessary to conduct in phases at multiple locations; a possible site may be Hamm Creek/City Light North property; RM 5.5-4.7 (both banks) DUW-11 A Acquisition A 17: 15 acres $9,000,000 $13,500,000 $18,000,000 $600K- $1,200,000/ acre 77 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs # of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs DUW-11 B Shallow habitat E 9: 10 acres $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $25,000,000 $800,000- $2,500,000/ acre DUW-12 South Park Bank Restoration and S 9: $700- .10 RM = $1,576,129 $1,654,935 $1,737,682 Shallow Water Habitat Creation: $1,000/lineal 528 lineal Rehabilitate shallow water habitats; foot ft revegetate; RM 3.8-3.7 (left bank) DUW-13 Kellogg Island Rehabilitation: Excavate to E 9: 1 acre $2,589,744 $5,179,488 $7,709,232 Calc. based on 3 sites create shallow water habitat, revegetate; RM $800,000- each=to SAM Olympic 1.4-1.2 $2,500,000 Sculpture Garden; If Kellogg Island =4 acres, restoration of 1 acre total in 2-3 areas. 13 Projects Total Estimated Subwatershed Costs $54,512,873 $87,876,223 $111,423,114 Marine Nearshore Subwatershed NS-1 Pier 90 Shallow Water Habitat: Protect and E 6: $300- 7.5 acres $2,250,000 $4,125,000 $6,000,000 expand area of shallow water habitat; $800K/acre remove riprap, create shallow water habitat, revegetate; Seattle NS-1 A Relocate road Costs not available NS-2 Myrtle Edwards Park Small Pocket SAM costs 3 projects $7,769,232 $8,313,000 $8,894,994 Beaches/Shallow Water Habitat: Create similar to several pocket beaches in Myrtle Edwards Olympic Park and north; remove riprap armoring, Sculpture regrade slopes, add fishmix sediments, plant Garden with native vegetation NS-3 Olympic Sculpture Park Tidal SAM costs $2,589,744 $2,771,026 $2,964,998 Info from SRFB Embayment/Shallow Water Habitat application Rehabilitation: Create 0.64 acre tidal embayment and 800'x15'shallow bench; Seattle NS-4 Seattle Waterfront Shallow Water Bench 3 locations 20x1000' $7,769,232 $8,157,693 $8,565,578 Innovative feature without Habitat Rehabilitation: Create shallow =20,000' information- base on habitat benches and fish friendly structures SAM costs 78 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs # of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs along Elliott Bay; Seattle NS-5 Burien Seahurst Park Shoreline Burien costs $1,442/ $5,307,710 $5,573,095 $5,851,750 Info from Burien Restoration, Phase 2: Remove along lineal foot approx. 3,000 feet of shoreline, restore natural beach slope, revegetate; Burien NS-6 Skeeter Creek Estuary Restoration on Vashon Island: Restore mouth of Skeeter Creek by removing 15' bulkhead and restore natural beach profile; relocate driveway; purchase of land may be needed NS-6 A Remove bulkhead $1,500/ 50 feet $75,000 $80,250 $85,880 lineal foot NS-6 B Acquisition A6:$60,000- .5 acre $30,000 $90,000 $150,000 $300,000/ acre NS-7 Cove Creek Estuary Restoration on Vashon Island: Replace existing culvert with box culvert, move road back from shoreline or build new road crossing; remove bulkhead; plant with riparian and marsh vegetation NS-7 A Replace culvert C4: $140- 1 culvert $140,000 $190,000 $240,000 240K NS-7 B Move road Costs not available NS-7 C Remove bulkhead N6: 150 feet $45,000 $97,500 $150,000 $300- $1,000- /lineal foot NS-8 Dillworth and Gorsuch Creeks Pocket Estuaries Restoration on Vashon Island: Restore adjacent creek estuaries and lower 150 feet of channel; remove bulkhead if possible; acquisition may be necessary NS-8 A Restore estuaries E5: $150- 7 acres $1,050,000 $2,100,000 $3,150,000 $450K/acre NS-8 B Remove bulkhead N6: 150, $45,000 $97,500 $150,000 $300- 79 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs $1,000- /lineal foot NS-8 C Acquisition A6:$60,000- 15 acres $900,000 $2,700,000 $4,500,000 $300,000/ acre NS-9 Mileta, Ellisport, Camp Sealth, Bates, and $100,000- 5 creeks $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 Tsugwalla Creeks Fish Passage $200,000 Improvements on Vashon Island: Restore per creek fish passage to streams by replacing culverts;Vashon/Maury Island NS-10 Protect and Restore Saltmarsh at Mouth of Ellis Creek: Acquire and protect salt marsh, restore mouth of Ellis Creek by removing dirt road, replace culverts; Vashon Island NS-10 A Acquisition A6:$60,000- 3 acres $180,000 $210,000 $280,000 $300,000/ acre NS-10 B Estuary restoration E2: $40,000 0.8 acres $32,000 $40,000 $48,000 -$60,000/ acre NS-10 C Culvert replacement $50,000- $11,000 $15,400 $19,800 $100,000 0.22 acre NS-11 Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration in Normandy Park: Acquire 27 parcels with 1 000'feeder bluff; remove bulkhead; Normandy Park NS-11 A Acquisition A5: $24,000- 13.5 $324,000 $540,000 $675,000 $60,000/acr acres e NS-11 B Remove bulkhead, restore shoreline N6: 1000, $300,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $300- $1,000- /lineal foot NS-12 Restore Pocket Estuary at Mouth of Unnamed Creek in Normandy Park: Acquire 2 parcels with houses, remove houses and bulkheads; regrade and revegetate slope; Normandy Park 80 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs NS-12 A Acquisition High end residential property-costs not available NS-12 B Remove bulkheads, restore shoreline N6: 2000' $600,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $300-$1,000 /lineal foot NS-12 C Remove houses Costs not available NS-13 Massey Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration in Des Moines: Remove 300 feet of rock lined creek bank(150')and 150' jetty; restore natural creek banks; revegetate with upland and marsh vegetation NS-13 A Restore stream estuary E6: $300- 1 acre $300,000 $550,000 $800,000 $800K/acre NS-13 B Remove jetty N6: $300- 150' $45,000 $112,500 $150,000 $1,000/lineal foot NS-14 Evaluate How to Improve Habitat Value of Costs not available; study Raab's Lagoon/Pocket Estuary: needs to be Determine how to improve Creek mouth, completed as first phase. estuarine salt marsh and nearshore habitat; remove weir, revegetate; Maury Island NS-15 McSorely Creek Estuary Restoration in Des Moines: Remove rock armoring 150' upstream of mouth; remove 150'armoring along southern marine shoreline; revegetate NS-15 A Restore creek channel/estuary E5: $150- 1 acre $150,000 $300,000 $450,000 $450K/acre NS-15 B Restore shoreline N6: $300- 150' $45,000 $112,500 $150,000 $1,000/lineal foot NS-16 Dash Point State Park Pocket Estuary Restoration in Federal Way: Remove bank armoring 200' upstream on both banks; evaluate armoring of additional 50'adjacent to building NS-16 A Restore creek channel/estuary E5: $150- 2 acres $300,000 $600,000 $900,000 $450K/acre 81 Project Project Name, Description Unit Costs #of Low Cost Med.Cost High Cost Factors Influencing Code and Location Units Costs NS-16 B Evaluate armoring/building Costs not available NS-17 Functioning Nearshore Habitat Protection on Vashon/Maury Island: Protect approximately 50 parcels on shoreline locations $11,364,000 $11,932,200 $12,528,810 NS-18 Sandford Point Feeder Bluff Restoration N6: $300- on Vashon Island: Remove derelict creosote pile bulkhead north of Sandford $1,000/lineal 300 lineal Point foot feet $90,000 $195,000 $300,000 _�` NS-19 Tramp Harbor Intertidal Fill Removal on Vashon Island: Remove large intertidal fill near public dock adjacent to King County road NS-19 A N6: $300- $1,000/lineal 300 lineal Remove creosote bulkhead, regrade foot feet $90,000 $195,000 $300,000 NS-19 B Protect roadway behind bulkhead 3 flier =t,i,:; NS-20 N6: $300- Maury Island Fill Removal: Remove $1,000/lineal 150 lineal intertidal fill area foot feet $45,000 $97,500 $150,000 lnfos NS-21 Sandy Beach Fill and Derelict Pier Removal on Vashon Island: Remove N6: $300- Intertidal fill and derelict dock south of $1,000/lineal 275 lineal Sandy Beach neighborhood foot feet $82,500 $180,000 $275,000 21 Projects Total Estimated Subwatershed Costs $42,429,418 $52,375,164 $61,729,810 77 Projects Total Estimated Costs-All Subwatersheds $272,406,602 $329,355,127 $388,731,056 82 • • • • • J. FUTURE STUDIES • • Numerous data gaps in our understanding of salmon, habitat and functional linkages between • habitat and salmon response remain in WRIA 9. While research and studies covered in the • Strategic Assessment have significantly advanced our knowledge, they have also raised new questions. The following is a list of possible studies that have emerged from work over the past • several years that might be carried out over the first 10 years of plan information. The sources of - these recommendations include the following: • (1) Juvenile salmonid studies (Nelson