No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 4443CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 4443 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE 2021 UPDATE TO THE GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED OR WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 9 SALMON HABITAT PLAN, MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING. WHEREAS, the 2021 Update to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan ("WRIA 9 Plan") is an addendum to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, and includes new science, revised habitat goals and recovery strategies, an updated capital project list, and a monitoring and adaptive management plan; and WHEREAS, 17 local governments in WRIA 9 ("Parties") have partnered through an inter - local agreement (ILA) (2001-2006, 2007-2015, 2016-2025) to jointly fund development and implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan to address shared interest in and responsibility for long-term watershed planning and salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed ("watershed"); and WHEREAS, in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit, including the Green River Chinook salmon population, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and WHEREAS, local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat -based aspects of Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and tribes, who are the legal co -managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery management; and 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4443 WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 partners recognize participating in the ILA and implementing priorities in the WRIA 9 Plan demonstrates their commitment to proactively working to address the ESA listing of Chinook salmon; and WHEREAS, coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, businesses, non -governmental organizations, landowners, citizens, and other interests are essential to implement and adaptively manage a salmon recovery plan; and WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Partnership serves as the Puget Sound regional organization and lead agency for planning and implementing the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, approved by NOAA Fisheries; and WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan is one of 15 watershed -based chapters of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan; and WHEREAS, the City supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments, and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures; and WHEREAS, habitat protection and restoration actions to increase Chinook salmon productivity trends are necessary throughout the watershed, in conjunction with other recovery efforts, to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 9 Chinook salmon to viability in the long term; and WHEREAS, salmon recovery is interrelated with flood risk reduction, water quality improvement, open -space protection, recreation, economic development, and tribal treaty rights; and 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4443 WHEREAS, the City has a strong interest to achieve multiple benefit outcomes for people and fish across the watershed; and WHEREAS, the WRIA 9 Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort, and focuses on a 10-year implementation time horizon to allow for evaluation of progress and adaptation of goals and implementation strategies; and WHEREAS, it is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector and the public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions in WRIA 9; and WHEREAS, if insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is unlikely Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 9 will improve and it is possible the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an endangered species, thereby decreasing local flexibility; and WHEREAS, the Parties previously took formal action to ratify the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan; and WHEREAS, the City ratified the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan by Resolution No. 3776, passed October 17, 2005; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City hereby ratifies the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update, Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, dated February 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. Ratification is intended to convey the City's support for the following: 9 RESOLUTION NO. 4443 1. Protecting and restoring habitat based on best available science with the intent to achieve sustainable, resilient, and harvestable populations of naturally spawning Chinook salmon. 2. Pursuing a multi -benefit approach to WRIA 9 Plan implementation that integrates salmon recovery, flood hazard reduction, water quality improvements, open space and recreation, and equity and social justice to improve outcomes for people and fish. 3. Utilizing the WRIA 9 Plan as a source of best available science to inform local government actions, including, but not limited to land use, shoreline, and transportation planning/permitting. 4. Utilizing capital project concepts, programmatic actions, and policies outlined within the WRIA 9 Plan to inform local priorities for implementation and funding via grants, capital improvements, ordinances, and other activities. Ratification does not obligate any partner to implement any specific actions or adhere to specific timelines for such actions. 5. Working collaboratively with local, state, and federal partners and tribes to support and fund implementation of the WRIA 9 Plan, including monitoring and adaptive management to address scientific uncertainty, tracking and communicating progress, and refining strategies to ensure cost-effective investments. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of August, 2021. 4 RESOLUTION NO.4443 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th day of August, 2021. Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney RES:1877:7/8/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 4443 EXHIBIT "A" Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update, Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, dated February 2021 R . . � "'"^ - "�.f���A►'"' - 5�:� ;.�..��,� may= - MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 Alternate formats available Voice; 206-296-6519 TTY Relay; 711 For Additional Copies of this Plan: King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-6519 Recommended Citation: Water Resource Investory Area 9 (WRIA 9). 2021. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Water- shed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update. Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Approved by the Watershed Ecosystem Forum February 11, 2021. File Archive: 2102 10102L W9SHP-REPORTt.indd King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Unit archives Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................................10 ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................................................................11 Chapter1: Background................................................................................................................................................................13 Regional Salmon Recovery Context..........................................................................................................................................13 WRIA9 Organizational Structure..................................................................................................................................................15 Equityand Social Justice...................................................