HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272760 Near-Term Action Agenda
for Salmon Habitat Conservation
Green/Duwamish River • Central Puget • • Watershed
ResourceWater - • •
May 2002
_w
r.
f,
GBEEM/DU WAMISH
CENTRALPUGETSDUND
WATENSHED
i
•
•
•
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Steering Committee •
•
Dwight Pelz, Councilmember, King County(Chair of Steering Committee) •
Fred Poe, Councilmember, City of Auburn •
Aaron Nix, City of Auburn •
Stephen Lamphear, Councilmember, City of Burien •
Rebecca Clark, Councilmember, City of Covington
Tim Clark, Councilmember, City of Kent •
John Wiltse, Mayor, City of Normandy Park •
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton •
Richard Conlin, Councilmember, City of Seattle
Margaret Pageler, Councilmember, City of Seattle
Steve Mullet, Mayor, City of Tukwila •
Lys Hornsby, Covington Water District •
Judith Nelson, Covington Water District
Max Prinsen, King Conservation District •
Judy Taylor, King County Agricultural Commission •
Marilyn Tuohy, King County Livestock Oversight Committee •
Peter Orser, Master Builders Association
Dick Lowell, Master Builders Association •
Jeff Light, Plum Creek Timber Company •
Don Nettleton, Plum Creek Timber Company •
Thomas Newlon, Port of Seattle •
Wayne Grotheer, Port of Seattle
John Beal, Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance
James Rasmussen, Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance •
Doreen Johnson, Washington Environmental Council •
Al Barrie, Trout Unlimited/Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
John Raeder, South County Chambers Coalition
John Kirner, Tacoma Public Utilities •
Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities •
David Sizemore, The Boeing Company
Brian Winslow, The Boeing Company •
Dave Garland, Washington State Department of Ecology •
Kirk Lakey, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife •
Phil Schneider, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Art Tasker, Washington State Department of Natural Resources •
Noel Gilbrough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
Financial Contribution •
Financial support for the coordination and development of the Near-Term Action •
Agenda was provided, in part, by the local governments that have jurisdiction or •
manage resources in Water Resource Inventory Area 9. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• NEAR-TERM ACTION AGENDA
• FOR SALMON HABITAT CONSERVATION
•
• Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
•
• Water Resource Inventory Area 9
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
• May 2002
•
•
0
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 ( WRIA 9 ) STEERING COMMITTEE
AN May 2002 _
Vjjt��K'Z
Dear Salmon Conservation Partner: UNTY
On behalf of the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget SoundAuburn (WRIA 9) Steering Committee,I am pleased to send you this Near-
Term Action Agenda (NTAA) for salmon habitat conservation in our
• Burien watershed. It is our hope that our local government partners will use this
• Covington Agenda to help protect and restore salmon habitat in our watershed.
Kent
King County The NTAA recommends projects,policies,programs,practices,and studies for
Normandy Park WRIA 9 that have a high potential for benefiting salmon. Actions are focused on chinook
salmon and bull trout,which were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species
Renton Act in 1999. The NTAA is the result of four years of collaborative efforts and one year of
• Seattle sustained discussion among elected officials,city and county staff,business and environmen-
• Tukwila tal groups, scientists, and concerned citizens. Its recommendations are based on the scientific
foundation of the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report
Port of Seattle (December 2000).This NTAA provides guidance for salmon habitat conservation in our
Covington Water District watershed while we work on a long-term Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan.
King Conservation District The NTAA focuses on habitat. Of course, loss and degradation of habitat are only some of the
Tacoma Public Utilities factors contributing to the decline of salmon. Hatchery management,harvest,and dams also
• U.S.Army Corps are important and are being addressed in other forums. However, as local governments and
of Engineers citizens,we have the authority and responsibility for much of the habitat in our watershed.
By doing our part,we will contribute to larger,regional efforts to recover threatened species
Washington Department of salmon.
of Ecology
Washington Department We selected actions for the NTAA using two key principles:
Of Fish and Wildlife ■ Are we confident that the action will help salmon?
• Washington Department ' Is the action doable in the next 2-4 years?
of Natural Resources The resulting list of actions is not a catalog of every good idea that could be done;rather,it is
• a list of priority actions that we think can be done.
Washington
Environmental Council Each jurisdiction will decide how to implement the recommendations of the Near-Term
Green/Duwamish Action Agenda. We believe community/environmental groups also will continue to play an
• Watershed Alliance important role and the NTAA identifies actions where their involvement will be particularly
• Trout unlimited helpful.
• To track progress,the Steering Committee is asking local governments and other
The Boeing Company implementers to report annually on steps taken to carry out the recommendations of this
Plum Creek document. We look forward to working with you in the years ahead as we implement this
Timber Company Near-Term Action Agenda for salmon habitat conservation.
• Master Builders
Association Sincerely,
• South County Chambers
of Commerce Coalition
King County Agricultural Dwigharr
, Chair,W A 9 teering Committee
Commission Councber,King ounty Council
King County livestock
Oversight Committee Financial support provided by signers of Watershed Planning Interlocal Agreement for WRIA 9 including:
• Algona,Auburn,Black Diamond,Burien,Covington,Des Moines,Enumclaw,Federal Way,Kent,King County,Maple Valley,
Normandy Park,Renton,SeaTac,Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila
•
•
• Acknowledgements
•
Acknowledgments
•
• Steering Committee Sub-committees that Contributed
• to the Near-Term Action Agenda:
•
• Planning Work Group Kathy Taylor, Puget Sound Water Quality
Paul Bucich, City of Federal Way Action Team
Dennis Dowdy, City of Auburn
Paul Hickey, Tacoma Public Utilities Public Outreach Work Group
• Lys Hornsby, Covington Water District Charlie Cunniff, Environmental Coalition of
Jon Houghton, Pentec Environmental (for South Seattle
Port of Seattle) Doreen Johnson, Washington Environmental
Doreen Johnson, Washington Environmental Council
• Council Sarah McKearrian, City of Seattle
Hans Korve, City of Covington Noelle Richards, watershed citizen
• Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish Pat Sumption, Friends of the Green
and Wildlife
• Ryan Larson, City of Tukwila
• Michele McFadden, King County Other Contributors
• Don Monaghan, City of SeaTac
• Aaron Nix, City of Auburn Report Editors
Judith Noble, City of Seattle
• Lorin Reinelt, King County Louise Kulzer, lead
• Leslie Ryan-Connelly, City of Federal Way Laura lark ore
C
Ron Straka, City of Renton Dennis Clark
Kathy Taylor, Puget Sound Water Quality
Technical Editor
Action Team
Brian Winslow, The Boeing Company Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.:
. Bill Wolinski, City of Kent Lindsey Amtmann, lead
• Technical Committee Report Design and Graphics
w Karen Bergeron, U.S. Forest Service Megann Devine, King County
• Eric Bixler, City of Seattle Sandy Krause, King County
• Jim Brennan, King County Laurel Preston, King County
• Terry Butler, King County
Fred Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Paul Hickey, City of Tacoma Watershed Coordination Services Team
Jon Houghton, Pentec Environmental (for Doug Osterman, Watershed Coordinator
• Port of Seattle)
Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish Laura Clark ore
• and Wildlife Dennis Clark
Linda Hanson
Tom Nelson, King County
• Louise Kulzer
• Lorin Reinelt, King County
Jennifer Rice
•
upl 101_OIx:6-000 cu rcni wriaY n1aa.dx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda iii
•
•
•
•
Quick Guide •
•
Quick Guide to the Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information:
See how the document is This matrix and the Table of Section on organization at the end of Chapter •
organized Contents 1
Understand the WRIA 9 salmon Chapter 1: Introduction
habitat conservation planning •
process and the purpose of the
Near-Term Action Agenda •
within that process •
Learn the characteristics of the Chapter 2: WRIA 9 and Salmon See the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and •
WRIA 9 watershed,causes of Conservation Reconnaissance Assessment available at:
salmon decline, and initial h"://dnr.metrokc.aov/Wrias/9/TechnicalRep •
WRIA 9 strategy for salmon orts/TechnicalReports.htm
habitat conservation For saltwater habitat information,please see •
the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: WRIAs .
8 and 9 available at:
http:Hdnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/watersheds/puaet/n •
earshore/sonr.htm
Learn what is being done now End of Chapter 2(p. 13-14)
to protect and restore salmon Chapter 4: Subwatershed
habitat Actions,Appendices A,B,and
C
Find out what actions are Chapter 3: WRIA-Wide
recommended watershed-wide Actions
for all local governments and
other partners •
Find out what actions are Chapter 4: Subwatershed See Figure 1 (p.3)to identify your •
recommended for the specific Actions subwatershed
part of watershed where you •
live,work, or play
Understand how the actions can Chapter 5: Implementing the
be implemented and where the Near-Term Action Agenda •
money may come from •
Learn about actions focused on Appendix C
salmon and trout other than •
chinook salmon and bull trout .
See who participated in the Acknowledgements section at Discussion of the planning process in Chapter
development of Near-Term the beginning of the document 1 (p. 1-3) •
Action Agenda (p. i) •
•
•
As described in Chapter 5, the WRIA 9 Steering Committee may update •
the Near-Term Action Agenda by reference. Such updates will be posted
in the WRIA 9 salmon habitat conservation web page at the time of •
publication located at: •
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/index.htm. •
•
w0/ 101-01876-000 curmnt uria9 nma do
iv WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda •
•
•
•
• Table of Contents
•
•
Contents
•
• Chapter 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Conservation Planning Process.................................................1
Salmon Conservation Planning in the Puget Sound Region.....................
• Role of the Near-Term Action Agenda ....................................................................................5
• Chapter 2. WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation..........................................................................7
• Physical Characteristics............................................................................................................7
Fish Use and Factors of Decline...............................................................................................9
The WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation and Recovery Strategy ..................................................I I
Highlights of Current WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation Actions..............................................13
�• Chapter 3. WRIA-Wide Actions .............................................................................................19
• Protect.....................................................................................................................................21
Actions that Address Key Resources and Ways to Protect Them ................................21
. Actions that Involve the Public in Protecting Salmon Habitat.....................................24
• Actions that Improve Regulations and Internal Procedures of Jurisdictions or
Organizations to Protect Fish Habitat....................................................................26
• Restore or Enhance.................................................................................................................33
Connect...................................................................................................................................37
• Study.......................................................................................................................................39
• Chapter 4. Subwatershed Actions............................................................................................43
• Upper Green River Subwatershed..........................................................................................45
. Background...................................................................................................................45
FishUse.........................................................................................................................45
• Factors of Decline and Strategy....................................................................................45
• Near-Term Actions........................................................................................................49
• Current Efforts ..............................................................................................................50
Middle Green River Subwatershed.........................................................................................59•
Background...................................................................................................................59
• Fish Use.........................................................................................................................59
• Factors of Decline and Strategy....................................................................................60
• Near-Term Actions........................................................................................................60
CurrentEfforts ..............................................................................................................67
• Lower Green River Subwatershed..........................................................................................79
Background...................................................................................................................79
• Fish Use.........................................................................................................................79
Factors of Decline and Strategy....................................................................................80
• Near-Term Actions........................................................................................................80
CurrentEfforts ..............................................................................................................86
Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed.....................................................................................93
•
vl/01-0/8'6-000 c rem a+ 9—d-
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda v
•
9
•
•
Table of Contents •
•
Background •
FishUse.........................................................................................................................93 •
Factors of Decline and Strategy....................................................................................93 •
Near-Term Actions........................................................................................................95 •
CurrentEfforts ..............................................................................................................97
NearshoreSubwatershed ......................................................................................................105 •
Background.................................................................................................................105
FishUse.......................................................................................................................105 •
Factors of Decline and Strategy..................................................................................107 •
Near-Term Actions......................................................................................................107
CurrentEfforts ............................................................................................................110 •
Chapter 5. Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda.....................................................115 •
Implementation Accountability............................................................................................115 •
Sourcesof Funding...............................................................................................................116
King Conservation District Grants..............................................................................117 •
Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board..................................................117
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project......................................................118
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.............................................119
Capital Project Mitigation Requirements....................................................................119
Other Funding Options and Sources...........................................................................120 •
Adapting the Near-Term Action Agenda .............................................................................120
Beyond the Near-Term Action Agenda: the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation •
Plan................................................................................................................................121 •
Abundance...................................................................................................................122 •
Productivity/Population Growth Rate.........................................................................122 •
SpatialDistribution.....................................................................................................122
Diversity......................................................................................................................123
Appendix A Actions Undertaken by Jurisdictions
Appendix B Riparian Management Provisions •
Appendix C Planned Projects that Benefit Species Other than Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
uvl 101-01876-000- 1 N+ia9 n1—d-
vi WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda •
•
•
•
•
• Table of Contents
•
•
Tables
• Table 1 WRIA 9 factors of decline. 10
. .......................................................................................
•
• Table 2. Upper Green River studies: Washington State Department of Natural
Resources and Tacoma Public Utilities Habitat Conservation Plans........................51
Table 3. Upper Green River habitat projects: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project.....................53
Table 4. Upper Green River studies: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the
Additional Water Storage Project.............................................................................54
Table 5. Upper Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
• Project. ......................................................................................................................57
Table 6. Upper Green River studies: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Project. ......................................................................................................................57
• Table 7. Middle Green River projects: WRIA jurisdictions...................................................68
Table 8. Middle Green River projects: Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the
• King Conservation District. ......................................................................................70
Table 9. Middle Green River projects: non-profit organizations and other
stakeholders...............................................................................................................71
• Table 10. Middle Green River habitat projects: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and
• the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project.....................72
• Table 11. Middle Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
. Project. ......................................................................................................................74
• Table 12. Middle Green River studies: WRIA jurisdictions.....................................................75
• Table 13. Middle Green River study: Non-profit organizations and other stakeholders..........75
• Table 14. Middle Green River studies: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project...........................76
• Table 15. Middle Green River studies: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
• Project. ......................................................................................................................78
0 Table 16. Lower Green River projects: WRIA jurisdictions. ...................................................87
• Table 17. Lower Green River projects: Green River Flood Control Zone District. .................89
• Table 18. Lower Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
• Project. ......................................................................................................................90
Table 19. Lower Green River study: WRIA jurisdictions........................................................91
• Table 20. Lower Green River study: Green River Flood Control Zone District. .....................91
•
•
uP//0/-01876-000 cu.rMw, 9—a.d—
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda vii
•
0
Table of Contents
Table 21. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: WRIA jurisdictions. ..............................................98
Table 22. Elliott Bay/Duwamish project proposed for funding by the Salmon
RecoveryFunding Board..........................................................................................99
Table 23. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Non-profit organizations and other
stakeholders...............................................................................................................99
Table 24. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel............100
Table 25. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Project. ....................................................................................................................101
Table 26. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: WRIA jurisdictions...............................................102
Table 27. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Non-profit organizations and other
stakeholders.............................................................................................................102
Table 28. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Lower Duwamish Superfund Program. ................103
Table 29. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel. ............104
Table 30. Elliott Bay/Duwamish study: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Project. ............................. .................................................................................104
Table 31. Nearshore projects: WRIA jurisdictions.................................................................I I I •
Table 32. Nearshore project proposed for funding by the Salmon Recovery Funding •
Board.................................. ...................................................................................112 •
Table 33. Nearshore studies: WRIA jurisdictions. .................................................................112 •
Table 34. Nearshore studies: Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King .
ConservationDistrict..............................................................................................113 •
.-pl 101-018 7 6-0 0 0 c 11.9 nma.dnc
viii WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
Table of Contents
•
•
Figures
• Figure 1. Cities and Subwatersheds. ..........................................................................................3
•
Figure 2. Duwamish Drainage Prior to 1900 and After 1916. ...................................................8
• Figure 3. Salmon Conservation Strategy in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget
• Sound Watershed. .....................................................................................................17
Figure 4. Upper Green River Subwatershed ............................................................................46
Figure 5. Forestry, Agriculture, and Major Landowners: WRIA 9..........................................47
Figure 6. Middle Green River Subwatershed...........................................................................61
Figure 7. Lower Green River Subwatershed............................................................................81
Figure 8. Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed. ......................................................................94
S Figure 9. Nearshore Subwatershed.........................................................................................106
•
0
•
•
• Alternate formats will be provided on request. TTY: 1-800-833-6388.
•
• This document is also available in electronic form at the following site:
hftp://dnr.metrokc.govMrias/9/index.htm
•
•
•
•
,,pl in;-nixsc-ooa--;w—a.dx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda ix
•
•
• Chapter 1—Introduction
•
• Chapter 1. Introduction
•
0 Chinook salmon and bull trout have been listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened
0 in the Puget Sound region'. Population numbers are declining, formerly available habitat has
been blocked, and the remaining habitat—habitat on which all salmon species depend for
survival—is losing the complex structure needed to keep the population fit and offer adaptive
alternatives. Once designated as threatened or endangered, a species and its habitat are
protected by federal law. While the Puget Sound region and individual planning units (called
Water Resource Inventory Areas or WRIAs) develop long-term strategies for people to better co-
exist with salmon, many of the WRIAs have been coordinating voluntary efforts to identify and
undertake actions that will help salmon in the short-term. This Near-Term Action Agenda is one
such effort.
•
• In this report, the word salmon refers to all
native species of salmon, steelhead, trout, and
bull trout/Dolly Varden char.
•
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Conservation Planning Process
•
• The Near-Term Action Agenda has been developed by the Steering Committee, which was
created to direct salmon conservation efforts in one of the Puget Sound basin planning units,
• Water Resource Inventory (WRIA) 9. WRIA 9 consists of the Green/Duwamish and Central
Puget Sound watersheds (Figure 1). The WRIA 9 Steering Committee was established in 1998
• and consists of representatives from local, state, and federal governments,the environmental
• community, and businesses in the WRIA (a complete list of Steering Committee participants is
provided at the beginning of this document). The WRIA 9 Steering Committee has three
subcommittees that helped create the Near-Term Action Agenda: the Planning Work Group, the
Technical Committee, and the Public Outreach Work Group. The Planning Work Group first
developed and refined many of the ideas in the Near-Term Action Agenda. The Technical
Committee and the Public Outreach Work Group also developed some of the studies and actions
• that are part of this Action Agenda.
• The WRIA 9 Forum is a caucus of local governments represented by elected officials from the
16 jurisdictions within the WRIA 3. These jurisdictions have an interlocal agreement to
r participate in the WRIA 9 salmon habitat conservation and recovery planning process and
•
. ' In March 1999,the National Marine Fisheries Service listed Puget Sound chinook salmon as a"threatened"species
under the Endangered Species Act. In November 1999,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed bull trout as a
• "threatened"species under the Endangered Species Act.
• z Please see Chapter 2 for a complete definition of WRIA 9.
3 The 16 governments that participate in this interlocal agreement are the cities of Algona,Auburn,Black Diamond,
• Burien, Covington,Des Moines,Enumclaw, Federal Way,Kent, Maple Valley,Normandy Park,Renton, SeaTac,
Seattle,and Tukwila,and King County. In addition,the City of Tacoma signed the interlocal agreement in 2001 and
will add its financial support to the WRIA 9 planning process beginning in 2002.
•
ups iw-ais-e-annrnrin9„ma.dx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 1
•
•
Chapter 1—Introduction
contract with King County to provide a small cost-shared staff. WRIA 9 planning also is
supported financially by the Lead Entity Operational Grant Program administered by the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. •
WRIA 9 has developed a four-task approach to the salmon habitat conservation challenges it
faces. Two tasks culminate in scientific reports and two conclude with action plans.
1. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report. The
Reconnaissance Assessment was completed in December 2000. This scientific
report brings together existing information on conditions of salmon and salmon
habitat in WRIA 9 both from the scientific literature and from local knowledge •
and expertise. It identifies important problems and factors that contribute to •
salmon decline and includes maps showing the distribution of salmon, by species,
throughout WRIA 9. It also highlights current gaps in data and technical
understanding. It is available on-line at:
http://dnr.metrokc.Gov/Wrias/9/TechnicalReports/TechnicalReports.htm. •
The Reconnaissance Assessment is supplemented by a similar report, completed in
2001, that provides information on the marine nearshore ecosystem of Puget Sound.
The Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem report is •
available on-line at: ,
http•//dnr metrokc gov/wlr/watersheds/puget/nearshore/sonr.htm.
2. Strategic Assessment. The Strategic Assessment will build on information in the
Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment report described above. •
It will involve research to fill important information gaps, in particular those
concerning the health of chinook salmon and bull trout. It will result in a more
complete understanding of problems and opportunities in the watershed related to
salmon and salmon habitat conservation and recovery, with a focus on the species •
listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Strategic
Assessment will be shaped by the issues that need to be addressed in the
development of the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan and will provide
the scientific foundation for the Conservation Plan.
3. Near-Term Action Agenda. This Action Agenda outlines early, voluntary steps
that can ameliorate some of the factors that are negatively affecting salmon and
salmon habitat. The Near-Term Action Agenda is a guide to actions that local
governments and other implementers can take over the next few years as •
resources and opportunities become available. It is an interim step that will
remain in effect until the Conservation Plan is completed, and it is expected to
serve as a building block for the Conservation Plan.
.pi i0i-01876-000 avrrear»• 9,foad- •
2 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Figure
RSHORE
SU ATERSHED Cities and
• Subwatersheds
• ELLIOTT BAY/ WRIA •
DUWAMISH
SUBWATERSHED
SEATTLE f� King County WRIA 9 Boundary
• _ Subwatershed Boundary
• Major Road
NEARSHORE
Urban Growth Area
SUBWATERSHED ?
River
BURIEN""- ,TUKWiLA forl
Open Water
.- RENTON
PORMANDY _ARK
Incorporated Area
Vashon SEATAC
a Island -
• LOWER
. DES GREEN RIVER
MOINES SUBWATERSHED
KENT
• Maury
Island
• _ MAPLE
COVI TON VALLEY
FEDERAL "(
• WAY
BLACK
DI AMO
• 0 AUBURN 4 _
ALGONA
MIDDLE GREEN RIVER
. SUBWATERSHED --=-t
UPPER GREEN RIVER
. SUBWATERSHED
• UMC W
•
• N
O King County
Department of
• Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division o z 4Miles
GIS and Visual Communications & Web Units L
020301 NTAA.ai MD,WGC,MD,SK December2001
i
• Chapter 1—Introduction
•
• 4. Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Salmon
Conservation Plan will guide long-term habitat conservation and recovery actions
• in the watershed and is the ultimate product of the WRIA 9 planning process. A
key component of the Conservation Plan will be an approach for adaptive
management that will allow decision-makers to respond to the ever-deepening
understanding of salmon habitat needs and opportunities for improving habitat in
• the WRIA. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee will guide development of the
Conservation Plan during the period from 2002 to 2005, with the goal of
completing the Conservation Plan in 2005. It can then be included by the
• National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or a
i designated state agency) in the broader salmon recovery plans for the entire Puget
Sound region.
•
�► Salmon Conservation Planning in the Puget Sound Region
Salmon conservation planning similar to that occurring in WRIA 9 is also underway in nearby
WRIAs. In addition, three of the most populous counties in the Puget Sound region—
Snohomish, King, and Pierce—have coordinated their planning for salmon habitat recovery
through the Tri-County Endangered Species Act Response. The Tri-County effort brings
together local governments, environmental groups, and businesses to address the habitat-related
• factors of salmon decline. One element of the Tri-County ESA Response is WRIA-level habitat
conservation planning.
Individual WRIA and Tri-County salmon habitat conservation planning is expected to feed into
• the development of a broader Puget Sound-wide Shared Strategy. The Puget Sound Shared
Strategy will attempt to create a Puget Sound-wide salmon recovery plan that ties together
harvest management, hatchery practices, and habitat protection and restoration. The efforts of
WRIA 9, along with those of other WRIAs in the Puget Sound area, will inform and be informed
• by the Shared Strategy.
•
Ultimately, however, it is the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that will develop the official recovery plan for the whole Puget Sound region. That
• recovery plan will set numeric and other goals for recovery and the criteria for success, which is
the delisting of chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
•
• Role of the Near-Term Action Agenda
The Near-Term Action Agenda for WRIA 9 recommends only selected actions. It is a not a
• compendium of all actions that could benefit salmon. Actions included in this Near-Term Action
Agenda meet both of the following criteria:
1. The action will provide known benefits to salmon or salmon habitat without the
need for additional studies to demonstrate benefit, and
vpl 104018-6-000 cunennrrinY mm�.doc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 5
Chapter 1—Introduction
2. The action is feasible and can be implemented in the next two to four years as
resources are identified, without extensive changes in existing social and
institutional frameworks (defined as doable actions by the Steering Committee). •
Actions that do not meet these criteria ultimately may be needed to recover threatened salmon.
Such actions will be considered and possibly proposed as the Comprehensive Salmon •
Conservation Plan is developed. Readers should keep in mind this distinction between the Near- •
Term Action Agenda and the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan.
The Near-Term Action Agenda is a guide to decision-making and action by local governments, •
businesses, community and environmental groups, and citizens. It identifies the types of projects, i
policies, programs, practices, and studies that have a high potential for benefiting salmon in
WRIA 9 and can be used by local jurisdictions and other organizations in setting resource
protection priorities over the next two to four years. In many cases, descriptions of actions are
focused on outcomes so that governments and other institutions can decide the most effective
method for implementation given the particular circumstances. In other cases, where one approach
to implementation is clearly superior, actions are described in detail. Consequently, readers will
note differences in the level of specificity of actions.
The Near-Term Action Agenda is not meant to be a static document. Of necessity, it is a
snapshot based on what is known at the present time. As more is learned about salmon and their
habitat needs in WRIA 9, other actions may assume greater priority. The final chapter of the .
Near-Term Action Agenda suggests a simple process to respond to new actions resulting from
better understanding of the WRIA.
The Near-Term Action Agenda is not a compilation of all potentially beneficial actions. As .
more is learned about the connection between conservation actions and healthier salmon
populations, other actions that were not identified in the Near-Term Action Agenda may emerge
as equally important. This document should not be construed as a reason to reject other actions
that careful consideration suggests will benefit listed salmon species.
Local governments in WRIA 9 (the 15 cities and King County) expect to take the lead in
carrying out many of the provisions of the Near-Term Action Agenda during the period from
2002 to 2005. Other state and federal agencies, Tacoma Public Utilities, community and
environmental groups, businesses, and citizens also have important roles to play in pursuing
actions in support of salmon habitat improvements.
The Near-Term Action Agenda is the result of sustained commitment and intensive collaboration •
by the various stakeholders on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee and its subcommittees. An even
greater level of commitment and collaboration will be required to transform the ideas presented
on these pages into a reality between now and 2005. The actions in the Near-Term Action .
Agenda, if successfully carried out,will advance the WRIA toward the goal of sufficient high- •
quality habitat to support salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
watershed.
i
n•p/ /01-01876-000 curren1orin9nrnn.dnc
6 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
Chapter 2. WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
This chapter summarizes some of the major characteristics of WRIA 9, including physical
features, salmon use, and major factors of decline. It highlights the work of the WRIA 9
Technical Committee in formulating an initial WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation and Recovery
• Strategy (Strategy), and discusses characteristics of healthy salmon populations. The chapter
• concludes by summarizing some of the key activities occurring in the WRIA.
Physical Characteristics
WRIA 9 is made up of the Green/Duwamish watershed and the Central Puget Sound watershed
(the short independent streams that drain to Puget Sound from Elliott Bay south to the Puyallup
watershed, and the associated shorelines of Puget Sound). For salmon habitat conservation
• planning purposes, the streams on Vashon/Maury Island and its Puget Sound shorelines also are
included in WRIA 9. WRIA 9 is bordered on the north by the Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8) and to the south by the Puyallup/White River watershed
(WRIA 10) (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1).
The Green/Duwamish River watershed is the largest portion of WRIA 9. Historically, the Green
River joined the White River in Auburn. Farther downstream, in Tukwila, the Cedar/Black rivers
joined the Green/White to form the Duwamish River, which meandered a further 15 miles to
empty into Elliott Bay. The three major rivers drained a watershed of about 1,600 square miles.
r The last 150 years have seen major changes in the Green/Duwamish watershed. The Green
i River fish hatchery on Soos Creek was built in 1901-02 and is still in operation. (The hatchery is
operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.) The Tacoma diversion dam was
built in 1913 on the Upper Green River, near the town of Palmer at river mile (RM) 61, to supply
water to the City of Tacoma. The diversion dam completely blocked fish passage to the upper
watershed, significantly reducing the amount of habitat available to fish. In 1911 and 1916, the
White and Cedar/Black Rivers, respectively, were diverted from the Green/Duwamish, reducing
the remaining drainage area to about 560 square miles. Figure 2 shows the Duwamish drainage
prior to 1900 and after the 1916 diversion. Habitats of importance to salmon include not only the
water and sediment attributes of the Green/Duwamish River and the Puget Sound estuary and
nearshore, but also other associated waters such as streams (Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek
being the largest); small tributaries and riparian wetlands; and seeps and groundwater linkages to
• those water bodies. In addition to these physical features, the WRIA 9 Reconnaissance
Assessment includes water quality, flows, riparian zones, and upland terrestrial conditions as
components of salmon habitat.4
. The Duwamish estuary historically contained over 4,000 acres of tidal marshes and intertidal
mudflats. The estuary was filled between 1900 and 1940, creating Harbor Island and the East
S4 Pa;e 2-1 of the Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Volume 1.
• upl/01-0I896-000 cummt—,O—d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 7
•
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
and West Waterways, largely to support industrial and shipping activities. The Green/Duwamish
River was also dredged and channelized, reducing the lower 9 miles of meandering channel to 5
miles of deeper, uniform channel more suitable for navigation. Revetments and levees were built
along most of the lower Green River to protect the flat, alluvial valley from flooding. In 1962, .
the Howard Hanson Dam was built on the Upper Green River (near RM 63.5) for flood control
and water storage purposes. No fish passage facilities were incorporated into the dam. •
•
Elliott Bay Elliott Bay •
_ � vav > v�~ •
�N ti 3i � •
131aci<Rig
e�
Cedar RiverT,.C�Iaa,River •
;iE Gwen River Grefen River
•
White River •
BEFORE 1900 rrP�jicr
AFTER1916
02NTAA ai WGC,SK
(Source:Dunne and Dietrich 1978)
Figure 2. Duwamish Drainage Prior to 1900 and After 1916. .
Before 1945, agriculture was the predominant land use in the Green/Duwamish valley.
Gradually, commercial and industrial land uses replaced agriculture on the valley floor, although •
some important agricultural production areas still exist, in part through a King County-sponsored
program to purchase development rights. •
•
The nearshore area of WRIA 9, including Vashon/Maury Island and the mainland, has !
experienced less dramatic alteration. Although the shoreline of Vashon/Maury Island is
relatively undisturbed, bulkheading has occurred. Much of the mainland shoreline also has been •
modified. It is estimated that 64 percent of the nearshore has some sort of armoring to
accommodate residential and commercial development. Despite many alterations in the •
watershed and estuary, the Green/Duwamish system continues to support important fishery •
resources.
i
•
,,pl /01-0/876-000 current wria9 nrrso.dx
8 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
The human population in WRIA 9 has increased significantly over time. Today over a half a
million people live in the watershed, most of whom reside in the WRIAs 15 cities. Growth
management planning, as prescribed by Washington State law, has designated an urban growth
• area boundary in King County, and additional growth is anticipated on the urban side of the
boundary (Figure 1). Accommodating future growth within urban areas can relieve pressure on
more resource-rich areas outside the growth boundary.
Fish Use and Factors of Decline
• The Green/Duwamish River is home to all eight species of anadromous salmon native to the west
coast of North America. The Green/Duwamish River supported an average yearly run (fish
returning to the river and those caught in the fisheries) of about 41,000 adult chinook salmon
during the period from 1968 to 1996. The Green River has not experienced the same decline in
naturally spawning adult chinook salmon that has occurred in other Puget Sound rivers but these
numbers may be masked by a high rate of hatchery chinook salmon that stray into the spawning
grounds. 'Habitat in the Green/Duwamish has, however, severely and steadily declined.
Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, steelhead, and bull
• trout/Dolly Varden char occur in the watershed. The health of these species is mixed. Some
stocks, such as steelhead trout, appear to be showing recent declines, although they were listed as
e healthy in 19925. The populations of coho and chum salmon have mixed status because both
• healthy stocks and depressed stocks exist in the watershed. The status of pink salmon, sockeye
salmon, cutthroat trout, and bull trout is not known. Kokanee have been planted in the late 1960s
in Deep Lake (Middle Green River subwatershed) and are surviving locally (Lakey, Kirk. 2001.
Personal communication [electronic message to WRIA 9 Steering Committee staff, King
County], Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bellevue, WA).
Major engineered changes in the river and estuary(diversion of flows, creation of dams, and
channel confinement by levee and revetment)have created conditions detrimental to fish and fish
habitat. Channel complexity has been reduced, tidal marshes and flats have been eliminated, and
connections with the old river side-channels were severed. In addition, loss of connection
between the river and its floodplain and other riparian areas interferes with the natural functions
of recharge of cold groundwater from flood infiltration and with the supply of gravel and large
+� woody debris from riparian areas. Loss of fresh-to-saltwater transition habitat in the estuary
reduced the available juvenile and adult transition and holding areas and reduced the invertebrate
food supply. Thirteen specific factors of decline have been identified throughout the five
subwatersheds of WRIA 9 (see Table 1). Two of these factors of decline are considered WRIA-
wide in effect: land use alterations and water quality changesb. Others are split between
freshwater and saltwater factors of decline and apply on a subwatershed scale.
i 5 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife,Olympia, WA.
G See Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report(2000)for more information.
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 9
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
Table 1. WRIA 9 factors of decline.
Examples of Items Related to Factor of
Factor of Decline Description Decline
Land Use Alteration Human activities,primarily on the Residential,commercial,and industrial
terrestrial portions but also in the development such as homes and factories have .
aquatic areas of the watershed. These added impervious surfaces,altering stormwater
II activities affect other factors of decline runoff patterns. Farms,forestry activities,and •
such as hydrology,riparian condition, infrastructure such as dikes,levees,and roads
water quality,and sediment transport. have interrupted normal basin hydrology. .
a Water Quality Presence of metals,nutrients,and other Stormwater runoff,malfunctioning septic .
3 substances in the water at levels that systems,point source discharges,agricultural
exceed standards or impair beneficial practices(cropping and animal keeping),oil
uses of the water spills,clearing and grading practices,combined
sewer overflows .
Hydrology Water storage and flow via surface Stormwater runoff,water withdrawals,dams,
water(e.g.,lakes,streams,and increases in impervious surfaces
wetlands)or ground water
Sediment Transport Movement of sand,gravel,and other Clearing and grading practices,forestry
sediment downstream activities,construction practices,dams,
landslides
Hydromodification Changes to the channel or banks of the Bank hardening,levees,loss of large woody
river;includes changes in the amount of debris,dams,channel straightening,dredging
in-channel large woody debris
s
Riparian Condition Presence or absence of native vegetation Bank hardening,increase in impervious surfaces,
r� along the shorelines vegetation removal,agricultural and forestry
practices •
Fish Passage Ability of fish to access a stream or Culverts,dams,drops in water levels,dikes,
river reach levees,flapgates i
Non-Native Species Introduction of plant and animal species Fishery management stocking,intentional
whose natural distribution did not introduction of gamefish by anglers,and
include Puget Sound liberation of baitfish by anglers;introducing non-
native vegetation like reed canarygrass •
Loss of Habitat in Degradation or elimination of shallow- Shoreline armoring,dredging,filling,and
Migratory Corridor water habitats,such as mud flats, overwater structures •
eelgrass,and kelp beds
Sediment Quality Presence of metals,organics,and other Stormwater runoff,malfunctioning septic
csubstances in sediments at levels that systems,point source discharges,agricultural
exceed standards or affect food chains practices,oil spills,industrial and commercial
6.
practices •
Z Alteration of Habitat- Interruption or other modification of Shoreline armoring;development on top of and
Forming Processes processes that form nearshore habitat, below banks,bluffs,and beaches;changes in
L such as sediment transport and flow due to diversion of rivers or streams
freshwater input
j Riparian Condition Presence or absence of native vegetation Shoreline armoring,overwater structures,
along the shorelines development,vegetation removal .
Non-Native Species Introduction of plant and animal species Ballast water discharge,packing materials from
whose natural distribution did not foreign seafood,intentional or unintentional
include Puget Sound establishment by the aquaculture industry
.Pi 101-01876-000rw.;avwma.d
10 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
Land use activities have resulted in many direct and indirect impacts to salmon habitat. Loss of
riparian vegetation has increased temperature and reduced leaf and insect inputs to the river,
affecting the base of the salmon food chain. Increases in runoff volume have disrupted the
• timing and magnitude of flows, increased erosion, and carried pollutants into streams, first from
agricultural, then urban sources. Pipes, culverts, ditches, and dams have resulted in blockages to
fish passage and changes to the movement of gravel and large woody debris.
Water quality has been affected throughout the watershed. Wastewater and industrial discharges
accentuated the effects of land use changes by reducing dissolved oxygen, altering temperatures,
and releasing a variety of chronic contaminants,particularly in the lower Green River and
+� Duwamish estuary. Erosion from agriculture, forestry, urban construction, and other activities
increased the load of sediment entering the river, plugging spawning gravel and suffocating
salmon eggs. Failing septic systems are also a problem in some rural and nearshore areas.
Pesticides and fertilizers from farms, gardens, and yards have also altered water quality. Some
common pesticides are believed to interfere with detection of olfactory cues by salmon, in
M addition to having direct toxicity and indirect food chain effects.
i
The WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation and Recovery Strategy
The Technical Committee has developed an interim conservation and recovery Strategy for
WRIA 97. The Strategy is based on the current state of knowledge of watershed conditions,
including the thirteen habitat factors of decline (Table 1) and ecological principles. The Strategy
helps identify priority early actions for salmon conservation and recovery in the WRIA. The
Strategy will be revisited periodically and revised as appropriate as new information is collected
i and critical examination of issues yields additional insights into WRIA 9 and Puget Sound
salmon conservation needs. Users of this Near-Term Action Agenda are encouraged to check
with WRIA 9 staff or the WRIA 9 salmon habitat conservation website to be sure they have the
latest version of the Strategy.
The WRIA 9 Strategy identifies three high-priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and
recovery:
■ Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green
River subwatershed and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island.
i ■ Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River,
Elliott Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal
involves several types of actions, including protecting currently
functioning habitat, restoring degraded habitat, and maintaining or
a restoring adequate water quality and flows.
• 7 More information on the WRIA 9 Strategy can be found in the document Technical Strategy for Multi-Species
+ Salmonid Conservation and Recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds, June 2001.
The document is available on-line at http//dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/9/technical reports/technicalreports.htm(in Part
III, Conclusions,Technical Strategy Working Paper).
"r,i iot-ntns&nno ,rw„mo.drx
WRIA 9 Near"Term Action Agenda 11
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
■ Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and
juveniles) to and from the Upper Green River subwatershed.
Because the lower subwatersheds (Lower Green River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish,Nearshore) are .
highly developed, the Strategy recognizes the importance of preserving options for future actions
as well as carrying out near-term projects and actions.
Four categories of actions have been identified to help carry out these goals: actions that protect;
restore and/or enhance; connect; and study and/or fill data gaps. These four action categories, •
and how they relate to specific areas of the watershed, are described below.
1. Protect—This Strategy element seeks to protect currently functioning habitat and
habitat-forming processes. This habitat is primarily in the Middle Green River
and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island. Some examples of protection s"
actions include:
❑ Protecting physical habitat and natural ecosystem processes, such
as long-shore sediment transport S
❑ Managing flows to protect and maximize salmon habitat in the
mainstem Green River
❑ Protecting water quality, such as ensuring that sources of cold,
clean water inputs are not disturbed
❑ Protecting habitat connectivity, linking freshwater, estuarine and
saltwater habitats
❑ Managing landscapes to minimize adverse effects to aquatic .
habitats. ,
The level of protection needed varies by subwatershed. For instance, the Upper
Green River subwatershed currently has a significant degree of protection afforded
by Tacoma Public Utilities' Habitat Conservation Plan and the Washington State .
Forest and Fish Agreement. In contrast,the Lower Green River and the Elliott
Bay/Duwamish subwatersheds have experienced significant habitat alteration. In
these subwatersheds,protecting remaining habitat, identifying restoration
opportunities, or protecting flows or water quality could be important goals. .