et al. 2004; Brennan et al. 2004); • (2) WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework • (3) Middle Green River Flow Investigation • (4) WRIA 9 Steering Committee (5) Miscellaneous Studies • • • J.1 JUVENILE SALMONID STUDIES • • The following is a subset of studies proposed by Nelson et al. (2004) and Brennan et al. (2004). • It is expected that there are other potential studies that will be added to this list based on other • efforts between the draft and final plan. • Freshwater and Estuarine Studies (Modified fry Nelson et al. 2004) [Note: some components of • these studies are being carried out in a 2005 study of the transition zone]: • Define the upstream and downstream boundaries of the current transition zone. In 2002 • and 2003, high concentrations of Chinook salmon were found at the RM 6.5 and 5.5 • sampling sites, but not at the next sites upstream (RM 13), or downstream (RM 1). The • physical limits of the transition zone probably extend beyond the current definition of this area, and better defining the exact boundaries and the physical, chemical and biological • characteristics would help direct future restoration and enhancement efforts, and protect • the salmon that currently depend on it for acclimation to marine conditions. • Link juvenile life-history trajectories and the habitats they use to their contribution to • adult returns. Currently, otolith and scale studies are the best methods for tracking • relationships between habitat utilization and flow parameters and their effects on juvenile • to adult survival. Thus, otolith and scale collection should continue on a yearly basis to • help track annual variability in these factors. • Estimate the duration of Chinook fry residence in the Duwamish transition zone and estuary more precisely to assess the relationship between estuarine habitat utilization and • fish survival. This could be tracked by studying fish otoliths, and/or mark-recapture studies using dye, fin clips or tags in order to estimate the duration of transition zone and estuary use. • • • 84 • • • Collect additional information to verify the existence, behavior, and patterns of habitat use of natural yearling Chinook salmon. These yearlings could prove to be an important - component in securing the genetic variability, life history diversity, as well as overall - viability of the Green River Chinook salmon stock. • Identify the habitat locations in the Lower Green River that potentially play an important role in Chinook salmon survival under various flow conditions. The locations of suitable • rearing habitat between RM 34.5 and 13, where juvenile salmonids concentrate (i.e., rearing core areas)—at least during moderate flow years—are not known at present. Identifying these areas, if they exist, would greatly assist in protection and restoration efforts. Exploration of additional fish monitoring sites using snorkel surveys, - hydroacoustics, or other suitable fish observation methods will help map and protect such - core rearing habitat, as well as inform efforts to restore habitat in the Lower Green River. • Carry out and support studies that focus on managing river flows for fish survival and - habitat recovery. Flows appear to be an important factor in shaping annual behavior - patterns of juvenile Chinook. Hydraulic analysis should be coupled with analysis of flows in order to determine whether certain structural attributes of the Lower Green River channel can be modified to provide surrogate low velocity conditions within constraints imposed by flood hazard reduction mandates. - ■ Future studies examining salmonid outmigration in the Lower Green River should use a screw trap to maximize information. Seining in the Lower River was not a completely reliable method for monitoring fish habitat utilization because the only feasible seining - location in the lower ten miles of the Lower Green River was at RM 13. Moreover, the • river seine method was not effective when flows exceeded 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) due to the beach becoming inundated and when flows were less than 300 cfs, because the river was not navigable under low flows. When placed at RM 18, the screw - trap proved to be a much more effective method to monitor Chinook salmon outmigration - in the Lower Green river. The trap sampled fish nearly continuously during a wide range of discharges, stage levels, and velocities. The trap was able to capture more salmonids over a greater range of sizes than the river seine. Investigators contemplating conducting future Green/Duwamish River juvenile Chinook salmon production studies should - consider the use of a screw trap at this location in the Lower Green River. • Continue monitoring juvenile Chinook salmon outmigrants on an annual basis. Due to interannual variability shown by this study, and a number of factors that affect juvenile - Chinook salmon growth,behavior and habitat utilization, annual monitoring is - recommended. With the additional data, patterns of behavior can be discerned and more definitively related to changing physical parameters such as flow, temperature, and habitat availability. This is especially true when evaluating findings with important - economic and management implications such as the impact of hatchery Chinook salmon - upon natural Chinook salmon growth in the transition zone and estuary. ■ When using fork length measurements to assess growth of salmon, it is recommended that sampling should occur at least on a weekly basis to account for rapid growth rate - changes in response to competition and other factors. 85 - Marine Nearshore Studies (modified from Brennan et al. 2004): Larger scale (both temporal and spatial) sampling is needed to understand onshore, - offshore, and cross-Sound distribution patterns. Multiple sampling methods will be - required to capture patterns in horizontal, vertical, tidal, and temporal (day and night) distributions, as well as various habitat types. In addition, more information is needed about the physical forces (e.g. winds and currents) and shoreline geomorphology that • may play a role in the timing, distribution, and abundance of salmon in the nearshore. • More information about marine nearshore carrying capacity, competitive interactions, and prey ecology is also necessary. In light of these needs, the following recommendations for future study and additional analyses are made. Evaluate hatchery practices to examine potential competitive interactions with wild fish. The carrying capacity of Puget Sound or the WRIA 9 marine nearshore may or may not - be able to support the number of smolts being produced by Puget Sound hatcheries along with wild production. The wild juvenile Chinook that enter the Puget Sound are vastly outnumbered by hatchery Chinook and other hatchery salmonids. Considering the similar timing, distribution, and feeding patterns, it is likely that negative competitive - interactions might occur, especially in areas where food is limited. Conduct a combined prey availability/prey selectivity study for juvenile Chinook salmon in the shallow nearshore areas. While this study was able to quantify Chinook diets, no attempt was made to quantify prey availability and little is known about prey habitats. It • is possible that Chinook are opportunistic feeders, eating whatever is the most abundant/available. Conduct a study to determine the source and the ecology of terrestrial insects and other • prey found in the Chinook diets. The source of insects is likely from MRV, but - production levels, role of proximity, and importance of vegetation composition/structure are all unknown at present. Large wood and beach wrack deposits on beaches may also play an important role in prey production. Currently little is known about the ecology of - terrestrial prey items or marine prey organisms. Identify and quantify the factors that influence distribution patterns of juvenile salmon and their prey. Little is known about what drives juvenile salmon to be shoreline oriented, and/or distributed broadly across/throughout Puget Sound. Some indicators suggest - physical forces (e.g., surface or tidal currents, wind) play a role, but these are poorly studied. Biological factors (e.g., volitional/innate migration, prey abundance/availability, predator avoidance) may also play a role, or it may be a combination of multiple factors. Additionally, offshore and day/night sampling are also needed to learn more about diel • behaviors and use of various depths by different size classes of salmon. Conduct a study of subyearling Chinook smolts