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed - A Snapshot.......................................17 Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle - Connecting a Diverse Watershed...........................................23 Adult Upstream Migration/Spawning............................................................... Egg Incubation/Emergence...................................................................................... Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/Migration.......................................................... Juvenile Estuary Rearing ........................................ Marine Nearshore Rearing ................................... Ocean Migration........................................................... .......................................... 23 ...................................................... 23 24 24 25 25 Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals.....................................................................................27 Viable Salmon Population Criteria - Current Status and Goals..........................................................................27 HabitatGoals - Implementation Targets...............................................................................................................................30 Chapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures...........................................33 Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus)............................................................................................................................................33 Chapter6: Recovery Strategies.............................................................................................................................................49 Strategy; Restore and Improve Fish Passage...................................................................................................................49 Strategy; Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity.....................................................................51 Strategy; Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat...............................52 Strategy; Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors..............................................................................53 Strategy; Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality.......................................................55 Strategy; Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines.................................................................................58 Strategy; Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat....................................................................................60 Strategy; Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia ............................62 Strategy; Expand Public Awareness and Education....................................................................................................64 Strategy; Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives.........................................66 Strategy; Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning...........................................................................68 PlanImplementation and Funding..............................................................................................................................................70 Chapter7: Capital Projects..................................................................................................... ..............73 ProjectPrioritization................................................................................................................................................................................74 Capital Project Information by Subwatershed....................................................................................................................75 Marine Nearshore Subwatershed...............................................................................................................................76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed..........................................................................................................................102 Lower Green River Subwatershed............................................................................................................................118 Middle Green River Subwatershed.........................................................................................................................146 Upper Green River Subwatershed..........................................................................................................................160 Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy.................................................................................................................................163 AnnualFunding Package..................................................................................................................................................................163 SalmonRecovery Funding............................................................................................................................................................... 164 WRIA9 CWM Funding Allocation.............................................................................................................................................. 164 Outyear Project Planning (6-year CPIP)...............................................................................................................................165 PerformanceManagement.............................................................................................................................................................165 Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management....................................................................................................167 Adaptive Management Framework..........................................................................................................................................167 ImplementationMonitoring............................................................................................................................................................168 EffectivenessMonitoring.................................................................................................................................................................168 ValidationMonitoring........................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Chapter10: References............................................................................................................................................................173 ��h. yy 1 a r.�t14 r ' ' y....� w.• 2C tip List of Figures Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. . ....................................... 14 Figure 2. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Watershed Map...............................................................................................................................19 Figure 3. Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Land Use Designations Map................................................................................................21 Figure4. The Salmon Cycle............................................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified fromRuggerone and Weitkamp 2004)............................................................................................................................................25 Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement..................................................................................................................................29 Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation...........................................................................................34 Figure 8. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a resultof climate change..............................................................................................................................................................................36 Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services).........................................................................37 Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperaturesmeasured from 2001-2014.........................................................................................................................................39 Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood controlstructures..............................................................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 12. Spawners -recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2018)................................................43 Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience verylow marine survival rates...............................................................................................................................................................44 Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and ComplianceProject (Ecology)................................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non -natal tributaries (Mike Perfetti).......................................................................................................50 Figure 16. Healthy juvenile chinook sampled from a non -natal tributary in 2018 (Chris Gregersen).....................50 Figure 17. The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi -benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements...................................51 Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re -Green the Green Strategy . ................................................................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park..........................................57 Figure 20. Before and after Phase II restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien....................................................58 Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon.........................................................................61 Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek...................................................63 Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation.....................................................................................................................................66 Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River . ................................... 71 Figure 25. Number of Projects by Subwatershed......... 72 Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects (Map)................................................................................................................77 Figure 27. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects (Map)..........................................................................................................103 Figure 28. Lower Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map)..............................................................................................................119 Figure 29. Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map)...........................................................................................................147 Figure 30. Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects (Map..............................................................................................................160 Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt themas necessary......................................................................................................................................................................................168 Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework..........................................................................................................................169 List of Tables Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals............................................................................................................................................28 Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. ....................................................... ..................................... 31 Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects....................................................................................................................98 Table 4. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects..................................................................................................................116 Table 5. Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects................................................................................................................144 Table 6. Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects...............................................................................................................158 Appendices Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green/Duwamish Watershed Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon Appendix D; WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Appendix E; Capital Project Evaluation Template Appendix F; Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix G: Recovery Strategies Foreward On behalf of the Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Watershed Ecosystem Forum, we are pleased to present this update to the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, "Making Our Watershed Fit for a King" (2005 Plan). The 2021 WRIA 9 Salmon Plan Update (Plan Update) represents a renewed commitment to salmon recovery efforts in WRIA 9 and provides a science -based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years, It refines and adds key recovery strategies based on new science and ensures resources will continue to be directed to where they provide the greatest benefit for Chinook salmon. The original 2005 Plan translated science into actions. Plan implementation by multiple WRIA 9 entities in the last 15 years helped leverage over $200 million of local, state and federal funding to realign more than 2 miles of levees to reconnect floodplains, restore over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline and revegetate 500 acres of riparian habitat. While we recognize these achievements, we also acknowledge that salmon recovery is a long-term endeavor that requires continued coordinated action. Chinook salmon numbers remain critically low and human population growth and climate change are only magnifying the challenges we face in salmon recovery. Chinook salmon are an integral part of our regional identity. The Watershed Ecosystem Forum - a regional partnership of 17 local governments, state resource agencies, business interests and non- profit organizations - is collectively committed to implementing actions that will improve watershed conditions for our salmon populations. Plan implementation supports more than just salmon recovery; it supports tribal treaty rights, community flood hazard reduction, water quality improvement, open space protection, and outdoor recreation. While the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed has faced numerous challenges, we are optimistic about the future of our watershed. The downstream fish passage facility at Howard Hansen Dam, clean-up of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund sites, and a regional commitment to integrated floodplain management reflect a projected investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10-15 years. As we work towards an improved future, we are reminded of a quote from a historical planning guide for the Green River corridor: As we look at the Green River corridor, we must say,'This is the way the people want it to be: Therefore, in each locality, someone should steadily be asking,'is this the way we want it to be, now and in the future?' The ultimate condition of the Green River Basin should be the result of informed and far- sighted public decisions. River of Green, 1978 We look forward to collaborating with all our local, state, federal, and tribal partners in realizing our collective vision for this watershed and welcoming back ever stronger runs of salmon, Sincerely, ?