2. Restore or Enhance—This Strategy element seeks to improve habitats that
currently adversely affect juvenile salmon survival and to restore or enhance
habitat that could increase survival of all salmon life stages. Restoration may be a
more important salmon conservation element in the highly altered Lower Green •
River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish and the Nearshore subwatersheds than in the Upper
and Middle Green River subwatersheds.
nPl /01-01876-000 cumn1.rin9 nmadoc
12 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
3. Connect—Multiple actions are part of the connect element of the Strategy. One
aspect is the restoration of access for salmon to and from the Upper Green River
above the Tacoma diversion dam and the Howard Hanson Dam. Restoring access
• from the Upper Green River mainstem to its tributaries is another aspect of this
category. It is important to reconnect side channels in the Middle Green River
and reduce culvert blockages where such culverts restrict access to intact
spawning and rearing habitat. The Lower Green River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish,
and Nearshore subwatersheds have few remnant areas in which connection could
• significantly increase chinook salmon habitat. Therefore, some connection
activities in the Upper and Middle Green River subwatersheds are likely to be
relatively more important than in the lower subwatersheds. However, other types
of connection projects, such as revetment setbacks to reconnect the river and
floodplain, may have high importance in the lower subwatersheds.
4. Study—This Strategy element includes research that will lead to better
understanding of the factors that limit healthy salmon populations in WRIA 9 and
that will contribute to a better definition of the relationship between habitat and
salmon population dynamics. This work is especially critical in the Lower Green
River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. These
subwatersheds have been most heavily altered and potential actions are
constrained by past development and significant social and economic
considerations. Research will help to better direct resource expenditures in these
subwatersheds. Research in the Middle and Upper Green River subwatersheds
will focus on specific issues, including protection of habitats and habitat-forming
processes that are intact, and optimal techniques for improving connection, as
noted above.
For the Near-Term Action Agenda,the WRIA 9 Strategy is to focus first on actions that improve
the conservation and recovery of listed species (chinook salmon and bull trout). Figure 3 depicts
• the WRIA 9 Strategy.
Highlights of Current WRIA 9 Salmon Conservation Actions
Much work focused on protecting salmon has already been initiated in WRIA 9. Those actions
that are WRIA-wide are summarized here to create a backdrop for the actions that are
recommended in the next chapter.
The 16 local jurisdictions in WRIA 9 have initiated policies, programs, and practices that
manage or regulate development within their jurisdictions as well as improve their own
• operations to better conserve salmon resources. Actions undertaken by jurisdictions, including
programs, policies, practices, or studies, are summarized in Appendix A.
There are also many community and environmental groups promoting salmon-related projects in
• WRIA 9, including Trout Unlimited, People for Puget Sound, Mid-Puget Sound Fisheries
,,nl i01-018s6-0001r,v„oadx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 13
Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
Enhancement Group, the Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance, I'M A PAL (International
Marine Association Protecting Aquatic Life), the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle, and
the Soos Creek Action Area Response. These groups are a direct link between people and
salmon in the watershed. In addition to on-the-ground efforts to protect and restore habitat, the .
groups help make salmon conservation relevant to the broader public.
In addition to local jurisdictions, other governments are also active in the WRIA. The
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, along with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
are co-managers of fishery resources in the WRIA. The Muckleshoots operate a hatchery on
Crisp Creek, sponsor habitat restoration projects, and advocate for improved management and
reduction in impacts to fishery habitat and resources. As noted above, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife operates the hatchery on Soos Creek. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife also enforces fishing regulations within the WRIA.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with local jurisdictions, is involved in two
major programs in WRIA 9: the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project and the
Additional Water Storage Project. The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project is a
cooperative effort with all the local jurisdictions in WRIA 9 to restore habitat functions in the
watershed. As part of this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local governments will
construct a wide variety of habitat restoration projects and conduct studies to help guide their
efforts. The Additional Water Storage Project is designed to improve flows in the river and enable
Tacoma Public Utilities to increase the amount of water it withdraws from the Green River for its
water supply. Tacoma Public Utilities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are sharing the costs r
of this program, which also will construct habitat projects and conduct studies and monitoring
throughout the watershed. Tacoma Public Utilities also has developed a Habitat Conservation Plan
with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that covers its
water supply and land management activities (including logging) in the watershed. The Habitat
Conservation Plan will result in significant habitat projects and monitoring.
A number of initiatives govern forestry and agricultural practices in WRIA 9. The Washington •
State Department of Natural Resources and Plum Creek Timber have developed Habitat
Conservation Plans with the National Marine Fisheries Service that allow them to continue
logging using practices that provide improved management of riparian areas, wildlife habitat,
and roads. The Forest and Fish Agreement, as codified in Washington Administrative Code 222,
developed the current forest practices rules that cover areas not covered by a specific habitat
protection plan. The Agriculture, Fish, and Wildlife negotiations are a state effort at developing
new guidelines for riparian buffers in agricultural areas.
Two major programs are underway to improve habitat quality in the Duwamish estuary: the •
Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program and the Lower Duwamish Superfund Program. The
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project
with co-sponsorship from state and local governments, which began in 2001, will identify
nearshore habitat acquisition and restoration projects throughout Puget Sound, including
WRIA 9. In addition,the Port of Seattle is involved in a number of salmon habitat-focused
projects and studies in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed.
wp! 101-018 7 6-0 0 0 c m nt wria9 n1=d a
14 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
• Chapter 2—WRIA 9 and Salmon Conservation
A large number of projects have been undertaken or are planned in the WRIA by the WRIA
jurisdictions, other governments, non-governmental stakeholders, and the efforts described
• above. Chapter 4 offers more information about the specific projects planned or underway that
• benefit chinook salmon and bull trout, as well as other species of salmon.
•
•
•
•
•
•
M
•
r►
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
r
•
•
•
•
•
,Tr inr-nix-c-nrw currcnr""avmao.dre
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 15
•
•
a:
•
• WRIA-WIDE GOALS-
GREY �'JM ER
✓ Protect currently functioning habitat
• ✓ Ensure adequate juvenile survival ✓ Protect spawning/rearing areas UPPER GREEN SUBWATERSHED
• ✓ Restore access to Upper Green Subwatershed ✓ Restore habitat processes interrupted by dam: ✓ Restore fish access
•Flows
•Gravel recruitment ✓ Operate dams to benefit fish downstream
• NEAR T •Large woody debris
• ✓ Benefit chinook and bull trout, ✓ Reconnect side channels
no harm to other species ✓
• ATE H
/yam/
✓ Study juvenile survival / ,�'� ''
✓ Restore habitat&water quality
• ✓ Protect sites suitable for restoration
✓Reconnect side channels,flood lain areas
✓ Restore habitat processes: p
•Reconnect intertidal areas and shorelines to % '�% ' ✓ s
• / p, �//ice'
upland
•Restore habitat-forming processes,i.e.,sediment
transport
0/ y
✓ Connect key tributaries to salt water
/
,. „, ..
y "
✓ Stud HOWAR
•Determine salmon use and habitat preferences ' HANSON "r
• methods/designs
•New rehabilitation methods/desi ns DAM
✓ Protect ke habitat and sites suitable for
/
• - =
restoration
/ ua..
. :, .. .
'4
W
/
/.
ELLIOTT BAY/ 94n
g ,
• :•
i
x
• SUBWATERSHED
✓ Studyjuvenile survival
wx ;
✓ Restore habitat/water quality: -
• •Recreate marsh&intertidal habat
,
Soften shorelines �: �� .' ✓ % J/ �j
• ✓Reconnect side channels,floodplainsreas
• ✓ Protect key habitat and sites suitable for i
ON
restoration
/
'
• Current habitat Note:Sub watersheds and proportion ofcurrent /.
• habitat to potential habitat are not to scale and r ' . King County
„� '; Potential habitat are for illustrative purposes only. i
• Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
• GIS For current information on the WRIA 9 Strategy,please check the WRIA 9 website J Water and Land Resources Division
p� 9 p p 0203 oa NT A.aaMD wcc,nnD Communications&Web Units
at htt //dnr.metrokc. ov/wrias/9/technicalre orts/technicalre orts.htm °
• INCREASE ABUNDANCE, PRODUCTIVITY, DIVERSITY, AND DISTRIBUTION j
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
Chapter 3. WRIA-Wide Actions
• This Near-Term Action Agenda builds on significant salmon conservation planning and recovery
work, summarized above, that has already taken place. In addition,the Action Agenda follows
and builds on the Technical Strategy for Multi-Species Salmonid Conservation and Recovery in
the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (the Strategy), also described above.
• The Strategy document can be viewed on the WRIA 9 website8. Briefly, the Strategy describes
three broad WRIA-wide goals (protect functioning habitat, ensure juvenile salmon survival, and
restore access to the upper watershed)through four categories of actions:
■
• Protect functioning habitat
■ Restore or enhance degraded habitat
■ Connect habitat and habitat-forming processes that have been isolated by
• development in the watershed
■ Study to fill data gaps and deficiencies in knowledge about salmon use
and needs in the WRIA.
Twenty-six WRIA-wide actions and studies are recommended in this chapter. All are considered
priority actions; they are numbered only for ease of reference. As stated in Chapter 1, the Near-
Tenn Action Agenda is a guide to decision-making and action by local governments and other
implementers. The recommendations contained herein identify the types of policies, programs,
practices, and studies that have a high potential for benefiting salmon throughout all portions of
WRIA 9, and can be used by local jurisdictions and organizations in setting resource protection
and restoration priorities.
Chapter 4 presents additional actions, including projects specific to the five subwatersheds
within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. To distinguish between
S WRIA-wide actions and those specific to subwatersheds, WRIA-wide actions are preceded by
the abbreviation WW (for example, WW Action 1).
Although several actions address more than one of the four Strategy elements (protect,
• restore/enhance, connect, and study), a primary category is assigned to each.
• ■ A A tree and stream logo identifies protection actions. Fourteen
actions focus primarily on protecting currently functioning salmon habitat
or processes that maintain healthy salmon habitat. The first four of these
actions address identifying key resources and ways to protect them. The
• next two actions focus on involving the public in protecting salmon
habitat. The last eight protection actions focus on improving regulations
or internal procedures that protect fish habitat.
• 8 http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/TeclinicalReports/Tech.nica]Reports.htm (in Part III, Conclusions, Technical
Strategy Working Paper).
,,pr int•nrxsc-nnn currennio9nma.dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 19
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
A house and stream logo indicates restoration or enhancement •
actions. Four actions focus primarily on restoring or enhancing salmon
habitat.
r
■ A chain logo identifies connection actions. One action recommends
efforts to connect the river with its original side channels and floodplain.
® Seven WRIA-wide studies are indicated by a calculator logo. The •
WRIA 9 Technical Committee recommended some of these studies; the •
Planning Work Group recommended others.
upl /0/-018 7 6-000c.,—!%,,-9nlnn.dnc •
20 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
• Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
•
i Protect
•
• Actions that Address Key Resources and Ways to Protect Them
•
• ` ® WWAction 1:Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9
based on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat.
This action will provide information that allows prioritization of areas for preservation and
• protection to ensure that productive fish habitat (including associated streams and wetlands
where appropriate) and the processes that create such habitat are protected. This action has four
steps:
•
1. Define attributes of currently productive fish habitat and associated
• habitat-forming processes and develop criteria to identify areas that
demonstrate such attributes.
•
2. Identify areas within each 0 Benefit to salmon: Knowing which
subwatershed that meet the habitats are currently productive will allow
• criteria. targeting of protection actions to those
• areas that produce the most benefits and
to expansion of protection around high-
3. Evaluate existing information quality habitats.
(including the Reconnaissance 0 Link to strategy: Protect existing habitat.
• Assessment) and carry out 8 Implementation: These steps could be
field surveys to identify the phased by subwatershed in the following
• most important areas of order of priority:
productive and functioning
Middle Green River and Nearshore
• (especially Vashon)
• fish habitat. — Lower Green River/Duwamish
Nearshore (mainland)
• 4. Coordinate with other similar - upper Green River.
activities such as King The Technical Committee would be the
County's effort to identify and lead for this action.
•
field verify valuable habitat 0 Approximate cost: To be determined.
areas throughout the county.
•
• ` WWAction 2: Protect habitat and habitat forming processes identified in Action 1 or
where other efforts have identified important habitat.
The WRIA 9 Strategy emphasizes protection of currently functioning habitat and habitat-forming
processes as a priority, especially in the Middle Green River and Nearshore subwatersheds. A
• variety of tools are available to protect habitat and associated habitat-forming processes. These
tools include education, current use tax incentive programs, development regulations, acquisition
e
•
mpI 101-01876-000 c,m„r,riav too.dr,r
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 21
•
•
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
of land or easements, land lease agreements, and transfer of development rights. This action i
involves the following two steps:
■ Develop guidelines for the level of habitat or land protection needed to •
maintain the essential function of key habitat types identified in Action 1.
■ Evaluate and recommend alternative protection tools that are best suited to
individual protection needs. •
These tools should be used on a case-by-case basis to take advantage of opportunities that arise.
For instance, to protect riparian buffers, purchase of development rights or incentive programs
such as the Public Benefit Rating System may be suitable for protection of many functions.
Protection tools may include efforts by
community and environmental groups. For Benefit to salmon: Protecting high
quality habitat reduces el minimizes the
example, such groups may be able to educate •
private landowners about stewardship impacts from future development on
p p hydrology, riparian condition, water
opportunities. Direct acquisition of land may quality, and sediment transport by •
be necessary only if other mechanisms are protecting key core habitat functions.
unworkable or not sufficiently protective. Link to strategy: Protect functioning ,
Acquisition may also be more appropriate for habitat.
sites where alterations to the stream channel, Implementation: The Planning Work
such as levees or revetment relocation, are Group, Technical Committee, individual
necessary. A matrix listing protection options jurisdictions, community and
g p P environmental groups, and citizens all
and types of habitat or habitat functions is have roles to play.
envisioned as an intermediate product of this Approximate cost: To be determined. •
action. •
yWWAction 3:Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions.
The purpose of this action is to acquire enough information about salmon use and needs within
local jurisdictions to make habitat improvements as opportunities arise. Jurisdictions within
WRIA 9 should identify the salmon species and life stages that are normally present in their •
jurisdictions and should determine the habitat needs for those life stages. This should be done
irrespective of whether these areas are identified (through WW Action 1) as the important fish
use and habitat areas system-wide.
Jurisdictions should use the results of this action in the following ways: •
■ Identify the areas within each jurisdiction utilized by salmon or that
currently provide (or with restoration and enhancement could provide) fish
and riparian habitat for salmon. •
wpl 101-018 76-0 0 0 cumnrk iO nraa.do •
22 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Prioritize these areas for protection or restoration, using techniques such
as acquisition, conservation easements,tax incentives, or regulations (see
WW Action 2).
■ Educate staff of various departments about these local areas in order to
work together to take advantage of routine work schedules, planned
capital improvement projects, or
• proposed private developments
that might include design to Benefit to salmon: This action would
enhance habitat attributes or allow preservation and enhancement
functions. activities within individual jurisdictions to
be targeted at the species present and
their specific habitat needs. By enhancing
• • Provide this information to habitat conditions within each city based
businesses, community groups, on specific fish needs, overall habitat
and other stakeholders in the conditions in the WRIA would be
jurisdiction who wish to cumulatively improved.
• undertake fish habitat restoration ' Link to strategy: Protect/restore
or enhancement activities. functioning habitat.
• ■ Implementation: Each jurisdiction
■ Coordinate efforts with other should implement.
jurisdictions in the WRIA. I ' Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
WW Action 4:Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives)
for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9.
The desired outcome of this action is to increase awareness and use of existing incentive
• programs. This action should occur in two phases:
1. WRIA 9 jurisdictions should evaluate their application of incentives for habitat
protection.
2. Using the information developed in Phase 1, a WRIA-wide effort should be
considered to enhance the effectiveness of incentives.
Incentive options to evaluate include the following:
■ Enhance the use and efficacy of the King County Transfer of
• Development Rights Program throughout WRIA 9.9 Help cities to set up
receiving sites (where development would occur), identify properties and
property owners that are good candidates for sending development rights
9 The King County Transfer of Development Rights program transfers development density from rural areas to urban
. or other rural areas,providing bonus density while at the same time allowing protection of key natural resources. The
• use and effectiveness of this existing program could be enhanced for WRIA 9 by increasing the city/county interface,
making cities and owners of sites with transfer potential aware of the program and its benefits.
• �,Pl/ni-nix;a-ono--1..;ovm..d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 23
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
(where it would be desirable to reduce development pressure), and help
them to take part in the program. This could include sponsoring a
workshop to facilitate information exchange.
■ Educate property owners about current use assessment programs and
encourage them to enroll to protect salmon habitat. Existing programs
include the Public Benefit Rating System and the Timber Land Program r,
(both administered by King County Department of Natural Resources and •
Parks, Water and Land Resources Division) and the Forestland Program •
and the Farm and Agricultural Lands Program (both administered by the
King County Assessor's office).
■ Publicize the King Conservation District's administration of the U.S. •
Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program, which provides incentives to restore and enhance salmon habitat
on private land.
■ Consider using fee waivers for some conservation, restoration, and
protection actions where such a waiver is not in conflict with fee-based
program funding and is
determined feasible by local •
jurisdictions. Benefit to salmon: Incentives are
devices to encourage and reinforce land •
use decisions and behaviors that •
■ Enhance the awareness and use of conserve salmon habitat, involve the
the cost-sharing program offered public in a direct way in conservation, and •
through the King County instill a sense of belonging to a wider
Agricultural Program. This regional conservation effort. .
financial) assists Link to strategy: Protect functioning •
program y habitat, restore degraded habitat.
livestock owners in employing Implementation: Information about
best management practices to incentives should be available at permit •
protect water resources. counters and included in public outreach
and information materials. The Planning
■ Publicize information about Work Group should take the lead in •
incentive programs on websites implementation. •
and in public displays. Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
Actions that Involve the Public in Protecting Salmon Habitat
AWWAction 5:Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting
salmon conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
The goal of this action is to ensure that appropriate, effective educational and outreach materials •
are available to promote salmon conservation in WRIA 9, and to coordinate these efforts with
WRIA 8. The WRIA 9 Public Outreach Work Group and WRIA 9 Public Outreach Coordinator
Hsi ioi-nix;e-non.n-„r„>;wWmo.e
24 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
should work with the WRIA 8 staff and Public Outreach Work Group to evaluate existing
resources, determine the information needs of the diverse residents of the watershed, and develop
additional materials, if necessary. The focus should be on adding to and publicizing existing
• resources, including the resources and ideas of community and environmental groups. New
materials, if needed, should be designed so they can be easily incorporated into the
environmental education and outreach efforts of WRIA 9 jurisdictions and other key watershed
partners. This action will include reviewing current interpretive signage at public access areas,
• such as the Green River Trail, and identifying new interpretive signage needs. Two of the few
• areas where good public outreach materials appear to be lacking is in explaining why the WRIA
needs to recover salmon habitat when salmon returns recently have been increasing and
explaining that individuals must be involved in making choices and changing behavior if salmon
e are to be conserved.
■ Benefit to salmon: Like all public
This process should include evaluation of the education and outreach activities, this
effectiveness of existing WRIA 9 education and effort will help create a constituency of
people who understand the importance
outreach tools, which include a website, tri-panel of recovering salmon habitat and will
• display, brochure, and PowerPoint presentation. support local initiatives by governments
Selected existing materials and all new materials and others.
should be made available on the website and • Link to Strategy: Protect and restore
publicized with those likely to be interested in functioning habitat.
them including school teachers, environmental EImplementation: The WRIA 9 Public
•
and local government staff. Copies Outreach Work Group and Public groups, g p Outreach Coordinator should manage
should also be made available in the office of the this action.
WRIA 9 Public Outreach Coordinator. . Approximate cost: To be determined.
0 ` WWAction 6:Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation
through high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden
49 care.
Within the theme of lawn and garden care, this action will focus on the following specific topics:
■ Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
■ Increasing the use of compost to build healthy soils
■ Increasing the use of native and drought-resistant plants for landscaping
■ Reducing watering.
• One or more of the following activities should be carried out each year in WRIA 9. Wherever
possible, this should be done in cooperation with and in support of community and
environmental groups in the watershed:
• ■ Improve existing lawn and garden education efforts so that they highlight
benefits to salmon.
■ Offer free salmon-friendly gardening classes.
,rn1/01-0I8Y 0011 eu renr.nia9 nraar/x
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 25
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Give away (or provide at low cost) native plant seedlings.
■ Encourage jurisdictions to publicize salmon friendly lawn care and
landscaping (see also WW Action 14). •
■ Paint murals on walls or bus shelters highlighting good yard and garden
practices.
■ Work with radio, TV, and other programs about gardening to promote
fish-friendly landscaping practices.
■ Work with the landscape industry Benefit to salmon: Creates a •
through existing professional constituency of people concerned
organizations and programs (e.g., about salmon recovery, who through
local hazardous waste their actions protect riparian habitat,
program) •
p am)to improve water quality, and increase
participate in this campaign. the flows available for fish. •
• Link to Strategy: Protect and restore •
There already exist a variety of directly and functioning habitat.
indirectly related efforts to promote salmon-friendly Implementation: The WRIA 9 Public
lawn and garden care. The actions listed above are Outreach Work Group should oversee •
intended to add to, expand, transplant, or refine these this action.
efforts rather than starting from scratch. Approximate cost: To be determined.
Actions that Improve Regulations and Internal Procedures of Jurisdictions or •
Organizations to Protect Fish Habitat
WWAction 7:Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat.
This action seeks to prevent degradation of salmon habitat by improving enforcement of existing
regulations, and it calls for jurisdictions, working individually or collaboratively with other
WRIA jurisdictions, to do the following:
■ Identify the root causes of enforcement issues, such as lack of funding,
authority, legal support, clear direction to jurisdictional legal offices,
readily identifiable fine schedules, etc. •
■ Educate citizens about reporting violations using existing hotlines and
complaint response programs.
■ Publicize significant and egregious violations.10 •
10 The Washington Department of Ecology places newspaper notices listing violators of the Clean Water Act.
nni ioi-nine-non current wriaY nmaduc
26 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Support and encourage the prosecution of violations.
■ Where necessary, individual jurisdictions should improve enforcement
• with tools including but not limited to:
❑ Ordinances that ensure jurisdictions have the ability to enforce
regulations in a fair and equitable manner
❑ Fines that are commensurate
with the harm done or cost
of restoration Benefit to salmon: Improved
enforcement of existing codes will protect
• ❑ Requirements that existing habitats and functions.
violators fully restore the ■ Link to strategy: Protect functioning
habitat they degraded in habitat and salmon life stages.
violating the codes • Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
implement, working in cooperation with
❑ An increase in other jurisdictions where desirable.
enforcement staff. ■ Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
WWAction 8:Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and
improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
Based upon inventory efforts from WW Action 3, WRIA 9 jurisdictions should:
■ Evaluate and improve existing
� Benefit to salmon: Riparian buffers
critical area regulations focused
provide a wide variety of functions for
• on fish and riparian habitat, salmon, including protection of water
considering the best available quality and supplying large woody debris,
science. shade, and food inputs. Protecting these
functions is important to support and
enhance salmon populations.
■ Encourage the use of alternatives a Link to strategy: Protect functioning
to shoreline armoring and riprap habitat and salmon life stages.
(for example, bioengineering or . Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
soft armoring) where feasible implement.
• (see also WW Action 9). • Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
WWAction 9:Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
Encourage jurisdictions to promote the use of alternatives to traditional shoreline protection
techniques, such as seawalls and riprap, through the following steps:
• 1. Determine habitat trends, locating critical areas for protection or
restoration and identifying shoreline areas most at risk from cumulative
impacts. Existing inventories, such as the Washington State Department of
• ,y]/61.01876-000 curre 1—,9nt,,d,,c
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 27
Chapter 3—WRlA-Wide Actions
Natural Resources Shore Zone Inventory Database would be useful for
this effort.
2. Strengthen shoreline and sensitive area regulations as follows: •
❑ Require a site evaluation for each location where shoreline
modifications are proposed to identify the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the proposed action.
❑ Require evaluation of alternative techniques, such as
bioengineering (Des Moines' Sensitive Area Code has language
that could be used as a model).
3. Consider providing incentives, including the following:
❑ Provide sources of information such as videos, fact sheets, and
resource lists.
❑ Provide technical assistance to contractors and homeowners
(contractor and consultant referrals, free or cost-shared
consultation). .
❑ Cost-share for some project types. .
❑ Consider fee waivers or streamlined permitting if determined to be
feasible by the local jurisdiction. •
4. Improve information about alternatives to shoreline armoring by
supporting studies and pilot
projects that demonstrate the Benefit to salmon: Encouraging the use •
effectiveness, and establish the of alternative shoreline protection
limits, of soft or green techniques protects existing habitats and
may restore degraded habitats important
techniques. These studies should for juvenile rearing and adult migration.
be part of a comprehensive study Link to strategy: Protect and restore
program that provides critical habitat. •
empirical data to link shoreline Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
armoring with direct, indirect, implement.
and cumulative changes on a Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
local and regional scale. .
WWAction 10:Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce
sediment entering salmon-bearing streams. •
The goal of this action is to improve the overall quality of erosion and sediment control programs
throughout WRIA 9 in order to reduce erosion from construction sites and provide better
protection to salmon streams. The action should consist of a collaborative approach by
jurisdictions to review and evaluate erosion and sediment control program elements, including .
regulations, delegation of authority, standards and practices, adequacy of inspection, training (for .
inspectors and contractors), monitoring, funding, and political support. A collaborative approach
irpl 101-01876-000 curmnt x-9 r d •
28 WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
0
o Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
•
has several advantages, including sharing of expertise and developing common approaches
throughout the watershed.
This action has three main steps:
0 1. Interview key jurisdiction staff about which erosion control program
• elements work well and which could be improved. Compile this information.
0 2. Work with key jurisdiction staff to identify potential areas to improve erosion
control practices and to select areas or situations in which to pursue a stronger
inspection presence and greater regional consistency in requirements. Some areas
o for improvement already identified include pre-construction meetings with
developers to review erosion control requirements, emphasis on better erosion
• control for single family residence construction,
. and expanded training, building
on material already developed ■ Benefit to salmon: Preventing erosion from
by jurisdictions such as Kent construction sites will protect water quality
• and Seattle. and salmon spawning and rearing areas.
■ Link to strategy: Protect functioning habitat
0 3. Develop a template or model and salmon life stages.
erosion and sediment control E Implementation: The WRIA will work on
• program for individual this action jointly. The Planning Work Group
jurisdictions to refer to in
should take the lead.
developing their own program. ' Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
•
o ` WW Action 11:Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
Local jurisdictions should work to adopt improved stormwater management standards to better
o protect salmon habitat in freshwater and marine environments. Standards equivalent to the-2001
Ecology Stormwater Manual should serve as a goal.
Where beneficial,jurisdictions using the same stormwater manuals could work together to apply
requirements focused on salmon protection. The primary areas to evaluate are:
■ Flow control standards for stream
o reaches Benefit to salmon: Improved control of
. stormwater prevents scouring and
• Use of low-impact development sedimentation of receiving waters and
protects water quality. Scouring and
o techniques, including topsoil and sedimentation adversely affect salmon
tree retention, soil amendment, spawning and rearing areas.
rainwater harvesting, and use of 0 Link to strategy: Protect functioning
• pervious pavement habitat.
■ Implementation: WRIA jurisdictions
• ■ Enhanced water quality treatment should work together. The Planning Work
in areas where salmon Group should take the lead.
concentrate. • Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
0
vp//01-0/87&000 cumenr.,i.9 w—d-
o WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 29
•
•
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
WWAction 12:Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment and other pollutants to salmon streams. •
The desired outcome of this action is for every •
jurisdiction in the WRIA to implement a Benefit to salmon: Maintenance and •
program for the regular inspection and inspection will allow proper functioning of
maintenance of stormwater facilities, both facilities and capture sediment and flood +.
public and private. Jurisdictions should waters before they reach salmon streams,
examine their current programs to ensure their protecting spawning and rearing habitat.
adequacy and make improvements where Link to strategy: Protect functioning
habitat. •
necessary. The use of incentives to promote Implementation: Each jurisdiction
better private maintenance response is should implement.
encouraged (SeaTac and King County have Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
incentives that could be used as examples). •
WWAction 13:Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and salmon habitat. •
Each jurisdiction should review its road maintenance practices in light of the program developed
by the Tri-County Endangered Species Act Response and make adjustments where warranted. .
Jurisdictions should consider the methods in
adjacent jurisdictions as part of this evaluation. • Benefit to salmon: Improved practices for
If road maintenance best management practices maintenance of roads will improve water •
are not currently in writing, each jurisdiction quality and reduce the harmful effects of
sediment and other contaminants.
should record them and develop (or adopt) a 0 Link to strategy: Protect functioning
manual to guide day-to-day operations and for habitat.
staff training and reference. WRIA 9 . Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
jurisdictions are encouraged to develop shared implement.
training opportunities for all staff involved in . Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction. •
road maintenance, repair, and construction.
WWAction 14:Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written •
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat.
Each jurisdiction should review and update its grounds maintenance practices in light of the
programs developed by the City of Portland and others and make adjustments where warranted.
If grounds maintenance best management practices are not currently in writing, each jurisdiction
should record them and develop (or adopt) a manual to guide day-to-day operations and for staff .
training. WRIA 9 jurisdictions are encouraged to develop shared training opportunities for all •
staff involved in grounds maintenance. Jurisdictions should consider using public parks as
training or demonstration sites for public education on landscaping maintenance procedures
wpl 101-01876-000 current wr 9nt—dnc .
30 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
• Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
(see also WW Action 6). When evaluating
landscape or planting options as part of park
• planning efforts (e.g., master plans, Benefit to salmon: Improving grounds
stewardship plans), the potential impacts of maintenance practices should protect
maintenance activities on salmon should be Water quality through preventing discharge
of sediment, pesticides, and other
considered. Jurisdictions also should consider pollutants.
encouraging the use of best management Link to strategy: Protect functioning
. practices for golf courses as laid out in King habitat.
County's Best Management Practices for Golf . Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
e Course Development and Operation (January implement.
• 1993)11, especially for municipally operated ■ Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
golf courses.
e
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
e
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
• " The Golf Course Superintendents Association of America maintains a helpful webpage with links to turf
management information. See http://www..csaa.org/. In addition,the book Golf Course Management and
OConstruction: Environmental Issues, edited by James Balogh and William Walker(1992,Lewis Publishers,Inc.),
contains helpful information about pesticides and fertilizer transport and impacts that would help in preparing an
environmentally protective golf course management plan.
•
,rpl/0I-OI8i6000 cv rrnr wring nlaa.rlx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 31
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
• Restore or Enhance
• WWAction 15:Develop a comprehensive, WRIA-wide process to identify,
. develop, and prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
. Develop a comprehensive process to identify projects WRIA-wide, considering acquisition,
. restoration, removal of passage barriers, and other project types for all areas of the watershed and
pursue those projects that provide the most benefits and that can be initiated within the near term
(2 to 4 years) or as part of the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan. This process should
incorporate the results of WW Actions 1 and 3, as well as other work, to identify key habitat
areas and functions. A rolling six-year time horizon is recommended for planning purposes, but
priorities should be reestablished annually for Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King
Conservation District funding and as planning and technical work proceeds.
Projects that have already been developed are
discussed in Chapter 4. This action would • Benefit to salmon: A comprehensive
synthesize and analyze these projects and project planning process will allow the
develop others to better carry out key aspects of WRIA to focus its resources on projects
the Strategy. that are most valuable for salmon.
• Link to strategy: Protect and restore
Part of this action should identify those projects functioning habitat.
that are suitable for implementation by ' Implementation: The Planning Work
Group should take the lead and involve
i community and environmental groups. These the Technical Committee to implement
opportunities may be either small-scale, stand- this action.
alone projects or part of larger projects involving . Approximate cost: To be determined.
government partners.
y WWAction 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
40 ,
. The goal of this action is to create a cadre of volunteers that become stewards of sites in
WRIA 9, providing a powerful hands-on experience while implementing high priority on-the-
ground salmon habitat projects. The program should build upon, and go beyond, the success of
existing community and environmental groups and the Beach Naturalist Program, using the
following steps:
■ Identify a limited number(3 to 5) of focus areas in the watershed where
the WRIA can bring together a local school, businesses, and/or existing
• environmental or community groups to restore or protect salmon habitat.
• Look for areas where the community has an existing interest (e.g., water
quality concern, restoration project,parks, etc.)that can be built upon to
increase community participation.
• upl/01-0187G-000'-,"9n ..dnc
WRIA 9 Near Term Action Agenda 33
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Educate students and other citizens about natural resources through the
Seattle Aquarium Mobile Field Lab, King County Interpretive Programs
Office, and other experts.
■ Involve students, existing environmental and community groups, local
residents and businesses, and local government stewards (King County,
Seattle, Tukwila, etc.) in stewardship of the focus area. The program •
could be integrated with school district curricula and existing efforts. •
■ Provide assistance to students, environmental or community groups, local
residents, and businesses who want to foster stewardship activities both
inside and outside the focus areas. Assistance could be directed toward
obtaining grants, initiating
community outreach efforts, and 0 Benefit to salmon: Creates a
participating in environmental constituency of people who understand •
the importance of recovering salmon
education activities. Existing habitat and who will share that
community and environmental understanding with others to create •
groups may be helpful in broad support for salmon friendly actions
providing this assistance to new in the community.
efforts or groups. Such 0Link to Strategy: Restore functioning •
partnerships will serve to habitat.
strengthen citizen-to-citizen Implementation: The WRIA 9
linkages that make conservation Steward/Public Outreach Coordinator •
g would manage this program.
efforts relevant and effective and Approximate cost: $55,000 per year,
foster a sense of watershed initially funded through King
community. Conservation District fee allocation. .
WWAction 17.Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers.
Encourage the restoration of riparian functions in areas of the mainstem, tributaries, and the
nearshore where natural buffer functions have been degraded or eliminated. This effort involves
the following actions:
■ Work with existing groups to provide information and incentives for
landowners to replant native shrubs and trees.
■ Acquire easements of title interests in riparian buffers, and replant buffers
where incentive programs are insufficient.
■ Encourage the use of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(see also WW Action 4 and Middle Green River Action 2).
■ Encourage projects that set levees back from the shoreline to create areas •
of riparian habitat.
vpl /01-0/876-000currcnrNria9mmadnc
34 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
0
• Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Negotiate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow the Green
River Flood Control Zone District and King County Rivers Program to
establish limited vegetation on certified dikes, levees, and revetments in
• key chinook salmon habitat areas.
• ■ Sponsor local riparian restoration projects for community volunteers,
perhaps applying for grants to support local restoration activities.
■ Encourage local jurisdictions to aggressively control noxious weeds in
riparian buffers.
■ Benefit to salmon: Riparian areas
• ■ Encourage maintenance and provide important functions for salmon,
• monitoring of local riparian including shade, large woody debris,
restoration projects to ensure nutrients, and protection of water quality.
their success. Link to strategy: Restore functioning
40 habitat.
Note that a wide variety of riparian ■ Implementation: The Planning Work
enhancement projects also are planned for the Group and local governments all have
WRIA in several subwatersheds. More lead roles.
information about these projects is provided in ■ Approximate cost: To be determined.
Chapter 4.
•
WW Action 18: Implement Phase I of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
The local jurisdictions of WRIA 9 should continue to support the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
• Restoration Project during the pre-construction engineering and design phase and as the
construction phase begins in 2003. This includes working to promote and secure federal funding
for design and construction, as well as working regionally and with local jurisdictions to provide
the local cost-share.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been working with local jurisdictions, the
• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and state resource agencies since 1995 on the Green/Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Project. The reconnaissance study, feasibility study, and programmatic
environmental review phases are complete, and the pre-construction engineering and design
phase has begun. The entire Ecosystem Restoration Project consists of 45 restoration sites
• throughout the Green/Duwamish watershed that will be recommended for construction over the
• next 10 years. Phase 1 includes completion of design and construction for the first 20 sites
• between 2002-2006.
For the year 2002,the WRIA 9 Forum committed to providing local matching funds for the
• design of the Phase 1 projects. King County has recently signed an agreement with the Corps to
• act as the lead non-federal sponsor for the design portion of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
It is anticipated that the construction portion of the project will be co-sponsored by local
jurisdictions and the Corps. Specific Phase 1 ecosystem restoration projects that are of benefit to
chinook and bull trout are shown in Chapter 4 in the following subwatershed sections:
•
xpl/0/-0/h?6-000 cunrN w+ia9 nfaa.drx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 35
•
•
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
• Upper Green River Subwatershed,
Table 5 d Benefit to salmon: Most of the
ecosystem restoration projects will •
■ Middle Green River protect and restore habitat that benefits
Subwatershed, Table 11 chinook and other salmon species.
■ Link to strategy: Protect and restore
functioning habitat.
■ Lower Green River Subwatershed,
Table 18 Implementation: The Corps is the lead,
various local governments are local
sponsors.
• Elliott Bay/Duwamish 0 Approximate Cost: $3 million for Phase
Subwatershed, Table 25. 1 Preliminary Engineering and Design;
$113 million for design and construction
over 10 years. The local cost share is 25
percent.
.pl 101-018 7 6-00 0 cur—twr;n➢Noad- •
36 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
Connect
WWAction 19:Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level
Each jurisdiction should evaluate culverts and other potential passage barriers to salmon
migration within its boundaries, and then assess which barriers are most important to remove
based on the suitability of potential habitat that would be opened. It is recommended that
barriers that would open potential habitat for chinook salmon be addressed first. This action
should involve the following steps:
i ■ Use the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment report to identify known fish passage barriers12. Augment this
information with field surveys where needed.
■ Determine habitat quality upstream of barriers. The Pierce Conservation
District has developed protocols that may be helpful.
• ■ Add the most important projects to city and county capital improvement
project lists.
■ Benefit to salmon: Removal of high-
Look for other opportunities to priority fish passage barriers will open up
additional habitat to salmon, providing
• remove barriers, such as capital important habitat complexity and diversity.
improvement projects, 0 Link to strategy: Connect habitat
development mitigation features to improve amount of habitat
requirements, etc. available to salmon.
■ Implementation: Each jurisdiction should
■ This action refines and builds on implement.
WW Action 3. • Approximate cost: Varies by jurisdiction.
12 Note that Newaukum and Soos Creek information is incomplete.
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 37
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
Study
• The studies discussed below were selected to fill the most pressing data gaps identified in the
. Reconnaissance Assessment. Beginning these studies quickly is a priority. In addition, it is
important to be aware of other baseline information and research efforts in the watershed and the
state, and to build on them to the extent possible. These studies (and some of the WRIA-wide
actions) need to be coordinated with other efforts in the larger Puget Sound watershed and the
state, particularly with respect to standardizing methods and protocols.
® WW Study 1:Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply
the information to future projects.
The goal of this study is to monitor in-stream restoration sites to assess fish response to the
restoration over time so that future projects can be more effective. This action involves the
following steps:
■ Project proponents should identify clear objectives related to salmon response.
i
■ The WRIA 9 Technical Committee, or a WRIA-sponsored consultant,
should develop a WRIA-wide monitoring approach to guide the
• measurement of fish response for selected in-stream habitat restoration
projects. This approach should be consistent with the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife's new monitoring guidance13
r
• ■ The WRIA 9 Technical Committee, or a WRIA-sponsored consultant,
should review monitoring plans required by funding agencies. If funding
agencies do not require salmon-
specific elements,the Technical Benefit salmon: Overtime,
monitorinngg information will enable the
Committee should recommend
WRIA to determine which in-stream
additional funding and appropriate actions have the most benefit for
salmon-centered monitoring. salmon. Stakeholders will be able to
• focus their resources to be more
■ The WRIA should develop a effective in improving salmon habitat.
repository for monitoring data and Link to Strategy: Study to restore
i functioning habitat.
ensure the data are entered in an Implementation: Lead to be
efficient and effective manner. determined. Coordination with the
The WRIA should encourage data WRIA 9 Technical Committee is strongly
sharing and a high level of recommended.
• accessibility to data. Approximate cost: To be determined.