movement in the Duwamish estuary. As noted previously, it appears that Chinook migration appears to be both active and passive. - A detailed migration study would allow a look at how long juvenile Chinook spend in - different parts of the Duwamish estuary and open shorelines. It could also help elucidate how,when and where juvenile Chinook migrate across the open waters of Puget Sound in - 86 order to get to Vashon and Maury Islands, or move offshore at larger sizes. This would increase the understanding of what processes drive Chinook migration. • Conduct studies on marine forage fishes to learn more about their biology and population dynamics. Although limited surveys of spawning areas have been conducted, little is known about the biology, population dynamics, and stock status of surf smelt and sand lance. These species are critical components of marine nearshore ecosystems and serve - as important prey for salmonids (at all life stages) and other marine organisms. • Undertake a multivariate analysis of the diet data along with environmental data to further elucidate site-related diet differences. Few consistent differences were seen in - Chinook prey between the site groups. One exception was that the fish from a northern - group of sites consumed fewer polychaete worms and more terrestrial insects than at the other two site groups. The reasons for this are unknown, but a multivariate analysis of the diet data along with a better understanding of the distribution of prey taxa could - further elucidate these and other site-related differences. - • Run additional analyses on diet data. While data qualitatively suggests that the diets of hatchery and wild Chinook overlap, it would be more powerful to quantify the amount of overlap of specific prey groups. - • Explore the relationship between adipose fin clipping of juvenile salmonids and survival. Almost 60% of the coded wire tag (CWT) Chinook examined in this study were not adipose fin clipped, even though the percentage of nonclipped CWT Chinook released - throughout Puget Sound is approximately 40% (RMIS database). (Note: This pattern may • be influenced by bad clipping rates, which reinforces the management recommendation to make a greater effort to clip all hatchery Chinook and coho). • Conduct long-term and larger scale ecological monitoring of juvenile salmon throughout - Puget Sound. The types of studies being conducted in the Skagit system (Beamer et al. 2004) serve as an example of what is needed throughout Puget Sound. Using multiple gear types in various habitats and environmental conditions is critical for understanding the relationships between habitat use, marine growth, year class strength, and marine - carrying capacity (Orsi et al. 2000). J.2 WRIA 9 CHINOOK SALMON RESEARCH FRAMEWORK - The following excerpts were taken from Ruggerone et al. (2004) indicating possible and priority research hypotheses or studies from the research framework. More detail on the hypotheses and - planning level scopes for the studies (including study questions, sampling area, methods, sample - timing, effort and confidence, and rough costs) are contained in Ruggerone et al. (2004). Based on the conceptual model of the research framework, a number of hypotheses were developed for areas that lacked adequate information to draw conclusions (e.g., types and • relative abundance of juvenile life history trajectories). Those hypotheses were prioritized by a sub-committee of the WRIA 9 Technical Committee. Prioritization relied upon the extent of 87 - existing information (i.e., where did we know some information versus none) and the usefulness - of the research in advancing the effectiveness of Chinook conservation planning for WRIA 9. Hypotheses were grouped into tiers, with tier 1 hypotheses having the highest priority and tier 3 having the lowest priority. The tiered list of hypotheses is listed below, grouped by VSP attributes (i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity). In some cases, • hypotheses may address more than one VSP attribute. In such cases,the hypothesis is listed with the most relevant VSP attribute and a reference to other attributes is noted. Additionally, some hypotheses are rather broad and more-specific sub-hypotheses are listed under the broad hypotheses. It is important to note that the hypotheses listed below are stated as null hypotheses - and that we believe that the opposite is true. Tier 1 hypotheses were used to develop planning • level Research Scopes of Work, which are presented in the following section. - Priority Salmon Research Hypotheses • The following table is a summary of the priority hypotheses, sub-hypotheses and questions and their research status taken from Ruggerone et al. (2004). "Salmon"refers primarily to Chinook. Hypothesis or Research Action Research Status - 1.1 The upper estuary(RM 5.5-7)is key rearing habitat. Nelson et al. (2004)provides data that support this hypothesis. See 1.1a-1.1d, below. 1.1a High salmon density boundaries occur near RM See 1.1 above. More effort is needed to identify the - 5.5-7. boundaries. 1.1 b Salmon diet and growth is adequate at high and Some diet information has been collected in 2002 and low densities. 2003, but has not been analyzed to answer this i question. - 1.1 c Habitat capacity adequately supports salmon. Nelson et al. (2004)provides some information, as well as ongoing research on the Skagit River. - However, more research is needed to evaluate this complex question. 1.1d Salmon residence time is influenced by density. Nelson et al.2004 and Volk and Ruggerone(2004) • have some information, but this question is not specifically addressed. 1.2 Residence time in the lower Green River is affected Observations by Nelson et al. (2004)provide some - by flow and habitat. information, but a targeted experimental approach is needed to answer this hypothesis. 1.3 Identify estuarine habitats preferred by salmon. Previous studies show there are high densities of - salmon at RM 5.5-7, but habitat preferences have not been identified in the Duwamish River. Studies in - other estuaries may be useful. Morley and Toft(2004) have proposed a study that would look at difference between armored/unarmored and - vegetated/unvegetated shorelines. 1.4 Identify marine nearshore habitats preferred by Studies have been proposed by King County("Core - salmon. Areas"study)and J. Toft(UW).A pilot"core area" study was undertaken by King County to examine this hypothesis and Toft et al. (2003)looked at the • feasibility of various fish sampling methods in the marine nearshore. 1.5 Growth,diet, and prey resources of salmon in the Nelson et al. (2004)and Morley and Toft(2004) - lower estuary and river is adequate. provide some information on growth and prey resources, respectively. UW will be analyzing diet of . Chinook and chum collected in the estuary during 2002 and 2003. Additional stomach samples collected in 2004 could be analyzed and compared with - 88 Hypothesis or Research Action Research Status invertebrate samples collected in the Duwamish as a - first glance at this hypothesis. 2.1 The Green River produces multiple life history Nelson et al. (2004) provides some initial estimates of trajectories. juvenile trajectories, however some more specific - information is needed. See 2.1 a and 2.1 b below. 2.1a Identify life history trajectories. Some data are available from Nelson et al. (2004), however, more research is needed for these - hypotheses. 2.1 b Measure survival of fry vs. fingerling migrants. No data for the Green River. 2.2 The productivity and capacity of Green River Initial work was conducted by Weitkamp and - Chinook is adequate. Ruggerone (2000), but recent revisions of the - escapement methodology indicates that the database and analysis needs to be revised. - 3.1 Egg-to-fry survival is adequate. Work by WDFW can provide information on this hypothesis. Seiler et al. (2002) provides one year of data. Three years of additional data have been - collected, but need to be analyzed and reported. 3.2 Quantity of spawning habitat is adequate. WDFW conducts annual spawner surveys, but habitat quantity has not been measured or compared to - spawning numbers. 3.3 Quality of spawning habitat is adequate. WDFW conducts annual spawner surveys, but habitat quality has not been quantified. However, gravel - supplementation does occur near the Tacoma Diversion Dam. - 4.1 Fry production is affected by winter flows. WDFW fry trapping may provide insight for this - hypothesis. Seiler et al. (2002) provides one year of data. Three years of additional data have been - collected, but need to be analyzed and reported. These data could be used to correlate survival with - flow. - 4.2 Scour from high flows impacts salmon redds. No data for Green River, but studies in other watersheds. 