�/� 1� J-a4 Councilmember Lisa Herbold City of Seattle Co -Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Councilmember Nancy Tosta City of Burien Co -Chair WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Acknowledgements Primary Authors Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Kollin Higgins, King County Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Report Preparation GIS Analysis: Todd Klinka, King County Design: Laurel Preston, King County Watershed Ecosystem Forum Chris Stearns, Auburn Tamie Deady, Black Diamond Nancy Tosta, Burien Jennifer Harjehausen, Covington Matt Pina, Des Moines Chris Searcy, Enumclaw Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Dana Ralph, Kent Dow Constantine, King County Susan West, Normandy Park Valerie O'Halloran, Renton Erin Sitterly, SeaTac Lisa Herbold, Seattle Scott Dewhirst, Tacoma Public Utilities Allan Ekberg, Tukwila Wendy McDermott, American Rivers Katie Moxley, Boeing Company Steve Lee, Covington Water District James Rassmussen, Green/Duwa- mish Watershed Alliance Burr Mosby, King Conservation District Michelle Clark, King County Flood Control District Jeanette Dorner, Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Sandy Kilroy, Port of Seattle Max Prinsen, SHADOW Jeff Dillon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Weston Brinkley, Green-Duwamish Urban Waters Partnership Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Stewart Reinbold, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Joe Miles, Washington Department of Natural Resources Implementation Technical Committee Joe Anderson, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Kerry Bauman, King County Katie Beaver, King County Elizabeth Butler, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office David Casey, City of Maple Valley Jeanette Dorner, Mid Sound Fisheries Alexandra Doty, Puget Sound Partnership Joseph Farah, City of Renton Larry Fisher, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Matthew Goehring, WRIA 9 Chris Gregersen, King County Meara Heubach, City of Kent Kollin Higgins, King County Josh Kahan, King County Katherine Lynch, Seattle Public Utilities Nathan Malmborg, US Army Corps Kathy Minsch, City of Seattle Kathryn Moxley, Boeing Cleo Neculae, Washington State Department of Ecology Nikolas Novotny, Tacoma Water Jessica Olmstead, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Brandon Parsons, American Rivers Mike Perfetti, City of Tukwila Dennis Robertson, City of Tukwila Patty Robinson, King County Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Rowena Valencia-Gica, City of Kent Financial Support Funding provided by the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement among 17 local government partners and Cooperative Watershed Management funds provided by the King County Flood Control District. Management Committee Chris Stearns, City of Auburn Jennifer Harjehausen, City of Covington Lydia Assefa-Dawson, Federal Way Toni Troutner, City of Kent Josh Baldi, King County Susan West, City of Normandy Park Valerie O'Halloran, City of Renton Susan Saffery, City of Seattle Former WRIA 9 Leadership Bill Peloza, City of Auburn Marlla Mhoon, City of Covington Dennis Roberton, City of Tukwila Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 This document updates the 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), Making Our Watershed Fit for a King, Salmon Habitat Plan. The 2005 Plan served as the blueprint for salmon habitat recovery in WRIA 9 for 15 years. It is fitting that the Puget Sound Regional Council award- ed the original 2005 Plan a Vision 2020 Award. Al- though the Plan Update reflects over a decade of new science regarding salmon conservation and recovery since the award, the core recovery strategies and un- derlying scientific framework remain largely valid to- day and continue to provide an important foundation for salmon recovery. The Plan Update - designed to be a stand-alone document - is intended to update, not replace, the 2005 Plan. The two documents, along with the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint and the 2016 Re - green the Green, provide a science -based framework for identifying, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions. This document provides a status update for Green River Chinook salmon using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved viable salmon population (VSP) criteria. Over 20 years have passed since the listing of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Despite significant investments and large-scale restoration projects, Green River Chinook salmon remain listed as Threatened. Population abundance, productivity, diversity and spatial distribution have not improved, and in some cases have continued to decline. A Strategic Assessment Update summarizes new research findings that address important data gaps identified in the 2005 Plan. New information related to habitat use and fish productivity, climate change, temperature, and contaminants supported a reassessment of functional linages between priority stressors, habitat conditions, and VSP parameters. This information serves as the foundation for the other core elements of the Plan Update. Although the Plan Update maintains existing NOAA-approved VSP goals, it introduces new 10-year habitat goals (implementation targets) that represent continued progress towards the long-term necessary future conditions for achieving a viable salmon popu- lation, as outlined in 2005 Plan. The numerical targets for key habitats serve as a benchmark for evaluating plan implementation overtime and informing ongo- ing adaptive management. The Plan Update outlines a portfolio of 12 recov- ery strategies - including embedded policies and programs - to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resiliency. Successful PHOTO; ELI BROWNELL Green River Natural Area implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capi- tal investment programs, and community outreach messaging are consistent with identified watershed priorities. An updated list of capital projects was developed in partnership with interlocal agreement member jurisdictions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. The updat- ed project list identifies 127 capital habitat projects across the five subwatersheds. Individuals projects are ranked within their specific subwatershed - not across subwatersheds. Projects are tiered based on overall benefit towards recovery and to provide con- text for the level of financial need. Tier 1 projects have significant potential to advance recovery and sub- stantively contribute to habitat goals. Tier 2 and Tier 3 have moderate and limited potential, respectively, to advance recovery and contribute to achieving habitat goals. The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines monitoring priorities intended to help evaluate progress and inform strategic adapta- tion of the recovery strategies. The MAMP establishes a framework for (1) tracking implementation goals, (2) assessing project effectiveness, (3) evaluating habitat status and trends, (4) evaluating the popula- tion status of Green River Chinook salmon, and (4) prioritizing research and monitoring investments. This framework will guide data collection to support regular assessment of progress and allow the WRIA to reassess prioritization and sequencing of recovery actions. The 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, Making Our Water- shed Fit for a King, represented the culmination of over five years of technical reconnaissance, research, and policy development. The Plan was a local wa- tershed -based response to the federal government's 