'' It is anticipated that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will,in the near future,develop monitoring guidance for
its Ecosystem Restoration Project.
up!101-016 7 6-0 0 0 cu rc t—o9nmad—
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 39
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
® WW Study 2:Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed.
Although the Reconnaissance Assessment identifies the important factors of salmon decline in 0
WRIA 9, the extent to which each is a limiting
factor(or creates a bottleneck that results in Benefit to salmon: This information 0,under-utilization of other resources) is not will allow the WRIA to target its efforts
identified. The goal of this action is to develop a to address those problems that most 40
working model of how the various factors of limit salmon production.
decline interact and pursue studies and Link to Strategy: Study to restore
investigations to determine which factors are functioning habitat, ensure adequate
juvenile salmon survival.
limiting. In the near term, the focus of this Implementation: Lead to be
action is on listed species (chinook salmon and determined. Coordination with the
bull trout), but it should expand in the longer WRIA 9 Technical Committee is
term to include all salmon species. strongly recommended.
® WW Study 3:Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in
WRIA 9.
This action is related to WW Study 2. The goal of this study is to determine the effects of the
significant habitat modifications in WRIA 9 on
juvenile salmon. A variety of agencies are Benefit to salmon: The results of this
conducting studies on juvenile salmon survival, work will guide restoration and protection
particularly in the Lower Green River, Elliott actions in the future, allowing the WRIA
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. to enhance juvenile salmon survival.
The WRIA 9 Technical Committee should oversee • Link to Strategy: Study to ensure .
development of a research framework for these adequate juvenile salmon survival.
studies to identify aspects that other agencies are M Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
not yet addressing. The WRIA then can work to Committee should oversee this work.
fill the gaps in the study framework, eventually The City of Seattle will manage theproject directly.
answering the important question of juvenile M Approximate cost: $50,000
salmon survival rates.
® WW Study 4:Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment. i
WRIA 9 supports the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment, a King County project
focused on monitoring and modeling current and future water quality conditions in the
Green/Duwamish watershed. A portion of the project is targeted towards providing information
to the WRIA 9 planning process and will help to identify where water quality is or may be a
factor of decline for salmon. WRIA 9 encourages the expansion of the project to address water
quality data gaps identified in the Reconnaissance Assessment report, including:
0
r
rrnr ioi-ax:c-000 currem wrm9 nmo.dn<
40 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions
■ Additional spatial data on aquatic
insects as measured by the benthic
. index of biotic integrity 0 Benefit to salmon: Identifying areas
where water quality adversely affects
Data collection on trace organics salmon will allow the WRIA to address
(e.g., pesticides, PAHs, phthalate these problems.
esters) Link to Strategy: Study to restore
functioning habitat.
' Sediment budget and transport. Implementation: King County should
work with the WRIA 9 Technical
Committee and the newly formed Green
WRIA 9 jurisdictions should support outside Water Quality Assessment Technical
funding, if needed, to provide the means to Work Group that includes representation
address the data gaps not currently included in the from WRIA 9 cities.
Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment. Approximate cost: To be determined.
® WW Study S: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9.
The goal of this study is to determine to what extent, if any, current rates of large woody debris
�► recruitment limit habitat formation in the Green/Duwamish River. The study will begin with an
i assessment of the following two aspects of large woody debris recruitment in the Green River:
■ The potential for future recruitment of standing trees as large woody
debris within the Green River
riparian zone Benefit to salmon: Understanding
aspects of large woody debris
recruitment in WRIA 9 will help policy
■ The rate and frequency at which makers craft more effective buffer
this recruitment would occur. regulations and scientists develop better
• habitat projects.
A workshop with ecologists and habitat experts in • Link to Strategy: Study to restore
WRIA 9 should identify the scope of this project. habitat and habitat-forming processes.
This study should involve the analysis of existing aImplementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
information as well as the collection of additional Committee should oversee this project.
field data where needed. • Approximate cost: $30,000
® WW Study 6: The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group, WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central
Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work together to
understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA.
The purpose of this work is to determine the sources of flow and flow diversion in the
• Green/Duwamish River to inform better management decisions regarding flow regulation and
solutions to flow problems.
This action will include the following main tasks:
• xy1/01-0/8"6000—furia9mt—d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 41
i
Chapter 3—WRIA-Wide Actions •
1. The Planning Work Group and the
Technical Committee should Benefit to salmon: This information
develop an appropriate scope of could highlight areas where flows are a
work and identify other concern, enabling the WRIA to address
organizations and agencies that them, or it could determine that the
need to be consulted or included in future water supply will not support
certain habitat improvements,
the work. emphasizing the need to use limited
resources wisely.
2. Meet with other agencies, Link to Strategy: Study to restore
including water suppliers, to habitat and habitat-forming processes.
further develop the scope of work. Implementation: Lead to be
determined. Coordination with the WRIA
3. Develop an implementation plan 9 Technical Committee is strongly
and identify funding to complete recommended.
the agreed-upon work. Approximate cost: To be determined •
WW Study 7. Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in
scientific work directed toward salmon recovery.
The desired outcome of this study is to develop strategies to reduce duplication and redundancy
and increase the effective use of resources in scientific studies that will support salmon recovery i
actions.
■ Develop opportunities to regularly share scientific information across
jurisdictions, across levels of government, and with citizen groups that are
involved in salmon conservation in
WRIA 9.
■ Benefit to salmon: Coordination of
■ Seek to learn from the experiences of scientific work will increase our ability
other WRIAs engaged in salmon to develop scientifically supportable •
actions with our limited salmon
conservation in the Puget Sound recovery dollars.
area. E Link to strategy: Coordinate studies
to protect and restore habitat and
■ Develop a periodic forum for habitat forming processes.
coordinating scientific work across 6 Implementation: WRIA 9 Technical
entities doing research and/or Committee
monitoring in the WRIA to minimize ■ Approximate cost: Not identified, but
duplication, share information, and additional funds for coordination
effectively use available funds. events will be required. •
wpl 10 1-018 7 6-0 0 0 our to ia9nm daa •
42 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Subwatershed Actions
Chapter 4. Subwatershed Actions
40
• This chapter contains descriptions of near-term actions in each of the five subwatersheds of
WRIA 9. Each near-term action addresses one or more of the main WRIA 9 Strategy elements,
or is a study that will provide necessary information about salmon and their habitat in WRIA 9.
S Symbols denote which Strategy elements each action addresses, as follows:
• ` Indicates actions to protect habitat
Indicates actions to restore habitat
Indicates actions to connect habitats
® Indicates studies.
. In addition, each subwatershed section contains descriptions of projects that benefit chinook
• salmon and/or bull trout and are planned to occur in the next five years. Planned projects that
benefit other species are listed in Appendix C. The letters A through D denote the current phase
of planning for each project, as follows:
Indicates the concept and feasibility phase
Indicates project sponsors are identifying funding for the project
Indicates the project is in the engineering and design phase
Indicates the project is under construction or construction is pending.
Chapter 4 describes only projects that are already planned. WRIA-wide Action 15 sets up a
process to evaluate these planned projects and to identify new projects to fill any gapsta
'a It should be noted that landowner permission and appropriate permits are needed for all projects,including
restoration projects. Information about the commonly required environmental permits is available from the
Department of Ecology(Publication No. 90-29, 1998)and specific permit guidance is provided through Ecology's
on-line permit assistance webpage: www.ecy.wa.--ov/programs/seg/pac/index.html. The Ecology permit center also
maintains a toll-free number: 1-800-917-0043.
,,p1 i01-01876,noor v mnn.duc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 43
Chapter 4-Upper Green River Subwatershed
Upper Green River Subwatershed
Background
The Upper Green River subwatershed contains the headwaters of the Green River, which is in
the vicinity of Blowout Mountain and Snowshoe Butte, and represents about 45 percent of the
. Green River's watershed area and stream mileage. The river flows generally west and northwest
from the Cascades through approximately 25 miles of steeply sloped, densely forested terrain
with narrow valleys. Howard Hanson Dam is immediately below the confluence of the North
Fork with the Green River at approximately RM 64.5. Completed in 1962, the dam provides up
to 106,000 acre-feet of water storage at an elevation of 1,206 feet. Figure 4 is a map of the
Upper Green River subwatershed.
. The primary land use in the Upper Green River subwatershed is forestry (99 percent), and the
upland vegetation is a patchwork of old growth, second growth, and recently logged areas (see
Figure 5). Major forestry landowners include the U.S. Forest Service, Plum Creek Timber,
Tacoma Public Utilities, Guistina Resources, Weyerhaeuser, and the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources. Tacoma Public Utilities draws its water supply from the
Upper Green River subwatershed and operates a well field along the North Fork.
Fish Use
The Tacoma diversion dam and Howard Hanson Dam completely block anadromous fish
w passage to the Upper Green River Subwatershed. Resident cutthroat, rainbow, and brook trout
use the Upper Green River subwatershed for every stage of their life history. The Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have planted juvenile
• chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout in the Upper Green River subwatershed. The
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife transported wild winter steelhead adults
around the two dams from 1992 through 2000. The juveniles use the subwatershed for rearing
and the adults use it for spawning. Bull trout have not been documented in the Upper Green
River subwatershed.
Factors of Decline and Strategy
i The two dams completely block upstream fish passage to the Upper Green River and severely
A hamper downstream passage of juveniles to the rest of the watershed. However, the fish that do
reside in the Upper Green River face other habitat problems, primarily as a result of poor past
forestry practices, including reduction and degradation of riparian functions and large woody
• debris, limited channel migration, and limited creation of new habitat. Also, the reservoir pool
reduces spawning habitat and riparian function due to its periodic inundation of 4.5 miles of the
mainstem and 3.0 miles of tributaries. The inundation also delays juvenile out-migration due to
the increased depth of and reduced current in the pool. In the tributaries, logging practices have
A resulted in loss of riparian functions and large woody debris, fish passage barriers, excessive
sedimentation, decreased water quality, and altered stream hydrology.
Grp!!01-0/876-000 cur 1 N ,9 nt—d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 45
Figure I
RiverUpper Green
Subwatershed
Y
% -�, •60 River Mile and Number
Howard
' k Hanson River/Stream
b5rva
Dam •� E' _ Howmd Hemxbn ` .` J..
RcsErvolr < Subwatershed Boundary
Open Water
•t <
Nw
f
71
kfy aq River miles were estimated from'Catalog of Washington
76 •' er 83 ' Streams and Salmon Utilization,(Williams,et at.I975).
7760
83 4
t'
12
.. 87
i eY
� 90
N
0 AMiles
De<cintsar 2001
®King County
Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division
GIS and Visual Communications&Web Units
020304 NTAA.ai MD.WGC,MD,SK
AL S10 • • • • • • • •* • • • i ! • • 1a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 009
•
• Figure
MOE
• RSHORE
U ATERSHED
Forestry, Agriculture,
• Elliott
Bay and Major Landowners
• ELLIOTT BAY/
DUWAMISH
• SUBWATERSHED
• � *'%ft® King County WRIA 9 Boundary -
Subwatershed Boundary
• Major Road
• NEARSHORE River
SUBWATERSHED
• f� Open Water
Forest Production District
Agricultural Production District
Puget _ .
® Rural Forest Focus Areas
Sound LOWER
• GREEN RIVER hike Q Weyerhaeuser
SUBWATERSHED 3o„s
Giustina Resources
• mj _ 0Plum Creek Timber
• City of Tacoma
w City of Seattle
Lake
• '°" `` ! United States Forest Service
v �
• Q , j: Washington State Department
' of Natural Resources
0
• N
f
D €ENRIVER
Howard j
• SUB RSHED i/a„50„ REEN RI
Reservoir
■ TER ■
L ■ ■ ■
• ■ ■ ■�
O King County ■ ■
Department of
. Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division o 2 4Miles
GIS and Visual Communications & Web Units L 1
• 0203 05 NTAA.ai MD.WGC,MD,SK December2001
•
Chapter 4-Upper Green River Subwatershed
The WRIA 9 Strategy identifies restoring fish access to the Upper Green River subwatershed as
a high priority goal for the WRIA. The subwatershed may be large enough to act as refugia for
salmon, able to seed downstream areas once appropriate access and habitat have been
established. In addition,the Strategy recommends protection of currently functioning habitats
and habitat-forming processes, restoration and enhancement of habitat along the mainstem and
to tributaries, and operation of Howard Hanson Dam in a manner that will reduce its adverse effects
0 on flows, available habitat, and water quality downstream. The Strategy also calls for filling data
gaps concerning the Upper Green River, such as those regarding baseline habitat quantity and
quality and juvenile out-migration.
Near-Term Actions
Because the WRIA 9 Strategy identifies restoring fish passage to and from the Upper Green
• River subwatershed as a high priority, the WRIA has developed one near-term action to support
that goal. Many of the WRIA-wide actions also will apply to the Upper Green River. See the
i box at the end of this section for a summary of WRIA-wide near-term actions.
UG Action ]:Endorse the re-establishment offish passage to and from the Upper Green
River subwatershed.
As part of the Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan
® and the Additional Water Storage Project . Benefit to salmon: Opening the Upper
(described below), Tacoma and the U.S. Army Green River subwatershed to salmon will
Corps of Engineers will develop upstream and dramatically expand the spawning and
downstream passage at the two dams. The two rearing habitat available in WRIA 9.
agencies will coordinate these activities with the 0 Link to Strategy: Connects Upper
• National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish Green to the rest of the watershed.
and Wildlife Service, the Washington State Implementation: The WRIA will work to
+ Department of Fish and Wildlife, and appropriate provide appropriate support to Tacoma
tribal fisheries managers. WRIA 9 endorses and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
these activities and will provide support where Approximate cost: Varies according to
feasible and appropriate. the action taken.
Summary of WRIA-Wide Near-Term Actions
a The following near-term actions apply to each subwatershed in WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 1: Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9 based
S on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat.
■ WW Action 2: Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes identified in WW Action 1 or
where other efforts have identified important habitat.
' E WW Action 3: Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions.
.Pr im-nro•--nonr.•nw nrnn d
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 49
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
■ WW Action 4.- Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives)
for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 5: Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting salmon
conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
■ WW Action 6: Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through
high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden care.
■ WW Action 7: Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 8: Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and
improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
■ WW Action 9: Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
■ WW Action 10: Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce
sediment entering salmon-bearing streams.
■ WW Action 11: Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
• WW Action 12: Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater .
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams.
■ WW Action 13: Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating S
procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and other pollutants and salmon
habitat.
■ WW Action 14: Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 15: Develop a comprehensive,WRIA-wide process to identify, develop, and
prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ WW Action 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 17: Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers.
■ WW Action 18: Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
■ WW Action 19: Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level.
■ WW Study 1: Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply
the information to future projects. •
■ WW Study 2: Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed.
• WW Study 3: Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in .
WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 4: Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment.
■ WW Study 5: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9. i
■ WW Study 6: The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group, WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central
Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work
together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA. •
■ WW Study 7: Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in
scientific work directed toward salmon recovery.
Current Efforts
Forestry
As noted above, nearly all of the Upper Green River subwatershed is devoted to forestry. Three
major landowners (Plum Creek Timber Company, Tacoma Public Utilities, and the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources) have developed Habitat Conservation Plans that
Hpl /0/-0I8:6-000 cu renr wrinY nmo.dnc
50 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
establish forest practices on their lands. These Habitat Conservation Plans provide them with
�- incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act and establish a variety of protection
S measures, including riparian management, monitoring and research, and road management. On
• lands not covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, the current forest practices rules govern
timber management. The Forest and Fish Agreement developed the original rules, which were
modified in 2000 and again in 2001, and are codified in WAC 222.
Perhaps the most important aspect of these initiatives for salmon recovery is their emphasis on
riparian management. As the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment report notes, riparian corridors are vital for providing shade and detritus, protecting
water quality, and recruitment of large woody debris. Appendix B compares the riparian
management provisions of the three HCPs and the Forest Practices Rules.
In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Tacoma Public Utilities
will conduct studies and monitoring as part of their Habitat Conservation Plans. Those studies
that will generate data about listed species and their habitat are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2. Upper Green River studies: Washington State Department of Natural Resources
and Tacoma Public Utilities Habitat Conservation Plans.
Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Jurisdiction
Upland Forest Document compliance Ensure management Riparian condition, Tacoma Public
Management with terms of the practices outlined in sediment transport, Utilities
Monitoring Tacoma Habitat HCP are followed water quality
• Conservation Plan
Riparian Buffer Document compliance Measure average no- Riparian condition Tacoma Public
Width Monitoring with terms of the harvest buffer widths Utilities
Tacoma Habitat
Conservation Plan
Road Construction Document compliance Ensure management Riparian condition, Tacoma Public
and Maintenance with terms of the practices outlined in sediment transport Utilities
Monitoring Tacoma Habitat HCP are followed
Conservation Plan
Snag and Green Document effectiveness Ensure rate of snags Riparian condition Tacoma Public
• Tree Recruitment of measures described and green tree Utilities
Effectiveness in the Tacoma Habitat recruitment meets needs
Monitoring Conservation Plan of HCP species
Uneven-aged Document effectiveness Document whether Riparian condition Tacoma Public
Harvest Monitoring of measures described windthrow has resulted Utilities
and Adaptive in the Tacoma Habitat in individual stands
Management Conservation Plan containing an average
of less than 25 healthy
dominant or
codominant conifers per
acre 5 years after
harvesting
.Pr 101-01876-000 cu.,enr w.;ay nma dac
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 51
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
Factor of Decline •
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Jurisdiction
Relationships Provide information to Develop basic Riparian condition Washington •
between forest improve management information on the State Department
management and practices relationships between of Natural
riparian ecosystems forest management Resources
activities and riparian
ecosystems in managed
forests
Relationships Provide information to Develop basic Hydrology Washington
between forest improve management information on the State Department
management practices relationships between of Natural •
activities and forest management Resources
hydrology in activities and hydrology
managed forests in managed forests, •
particularly the
relationships among
forest management
activities,basin soils,
and stream- •
channel/stream-bed
changes during rain-on-
snow floods
The Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the Additional Water Storage Project
Tacoma Public Utilities draws its water supply from the Green River at the Tacoma diversion
dam in the Middle Green River subwatershed and will increase the amount of water it diverts in •
future years as part of the Second Supply Project. Tacoma Public Utilities recently developed a •
Habitat Conservation Plan in concert with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as noted above. With the completion of the Habitat Conservation ,
Plan, Tacoma Public Utilities received incidental take permits in July 2001 to cover most of its
activities15 in WRIA 9. The HCP establishes habitat restoration and fish passage projects to
enhance conservation. The Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan has seven primary components:
fish passage at the Tacoma diversion dam, both up and downstream; reintroduction of large
woody debris; reintroduction of gravel; habitat restoration projects; wildlife conservation
measures; stream flow management; and monitoring. •
Tacoma's Habitat Conservation Plan is closely intertwined with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Additional Water Storage Project, which will store most of the additional water
necessary for Tacoma's new water supplies. The project also will create a downstream fish
passage facility at Howard Hanson Dam and construct numerous fish habitat restoration projects
in the Middle and Upper Green River subwatersheds, such as reconnecting side channels and
installing large woody debris. Tacoma, the City of Seattle, the City of Kent, Covington Water
is The Habitat Conservation Plan does not cover the construction of the new 33.5-mile pipeline to carry the
additional water to Tacoma, Seattle,Federal Way,Kent, and Covington.
.,PI 101-OIK76-000 cu ,—io9—ad-
52 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
District, Lakehaven Utility District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are sharing the cost
of the Additional Water Storage Project.
• Table 3 below describes the habitat projects that will be constructed in the Upper Green River
subwatershed as part of the Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the Additional Water Storage
Project. Some similar projects have been combined for simplicity of presentation (e.g., culvert
replacement projects).
Table 3. Upper Green River habitat projects: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project.
• Factors of Strategy
Project Name Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed
. Tacoma Construct fish ladder and trap- Increased spawning Fish passage Access to
• diversion dam and haul system to pass fish area for adults of Upper Green
upstream fish upstream over the dam. Also, all species River
• passage facility reshape channel in front of dam subwatershed
• to make fish ladder more
Status: attractive to fish.
Tacoma Modify the existing diversion Increased output of Fish passage Connection of
diversion dam dam to safely pass fish juvenile salmon of Upper Green
downstream fish downstream and prevent fish all species River to rest of
passage facility from entering the diversion dam watershed
• intake.
• Status: 4;1
Tacoma Place large woody debris and Increased habitat Hydro- Rehabilitate
diversion dam rootwads in two sections of the complexity for all modification habitat along
large woody inundation pool upstream of the species the mainstem
debris/rootwad diversion dam.
placement
,';.
• Status:
Howard Hanson Provide funding to the U.S. Increased output of Hydro- Connection of
• Dam Army Corps of Engineers to juvenile salmon of modification Upper Green
• downstream fish design and construct a all species River to rest of
passage facility downstream fish passage facility watershed
• at Howard Hanson Dam.
• Status:
• Standing timber Leave 229 acres of timber Increased habitat Hydro- Rehabilitate
retention standing within the new complexity of all modification habitat along
• 1 inundation zone of the Howard species the mainstem
Status: Hanson Dam reservoir
wpl i01-01876000 currcnr uvin9 nrnn.rinc _
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 53
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed •
Restore former Construct a new bioengineered Improved access to Hydro- Rehabilitate •
mainstem bank to divert water back into complex habitat for modification habitat along
channel historical channel juvenile chinook mainstem •
alignment(RM
87)
x�
Status:
Upper Green Improve riparian management Increased habitat Riparian Rehabilitate •
River tributary areas,place bar apex jams,place complexity and condition, habitat along
improvements inundation tolerant plants,place quality for chinook hydro- tributaries •
woody debris booms,etc. and coho modification
Status:
Upper Green Replace existing culverts with Access to habitat Fish passage Rehabilitate
River tributaries bottomless culverts or bridges for coho, steelhead, habitat along .
culvert and possibly bull tributaries
replacements trout •
Status:
The Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the Additional Water Storage Project also involve
several studies, outlined in Table 4 below. All of these studies address the element of the •
WRIA 9 Strategy that calls for filling data gaps in the Upper Green River subwatershed. •
Table 4. Upper Green River studies: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the
Additional Water Storage Project.
Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Snowpack and Improve the ability of Provide funding to the U.S.Army Hydrology •
precipitation monitoring U.S.Army Corps of Corps of Engineers to install three
Engineers to predict snowpack and precipitation
stream flows monitoring stations in the Upper •
Green River subwatershed
Minimum instream flow Document compliance Monitor instream flows and Tacoma Hydrology
monitoring with terms of the Public Utilities operations that affect •
Tacoma Habitat instream flows
Conservation Plan •
Non-dedicated water Document compliance Monitor amounts of water available Hydrology
storage and flow with terms of the for municipal water supply and for
management monitoring Tacoma Habitat flow augmentation
Conservation Plan •
Tacoma diversion dam Document compliance Ensure projects carried out as Hydromodification
rehabilitation with terms of the prescribed; check on stability over
monitoring Tacoma Habitat time •
Conservation Plan
u•n! 101-018 76-0 00 cur n!.r 9nto.d/ •
54 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
Factor of Decline
• Study Name Objective Description Addressed
• Tacoma diversion dam Document compliance Ensure fish are using the ladder and Fish passage
upstream fish passage with terms of the that water quality is unaffected
• monitoring Tacoma Habitat
• Conservation Plan
Tacoma diversion dam Document compliance Ensure debris is passed downstream Fish passage
• downstream fish with terms of the and spillways are designed to
passage monitoring Tacoma Habitat minimize risk of injury to downstream
Conservation Plan migrants
Monitor the transport of Document compliance Document funding or implementation Fish passage
juvenile fish above with terms of the of transport of juveniles
Howard Hanson Dam Tacoma Habitat
• Conservation Plan
• Mainstem woody debris Document compliance Maintain database of amount of large Hydromodification
management monitoring with terms of the woody debris removed from reservoir
• Tacoma Habitat and how it is used
• Conservation Plan
Upper watershed Document compliance Monitor large woody debris Hydromodification,
• stream, wetland,and with terms of the emplacements, instream vegetation, riparian condition,
shoreline rehabilitation Tacoma Habitat and fish passage at various restoration fish passage
monitoring Conservation Plan sites
Monitor movement of Identification of Seasonal installation of fyke net in Fish passage
• juvenile fish into species,timing,size upper mainstem
reservoir and age distribution of
• fish moving
downstream into
Howard Hanson Dam
• reservoir
Monitor reservoir Determine fish Conduct mobile hydroacoustic fish Fish passage
passage of juvenile fish distribution throughout surveys of Howard Hanson Dam
• reservoir during peak reservoir
migration times
eMonitor fish passage Provide data on Paired PIT tag releases and detection Fish passage
facility survival and fish reservoir and project
collection efficiency passage facility
efficiency and survival
Monitor fish passage Provide data on Seasonal operation of screw trap at Fish passage
facility survival and fish reservoir and project Howard Hanson Dam outlet but
collection efficiency passage facility upstream of fish bypass outfall
• efficiency and survival
Monitor condition of Provide data on Sample fish at station upstream of Fish passage
fish passing through reservoir and project outfall
• fish passage facility passage facility
efficiency and survival
Marked fry Quantify efficiency of Mark and recapture fish to determine Fish passage
• modular-inclined efficiency of sampling station
screen and fish
passage facility
..pi i01-01876-000�,.�-„1 w.iay.,ma.d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 55
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
Factor of Decline •
Study Name Objective Description Addressed •
Hydroacoustic surveys Determine whether Fixed hydroacoustics deployed in Fish passage •
juvenile fish can find Howard Hanson Dam forebay, fish
and use bypass system passage facility horn, and wetwell. •
Mobile hydroacoustic monitoring and
gillnetting in reservoir. Placement of
transducers in passage facility. •
Monitor water quality Identify gross changes Spring and summer surveys in the Water quality •
and zooplankton in the in reservoir upper and lower portions of the
reservoir productivity and reservoir •
salmon eating habits
as a result of
implementing the •
Additional Water
Storage Project •
Monitor predator Compare the effects of Snorkel surveys to identify Study to fill data •
abundance in the the Additional Water concentrations of predatory fish at gaps
reservoir Storage Project on migratory transition points,hook and •
predator rates and line or nets to collect stomach samples •
consumption
Monitor effects of flow Provide data on Quantify inlet/outlet elevations,map Hydromodification
management strategies quality and quantity of large woody debris,conduct snorkel •
on side channels side channel habitat at and electrofishing surveys
various flow •
conditions;quantify
biological response
Monitor steelhead Evaluate the effects of Contribute funding to the Washington Hydromodification •
spawning and released flows on State Department of Fish and Wildlife •
incubation steelhead spawning and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
and egg incubation spawner surveys •
The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
In 1995, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a group of jurisdictions in the Green/Duwamish
Watershed sponsored and conducted a reconnaissance study of the watershed. This study •
recommended a feasibility study of over 50 sites basin-wide that could be restored to benefit
habitat. This feasibility study, conducted from 1997 to 2000,provided conceptual designs for
future construction of 45 of these sites over 10 years. This restoration program, authorized by
the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, is moving into the project engineering and design •
phase in early 2002, in which detailed designs and engineering studies will be completed for 20
projects that are ready to build. Construction of these projects will begin in 2003.
Several of these Phase 1 projects will be constructed in the Upper Green River subwatershed. •
Table 5 below summarizes information about those projects that will benefit chinook salmon.
Other Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration projects are listed in the subwatershed in which
they are located. Those that benefit species other than the chinook and bull trout are listed in
Appendix C. •
vpl 10 1-018 7 6-0 00 cu 1.,i,9a—do,
56 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Upper Green River Subwatershed
Table 5. Upper Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Strategy
Project Name Factors of Decline Elements
• and Status Project Description Benefits to Salmon Addressed Addressed
• Sunday Creek Plant low-growing riparian Increases habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
revegetation species under the complexity and quality hydromodification, habitat along
• powerlines and place large for coho,steelhead,and water quality the tributaries
. Status:
wood in the stream possibly chinook
. Gale Creek Replace perched culvert Opens up habitat for Fish passage Restore
with a bridge chinook,steelhead, access to
• coho, and possibly bull tributaries
r
• Status: trout
Sweeny Creek Replace existing culvert Opens up habitat for Fish passage,riparian Restore
culvert and improve riparian bull trout(possibly), condition access to
• replacement corridor coho, steelhead,and tributaries,
cutthroat trout rehabilitate
tributary
Status: habitat
The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project also will conduct studies to guide the
restoration projects. One of these studies is watershed-wide (except the Nearshore
• subwatershed) and is described below in Table 6.
Table 6. Upper Green River studies: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
• Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Water quality Quantify changes in water Sample transects in the proximity of Water quality
quality parameters resulting restoration projects using a hydrolab
. from restoration projects and two-person crew
•
mpr 101-0187(,000 cunrmy mna.dnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 57
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
• � � t EiI� 4' h�h�_ � �
M 3y
mid tree�t��
• Background
The Middle Green River subwatershed extends from Howard Hanson Dam (RM 64.5) to the
• confluence of Soos Creek with the Green River at RM 32. Just downstream of Howard Hanson
• Dam, Tacoma Public Utilities maintains its diversion dam, at which it diverts its drinking water.
Below the diversion dam, the Green River flows between steeply sloped valley walls in mostly
forested, mountainous terrain before emerging from the mouth of the Green River Gorge at the
upstream end of Flaming Geyser State Park(RM 45.6). The river then flows through a broad
• valley down to its confluence with Soos Creek. However, levees and revetments constrain
channel migration in significant portions of this reach without necessarily containing floods.
Figure 6 is a map of the Middle Green River subwatershed.
Newaukum and Soos creeks are the major tributaries to the Middle Green River. The Green
River fish hatchery, built in 1901-02 and still in operation, is on Soos Creek.
The major land uses in the Middle Green River are residential-zoned land (50 percent), forestry
• (27 percent), and agriculture (12 percent). Much of the subwatershed is in unincorporated King
County, but the cities of Covington, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and Enumclaw contribute a
more urban character to a portion of the Middle Green River subwatershed. The urban growth
w area line bisects this subwatershed (Figure 1).
Forestry landowners include Plum Creek Timber, Weyerhaeuser, and other private landowners.
Several state and local parks also abut the river,preserving mostly forested lands. One of the
largest Agricultural Production Districts in King County is in the Middle Green River
subwatershed near Enumclaw, and many of the parcels are in the Farmland Preservation
Program. Both receiving sites (sites that take additional development density) and sending sites
(sites that reduce development density) associated with the Transfer of Development Rights
program could be located in this subwatershed.
Fish Use
Almost all chinook salmon spawning areas in the WRIA are in the Middle Green River
• subwatershed, and thus this subwatershed is critical to salmon conservation. Juvenile salmon
also use Middle Green River habitats extensively for rearing and hiding from predators. Both
adults and juveniles take refuge from floods in side channels and other off-channel habitats.
Coho salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead also spawn in the Middle Green River, along with
• some sockeye and pink salmon. All species, except for bull trout, are known to use this area for
• migration and feeding. A small number of bull trout have been captured in the Middle Green
River, but scientists are not certain how they use the Middle Green River. Recently, kokanee
have been reported in Deep Lake in the Middle Green River. They are believed to be Lake
Whatcom stock planted from the Arlington hatchery in 1969 and 1970.
}rpl/01-0/87(.000 current wria9 n/na.dnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 59
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed •
Factors of Decline and Strategy
The two dams, revetments, and residential and agricultural land uses have had adverse effects on •
salmon habitat in the Middle Green River mainstem, including water withdrawals, changes in the
natural flow regime, sediment starvation and scouring, and the loss of side channels, other off-
channel habitat, riparian habitat functions, and large woody debris. In the tributaries, residential,
urban, and agricultural development have resulted in loss of wetlands and riparian habitat •
function, disruptions to hydrology, degraded channels and water quality, re-channeled streams
with limited lateral migration, loss of large woody debris, and barriers to fish passage.
The WRIA 9 Strategy calls for a number of actions to address these problems. For the Middle •
Green River, preservation of currently functioning habitat is a high priority because this
subwatershed contains the majority of spawning grounds for wild chinook. Protection of the most
productive spawning and rearing areas, both in the mainstem and tributaries, is also •
recommended. In addition, a suite of restoration and enhancement actions is aimed at •
overcoming the effects of the natural processes interrupted by the two dams. These include large
woody debris input, gravel transportation, and more natural flow regimes. The Strategy also calls
for reconnecting side channels that were cut off by changes in the flow regime, levees,
revetments, or other alterations. In the tributaries, the Strategy recommends enhancing habitat •
and removing fish passage barriers.
Near-Term Actions
WRIA 9 recognizes that action is necessary to protect salmon and their habitat in this
subwatershed. Those actions specific to the Middle Green River are described below and w
grouped according to the four categories in the WRIA 9 Strategy. Actions described earlier in •
the WRIA-wide chapter of this document also apply and are meant to be implemented in this .
subwatershed. Please see the box at the end of this section for a summary of WRIA-wide near-
term actions.
wpl 101-018 76-0 0 0 eummr .9w..dn •
60 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Figure .
13 Middle Green River
a12 • •
Luk
11 v��ngs
1,i l ill
L:
10
u ar
9 �.
Nf r' •6o River Mile and Number
5
River/Stream
7 AR it Y f` Urban Growth Boundary
6
C`OV GTON -ALL
Merldlan r
` W&$ft Subwatershed Boundary
Z110
4 COW Open Water
e
0 Incorporated Area
Lu
1 3r6 cb.. 53
32 r' ' 2 W!G" c>�,* 55 i Note:
A C rf f � 52 58 59 0 River miles were estimated from'Catalog of
Tacoma Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization",
4 o River / 50 51 61 fo (Williams,et al.1975).
Headworks Green 39 41 42 145 49 63W1r
38 40 46 47 48
h
37 10
e2 "ffi
3_. qh
0 2 4Miks
4
December 2001
10 11
5 n`Creek r....
ae0o�KO 9 • 1•
6 12
7 ® King County
N M CLAW Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division
GIS and Visual Communications&Web Units
020306 NTAA.ai MD,WGC,MD,SK
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
• ` MG Action 1:Maximize retention of forest cover and minimize impervious surfaces in
• rural and forest production areas of the Middle Green River subwatershed.
• WRIA 9 should support efforts to maximize retention of existing forest cover, encourage
restoration of forest cover where determined to be beneficial, and minimize impervious surfaces
in rural and forest production areas of the Middle Green River subwatershed. A variety of tools
might be used to meet this goal, including acquisition of land or easements, land lease
• agreements, transfer of development rights, tax incentive programs, and development
. regulations. King County should evaluate these options for application in rural and forest
production areas of the Middle Green River subwatershed. Limiting changes in land cover
reduces flow volume increases, peak flows that Benefit to salmon: Retaining forest
• cause flooding, and flow duration increases that cover reduces the loss of forested areas,
cause stream erosion and adverse impacts to minimizing alterations to natural
salmon. Forest retention also helps maintain hydrological conditions and water
groundwater recharge that is important for temperatures.
• maintenance of baseflows and water temperatures. • Link to Strategy: Protect critical
habitats and habitat-forming processes.
The WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment should use the ■ Implementation: King County will lead
best available science to evaluate what forest this effort. The WRIA will provide
cover and impervious surface limits are necessary political and scientific support to the
to protect and support salmon habitat in the County.
Middle Green River subwatershed, in the context • Approximate cost: Staff time and about
of the entire WRIA. $20,000 of GIS support.
i l MG Action 2:Identify and pursue opportunities on agricultural lands to enhance or
. restore high quality salmon habitats while maintaining viable agriculture.
• The intent of this action is to improve overall salmon habitat while preserving or enhancing
• agricultural opportunities. Agricultural activities along the mainstem Green River and
Newaukum Creek occur adjacent to some of the most important remaining spawning and rearing
habitat in the watershed. Currently, deed restrictions and other public policies and regulations
create limitations for salmon habitat restoration
• activities on agricultural lands, both on lands that Benefit to salmon: Improving salmon
are part of the Farmland Preservation Program habitat in the Middle Green River
and on other lands. Restoration projects on mainstem and Newaukum Creek basin
am properties must will enhance the spawning and rearing
Farmland Preservation Program P P functions of these areas.
be designed and installed in a manner that will Link to Strategy: Rehabilitate aquatic
ensure that the county's obligation to preserve and riparian habitat.
the property for agricultural purposes remains Implementation: King County should
intact. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement work with the agricultural community to
• Program, a joint partnership between the State of pursue opportunities while maintaining
Washington and the U.S. Department of viable agricultural use of the land.
Agriculture, offers another opportunity to Approximate cost: Unknown, mostly
enhance salmon habitat through landowner staff costs.
. incentives.
vpr ini-arxsr,-onn cunrmvwmad-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 63
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
King County should identify sites where habitat restoration projects, such as improving the quality
of existing buffers, could be pursued using any of these tools, and work with the agricultural
community to pursue habitat restoration while maintaining viable agricultural use of the land.
® ,L MG Action 3:Supplement mainstem gravel and large woody debris.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tacoma Public
Utilities, and the jurisdictions of WRIA 9 plan to Benefit to salmon: The gravel will
lace ravel and large wood debris in the Middle protect and enhance spawning areas.
p g g Y Installation of large woody debris will •
Green River as part of the Additional Water help increase habitat complexity in the
Storage Project, Tacoma's Habitat Conservation mainstem.
Plan, and the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Link to Strategy: Rehabilitate critical •
Restoration Project. WRIA 9 jurisdictions will interrupted processes, such as gravel
take an active role in these projects through the transport and large woody debris input.
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project, Implementation: WRIA 9 jurisdictions •
and should work with and provide support to will conduct this action with the U.S.
Tacoma Public Utilities and the U.S. Army Corps Army Corps of Engineers.
of Engineers. Approximate cost: $1,000,000 for
g large woody debris over 10 years;
$800,000 for gravel over 3 years.
MG Action 4:Prevent degradation of •
important sources of cool, clean water in the Middle Green River subwatershed, i
Surface and groundwater inputs to the Middle Green River that provide cool, clean water that •
supports salmon spawning and rearing should be protected. Important sources include springs
originating in the Deep and Coal Creek subbasins and tributaries to the Green River such as Icy
Creek. Much of this area is within the King County Forest Production District or designated as •
rural forest focus areas in the King County Comprehensive Plan. •
The impacts of rural development on these areas should be minimized through a combination of
one or more of the following voluntary techniques: .
■ Low impact development
techniques including Benefit to salmon: Cool, clean sources •
maximizing forest retention, of water are an important habitat
minimizing impervious surface, condition in areas that support spawning
and rearing of salmon, especially
clustering, designating open chinook and bull trout.
space tracts, and various water Link to Strategy: Protect functioning
conservation and retention habitat, water quality. •
measures. Implementation: King County, other
local jurisdictions as appropriate.
` Acquisition and transfer of Approximate cost: Varies by action.
development rights (TDR) into .
a TDR bank or a privately funded TDR transfer to an urban receiving site
■ Land acquisition in fee (see also WW Action 2, MG Action 1). •
e7,1 101-01876-000 c-t w jO nlnn.dnc
64 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
• ® MG Study I:Assess flow management alternatives in the Middle Green River.
The purpose of this study is to focus attention on the need to manage river flows to maximize
. salmon habitat in the Middle Green River and to begin the collection of data about important
• physical parameters needed to implement such a flow regime. River flows are responsible for
many of the important habitat creation and
maintenance processes in a river system. This 0 Benefit to salmon: A natural flow
project will involve determining the discharge regime may protect existing habitat and
i quantities and the duration and frequencies of create new habitat.
flows necessary to create and maintain specific ■ Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
habitat types in the Middle Green River. In 0 Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
addition,the project will include a side channel Committee will oversee this work.
study to document the flows needed to provide . Approximate cost: $50,000
water to important side channels.
® MG Study 2:Identify gravel source areas in the Middle Green River.
• This project will identify the main sources of gravel to the Green River and its major tributaries
i in the Middle Green River. This project is necessary to assess the current condition of properly
functioning habitat and to identify potential quantities and areas for gravel augmentation. A
simple but important method of conducting this study would be to inventory landslides in the
Middle Green River. A more thorough study
of
would create a sediment budget for the entire Benefit to salmon: Allows variety
Green River downstream of Howard Hanson agencies a augment spawning gravell
in
the sub-watershed.
Dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' draft
Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan
•
recommends this more thorough type of project, Implementation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may conduct this study. -
and it is likely that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will manage this study. Approximate cost: Unknown.