4.3 Chinook spawn in river thalweg resulting in greater No data for Green River. - scour of redds. Comprehensive List of Hypotheses Prioritized by Tiers Tier 1 Productivity • Habitat in the lower Green River, Duwamish estuary and marine nearshore areas is adequate to support natural juvenile Chinook salmon. - The upper estuary (Trimaran, Turning Basin and adjacent areas) is a key rearing habitat that supports both fry and fingerling migrants with adequate habitat capacity (diversity). - Habitat in the lower Green River is adequate for supporting all potential Chinook life history trajectories during both high and low flow periods. - Juvenile Chinook salmon utilize estuarine habitat types randomly. 89 - - Chinook salmon utilize marine nearshore habitat types randomly. - - Growth of natural juvenile Chinook salmon in the lower river, estuary and nearshore is adequate and are not influenced by releases of hatchery fish. Diet is opportunistic and adequate. • Chinook spawning habitat is adequate in terms of quality, quantity, and spatial - distribution (spatial structure). - Chinook egg-to-fry survival is adequate compared with that of other populations. • - There is adequate spawning habitat to support Chinook salmon. - The Green River has adequate spawning quality to support Chinook salmon. Green River flow regime does not affect Green River juvenile Chinook survival by either - 1) concentrating spawning in the thalweg and increasing risk of scour above natural - levels or 2) scouring eggs or alevins from the gravel as a result of high flows during late fall through early spring. - Fry production is not related to winter flow patterns. - The depth of scour during flood events is not sufficient to disturb Chinook redds. - A large proportion of adult Chinook do not spawn in the thalweg of the river. Diversity • Life history diversity and productivity of Green/Duwamish Chinook salmon are adequate (productivity). - The Green River produces multiple juvenile Chinook salmon life history trajectories. - Productivity and capacity of natural Green River Chinook salmon are adequate and comparable to other summer/fall Chinook salmon populations. Tier 2 Productivity The relative abundance of fry versus fingerling migrants originating from the middle Green River is dependent on available habitat, which is influenced by river flow, fish - density, and food availability. Alternatively, the migration pattern is genetically • programmed or is related to the percentage of adults spawning in the river thalweg and numbers of emerging fry that are carried downstream before reaching suitable, low velocity habitats (abundance). - 90 • The capacity of nearshore habitats in Puget Sound(quantity and quality), including prey availability, are adequate to support both natural and hatchery Chinook salmon - populations, i.e., growth, residence time, and survival are adequate. - Diversity • River flow during late winter and early spring"pushes" fry migrants into the estuary and marine waters, whereas freshets during May and June stimulate migration of fingerling - migrants (diversity). • Residence time of fingerling migrants in the estuary is similar to that of fry migrants; it is independent of existing habitat quantity; and residence time is not affected by hatchery releases (productivity). - Tier 3 Productivity - • The Duwamish/Green River provides an adequate migration corridor for returning adult • salmon, i.e., flow and temperature are adequate. • Water temperature and adult spawn timing have not altered emergence timing. • Water quality in the estuary is adequate to support Chinook salmon. - • Predation has little effect on Chinook survival in the river, estuary and nearshore marine areas. • Growth of juvenile Chinook salmon in Puget Sound is not influenced by climate-induced - prey availability, and competition for prey has little effect on Chinook growth and survival. • Duwamish sediment quality does not affect juvenile salmonids. - Spatial Structure • Migration patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon in Puget Sound are random. Diversity - • Spawning aggregations in the present Green River watershed, including spatially and - temporally segregated stocks and the hatchery stock, are genetically similar. Migration - timing of spawning aggregations is similar(spatial structure). J.3 MIDDLE GREEN RIVER FLOW INVESTIGATION The Middle Green Flow Investigation is a collaborative effort to identify flow-related research - priorities for the middle reach of the Green River and develop a program to implement studies to 91 - address the priorities. This is a joint effort involving staff from King County, US Army Corps of - Engineers, USGS, American Rivers, WDFW, and WDOE. The current and upcoming work is • focusing on enhancing our understanding of the relationship between river flow patterns, physical responses, and biological parameters. Three draft"themes"have been proposed for consideration as part of the investigation. • ■ Theme 1: A retrospective study of the Green River comparing channel conditions prior to and after construction of HHD • Theme 2: Macrohabitat analysis and high flow connectivity that includes describing, - mapping and summarizing off-channel habitat conditions for high flows 0 Theme 3: The influence of physical processes on aquatic and riparian habitat • All three of these studies have potential to contribute substantial information to flow-habitat - relationships in the Middle Green River that will aid in salmon conservation and recovery. Theme 1 is the first priority and more detailed scoping has been initiated. The key hypothesis is that closure and operation of Howard Hanson Dam and the modifications in channel structure - (e.g., construction of levees and revetments, channel straightening and dredging) for flood control purposes have altered the rates, magnitudes and spatial arrangement of ecosystem processes and functions compared to the pre-dam state. The information we learn from addressing this hypothesis will be used to address a follow-up hypothesis: the flow regime during . the post-dam period causes geomorphic and habitat variability (in functional, structural and - process attributes) sufficient to sustain a viable salmonid population. The study encompasses the river and its valley from the upper limits of the Green River at approximately river mile 88, downstream to the historic confluence with the now-diverted White • River at approximately river mile 31. The time frame covered by this study varies, but generally covers the period from approximately 1856 to the present day. Certain attributes will be examined for a more limited study period from 1936 to present (e.g., hydrologic/gauging data, photographic record), while other attributes may go back to 1856 (e.g., written accounts, • anecdotal information). Theme 2 Hypothesis: Scheduled releases of high flow and selected habitat improvement projects will increase the area and complexity of off-channel habitat for fish in the Middle Reach of the - Green River. An increase in habitat area will depend on river stage, secondary channel density, - and width of channel migration zone. An increase in usable habitat area will depend on timing of releases and concurrent life stage of fish species. Study Design and Objectives: Flood storage behind Howard Hanson Dam has reduced high • flows downstream. Flows in the Middle Reach of the Green River have not exceeded 12,000 cfs since 1962. Pre-regulation high flows ranged from 12,000 cfs (.50 probability), to 21,000 cfs (.10 probability), to 34,000 cfs (.01 probability) (King County, 1993). Flood storage has altered the hydrologic regime of the river and reduced the extent of overbank flows (connectivity) in . floodplain and other off-channel areas. The overall study design is to describe, map, and summarize off-channel habitat conditions at specified high flows on the Middle Reach of the Green River in King County, WA. Habitat - 92 assessment areas will include the floodplain at specified flows, historic channel locations, channel migration hazard areas, secondary channels, and associated landforms outside the main - channel of the river. Objectives of the study are to define and quantify potential fish habitat - benefits of restoring flows greater than 12,000 cfs with overflows in off-channel areas on the river. Theme 3 involves the