1999 listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The 2005 Plan - which received a Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2020 Award - translated a tremendous wealth of science into discrete policy recommenda- tions and management actions necessary to sup- port recovery of natural origin Green River Chinook salmon. The 2005 Plan provided the blueprint for Chinook salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound for 15 years. It helped watershed part- ners leverage upwards of $200 million dollars of local, state and federal funding for salmon recovery. Plan implementation resulted in nearly 2 miles of levee setbacks, over 4,500 feet of marine shoreline resto- ration, and approximately 500 acres of revegetation. Despite of these accomplishments, the continued decline of Chinook salmon - both locally and region- ally - highlights the urgent need for expanding and accelerating recovery efforts. This Salmon Habitat Plan Update represents the next chapter of salmon recovery efforts in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. It provides a science -based framework for identify- ing, prioritizing and implementing salmon recovery actions over the next 10-15 years. The integration of over a decade of new science informed important refinements to recovery priorities and investment strategies outlined in the 2005 Plan. These refine- ments reflect the watershed's commitment to adap- tive management and ensure that limited resources are directed to where they can provide the greatest benefit towards Chinook salmon recovery. Although the focus of this plan is on Chinook salmon recovery, implementation will also provide parallel benefits to other salmon and steelhead. Regional Salmon Recovery Context This addendum updates the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed chapter of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-approved 2007 Puget Sound Salmon Recov- ery Plan, The Green River Chinook salmon popula- tion is one of six Chinook salmon populations in the Central/South sub -basin and one of 22 remaining populations in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evo- 750k 650k 550k 450k 350k 250k 150k 50k Ok— Figure 1. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline. Chinook Salmon Recovery Timeline Railroad 1870 Northern Pacific Railroad survey triggers land boom Logging 1881 First splash dam built for logging in Washington jl Population 1890 II Seattle population 42,000 White River 1906 Diverted out of the Green River into the Puyallup River Harbor Island finished 1909 Much of the Duwamish Estuary filled for industry Cedar River1916 Diverted away from the Green River, SAG into Lake Washington Green River1919 Private levee construction begins `r0G throughout the river 20 O� �O O�s'9l Puget Sound �0ti Wild Chinook 9�,2srZ F Population 1870 1881 1890 1906 1909 1913 1916 1919 I� Population 1950 �I Seattle 465,000 Green River Chinook salmon escapement 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 I'll, WRIA 9 Chinook salmon abundance goals: 1000— ^ 200 returning natural origin 1 spawning adult fish by 2025 27 000 returning natural origin spawning adults by 2055 Green River 1963 Howard Hanson Dam Built 1950 1963 1975 Why does the data on salmon abundance begin to improve in 1975? The quality of data on annual salmon population runs improves starting in 1975, when the Washington Department of Fisheries (predecessor to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) initiated data collection in response to the federal court mandate to develop and share annual abun- dance of salmon returning to individual rivers in Puget Sound. 1999 2009 J 2016 2019 Puget Sound Lowest number Chinook of natural origin listed as spawners (182) threatened recorded in the species Green River Population 2016 ' Seattle: 689,000 lutionary significant unit (ESU). NOAA ESU recovery criteria require status improvement in all populations and two to four viable populations in each of the sub -basins. The Puget Sound Partnership (Partnership), the state agency leading the region's collective effort to restore and protect Puget Sound, serves as the regional salmon organization for the 15 lead entities within the Puget Sound, advised by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. The Partnership co -manages the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund and works in partnership with the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office and Recreation and Conservation Of- fice (RCO) on statewide salmon recovery issues. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board, facilitated by the RCO, is a Governor -appointed 10-person board with a primary responsibility for making grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and salmon recovery activ- ities. This salmon recovery infrastructure, and the grant and loans for habitat project implementation, is supported through state and federal funds from NOAA's Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and the State Salmon Recovery Funding. Additionally, within Puget Sound, salmon recovery is supported by the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. WRIA 9 Organizational Structure Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 serves as a lead entity for salmon recovery under the State of Washington's watershed -based framework for salmon recovery established under RCW 7785. It is a watershed -based organization comprised of local, state and federal partners, non-profit organizations, business interests, and citizens. Per statute, WRIA 9 is mandated to "compile a list of habitat projects, establish priorities for individual projects, define the sequence for project implementation, and submit these activities as the habitat project list. The com- mittee shall also identify potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources' The 17 local governments within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) formalized a partnership under an interlocal agreement (ILA) (WRIA 9 ILA) in 2000. The initial ILA (2000-2005) funded a strategic, science -based assessment of the watershed and a long-term, com- prehensive recovery plan for the Green River Chinook salmon population. Following approval of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, the local government partners forged a 10-year ILA from 2007-2017 intended to guide plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ongoing commitment to watershed -based salmon recovery was renewed in 2017. The current ILA extends through 2025. The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF) serves as the advisory body for plan implementation and adaptive management. It is comprised of elected officials from the ILA partners and other watershed stakeholders. The Management Committee serves as the executive committee to the WEF. It directs work plan development and manages the ILA budget. The Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) is a technical- and policy -focused subcommittee that supports plan implementation and adaptive manage- ment. The ITC defines monitoring and research prior- ities, interprets new technical information as it relates to salmon recovery, and provides science -based recommendations to WEF. Equity and Social Justice Salmon recovery efforts within the Green/Duwa- mish and Central Puget Sound watershed overlap with numerous communities experiencing deeply entrenched social, economic, and environmental inequities. Race and place influence opportunity and quality of life. People of color, immigrants, and low-income residents experience inequities in access to key determinants of equity - including access to parks and natural resources. Although best available science drives project identification and prioritization, equity and social justice (ESJ) issues should be care- fully considered. Applying an ESJ lens to habitat pro- jects can help ensure salmon recovery efforts align with ESJ initiatives and do not inadvertently