® MG Study 3:Identify and characterize important surface and groundwater inputs to the
Middle Green River.
■ Benefit to salmon: Sources of cool,
This study would have two steps: mapping of clean water are an important habitat
• watershed conditions and areas that support condition in areas that support spawning
cool water inputs, and evaluating how land and rearing of salmon. Identifying them
use and land cover changes in the Middle will help the WRIA protect these sources.
Green River affect water temperatures, both Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
locally and regionally. This study would be Implementation: The WRIA 9
Technical Committee will oversee this
• coordinated closely with the work.
Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment Approximate cost: $70,000-$100,000
(see WW Study 4). Relationships between
geology, soils, and groundwater flow in the vicinity of the historic confluence of the Green and
• White rivers and the Deep and Coal Creek subbasins will be the primary focus of the study.
• "P1 ioi-oix o0o cuminerin9nmadnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 65
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
® MG Study 4:Ensure funding for the Green River fish trap for 2003-2005. •
The fish trap at RM 34 is a basic research tool for understanding wild salmon productivity in
WRIA 9. The trap is situated just above the confluence with Soos Creek, allowing a measure of .
wild juvenile salmon out-migration from the Middle Green River and Newaukum Creek. In •
addition, now that hatchery chinook salmon have clipped fins, the WRIA will soon be better able
to correlate juvenile productivity and adult
returns of wild stock. •
■ Benefit to salmon: Understanding wild .
The trap has been funded by the Washington productivity in the lower river ultimately
State Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2001 will allow identification of reaches that
and 2002 and will be funded again after 2005. may be limiting.
However, no firm funding is currently identified Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps
for 2003-2005. WRIA 9 needs to make sure that through salmonid survival studies.
the trap continues to operate so that the Implementation: The WRIA will lobby
WDFW to find funding for the fish trap.
monitoring of salmon success in this reach of the Approximate cost: $100,000/year
river can be improved. .
Summary of WRIA-Wide Actions i
The following WRIA-wide actions also will apply to the Middle Green River subwatershed.
■ WW Action 1: Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9 based •
on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat. •
• WW Action 2: Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes identified in WW Action 1 or
where other efforts have identified important habitat.
• WW Action 3: Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions.
• WW Action 4: Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives) •
for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9. •
• WW Action 5: Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting salmon
conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
■ WW Action 6: Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through •
high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden care.
■ WW Action 7: Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat. •
■ WW Action 8: Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and
improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
■ WW Action 9: Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
■ WW Action 10: Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce i
sediment entering salmon-bearing streams. •
■ WW Action 11: Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
■ WW Action 12: Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams. •
wpr 101-a876-000 curmn ia9,1 adnc
66 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda S
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
■ WW Action 13: Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating
. procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and other pollutants and salmon
habitat.
• WW Action 14: Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 15: Develop a comprehensive, WRIA-wide process to identify, develop, and
prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ WW Action 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 17: Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers.
■ WW Action 18: Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
• WW Action 19: Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level.
• WW Study 1: Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply
the information to future projects.
■ WW Study 2: Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed.
• WW Study 3: Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in
WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 4: Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment.
r� WW Study 5: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9.
a WW Study 6.- The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group, WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central
Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work
together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA.
• WW Study 7: Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in
scientific work directed toward salmon recovery.
• Current Efforts
. Jurisdiction and Stakeholder Efforts
Jurisdictions in the Middle Green River have implemented programs and policies to protect the
resources found there. In the early to mid-1990s, most jurisdictions in the WRIA adopted stream
buffer standards pursuant to the Growth Management Act requirements. For example,
Covington requires a 100-foot buffer on salmon-bearing streams. Enumclaw is working with
environmental groups to preserve 54 acres along Newaukum Creek, a tributary with chinook
salmon spawning grounds. Black Diamond has consulting engineers available to assist city staff
with reviewing development proposals to identify resource protection issues. King County is
developing a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Ordinance, scheduled for transmittal
to the County Council in 2002, to improve protection for important habitat areas in the county,
i including those in the Middle Green River. King County also partners with the King
Conservation District to help owners of rural, agricultural, and forested lands create management
plans for their properties. Appendix A provides more detail about the activities of jurisdictions
to protect salmon resources in WRIA 9.
• Other organizations also have initiated programs to conserve salmon and their habitat. For
example,the Covington Water District sponsors extensive public education programs about
water conservation in homes and businesses, and conducts its own affairs in ways that conserve
water.
,,p]101-0187e-000 cu renr erinY woa.dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 67
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Agriculture and Forestry
As noted above, agriculture and forestry are important land uses in the Middle Green River
subwatershed. King County's Farmland Preservation Program preserves agricultural land uses in
perpetuity on dozens of parcels in the Middle Green River. At the state level, the Agriculture,
Fish, and Wildlife negotiations are endeavoring to set buffers and other standards for all western
Washington farms. In general, agricultural lands are more pervious than residential development
and absorb runoff and protect flows. Buffers along agricultural parcels provide the shade, S
nutrients, and large woody debris important to salmon.
Several initiatives govern forestry practices in the Middle Green River. The Plum Creek Timber
Habitat Conservation Plan, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Habitat
Conservation Plan, the Tacoma Public Utilities Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Forest
Practices Rules (WAC 222) all set standards for riparian buffers and best management practices •
to protect salmon and their habitat. Table B-1 in Appendix B compares these standards. •
Projects
The projects highlighted in this section are those that benefit listed species (or listed species and
other species), and should begin sometime during the next five years. Appendix A describes
projects undertaken by specific jurisdictions. Projects that benefit species other than chinook .
salmon and bull trout are described in Appendix C. •
Jurisdiction Projects
On their own initiative,jurisdictions in the Middle Green River subwatershed are carrying out
projects to protect salmon and their habitat. Table 7 below describes three projects that benefit
listed species and will occur in the near-term. •
Table 7. Middle Green River projects: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Jurisdiction Partners •
Conservation Partial Protects None; Protect King County Mid-Sound
Futures funding for currently prevents critical Fisheries
Allocation 106-acre functioning further harm habitats and Enhancement •
acquisition habitat for habitat- Group
adjacent to all species forming
R.a Middle Green processes
Status: River
wnl /01-01876-000 current wrinYnraa.dnc
68 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Jurisdiction Partners
Restoration of Controlling Improves Degraded Enhance King County Soos Creek
parks and invasive existing habitat riparian Area Response
lands adjacent vegetation streamside habitat
to Green River and habitat
. and Soos reestablishing
Creek native
• including vegetation to
Hatchery, improve
Porter Levee, riparian
• O'Grady,and habitat
Whitney
Bridge parks
Status:
Conservation 54 acre Protects None; Protect Enumclaw Possibly Mid-
Futures acquisition currently prevents critical Sound Fisheries
Allocation adjacent to functioning further harm habitats and Enhancement
Newaukum habitat for habitat- Group and
Creek all species forming Trout Unlimited
Status: processes
Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District Projects
WRIA 9 recommends projects for funding to two organizations: the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board and the King Conservation District. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board is a state
organization that disburses grants comprising a combination of state and federal funding for
• salmon habitat projects. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee selects projects to send to the Salmon
Recovery Funding Board for its consideration. Property owners in King County support the
King Conservation District with a $5-per-parcel annual fee. The King Conservation District
devotes three-fifths of this fee from parcels within WRIA 9 to salmon, water quality, and
• flooding projects. The WRIA 9 Forum approves projects to send to the King Conservation
. District Board for its consideration for this funding.
Several projects in the Middle Green River subwatershed are planned using these funding
• sources. Table 8 below describes each briefly.
,.pi,01-0187f,non1 w.mv mna.dnc
M WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 69
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed •
i
Table 8. Middle Green River projects: Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King
Conservation District.
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements .
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Funding Source
Metzler Acquire For all species: Hydro- Rehabilitate Salmon Recovery
acquisition parcels protects existing modification critical Funding Board •
adjacent to high quality (Phase 2) interrupted (Phase 1);
Metzler Park habitat(Phase processes Ecosystem
(Phase 1); 1);restores including large Restoration Program •
install large habitat woody debris (Phase 2)
�,p woody debris complexity input
Status: (Phase 2) (Phase 2) •
Middle Green Acquire 154 For all species, Protects Protect critical Salmon Recovery
River/ acres to protect preserves key functioning habitats Funding Board(with 41
Kanaskat II chinook habitat areas and habitat additional funding
acquisition spawning areas processes from King County
Conservation •
Futures) •
Status:
Middle Green Acquire up to For all species, Protects Protect critical Salmon Recovery •
River 110 acres near preserves key functioning habitats Funding Board(with •
acquisitions chinook habitat areas and habitat additional funding
spawning processes from King
habitat Conservation
Status: District) •
Big Spring Acquire key For all species, Protects Protect critical Salmon Recovery
Creek parcels in the protects water functioning habitats Funding Board .
acquisition headwaters of quality habitat
Big Spring
Creek
Status: i
Non-Profrt and Other Stakeholder Efforts S
Several non-profit organizations are working actively to conserve salmon and their habitat in the 0
Middle Green River subwatershed. Table 9 below provides information about planned and on-
going projects.
0
0
•
0
»o] i01-0187&000 c—t—Onlmd„c
70 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 0
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Table 9. Middle Green River projects: non-profit organizations and other stakeholders.
iFactors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements Lead Agency and
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
Newaukum 90 volunteers Wetlands Riparian Rehabilitate Mid-Sound Fisheries
Creek wetland helped plant 945 protect condition, critical Enhancement Group
planting plants in this water water habitat- (lead),Enumclaw High
. wetland mitigation quality and quality forming School,Boy Scouts of
upstream of Mahler provide processes America,and local
Park;plantings nutrients for volunteers
• Status: J continue all species
Salmon carcass Annually distribute Adds ? Rehabilitate Mid-Sound Fisheries
distribution chinook and coho nutrients for critical Enhancement Group
carcasses all species habitat- (lead)and local
f forming volunteers
Status: processes
. North Fork Plant riparian Provides Riparian Rehabilitate Mid-Sound Fisheries
. Newaukum buffers at newly shade, condition aquatic Enhancement Group
planting completed in- nutrients, habitat within (lead), local volunteers,
stream restoration and large tributaries and the Boy Scouts of
project woody America
debris for all
S Status: species
North Fork Restored 250 feet Provides Hydromod- Rehabilitate Mid-Sound Fisheries
Newaukum of the creek by re- sediment ification, critical Enhancement Group
• Creek in- grading bank sources, riparian habitat- (lead)and the
. stream slopes and habitat condition, forming Washington
restoration installing large complexity, sediment processes Conservation Corps
• woody debris; shade, transport
planting will occur nutrients,
• in 2002 and large
woody
debris for all
Status: species
i
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
vpr g01-0187C�onn currrm.y m,tr,c
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 71
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed •
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements Lead Agency and •
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners •
Hatchery Park Replant riparian Provides Riparian Rehabilitate Soos Creek Action Area
restoration and corridor at shade, condition aquatic Response(lead),King
stewardship confluence of nutrients, habitat within County,Jobs for the
Green River and and large tributaries Environment,Mid-
Soos Creek woody Sound Fisheries •
debris for all Enhancement Group,
species King Conservation
District,EarthCorps,
Rainier Audubon, Small
Habitat Restoration •
Program,Washington
State Department of
Natural Resources,
United Way Day of
Caring;many
corporations including •
Capital One,Boeing,
Leonards Metals, Scouts •
&Campfire,Pragmatic
Status: Solutions,Nickelodeon
Big Help i
Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the Additional Water Storage Project ,
As discussed above in the Upper Green River subwatershed section, Tacoma Public Utilities and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to construct a number of habitat projects in the Middle
Green River. These projects are described below in Table 10.
Table 10. Middle Green River habitat projects: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project.
Strategy
Project Name Factors of Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Benefits to Salmon Addressed Addressed
Large woody Place large woody debris Restores habitat Hydromodification Rehabilitate
debris re- in 3-4 locations complexity for all critical habitat- •
introduction downstream of Tacoma species forming processes
diversion dam. Allow .
flood flows to mobilize
and reintroduce the wood
Status: into the channel.
Mainstem gravel Place up to 3900 cubic Protects and Hydromodification Rehabilitate S
nourishment(RM yards of gravel annually enhances spawning critical habitat-
64.5 to 32.8) in the Middle Green River areas for all species forming processes
Status:
,.nl 101-018 76-0 00 cu 1 w,.9 n—d¢ •
72 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
i
Strategy
• Project Name Factors of Decline Elements
• and Status Project Description Benefits to Salmon Addressed Addressed
Bar apex jams Construct bar apex jams Increases habitat Hydromodification Rehabilitate
below the Tacoma along Palmer Reach, complexity for all critical habitat-
diversion dam especially in vicinity of species forming processes
(RM 60) Kanaskat Side Channel
Status:
Side channel Connect slough to Provide additional Hydromodification Connect
reconnection- mainstem,create pool- rearing habitat, mainstem with
. Signani Slough riffle sequence,create habitat complexity, side channels and
(RM 60) spawning reach and habitat floodplain habitat
downstream of pool-riffle connectivity for all
reach;maintain and species
enhance existing pond
with large woody debris;
excavate backwater
channels,place large
woody debris, construct
holding pool and
Status: tie
reestablish side channel
outlet.
Downstream Work with the Provides additional Hydromodification Rehabilitate
woody debris Muckleshoot Indians and rearing habitat and critical habitat-
management federal and local agencies habitat complexity forming processes
program to develop a program to for all species
distribute large and small
woody debris that collects
behind Howard Hanson
Dam in the Middle and
sStatus: Lower Green River
The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
In 1995, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a group of jurisdictions in the Green/Duwamish
e Watershed sponsored and conducted a reconnaissance study of the watershed. This study
recommended a feasibility study of over 50 sites basin-wide that could be restored to benefit
• habitat. This feasibility study, conducted from 1997 to 2000, provided conceptual designs for
future construction of 45 of these sites over 10 years. This restoration program, authorized by
e the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, is moving into the project engineering and design
phase in early 2002, in which detailed designs and engineering studies will be completed for 20
projects that are ready to build. Construction of these projects will begin in 2003.
Several of these Phase 1 projects will be constructed in the Middle Green River subwatershed.
Table 11 below summarizes information about those projects that will benefit chinook salmon
and bull trout.
Note that the volunteer revegetation project will occur also in the Lower Green River and Elliott
Bay/Duwamish subwatersheds but is described in this document only once. In addition, large
r,pl%01-0187c-000 cunenn.ria9 nma drx
S WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 73
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
woody debris may be placed in the Lower Green River and Elliott Bay/Duwamish
subwatersheds. Finally, note that the water quality studies described in Table 6, Upper Green
River studies, also will be carried out in the Middle Green River subwatershed.
Table 11. Middle Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Project Name Benefit to Factors of Decline Strategy Element •
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed
Kanaskat side Construct permanent access Provides refuge Hydromodification Connect the •
channel north between the river and the habitat for all mainstem with
(Brunner downstream end of this former species side channels
Slough)(RM river meander,and tie the
58) channel into a supplemental
water source
f�
Status:
Lones Levee Remove training levee, Increases habitat Hydromodification Enhance aquatic
replace with small setback quality for all habitat within the
levee well landward and with species mainstem
a significant buried toe,
relocate the lower portion of
Burns Creek into its original
Status: channel
Middle Green Place up to 5000 cubic yards Protects and Hydromodification, Rehabilitate
River gravel of gravel per year in the expands sediment transport critical interrupted
Middle Green River spawning habitat processes
for chinook and i
ZY other species .
Status:
Newaukum Phase 1 proposal: restore Increases habitat Hydromodification, Enhance aquatic
Creek about one-third of the creek complexity for riparian condition habitat within the •
upstream from its confluence all species tributaries
with the Green River by
placing large woody debris in
the stream and planting
Status: riparian corridors
Middle Green Place up to 40 logjams in the Increases habitat Hydromodification Enhance aquatic
River large Middle Green River over 10 complexity for habitat within the •
woody debris years all species mainstem
demonstration
project
Status:
Volunteer Provide plants,wood, and Provides shade, Riparian condition, Enhance aquatic •
revegetation other materials for riparian nutrients,and water quality habitat within the
restoration projects conducted large woody mainstem
by volunteers,schools,and debris for all
other stakeholder groups species
Status:
wpl 101-0 1 8 76_000 cvrrrnt wria9 n do .
74 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Studies
Jurisdiction Studies and Data Collection
Jurisdictions in WRIA 9 are conducting studies to provide data that will aid in management
decisions. These studies are described in Table 12 below. All of these studies fulfill the Strategy
in that they fill data gaps about the Middle Green River.
i Table 12. Middle Green River studies: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Jurisdiction
Green Water Assess current and Analyze peak Water quality King County
Quality future water quality concentrations and
Assessment conditions in the loadings,conduct water
Middle Green River quality modeling
Benthic index of Determine overall Monitor aquatic insect Water quality, King County
biological health of streams populations using riparian condition
integrity benthic index of
biological integrity
Stream gauging Measure stream flow Install and monitor Hydrology King County
stream gauges in
tributaries
Green temperature Examine spatial Continuous monitoring Water quality King County
study variability in stream of stream temperatures,
temperatures; identify and modeling
cool/warm areas
• Non-Profit and Other Stakeholder Studies
Other organizations are conducting research in the Middle Green River as well. Table 13 below
briefly describes one such effort.
Table 13. Middle Green River study: Non-profit organizations and other stakeholders.
Factor of
Decline Lead Agency and
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Partners
Smolt trap on Provide data to Annually monitor coho Study to fill Mid-Sound
north fork managers to aid smolts and resident data gaps Fisheries
Newaukum Creek decisions cutthroat heading Enhancement Group
downstream in spring (lead),Trout
Unlimited, and local
volunteers
,,pi roanixsc-oon-r.w�mo.dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 75
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and Additional Water Storage Project Studies
Under these two programs, Tacoma Public Utilities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan
to conduct numerous studies to guide their efforts and to ensure compliance with Tacoma Public
Utilities' agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service. These studies are described in •
Table 14 below; all of them are consistent with the WRIA 9 Strategy because they fill data gaps
about the Middle Green River. •
Table 14. Middle Green River studies: Tacoma Habitat Conservation Plan and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Additional Water Storage Project. 41
Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Minimum instream Document compliance with Monitor instream flows and Hydrology S
flow monitoring terms of Tacoma Habitat Tacoma Water operations that .
Conservation Plan affect instream flows
Non-dedicated water Document compliance with Monitor amounts of water Hydrology
storage and flow terms of Tacoma Habitat available for water supply and .
management Conservation Plan flow augmentation
monitoring
Signani Slough Document compliance with Monitor stability of anchored Hydromodification •
monitoring terms of Tacoma Habitat large woody debris .
Conservation Plan
Mainstem woody Document compliance with Maintain database of large Hydromodification
debris management terms of Tacoma Habitat woody debris removed from
monitoring Conservation Plan reservoir and how it is used
Mainstem gravel Document compliance with Track location and amount of Hydromodification
nourishment terms of Tacoma Habitat gravel emplacement
monitoring Conservation Plan
Monitor effects of Provide data on quality and Quantify inlet/outlet Hydromodification
flow management quantity of side channel elevations,map large woody
strategies on side habitat at various flow debris,conduct snorkel and
channels conditions; quantify electrofishing surveys
biological response .
Monitor steelhead Evaluate the effects of Contribute funding to the Hydromodification
spawning and released flows on steelhead Washington State Department
incubation spawning and egg incubation of Fish and Wildlife and
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
spawner surveys
Monitor downstream Identify changes in juvenile Install and operate screw trap Hydromodification
migration of juvenile downstream migration at RM 34
salmon patterns as a result of the
Additional Water Storage •
Project
wpl /0/-0I876-000 curxml wria9 nmo.doc
76 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Factor of Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
• Monitor salmon Identify off-channel habitats Provide funding to the Hydromodification
spawning and used by salmon that are Washington State Department
incubation affected by an early refill of Fish and Wildlife and the
schedule Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to
expand spawning surveys to
lateral habitats and restoration
sites
Monitor salmon redds Evaluate the impact of early Provide funding to the Hydromodification
and emergence refill on salmon emergence Washington State Department
and incubation of Fish and Wildlife and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to
identify redds and monitor
• impacts of early refill using
fry emergence traps
Monitor distribution Provide data to facilitate Survey Green River from the Hydromodification
of woody debris evaluation of woody debris diversion dam to Highway 18
management program to identify distribution and
abundance of large woody
debris
• Monitor distribution Provide data to facilitate Determine areal extent of Hydromodification
of sediments below evaluation of gravel gravel bars exposed at flows
Tacoma diversion nourishment program less than 300 cubic feet per
dam second as measured at
Auburn,and changes in bed
elevation and channel capacity
at selected cross-sections
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project Studies
The Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project, described more fully in the Upper Green
River subwatershed section, is a joint program between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
jurisdictions in WRIA 9. As part of this program, several studies will be conducted that will help
• guide the restoration projects. Table 15 below describes two such studies that will occur in the
Middle Green River subwatershed.
epl/0/-0/876000 currcnr rrria9 nraa.drx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 77
Chapter 4—Middle Green River Subwatershed
Table 15. Middle Green River studies: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Factor of .
Decline
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Baseline biological Estimate current fish Utilize data from the RM 34 screw None;fills data
evaluation populations trap to: gap
1. Determine the location and
timing of migratory fish on a
reach scale
2. Estimate current fish
populations to determine if the
restoration projects are helpful i
at a population level
3. Provide information for ESA
consultations needed for the
large woody debris and gravel
projects.
Hydrologic and Determine hydrologic and Develop a hydrologic model and None; fills data
engineering geomorphic constraints on conduct a geomorphic analysis of gap
management plan and needs of the gravel and the mainstem Green River and its
large woody debris projects key tributaries
w•nl 101-018 6-000 cur 1—ia9 nI—d-
78 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
E
' •- �`�'.�s .� area �.'+.�'.i' � �� '� b ��i ,� ",� �_.Lower Green River Subwutershe d
Background
40 The Lower Green River subwatershed begins at RM 32 and extends 21 miles to RM 11, as shown
in Figure 7. Springbrook Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek are the major tributaries to the
Lower Green River. Historically,the White River, the Cedar/Black River and the Green River all
joined in this reach to form a single large river,the Duwamish (See Figure 2 in Chapter 2). The
• White joined the Green near RM 31, and the Black River, which at the time also drained Lake
. Washington,joined the Green at RM 11. In 1906, a logjam diverted the flow of the White River
to the Puyallup River, and shortly thereafter,this arrangement was permanently engineered.
Diversion of the White River, a glacially fed stream originating on Mt. Rainier, meant that in
. addition to a significant loss of flow and sediment, summer flows in the Green were diminished
by about half, since the Green is not glacier-fed. The Cedar/Black was diverted from the Green in
1916. Together, these diversions resulted in a reduction of drainage area of about 60 percent.
After the diversion of the White and the Cedar/Black River, large earthen levees were built along
the Lower Green River to further protect the valley from flooding. About 80 percent of the river
upstream from RM 17 has a levee or revetment on at least one bank. These levees and other land
use changes have reduced the amount of habitat available to salmon in the Lower Green River
subwatershed, particularly refuge habitats.
Residential development constitutes about half of the subwatershed area, with industrial and
• commercial development comprising an additional 27 percent. Mixed uses, parks, and
i agriculture comprise the remaining land uses. Jurisdictions located in the Lower Green River
subwatershed include the cities of Algona, Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and
Tukwila, and unincorporated King County. Virtually all of the Lower Green River subwatershed
0 is on the urban side of the urban growth area line (Figure 1). Additional population density is
therefore anticipated for this area, and potential receiving sites for development rights transfers
` could be located in this subwatershed.
Fish Use
Currently the Lower Green River mainstem is used for upstream and downstream migration for
all salmon species, including bull trout,that occur in the watershed. Historically,this reach was
important for juvenile rearing, especially for chinook, chum, and pink salmon. It is assumed that
rearing continues today but the extent of juvenile use is suspected to be limited due to severe
hydromodification in this reach. Some spawning habitat for salmon is provided in the upper
portions of this mainstem reach, although spawning and rearing are limited due to lack of gravel
bars and riffles, shallow river margins, low velocity or off-channel areas, and cover.
S The tributaries in the Lower Green River generally do not support chinook salmon spawning, but
some support coho salmon and cutthroat trout. Some tributaries, especially near their mouths,
may support juvenile rearing or refuge habitat for all species of salmon.
• �,pl/0i-0187e-000 cunenf,,r 9n1 adx
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 79
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
Factors of Decline and Strategy 0
Urbanization, water diversions, revetments, and levees have adversely affected salmon habitat in
the Lower Green River. Dam flow manipulation and revetments and levees have lowered the 0
river so that it wets only a portion of the former floodplain and has disconnected side-channels
and off-channel habitat from the river. The armoring and simplification of the mainstem have
resulted in a lack of instream habitat complexity, including a lack of large woody debris. Low
flows have created barriers to adult salmon migration, and urbanization has led to chronic water
quality problems and severely reduced riparian habitats and functions. Because floodwaters no
longer annually recharge groundwater, cool summer groundwater flows to the river also are
reduced.
•
Urbanization and other human activities also have negatively affected tributaries to the Lower
Green River. Factors of decline in the tributaries include the loss of forest cover and an increase
in impervious surfaces, leading to hydrologic disruptions to stream flow, channel degradation, S
and increased sedimentation. Roads contribute runoff and create fish passage barriers. Water t
quality in the tributaries is degraded, streams are channelized, and non-native species have
invaded.
The WRIA 9 Strategy calls for actions to address these problems in the Lower Green River. •
Several factors are identified as important for restoring this reach, including protection of areas
that provide critical habitat or have reasonable potential for improvement; connection of the
mainstem with the floodplain, side, and off-channel habitat; rehabilitation and enhancement of 41
habitat; and mainstem water quality. In tributaries, the Strategy recommends restoring access for
adult and juvenile salmon. In addition, the WRIA 9 Strategy recommends studying juvenile
salmon survival in the Lower Green River, including behavior, growth, survival rates, and
habitat carrying capacity.
•
Near-Term Actions
Only one of the near-term actions is exclusive to the Lower Green River. A second action
focuses on restoration and applies more broadly to the Lower Green River, Elliott s
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. This broadly focused restoration action is
described here and also is referenced in the other subwatershed sections. A third action, focused
on restoration opportunities on agricultural lands, is similar to MG Action 2. Two study •
recommendations for the Lower Green River also have been identified. The actions described
earlier in the WRIA-wide chapter of this document also apply and are meant to be implemented
in this subwatershed.
s
wp/ /01-01876-000 cu—nl ivl9ntnadoc
80 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
'S
12
'TUIkWILA RENTON
• t
to % -
15
SEATA f -
(t
17 �-_ .
is
i
19
20 Kr�T
21
22 23
Green
26
• -
• 28
AUBURN
Y 31
v
A, NA
•
•
• • 28 River Mile and Number
..oft Subwatershed Boundary N
River e
0 2
✓^ Urban Growth Boundary e
December 2001
• 1pm* Open Water • e
• . King County
Incorporated Area Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
Note., Water and Land Resources Division
River miles were estimated from"Catalog of Washington GIS and Visual Communications&Web Units
Streams and Salmon Utilization;(Williams,eta/.1975). 0203 07 NTAA.ai MD,WGC,MD,SK
•
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
® LG Action 1:Incorporate recommendations that support salmon habitat needs into
Mill Creek Reconnaissance and Action Plans developed in WRL4 9, with an emphasis on
proposals that support juvenile chinook salmon rearing (to the extent practical within budget
• constraints and consistent with the goal of protecting agricultural lands).
King County is working together with Kent, Auburn, and other interested parties to generate a
targeted set of projects,policies, and research recommendations to improve conditions for
agricultural lands, flood plain management and
conveyance, and fish habitat in the Mill Creek Benefit to salmon: Including the needs
basin. 16 The intent of the plan is to balance of salmon as Reconnaissance and
these sometimes-conflicting objectives. WRIA 9 Action Plans are developed may help identify opportunities to protect, connect,
recommends that the proposed actions or restore habitat that would otherwise
incorporate salmon habitat restoration elements go unidentified.
where possible and take care to not foreclose Link to Strategy: Restore aquatic and
future fish-habitat restoration opportunities in the riparian habitat within tributaries.
downstream portions of the basin. The E Implementation: As basin planning
downstream portions of Mill Creek and Mullen efforts are scoped, inclusion of studies
Slough present an opportunity for salmon refugia that focus on salmon should be
within an otherwise highly urbanized portion of considered.
the WRIA. ■ Approximate cost: Largely staff time.
64 LG Action 2:Restore Lower Green River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore
habitats.
The goal of this action is to identify restoration sites in the Lower Green River, Elliott
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds.
Several projects are already identified; those ■ Benefit to salmon: Restoring habitat in
related to the Lower Green River include the Lower Green will support juvenile
projects in the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem salmon rearing and migration.
Restoration Project and sites targeted by the ■ Link to Strategy: Restore aquatic
Green River Flood Control Zone District. habitat within the mainstem.
Additional key restoration projects may need to • Implementation: The WRIA will provide
be developed in this reach, as there is little in the support to existing projects. WW Action15 will develop a process to identify new
• way of off-channel habitat. LG Study 1, projects. This action should be
described below, would help in identifying key conducted within that process.
areas in which to create or enhance habitat. Approximate cost: Varies by project.
WW Action 15 will provide a process for
identifying new restoration projects.
• '6 It is anticipated that the Mill Creek Action Plan will identify data collection and research priorities for establishing
long-term salmon conservation goals for the Mill Creek basin. The overall plan will contain the following types of
recommendations: capital projects,ongoing maintenance,policies,research,and monitoring.
• _P//0/-0I8'6-000 cu ,fn ia9Nno.dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 83
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
L�4 LG Action 3: Identify and pursue opportunities on agricultural lands to enhance or ,
restore high quality salmon habitats while maintaining viable agriculture. .
The intent of this action is to improve overall salmon habitat while preserving or enhancing
agricultural opportunities. Agricultural activities within the Mill Creek basin(including Mullen •
Slough) occur adjacent to streams that provide refuge and rearing for salmonids. Currently deed
restrictions and other public policies and regulations create limitations for salmon habitat
restoration activities on agricultural lands, both on lands that are part of the Farmland
Preservation Program(FPP) and on other lands. Restoration projects on FPP properties must be
designed and installed in a manner that will
ensure that the county's obligation to preserve the . Benefit to salmon: Improving salmon 0
property for agricultural purposes remains intact. habitat in the Mill Creek basin and
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Mullen Slough will enhance the rearing
a joint partnership between the State of functions of these areas.
Washington and the U.S. Department of ■ Link to Strategy: Restore aquatic
Agriculture, is one opportunity to enhance salmon habitat.
habitat through landowner incentives. King • Implementation: King County should
County should work with property owners to work with the agricultural community to
identify sites,particularly along Lower Mullen pursue opportunities while maintainingviable agricultural use of the land.
Slough and Lower Mill Creek, where habitat . Approximate cost: Unknown, mostly
restoration projects could be pursued without staff costs.
compromising viable agricultural uses of the land. I •
® A LG Study I: Conduct Lower Green River baseline habitat mapping. 40
This study will establish a baseline for monitoring of the Lower Green River. Physical habitat
within the current active channel should be documented using available photographs and field 0
surveys. A GIS basemap should be developed from the information to support long-term
monitoring.
Protocols will be established for key habitat parameters and their measurement. These protocols
will be carefully developed to maximize their ability to accurately reveal future habitat trends ,
and to ensure consistency with other efforts in the watershed. For example, these protocols
should mesh with the U.S. Army Corps of Benefit to salmon: A better
Engineers' baseline habitat mapping of the understanding of the distribution and
Middle Green River. At a minimum,this quality of habitat in the Lower Green
monitoring plan will specify data collection River will enable WRIA 9 to identify sites
methodologies needed to develop the following for protection and habitat restoration.
information: a habitat unit map, pool frequency 0Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
and area, large woody debris distribution, coarse 0 Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
and fine sediment distribution, and flow-related Committee will oversee this project. King
barriers to upstream fish passage. The data County will manage the day-to-day
activities of this project.
collected in this study and in EBD Study 1 will Approximate cost: $50,000
inform WW Action 1 and WW Action 3.
HP/ /0/-01876-000 cunrnrw+ia9nmrs.dnc
84 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
A Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
A
•
® LG Study 2:Establish a water-quality sampling site at River Mile 21.
This action would establish an additional water
quality sampling site on the mainstem Green 0 Benefit to salmon: The data gathered
River, downstream of Mullen Slough, at in this study will identify and help the
approximately RM 21. Samples collected at the WRIA address water quality problems in
pp y p the Lower Green.
J♦ site would be analyzed for temperature, 0 Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps
dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, about habitat carrying capacity.
turbidity, and other water quality data important Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
for salmon. The monitoring should occur over Committee will oversee this work.
a period of five years. Approximate cost: $5,000
Summary of WRIA-Wide Near-Term Actions
S The following near-term actions apply to each subwatershed in WRIA 9.
•
ia WW Action 1: Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9 based
on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat.
• WW Action 2: Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes identified in WW Action 1 or
S where other efforts have identified important habitat.
■ WW Action 3: Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions.
■ WW Action 4: Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives)
• for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9.
• WW Action 5: Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting salmon
conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
■ WW Action 6: Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through
• high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden care.
• WW Action 7: Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat.
S WW Action 8: Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and
• improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
■ WW Action 9: Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
■ WW Action 10: Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce
• sediment entering salmon-bearing streams.
• 0 WW Action 11: Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
■ WW Action 12: Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams.
. 0 WW Action 13: Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and other pollutants and salmon
habitat.
Ma WW Action 14: Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 15: Develop a comprehensive, WRIA-wide process to identify, develop, and
prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ WW Action 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
rr,pl/0/-0I876000 current wria9 nrna.dx
WR1A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 85
•
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
A
■ WW Action 17: Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers.
■ WW Action 18: Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project. •
■ WW Action 19: Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level.
■ WW Study 1: Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply .
the information to future projects.
■ WW Study 2-. Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed. •
■ WW Study 3: Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in
WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 4: Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment.
■ WW Study 5: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 6: The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group,WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central •
Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work
together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA.
■ WW Study 7: Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in
scientific work directed toward salmon recovery. •
•
Current Efforts •
Jurisdiction Efforts •
Jurisdictions in the Lower Green River subwatershed are taking action to protect resources •
within the subwatershed. Since 1998,when the listing of chinook salmon was imminent, most
jurisdictions in the Lower Green River subwatershed have examined their policies and practices
with respect to salmon. Several jurisdictions have also expanded existing programs and initiated
new programs and projects to improve awareness and lessen impacts to salmon. A sample of
these new efforts follows:
•
■ Auburn reduced new street widths from 32 feet to 28 feet, reducing
impervious surface and associated stormwater runoff. •
■ In 2001, Auburn adopted standard operating procedures for spill response a
that are coordinated between the fire and public works departments.
Algona relies on Auburn for spill response. .
■ Tukwila is developing an incentive program for landowners who
voluntarily restore habitat.
■ SeaTac and King County offer rebates of surface water management fees
to private owners of stormwater facilities who document maintenance of
their systems. •
■ Renton is developing a wetland mitigation bank along Springbrook Creek
that will include riparian plantings.
•
•
.,Pi i01-0187e-000cnrrenrerin9mt—doc
86 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
■ The Washington State Department of Ecology recognized Federal Way for
its stormwater management efforts in 1998.
• ■ Kent has a comprehensive water conservation program.
Appendix A provides more detail about the activities of jurisdictions to protect salmon resources
in the WRIA.
• Projects
The projects described below are those that benefit chinook salmon and possibly bull trout, and
for which construction is planned to start in the next five years. All other identified projects are
described in Appendix C.
Jurisdiction Projects
• The jurisdictions in the Lower Green River subwatershed are planning to construct a variety of
i salmon habitat projects over the next five years, most of which are on tributaries that support
coho salmon and cutthroat trout. Information about these projects is in Appendices A and C.
Table 16 below describes projects that will benefit chinook salmon or bull trout.
Table 16. Lower Green River projects: WRIA jurisdictions.
r
. Factors of Strategy
Project Name Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Jurisdiction
Nelson Place Reconnection of Increases Hydro- Connect Tukwila
• side channel abandoned river habitat modification mainstem with
channel to create complexity for side channels
• Status: side channel all species
Gilliam Creek Retrofit existing Opens up Fish passage Restore access to Tukwila
fish barrier 108-inch flap gate to habitat for all tributaries
removal allow fish passage species
,F
Status, j
. West Hill Reduce sediment Improves water Water quality Protect habitat- Auburn
Springs loading to Mill quality for forming
channel Creek and improve chinook,chum, processes
improvement habitat in spring coho,cutthroat,
area and tributary and winter
connection to Mill steelhead
Status: Creek
apl 101-018 76-000 current—.9—.&,,
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 87
i
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Jurisdiction .
Central Two-phase study to Improves water Water quality Protect habitat- Auburn
conveyance map the flood plain quality for forming
storage and of Mill Creek and chinook,chum, processes
water quality determine how to coho,cutthroat, e
improvement manage future and winter
development. steelhead
Involves acquisition
Status: and construction. •
Green River Multi-purpose Improves water Water quality, Protect habitat- Kent
Natural stormwater quality for hydrology, forming
Resources management/ chinook,chum, riparian processes
Area wetland coho,cutthroat, conditions,fish
enhancement enhancement/ and winter passage •
project wildlife and steelhead
Status: (on- fisheries habitat
going) project comprising
300 acres on
Springbrook Creek i
Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District Projects
WRIA 9 recommends projects for funding to two organizations: the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board and the King Conservation District. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board is a state
organization that disburses grants for salmon habitat projects. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee
selects projects to send to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for its consideration. Property
owners in King County support the King Conservation District with a$5-per-parcel annual fee.
The King Conservation District devotes three-fifths of this fee from parcels within WRIA 9 to
salmon, water quality, and flooding projects in WRIA 9. The WRIA 9 Forum approves projects .
to send to the King Conservation District Board for their consideration for this funding.
No projects in the Lower Green River subwatershed are currently planned using these funding
sources.
Green River Flood Control Zone District Projects
The Green River Flood Control Zone District is an interjurisdictional flood hazard and resource •
management program. The District provides a funding source for the operation and maintenance
of levees, revetments, and pump stations along the Lower Green River via the Green River Basin
Program interlocal agreement between King County and the cities of Tukwila, Kent, Auburn,
and Renton.
All Green River Flood Control Zone District levee and revetment projects are retrofitted using
biostabilization design techniques that significantly improve in-stream salmon and riparian
habitat. The projects also incorporate the maximum amount of facility setback possible, given
physical site constraints, in order to achieve habitat restoration and flood hazard reduction. .
wp/ /01-0I876-000 currnnrw.;o9nmo.dnc
88 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
10 Table 17 below describes the habitat elements of the eight projects that the Green River Flood
Control Zone District plans to undertake over the next five years.
e Table 17. Lower Green River projects: Green River Flood Control Zone District.
Project Name Factors of Decline Strategy Elements
and Status Project Description Benefits to Salmon Addressed Addressed
Segale Levee Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
(RM 15.4) riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
non-native vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
native,reduce erosion,add species
large woody debris
Status:
Desimone Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
Levee(RM riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
15.4 to 15.6) non-native vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
native,reduce erosion,add species
Status: r large woody debris
i
Boeing Levee Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
(RM 17.7) riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
non-native vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
41Y
native,reduce erosion,add species
• Status: large woody debris
Frager Road Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
revetment(RM riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
18) non-native vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
native,reduce erosion,add species
large woody debris
Status:
Narita Levee Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
(RM 21.0 to riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
21.2) non-native vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
• ,A`M native,reduce erosion,add species
large woody debris
. Status:
Pipeline Levee Restore in-stream and Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
(RM 21.9) riparian habitat,replace complexity and sediment transport, aquatic habitat in
J non-native
vegetation with function for all hydromodification the mainstem
native,reduce erosion,add species
Status: large woody debris
Lower Mullen Create off-channel pools Restores habitat Riparian condition, Rehabilitate
• Slough and refuge,restore riparian complexity and hydromodification, aquatic habitat in
restoration zone and adjacent function for chinook non-native species the tributaries
(RM 23.8) wetlands, eradicate and coho
invasive plant species,and
restore upland riparian area
40 Status: east of the slough
uPl 101-aa7r000 cunr.mm9,roo.d«
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 89
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
Project Name Factors of Decline Strategy Elements
and Status Project Description Benefits to Salmon Addressed Addressed
Fenster Reconnect mainstem to Provides access to Riparian condition, Connect mainstem i
Revetment Pautski Slough,restore in- flood refuge habitat, sediment transport, with floodplain
(RM 32.0) stream and riparian habitat, restores habitat hydromodification habitat,rehabilitate
replace non-native complexity and aquatic habitat in
vegetation with native, function for all the mainstem
`�' reduce erosion,add large species
Status: woody debris
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
As described in the Upper Green River subwatershed section, the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project is a joint effort of the WRIA 9 jurisdictions and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In Phase 1 of this program, 20 projects will be built in several subwatersheds of
WRIA 9. Table 18 below describes the projects that benefit chinook salmon or bull trout that
will be constructed in the Lower Green River subwatershed.