investigation of physical processes on aquatic habitat at the scale of • channel forms (e.g., pools, riffles, runs). The results will be used to develop an understanding of how habitat conditions for these general types of channel forms will respond to human manipulations of streamflow, sediment load, channel morphology, and riparian vegetation. Hypothesis: High flows can be managed to allow ecological functions (e.g., creating and - maintaining off-channel habitat, recruitment of large woody debris, path turnover) without - negative consequences including redd scour, depletion of limited sediment supply below Howard Hansen dam, and reducing large woody debris and instream habitat structure. There are a number of important secondary hypothesis related to specific habitat responses. For example, . the probability of Chinook salmon redd scour increases with streamflow but can be reduced by - limiting the frequency and duration of flows exceeding some threshold and managing flows when salmon are selecting spawning sites. Study Design and Objectives: This study will examine the interactions between streamflow, - sediment, and large woody debris (LWD) in the middle Green River. It will require information about channel form and hydraulic conditions at representative sites within the Middle Green River. Hydraulic and sedimentological conditions would be analyzed at the sites to characterize sediment transport regime (e.g., threshold of motion,partial transport, equal mobility of all particles). The sediment transport investigation would include experiments using tracer cobbles - in Chinook salmon redd/non-redd locations to assess scour during winter. The investigation of LWD would include a retrospective assessment of in-channel LWD identified from historical aerial photos, US Army Corps of Engineers data on new wood placement, and multispectral - aerial imaging. Remote inventorying would be verified and supplemented by field surveys of the - location (relative elevation and location in channel) of selected pieces of LWD. The LWD investigation would quantify LWD retention time in selected reaches; quantify streamflow levels for distinct types of interactions (e.g., streamflow that transport key pieces for log jams, transport smaller debris, transport sediment around LWD; or provides cover or pools adjacent to LWD). - JA Predation Conduct a study of the impacts of predation on Chinook salmon and other salmonids (by birds, - marine mammals or other fish) and examine actions that can be taken to reduce those impacts. . Study efforts should take advantage of and be coordinated with predation studies elsewhere in Puget Sound. The study could be a component of project monitoring and developed in detail as part of future habitat plan implementation. J.5 Miscellaneous Studies 1. Conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility of reconfiguring the Black River pump station to improve fish passage and allow gravity flow under non-flooding conditions, while maintaining or improving the existing flood control function of the pump station. - 93 - 2. Evaluate Propeller Scour/Boat Wakes on Habitat Projects—Determine whether propeller • scour and boat wakes damage existing habitat or constrain future habitat in the - Duwamish River. Prop scour from tugboats and other marine vessels and boat wakes may damage restored habitats, limiting where they can be placed. Being aware of this will aid in site selection and project design. Study design should include evaluation of impacts of prop scour on capped contaminated sediments. If prop scour/boat wakes is • determined to be a significant detrimental factor for habitat projects, determine what can be done to: (1) reduce wakes/scour and/or(2) reduce the impact through structural solutions. - 3. Evaluate Economic Impact of Restoration—Evaluate the economic impacts of purchase i by governments of Duwamish lands for large habitat rehabilitation/substitution projects. This would include examination of impacts on economic activity and government revenues from the removal of land from the industrial base for use in habitat restoration. This evaluation could be expanded to examine all the benefits and all the costs associated • with land acquisition for habitat restoration. - 4. Extend Chinook Salmonid Research Program to Upper Green—Extend the salmonid • research program developed for the lower four subwatersheds (Ruggerone et al. 2004) to the Upper Green River subwatershed. Using the WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework as a basis, develop hypotheses or research actions regarding habitat, fish • utilization and key viable salmonid population parameter issues. 5. Study Impacts of Fish Carcasses on Water Quality—Conduct tests above the Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) to see how fish carcass distribution affects water quality. Perform • water quality tests to determine whether adult fish access to habitats between the Tacoma - diversion Dam and the HHD in the future would compromise drinking water quality. 6. Field Check Verification of Riparian Conditions in Upper Green- Further verify riparian • conditions in the Upper Green. Although conditions have been monitored by the various - public and private landowners, scientific documentation of riparian conditions is limited in the Upper Green River subwatershed. The WRIA9 Technical Committee determined that a more comprehensive verification of riparian conditions is a vital step towards - prioritizing, designing, and implementing projects focused on protecting or improving - riparian conditions in the subwatershed. 7. Inventory of Off-Channel Habitat in Upper Green - Create a comprehensive inventory of off-channel habitat to provide a basis for prioritization, sequencing, and implementation • of projects designed to protect or restore off-channel habitat in the Upper Green subwatershed. - 8. Analyze Link Between Habitat Protection and the Forest and Fish Report Provisions- - Analyze the effects of current Forest& Fish initiatives on addressing habitat protection to determine if these provisions are attaining goals. . 9. Develop a Culvert and Failing/High Risk Roads Inventory in Upper Green—Develop a - culvert and failing/high-risk roads inventory to determine which roads and/or culverts are likely to fail, with the purpose of using this information to prioritize roads and culverts to repair or remove from the subwatershed. - 94 10. Correlate Predicted Core Areas in Upper Green with Recent Habitat Assessment Data— An inventory sponsored by the City of Tacoma and carried out by R2 Consultants - (transects in 48 locations in the Green River mainstem from the North Fork to Friday - Creek to identify areas for fish habitat mitigation projects) will be complete at the end of 2005. An assessment should be carried out comparing habitat conditions to predicted core areas within the mainstem. 11. Fish Passage Barrier Studies and Future Projects in Upper Green- Inventories of fish passage barriers are incomplete in the Upper Green subwatershed. These inventories should be completed, including evaluation of barriers resulting from logging roads or railroads in order to assess which barriers should be removed based on suitability of - potential habitat that would be opened to salmonid use. Barriers should then be prioritized for removal and inclusion in future updates to the Habitat Plan. 95 - K. HABITAT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT BENEFIT BULL TROUT In addition to addressing the habitat needs of Chinook, this Habitat Plan also provides habitat improvements for bull trout, listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened in November 1999. The ecosystem 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 this Appendix provides a matrix showing how the recommendations in this Habitat Plan address the bull trout recovery actions listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound District Population Segment of Bull Trout (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Identify impaired stream Restore and protect riparian areas. Identify impaired riparian areas and restore vegetative cover to Watershed-wide channel and riparian areas provide shade, canopy, riparian cover,and native vegetation. Develop and implement a public education/outreach programs; and implement actions to awareness campaign regarding the effectiveness and necessity of maintaining and improving Lower Green, Middle Green, restore their appropriate riparian areas for supporting salmonids. Priority areas for protection include: developing rural areas and Duwamish projects. Also functions. within identified local populations; and foraging and migration, and overwintering areas with existing addressed in the Scientific high quality habitat or habitat on a trajectory towards recovery. (p. 247, 1.3.1) Foundation chapter. Identify, evaluate, and restore overwintering habitat in the mainstem rivers and tributaries. Determine Upper Green program; Middle where overwintering habitat areas are degraded by factors such as sediment accumulation, bedload Green and Lower Green movement, or low flows in all core areas. (p.247, 1.3.2) projects. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Identify and restore foraging waters with high restoration benefit. Highest priorities are mainstems No specific actions. Middle downstream of local populations used by anadromous life histories to reach marine habitats. (p.248, Green, Lower Green, and 1.3.3) Duwamish projects apply indirectly. Reduce stream channel degradation and increase channel complexity. Priority areas include most Middle Green, Lower Green, lower mainstem rivers in all core areas. (p.248, 1.3.4) and Duwamish projects. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Practice non-intrusive flood control and flood repair activities. Provide technical assistance to Watershed-wide programs; Counties, Cities,and private landowners to develop options for fish friendly flood control methods Middle Green, Lower Green, and repair techniques. Ensure that negative effects to bull trout habitat from ongoing flood control and Duwamish projects activities(e.g., dredging,woody debris removal, channel clearing, hardened bank stabilization, and riparian removal from dikes and levees)are avoided or minimized.Alternatives should emphasize restoration of floodplain connectivity and the elimination or setback of existing armored banks, dikes and levees to restore habitat forming processes. . 249, 1.3.5 96 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Reduce development impacts on streams, floodplains,and lake shores. (p. 249, 1.3.6) Land Use policies and Watershed-wide programs. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Reduce transportation corridor impacts on streams. (p.249, 1.3.7)Reduce impacts from the legacy Upper Green, Middle Green, of road and railroad encroachment(e.g., sedimentation, channel straightening, channel relocation, Lower Green, and Duwamish channel constriction, and undersized bridges). (p.249, 1.3.7) projects; Upper Green program (1). Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Improve grazing practices. . 250, 1.3.8 Nospecific actions. Restore natural stream channel morphology. (p. 250, 1.3.9) Lower Green policy(1)and Upper Green program (1). Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Enhance and restore instream habitat. (P. 250, 1.3.10) Land Use policies,Watershed- wide programs, Upper Green project(1), Middle Green projects, Lower Green policy and projects, Duwamish projects. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Protect riparian and stream channel habitat at managed and unmanaged campgrounds, trail No specific actions. Regulatory systems, and recreational sites. (p.251, 1.3.11) policies and Watershed-wide programs apply indirectly. Eliminate or minimize entrainment at diversions and ditches. (p. 244, 1.2.1) Watershed-wide program, Land Use policies, and Lower Green projects. Provide adequate fish passage around diversions and dams. (p. 245, 1.2.2)Specifically: Howard Upper Green project(1). Also Hansen Dam addressed in the Scientific Identify barriers or sites of Foundation chapter. entrainment for bull trout Identify and eliminate culvert barriers. (p. 245, 1.2.3) Land Use policies,Watershed- and implement actions to wide programs, Upper Green provide passage and policies and projects, and eliminate entrainment. Marine Nearshore policies and projects. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Identify and eliminate or modify tide gates, pump stations,and flood gates blocking access to bull Lower Green project. Also trout habitat. (p. 246, 1.2.4) addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Inform the public about the impacts of recreational barriers to migrating bull trout. P.246, 1.2.5 Nospecific actions. 97 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Reduce reservoir operation impacts. (p.252, 1.4.1) No specific actions. Upper Operate dams to minimize Green program (1)applies negative effects on bull indirectly. Also addressed in the trout in reservoirs and Scientific Foundation chapter. downstream. Provide sufficient instream flow downstream from dams and diversions. (p.252, 1.4.2) No specific actions. Addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Update and/or review local Forest Service or other watershed analyses. .253, 1.5.1 Nospecific actions. Upgrade or decommission existing and potential problem roads. .253, 1.5.2 Upper Green project 1 Minimize levels of effective impervious surface from development. (p.254, 1.5.3) Minimize...by Land Use policies and Identify upland conditions protecting hydrologically mature forest cover...and by implementing other low impact development Watershed-wide programs. negatively affecting bull measures. Alternatively, if lacking such forest condition, protect the opportunity to reestablish forest Also addressed in the Scientific trout habitats and cover by minimizing amount of clearing, buildings, and infrastructure. If reestablishment of forest Foundation chapter. implement actions to cover is not possible due to existing high intensity development(e.g., already built-out areas of cities restore appropriate and unincorporated urban growth areas), then require highest levels of stormwater engineering and functions. integrate low impact development measures (e.g., impervious surface removal, roof top gardens) where possible. For rural areas(i.e., lands not in cities or not within unincorporated areas with existing high density development)draining to bull trout foraging, migration and overwintering areas, maintain at least(but preferably more than)65 percent hydrologically mature forest cover and no more and preferably much less than 10 percent effective impervious area. Identify and remediate contaminant sites in estuarine and nearshore marine areas. (p.255, 1.6.1) Duwamish policy(1)and High priority sites include those in close proximity to known and potential marine forage fish projects. Also addressed in the spawning areas and bull trout subadult and adult foraging habitats. (Specifically, Lower Duwamish Scientific Foundation chapter. and Elliott Bay) Identify impaired estuarine Reduce impacts of development and transportation corridors along estuarine and marine shorelines. Land Use policies, Duwamish and nearshore marine (p. 255, 1.6.2)Where feasible remove or reduce existing bank armoring(bulkheads and riprap), projects, Marine Nearshore habitats and implement dikes, in-water and over-water structures (e.g., pilings, docks)to restore or enhance altered programs and projects. Also actions to restore their shorelines and adjacent riparian areas. Avoid further development that will interfere with natural bluff addressed in the Scientific appropriate functions. and beach erosion processes, degrade vegetated intertidal habitats and forage fish spawning areas, Foundation chapter. or degrade nearshore riparian areas. Highest priority areas for restoration include those in or in close proximity to known and potential marine forage fish spawning areas and bull trout subadult and adult foraging habitats, especially those directly linked to known core areas. Restore or recreate intertidal foraging habitats in key areas. (p.256, 1.6.3). Specifically Shilshole Bay No specific actions. Marine and Elliott Bay. Nearshore projects apply indirectly. Conduct evaluations of the adequacy and effectiveness of current and past best management No specific actions. Conduct evaluations of the practices in maintaining or achieving conditions conducive to bull trout recovery. . 268, 5.3.1 adequacy and effectiveness Develop a temperature monitoring program. (p. 268, 5.3.2) No specific actions. Addressed of current and past best in Adaptive Management and management practices in Monitoring chapter. maintaining or achieving Evaluate and improve existing forestry best management practices. .269, 5.3.3 Nospecific actions. 