reinforce existing inequities. Integrating residents and commu- nity -based organizations into project design can help build community support and achieve multi -benefit outcomes that advance equity in the watershed. The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed spans 575 square miles of diverse landscape, ranging from an industrial waterfront to preserved old growth forest. This section provides a high-level over- view of the five subwatersheds (Upper Green, Middle Green, Lower Green, Duwamish, and Nearshore) that serve as an overarching framework for salmon recovery. It also provides context for the strategies and actions outlined in subsequent chapters. For a more comprehensive review, please refer to the Chapter 3 of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. The Upper Green Subwatershed extends up- stream of Howard Hanson Dam, river mile 64.5, and represents approximately 45 percent of the Green/ Duwamish River watershed. Historically, the Upper Green provided important spawning and freshwater rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. It encompasses between 78-165 miles of suitable instream habitat, although fish passage has been blocked by a combi- nation of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam and Howard Hanson Dam since 1911. Checkered ownership in the subwatershed compli- cates coordinated land management. Although the primary land use is commercial forestry, the Upper Green also serves at the primary municipal water supply for the City of Tacoma. Additionally, a road and railroad alignment have constrained the river in plac- es, the Upper Green Subwatershed is largely undevel- oped and contains relatively high -quality, yet currently inaccessible, aquatic habitat. Long-term recovery of Chinook salmon depends on providing fish passage to the Upper Watershed. The Middle Green Subwatershed extends between river miles 64.5 and 32. It includes the two largest tributaries to the Green River - Soos and Newaukum Creeks. Low -velocity habitats, including off -channel habitats, sidechannels, floodplain wetlands, and river edge, provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Land use in the Middle Green is characterized pre- dominantly by agricultural lands and rural residential development. Land use development adjacent to river and tributaries has resulted in loss of riparian habitat contributing to elevated instream temperatures. Mod- ified flow regimes have disrupted natural transport of large wood and sediment. In addition, a network of training levees designed to restrict lateral channel migration - as opposed to prevent flooding - have simplified channel complexity along some reaches. Restoring floodplain connectivity and expanding rear- ing habitat capacity are critical to increasing Chinook salmon productivity. The Lower Green River Subwatershed flows from river mile 32 downstream to river mile 11. It serves as an important migratory corridor for adult upstream migration and juvenile downstream migra- tion. Available rearing and high -flow refuge habitat is limited compared to the Middle Green - many reach- es currently lack large wood, side channels, sloughs, and slow -water edge habitats. The Lower Green River also supports Chinook salmon spawning upstream of approximately river mile 25. The Lower Green River valley is the second largest warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The floodplain is heavily developed and character- ized by a combination of industrial, commercial, and urban residential development. The 1906 diversion of the White River left the floodplain perched above the mainstem channel and disconnected historic off -channel habitats. An extensive network of flood control facilities (27 miles of levees and revetments) currently restricts floodplain connectivity and limits channel complexity. A corresponding loss of riparian tree canopy contributes to elevated instream temper- atures. An integrated, multi -benefit approach to flood - plain management is needed to balance fish habitat needs with flood risk reduction and other community priorities in this subwatershed, The Duwamish Subwatershed extends from river mile 11 at the Black River Pump Station downstream to the north end of Harbor Island. The extent of salt influence - as depicted by the saltwater wedge - var- ies based on flows and tide, but can extend upstream as far as the Foster Bridge (RM 10.2) during low flows and high tides. Juvenile Chinook rear in the estuarine waters of the Duwamish as they undergo the physio- logical transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Extensive dredge and fill of the Duwamish has transformed the estuary into an industrial waterway, characterized by straightened channel with armored banks and a lack of riparian tree canopy. More than 98 percent of the historical tidal wetlands have been transformed into commercial and industrial land uses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared the Lower Duwamish Waterway a "Superfund" site in 2001 due to legacy contamination, and clean-up is not expected to be complete for another decade. Sediment cleanup and restoration of estuarine habitat are essential to increasing juvenile Chinook salmon survival. The Nearshore Subwatershed extends 92 line- ar miles from Elliott Bay south to the Pierce County boarder, including Vashon Island. It represents the interface of upland and aquatic habitats; shallow productive zone and deep water habitats; and fresh and marine waters. The nearshore is a dynamic environment - shaped by wave energy and sediment transport that support high species diversity. A variety of habitats, including beaches, eelgrass beds, and pocket estuaries, provide important foraging habitat and a migratory corridor to the Pacific Ocean for juvenile Chinook salmon. Development along the marine shorelines has altered significant stretches of the nearshore ecosystem, Approximately two-thirds of WRIA 9 shoreline is ar- mored, which has disrupted natural sediment delivery and transport. The intensity of shoreline development varies substantially across the watershed. The highest intensity development is located along the industrial and commercial shores of Elliott Bay. The mainland shoreline from Seattle south to Federal Way is pre- dominantly residential. Vashon Island is predominant- ly rural. Improving nearshore habitat is essential to increasing juvenile salmon residence times, growth rates, and overall marine survival. Seattle ' 1 •m ( DUWAMISH E 2.4!� ESTUARY N SEATTL SUB 3� 3� SUBWATERSHED 5 �•67 Puget 9 10• Sound BURIEN RENTON 15 Vashon SEATAC 1_4•t . Island + 5N NURMANDY PARK , ' ls^,� 131(/ � , Lake 17 • o. \ `'� Youngs 12\e 18. ) IW 19'• °ES KENT MIDDLE GREEN RIVER MOINES 21? 2z 23 9l • ^j zs �~3 SUBWATERSHED Maury � U za � Island 1 t25� 6' CoVN TONS, UPPER GREEN RIVER 27 7• MAPLE `)28 '*N' .. VALLEY SUBWATERSHED �eo Lake \ j Sawyer 29 5.� FEDERAL WAY 1 C.30 x a; AUBURN d 2 BLACK. S �Jb•��56 57 58 - 2 l32 :3 •1 b�da/e i r DIAMOND �52 ►���160 r — 51 Tacoma Headworks `s1 • �.i�ei 34 '� �-`V'e J t Diversion Dam=�. J ALGONA •�'5 n 36 4 q� 43 4� (�48 �.(4v 5/0 ► OeeV` Howard621�3 6. Hanson AUBURN'�.7 36 ^ < , Dam LOWER 39 '4 �4Howard 47 ° 65 Hanson Reservoir 1 • River Mile 2�• �, 5s`., �� GREEN RIVER 4 61: River/creek SUBWATERSHED Cha, 69 5. /eyCr Major Road ��no Cr 70 71 72 73 .. ..f 9 Urban Growth Area Line IENUMCLAW . r 1 .f� WRIA 9 Subwatershed Boundary WRIA 9 Boundary King County Data Sources: King County Datasets: TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, r� Open Water Trileal_lands, Urban growth, and KC BNDRY IN Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: VC File: Kin Count Boundary www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx.Your access and use is smb://wlrbafsl.dnrp.kingcounty.Icl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/ g y y conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. 