Note that the volunteer revegetation and large woody debris placement projects described in i
Table 11, Middle Green River projects, and the water quality studies described in Table 6, Upper
Green River studies, will be carried out in the Lower Green River subwatershed.
Table 18. Lower Green River projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project.
r
Project Name Factors of Decline Strategy Element
and Status Project Description Benefit to Salmon Addressed Addressed
Green River Construct 600-foot Creates off-channel Hydromodification, Connect
Park(RM 24) backwater slough habitat for all species riparian condition mainstem with
,t
floodplain habitat
Status: qO
Horsehead Excavate 1300-foot side Creates side-channel Hydromodification, Connect •
Bend(RM 26) channel along the habitat for all species riparian condition mainstem with
alignment of an old river side-channel •
'` channel habitat
Status:
Mainstem Construct bioengineering Increase habitat Hydromodification, Rehabilitate ,
Maintenance alternatives to bank complexity and riparian condition aquatic habitat in .
(Boeing and stabilization and relocate quality for all species the mainstem
Fenster sites) the bank landward of its
1, present location where •
Status: possible
w'nr 101-01876-000 current xria9 nlaa.dnc
90 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda i
Chapter 4—Lower Green River Subwatershed
Studies
Jurisdiction Studies
Jurisdictions in the Lower Green River subwatershed collect data that will help them to make
better management decisions. Table 19 below describes one such study that will collect data
about salmon use of the Lower Green River.
Table 19. Lower Green River study: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factors of
Decline Jurisdiction
Study Name Objective Project Description Addressed and Partners
• Black River Determine extent of Smolt counter in Black Fish passage Kent(lead),
smolt counts smolt usage of River Pump station counts King County,
Springbrook Creek smolts in Springbrook Renton
Creek
•
Green River Flood Control Zone District Studies
The Green River Flood Control Zone District, described above under Projects, conducts
monitoring of its habitat projects to determine the effectiveness of project design elements.
Table 20 below describes this effort.
Table 20. Lower Green River study: Green River Flood Control Zone District.
Factors of Decline
Study Name Objective Project Description Addressed
! Green River Bank Evaluate the effectiveness of Includes vegetation,large Rehabilitate
Stabilization mitigation elements of recent woody debris and juvenile aquatic habitat in
Project and upcoming bank salmonid monitoring at the mainstem
! Monitoring stabilization projects several project sites on the
ylower Green River
!
!
w
!
•
•
a
•
•
uy!/01-0/8:6-000 cu rrnl wrio9 nrao.r/x
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 91
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
i iott B ft�Q_',wamish Subwatershed
Background
The Duwamish estuary begins at RM 11, at the upper limit of tidal influence and the confluence
of the Black River with the Green River(Figure 8). The Duwamish River flows past scattered
urban parks and single- and multi-family residences, as well as scores of industrial and
commercial sites, on its way to Elliott Bay. The upper portion of the Duwamish has been diked
and leveed, while the lower Duwamish industrial area has been dredged and filled. As a result,
the Duwamish has lost 100 percent of its tidal swamps and 97 percent of its marshes. Docks and
piers line Elliott Bay, and both the bay and estuary are extensively armored.
Industrial (43 percent) and residential (39 percent) development is the primary land use in the
Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed. The subwatershed is primarily urban in character and
includes the cities of Tukwila and Seattle. All of the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed is on
the urban side of the urban growth area line (Figure 1). Additional population density is
therefore anticipated for this area, and potential receiving sites for development rights transfers
could be located in this subwatershed.
Fish Use
The Duwamish estuary provides a vital link in anadromous salmon life cycles. Juveniles of all
species rear, take refuge, and acclimate to salt water in the Duwamish. In particular, chinook and
chum salmon are known to depend upon estuaries. Native char (bull trout/Dolly Varden) adults
and subadults have been observed in the Duwamish. Adult anadromous salmon use the
Duwamish River to transition back to fresh water and to migrate to freshwater spawning areas.
` Factors of Decline and Strategy
Urban and industrial development has taken its toll on the Elliott Bay/Duwamish. Factors of
decline in this subwatershed include the loss of the swamps, marshes, and tidal mudflats that
once formed the estuary, simplification of the channel, degradation of riparian functions, and
pollution of water and sediment. In the tributaries, urbanization has led to fish passage barriers,
small patches of disconnected marginal habitat, altered hydrology and channel stability, and
• reduced water quality.
The WRIA 9 Strategy emphasizes the importance of ensuring juvenile salmon survival in the
Lower Green River, Elliott Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. In the near term, the
• Strategy calls for studies of juvenile salmon survival aimed at determining whether a bottleneck
exists in these subwatersheds. The Strategy also recommends protecting habitats that are
suitable for restoration or are functioning well, reconnecting the mainstem with the floodplain
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 93
0
SEATTLE
2
Vs.
3
6 �rL
5
s6 ter
Tl KWILA
GreP
e
10
4 • River Mile and Number •
Subwatershed Boundary N
River/Stream
Open Water 0 2 4 6MHes
December 2001
0 Incorporated Area
O King County
Department of
Note: Natural Resources and Parks •
River miles were estimated from"Catalog of Water and Land Resources Division
Washington Streams and solmon Utilizorion, GIS and Visual Communications&Web Units
(Williams,et al.1975). 0203 08 NTAA.ai MD,WGC,MD,SK
i Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
i
i and side channels, and removing fish passage barriers in the larger tributaries. In addition, the
Strategy identifies a number of types of restoration projects for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish
i subwatershed, including recreating intertidal habitat by moving back banks, reducing slopes, and
i excavating filled areas to restore tidal circulation. The Strategy also calls for enhancing habitat
quality by softening shorelines, establishing conditions for deposition of sediment and organic
matter, and increasing areas of marsh and riparian vegetation.
Near-Term Actions
i The following near-term action for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed supplements those
that apply to the entire WRIA.
� EBD Action ]:Restore Elliott Bay/Duwamish,Nearshore, and Lower Green River
i habitats.
A wide variety of restoration projects already are
in the planning stages for sites in the Elliott Benefit to salmon: Restoring habitat
in the Duwamish will provide vital
Bay/Duwamish subwatershed. WRIA 9 should support to juveniles as they transition
support these projects as appropriate and feasible. from fresh to salt water.
EBD Study 1, described below, would help in ■ Link to Strategy: Restore and/or
identifying key areas in which to create or increase habitat area.
enhance habitat. The juvenile salmon survival Implementation: The WRIA will provide
framework (see WW Study 3), once developed, 15 will develop a process to identify new support to existing projects. WW Action
may point to new restoration actions that could projects. This action should be
be pursued. WW Action 15 will provide a conducted within that process.
process for identifying new restoration projects. Approximate cost: Varies by project.
i
• ® ` EBD Study 1: Conduct baseline habitat mapping in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish
. subwatershed.
This study, in combination with LG Study 1,
• will establish a baseline for monitoring of the Benefit to salmon: A better
Lower Green River, the Duwamish, and Elliott understanding of the distribution and
Bay. Physical habitat within the current active quality of habitat in Elliott Bay will enableWRIA 9 to identify sites for protection
y channel will be documented using available and habitat restoration.
• photographs and field surveys. A GIS basemap . Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
will be developed from the information to a Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
i support long-term monitoring. Committee will oversee this project. King
i County will manage the day-to-day
Protocols will be established for key habitat activities of this project.
i parameters and their measurement. These • Approximate cost: $50,000
protocols will be carefully developed to
maximize their ability to accurately reveal future habitat trends and to ensure consistency with
i
,,pl 101-018 76-0 0 0 cvmen io9,r .dm
40 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 95
0
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
other efforts in the watershed. For example, these protocols should mesh with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' baseline habitat mapping of the Middle Green River. At a minimum this
monitoring plan should specify data collection methods needed to develop the following
information: a habitat unit map, pool frequency and area, large woody debris distribution, coarse
and fine sediment distribution, and flow-related barriers to upstream fish passage. The data
collected in this study and in LG Study 1 will inform WW Action 1 and WW Action 3.
Summary of WRIA-Wide Near-Term Actions
The following near-term actions apply to each subwatershed in WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 1: Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9 based a
on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat.
■ WW Action 2: Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes identified in WW Action 1 or
where other efforts have identified important habitat.
• WW Action 3: Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions. •
• WW Action 4: Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives)
for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9. /)
• WW Action 5: Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting salmon •
conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
• WW Action 6: Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through
high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden care.
• WW Action 7: Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 8: Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and (•
improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat. A
■ WW Action 9: Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
■ WW Action 10: Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce
sediment entering salmon-bearing streams.
■ WW Action 11: Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
■ WW Action 12: Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater i
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams. •
■ WW Action 13: Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and other pollutants and salmon
habitat. •
■ WW Action 14: Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 15: Develop a comprehensive, WRIA-wide process to identify, develop, and
prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ WW Action 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 17: Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers.
■ WW Action 18: Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
• WW Action 19: Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level. •
■ WW Study 1: Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply
the information to future projects.
■ WW Study 2: Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed.
wpl 101-01876-000 gum 1r ia9n do
96 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
■ WW Study 3: Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in
WRIA 9.
• WW Study 4: Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment.
■ WW Study 5: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 6: The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group, WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central
• Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work
together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA.
■ WW Study 7: Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in
. scientific work directed toward salmon recovery.
Current Efforts
Jurisdiction Efforts
Jurisdictions are acting to protect the Elliott Bay/Duwamish and its tributaries. Tukwila offers a
program to help educate citizens on salmon-friendly gardening choices. The city also has
participated in and helped organize volunteer activities such as Salmon in the Classroom,
planting projects, and storm drain stenciling. Seattle has staff members with special expertise,
• including a fish biologist and a site inspection team, who work with developers as they respond
to salmon conservation issues before development occurs, in order to flag and address any
potential issues. A variety of incentives are available to private landowners to transfer
development from rural areas in exchange for additional building height in the City of Seattle
• and to those who wish to reduce water consumption. Seattle also recently published its Urban
Blueprint(2001), which sets forth the scientific framework under which the city will develop
capital projects and evaluate programs and policies to support salmon recovery. More
information about these activities is in Appendix A.
Non-Profit and Other Stakeholder Programs
The Port of Seattle owns and operates a wide variety of facilities in the Duwamish and Elliott
• Bay. As part of its Harbor Redevelopment Strategy,the Port designs its projects so that they
• limit overwater coverage, limit existing sources of contamination, and use inert construction
materials. The Port has developed 10 environmental guidelines as part of its strategy, including
maximization of environmental benefits and processes, improvement of Duwamish estuary
habitats and fisheries, and evaluation of cumulative effects.
Projects
Jurisdiction Projects
Jurisdictions are acting to protect and restore habitat in the Duwamish and Elliott Bay. The
• projects described below in Table 21 provide benefit to chinook salmon or bull trout.
iepl 10I-01.176-000 currrn1 w•riaY ulna r/x
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 97
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
Table 21. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: WRIA jurisdictions.
Project Name Benefit to Factors of Decline •
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Jurisdiction and Partners •
Spokane St. Lay back shoreline to Creates rearing Loss of habitat in Seattle(lead),Port of
bridge public create more shallow habitat for all migratory corridor Seattle,and King County •
access site habitat at upper and species •
middle tidal elevations
Status:
Georgetown Create intertidal habitat Creates rearing Loss of habitat in Seattle(lead)and possibly
pump station focused on upper and habitat for all migratory corridor the U.S. Army Corps of •
middle tidal elevations species Engineers
Status:
15`Ave. Create intertidal habitat Creates rearing Loss of habitat in Seattle(lead)and possibly •
Southbridge focused on upper and habitat for all migratory corridor the U.S. Army Corps of
site middle tidal elevations species Engineers and the •
Washington State
Status: Department of
Transportation •
City Light Restore the upper and Creates rearing Loss of habitat in Seattle
South middle intertidal zones habitat for all the migratory
through regrading of the species corridor •
,f shoreline and riparian
Status: plantings.
Duwamish Restore approximately Creates rearing Loss of habitat in King County(lead),U.S. •
Waterway Park 0.5 acre of intertidal habitat for all the migratory Army Corps of Engineers •
mudflats and surround species corridor
with native plantings •
Status: t
Codiga Farms Construction of side Creates rearing Loss of habitat in Tukwila(lead),U.S.Army
side channel channel and inter-tidal habitat for all the migratory Corps of Engineers •
marsh species corridor
Status:
Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District Projects
WRIA 9 recommends projects for funding to two organizations: the Salmon Recovery Funding •
Board and the King Conservation District. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board is a state
organization that disburses grants for salmon habitat projects. The WR1A 9 Steering Committee
selects projects to send to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for its consideration. Property
owners in King County support the King Conservation District with a$5-per-parcel annual fee. •
The King Conservation District devotes three-fifths of this fee from parcels within WRIA 9 to
salmon, water quality, and flooding projects in WRIA 9. The WRIA 9 Forum approves projects
to send to the King Conservation District Board for its consideration for this funding.
x•r,i 101-01876.000 cu.rcnr w•rrny mo.doc
98 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
One project in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed, developed by the Environmental
Coalition of South Seattle, was submitted for funding in the 2001 Salmon Recovery Funding
• Board grant process. (In April 2002, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board decided not to fund
• this project.) Table 22 below describes it briefly.
Table 22. Elliott Bay/Duwamish project proposed for funding by the Salmon Recovery
• Funding Board.
Factors of Strategy
• Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Funding Source
Duwamish Expand Provides Loss of habitat in Increase Salmon Recovery
• River revival intertidal rearing habitat the migratory habitat area Funding Board(not
habitat for all species corridor funded)
Status:',
Non-Profit and Other Stakeholder Projects
Non-profit groups and other stakeholders are active in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed.
Table 23 below describes planned projects in the subwatershed.
• Table 23. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Non-profit organizations and other
• stakeholders.
Factors of Strategy
• Project Name Project Benefit to Decline Element
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Lead Agency and Partners
GSA Marsh, Provide Maintains Loss of habitat in Increase People for Puget Sound(lead)
• Hamm Creek, upkeep, rearing the migratory habitat and the U.S. Army Corps of
Puget Creek, stewardship habitat for corridor,non- quality Engineers,Elliott
• Terminal 105, and all species native species, Bay/Duwamish Restoration
Turning Basin monitoring alteration of Panel,King County,Earth
for these habitat-forming Corps,Earth Ministry,
restoration processes Environmental Coalition of
projects in the South Seattle,I'M A PAL
. Duwamish Foundation
• Status:
Estuary
• LaFarge site Create an Creates Loss of habitat in Increase Port of Seattle
intertidal rearing the migratory habitat area
• slough with habitat for corridor
restoration of all species
the upper and
• middle
intertidal
Status: habitats
i
,•pl/01-01876,Oo0 cu rrm wria9 nraa.drx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 99
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Project Benefit to Decline Element •
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Lead Agency and Partners •
Terminal 105 Increase Creates Loss of habitat in Increase Port of Seattle
shoreline upper and rearing the migratory habitat area •
middle habitat for corridor •
' intertidal all species
Status: habitats •
Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel Projects
A 1991 consent decree settled a federal lawsuit against Seattle and Metro (now merged with
King County) over contamination of the Duwamish and Elliott Bay by stormwater and combined •
sewer overflow, and established the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel. Participating
agencies include the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration—National
Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Suquamish Tribe, the Washington State Department of Ecology,the City of Seattle, and King •
County (Metro). The program is not intended to remedy all injuries; rather, it is intended to
maximize benefits to the area's natural resources. Using $24 million from Seattle and King
County, the Panel funds, oversees, and monitors sediment remediation($12 million),habitat
development ($10 million), and pollution source-control projects ($2 million). Several of these
projects already are complete, and several will be constructed over the next few years. Table 24 •
below briefly describes future projects.
Table 24. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel.
Factors of Strategy •
Project Name Decline Elements
and Status Project Description Benefit to Salmon Addressed Addressed •
Duwamish/Diago Preferred plan is to dredge away Cleans up Sediment Increase •
nal combined three layers of contamination and contaminated food quality,water habitat quality
sewer overflow backfill to grade with sand sources for all quality •
and storm drain species
remediation •
project
r.
Status:
Cecil B.Moses Construct 1.03-acre intertidal basin Creates rearing Loss of habitat Increase
Park(North with connection to the Duwamish habitat for all in the habitat area •
Winds weir) on a 3.1 acre site owned by King species migratory
,,. County Parks corridor •
Status: w
Kenco Marine Restore upper and middle intertidal Create rearing Loss of habitat Increase .
habitat areas habitat for all in the habitat area
species migratory
Status: r .
corridor •
up/ 101-01876-000 w twria9 nraa.dnc
100 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4-Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
As described in the Upper Green River subwatershed section, the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project is a joint effort of the WRIA 9 jurisdictions and the U.S. Army Corps of
• Engineers. In Phase 1 of this program, 20 projects will be built in several subwatersheds of
. WRIA 9. Table 25 below describes the projects that benefit chinook salmon and bull trout that
will be constructed in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed.
Note that the volunteer revegetation and possibly the large woody debris placement projects
• described in Table 11, Middle Green River projects and the water quality studies described in
• Table 6, Upper Green River studies, will be carried out in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish
subwatershed.
• Table 25. Elliott Bay/Duwamish projects: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
• Project.
Factors of Strategy
• Project Name Benefit to Decline Element
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed
Site One Construct intertidal marsh Creates rearing Loss of habitat Increase
• Duwamish habitat in the habitat area
• migratory
Status:
i" corridor
• Riverton Creek Plant riparian corridors,place Opens up and Hydro- Restore access
restoration large woody debris in the improves modification, to tributaries
• f stream,remove the flap gate at habitat for all fish passage
• Status:
the mouth species
The Site One Duwamish project is underway. Property acquisition was funded by the state
Salmon Recovery Funding Board in 2000. These funds helped leverage additional monies
• including grants from the following sources:
■ Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account (ALEA)
• E Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel
■ City of Seattle
• ■ City of Tukwila
■ King County.
• Acquisition of the restoration site property was completed in September 2001. Restoration of the
• site is a Phase 1 project of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
mp!101-0187c-000-..rm-m9mm..d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 101
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed •
Studies
Jurisdiction Studies
The City of Seattle is collecting water quality data in the South Park area of the Duwamish.
Table 26 below briefly describes this effort.
Table 26. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factor of •
Decline Jurisdiction and •
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Partners
South Park Assess water quality Study is still being Water quality City of Seattle
water quality issues associated with developed •
study stormwater in South
Park •
Non-Profit and Other Stakeholder Studies
Other organizations are active in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed. In particular, the Port
of Seattle plans to conduct several studies to increase knowledge of salmon habitat and health in
the subwatershed. Table 27 below describes these studies. •
Table 27. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Non-profit organizations and other stakeholders.
Factor of Decline Lead Agency •
Study Name Objective Description Addressed and Partners
Bull trout Evaluate bull trout, Consultants perform Fills data gap Port of Seattle
assessment identify juvenile and fish presence/absence (lead)and U.S. •
adult distribution and surveys Fish and Wildlife
presence Service .
Salmon toxicity Determine Expose juvenile Sediment quality Port of Seattle,
immunological hatchery fish to PAHs City of Seattle,
effects of exposure to and PCBs, analyze King County, •
PAHs and PCBs immunological The Boeing •
response Company
Chinook residence Add precision to and Mark and recapture Fills data gap Port of Seattle
time in Elliott Bay complement existing study, still developing •
and the Duwamish work on juvenile details
residence time •
Nearshore and Determine epibenthic Linked with East Fills data gap Port of Seattle •
estuarine epibenthic productivity, Waterway project,
productivity, presence and epibenthic samples •
juvenile salmon distribution of taken with suction
presence juvenile fish pumps,fish studied
with beach seines •
Sediment sampling Fully characterize Take and analyze Water quality Port of Seattle .
in the East contamination and samples in East
Waterway match against state Waterway •
sediment quality
criteria •
wpl /01-01876-000 currcnia9 nma.duc
102 WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
• Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
•
•
• Lower Duwamish Superfund Program Studies
The Lower Duwamish Superfund Program is a federal and state cleanup action for contaminated
• sediments along the lower Duwamish Waterway. The Superfund study area extends from just
south of the Turning Basin (near the Norfolk combined sewer overflow) to the south end of
• Harbor Island. The project is only for contaminated sediments and does not address upland sites,
• water quality, or any other issues associated with the river unless directly related to sediment
contamination. Currently, the project is in its first stage, a Phase 1 remedial investigation to use
existing data to determine the extent of contamination, assess human and ecological risk, and
identify candidate sites for early cleanup actions. The second phase will include sampling to fill
• data gaps, conducting a baseline human health and ecological risk assessment, and setting
cleanup levels for contaminated sediments. It will identify additional areas that need to be
• cleaned up to achieve acceptable levels of risk to human health and the ecosystem and evaluate
cleanup options. A document called a record of decision will set cleanup levels and provide a
• cleanup plan for areas needing cleanup that have not been addressed by the early cleanup actions.
The additional projects will be constructed in the final phase. The Environmental Protection
Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology provide oversight for the project,
while King County, Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and Boeing are voluntary partners for Phase 1.
• Table 28 below briefly describes the studies that will be conducted during Phase 1.
Table 28. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Lower Duwamish Superfund Program.
•
• Factor of Decline
• Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Site characterization Characterize sediment Collect all available data, assess Sediment quality
• and risk assessment problems,define exposure, risk,and identify options for
• and identify risk to humans bringing risk down to acceptable
and the ecosystem levels
• Fill data gaps Complete the site Fill data gaps identified in site Sediment quality
• characterization characterization study
Feasibility study Determine which of suite Analyze options to cleanup Sediment quality
of options are feasible contaminated sediments
identified in the Site
Characterization and Risk
• Assessment
•
Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel Studies
• As described above in the Projects section, the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel is a
. cooperative intergovernmental effort to rectify sediment contamination and restore habitat in
• Elliott Bay/Duwamish. Table 29 below briefly describes studies and monitoring efforts
associated with the Panel's work.
•
•
•
•
.ri i01-01876-000—.rnr»•.iav�mo.d-
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 103
•
•
Chapter 4—Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed
Table 29. Elliott Bay/Duwamish studies: Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel.
Factor of Decline .
Study Name Objective Description Addressed
Monitoring of Pier 53- Determine effectiveness Sample top two centimeters of Water quality,sediment
55 sediment of remediation pilot sediment to evaluate chemical quality •
remediation project project characteristics of recently
deposited material,and top 10
centimeters to evaluate entire .
biologically active zone
Monitoring of Norfolk Establish baseline Sample top two centimeters of Sediment quality
combined sewer sediment conditions of sediment to evaluate chemical •
ouverflow sediment the backfill shortly after characteristics of recently
remediation project placement,and evaluate deposited material, and top 10 •
chemical characteristics centimeters to evaluate entire •
of the backfill over 5- biologically active zone;repeat at
year timeframe 4 stations each year through 2004 •
Monitoring of habitat Determine if restoration Monitor sites on a variety of Habitat degradation •
restoration sites sites gradually take on parameters and compare those
the characteristics of parameters to the performance of •
less disturbed reference reference sites
sites
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project Studies
As described in the Upper Green River subwatershed section, the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project is a joint effort of the WRIA 9 jurisdictions and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In Phase 1 of this program, 20 projects will be built in several subwatersheds of •
WRIA 9, and several studies will be conducted to help guide the projects. Table 30 below
describes the study that will be conducted in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish subwatershed.
Table 30. Elliott Bay/Duwamish study: Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. •
Factor of Decline •
Study Name Objective Description Addressed .
Juvenile residency in Increase knowledge of Provide information about what Study to fill data gaps
the estuary juvenile presence in habitats and locations are
estuary beneficial for juveniles,and
whether juveniles increase in size •
and weight during their residency
.��t i01-01876-000-—l..;ov—d—
104 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
• may'., ; *u c« AT-t ; KIM,
tia
...........
• Background
• The Nearshore subwatershed encompasses the Puget Sound shoreline of mainland WRIA 9, the
streams that drain directly to Puget Sound, and Vashon/Maury Island(Figure 9). The northern
boundary of the Nearshore subwatershed is West Point in the City of Seattle, and the southern
boundary is just north of Dumas Bay in the City of Federal Way. Its seaward boundary is the
• outer limit of the photic zone (approximately—30m mean lower low water), or the depth beyond
• which there is sufficient sunlight for active photosynthesis. The nearshore environment extends
landward to include coastal landforms such as bluffs, sand spits, and coastal wetlands, as well as
any marine riparian vegetation on or adjacent to these areas.
• Residential development (68 percent) and industry (10 percent) are the primary land uses on the
mainland portion of the Nearshore subwatershed. Residential development accounts for 92
percent of lands on Vashon/Maury Island. Most of the mainland portion of the subwatershed is
incorporated into the cities of Seattle, Burien, SeaTac,Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal
• Way. Vashon/Maury Island remains unincorporated. The Nearshore subwatershed, with the
exception of Vashon/Maury Island, is on the urban side of the urban growth area line (Figure 1).
Additional population density is therefore anticipated for most of this area, and potential
receiving sites for development rights transfers could be located in most of this subwatershed.
• Several state and local parks provide public access to Puget Sound, including Seahurst Park in
Burien, Lincoln Park in Seattle, and Saltwater State Park in Des Moines. Much of the shoreline
has been modified to accommodate residential and commercial development. For example, 75
percent of the mainland shoreline, 84 percent of the Elliott Bay shoreline, and 50 percent of the
• Vashon/Maury Island shoreline have some form of shoreline armoring. An average of 64
percent of the shoreline in the subwatershed is armored.
a
• Fish Use
• All species of anadromous salmon use the nearshore for migration. However, the nearshore also
• is critical to juvenile salmon, especially chinook and chum salmon,for rearing, refuge from
predators, and transition to saltwater habitats. Chinook salmon have been observed in Judd
Creek on Vashon. Some chinook salmon(primarily from hatcheries)remain in Puget Sound for
their entire adult life. Coho salmon spawn in tributaries to Puget Sound such as Miller and Des
• Moines creeks.
,rpl 101-0/876-090—renr»rio9 nra¢Jx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 105
Nearshore
Subwatershed
Elliott
Bay
•0 •
J] •
• •
•
O RIEN 'TU.1EWI A • •
- RENTONSEATAC
PA Rf7N D Y
AV—
•
IN 0
]T .
MQIINES •
ao KENT •
45
FEDERAi,
WAY
30: •AUBURN.,
Nearshore
Subwatershed
•5 River Mile and Number N
qMoft Subwatershed Boundary
0 2 4 Miles - •
-... River/Stream • - •
December 2001
qgme Open Water •
0 Incorporated Area O King County •
Department of
Note: Natural Resources and Parks •
River miles were estimated from"Catalog of Water and Land Resources Division
Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization'; GIS and Visual Communications&Web Units •
(Williams,et al.1975). 0203 09 NTAA.ai MD,WGC,MD,SK
•
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
Factors of Decline and Strategy
Historic and current land use practices, especially those related to residential, commercial, and
• industrial development,have degraded nearshore habitats, interrupted habitat-forming processes,
• degraded water and sediment quality, decreased riparian functions, and introduced non-native
species. In the tributaries, land use practices have created fish passage barriers, caused chronic
water quality problems,reduced large woody debris, simplified channels, and severely reduced
riparian functions.
Placement of bulkheads and armoring in the marine shoreline has filled habitats and disrupted
habitat-forming processes, altering nearshore sand and gravel movement. Eelgrass habitat, an
important nursery for juvenile salmon, has become increasingly scarce. Development practices
• have removed riparian vegetation from the nearshore, decreasing insect and leaf input and
• destabilizing bluffs. Small near-shore streams, historically offering habitat for salmon,
frequently have been affected by flow blockages and changes in land use that increase high
winter flows, decrease low summer flows, and cause sedimentation of gravel spawning and
rearing substrates.
For the Nearshore subwatershed, the WRIA 9 Strategy recommends protecting currently
functioning habitat or habitat with reasonable restoration potential, and rehabilitating critical
damaged habitat and habitat-forming processes, including sediment transport. Connecting
upland areas to shorelines and intertidal areas and restoring access to and within tributary
. streams are also recommended. Another important Strategy emphasis is to fill data gaps through
studies to evaluate high salmon use areas, habitat preferences, and utilization of nearshore
environments, focusing on listed species first. Studies that focus on improving rehabilitation
• designs and how human modifications affect salmon utilization are also recommended.
Near-Term Actions
WRIA 9 proposes to conduct several actions and studies in the Nearshore subwatershed. The
actions described earlier in the WRIA-wide chapter of this document also apply and are meant to
. be implemented in the Nearshore subwatershed.
u7,1 ia-nixz-nnn v m—dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 107
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
NS Action 1:Restore Nearshore, Elliott Bay/Duwamish, and Lower Green River
habitats. .
Several restoration projects already are planned in the Nearshore subwatershed, including the •
removal of part of the gabion wall at Seahurst Park. Jurisdictions may identify other projects in
the next few years. The WRIA will support those agencies undertaking these projects and also
will work to identify additional projects. NS Action 2 and NS Study 1, described below, would
help in identifying key areas in which to create •
or enhance habitat. WW Action 15 will provide Benefit to salmon: Restoration projects
a process for identifying new projects. would provide a variety of benefits for
fish, including good rearing and refuge
Attention to salmon friendly design is habitat. •
encouraged in projects involving the restoration • Link to Strategy: Connect upland areas
and replacement of artificially armored to shorelines and shorelines to intertidal
shoreline or seawalls. Example projects could areas. •
include the seawall restoration as part of the ' Implementation: The WRIA will provide
viaduct project and the shoreline support to existing projects. WW Action
Alaskan Way p J 15 will develop a process to identify new •
work associated with the Seattle Art Museum projects. This action should be
sculpture garden and expansion of Myrtle conducted within that process.
Edwards Park. Approximate cost: Varies by project.
® 64 NS Action 2:Support the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project,
Phase 1.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken a program to evaluate nearshore habitat, fill
existing data gaps, and develop a list of nearshore acquisition and restoration projects. Called
the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, this program will cover Puget Sound
south of the Canadian border, including Hood Canal. Because of its regional scope, the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead non-federal sponsor. A sampling
of other local sponsors includes Island County, Kitsap County, King County, Pierce County, the
Washington State Department of Ecology, the
Washington State Department of Natural Benefit to salmon: The program will
Resources,the Puget Sound Action Team, the provide information and evaluation tools
Northwest Straits Commission, and the Salmon that will allow the WRIA to focus its
Recovery Funding Board. The program is resources effectively, resulting in better
expected to last six years and cost $12 million. projects for salmon.
■ Link to Strategy: Studies to fill data
The ultimate outcome will be a list of gaps. i
acquisition and restoration projects that spans Implementation: The WRIA 9 Forum
will decide annually upon the level of its
Puget Sound. Interim products will include a financial contribution.
limiting factors analysis, a list of criteria to Approximate cost: The WRIA 9 Forum
guide early action projects, and studies to fill will contribute$50,000 in 2002 and will
identified data gaps. These products would be make future funding decisions in the
extremely useful to WRIA 9, enabling it to context of its annual budget. •
x�pt /07-01876-000 currrnf wriaY ntoa.doc
108 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
make better decisions regarding restoration of its nearshore habitats. The WRIA should continue
to support this project financially. Support and participation from the WRIA as a whole will
• help ensure that the project moves forward.
® NS Study I: Conduct Nearshore habitat baseline mapping.
The Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment report and the Reconnaissance 0 Benefit to salmon: This information will
Assessment of the State of the Nearshore allow the WRIA to identify areas for
Ecosystem report both identified lack of detailed protection and restoration.
habitat information as a major data gap in the Link to Strategy: Study to fill data gaps.
Nearshore subwatershed. This study will map 0Implementation: The WRIA 9 Technical
salmon habitat in tidal areas of WRIA 9 in order to Committee will oversee this project, with
support from interested local
establish baseline conditions and will include an jurisdictions. The City of Seattle may
inventory of feeder bluffs and other beach-feeding manage it.
areas. Approximate cost: $40,000
Summary of WRIA-Wide Near-Term Actions
The following near-term actions apply to each subwatershed in WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 1: Develop an inventory of currently productive fish habitat in WRIA 9 based
• on the Reconnaissance Assessment and additional research, and identify the habitat-
forming processes associated with that habitat.
■ WW Action 2: Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes identified in WW Action 1 or
• where other efforts have identified important habitat.
• 5 WW Action 3: Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions.
• WW Action 4: Apply existing incentives (and where necessary, develop new incentives)
for protection of salmon habitat in WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 5: Identify existing educational and outreach materials for promoting salmon
• conservation messages and make them available for use by all on a website or on loan.
■ WW Action 6: Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through
. high-visibility, enticing outreach efforts focused on the theme of lawn and garden care.
• M WW Action 7: Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and
salmon habitat.
■ WW Action 8: Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers and
improve them where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
■ WW Action 9: Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques.
■ WW Action 10: Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce
sediment entering salmon-bearing streams.
■ WW Action 11: Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon.
. WW Action 12: Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams.
H7,1101-01H76-(VO c t,,,,9 nf—d-
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 109
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
■ WW Action 13: Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential impacts to salmon and other pollutants and salmon .
habitat.
• WW Action 14: Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written
best management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat. .
■ WW Action 15: Develop a comprehensive, WRIA-wide process to identify, develop, and •
prioritize projects that benefit salmon and carry out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ WW Action 16: Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9.
■ WW Action 17: Encourage the restoration of riparian buffers. .
■ WW Action 18: Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
■ WW Action 19: Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level. •
■ WW Study 1: Monitor habitat restoration projects to determine fish response and apply
the information to future projects.
■ WW Study 2: Identify which factors are limiting to salmon populations by subwatershed.
■ WW Study 3: Develop a research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival in •
WRIA 9.
• WW Study 4: Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment.
• WW Study 5: Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment in WRIA 9.
■ WW Study 6: The WRIA 9 Planning Work Group,WRIA 9 Technical Committee, Central •
Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum, and other appropriate agencies should work
together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and fish in the WRIA.
■ WW Study 7: Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in i
scientific work directed toward salmon recovery. •
Current Efforts •
Jurisdiction Efforts
Jurisdictions are working to protect nearshore habitats. The City of Burien uses a binding site
plan system that allows flexibility in development design, encouraging low-impact development
strategies. Des Moines developed a basin plan for Massey Creek and Barnes Creek to address
flooding and regional water quality. Normandy Park has produced a brochure describing how to •
protect salmon and water quality. SeaTac and King County provide incentives to owners of
private stormwater facilities to encourage proper maintenance of these facilities. Federal Way
works with staff and contractors to minimize erosion of sediment at construction sites. Seattle •
has assigned a fisheries biologist to review land use proposals. King County has provided a •
steward to work with citizens and protect habitats on Vashon/Maury Island. In collaboration
with the King Conservation District, the WRIA 9 Forum has sponsored successful nearshore
stewardship programs, such as the award-winning Beach Naturalist Program. More information
about these activities is in Appendix A. •
wr,r for-orx;a-ono--r—ovwoadr,c
110 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
Projects
This section describes identified projects that should benefit chinook salmon and bull trout, and
are planned to start within the next five years. Planned projects that will benefit species other
• than chinook salmon or bull trout are described in Appendix C.
• Jurisdiction Projects
In addition to the programs and policies highlighted above, WRIA 9 jurisdictions plan to conduct
. projects to protect and improve salmon habitat in the Nearshore subwatershed. Table 31 below
briefly describes these plans.
S Table 31. Nearshore projects: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factors of Strategy
Project Name Benefit to Decline Elements Jurisdiction
and Status Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed and Partners
• Lincoln Park Sand and gravel beach Protects Alteration of Rehabilitate Seattle(lead)
Beach and materials were placed shallow- habitat-forming damaged and the U.S.
Seacrest Park over a''/z-mile distance water process and loss processes such Army Corps
. Beach in the late 1980s and habitat for of habitat in as sediment of Engineers
nourishment again in 1994;another all species migratory corridor transport
• nourishment is
scheduled in the next
• Status: few years.
Brown Parcel adjoining Protect Loss of habitat in Protect Burien
acquisition Seahurst Park that refuge the migratory nearshore
contains headwaters of habitat for corridor processes and
the salmon-bearing all species functions
• Status: .,, ; stream in the park
Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District Projects
WRIA 9 recommends projects for funding to two organizations: the Salmon Recovery Funding
• Board and the King Conservation District. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board is a state
• organization that disburses grants for salmon habitat projects. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee
selects projects to send to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for its consideration. Property
owners in King County support the King Conservation District with a$5-per-parcel annual fee.
The King Conservation District devotes three-fifths of this fee from parcels within WRIA 9 to
• salmon, water quality, and flooding projects in WRIA 9. The WRIA 9 Forum approves projects
• to send to the King Conservation District Board for its consideration for this funding.
One project in the Nearshore subwatershed was submitted for funding in the 2001 Salmon
• Recovery Funding Board grant process. (In April 2002,the Salmon Recovery Funding Board
• decided not to fund this project.) Table 32 below describes it briefly.
r
,Pi iai-01X7&000 cu rc 1—.9w—d—
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 111
i
•
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
Table 32. Nearshore project proposed for funding by the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board.
Factors of Strategy •
Project Name Project Benefits to Decline Elements •
and Status Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Funding Source
Branson Acquire 7 acres Protect rearing Loss of habitat Protect Salmon Recovery
acquisition of nearshore and refuge in the unaltered Funding Board(and
property,with habitat for all migratory habitat Washington Wildlife
247 feet of species corridor and Recreation
waterfront Program,Conservation •
,G Futures,National Fish
".0
and Wildlife
Status: Foundation) (not
funded) •
Studies
Jurisdiction Studies
Nearshore jurisdictions are collecting data to improve understanding of nearshore habitats and •
processes. Table 33 below briefly describes these efforts.
Table 33. Nearshore studies: WRIA jurisdictions.
Factor of •
Decline Jurisdiction and
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Partners •
Redondo Determine how best to Review boat launch and Water quality, Des Moines
waterfront study improve stormwater parking area hydrology, Marina Utility
management sediment quality .
Water quality Identify problem areas Developed water quality Water quality City of Des
monitoring and trends in water baseline and conducted Moines
quality benthic invertebrate •
sampling in Des Moines,
Massey,Barnes,and •
McSorley Creeks;
additional monitoring to
occur every three years •
Water quality Identify problem areas Collect water quality and Water quality, City of Federal
and flow data and trends in water flow data at 7 different hydrology Way
quality stations on streams •
Macro- Determine stream Collect aquatic insects Water quality, City of Federal
invertebrate health annually at 6 locations riparian condition Way, Stream
sampling throughout city Team,and other •
volunteers •
Monitor rainfall Determine precipitation Gauges throughout city; Hydrology City of Federal
data trends sites on web Way .
wn/ 101-01876-000 currenr wria9 nma.dnc
112 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 4—Nearshore Subwatershed
• Factor of
. Decline Jurisdiction and
• Study Name Objective Description Addressed Partners
Longfellow Determine spawning Weekly surveys of Study to fill data City of Seattle
Creek Spawning usage of Longfellow Longfellow creek during gap
survey Creek by all salmon spawning season
Nearshore fish Determine if fish use of Study now being Habitat City of Seattle
utilization study the nearshore varies developed with University alterations
iwith changes in habitat of Washington researchers
characteristics
Pre-spawn Determine cause of pre- In conjunction with other Study to fill data City of Seattle
mortality study spawning mortality in jurisdictions, Seattle is gaps
. coho returning to area monitoring the pre-
creeks spawning mortality in the
. City's creeks and
providing tissue sample to
the state for analysis
Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District Studies
As described above in the Projects section, WRIA 9 recommends projects for funding to two
organizations: the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King Conservation District.