98 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan conditions conducive to Evaluate and improve existing agricultural conservation practices. (p.269, 5.3.4)Provide farmers with Land Use policies,Watershed- bull trout recovery. information about the functions and importance of functional riparian areas, and develop incentives wide programs, Middle Green for improving riparian conditions in agricultural settings. program,Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation and Implementation chapters. Evaluate and improve existing and proposed development best management practices. (p.269, Land Use and regulatory 5.3.5) policies,Watershed-wide programs, and a Lower Green policy. Also addressed in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Maintain or improve water Identify and improve or remove unstable or problem roads causing sediment delivery. P. 238, 1.1.1 Upper Green project. quality in bull trout core Improve routine road maintenance practices affecting water quality. (p.239, 1.1.2) Programmatic support policy, areas or potential core Upper Green policy, habitat. Implement measures to restore natural thermal regime. (p. 240, 1.1.3). Use Water Resource Land Use policy. Also Inventory Area's habitat limiting factors analyses,Washington Department addressed in the Scientific of Ecology's 303(d)lists, and Water Resource Inventory Area's Ecosystem Diagnostic Treatment Foundation chapter. modeling to help prioritize areas. (Specifically: Lower Green River foraging migration and overwinterin habitat Reduce anthropogenic nutrient input. (p. 240, 1.1.4)by improving sewage treatment and disposal, Land Use policies,Watershed- agriculture practices(e.g., manure spreading,fertilizing), and silvicultural fertilizing practices. wide programs, Middle Green program, and a Marine Nearshore program.Also addressed in the Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. Silvicultural fertilizing practices are not addressed. Encourage the uptake of marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses into the freshwater No specific actions. ecosystem. (p. 241, 1.1.5)This is facilitated by two processes: 1)the hauling of carcasses up into the riparian zone by animals(mammals and birds),and 2)the reestablishment of complex stream channels (braided channels or side channels, large woody debris incorporated into the channel structure, etc.)to trap and retain the carcasses. Explore the potential to modify salmon harvest management(see action 3.1.3)to assure a more consistent and large spawning escapement of salmon to all core areas with anadromous bull trout populations, especially pink and chum salmon which seem to provide the largest benefit to char.Also conduct hatchery salmon carcass deployment efforts where appropriate. Monitor water quality and meet water quality standards for temperature, nutrient loading, dissolved No specific actions. Addressed oxygen, and contaminants. (p.241, 1.1.6) in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. 99 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Identify, restore, and protect groundwater and hyporheic sources. (p. 242, 1.1.7)protect identified Land Use policies, Watershed- refugia areas from ground or surface water withdrawals, and prioritize these areas for instream wide programs, and Middle habitat improvements. (Specifically: Lower Green River foraging migration and overwintering Green projects. Also addressed habitat) in the Scientific Foundation chapter. Reduce anthropogenic sediment and contaminant sources generated from agriculture practices. (p. Land Use policies, Watershed- 242, 1.1.8) Identify and reduce fine sediment and contaminant sources (pesticides)from agriculture wide programs, and a Middle practices in watersheds of the Puget Sound Management Unit. Highest priority areas include where Green program. Also agriculture exists above or adjacent to spawning and juvenile rearing habitats within core areas. addressed in the Scientific Secondary priorities include mainstems and associated tributaries that provide foraging, migration, Foundation chapter. and postclispersal rearing. Reduce anthropogenic sediment sources generated from forest management. (p. 243, 1.1.9) Upper Green policies. Also addressed in the Habitat Management Strategies chapter. Reduce anthropogenic sediment and contaminant sources generated from residential development Land Use and Programmatic and urbanization. support policies, and Watershed-wide programs. Maintain and improve instream flows. (p. 244, 1.1.11) Locate and terminate unpermitted water Land Use and Regulatory withdrawals to restore adequate instream flows and prevent potential entrainment of juvenile bull policies, a Watershed-wide trout. Increase compliance monitoring and enforcement of unauthorized withdrawals and program. Also addressed in the enforcement action. Identify stream reaches where decreased instream flows limit bull trout Scientific Foundation chapter. spawning, rearing,foraging, migration, or overwintering and work to improve instream flows to more fully support these uses. Long-term efforts must included addressing overallocated basins or tributaries through water conservation, voluntary purchase or retirement of water rights, education, incentives, and enforcement. Use existing Federal Ensure adequate protection for bull trout at all life stages under Washington State Water Quality No specific actions. Addressed authorities to conserve and Standards. (p.272, 6.2.1) in the Scientific Foundation restore bull trout. chapter. Coordinate bull trout recovery with other listed salmonid species recovery efforts. (p.271, 6.1.1) Programmatic support policy, Use partnerships and Upper Green and Lower Green collaborative processes to projects. Addressed in protect, maintain, and Executive Summary, Scientific restore functioning core Foundation, and Adaptive areas for bull trout. Management and Monitoring, and Implementation chapters. 100 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Ensure protection of the highest quality spawning and rearing habitats remaining within each core Land Use policies, Watershed- area through measures including conservation land purchases and easements. (p.271, 6.1.2) wide programs, Upper Green, Middle Green, Lower Green, Duwamish, and Marine Nearshore projects. Also addressed in the Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapter. Design and implement a Design and implement a population monitoring strategy for the Puget Sound Management Unit. Add No specific actions. Addressed standardized monitoring a monitoring component for foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats (e.g., lower Green River, in the Adaptive Management program to assess the lower Nis uall River)that are identified as essential for recovery. .265, 5.1.1 and Monitoring chapter. effectiveness of recovery Evaluate existing recovery measures over time. (p.265, 5.1.2) No specific actions. Addressed efforts affecting bull trout in the Adaptive Management and their habitats. and Monitoring chapter. Develop a predictive model of suitable habitat used by juvenile and resident bull trout. (p.270, 5.5.1) No specific actions. Bull trout utilization of habitat is addressed in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Implement research and Management and Monitoring monitoring studies to chapters. improve information Investigate potential use of the upper Green River by bull trout, and investigate habitat suitability. No specific actions. Addressed concerning the distribution (p.270, 5.5.2) Conduct additional surveys to determine presence of remnant bull trout population in in the Scientific Foundation and and status of bull trout. the upper Green River basin. Evaluate habitat suitability in the upper Green River for expanding Adaptive Management and current foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat, and evaluate habitat suitability for spawning Monitoring chapters. and rearing in the upper Green River basin for possible establishment of an additional core area. 270, 5.5.2 Investigate potential use of the upper Nisqually River by bull trout. .271, 5.5.3 n/a Conduct research Determine complete distribution of anadromous,fluvial, adfluvial, and resident bull trout and habitats No specific actions. Addressed evaluating relationships used by each life stage. (p.265, 5.2.1) in the Scientific Foundation and among bull trout Adaptive Management and distribution and abundance, Monitoring chapters. bull trout habitat, and Determine migratory pathways, patterns, and habitat preferences of anadromous bull trout in the No specific actions. recovery actions. Puget Sound Management Unit. .266, 5.2.2 Conduct migrational studies for the Puget Sound Management Unit and coordinate with the Olympic No specific actions. Peninsula Management Unit and British Columbia. .266, 5.2.3 Identify and assess complete estuarine and marine forage base for bull trout. (p.266, 5.2.4) No specific actions. Addressed in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. 