S Because filling data gaps is a high priority for the Nearshore subwatershed, several studies are
planned for the nearshore using these funding sources. Table 34 below describes them briefly.
Table 34. Nearshore studies: Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King Conservation
District.
• Factors of Decline Funding
Study Name Objective Description Addressed Source
Seahurst Park Determine best Study of options for Alteration of Salmon
Seawall alternative to removing the seawall in habitat-forming Recovery
existing seawall Seahurst Park while processes Funding Board
protecting recreation and
enhancing marine riparian
vegetation
Beach seining Determine timing Use seine nets to capture Study to fill data King
. of juvenile juvenile salmon gaps Conservation
migration through District
nearshore
Puget Sound Develop list of This Sound-wide program All nearshore King
Nearshore nearshore will develop an ecosystem factors of decline Conservation
Ecosystem restoration projects model,fill data gaps, develop District(and the
Restoration criteria, and identify projects U.S.Army
Project,Phase Corps of
1 Engineers and a
multitude of
Slocal sponsors)
• i,pl/01-01776000 c rent x 9 nta d.
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 113
i
•
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
•
Chapter 5. Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
•
This chapter addresses the following issues related to implementing the Near-Term Action
• Agenda:
•
• ■ Implementation accountability
■ Funding
•
■ Adapting the document to reflect new information and respond to new
• opportunities.
• This chapter also looks ahead to the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan, briefly
discussing the attributes of a viable salmon population.
•
Implementation Accountability
• The Near-Term Action Agenda is meant to guide local actions over the next three or four years,
until the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan is completed in 2005. This document is not
regulatory nor does it prescribe implementation timetables or deadlines. However, each
• jurisdiction is expected to evaluate all the WRIA-wide and subwatershed actions relevant to its
jurisdiction, determine which actions are needed to improve salmon conservation, and establish
its own implementation schedule. The Steering Committee is relying on each jurisdiction to give
• sufficient attention to these actions. The work of each jurisdiction, either singly or in
• collaboration with other jurisdictions and stakeholders, will provide a firm foundation for the
future Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan. Implementing the recommended near-term
actions will strengthen local programs and regulations and activities that protect salmon and will
strengthen working relationships among the WRIA jurisdictions and stakeholders, both of which
• are essential to the success of the Conservation Plan. Community and environmental groups
focused on salmon conservation also are encouraged to use the Near-Term Action Agenda as an
information resource and source of ideas for their activities.
•
Two aspects of implementation accountability are important. The first focuses on the extent to
i which jurisdictions and other organizations actually carry out the recommendations contained in
the Near-Term Action Agenda. To track progress,the Steering Committee will coordinate with
local governments, the Planning Work Group,the Technical Committee, community and
environmental groups, and other participating organizations to report annually on steps taken to
implement the WRIA-wide and subwatershed recommendations. To make reporting easier, each
jurisdiction is encouraged to assign a point-person responsible for facilitating evaluation and
implementation of these recommendations. This point-person would track progress within the
jurisdiction and its decision-making bodies. These point-persons would be interviewed at the
,Pr ioo-orN-c-ono an w ,9w—dx
• WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 115
•
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
end of the year to gather information for the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee also
encourages reports from community and environmental groups about their efforts.
Implementation monitoring would occur until the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan is •
completed. By 2005, all jurisdictions are expected to have evaluated the recommendations in the
Near-Term Action Agenda and carried out the actions needed within their jurisdiction.
The other aspect of implementation accountability is measuring whether or not the
recommendations as carried out actually benefit salmon habitat and help salmon. This type of •
monitoring is often referred to as effectiveness or validation monitoring. Validation monitoring
is difficult because there are so many factors that affect salmon populations. However,
WW Study 1, described in Chapter 3, provides some evaluation beyond implementation •
monitoring. As more guidance becomes available from the state and federal governments, the
Technical Committee is encouraged to consider further how to measure the effectiveness and
validity of the implemented actions.
Sources of Funding
At this time, the costs of many of the recommended actions are not well known. While the costs
of projects can be quantified and affect only the project sponsors, many of the suggested actions
are regulatory or incentive-based in nature and have the potential for indirect costs that cannot •
easily be quantified. It is important to recognize that although each jurisdiction is expected to •
evaluate the recommended actions,the ability of jurisdictions to find funds may be limited. As
government revenues plateau or decline in real terms, lack of funding may be a serious
impediment to full implementation of the Near-Term Action Agenda. Where resources are a
problem, the Steering Committee supports finding innovative ways of raising and sharing funds •
and other resources. •
Fortunately, WRIA 9 does have access to several funding sources that will help pay for a portion
of the projects and activities described in this Action Agenda. In the past, these funds have paid •
for large projects and WRIA-wide activities. (Smaller projects and jurisdictional policies,
programs, and practices have been paid for by the jurisdictions themselves.) The four most
significant sources of funding for large projects and WRIA-wide activities are:
■ King Conservation District non-competitive grants
■ Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Project
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Project. .
»p/ /0/-0/8:6-000 curmnr wrio9 nmadnc
116 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
MChapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
A brief description of these major funding sources is provided below to help in formulating a
WRIA-wide funding approach. These funding sources, and planned projects that will make use
of them, also are described in Chapter 4. More information can be found on the WRIA 9
webpage: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/index.htm. In addition, other potential sources of
funds exist in the form of mitigation for potential impacts associated with capital projects
occurring in the WRIA. A brief description of some of these projects is also given below.
King Conservation District Grants
The King Conservation District is a natural resources assistance agency authorized by the State
of Washington in 1949. In WRIA 9, 13 of the 16 local governments are members of the King
S Conservation District (KCD). Enumclaw and Federal Way currently are not members. Tukwila
. expects to become a KCD member in 2002. A five-dollar assessment is levied on most
properties within incorporated and unincorporated King County to fund natural resource
protection activities (commercial forestlands are exempt from the fee). Three-fifths of this fee is
distributed to the watersheds for fish, water quality, and flooding projects. Recently, the King
Conservation District has distributed about $600,000 dollars annually to WRIA 9 for the
• following types of activities:
■ Ecosystem Restoration Projects local match for the Green/Duwamish
Watershed
■ Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project local match
■ Grant match for acquisition and restoration projects funded from other
sources
■ High priority research
r
■ WRIA education and stewardship programs
a Technical support opportunity fund (it is anticipated that this funding
could be used by small and nearshore cities to help implement some
provisions of the Near-Term Action Agenda).
Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board
The state's Salmon Recovery Funding Board was established in 1999 and disburses grants for
salmon habitat projects. The Board's goal is to fund the best salmon habitat projects that reflect
local priorities and use the best available science. The criteria used in 2000 and 2001 included:
• ■ Benefit to salmon(measured by how well the project addresses the factors
of decline)
upl iar-oix;a-non .,•rw..d
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 117
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda •
■ Certainty of success (affected by landowner willingness and project
urgency)
■
Level of community support.
Each year, the Board reviews applications and disburses funds based on merit. The WRIA 9 S
Steering Committee submits a prioritized list of projects annually for funding consideration. The
amount distributed by the Funding Board varies, depending on state and federal sources. To
date, from $25 to $30 million has been made available annually for statewide distribution. In the •
first funding cycle (1999-2000), WRIA 9 received $500,000 and in the second funding cycle
(2000-2001), WRIA 9 received nearly $1.6 million. In the third funding cycle (2001-2002),
WRIA 9 received $1.8 million. If WRIA 9 (through the Steering Committee) continues to •
propose compelling projects and studies, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board could continue to •
be an important source of funding.
S
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
In 1995,the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out the •
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study, aimed at resource restoration in the •
Green/Duwamish watershed. A reconnaissance assessment(1995-1997) recommended a
feasibility study of over 50 sites basin-wide that could be restored to benefit fish and wildlife
habitat. The feasibility study (1997-2000) provided conceptual designs for construction of 45 of
these sites over a 10-year period. •
The implementation of these 45 projects is known as the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project. In 2001, local governments agreed to work together through the existing
WRIA 9 interlocal agreement to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the pre- •
construction engineering and design phase. A portion of the King Conservation District funds
for WRIA 9 are being used as local match for advanced project planning. During this phase of
advanced project planning, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local governments will
develop detailed designs, engineering studies, and ecological studies for the first 20 projects. .
Future phases will include actual construction of these projects, projected to begin in 2003, with
construction costs shared between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local jurisdictions.
The local jurisdiction match may be met through the value of the property provided by local .
governments.
The majority of Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project restoration projects are focused
on salmon habitat conservation and nearly all are tied to general habitat restoration goals in the
Green/Duwamish portion of WRIA 9. Nonetheless, future priorities for project construction
phasing could be more closely tied to benefits to salmon, particularly chinook salmon and bull
trout, and to carrying out the WRIA 9 Strategy.
up/ /01-0/876-000 current,vria9 ntaa.dnc
118 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project
In 2000, a Nearshore General Investigation, sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
r was also authorized by Congress to study the marine environment of Puget Sound. The local
lead sponsor of the study is the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
reconnaissance assessment phase is now completed, and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
• Restoration Project is beginning. Like the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study, this
program will lead to a better understanding of what projects will improve aquatic habitats and
could possibly provide an additional source of funding. Because it focuses on the Puget Sound
nearshore, this effort complements the freshwater focus of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project. A portion of the King Conservation District funds for WRIA 9 are being
used for the local match for the feasibility phase of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Project.
Capital Project Mitigation Requirements
Planning for several major capital projects is underway in WRIA 9. It is likely that these
projects will be required to provide mitigation for impacts resulting from construction.
However, it is important to understand that mitigation actions are intended to compensate for
• unavoidable impacts to salmon populations. As such, actions taken as mitigation would not in
themselves be likely to result in a net beneficial effect on salmon habitat and populations.
However, it is still likely that directing mitigation dollars for capital projects toward actions
related to those included in the Near-Term Action Agenda and the WRIA 9 Strategy would be
more valuable than approaching mitigation on a piecemeal basis. Some of the major capital
projects that could provide funds for mitigation or other resource restoration activities include
the following:
■ King County's Wastewater Treatment Division conveyance system
improvements
■ Lower Duwamish Superfund cleanup natural resource damage
assessments
. ■ Port of Seattle's harbor improvement plan
■ Sound Transit Link Light Rail
■ Highway projects (for example, l-405 widening and SR-509 extension)
■ Green River Flood Control Zone District and Regional Watershed Plan"
improvements.
• 1
7 Two regional watershed plans currently anticipated or underway in the WRIA are the Mill Creek/Mullen Slough
Action Plan and the Miller/Salmon Creek Basin Plan.
r,pl/01-0I876-000 cunrn(urin9 nloa.drx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 119
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
Other Funding Options and Sources
In addition to the funding sources discussed above, other potential funding options and additional •
funding sources could be developed. Some options are discussed below:
■ Cost sharing among the WRIA jurisdictions and/or stakeholders, either
collectively or in smaller groups, to address common needs .
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding for projects that meet specific
criteria through Sections 1135 and 206
■ Grants from scientific and private foundations, especially for studies
■ Grants from public agencies, such as the King County WaterWorks
program
■ Capital Improvement Projects that incorporate a significant habitat
improvement or restoration element
■ Creation of a local funding source by committing a small percent of public •
agency capital improvement project funds to habitat projects. (A one
percent for salmon allocation has been discussed by some jurisdictions.)
Adapting the Near-Term Action Agenda
As the results of studies and research become available or as unforeseen opportunities arise,
actions not identified in the Near-Term Action Agenda may assume a high priority. It is
impractical to update this Action Agenda regularly, since resources would be diverted from work
on the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan. Therefore, the following procedure is
suggested when potential funding agencies desire consistency between the recommendations of •
this document and funding requests:
■ The benefits to salmon of new actions or studies should be presented in
writing to the Steering Committee. This presentation should explain how i
the action or study would protect or restore habitat or prevent detrimental
life-stage effects. The explanation should include a discussion of how the
action or study relates to the WRIA 9 Strategy.
■ The Steering Committee should then make a decision on whether to add
this action or study to the Near-Term Action Agenda by reference. This
formal step can then serve as documentation for funding agencies.
Bpi 101-01876-00currenrw'm9nma.dnc .
120 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
Chapter Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
! Beyond the Near-Term Action Agenda: the Comprehensive Salmon
! Conservation Plan
. Since preparation of the WRIA 9 Reconnaissance Assessment in December 2000, work to fill
data gaps and learn more about salmon life history success has continued. In addition to work
S ongoing in WRIA 9, the National Marine Fisheries Service has continued its efforts to better
understand salmon populations and to define recovery goals throughout western Washington.
The following paragraphs summarize some of the considerations being used by the National
Marine Fisheries Service to inform goal setting and define viable salmon populations. These
. considerations are also important in guiding the formulation of the Comprehensive Salmon
Conservation Plan for WRIA 9, which will be scoped in 2002.
It is important to note, however, that the attributes discussed below, which define a viable
salmon population, apply on a scale that may be different from an individual WRIA. (The
attributes of healthy salmon populations apply to a whole population. Depending on the
geographic range of a population and on how many distinct populations are supported in a
WRIA, these attributes may apply on a scale larger or smaller than the WRIA.) The focus of
salmon recovery is the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). The evolutionarily significant unit
S is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon, steelhead, or sea-run cutthroat trout that 1) is
reproductively isolated from other population units, and 2)represents an important component of
the evolutionary legacy of the species. WRIA 9 is part of the Puget Sound ESU18, along with
many other water resource inventory areas. However, since planning is done on a WRIA scale,
. and recovery goals will be related to actions taken on the WRIA scale, knowledge of overall
conservation considerations can increase understanding of the complex nature of the actions
needed for recovery and the role WRIA 9 can play in evolutionarily significant unit
conservation.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, through the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, is
focusing on four key attributes of healthy salmon populations19. These attributes are:
• ■ Abundance
■ Productivity (population growth rate)
■ Distribution(spatial structure)
■ Diversity.
These attributes are the focus in evaluating salmon populations for several reasons: they are
thought to be good predictors of extinction risk,they are factors that are important to all
populations, and for the most part,they are measurable. Each of the four key population
attributes is discussed briefly below.
• '8 The Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit for chinook salmon extends from the Nooksack River in the north,
• through Puget Sound and west into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Elwha River.
'9 The basis for this summary is contained in Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily
Significant Units,NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42,June 2000.
vPl/9/-01876-000 ov rent wrinL nma.dx
! WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 121
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
Abundance
Abundance refers to the number of fish in a population. Smaller populations have a greater risk
of extinction than large populations. Factors such as the ability of a population to survive
environmental fluctuations (such as changes in ocean conditions) and catastrophes (such as
landslides) influences scientists' thinking in determining how large a population should be to
reduce the risk of extinction.
Currently, the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team is using several tools to estimate a target
range of returning spawners for healthy population abundance for the WRIAs in the Puget Sound
evolutionarily significant unit 20. After an appropriate range is set, the WRIAs, through their .
Steering Committees, may need to establish WRIA-wide goals that target either a specific level
of risk within the set range or specific habitat protection or restoration quantities expected to
result in meeting the established returning spawner goals.
Productivity/Population Growth Rate
Productivity over the entire salmon life cycle provides information on how well a population is
doing in the habitats it occupies. Most fundamentally, a population must be able to replace itself
over time, but this can be hard to measure directly. Productivity can be estimated by measures
such as the ratio of juvenile to adult salmon or the number of smolts produced. Indirect
measures, such as the size at return of spawners, are also used. If a population is not able to
replace its numbers over time, the risk of extinction is increased.
Spatial Distribution
This characteristic refers to whether the distribution of subpopulations in the evolutionarily
significant unit is patchy or more continuous. Subpopulations are somewhat distinct groupings
of fish within the overall population that exhibit recognizable genetic or behavioral differences.
The extent to which spawning groups are distinct, and the connections between those groups, are
important attributes of spatial distribution. The factors that contribute to the distinct spatial •
distribution of subpopulations are referred to as spatial structure.
The National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines for spatial structure and distribution include
the following points:
■ Habitat patches in the evolutionarily significant unit should not be
destroyed faster than they are naturally created.
w
■ Empty habitat patches should be maintained. .
20 Briefing memorandum: TRT Answers to Shared Strategy Questions.National Marine Fisheries Service, •
September 27,2001.
rr,p! /01•017176.000 currrni xria9 ntaa.rinc
122 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Chapter 5-Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
r ■ The most productive subpopulations should be protected.
■ Stray rates between populations should be maintained.
Applied on the evolutionarily significant unit scale,these spatial distribution guidelines suggest
it may be important to examine stray rates between the Green/Duwamish and the Cedar and
. Puyallup/White rivers. On a WRIA scale, it suggests it may be of strategic benefit to open the
Upper Green River subwatershed and increase the spawning opportunities in the few tributaries
in the Middle Green River that are large enough to support chinook salmon populations.
Currently, the WRIA 9 Strategy calls for restoring access to and from the Upper Green River
i subwatershed as one of three major Strategy elements.
Diversity
Diversity refers to variation within and among populations. Some traits that vary within the
Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit are spawn timing, egg size, developmental rate, and
. other life history diversity and genetic characteristics. Maintaining sufficient diversity in a
population is important. It allows a species to use a wider array of environments and makes a
species more resilient to short- and long-term environmental changes.
Guidelines for maintaining diversity suggest the following:
■ Natural stray rates should not be accelerated above one percent.
■ Human-caused habitat changes should not alter traits such as run-timing,
age structure, size, behavior, or genetic characteristics.
■ Natural processes that cause ecological variation (including habitat
patchiness) should be maintained.
The WRIA 9 Reconnaissance Assessment suggests that the watershed may currently support
distinct subpopulations 21. These National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines for maintaining or
increasing abundance,productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity suggest that this genetic
diversity in the population should be protected and encouraged. In addition, the WRIA 9
chinook salmon population needs to be considered in the context of the greater evolutionarily
significant unit to determine which attributes are of strategic importance for recovery of the
overall population. It is anticipated that the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan will
determine not only the needs of the WRIA 9 chinook salmon population, but will continue to
coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service to address the particular contribution
WRIA 9 makes to the population of the evolutionarily significant unit and the best method to
conserve and/or enhance that contribution.
-� 21 Currently scientists think that distinct subpopulations may occur in the Lower Green River subwatershed,the
Newaukum Creek watershed,and possibly the Upper Green River subwatershed. However,genetic evidence is
. lacking to confirm subpopulation status.
,pl 101-018,-6000 cunenr n,9wl dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda 123
•
Chapter 5—Implementing the Near-Term Action Agenda
Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service is looking to the Puget Sound-wide recovery
planning effort called the Shared Strategy22 to develop a regional plan for recovery of the Puget
Sound evolutionarily significant unit. Unlike WRIA plans, which focus only on habitat,the
Shared Strategy integrates efforts related to harvest, dams, hatchery operation, and habitat. The
National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Recovery Team, in conjunction with the Shared
Strategy, currently is setting goals for the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit, based on a
population viability analysis for each of the 21 populations. These population viability analyses
will establish a range for the minimum population needed in each of the WRIAs to sustain a
viable population. The identified range will be that which reduces the risk of extinction from
less than five percent (low end)to less than one percent(high end).
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (the
co-managers of the fishery) are also conducting an analysis of habitat productivity. In this .
analysis, the ability of the habitat to produce salmon is assessed. This analysis addresses the
potential production, since it assumes healthy watershed and nearshore conditions. (It does not, i
however, assume dam removal or major river rerouting.)
The numeric population goals developed in these current efforts are just one step in defining
recovery. Watershed goals and an accompanying strategy that address other population
attributes (productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity) are important as well. The WRIA 9 ,
Technical Committee has the task of considering all these population attributes, in scoping and
developing the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan for WRIA 9. Developing this plan is
a complex and important job, one that is critical to the health of chinook salmon and other
salmon species in WRIA 9 and the whole Puget Sound area. By carrying out the Near-Term
Action Agenda, WRIA 9 hopes to make advances in salmon recovery, which will set a firmer
foundation for the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan and ultimately make the Plan
easier to carry out.
22 For more information on the Shared Strategy,see the webpage at http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org
,pl 101-01876-000 .r t—w9 ..d
124 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
0
•
•
• APPENDIX A
•
•
Actions Undertaken b
• y Jurisdictions
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
i
1
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
Contents
•
• Middle Green River Subwatershed.............................................................................................A-1
Cityof Enumclaw................................................................................................................A-1
. City of Black Diamond........................................................................................................A-3
City of Maple Valley........................................................................... ......A-5
..........................
Cityof Covington................................................................................................................A-7
Lower Green River Subwatershed..............................................................................................A-9
Cityof Auburn.....................................................................................................................A-9
Cityof Algona................................................................................................................... A-13
Cityof Kent....................................................................................................................... A-15
Cityof Renton....................................................................................................................A-19
Elliott Bay/Duwamish Subwatershed....................................................................................... A-23
Cityof Tukwila.................................................................................................................. A-23
• City of Seattle....................................................................................................................A-27
NearshoreSubwatershed...........................................................................................................A-31
Cityof SeaTac ................................................................................................................... A-31
Cityof Burien....................................................................................................................A-33
Cityof Normandy Park......................................................................................................A-35
• City of Des Moines............................................................................................................A-37
Cityof Federal Way........................................................................................................... A-41
Unincorporated King County.................................................................................................... A-45
•
i
•
•
•
i
•
•
r
xpl/01-0I8S6.000 a+in9 nma apr u.dac
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-i
•
•
0
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
r
•
Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
• This appendix summarizes current and planned activities by the 16 local governments of
WRIA 9. Governments are listed by subwatershed. King County, which has jurisdiction
over unincorporated areas in all subwatersheds, is at the end of this appendix.
Diddle Green River Subwaterhed
AA
• City of Enumclaw City of Enumclaw
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 11,180 (2001 est.) (split
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 10)
0
Incorporated. 1913
3.5 square miles in the Middle Green River
subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams and near-shore areas.
The width of these buffers is keyed to the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources classification for the stream. These buffers will be reviewed as part of the planned
review of the Critical Areas Ordinance in 2002. The city will review other policies and
. practices as funding and staff availability allow.
Classification Buffer Width
• Class 1 100 feet
Class 2 75 feet
Class 3 50 feet
• Class 4 and 5 25 feet
iStormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Enumclaw inspects construction sites for the control of erosion
and sedimentation more than once. Frequency depends on the size of the project and the
weather.
•
,p� nr-nrx�a-nnn,.mv m��a�o.dr,r
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-1
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Water Quality Controls: Water quality complaints are investigated and referrals given. ,
Information on control of pollutants is included in the standard license package that goes to ,
new businesses licensed in Enumclaw.
Stormwater Regulations: Enumclaw adopted its own manual in 1989; the city intends to
adopt the King County manual or the Washington State Department of Ecology stormwater r
manual by the end of 2002.
Maintenance: The city maintains city-owned stormwater facilities. The city inspects •
privately owned stormwater facilities on an as-needed basis (e.g., when a complaint is r
received). Private owners are responsible for maintaining their facilities.
Stewardship
Enumclaw has worked with Planet CPR and local volunteers on the GrateMate program to
improve stormwater quality.
Features Particular to City
Enumclaw is seeking to acquire and improve 54 acres of habitat along Newaukum Creek
outside the city. Two environmental groups may partner with the city to conduct restoration.
The primary purpose of the project is to protect existing habitat. If the habitat is improved, ,
the project also may serve as a mitigation bank. Funding would come from a Conservation
Futures allocation. •
Enumclaw also is partnering with King County, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group,
Trout Unlimited, Green River Steelhead Club, and Enumclaw High School on the
Newaukum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan. This plan allows the development of low-value
wetlands in exchange for restoration and improved protection of riparian lands along
Newaukum Creek.
Notable Projects
■ Working to acquire 54 acres of habitat along Newaukum Creek
(described above).
■ Acquisition of a 6-acre conservation easement adjacent to Newaukum
Creek under the Newaukum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan (described i
above).
A-2 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Black Diamond
City of Black Diamond
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 4,015 (2001 est.) '.
• Incorporated. 1959
4.8 square miles in the Middle Green
M River subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Black Diamond is currently reviewing public works and
development policies programs and practices to update them to reflect best management
practices, which is expected to improve protection for salmon habitat. Black Diamond has
consulting engineers with special expertise available to assist city staff in reviewing proposed
developments and identifying resource protection issues.
Buffers and Habitat: Variable buffers are required next to salmon-bearing streams as
denoted in the following table:
Classification Buffer Width
Type 1 75 feet
Type 2 75 feet
Type 3 50 feet
• Type 4 25 feet
Type 5 25 feet
S Although Black Diamond does not currently have a program to acquire and recover salmon
habitat, the city expects to participate in the transfer of development rights program in the
fixture.
• Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Black Diamond inspects construction sites for the control of
s erosion and sedimentation on a weekly basis. Inspectors have the authority to halt work. In
addition,the city has the ability to require on-site private inspectors as a permitting condition.
Water Quality Controls: Black Diamond participates in the Lake Sawyer Management Plan,
a regional water quality project that addresses water quality. Black Diamond collects data on
water quality including temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen, turbidity,
xp!/0/-01876-000aria9n1aoapxa.doc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-3
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
e
TSS, conductivity, and flow in the Rock Creek drainage that flows into Lake Sawyer. The
city is considering expansion of data collection to include the lake itself and Ravensdale
Creek. The city has a spill response program through the fire department. Water quality ,
complaints are investigated and referrals given.
Stormwater Regulations: Black Diamond has adopted and uses the 1992 Washington State
Department of Ecology stormwater manual. The city is determining whether stormwater
management ordinance language results in the automatic adoption of the 2001 Washington
State Department of Ecology manual revision. The city also is interested in creating a
stormwater utility.
Maintenance: The city is responsible for maintaining city-owned stormwater facilities and
those in residential areas; commercial property owners maintain their own stormwater
facilities.
wp//01-0/876000>,ria9 mm.opzo r/nc
A-4 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Maple Valley
. City of Maple Valley
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 14,590(2001 est.) (split
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 8)
Incorporated. 1997
E
5.8 square miles in the 1Vliddle Green '
River subwatershed -
A
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: The city has staff with special expertise to review proposed
developments and identify resource protection issues. The city is currently revising its
Shoreline Master Program.
` Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams as denoted in the
following table.
• Classification Buffer Width
S Class 1 (all) 100 feet
Class 2 w/fish 100 feet
Class 2 w/o fish 50 feet
J� Class 3 25 feet
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: The city inspects construction sites at least weekly for the control
of erosion and sedimentation. Inspectors have the authority to halt work and issue fines.
Water Quality Controls: The use of hazardous substances, pesticides, and fertilizers is
prohibited in stream corridors and their buffers. Livestock are prohibited in riparian buffers.
The city has a spill response program through the fire department and under contract with the
King County Department of Roads. The city will begin providing source control information
• to businesses in 2002.
Stormwater Regulations: The city has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater
manual. The city applies flow control level 1.
Maintenance: The city is responsible for maintaining city-owned stormwater facilities;
private owners are responsible for maintaining their own. The city has committed to
'� WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-5
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
adopting the Roads Best Management Practices developed under the Tri-County Endangered
Species Act Response.
Stewardship
The city offers storm drain stenciling kits to citizens.
Notable Projects •
■ The city intends to replace six undersized culverts on the outlet from Lake
Lucerne that is a tributary to Jenkins Creek. This will allow for fish passage
by coho salmon and cutthroat trout. Replacement is scheduled to occur from
2004 to 2005. A
40
wnl/0I-0/876-000w'9 r n rl
A-6 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
r
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Covington
City of Covington
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 13,840 (2001 est.)
s
S Incorporated. 1997
6.9 square miles in the
Middle Green River subwatershed
i
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Covington will soon do an in-depth analysis of its Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Covington has staff with special expertise to work with developers as they
* respond to salmon recovery issues.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams. In addition to these
buffers, a 15-foot building setback is required for all stream classes.
. Classification Buffer Width
Class 1 100 feet
i Class 2 salmon-bearing 100 feet
• Class 2 50 feet
Class 3 25 feet
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Covington inspects construction sites once a day for the control of
erosion and sedimentation; inspectors have the authority to halt work and issue fines.
Educational materials are offered contractors on erosion and sedimentation control.
• Water Quality Controls: The city has a spill response program. Covington is building the
first regional detention facility in the area, a project with water quality implications. Water
quality complaints are investigated and referrals given through a cooperative agreement with
King County.
Stormwater Regulations: Covington has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater
manual and applies flow control level 1 to facilities handling runoff.
Maintenance: Covington contracts with King County to maintain city-owned and residential
stormwater facilities annually. Commercial facilities are inspected annually.
,P1 i0J-0J87&000n r,9,1 Px,do
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-7
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
VE
4.
e �� 3
v
City of Auburn c' of Auburn
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 43,420 (2001 est.) (split
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 10)
Incorporated: 1891
20 square miles in the Lower Green River
subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Auburn updated its Comprehensive Plan in 1999 and 2000 to
address the needs of Endangered Species Act-listed species. Auburn expects to re-evaluate
its comprehensive drainage plan in 2002 to determine how well it protects salmon. Auburn is
a partner with Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and King County in the Green River Flood Control
District. While the primary purpose of the District is flood protection, most projects and
maintenance include efforts to improve riparian habitat on the Green River. The city has
. participated with Kent and King County in developing the Mill Creek Flood Management
i Plan and Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan, which address protection of aquatic
resources including salmon. While the latter plan has not been formally adopted, staff base
permitting decisions on its recommendations. Auburn has two staff members with special
expertise to review proposed developments and identify resource protection issues. A new
staff position began work full-time on Endangered Species Act/Sensitive Areas issues in late
2001. The city offers incentives to private landowners to leave open space within
developments. The city has a water conservation goal of 10 percent reduction from 1999 to
2006 even as the population is expected to grow.
4 Buffers and Habitat: With expected enactment of updates to the city's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance in 2002, Auburn is considering adoption of the following buffers on salmon-
bearing streams as denoted in the table below when properties experience land use changes
• or develop:
p/ (1l-0lX76000.arinY nlan apr a.Aoc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-9
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
s
Classification Buffer Width
Class 1 150 feet S
Class 2 150 feet
Class 3 50 feet
Class 4 25 feet
Stormwater and Water Quality •
Construction Regulation: Auburn requires an erosion sediment control plan for all
development and inspects construction sites at least weekly. Inspectors have the authority to
require corrective actions and halt work if necessary to obtain compliance with city
standards. The city includes erosion control notes on development plans. On-site private
inspectors are required for some developments as a State Environmental Policy Act
condition.
Water Quality Controls: Auburn has a spill response program through the fire department;
the fire department coordinates with the public works department on spill containment and
cleanup and uses standard operating procedures adopted in 2001. Auburn is involved in
several regional water quality projects, including the Mill Creek Special Area Management
Plan, the South King County regional water supply management program, and the King
County Wastewater Treatment Infiltration and Inflow program. Some water quality
parameters are collected in certain basins in the city. Water quality complaints are
investigated using a standard procedure for all citizen inquiries. Information on best
management practices for the control of pollutants is available; much work is done with
commercial car washes and other businesses that could create water quality problems in
stormwater. The development permitting process and the business license process are used
to help city staff identify potential problems and work with developers to avoid them.
Stormwater Regulations: Auburn uses its own stormwater manual, adopted in 1998. In 2002
the city will review the most recent manual from the Department of Ecology to determine
whether and how to use it. The city has reduced the width of new local residential city
streets from 32 to 28 feet to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and associated
stormwater runoff.
i
Maintenance: Auburn is responsible for maintaining city-owned stormwater facilities and
does this on an as-needed basis. The city is beginning a survey of its approximately 70 •
retention/detention ponds to evaluate their performance and develop maintenance plans for
each. Private owners are responsible for maintaining their own facilities, although for more
recently developed properties, the city can do the maintenance (and be reimbursed) if the
private owner fails to do so. Financial penalties may be assessed if private owners do not
maintain facilities; however, a pro-active stormwater monthly service rate provides a positive •
financial incentive to properly maintained private facilities that provide a detention,
infiltration, retention, or water quality benefit. This incentive encourages more responsible
stewardship and maintenance of private facilities. Inspections of private facilities are
conducted annually in accordance with recorded facility maintenance agreements.
,pl im-nrxs&000-;w rroa ansad
A-10 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Stewardship
Auburn offers a program to help educate citizens on salmon-friendly gardening choices,
offers classes and workshops in composting, and participates in(and helps sponsor) a number
of regional events, school programs, and festivals that focus on water and environmental
stewardship.
S
Features Particular to City
Auburn has developed a maintenance agreement for privately owned stormwater facilities for
new developments. This agreement is recorded with the property and is binding upon
• successors, heirs, and assigns. The agreement requires proper maintenance of stormwater
facilities by specifying those activities that must be routinely performed or inspected for
assuring a properly functioning condition.
' The fire and public works department of Auburn work closely together on spill response and
prevention, with clear operating procedures for each.
The Auburn stormwater manual actively encourages infiltration of stormwater whenever
soils allow. This encourages groundwater recharge, as well as reduces the load on
` stormwater conveyance systems and receiving waters.
The city has inventoried its ditches and will decide on a maintenance plan based on the need
to protect sensitive areas including salmon habitat.
Auburn has developed a cost-effective ($200) device, which can be locally fabricated from
common plumbing parts that facilitates dechlorination of water discharged from dead-end
mains during maintenance and line flushing operations. The device specifications are
available from the city for use by others.
Over the last three years, volunteers organized by the city have logged over a 1,000 hours
improving and restoring habitat.
Notable Projects
Removal of accumulated vegetation and replanting riparian vegetation in
Auburn's 400 floodway storage ponds to improve stormwater conveyance
also contributes to water quality benefits such as temperature reduction and
improving dissolved oxygen in a tributary to Mill Creek at a cost of$255,000.
■ Renewal of vegetation and removal of sediments in a sub-basin biofiltration
swale that outfalls to the Green River at a cost of$200,000.
mpl/01-0187rnnnn—ia9 nmo'Pr "I",
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-11
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
■ Major improvement of water quality, stormwater conveyance, and infiltration
in south-central Auburn at a cost of$1.9 million.
■ Acquisition of 35 acres for stormwater management and wetland mitigation •
associated with the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan.
■ Construction of a new decant facility for storage and disposal of street a
sweepings at a cost of$370,000.
r
a
wn!/0/-01876000—in9 nraa aps a.dnc
A-12 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
City of Algona city of Algona
7
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population:2,500 (2001 est.) (split
4' between WRIA 9 and WRIA 10)
y,
Incorporated. 1955
• 1.4 square miles in the
Lower Green River subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Algona has consulting engineers with special expertise available to
assist city staff in reviewing proposed developments and identifying resource protection
issues.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are not required next to streams. Only one stream in Algona is
in WRIA 9, which is known alternatively as the C-4 ditch or Algona Creek, and land adjacent
to it is already developed.
•
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Algona inspects construction sites at least once during
• construction but as often as weekly for some projects.
Water Quality Controls: The city has a stormwater utility. Algona has a spill response
program provided by the Auburn fire department. Water quality complaints are investigated.
Stormwater Regulations: Algona uses the 1998 draft Washington State Department of
Ecology stormwater manual and applies flow control level 1.
Maintenance: Algona maintains its own facilities on an as needed basis and inspects
privately owned facilities when construction is completed and about once a year thereafter.
•
•
npl/01.0J876-000wria9nm Pn .du
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-13
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Kent
. City of Kent i
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 81,900 (2001 est.) !
1 E'
Incorporated: 1890
29 square miles in the
a Lower Green River Subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Kent began reviewing current policies,programs, and practices to
determine their relationship to salmon protection in 2000; the process is still ongoing. The
city has staff with special expertise to work with developers as they respond to salmon
recovery issues. Kent requires special State Environmental Policy Act review, including
detailed fisheries studies, for all developments within 200 feet of streams, and for major
development projects within the Meridian valley. Kent is a partner with Auburn, Renton,
Tukwila, and King County in the Green River Flood Control District. While the primary
purpose of the District is flood protection, most projects and maintenance include efforts to
• improve riparian habitat on the Green River. The city has participated with Auburn and King
County in developing the Mill Creek Flood Management Plan and Mill Creek Special Area
Management Plans, which address protection of aquatic resources including salmon.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers of 100 feet are required on streams in the Meridian Valley area.
The city is involved in programs to acquire or protect habitat(the Mill Creek Special Area
Manamgement Plan, Green River Natural Resources Enhancement project, and the
Ecosystem Restoration Project).
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Kent inspects construction sites for the control of erosion and
sedimentation; inspectors have the authority to halt work and issue fines. Education (in-field
f, training) is offered to staff on erosion and sedimentation control.
• Water Quality Controls: Kent has a spill response program implemented by the fire
department, with a special manual to assure appropriate procedures. In addition, all Public
Works Department vehicles are equipped with spill response kits, and staff members are
being trained in appropriate spill response. The city collects data on water quality including
. temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, metals, and benthic invertebrates (BIBI). Water
,."pi i01-018-6-000w.ln9monnpra.dnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-15
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
quality complaints are investigated and referrals given; information on control of pollutants is
available to businesses and residents.
Stormwater Regulations: Kent has adopted and uses the 1990 King County stormwater .
manual and expects to adopt the 1998 King County manual by 2002.
Maintenance: Kent is responsible for maintaining residential stormwater facilities; private
owners are responsible commercial and industrial facilities. Inspections are done every two
years.
M
Stewardship
Kent offers classes and workshops on salmon-friendly activities and helps organize and
participates in a variety of volunteer activities. •
Features Particular to City
■ Kent has a comprehensive water conservation program with far-reaching
benefits for water quality, quantity, and salmon recovery. !
■ A comprehensive fisheries assessment is being completed on three key sub- i
basins in the city.
■ A limiting factors report is being completed on Mullen Slough in partnership •
with Auburn and King County.
■ Kent has a specialized maintenance program for both utilities and roads,
assuring that maintenance is done in a salmon-friendly manner.
■ A wellhead protection program has been in place since 1996 to preserve and
protect water quality.
Notable Projects
Several projects are being implemented in Kent as apart of the Ecosystem Restoration
Project sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as others sponsored by the
city.
■ Establish a new stream system from Meridian Valley Creek to Big Soos Creek
that replaces a concrete lined channel.
■ Create a new stream system from Lake Meridian to Big Soos Creek to replace
a degraded ditch outlet.
Hn�ion-ma;�nnn»T�ov maa ap:a.do
A-16 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
i
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WR1A 9 Jurisdictions
•
• ■ Restore Garrison Creek, a highly affected creek in the city.
•
■ Develop groundwater sources to augment instream flow in Mill, Garrison, and
• Springbrook Creeks.
■ Implement several projects (wetlands enhancement, wildlife and fisheries
habitat improvements and stormwater management improvements) in the Mill
Creek Valley (part of the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan).
■ Conduct smolt counts at Black River Pump station to determine salmon use of
a tributary stream (Springbrook Creek).
• Create multi-purpose stormwater/wetland/habitat on 300 acres of the Mill
Creek Valley along with the Washington State Department of Ecology and
King County as part of the Green River Natural Resources Enhancement
Proj ect.
•
M
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
•
•
•
,,pi ini-alert-nnat,9o1xad
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-17
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Renton
City of Renton
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 51,140 (2001 est.) (split
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 8)
Incorporated. 1901 -,
t
16.8 square miles (total city area split
between WRL4 9 and WRIA 8)partly in
the Lower Green River subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
�► Programs and Expertise: Renton is currently reviewing policies,programs, and practices to
determine their relationship to salmon protection. The city has staff with special expertise
available to assist developers as they respond to salmon recovery issues. The county-wide
Public Benefit Rating System is used by Renton to provide incentives for private landowners
�i as a way of protecting or restoring habitat voluntarily. Renton is a partner with Auburn,
Kent, Tukwila, and King County in the Green River Flood Control District. While the
primary purpose of the District is flood protection, most projects and maintenance activities
include efforts to improve riparian habitat on the Green River.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on streams regulated by the city's Shoreline
Master Program, and the city has a program to acquire or recover salmon habitat. In
addition, no tree cutting, land clearing, or groundcover management (except enhancement) is
permitted within 25 feet of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, and other shoreline areas.
Classification Buffer Width
Streams under Minimum 25 feet,can be increased
Renton's tree cutting through State Environmental Policy Act
and land clearing review
regulations
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: The city inspects construction sites including plats and public
works projects daily for the control of erosion and sedimentation. Inspectors have the
authority to halt work and the city has two code enforcement officers who can issue fines.
Education is offered for staff on erosion and sedimentation control, and on-site private
inspectors are required for some types of development as a State Environmental Policy Act
condition. Before a project begins, staff holds a pre-construction meeting attended by the
�l/01-0/N:6-000 urinY nlaa opzadnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-19
Appendix A—Activities by WR1A 9 Jurisdictions
Public Works project manager, construction inspector, and contractors. Expectations on
temporary erosion and sedimentation control plans are communicated to the contractor at
these meetings. •
Water Quality Controls: Renton has a spill response program managed by the fire
department in coordination with the Public Works Department. Information on control of
pollutants is available to businesses and residents. Renton is also involved several regional
water quality programs, including the Ecosystem Restoration Project. Water quality
complaints are investigated and referrals given.
Stormwater Regulations: The city has adopted and uses the 1990 King County stormwater
manual, but requires the use of the 1998 King County manual as a State Environmental
Policy Act condition in certain geographic areas.
Maintenance: Renton maintains city-owned stormwater facilities. Homeowners association t►
in residential plats and commercial property owners are responsible for maintaining their
own stormwater facilities.
Stewardship
Renton's Solid Waste Utility conducts education programs and technical assistance for green (�
gardening and recycling programs. Programs have included an integrated pest management
demonstration garden, natural gardening kits and guides, composting and worm bin
workshops, special recycling collection events, and elementary classroom presentations.
These programs emphasize the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances
such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The programs promote the use of alternative
natural or less hazardous substances to protect water quality and public health. Renton's
Surface Water Utility is a co-sponsor with other jurisdictions and coordinates a Salmon
Watchers Program within the city that utilizes volunteers to conduct spawning surveys of the
city's streams.
Features Particular to City r
Renton has several plans and procedures in place to protect water quality. In addition to a
wellhead protection plan, Renton also has a draft comprehensive surface water plan and a
wastewater management plan, both of which address issues related to protection of surface
waters. Renton's Aquifer Protection Program protects the city's groundwater supply and •
surface water resources through regulations, public education, and other best management
practices. Renton has a standing Environmental Review Committee that issues State
Environmental Policy Act determinations for projects within the city and can require
mitigation for projects that have environmental impacts. Renton has established an
Endangered Species Act Task Force comprised of representatives from all divisions in the ,
city. The Task Force is responsible for coordinating the city's Endangered Species Act
response, administering contracts, and disbursing information.
wpl 101-01e76-000H> 9.,pda
A-20 WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
■ Renton has a water conservation program and administers a Surface Water
Utility capital improvement program.
• ■ Renton has instituted a program to develop standards, review projects, and
offer public education and technical assistance related to surface water.
■ Charity car washes are offered technical assistance by the City of Renton so
• they will not pollute streams.
Notable Projects
■ Built new culvert and fish ladder at crossing with SR 167.
• ■ Replaced undersized culvert under Olympic Pipeline crossing.
■ Working to create wetland and fish habitat along Springbrook Creek channel
to improve fish habitat as part of the Ecosystem Restoration Project.
■ Replaced the SW 27th Street culvert crossing of Springbrook Creek.
■ Working to restore habitat along upper Springbrook Creek as part of the
• Ecosystem Restoration Project.
■ Acquired 64 acres of wetlands along the east side of SR 167 (Panther Creek
Wetlands).
• ■ Developing a wetland mitigation bank area within a large wetland contiguous
to Springbrook Creek, which will include the installation of riparian planting
along Springbrook Creek.
• ■ Widened channel and made habitat improvements to Springbrook Creek when
• the Oakesdale Bridge was constructed upstream of SW 16d' Street.
■ Stabilized channel and improved vegetation and conveyance capacity of
channel along SW 23rd Street.
■ Acquired approximately 60 acres of the Black River riparian forest properties
r at a cost of approximately $8.4 million for habitat and open space
preservation. Sources of funding included 1989 Open Space Bond Issue
• Funds (King County portion- $342,000), 1989 Open Space Bond Issue Funds
• (Renton portion- $283,000), King County Conservation Futures Grants
($1,709,000), Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Habitat Grant
($228,000), Metro Shoreline Improvement Fund Grant ($721,000) Metro
• Mitigation ($3,500,000), and City of Renton($87,000).
• .,ni inr-ora-c-nnn mvw-P-d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-21
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions •
•
■ Acquired approximately 38 acres for the construction of the Black River
pump station and storage pond to provide flood storage and function as a •
constructed wetland that provides water quality benefits and included habitat •
plantings. •
■ Constructed channel improvement between the Black River pump station and •
the Oakesdale Ave. SW bridge that included fish habitat enhancements and •
plantings that improved the channel habitat. Fish passage was improved. •
■ Acquired approximately 100 acres of wetland along Springbrook Creek and in •
the Renton Green River Valley to protect the wetland from development
pressures and to provide fish habitat, water quality, and flood storage. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
wol 101-01876-000wria9wo—Pradoc •
A-22 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
City of Tukwila City of Tukwila '
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 17,230 (2001 est.)
Incorporated: 1908
8.5 square miles in the Lower Green
River and Elliott Bay/Duwamish
subwatersheds
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
• Programs and Expertise: Tukwila is in the process of reviewing current policies, programs,
and practices to determine their relationship to salmon protection. Tukwila is a partner with
Auburn, Kent, Renton, and King County in the Green River Flood Control District. While
the primary purpose of the District is flood protection, most projects and maintenance include
• efforts to improve riparian habitat on the Green River. Tukwila is developing a program to
• offer incentives to private landowners who protect or restore habitat voluntarily. The city has
staff with special expertise to review proposed developments and identify resource protection
issues. Tukwila funds a full-time biologist to manage habitat restoration and other fisheries
activities.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on streams other than the Green/Duwamish River.
The width of these buffers is keyed to the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources classification for the stream.
• Classification Buffer Width
Class 1 70 feet
Class 2 35 feet
Class 3 15 feet
Commercial setbacks 15 feet from buffer
Residential setbacks 10 feet from buffer
Along the Green/Duwamish River, the following protections apply:
upl i01-OIN7l000wnnLmm�apr¢dnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-23
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Classification Restriction Buffer Width
River environment No touch 40 feet from edge of •
river
Low impact environment Buildings limited to 35 From edge of river
feet in height and environment to 100 feet •
certain uses must be from edge of river
screened from river
High impact environment None Beyond 100 feet from •
edge of river
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: The city inspects construction sites for the control of erosion and •
sedimentation; the frequency of these inspections depends on the site and project. Inspectors •
have the authority to halt work. Code enforcement officers may issue fines.
Water Quality Controls: A State Environmental Policy Act checklist helps developers and •
project proponents become aware of activities near streams that could affect water quality. •
Tukwila has a spill response program that includes use of a vactor truck and oil containment
booms; the fire department is involved in implementation. To date, Tukwila has developed w
stormwater/water quality management plans for three of the four principal basins in the city:
Fostoria, Riverton, and Gilliam creeks. The city collected data on water quality (pH, •
temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen, total suspended solids, dissolved
metals, and others) as part of these basin stormwater management plans. Water quality
complaints are investigated and referrals given.
Stormwater Regulations: Tukwila has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater •
manual and applies flow control level 1 for most facilities handling runoff.
Maintenance: Tukwila maintains city-owned stormwater facilities and does this work on a •
schedule appropriate to the type of facility. Private owners are responsible for maintaining •
their own facilities.
Stewardship •
Tukwila offers a program to help educate citizens on salmon-friendly gardening choices. •
The city also has participated in and helped organize volunteer activities such as Salmon in •
the Classroom, planting projects, and storm drain stenciling. Tukwila also has an annual
creek restoration program.
Features Particular to City
Tukwila has a city-wide water quality management program, a flood ordinance, a Shoreline •
Master Plan, and six year master plan.
xp//01-0/876000 xria9 nraa a0+a.dac
A-24 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Tukwila has an annual creek restoration program that devotes $50,000 per year for creek
improvements.
Notable Projects
■ In cooperation with other partners, construct a side channel and intertidal
marsh at Codiga Farms. Tukwila is contributing $300,000 to this $1.1 million
Ecosystem Restoration Project.
• ■ In cooperation with other partners, purchase of Duwamish Site 1 for habitat
restoration. Tukwila is contributing $100,000 to this $2 million Ecosystem
Restoration Project.
• ■ In cooperation with other partners, retrofitting or removal of three flap gates
to allow fish passage and habitat improvements at two separate sites. Tukwila
is contributing $225,000 for these Ecosystem Restoration Project projects.
• ■ Reconnect abandoned Nelson Place river channel to create a side channel for
• fish.
■ Replace, improve, or enlarge culverts at four locations to allow for fish
• passage.
■ Construct 27.5 acre-feet regional detention pond in the Gilliam Creek
drainage.
• ■ Construct a high-flow bypass in International Boulevard area.
■ Restore a total of 700 feet of habitat along Southgate and Gilliam creeks.
,�pr ion-nrx;rnonW.mv„r.r.d
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-25
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Seattle
City of Seattle
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 568,100 (2001 est.) (split I;
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 8) ((
Incorporated. 1865
86.9 square miles in the Elliott
Bay/Duwamish and Nearshore ... r .. ...,.. � �_
• subwatersheds
Coordinated City Response to the Endangered Species Act Listing
Programs and Expertise: Each Seattle department is responsible for reviewing its current
• policies programs and practices to determine their relationship to salmon protection. The city
. has funded a salmon team with representatives from many departments to develop the city's
Endangered Species Act approach and ensure salmon enhancement is integrated into capital
projects, operations, and programs city-wide. Seattle has full-time Endangered Species Act
• coordinators for each of the watersheds in which the city is involved.
Land Use and Riparian Condition
Seattle is in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Plan as required by state law.
Several interim regulations are being considered until this update is completed. Seattle has a
fisheries biologist with special expertise to work with developers as they respond to salmon
• recovery issues. Pre-application inspection was begun early (February 2000) for
environmentally sensitive areas and was extended to all projects with land disturbance by
July 2001. The site development team makes a site visit to determine pre-development
• conditions and to let the applicant know what studies will be required with the application. A
• variety of incentives are available to private landowners to transfer development from rural
areas in exchange for additional height in the city.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams and near-shore areas.
• Requirements vary according to the nature of the stream (whether permanent or intermittent)
w and whether the proposed land use is water dependent or not. The typical range of buffer
width is given below.
• Classification Buffer Width
Streams 25 feet intermittent;50 feet,perennial
Shoreline 0 to 75 feet, depending on whether use is water
• dependent or not
,rpl/0/-lJIN76-000ia9 nlao apz adnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-27
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Seattle has several programs to acquire or recover salmon habitat both within the city and in
watershed areas owned and operated by the city. Neighborhoods interested in restoring or
protecting habitat can apply to the $3.5 million Neighborhood Matching Fund to support •
these activities. Seattle also has a significant tree ordinance that requires protection of trees •
both in public areas and on private property.
Stormwater and Water Quality •
Construction Regulation: Erosion and sediment control plans are required of development •
and construction. The site development team includes erosion control issues in its pre-
application inspection. Seattle inspects erosion control facilities after installation and may
return for additional inspections, the frequency varying with the size and complexity of the
project. For especially complex projects or projects near sensitive resources, on-site private •
inspectors can be required for development as a State Environmental Policy Act condition •
and also as a part of regulations associated with critical areas. An additional shoreline
inspector has been added, and inspectors have the authority to halt work and issue fines.
Education is offered through internal courses for staff on erosion and sedimentation control.
Water Quality Controls: Seattle distributes educational material to discourage the misuse of
pesticides and other contaminants and recently instituted a pesticides-free park program,
which includes the Fairmont playfield in WRIA 9. The city has a spill response program that
includes staff coordinators on duty around the clock seven days a week. Either city staff or •
contractors provide spill response. Source control is provided through a business inspection •
program that will soon expand from 1.5 to 4 inspectors. Seattle also has contracted with the
Environmental Coalition of South Seattle to provide source control information, voluntary
inspections, and advice for businesses in some parts of south Seattle. Seattle is a partner in •
the remedial investigation for the Duwamish Superfund Cleanup, a major regional water •
quality project. Seattle collects water quality data on metals and nutrients. Water quality
complaints can be made via a hotline; these are investigated and referrals are given.
Stormwater Regulations: Seattle has adopted and uses its own stormwater manual that •
includes features from the manuals of both the Department of Ecology and King County.
Rather than flow control levels, Seattle sets flat discharge rates based on the size of project,
which better reflects the fact that near complete buildout has already occurred in the city.
Maintenance: Seattle is responsible for maintaining city-owned stormwater facilities; private
owners are responsible for maintaining their own. Although there are no incentives for
maintenance, inspections are made every three to five years.
Stewardship
Seattle offers numerous programs to help educate citizens and businesses about all aspects of
water-related stewardship. It offers grants to assist community groups doing projects that
improve and protect surface water resources. Longfellow Creek has been a focus of property
w-�i ioi-oix%boon ,rovmao�:a.dx •
A-28 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
acquisition, habitat restoration, and stewardship. Recently the city purchased several lots on
the creek to better protect this important resource. Other work has focused on restoring fish
• access to Fauntleroy Creek. Citizens in this area have recently completed a watershed action
• plan. Stewardship programs range from hands-on (such as the removal of invasive species,
planting along creeks and charity car wash kits to prevent soapy water from entering storm
drains) to education programs like the Beach Naturalist Program. In addition to an extensive
water conservation program (which includes incentives for purchasing water efficient toilets
• and washing machines), Seattle has offered creekside living workshops, a green gardening
program that explains alternatives to pesticides, a program focused on composting and
natural lawn care, and a program to work with commercial users to improve irrigation
efficiency and increase the use of water-smart technology. The city has participated in the
• Northwest Flower and Garden Show to demonstrate a salmon-friendly garden, offering the
• public sound landscape alternatives. Seattle runs a program to bring salmon-related
curriculum into the schools, offers grants to schools to convert asphalt to green spaces, and
provides kits for storm drain stenciling, which reminds people not to dump toxics into storm
• drains.
Nearshore Activities
Buffers of 25 to 50 feet are required for streams, with intermittent streams having narrower
buffers and permanent streams having wider buffers. Shoreline buffers range from 0 to 75
• feet, the widest buffers applying where there are not water dependent uses, and narrower or
• no buffers for water-dependent uses. Docks, piers, bulkheads, and riprap are regulated and
assistance is offered to minimize shoreline erosion. Seattle offers assistance and guidance to
those who must manage stormwater in bluff areas.
w�i im-niN-rnnnw.;n9mnnnpzn.doc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-29
•
• Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
• $:.
IMF
• Nearshore Subwatershe
•
•
City of SeaTac city of SeaTac
• Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat .
Population:25,380 (2001 est.)
Incorporated: 1990
•
12 square miles in the Lower Green
• River and Nearshore subwatersheds
•
• Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: In 2001, the city reviewed current policies, programs and practices
to determine their relationship to salmon protection. SeaTac has staff with special expertise
to review proposed development and identify resource protection issues, and SeaTac offers
incentives on a case-by-case basis to private landowners who protect or restore habitat
voluntarily.
• Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams. In addition to these
buffers, a 15-foot building setback is required for all stream classes.
Classification Buffer Width
Class 1 100 feet
Class 2 salmon- 100 feet
• bearing
Class 2 50 feet
Class 3 25 feet
•
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: SeaTac inspects Public Works Department construction sites daily
• and other sites periodically for the control of erosion and sedimentation, more frequently
during months of inclement weather. Inspectors have the authority to halt work. Education
• is offered for staff on erosion and sedimentation control. Staff members attend training
courses taught by the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, the
University of Washington, or other agencies.
WR/A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-31
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Water Quality Controls: SeaTac has a spill response program in partnership with the Public
Works Department and the Department of Ecology. Water quality complaints are
investigated and referrals given; information on control of pollutants is available to •
businesses and residents.
Stormwater Regulations: SeaTac has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater
manual. S
Maintenance: The city is responsible for maintaining stormwater facilities and uses
contractors for some of this work. Commercial and industrial owners are responsible for
maintaining their own facilities; incentives are offered for this maintenance, and inspections
made annually. In 2000, SeaTac implemented a program in which multi-family, commercial, •
and industrial property owners who document maintenance of their stormwater facilities •
receive a 25 percent rebate of their surface water management fees. The city also offers to
have these systems cleaned at the same rates as the city receives.
Stewardship
SeaTac offers a program to help educate citizens on salmon-friendly gardening choices,
offers other classes and workshops on waste reduction and recycling and household
hazardous waste, and hosts collection events for other wastes such as tires and appliances.
r
Notable Projects
■ Upgrade the design and maintenance of the 204`h Street detention pond to help
protect water quality in Des Moines Creek.
Install a swale in the median of 281h/24th Avenue to aid in flood control,
infiltration, and water quality. •
.Pi 1o1-oie7o-000w.;a9nmaoPso.d
A 3)2 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Burien city of Burien
r �
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat ` i
Population: 31,830 (2001 est.)
s
• Incorporated: 1993
6.9 square miles in the
Nearshore suhwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: In 2002, Burien will do a thorough review of current policies,
programs and practices to determine their relationship to salmon protection. If development
is proposed for a sensitive area, Burien requires a stream/wetland report that is peer reviewed
• by specialized consultants. Burien offers incentives to private landowners who protect or
• restore habitat voluntarily.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required near streams and nearshore areas, and the city has
a program to acquire or recover salmon habitat.
• Classification Buffer Width
• Class I stream 100 feet
and Class 2 with salmonids
Class 2 50 feet
• Class 3 25 feet
Nearshore 20 feet from
ordinary high water
mark
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Burien inspects construction sites at least once a week for the
control of erosion and sedimentation; more if the weather is wet. Inspectors have the
• authority to halt work and issue fines. Educational materials are given to contractors on
erosion and sedimentation control.
Water Quality Controls: The city contracts with King County Roads Division for spill
. response and works to find those responsible for any spill. Burien is actively involved in the
. Miller Creek Basin Plan, which addresses regional water quality. The city is a member of the
Airport Cities Coalition, which collects water quality data on Miller, Walker, and Des
Moines creeks. The Coalition collects information on pH, dissolved oxygen,temperature,
• and heavy metals in each creek. Water quality complaints are investigated and referrals
npl/01-01876-000n• Ont—p—d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-33
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
given; information on control of pollutants is available to existing businesses and residents
through the fire department and is made available for new construction through the
planning/public works department. i
Stormwater Regulations: Burien has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater
manual, and applies flow control levels 1 and 2 to facilities handling runoff, depending on
the need.
Maintenance: Burien is currently in the process of setting up a stormwater utility. Currently, •
King County sets and collects a stormwater management fee and handles inspection and
maintenance of all publicly and privately owned stormwater facilities.
Nearshore Activities
Setbacks of 20 feet are required from shorelines, and Burien offers assistance and guidance
to those who must manage.stormwater in bluff areas. Both the Critical Areas Ordinance and
the King County manual provide guidance on stormwater management on bluffs. The city
works with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to encourage developers to .
employ best management practices related to shoreline erosion. Bulkheads and riprap are .
discouraged(though allowed), and docks, piers, bulkheads and riprap are regulated. Burien
is also involved with the Nearshore General Investigation Study with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and other jurisdictions.
Features Particular to City
Burien has two unique approaches for protecting salmon that utilize the land use planning
process. One is a binding site plan system that allows flexibility in development design,
encouraging low-impact development strategies. The second is a moratorium on filling of •
stormwater ditches and conveyances.
Notable Projects •
Under a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant, Burien is studying alternatives for removing
all or part of the seawall at Seahurst Park. Burien also actively pursues the acquisition of •
valuable and sensitive habitat. Two important properties are being acquired now: •
■ A parcel adjoining Seahurst Park
■ A seven-acre property along the Puget Sound waterfront, paid for in part by a
proposed Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant.
.'nl 101-01876-000.,w9m-,p+ d •
A-34 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
i
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Normandy Park City of Normandy Park
i
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
Population: 6,405 (2001 est.)
i
Incorporated. 1953
3.0 square miles in the Nearshore
subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Normandy Park expects to review current policies,programs, and
practices to determine their relationship to salmon protection in 2002. Through its Sensitive
Areas Ordinance,the city requires developers to file specialized environmental reports to
• respond to salmon recovery issues on specific properties.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams and near-shore areas,
and the city has a program to acquire or recover salmon habitat.
Classification Buffer Width
Salmon bearing 100 feet
• Nearshore 100 feet
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: Normandy Park inspects construction sites every two weeks for
• the control of erosion and sedimentation; inspectors have the authority to halt work and issue
• fines. Educational materials are offered to contractors with their building permit
applications.
Water Quality Controls: Activities near streams are controlled through the enforcement of
buffers. The city has a spill response program. Normandy Park is involved in a joint project
with the Airport Cities Coalition to collect water quality information on three streams in the
area. Data collected include pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and heavy metals. Water
quality complaints are investigated and referrals given; information on control of pollutants is
• available to businesses and residents.
Stormwater Regulations: Normandy Park has adopted and uses the 1998 King County
sormwater manual and applies flow control levels according to what is in the manual.
,�Pr ia-nixse-000..;ov,.ra„ood
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-35
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Maintenance: Normandy Park maintains all city swales and catch basins and inspects large
facilities on an annual basis.
Stewardship
Normandy Park offers classes on composting as a salmon-friendly practice.
e
Nearshore Activities •
Setbacks of 100 feet are required from shorelines and bluffs. Normandy Park, together with
the other central Puget Sound cities, is working to develop educational signage for its .
beaches. This signage will provide beach-goers with information about the nearshore
environment.
Features Particular to City
Normandy Park has a brochure for residents that offers information on wetlands, construction •
erosion control, waste reduction, and other topics that will help citizens determine how each
can aid in salmon recovery.
Normandy Park is doing an engineering study to bring the city into compliance with federal
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements. ,
Notable Projects •
■ Acquire a parcel with wetlands near Nature Trails Park .
■ Acquire a parcel with wetlands and a stream within the Walker Creek basin
■ Conducted stream restoration along Miller Creek with Trout Unlimited.
.Pl 101-01676-01)0.„w nmo onro.dr,�
A-36 WR1A 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
City of Des Moines
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat city of Des Moines
Population:29,600(2001 est.)
a
Incorporated: 1959
5.8 square miles in the
Nearshore subwatershed
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: Des Moines reviewed current policies, programs and practices in
2000 to determine their relationship to salmon protection. The city has staff with special
expertise to review proposed developments and identify resource protection issues.
• Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required near streams and near-shore areas; the width of
these buffers depends upon the classification of the stream (WDNR Classification).
• Classification i Buffer Width
Significant streams(Types 1, 100 feet
2,and 3)
• Important streams(Types 4 35 feet
and 5)
• Stormwater and Water Quality
• Construction Regulation: Des Moines inspects construction sites more than once for control
of erosion and sedimentation; often these are surprise inspections. Inspectors have the
i authority to halt work and issue fines. Staff members attend courses on erosion and
sedimentation control and receive certification. On-site inspectors are required for city
. projects; private developments must file an erosion control plan.
Water Quality Controls: Des Moines has a spill response program. The city is involved in
the Des Moines Creek Basin Plan, and has developed a basin plan for Massey Creek and
• Barnes Creek to address flooding and regional water quality. In 2001 the city completed a
5-year water quality monitoring program that collected water quality data from its four major
streams including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, fecal coliform, total
suspended solids, phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates, nitrites, copper, lead, and zinc as well as
benthic invertebrate sampling. The city plans to continue water quality testing at all creek
• outlets every three years starting in 2003. Water quality complaints are investigated and
referrals given; information on control of pollutants is available to businesses and residents.
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-37
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions •
Stormwater Regulations: Des Moines has adopted and uses the 1998 King County
stormwater manual.
r
Maintenance: The city is responsible for maintaining city-owned and single-family •
residential stormwater facilities, as well as other facilities that contract with the city for these
services. Maintenance occurs twice per year for major facilities and biannually for
conveyance systems. Des Moines is working on an ordinance to require maintenance of S
private facilities and will inspect private facilities as part of the enforcement of this program. •
Stewardship i
Des Moines works with groups to help support volunteer restoration and salmon recovery
events, particularly in Des Moines Creek. Parks crews help water plants in restoration
projects, and the city provides publicity through its newsletter. •
Nearshore Activities ,
Setbacks are required from bluffs, and the city offers assistance and guidance to those who
must manage stormwater in slide-prone bluff areas. The city also works extensively with its
marina, using best management practices and installing signs about water quality and other .
shoreline issues.
Features Particular to City
Des Moines is working with the City of Kent to make major improvements to stormwater .
facilities along Pacific Highway South, bringing the facilities to a pre-development state. •
The city hopes to do this for all major arterials.
The city is currently doing an in-depth study of the Redondo Waterfront to determine how •
best to improve recreation facilities and stormwater management of that area. e
Des Moines sends citizens a newsletter with helpful and interesting information on issues
related to water, water quality, and fish.
The city is reviewing parcel information along significant stream corridors for potential
property acquisition or conservation easements.
Notable Projects
■
Replace culvert and improve fish passage at 16t"Avenue where a road slide '
and collapsed culvert had occurred in 1999. •
wpl ini-wasc-ooa .tOw—➢—do, •
A-38 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
■ Replace culvert and make other major improvements along Marine View
Drive at Massey Creek and Des Moines Creek crossings, including
. daylighting 250 feet of Des Moines Creek.
■ Replace undersized culvert with two bridges along 1 Oth Avenue at Massey
Creek crossing to open up fish passage and daylight stream.
a ■
. Refurbish and increase acreage of a 2-acre wetland near Barnes Creek,
construct wetland biofiltration detention facility, replace culvert, and daylight
about 150 feet of Barnes Creek.
•
• ■ Remove a significant fish barrier by replacing the culvert near the confluence
of Barnes Creek and Massey Creek, where Barnes Creek passes beneath Kent-
Des Moines Road.
■ Widening the lower channel of Massey Creek between 1 Oth Avenue and
Marine View Drive to provide stream complexity and habitat features.
•
•
•
i
•
r
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-39
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
� City of Federal Way -----___--.--_�_-- _ --
• City of Federal Way
Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat
i Population: 83,890 (2001 est.) (split
between WRIA 9 and WRIA 10) '
E
• Incorporated. 1990
21.5 square miles in the Nearshore and
E'.
Lower Green River subwatersheds - -
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: In 2001, Federal Way reviewed current policies, programs and
practices to determine their relationship to salmon protection. The city has staff with special
. expertise to work with developers as they respond to salmon recovery issues. Federal Way
• offers incentives to private landowners who protect or restore habitat voluntarily. These
incentives include streamlined permitting for those including salmon recovery or protection
efforts in their projects and reduced fees if the developer goes beyond standards.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers are required on salmon-bearing streams and wetlands
depending on the particular classification of the stream or shoreline.
• Classification Buffer Width
Salmon bearing streams 100 feet through State
Environmental Policy
Act
Other streams 50 feet minimum
Salmon bearing wetlands 200 feet
Other wetlands 25-100 feet
Federal Way has a program to acquire and recover salmon habitat.
Stormwater and Water Quality
Construction Regulation: The city inspects construction sites frequently(more than five
times during construction) for the control of erosion and sedimentation. Inspectors have the
authority to halt work and issue fines. Staff members are sent to WSDOT training on erosion
and sedimentation control and are given the opportunity to attend local and national meetings
. of the International Erosion Control Association. The Surface Water Management division
provides training to building inspectors so that they can ensure that erosion control measures
are working properly. Federal Way provides handouts to single-family residential
contractors on erosion sediment control practices, and holds pre-construction meetings with
+,pl/01.0/87G-000 uria9 ninn npx adnc _
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-41
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
all contractors in which erosion and sediment control are discussed. On-site private
inspectors are required for development as a State Environmental Policy Act condition. i
s
Water Quality Controls: Activities near streams such as animal access, certain farming
activities, development and herbicide use, are controlled and the city has a very
comprehensive spill response program that includes all public works field employees and fire
and police personnel as well. Federal Way is involved in the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project. Federal Way collects data on water quality including temperature, pH,
conductivity, turbidity and dissolved oxygen. Water quality complaints are investigated and •
referrals given; information on control of pollutants is available to businesses and residents.
Stormwater Regulations: The city has adopted and uses the 1998 King County stormwater
manual modified to fit Federal Way needs. The city applies three flow control levels,
depending on the facility and stream affected.
Maintenance: Federal Way is responsible for maintaining city-owned stormwater facilities
three times a year. The city also inspects any new single-family facilities, and older ones that •
are transferred to the city. Private owners are responsible for maintaining their own facilities, .
usually biannually. Fines can be levied if private owners do not maintain their facilities.
Also, Federal Way offers private owners the opportunity to apply for reduced surface-water
management fees if they maintain their facilities properly. i
Stewardship
Federal Way offers classes and workshops on salmon-friendly activities (these are offered
through the Stream Team) and expects to soon hire a person to organize green gardening
programs. Federal Way also offers compost bins at reduced rates, and has a strong recycling •
program.
Nearshore Activities
Bulkheads, riprap, docks, and piers are regulated. Setbacks are required from shorelines and
bluffs. These depend on land use,the critical area designation, zoning, and lot size. The w
State Environmental Policy Act process can be used to increase buffers and setbacks; the
typical baseline buffer is 50 to 75 feet. Federal Way can offer assistance and guidance to
those who must manage stormwater in bluff areas.
Features Particular to City
■ Federal Way is at the forefront of stormwater planning and implementation
and nearshore protection. The city was recognized by the Department of
Ecology for its efforts in 1998.
Bpi iar-aix;a-onn v o d .
A-42 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
■ Federal Way has updated and produced a detailed water quality protection
i map displaying standards to be met in different parts of the city. This aid is
available to staff and developers and is posted in the permitting division.
Notable Projects
■ Stream stabilization and habitat enhancement programs along the south fork
of Lakota Creek
■ Stream stabilization and habitat enhancement along the east fork of Lakota
Creek.
wpl/01-0IA-6-000-iOM-p-d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-43
i
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
Unincorporated King
County
Unincorporated
King County
40 Efforts to Recover Salmon Habitat IA
Population: 130,000 (2001 rough est.)
Chartered: 1853
Area: unavailable
I n
Land Use and Riparian Conditions
Programs and Expertise: King County has reviewed its current policies, programs, and
practices to determine their relationship to protection of salmon habitat. A large number of
staff with special expertise (ecologists, fish biologists, earth scientists, hydrologists, and
water quality specialists) work with developers, land owners, cities, and other agencies to
ensure implementation of regulations and programs designed to protect salmon. In 2000,
code changes were made to presume that certain types of streams are used by salmonids
based on stream characteristics rather than solely salmon presence. A 24-hour hotline was
also established to report clearing and grading complaints and related activities that affect
salmon habitat.
• King County is a partner with Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila in the Green River Basin
Program. Established under Flood Control Zone District provisions, the primary purpose of
the Basin Program is flood protection, but most projects and maintenance on the Green River
i revetments include riparian and in-stream habitat improvements such as levee setbacks,
plantings, and large woody debris.
Buffers and Habitat: Buffers or setbacks are required on all streams and nearshore areas.
. Stream and Shoreline Buffer Width
Classification
i Class 1 or Class 2 with 100 feet with additional 15-foot
. salmonids(or presumed building setback line
salmon use)
Class 2 without salmonids 50 feet with building setback
Class 3 25 feet with building setback
Shoreline—Conservancy 50 feet
Shoreline—Rural 20 feet
Since 1995, King County has acquired 670 acres in the Middle Green subwatershed through
the Waterways 2000 program. Most of these acquisitions have focused on riparian areas and
vP//0!-OI N'G-000 vrioY mm�npr adnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-45
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
several have since included habitat enhancement and restoration. Since 1998, over 300 40
additional acres have been acquired through other funding sources. i
Stormwater and Water Quality 0
Construction Regulation: King County requires erosion and sediment control on all S
construction projects. A dedicated erosion and sediment control inspector enforces
construction requirements and can issue violation notices or post stop work orders. +�
Education is offered for staff and contractors on erosion and sediment control practices and
onsite private inspectors are required for some developments as a State Environmental Policy a
Act condition.
Water Quality Controls: King County has a spill response program implemented through •
local fire districts and the King County Department of Transportation. In 1999, King County
implemented a cross-departmental Integrated Pest Management Program that resulted in
seven departments phasing out use of 17 different chemicals such as herbicides and
pesticides. The county has a program to promote implementation of best management
practices for both livestock and ditch maintenance practices. A livestock ordinance,
including the development of farm plans on individual farms, helps protect water quality. i
The county is involved in several regional water quality projects, including a combined sewer
overflow control program and the Green Water Quality Assessment. Water quality data are S
routinely collected at approximately 20 sites; parameters assessed include temperature,
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,turbidity, nutrients, bacteria, and metals. Water quality
complaints are investigated and referrals given; information on control of pollutants is
available to businesses and residents. 0
Stormwater Regulations: King County updated its Surface Water Design Manual in 1998 to
address stormwater management for new development. Several cities in the
Green/Duwamish watershed have also adopted this manual. Level 2 flow control
requirements are applied in much of the Middle Green River subwatershed and portions of
the Lower Green. Level 1 flow control is required in most of the Newaukum Creek subbasin. •
King County is working to develop low-impact development alternatives to reduce
generation of stormwater runoff.
Maintenance: King County is responsible for maintaining public stormwater facilities,
including many residential facilities; private owners are responsible for maintaining
commercial and multi-family facilities and those managed by homeowners' associations.
Inspections are done annually; maintenance occurs as needed, based on inspections.
Monitoring
King County runs a number of programs to monitor the condition of aquatic resources. In
addition to the Green Water Quality Assessment, the county monitors stream flow, routine
water quality, small lakes, and aquatic insect populations at various locations in WRIA 9. In
,pi ion-oleic-noo—i vN n d
A-46 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
i
e
0
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
2001, the county initiated several monitoring efforts, including: 1) seining in the Lower
Green River to quantify juvenile salmonid outmigration, 2) a bull trout investigation in the
' Middle Green, and 3) nearshore seining for species composition and timing (supported by
King Conservation District funds). King County also does monitoring of capital
improvement projects, as well as bank restoration and maintenance projects along the Lower
and Middle Green River.
Stewardship
King County sponsors classes and workshops in stewardship of land, water, and forest
resources. The county helps organize and participates in a wide variety of volunteer planting
and restoration activities, primarily in unincorporated King County. The county regularly
sponsors volunteer riparian restoration in park lands adjacent to the Green River. Since
1998, volunteers have planted over 6,000 trees and shrubs in publicly owned riparian zones
throughout the basin. The county has three watershed stewards in WRIA 9 in the Middle
Green River subwatershed,Newaukum Creek basin, and Vashon/Maury Island. The county
is a primary promoter of the grasscycling and mulching mower sales promotion, which is
carried out in cooperation with various cities in the WRIA.
Nearshore Activities
Setbacks of 50 feet(conservancy) and 20 feet (rural) are required from shorelines and 50 feet
or more, depending on bluff height, from bluffs (i.e.,top-of-slope). King County offers
! assistance and guidance for management of stormwater in bluff areas. Docks, piers,
bulkhead, and riprap are regulated, and assistance is offered to minimize shoreline erosion.
i
. Features Particular to County
King County has a biosolids management program that involves application of biosolids to
' improve soils and enhance the growth of forests and agricultural crops. Soils for Salmon, a
new program, concentrates on building healthy soils in both new and existing developments.
Saving and reusing topsoil and amending soils with compost will reduce the need to water,
add fertilizer, and apply pesticides and fertilizers, which in turn will improve water quality.
Notable Projects (1998-2001)
i ■ King County preservation and enhancement projects: Big Spring Creek (79
acres), Metzler (74 acres) and Kanaskat North(75 acres) acquisitions with
grant support from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board; Porter Levee and
. Hatchery Park restoration projects (revegetation and volunteer planting
events)
■ King County Capital Improvement Projects and Small Habitat Projects— 11
projects completed from 1998-2001: Examples include O'Grady Park stream
• „xi ia-axsanoo,r;wm ao:a.d„
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda A-47
0
•
Appendix A—Activities by WRIA 9 Jurisdictions
•
connection, Hamm Creek Estuary Channel Realignment project,
revegetation/planting at Soos Creek enhancement (Lundberg—RM 2.3),
Neeley small habitat project .
■ Green River Basin Program projects (King County, Auburn, Kent, Renton,
and Tukwila)— 12 projects completed from 1998-2001 including revetment
repairs, levee setbacks, habitat enhancement, and acquisitions: Examples
include Russell Road lower and upper revetment projects (RM 19-20),
Christian Brothers (RM 17.1), Boeing setback levee (4000 feet from RM 17.2-
18.0), and Mullen Slough Nursery acquisition (14 acres) at mouth of Green
River (restoration planned for 2002).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
wp//01-0/876-000 wria9 nroa apr a.rloc
A-48 WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
•
•
•
•
• APPENDIX B
•
•
Riparian Management Provisions
• p g
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
r
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
Appendix 8—Riparian Management Provisions
Table B-1. Riparian management provisions of the Plum Creek Timber Company Habitat Conservation Plan, the Tacoma Public Utilities
Habitat Conservation Plan, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Forest
Practices Rules (WAC 222)
No Harvest
Program Total Buffer Zone Outer Zone(s) Calculation Details Notes
Plum Creek"fimtier Company Habitat Conservation Flan(I1CP)
Fish-bearing streams 200 feet on each side of 30 feet 170 feet N/A Outer zone of buffer is managed for large woody debris
stream recruitment,late successional forest structure,channel
migration and slope stability. Buffers are feathered such that
more large trees are left at inner portion. Experience to date
indicates that less than 15%of these buffers will be
harvested.
Non-fish-bearing 100 feet on each side of 30 feet 70 feet N/A Buffers established only if stream is on federal late
streams stream successional reserve land,in an adaptive management area,
or where elevation and topography are suitable for spotted
owl dispersal.Experience to date indicates that less than 15%
of these buffers will be harvested.
4 'ashington State Department of Natural Resources(1i DNR)Habitat Conservation Man
Type 1-3 streams 100 feet or one site- 25 feet Depends on site: Horizontal distance from,and In the outer zone minimal harvest is allowed,or that harvest
potential tree height, potential tree height,but perpendicular to,the outer margin of which does not appreciably decrease stream shading,
whichever is greater,on at least 75 feet the 100-year floodplain. interception of sediment,or capacity of the buffer to provide
each side of stream nutrients and large woody debris. WDNR anticipates that
Type 4 streams 100 feet on each side of 25 feet 75 feet Same as above only ecological restoration and selective removal of single
trees would occur in this zone. After 100 feet the buffer is a
stream low-harvest area,where selective removal of single trees or
groups of trees,thinning operations,and salvage operations
would occur.
Wind buffers Type 1-2, 100 feet,Type N/A 100 feet Type 1-2,50 in addition to riparian buffers Established if the stands near Type 1-3 streams are prone to
3,50 feet feet,Type 3 windthrow. Added to both sides if strong winds affect both
sides of the stream.
Tacoma Public Utilities Habitat Conservation Plan
Type I &2 streams 200 feet 200 feet None N/A Tacoma will manage HCP lands above the diversion dam
according to three designations:Natural Zone,Conservation
Zone,and Commercial Zone. The Natural Zone(5,850
acres)is a no-harvest zone. No even-aged harvesting is
allowed in the Conservation Zone(5,180 acres),and no
harvest of any kind is allowed in conifer stands over 100
ears old. Uneven-aged harvest may occur in stands less than
uplkryJ 101-018-6-000m9 w a/rr hdnc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda B-I
Appendix B—Riparian Management Provisions
Table B-1. Riparian management provisions of the Plum Creek Timber Company Habitat Conservation Plan,the Tacoma Public Utilities
Habitat Conservation Plan,the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Forest
Practices Rules (WAC 222)
No Harvest
Program Total Buffer Zone Outer Zone(s) Calculation Details Notes 7-
100 years old for the purpose of accelerating or enhancing the
development of late-seral stage forests. Tacoma will manage
the Commercial Zone(3858 acres)for even-aged harvesting
on a 70-year rotation. Hardwood stands in the Conservation
and Commercial Zones capable of supporting conifers may
be clearcut and replanted with conifers. Salvage harvesting
may occur except within the Natural Zone or in stands over
100 years old in the Conservation Zone. When conducting
all harvesting,Tacoma will retain all safe snags and at least 4
green recruitment trees per acre. Clearcuts in the HCP area
will not exceed 40 acres,and uneven-aged and salvage
harvest units will not exceed 120 acres without prior review
by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and
approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Even-aged harvesting will
occur only when the surrounding forestland is stocked with
conifers at least 5 years old or 5 feet high. Timber harvest in
the Upper Green will occur only on sites with a Douglas fir
site-index of 80 or greater.