101 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Determine extent of effects from contaminant exposure. (p.267, 5.2.5) Specifically Duwamish No specific actions. Addressed River/Elliott Bay. (p.267, 5.2.5) in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. Evaluate importance of streams with only incidental bull trout presence. (p.267, 5.2.6) Evaluate the No specific actions. Addressed importance and contribution of core area tributaries or independent streams (e.g., Whatcom Creek) in the Scientific Foundation and directly flowing into Puget Sound currently assumed to have only limited incidental bull trout use (i.e., Adaptive Management and for foraging or refuge). Determine which of these tributaries and independent streams are most likely Monitoring chapters. necessary for supporting o ulation expansion and/or long-term persistence in core areas. Identify key habitat features within freshwater and marine habitats. (p.267, 5.2.7) Priorities include No specific actions. Addressed identification of key groundwater sources, hyporheic areas, and other cold water refugia; in the Scientific Foundation and identification of desired water temperature regimes in river and tributary reaches used for foraging Adaptive Management and and migration; and identification of key habitat features required to support bull trout in migratory Monitoring chapters. corridors and overwintering areas. Monitor additional local populations to provide more accurate abundance estimates for each core No specific actions. Addressed area. (p.268, 5.2.8) in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. Determine actions necessary to restore spawning and rearing in potential local populations. (p.268, No specific actions. Addressed 5.2.9) in the Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. Enforce existing Federal, Ensure restrictions on recreational mineral prospecting and placer mining in bull trout habitat are No specific actions. One State, and Tribal habitat effective. (p.272, 6.3.1) Evaluate compliance with and effectiveness of restrictions in protecting bull Regulatory policy applies protection trout habitat as described by the State's rules and regulations for mineral prospecting and placer indirectly. standards and regulations mining ("Gold and Fish"pamphlet; WDFW 1999). and evaluate their effectiveness for bull trout conservation Remove invasive nonnative plants that are limiting the effectiveness of riparian areas and restore Programmatic support policy, with native vegetation. (p.258, 2.6.1) Watershed-wide program, Middle Green projects, Develop actions to reduce Duwamish programs and negative effects of projects. Also addressed in the nonnative taxa on bull trout. Scientific Foundation and Adaptive Management and Monitoring chapters. Continue control of S artina in estuarine and nearshore areas. .259, 2.6.2 Nospecific actions. Develop genetic Transplantation and artificial propagation of bull trout is not proposed for the Puget Sound No specific actions. Addressed management plans and Management Unit at this time. in the Scientific Foundation. guidelines for appropriate 102 Category Action In WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan use of transplantation and artificial propagation.* Beyond WRIA 9 Jurisdictions' Scope Category Action Action in WRIA 9 Draft Plan Integrate research and monitoring results into native fish management plans and related information resources. (p.259, n/a Develop and implement State 3.1.1 and Tribal native fish Protect remaining bull trout strongholds and native species complexes. (p.259, 3.1.2) Large abundances of pink and n/a management plans integrating chum salmon are of particular benefit to bull trout. adaptive research. Provide increased forage opportunities in freshwater. (p.260, 3.1.3) n/a Increase biomass of marine forage base. (p.260, 3.1.4) n/a Incorporate conservation of Develop and implement a genetics study plan for future collection and analysis of genetic samples from local n/a genetic and phenotypic populations. .263, 4.1.1 attributes of bull trout into Detennine level of interaction between bull trout and Dolly Varden populations. (p.263,4.1.2) n/a recovery and management tans. Maintain existing opportunities Evaluate level of gene flow among core areas. n/a for gene flow among bull trout populations. Identify evaluations needed to Determine the life history requirements and interactions of overlapping resident and migratory bull trout populations. n/a improve understanding of (p.271, 5.6.1) relationships among genetic characteristics, phenotypic traits, and local populations of bull trout. Convene annual meetings of Generate progress reports on implementation of the bull trout recovery plan. (p.273, 7.1.1) n/a each management unit recovery team to review progress on recovery Ian implementation. Develop and implement a Develop and implement a standardized monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of recovery efforts(coordinate n/a standardized monitoring with recovery action 5.1). (p.273, 7.2.1) program to evaluate the 103 Category Action Action in WRIA 9 Draft Plan effectiveness of recovery efforts. Periodically assess progress toward recovery goals and assess recovery action priorities. Annually review progress n/a Revise scope of recovery as toward population and abundance criteria and recommend changes, as needed,to the Puget Sound Management Unit suggested by new information. recovery plan. In addition, review actions, action priorities, completed actions, budget, time frames, particular successes, and feasibility. (p.273, 7.3.1) Determine distribution and abundance of nonnative fish (brook trout and westslope cutthroat trout)and identify overlap n/a Implement control of nonnative with bull trout. .257, 2.5.1. fishes where found to be Evaluate brook trout impacts to migratory bull trout populations. (p.258, 2.5.2) n/a feasible and appropriate. Experimentally remove established brook trout populations from priority streams. (p.258, 2.5.3) n/a Evaluate policies for preventing Review existing enforcement of current policies for preventing illegal transport and introduction of nonnative fishes. n/a illegal transport and introduction (p.256, 2.2.1) of nonnative fishes. Provide information to the public Discourage unauthorized fish introductions. (p.257, 2.3.1) n/a about ecosystem concerns of illegal introductions of nonnative fishes. Evaluate biological, economic, Review existing protocols for eradicating, suppressing, or managing nonnative fish populations and implement protocols n/a and social effects of control of where needed. (p.257, 2.4.1) nonnative fishes. Develop, implement, and enforce Review and analyze effectiveness of current fish stocking policies. (p.256, 2.1.1) n/a public and private fish stocking policies to reduce stocking of nonnative fish that potentially affect bull trout. Evaluate the impacts of harvest on bull trout populations. (p.261, 3.2.1) n/a Evaluate and prevent Evaluate and minimize incidental mortality of bull trout in other fisheries. (p.261, 3.2.2) n/a overharvest and incidental Increase enforcement efforts with special emphasis on bull trout spawning and staging areas to eliminate illegal n/a angling mortality of bull trout. harvest. .261, 3.2.3 Expand angler and public awareness efforts. (p.261, 3.2.4) n/a Coordinate with British Columbia on harvest management strategies. (p.262, 3.2.5) n/a Evaluate potential effects of Monitor and evaluate effects of planted hatchery fish on bull trout,especially effects related to increased competition, n/a introduced fishes and disease, and predation. (p.262, 3.3.1) associated sport fisheries on bull trout recovery and 104 Category Action Action in WRIA 9 Draft Plan implement actions to minimize negative effects on bull trout. Evaluate effects of existing and Continue to monitor and evaluate the effects of the current minimum size limit on existing recreational bull trout n/a proposed fishing regulations on fisheries.( .262,3.4.1 bull trout. Identify important bull trout spawning and staging areas that may require special regulations.(p.263,3.4.2) n/a Evaluate effects of disease and *Evaluating the effects of disease and parasites on bull trout is not an action proposed for the Puget Sound n/a parasites on bull trout, and Management Unit at this time;(p.270,5.4) develop and implement strategies to minimize negative effects.* 105