Type 3 200 feet 150 feet 50 feet N/A The Outer Zone is a partial-harvest buffer of 50 feet. In these
areas,the 70 largest conifers per acre will be left in.the
buffer. Preference will be given to trees that may contribute
large woody debris or are already used by wildlife.
Otherwise,the trees closest to the stream will be left.
Type 4 50 to 100 feet 50 to 100 feet None N/A Type 4 buffers will be expanded to 100 feet in certain areas,
including confluences with other streams and along low-
gradient reaches.
Type 5 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet N/A The Outer Zone is a partial-harvest buffer of 25 feet. In these
areas,the 50 largest conifers per acre will be left in the
buffer. Preference will be given to trees that may contribute
large woody debris or are already used by wildlife.
Otherwise,the trees closest to the stream will be left.
N,l /01-018 76-000 u'rin9 wl px 8.dx
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda B-2
• • • . ! • *► i ♦ • • • • i 60090009i00a 0
Appendix B—Riparian Management Provisions
Table B-1. Riparian management provisions of the Plum Creek Timber Company Habitat Conservation Plan, the Tacoma Public Utilities
Habitat Conservation Plan, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan,and the Forest
Practices Rules (WAC 222)
No Harvest
Program Total Buffer Zone Outer Zone(s) Calculation Details Notes
Forest Practices Rules
— ..._............---,_-_.__�- --� _ ----- —
Type S&F streams 90 to 200 feet 50 feet 40 to 150 feet Horizontally from the outer edge of Several management options are available for the inner zone,
the bankfull width or the channel but forestry must be conducted to meet or exceed stand
migration zone,whichever is greater. requirements that protect aquatic resources and riparian
Total width depends upon the soils at functions. The outer zone must have 20 trees per acre left
the site and the management option after harvest. These regulations do not limit construction of
chosen for the inner zone. stream crossings(roads).
Type Np and Ns streams 30 to 50 feet See notes See notes Horizontally from the outer edge of On Np streams,no-harvest 50-foot buffers are required in
the bankfull width or the channel sensitive areas,such as upstream of confluence with Type S
migration zone,whichever is greater. or F waters,seeps,etc. At least 50%of a Type Np stream's
length must be buffered on both sides in segments not less
than 100 feet. Where 50-foot buffers are not established on
Np streams,and on all Ns streams,30-foot equipment
limitation zones established on each side.These regulations
do not limit construction of stream crossings(roads).
Exempt parcels 29 to 115 feet See notes See notes Horizontally from the outer edge of If a parcel is 20 contiguous acres or less,and if the landowner
the bankfull width or the channel owns less than 80 acres,then the rules in effect on January 1,
migration zone,whichever is greater, 1999,apply. Within the buffer,landowners must leave 50%
and extends to the line where the of all trees alive and undamaged,and randomly distributed
vegetation changes from wetland to where feasible. These buffers are subject to shade
upland or the line required to leave requirements outlined below.
sufficient shade(see below),
whichever is greater.
Shade requirements See notes See notes See notes Outside bull trout overlay,use Within the bull trout overlay,all available shade must be
temperature prediction method retained within 75 ft.of the edge of the bankf ill width or the
outlined in WAC to determine outer edge of the channel migration zone,whichever is
appropriate shade levels. greater,along Type S or F waters. Outside the bull trout
overlay,no tree may be harvested within 75 ft.of the outer
edge of the bankfull width or the channel migration zone if
the calculations show that it is providing the shade necessary
to meet water temperature standards. Shade requirements are
in addition to riparian management zone requirements. If the
calculations indicate the site is substandard,no shade may be
removed from the riparian management zone. These
regulations do not limit construction of stream crossings
(roads).
nolwpJ/0/-018�6000 irin9 iirar•nJu h.Bloc
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda B-3
•
! APPENDIX C
•
•
Planned Projects that Benefit Species
S p
• Other Than Chinook Salmon
•
r and Bull Trout
r
•
•
•
i
•
r
•
•
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
i
•
•
i
•
i
r
•
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
This appendix presents information about projects that a variety of sponsors plan to construct in
the watershed between now and 2005. These projects benefit species other than chinook salmon
and bull trout.
Upper Green Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Name Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
Page Mill Create 3 beaded Overwintering Riparian Rehabilitate Tacoma Habitat
a Pond and ponds by blasting; habitat for condition, habitat Conservation
Creek regrade western coho hydro- along Plan and the
outlet channel of modification tributaries Additional
Page Mill Pond and Water Storage
place log weirs for Project
fish access; place
large woody debris;
. place inundation
. tolerant plants;
redesign lower Page
• Mill Creek channel,
• and create spawning
and rearing pools
Upper Store water to create None; benefits None None Tacoma Habitat
reservoir an emergent marsh amphibians Conservation
sub- and wildlife Plan and the
impound- Additional
ment Water Storage
Project
,.pi ins-nix-c-nnn,,.;wwpd,><
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-1
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species •
Middle Green Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
Tacoma Culvert replacement Opens up Fish passage Restore Black e
Pipeline for pipeline 5 at Rock previously access Diamond,
Creek unavailable within City of
habitat tributaries Tacoma
Wild steelhead Capture 40 to 50 Ensures the None None Trout
capture adult fish,transport spawning Unlimited
them to Keta Creek success of
Hatchery where tribal steelhead trout i
members spawn and
incubate fish.
Smolt trap on Annually monitor Provide data to None; fills None; fills Mid-Sound
north fork coho smolts and managers to data gap data gap Fisheries
Newaukum resident cutthroat aid decisions Enhancement
Creek heading downstream Group (lead), .
in spring Trout
Unlimited,
and local •
volunteers
Lake Meridian Construct new stream Improves Water Rehabilitate Green/Duwam
outlet channel, plant 100- habitat quality quality, aquatic ish Ecosystem
foot buffer, create for cutthroat riparian habitat in Restoration
stream habitat trout condition, the Project t
amenities and a new hydro- tributaries
connection to Soos modification •
Creek
Meridian Remove creek from Increase Hydro- Rehabilitate Green/Duwam
Valley Creek concrete flume and habitat modification aquatic ish Ecosystem
provide a complexity habitat in Restoration
reconstructed natural and quality for the Project
channel connected to sockeye, coho, tributaries
Soos Creek chum, pink,
cutthroat?
Burns Creek Reduce sediment Protects water Riparian Enhance Green/Duwam
delivery from Bell quality and condition, habitat ish Ecosystem
Ravine into the creek, increases water within the Restoration
plant along the toes habitat quality quality, tributaries Project •
of the slides in the for coho, sediment
ravine to help chinook, transport
stabilize them, place chum, and
large woody debris, winter
fence off livestock, steelhead
control invasive
species, and plant
riparian habitat
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-2
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
Lower Green Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
• Mill Creek Replacement of Opens up Fish passage Restore Auburn
Tributary 0053 possible fish passage habitat access
culvert blockage (Note: within
' replacement another blockage tributaries
downstream will need
to be removed to
realize fish passage
value)
Auburn south Sub-basin Protects flows Water Rehabilitate Auburn
central sub- conveyance, water and water quality, water
basin quality, and quality hydrology quality
improvement infiltration facilities
for flood relief and
environmental
benefits
Academy Keep sediment out of Improves Water Rehabilitate Auburn
outfall unnamed tributary in Water quality quality water
sedimentation 10 acre landslide area quality
basin
S Sub-basin P Map the flood plain Improves Hydrology, Rehabilitate Auburn
water quality and determine how to water quality water water
wet pond manage future quality quality
M development
. Mill/Garrison/ Develop groundwater Provides Hydrology Rehabilitate Kent
Springbrook sources to augment additional water
Creek base summer low flows in water quality
. flow the stream systems
restoration
Riparian Plant the sides of Provides Riparian Rehabilitate Renton
. planting both the existing and shade, condition aquatic
widened channels of nutrients,and habitat in
Springbrook Creek large woody the
debris for coho tributaries
and cutthroat
trout
S. 126"' St./ Replacement and Opens up Fish Passage Restore Tukwila
38'1'Ave. S enlargement of habitat access to
S. 126t" cross culvert tributaries
on Southgate Creek
,.vi ioi-oix;c-oonx>mvmaavx�e,m
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-3
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
Factors of Strategy •
Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners ,
Gilliam Creek Construction of 27.5 Improves Sediment Rehabilitate Tukwila •
Regional acre-feet detention water quality transport, water
Detention facility water quality
quality •
Tukwila Construction of high Improves Sediment Rehabilitate Tukwila
International flow bypass to divert water quality transport, water
Blvd high peak storm flows water quality
flow bypass from Southgate and quality
Riverton Creeks into
Duwamish
Southgate Restoration of 300 Improves Riparian Rehabilitate Tukwila
Creek above feet of creek, water quality condition, water
133rd installation of check water quality
dams and plantings quality,
sediment
transport
42"d Ave. / Restoration of 200 Improves Riparian Rehabilitate Tukwila
S. 155"' feet of creek, removal water quality condition, water
(Southgate of concrete and water quality
Creek) accumulated quality,
sediment, installation sediment
of check dams and transport
plantings
134"'culvert Replacement of 5 Opens up Fish passage Restore Tukwila ,
replacements driveway culverts habitat access to
within Southgate tributaries
Creek to allow for
fish passage and
increased channel
length
133`d culvert Replacement of Opens up Fish passage Restore Tukwila
replacement S. 133`d cross culvert habitat access to
to allow for fish tributaries
passage.
SHADOW Acquisition of key Protects water Water Rehabilitate SHADOW,
parcels of quality for quality, water Rainier
bog/wetland around coho, cutthroat hydrology, quality Audubon,
Shadow Lake. trout non-native local schools, .
Restoration and species, scouts,
education are planned riparian Friends of .
at the site. condition Soos Creek, .
SCAR,
Cascade Land
Conservancy
WRlA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-4
I
£s
V
^;
Relevant'WRIA Near Term
Actions for Fenton
• 11 Major Actions requiring Fwork programs
• City Departments Already Responding
• Based on input from consultant (Golder)
and ESA work program
• Departments already changing the way
business is done
• Examples of response already evident in
City operations
2
r
WW Action 3
Determine fish use and habitat
priorities within jurisdictions
• Completed Basin Plans that document fish
use
• WRIA Planning has mapped fish use
• Developed Fish Distribution & Habitat
Inventory Report for Renton
• WRIA Planning to help set priorities
-Completed Basin Plans for most of the City including the Black River Basin
within WRIA 9,which included documenting fisheries resources within the
basins.
As part of the WRIA 9 Reconnaissance report, fish use was mapped also.
Using the information that had already been developed in addition to information
from State Fish and Wildlife, we prepared a Fish Distribution and Habitat
Inventory Report for Renton.
The WRIA 9 Planning associated with developing the Conservation Plan will
help us to set priorities with respect to the actions necessary to protect habitat
in Renton.
3
rr
� ev�ncl't.V—
WW Action 7
Improve enforcement of existing
regulations that protect salmon
and salmon habitat
• Immediate investigation of reports of illegal
clearing & grading
• Coordination between inspectors & code
compliance officers
• Additional oversight of construction sites
where problems are reported & verified
4
WW Action 8
Evaluate adequacy of existing regulation
to protect riparian buffers and improve
then where necessary to maintain
functions that protect fish habitat.
• Critical Areas buffer work program
• Evaluate current 25 foot buffer
• Part of mandated GMA update as well as
ESA implementation
• Begin second half 2002- 2003
5
WW Action 9
Promote the use of alternative
shoreline protection techniques
p q
• Pending DOE publication of new Shorelines
Guidelines
• Major work program to implement GMA as
well as ESA
• Relates to riparian buffer work program
6
WW Action 10
Evaluate and improve erosion and
sediment control programs to
reduce sediment entering salmon-
bearing streams
• Erosion control training for inspectors &
plan review staff
• Information handout distributed with
building permits
• Enforcement of erosion/sedimentation
control regulations
WW Action 11
Adopt stormwater standards that
protect salmon
• NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit will
require standards to be updated
• Need to adopt standards equivalent to
Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Manual
• Ecology's standards protect WQ & Habitat
• Begin update in 2002-2003
The City will be required to comply with the Clean Water Act's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Permit
requirements in 2003. This is a permit that is issued for our Municipal Separate
Storm Water Sewer Systems. The permit is issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the program is administered by the Department of
Ecology in Washington State; One of the minimum requirements of the permit
is that we have standards to control runoff from new and and redevelopment
proj ects.
Ecology is expected to require the adoption of standards equivalent to their
2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
Ecology's standards were developed to protect water quality and fish habitat
Work on this will begin in the second half of this year for completion in 2003.
8
WW Action 12
Develop programs and protocols for
the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry
of sediment to salmon streams
• Public facilities are maintained & inspected
• Private facility inspection & maintenance
program to be part of NPDES Permit
requirement
The PBPW Wastewater Maintenance Section currently inspects and maintains
all Public storm water facilities. The City's Maintenance program is effective
protecting water quality and reducing flooding problems.
The NPDES Permit program will require the implementation of a program to
inspect private facilities and to have the authority to insure that they are
maintained.
9
WW Action 13
Review road maintenance practices
and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential
impacts to salmon habitat
• PBPW Maintenance Division has adopted
and are implementing the Tri-County
Regional Road Maintenance Program
• NMFS & USFW supports the Program
Our PBPW Maintenance Division has adopted and are implementing the
Tri-County Regional Road Maintenance Program. The program was developed
by multiple jurisdictions and agencies and identifies maintenance practices and
operating procedures to avoid impacts to salmon habitat.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife
support the Regional Road Maintenance Program.
The NMFS is in the process of incorporating the Program into their 4(d) rule.
10
WW Action 14
Review parks and grounds
maintenance procedures and adopt
written best management practices
that protect salmon and salmon habitat
• Completed Environmental Stewardship
Program Document for the Maplewood
Golf Course
• Parks reviewing ground maintenance
practices as part of City ESA Action Plan
This is similar to the Regional Road Maintenance Program, but focused on
maintenance operations associated with parks.
An Environmental Stewardship Program document was completed in 2001 for the
Maplewood Golf Course by the Parks Department.
The Document includes Best Management Practices for the Golf Course
Maintenance and Operation along with an integrated Pest Management Plan and a
Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Golf Course is using this document insure
that their maintenance and operation procedures do not harm habitat.
The Parks Department will be reviewing their other ground Maintenance
Practices as part of the City ESA Action Plan.
11
WW Action I8
Implement Phase I of the
Ecosystem Restoration Project
• Completed Reconnaissance & Feasibility
Phases for 45 project
• 20 projects included in Phase 1 - Two
projects in Renton
• Possible Cost to Renton is $1 M50,000
• Rate Increase of 3% in 2006 - Worst Case
• Subject to Council Approval during annual
budget process in the future
The Ecosystem Restoration Project is something that we have been working with
the other Jurisdictions within WRIA 9 and the Army Corps of Engineers since
1995. The goal of the Ecosystem Restoration Project is to improve habitat
within the Green/Duwamish watershed in WRIA 9.
The Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phase for 45 projects has been
completed. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $110 million with
65% of the funding from the Army Corps of Engineers, if approved by Congress.
We currently are in the Phase 1 of the Planning Engineering and Design for
twenty of the projects. Two of the projects are in Renton (upper and
Lower Spingbrook Creek).
The Phase 1 PED work is being funded by WRIA 9 Forum King Conservation
District Funds. It is estimated that our share of the construction of the
Renton projects could be $1,050,000, which could require a 3%rate increase in
2006, but this is a worst case scenario. Federal funding for construction has
not been approved yet.
Future funding will be presented for review and Council approval during the
annual budget process.
12
WW Action 19
Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at
the local jurisdiction level
• Inventory of culverts and potential barriers
completed
• Not a significant problem on Springbrook
Creek
• Some culvert replacements are planned in
CIP for flood control will also benefit fish
passage
We currently have a storm system inventory that includes stream culvert
crossing.
Most of the culverts on Springbrook Creek have already been replaced or are
planned to be replace in our effort to reduce flooding in the valley. The few
that remain do not prevent fish passage, so this is not a significant problem on
Springbrook Creek.
When culverts are replaced, they will be designed to improve fish passage.
13
WRIA Plan helps set stage for
City's Response to ESA Issues
Renton Response
— Interdepartmental Task Force
— Consultant Study of existing policies and City
departmental operations
— Recommendations for Action Plan
14
Action Plan Status
• In final draft
• Forward to Council within 1-2 months
• Lists prioritized work programs for City to
take to protect salmonids
• Typically operational or code changes
• Some items to be addressed this year in
Comprehensive Plan update
15
Relationship of WRIA 9
Recommendations to Renton
Action Plan
• Renton Action Plan is Citywide rather than
one watershed
• Recovery goals set at WRIA level
• Way to achieve those goals at jurisdictional
level through Action Plan
16
���
II 31
I9 �u3Jlll13;
.....3. �....:
�r,
f
``1„
JUN.11.2002 1:44PM KC WLRD NO.020 P. 1/8
Y King County
Department of Natural .Resources and Parks
FAX Transmittal Cover Sheet
Water and Land Resources Division
King Street Center
201 S Jackson Ste. 600
Seattle, WA 98104 FAX (206) 296-0192
DATE TIME NUMBER OF PAGLs (INCL. COVER)
To
OFFICE OR FIRM n
FAX J!
4475- w50 - gzII
FROM
SBCTION
TRANSMITTED BY
RE
1 (� r�k ✓"�✓��
COMMENTS
VIUm en 4.)
A n6k,5
G:1FormsIFAJC.doc
JUN. 11.2002 1:45PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.2i8
1 O WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda
City of Renton
Committee of the Whole
June 17, 2002
20 � �TD �
3 0 Near-Term Action Agenda for salmon habitat conservation
• Current and planned activities by other local governments and others to
inform and guide your own activities
• Recommended actions you should review and consider acting on
• Each city/county will be asked for progress report annually
40 Habitat Conservation
Planning Elements
• Reconnaissance Assessment: What do we know now? (Completed December 2000)
• Near-Term Action Agenda:
What can we do now? IApproved March 20M
• Strategic Assessment:What do we need to learn? (2002-2003?1
• Comprehensive Conservation Plan: What will we do in the future? (2002_2004)
5 O Why does the NTAA matter? What questions will it answer?
■ What recommended actions apply across the watershed?
• What should all local governments be looking at over the next 2-4 years?
■ What actions are targeted to my part of the watershed?
6 O Orientation: What the NTAA is
• A limited set of priority actions
Focused on chlnook salmon and bull trout
• Based on what we know now
7 CD Orientation: What the NTAA is (cont.)
Two tasks:
• Describe what we are doing now
• List priority actions for next 2-4 years that are doable if we press our capabilities
a O Orientation: What the NTAA
-is not
• Is not the Comprehensive Salmon Conservation Plan (due in 2004)
• Does not establish recovery goals (these are pending from NMFS and the
1
JUN. 11.2002 1:45PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.2i8
State/tribal co-managers)
• Is not every worthwhile action
• Is not a prioritized list
9 Lf) Orientation: Who Worked
on the NTAA
Steering Committee: multi-stakeholder committee with various subgroups:
• Planning Work Group: mostly policy-focused staff from cities/County plus
environmental, business reps
• hnical Committee: mostly scientists
• Public Outreach Work Group:volunteer citizens and public outreach staff
• Proiects Committee: government staff
10 0 NTAA Organization
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: WRIA 9 & Salmon Conservation
• Chapter 3: WRIA-wide Actions
• Chapter 4: Sub-watershed Actions
• Chapter 5: Implementation
• Appendices
11 Q WRIA 9 Interim Salmon Conservation Strategy
U GOALS
Protect currently functioning habitat
• Ensure adequate juvenile survival in the Lower Green, Duwamish, Elliott Bay
• Restore access for salmon to&from the Upper Subwatershed
Achieve goals with four types of action:
• Protect
• Restore or enhance
• Connect
• Study
12 O Near-Tenn Actions
26 WRIA (watershed)-wide actions & studies
19 Subwatershed-specific
actions & studies
2
JUN. 11.2002 1:46PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.4i9
45 Actions & studies total
130
26 WRIA-wide Actions & Studies
A 14 Protect
4 protect key resources
2 address publlc outreach/involve public
8 improve regulations, procedures
L�-'4 4 Restore / enhance
8 1 Connect
u 7 Study
14 D WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect A
Protect key resources:
1. Inventory currently productive fish habitat, Identify associated habitat-forming
processes
2. Protect habitat and habitat-forming processes
15 O WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect A
Protect key resources:
3. Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions
4. Apply existing Incentives for protection of salmon habltat
16 O WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect c
Public outreach:
5. Identify existing educational materials for salmon conservation messages and make Them available for
use by all
6.Encourage people to contribute personally to salmon conservation through high-vlslbillty outreach
efforts focused on lawnigarden care
17 D WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect A
Improve regulations and procedures:
7.Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and habitat
8.Evaluate adequacy of existing regulations to protect riparian buffers: Improve where necessary to
maintain functions that protect fish habitat
3
JUN. 11.2OO2 1:46PM KC WLRD N0.O2O P.5/8
16 Q
WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect
Improve regulations and procedures:
9. Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques
10.Evaluate and Improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce sediment entering
salmon streams
19 CD WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect A
Improve regulations and procedures:
11.Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon
12.Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater systems and facllltles to reduce
entry of sediment to salmon streams
20 O WRIA-wide Actions:
14 Protect A
Improve regulations and procedures:
13.Review road maintenance practices,adopt written operating procedures to reduce potential impacts
to salmon
14.Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures,adopt written best management practices
21 p WRIA-wide Actions:
4 Restore/Enhance L:
15. Develop WRIA-wide process to Identify,develop,and prioritize projects that benefit salmon and
support the WRIA 9 Interim Salmon Conservation Strategy
16.Create combined naturalist and stewardship activities across WRIA 9
22 WRIA-wide Actions:
4 Restore/Enhance 14.
17. Encourage restoration of riparian buffers
18. Implement Phase I of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
23 O WRIA-wide Actions:
1 Connect
19. Evaluate fish passage barriers at the local jurisdiction level
4
JUN. 11.2002 1:46PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.6i8
24 Q
6 WRIA-wide Studies: 7
1.Monitor habitat restoratlon to determine fish response,apply information to future projects
2.Identify which factors are limiting to salmon
3. Develop research framework for assessing juvenile salmon survival
25 Q
® WRIA-wide Studies (cont)
4. Support the Green/Duwamish Water Quality Assessment
5. Conduct an assessment of large woody debris recruitment
6. Work together to understand and evaluate the water budget for people and
fish
7, Develop mechanisms to increase collaboration and coordination in scientific
work
26 LD
19 Subwatershed Actions in
5 Subwatersheds
A Protect (3)
L'Q Restore/enhance (7)
8 Connect (1)
i Study (8)
272 Lower Green River Sub-watershed
2s Q
Subwatershed Actions:
Lower Green River
1. Incorporate recommendatlons that support salmon,especially juvenile chinook,Into Miff Creek
Reoonnalssance&Action Plans
2.Restore Lower Green River habitats
5
TUN. 11.2002 1:46PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.7i8
29 0
Subwatershed Actions:
Lower Green River
3.IdenlJ 6 pursue opportunities to enhance i restore high quallty salmon habltats on agricultural lands
while maintaining viable agriculture
30 Q
Subwatershed Studies:
Lower Green River
I. Conduct Lower Green baseline habitat mapping
2, Establish Water Quality sampling site at River Mile 21
31 O Funding Sources
Available to cities/County:
• King Conservation District grants
• Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board
• King County WaterWorks
32 0 Funding Sources
Other funding:
• Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
• Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project
• Capital project mitigation requirements
• Watershed Coordination Services staff can help identify possible funding
33 p Adapting the NTAA
• May develop new priorities over time
• Funding agencies may want proposed action to be consistent with/supported
in the NTAA
• Therefore, applicants should explain benefits of new action to Steering
Committee
• Steering Committee may then include in NTAA by reference
34 0 Beyond the NTAA
• Comprehensive Conservation Plan: scoping underway Spring 2002
• Recovery goals will be set by NMFS and State/tribal co-managers later in
6
JUN. 11.2002 1:47PM KC WLRD N0.020 P.e/B
,
2002
35 O Near-Term Action Agenda for salmon habitat conservation
• Current and planned activities by other local governments and others to
inform and guide your own activities
• Recommended actions you should review and consider acting on
• Each city/county will be asked for progress report annually
36 0 Contact Information
WRIA 9 web site:
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/index.htm
To request a public presentation or more information, contact:
Dennis Clark, Public Outreach
Coordinator, (206) 296-1909,
dennis.clark@metrokc.gov
372 Let's get started!
7
�V T A oUNG L 'r��t ire r�r' Ter
N4Z-Sa Wry-M10I'i G//7 to z.
iJ
2 IJ Relevant WRIA Near Term Actions for Renton
• 11 Major Actions requiring work programs
• City Departments Already Responding
• Based on input from consultant(Golder) and ESA work program
• Departments already changing the way business is done
• Examples of response already evident in City operations
3 U WW Action 3
Determine fish use and habitat priorities within jurisdictions
• Completed Basin Plans that document fish use
• WRIA Planning has mapped fish use
• Developed Fish Distribution & Habitat Inventory Report for Renton
• WRIA Planning to help set priorities
4 U WW Action 7
Improve enforcement of existing regulations that protect salmon and salmon habitat
• Immediate investigation of reports of illegal clearing &grading
• Coordination between inspectors &code compliance officers
• Additional oversight of construction sites where problems are reported &verified
5 O WW Action 8
Evaluate adequacy of existing regulation to protect riparian buffers and improve then
where necessary to maintain functions that protect fish habitat.
• Critical Areas buffer work program
• Evaluate current 25 foot buffer
• Part of mandated GMA update as well as ESA implementation
• Begin second half 2002-2003
6 I_J WW Action 9
Promote the use of alternative shoreline protection techniques
• Pending DOE publication of new Shorelines Guidelines
• Major work program to implement GMA as well as ESA
• Relates to riparian buffer work program
2 C_l WW Action 10
Evaluate and improve erosion and sediment control programs to reduce sediment
entering salmon-bearing streams
• Erosion control training for inspectors & plan review staff
• Information handout distributed with building permits
• Enforcement of erosion/sedimentation control regulations
8 0 WW Action 11
Adopt stormwater standards that protect salmon
• NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit will require standards to be updated
• Need to adopt standards equivalent to Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Manual
• Ecology's standards protect WQ & Habitat
• Begin update in 2002-2003
9 �Lj WW Action 12
Develop programs and protocols for the maintenance of stormwater systems and
facilities to reduce entry of sediment to salmon streams
• Public facilities are maintained & inspected
• Private facility inspection & maintenance program to be part of NPDES Permit
requirement
10 I� WW Action 13
Review road maintenance practices and adopt written operating procedures to
reduce potential impacts to salmon habitat
• PBPW Maintenance Division has adopted and are implementing the Tri-County
Regional Road Maintenance Program
• NMFS & USFW supports the Program
11 J WW Action 14
Review parks and grounds maintenance procedures and adopt written best
management practices that protect salmon and salmon habitat
• Completed Environmental Stewardship Program Document for the Maplewood
Golf Course
• Parks reviewing ground maintenance practices as part of City ESA Action Plan
1� �) WW Action 18
Implement Phase 1 of the Ecosystem Restoration Project
• Completed Reconnaissance & Feasibility Phases for 45 project
• 20 projects included in Phase 1 - Two projects in Renton
• Possible Cost to Renton is $1,050,000
• Rate Increase of 3% in 2006 -Worst Case
• Subject to Council Approval during annual budget process in the future
13 l_j WW Action 19
Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at the local jurisdiction level
• Inventory of culverts and potential barriers completed
• Not a significant problem on Springbrook Creek
• Some culvert replacements are planned in CIP for flood control will also benefit
fish passage
14
J fish
Plan helps set stage for City's Response to ESA Issues
• Renton Response
• Interdepartmental Task Force
• Consultant Study of existing policies and City departmental operations
• Recommendations for Action Plan
15 IJ Action Plan Status
• In final draft
• Forward to Council within 1-2 months
• Lists prioritized work programs for City to take to protect salmonids
• Typically operational or code changes
• Some items to be addressed this year in Comprehensive Plan update
2
16 iJ Relationship of WRIA 9
Recommendations to Renton Action Plan
• Renton Action Plan is Citywide rather than one watershed
• Recovery goals set at WRIA level
• Way to achieve those goals at jurisdictional level through Action Plan
iLj
3
a
i
rr
Relevant WRIA Near Term
Actions for Renton
• 11 Major Actions requiring work programs
• City Departments Already_Responding
• Based on input from consultant (Golder)
and ESA work program
• Departments already changing the way
business is done
• Examples of response already evident in
City operations
1
WW Action 3
Determine fish use and habitat
priorities within jurisdictions
• Completed Basin Plans that document fish
use
• WRIA Planning has mapped fish use
• Developed Fish Distribution & Habitat
Inventory Report for Renton
• WRIA Planning to help set priorities
WW Action 7
Improve enforcement of existing
regulations that protect salmon
and salmon habitat
• Immediate investigation of reports of illegal
clearing & grading
• Coordination between inspectors & code
compliance officers
• Additional oversight of construction sites
where problems are reported & verified
2
WW Action 8
Evaluate adequacy of existing regulation
to protect riparian buffers and improve
then where necessary to maintain
functions that protect 'fish habitat.
• Critical Areas buffer work program
• Evaluate current 25 foot buffer
• Part of mandated GMA update as well as
ESA implementation
• Begin second half 2002- 2003
WW Action 9
Promote the use of alternative
shoreline protection techniques
• Pending DOE publication of new Shorelines
Guidelines
• Major work program to implement GMA as
well as ESA
• Relates to riparian buffer work program
3
WW Action 10
Evaluate and improve erosion and
sediment control programs to
reduce sediment entering salmon-
bearing streams
• Erosion control training for inspectors &
plan review staff
• Information handout distributed with
building permits
• Enforcement of erosion/sedimentation
control regulations
WW Action 1 I
Adopt stormwater standards that
protect salmon
• NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit will
require standards to be updated
• Need to adopt standards equivalent to
Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Manual
• Ecology's standards protect WQ & Habitat
• Begin update in 2002-2003
4
WW Action 12
Develop programs and protocols for
the maintenance of stormwater
systems and facilities to reduce entry
of sediment to salmon streams
• Public facilities are maintained & inspected
• Private facility inspection & maintenance
program to be part of NPDES Permit
requirement
WW Action 13
Review road maintenance practices
and adopt written operating
procedures to reduce potential
impacts to salmon habitat
• PBPW Maintenance Division has adopted
and are implementing the Tr ' County
Regional Road Maintenance Program
• NMFS & USFW supports the Program
s
WW Action 14
Review parks and grounds
maintenance procedures and adopt
written best management practices
that protect salmon and salmon habitat
• Completed Environmental''Stewardship
Program Document for the Maplewood
Golf Course
• Parks reviewing ground maintenance
practices as part of City ESA Action Plan
WW Action 18
Implement Phase 1 of the
Ecosystem Restoration Project
• Completed Reconnaissance & Feasibility
Phases for 45 project
• 20 projects included in Phase 1 - Two
projects in Renton
• Possible Cost to Renton is $1,050,000
• Rate Increase of 3% in 2006 - Worst Case
• Subject to Council Approval during annual
budget process in the future
6
WW Action 19
Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at
the local jurisdiction level
• Inventory of culverts and potential barriers
completed
• Not a significant problem on Springbrook
Creek
• Some culvert replacements are planned in
CIP for flood control will also benefit fish
passage
WRIA Plan helps set stage for
City's Response to ESA Issues
• Renton Response
— Interdepartmental Task Force
— Consultant Study of existing policies and City
departmental operations
— Recommendations for Action Plan
7
Action Plan Status
• In final draft
• Forward to Council,=,,.within 1-2 months
• Lists prioritized work programs for City to
take to protect salmonids
• Typically operational or code changes
• Some items to be addressed this year in
Comprehensive Plan update
Relationship of WRIA 9
Recommendations to Renton
Action Plan
• Renton Action Plan is Citywide rather than
one watershed
• Recovery goals set at WRIA level
• Way to achieve those goals at jurisdictional
level through Action Plan
8
c
r�
P w•?
`G'„
S y'..:YIWX
Dwight Pelz
Metropolitan King County Council
District Five
May 1, 2002
Re: Salmon Habitat Conservation--Near-Term Action Agenda for Green/Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Ready for Implementation
As the chair of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee,I am pleased to send you this copy of the Near-
Term Action Agenda for salmon habitat conservation for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget
Sound Watershed(WRIA 9).
This document is the result of four years of collaborative efforts and one year of sustained
discussion between local governments, business and environmental interests, and state and
federal agencies in the watershed.
I want to thank everyone who contributed to this—my fellow Steering Committee members,all
16 cities and King County who are paying for this planning effort, members of the public who
commented,and the subcommittees made up of local government staff,environmental interests,
and business representatives.
Your efforts have created a document we can actually use. If we implement its
recommendations, it will benefit the salmon and help ensure their survival. The Near-Term
Action Agenda gives all of us—local governments,community/environmental groups, interested
businesses,and citizens—valuable guidance on early and interim actions while we work on the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan over the next few years.
If you are an elected official or staff for one of our local government partners, you will find this
document to be a very good source of priority recommendations for salmon habitat conservation
measures. I encourage you to review them,to decide which are most relevant to your
jurisdiction, and to begin to implement them. The Steering Committee will annually track
progress made on implementing the NTAA.
For those of you who worked on the Near-Term Action Agenda,thank you again. To everyone—
let's get to work implementing it!
SinJ, RI
Dw , ouncilme b r
ChaA 9 Steerin Co mittee
Room 1200,King County Courthouse,516 Third Avenue,Seattle,WA 98104-3272
(206)296-1005 TTY/TDD(206)296-1024 FAX(206)205-5611
1
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 ( WRIA 9 ) F-ORUM
May 2002
NOME' Dear WRIA 9 Local Governments, =
:K NG COUNTY'",`
The WRIA 9 Forum of local governments acknowledges receipt
of the Near-Term Action Agenda for salmon habitat conservation
Algona for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
(WRIA 9) and commends the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for
Auburn this valuable document.
Black Diamond The Forum thanks the Steering Committee, its various committees, and members
of the public for their efforts on the NTAA. The Forum particularly appreciates the
Burien effort by the Steering Committee to identify priority actions that are both doable
and certain to benefit salmon. This practical, science-based focus maximizes the
Covington likelihood that each member government will find recommendations in the NTAA
that it can and will carry out over the next 2-4 years.
Des Moines
The Forum will encourage each jurisdiction to use the Near-Term Action Agenda
Enumclaw to inform or guide its actions that affect or focus on salmon habitat conservation.
The Forum will also encourage each jurisdiction to:
Federal Way • Fully review the NTAA;
• Identify those WRIA-wide and subwatershed actions that are relevant to its
Kent" activities;
• Determine when and how to implement those actions, looking for opportunities
King County to carry out actions cooperatively where feasible, efficient, and desirable;
• Carry out those actions in the next 2-4 years as resources allow; and
Maple Valley • Participate in the annual reporting on implementation to the WRIA 9 Steering
Committee.
Normandy Park
To accomplish these recommendations, Watershed Coordination Services staff
Renton will be available to brief councils and/or staff on the NTAA upon request.
Searac Once again, we wish to thank the Steering Committee for the Near-Term Action
Agenda for salmon habitat conservation and we encourage each member
Seattle government to act on its recommendations.
Tacoma Sincerely,
Tukwila
Steve Mullet, Chair, WRIA 9 Forum
Mayor, City of Tukwila
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
• Factors of Strategy
.� Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Project Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
Mill Creek, Construct stream Improves Hydromod- Rehabilitate Green/Duwam
Goedeke system with instream habitat quality ification, water ish Ecosystem
Reach wood, riparian for coho and sediment quality Restoration
plantings and a cutthroat trout transport, Project
realigned, contoured riparian
channel. condition,
water
quality
r Olson Creek Restore the lower Improves Hydromodif Restore Green/Duwam
• 1500 feet of the habitat quality ication, access to ish Ecosystem
stream by placing and access for riparian tributaries Restoration
large wood in the coho and condition, and Project
channel,restoring the cutthroat and fish passage rehabilitate
. riparian corridor, and steelhead trout habitat in
removing upstream tributaries
fish passage barriers.
• Modification of the
culvert at the mouth
may also be included.
Upper and Add riparian Improves Hydromodif Rehabilitate Green/Duwam
lower plantings, relocate habitat quality ication, habitat in ish Ecosystem
SSpringbrook stream segments and for coho and riparian tributaries Restoration
Creek/ place large woody cutthroat trout condition Project
Garrison debris.
Creek
rpl/07-OfX%G000wia9ntooapxcIrx-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-5
•
•
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
Duwamish Subwatershed
All projects planned for the Duwamish subwatershed provide benefit for chinook salmon and e
bull trout.
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
•
war ini-axswoon ym- ps d,K
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-6 •
•
•
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
Nearshore Subwatershed
Factors of Strategy
Project Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
16`h Avenue Replacing felled Opens up Fish passage Restore Des Moines
slide project 4-foot by 6-foot habitat for access
culvert with coho, coastal within and
. bottomless 12-foot cutthroat, to tributaries
span arch culvert. steelhead
Marine View Replace culvert Opens up Fish passage Restore Des Moines,
' Drive Bridge under Marine habitat for access Washington State
Phase I View Drive with a coho, coastal within and Department of
bridge cutthroat, to tributaries Transportation,
steelhead Seattle Public
Utilities, Midway
Sewer District
1• Marine View Excavate road Opens up Water Restore Des Moines,
Drive Bridge embankment, habitat for quality access SeaTac,
Phase II build Des Moines colic, coastal within and Washington State
Creek trail under cutthroat, to tributaries Department of
bridge, connecting steelhead Transportation,
sewer outfall, Port of Seattle,
daylight 250 feet King County
of Des Moines
Creek
10`''Avenue Replace culvert on Opens up Fish passage Restore Des Moines
culvert Massey Creek habitat for access
Replacement with two bridges coho, coastal within and
to open up fish cutthroat, to tributaries
• habitat steelhead
i
,,pi inr-nrssrroon-v,morp-d-
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-7
•
Appendix C—Planned Projects that Benefit Other Species
•
Factors of Strategy i
Project Benefit to Decline Element Sponsor and
Project Name Description Salmon Addressed Addressed Partners
Barnes Creek Replace badly Improves Fish Restore Des Moines •
Detention degraded wetland water quality, passage, access
Facility and with forested creates stream water within and
culvert wetlands, habitat for quality, to tributaries •
replacement emergent marshes, coho, coastal riparian
project open water areas, cutthroat, condition
and upland buffer steelhead
areas to improve
habitat. Increase
wetland area by .
150%to 1.8 acres.
Create wetland
biofiltration
facility. Replace
culvert •
downstream of
wetlands with
larger box culvert.
Daylight
approximately 150
feet of Barnes
Creek.
Barnes Creek Replace existing Opens up Fish passage Restore Des Moines
and Kent-Des culvert with larger habitat for access
Moines Rd culvert to open up coho, coastal within and
Culvert fish habitat cutthroat, to tributaries
Replacement steelhead(?) •
•
i
i
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
ip//Ol-0/N�6-000 wria9 ntna apr cox
WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda C-8
•
•
i
t
i
i
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
The following provided funding for the preparation of this publication: •
� os w •
I'gry t •
MAPLE VALLEY •
Enumclaw KENT
w °T King County •
1
"' " N tO SEATAG City of Seattle T �+Dh to WATER �eoe
Document File solder:WLRNT8...WRIA9/0203 W9 NTAAmaps •
Location:King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,GIS&Visual Communications Unit Archives �'