2010_102021-_W9SHP_W9whsdMap.ai LPRE Produced by: GIS File: 0 1 2 4 6 MuekleshootTribal Lands King County IT Design and Civic Engagement Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxdKLINKAT Miles October2020 �a'ershed Fit,,, o°s 9•F o, oy m / f ' WRIA 5 WRIA 4 WRIA' WRIA 17� � 45 i Vol WRIA7 WRIA 15 WRIA 8 WRIA 39 i WRIA 12 10 13 WRIA 38 WRIA 11 0 5 10 WRIA 23 WRIA 26 Miles LOCATION MAP /IN �BOe.... �88� '00p Cr Ll �p f 89 ss i 91 •� 992 • \, 93 �� 1W'' comp Ct _ � 94 95 OTHER SYMBOLS NAME Incorporated Area Name River/Creek �r Major Road Urban Growth Area Line 4001* WRIA 9 Boundary Name 4001111111111111 Open Water and Name King County Boundary Tribal Lands TUKWILA 1 �t RENTON Vashon SEATAC ■ Island ' NURMANDY • ., _.; \ Lake Youngs Maury KENT f T c MOINES r Island= _ t .r COVINGTON%' MAPLE � • V�EY le�,��os Lake- Sawyer FEDERAL WAY r - '�` •� J �� AUBURN � "' BLACK on DIAMOND G r IA ACGUNA �. AUBURN ot; �¢ King County Data Sources: Similar land use designations were combined and derived from King County GIS Center land use coverage LANDUSE_KC_CONSOL_20 based on multi -jurisdictional zoning data. Other King County datasets include TopoWRIA, (RIVER MILES), CityKC, Wtrbdy, Wtrcrs, TNET, Tribal lands, Urban -growth, and KC BNDRY. Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www,kingcounty,gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. Produced by: King County IT Design and Civic Engagement KCIT DCE File: smb://wlrbafsl.dnrp.kingcounty.lcl/vc/cart/Finished/REGIONS/WRIA9/ 2102_10202L_W9SHP_W9_LANDUSEmap.ai LPRE GIS Data: Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT LAND USE CATEGORIES Industrial Commercial Mixed Use Residential Rural Residential Agricultural Public Lands ® Forest Parks, Open Space or Golf Course Mineral Resource Lands Aviation/Transportation Undesignated N 0 1 2 4 October2020 6 1 Miles ef shed Fit Foy pot q�. f � v %--, The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon life cycle provides a common thread linking together a diverse watershed. Each of the five distinct subwatersheds plays a critical role in the Chi- nook salmon life cycle. Recovery of a viable salmon population hinges on collective action across the watershed to improve aquatic habitat. The concep- tual life cycle model presented in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan remains an important tool for assess- ing aquatic habitat needs in relationship to priority stressors that adversely impact survival at distinct life history stages and across different life history types. Understanding aquatic habitat needs throughout the life cycle and how they relate observed bottlenecks in survival allows recovery managers to strategically focus limited resources where they are expected to provide the largest benefit to recovery objectives. Figure 5 highlights the relationship between the sub - watersheds and specific life history phases. Adult Upstream Migration/ Spawning Chinook salmon enter the Green/Duwamish between July and October. Timing of river entry and upstream migration is impacted by water temperature and flow. Spawning generally occurs mid -September through October, between approximately river miles 25 and 61. Spawning primarily occurs within the Lower and Middle Mainstem Green River and Newaukum Creeks. Additional spawning occurs in Soos, Burns and Covington Creeks. Fish passage to the upper watershed has been blocked by a combination of the Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam (1911) and Howard Hanson Dam (1961). Although fish passage was provided at the Tacoma facility in 2007, a downstream fish passage facility has not been completed at Howard Hanson Dam. The dams also block natural gravel delivery and transport; however, available spawning habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor in Chinook recovery. Egg Incubation/Emergence Egg incubation and alevin emergence generally occurs September through January within the same reaches where spawning occurs. Timing is variable and influenced by water temperatures - warmer temperatures drive an earlier emergence. High - flow events and sedimentation during this critical development period can scour redds and result in high mortality. As a result, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam influences incubation/ emergence success. Juvenile Freshwater Rearing/ Migration Juvenile Chinook salmon rear in the Lower and Middle Green subwatershed from mid -December to mid -July. The length of the freshwater rearing period varies among life history types (Figure 5) and is influenced by habitat availability and flows. Subyearling Chinook rely on low -velocity habitats, including mainstem river margins, pools, and off - channel habitats. Rearing habitat availability is a limiting factor for Chinook productivity. Extensive flood control facilities and floodplain development have disconnected floodplain habitats, reduced habitat complexity, and eliminated much of the historic freshwater rearing habitat. Instream flows influence accessibility of off -channel rearing habitats. During low -flow periods, off -channel habitats and floodplain wetlands may become disconnected from the mainstem. In contrast, high -flow events may flush juvenile Chinook downstream if they are unable to access suitable refuge habitat. Given the connection to instream flows, flow management at Howard Hanson Dam can impact habitat connectivity/ availability during the rearing period. Figure 4. The Salmon Cycle DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED 41 Adult %r Migration Maturation (Marine waters) Nearshore Foraging 40* MARINE NEARSHORE SUBWATERSHED/OFFSHORE Juvenile Estuary Rearing Subyearlying Chinook salmon generally migrate downstream into the Duwamish estuary between February and July, with fry -type life histories predom- inantly entering earlier in the year (Feb -Mar) than parr (May -Jun). Residence times in the Duwamish vary considerably, with some fish spending days and others (i.e., estuarine reared fry) spending weeks to months in the estuary, The Duwamish Estuary - specifically the transition zone (RM 1-9) - is critical for juvenile salmon making the physiological transition from fresh to salt water, Juvenile Chinook salmon rely on shallow, low gradient habitats (e.g., marshes, mud - flats, and tidal sloughs) to escape stronger currents and support efficient foraging and growth prior to en- tering Puget Sound. Extensive industrial development along the Duwamish has transformed the estuary to an industrial waterway, resulting in extensive loss of slow water rearing habitats and contamination of sediments, The lack of high -quality habitat may contribute to accelerated downstream migration and reduced survival upon entry into Puget Sound, LOWER/MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBWATERSHEDS Pr iz Incubation Spawning and emergence The Salmon Cycle Migration To Puget Sound Stream \ rearing Iu Estuary rearing Downstream migration t DUWAMISH ESTUARY SUBWATERSHED Figure 5. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). MIDDLE GREEN Green/Duwamish River Chinook Juvenile Rearing Trajectories Marine Nearshore Rearing LOWER GREEN DUWAMISH Juvenile Chinook salmon generally rear in the Puget Sound nearshore from later winter through fall. Shal- low nearshore habitats support foraging, growth, and refuge from predators, while also providing a migra- tory corridor to offshore waters. Although considera- ble uncertainty surrounds marine nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon, it is widely accepted that the early marine rearing period is a critical period of growth that strongly influences long-term survival, The Central Puget Sound marine nearshore waters not only support Green River Chinook, but also at least eight different stocks of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Shoreline development has extensively modified nearshore habitat and processes in WRIA 9. Yearling RARE (A05 mm) fie Green Parr COMMON (70-95 mm) Lower Green Parr LESS COMMON L (70-95 mm) mm) rDirect Fry OMMON (40-50 mm) The most intense shoreline modifications are located in urbanized Elliott Bay, with more natural shorelines located along the largely rural Vashon Island. Ocean Migration By fall, most Green River Chinook exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca and migrate north along the outer coast of Vancouver Island, While Chinook salmon may spend up to five years in marine waters, most Green River Chinook spend two to three years at sea before returning to spawn. In addition to predators, Chinook salmon are subject to various commercial fisheries during their marine migration. Recovery goals provide a framework from which to evaluate both plan implementation and overall pro- gress towards Chinook recovery. Tracking population metrics and habitat conditions provides important data used to evaluate current population status and overall habitat conditions. This information serves as a key input for informing ongoing adaptive manage- ment. Viable Salmon Population Criteria — Current Status and Goals The Viable Salmon Population' (VSP) concept - as defined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - provides the foundation for all established recovery goals for Chinook salmon within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. NMFS defines a viable salmon population as a population that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local en- vironmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year timeframe (McElhany et al. 2000). The VSP goals outlined in this section remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan and are presented in Table 1. They 1 NOAA technical Memorandum NMFS-NWSSC-42: Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evo- lutionarily significant units. are based on recovery planning targets developed by a team of scientists (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team) appointed by NOAA to support the original 2007 Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook. Four parameters are used to assess the viability of salmon populations; abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. These parameters are rea- sonable predictors of extinction risk, reflect general processes important to all salmon populations, and measurable over time. Abundance Abundance is the number of individuals in the pop- ulation at a given life stage or time, The number of natural origin Green River Chinook spawners is the primary abundance indicator, Chinook abundance indicates an overall decline since before the first plan was adopted in 2005 (Figure 6 and Table 1). In 2009, the number of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) was the lowest ever recorded, with less than 200 fish. For five of the past 10 years (2010-2019), the number of NOS has been below the planning target range (1,000 -4,200 NOS) for WRIA 9. Table 1. Viable Salmon Population (VSP) Goals Natural Origin 1975 963 2041 1000-42002 27,000 Spawners (average) (average) (average) Egg -to -Migrant Survival 2.9% 8.7% 5,3%a >8% >8% Percent Hatchery 56.4% 60.6% 68.2% Decreasing <30% Origin Proportion 5-6 yr- 19.2 9 6% N/A Increasing >15% old Spawners Relative 46% 30.6% 32,8%a No Target3 No Target Abundance of Parr Spawning Spawning in Green River mainstem above Maintain Spawning • . - (below Howard Hanson Dam), Howard spawning Distribution Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek Hanson distribution Dam Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database a2016-2018 2 A range is used because the productivity of each year's run varies depending on a variety of factors. If fish are expe- riencing high productivity, fewer adults are needed to reach future targets than if they are experiencing low productivity, which would require more fish returning to reach future targets. 3 No target established because it is not considered a reliable metric of diversity. However, relative abundance of fry and parr does provide important information for projecting future abundance. Productivity Productivity or population growth rate is the ratio of abundance in the next generation as compared to current abundance. The WRIA uses WDFW data to track egg -to -migrant survival rates as a primary means of evaluating productivity (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Egg -to -migrant survival rate is defined as the pro- portion of fertilized eggs that survive to migrate as fry or parr into the Lower Green, as quantified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) smolt trap at river mile 34. Although, the average rate for wild Chinook populations is 10A percent (Quinn 2005), the WRIA set a target of 8 percent because the elevated proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds is assumed to reduce reproductive fitness (see VSP diversity metric below). Between 2006 and 2018, the survival rate has ranged from 0.09 percent to 11 percent, with an average of 5.7 percent (Table 1). While the long-term average is below the target, the egg -to -migrant survival rate has exceeded the 8 percent target in five of the last 10 years of data. Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement. 10,000 N W 8,000 Q d N 0 6,000 W m Z 4,000 2,000 0 VSP-Spatial Structure The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator or metric for spatial structure. However, natural origin adults predominantly spawn in Newaukum Creek and the mainstem Green River. Recent changes to hatchery operations will maintain the area in Soos Creek above the weir as a natural production empha- sis area with only natural -origin adults passed above the weir. Adult Chinook will not be passed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) in order to access the upper watershed until downstream fish passage is provided at HHD, A 2019 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that the construction of a downstream fish passage facility at HHD was nec- essary for the recovery of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Southern resident orcas. It sets a 2030 deadline for construction and operation of a downstream fish passage facility. For the spatial structure of the population to improve, natural origin spawners are needed within both of these areas that were part of their historic range. 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total spawners Natural origin 10-Yr. VSP goal (range) Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database. VSP-Diversity Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by individuals within a population. WRIA 9 has used three metrics to mea- sure diversity; Percentage of hatchery origin spawners. The target is for fewer than 30 percent hatchery origin Chinook spawners (HSRG 2004). The target has not been met since 2002, and since plan adoption in 2005, the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawn- ing grounds has ranged from 35 percent to 75 per- cent and has appeared to be increasing (Table 1); Percentage of juvenile Chinook that outmigrate as parr. Based on recent analyses, this indicator is influenced by basic habitat capacity, the number of natural origin spawners, and the streamflows experienced during rearing (Anderson and Topping 2018). As such, tracking the percentage of parr is no longer recommended as a reliable metric for evaluating diversity of the population. However, the metric does continue to provides important popula- tion -level information related to productivity; and Proportion of natural origin adults that return as five- and six -year old fish, with a simple target of an increasing percentage of older fish returning overtime. Since 2005, there have been no six -year old fish, thus monitoring data reflect only five-year old Chinook. Excluding 2009, which was an outlier year with the lowest return of adults on record, the proportion of five-year olds has ranged from a high of 17 percent to a low of 1 percent (Table 1). The average percent return from 2006 to 2015,14.4 per- cent, is similar to the average over the last 46 years of 15.4 percent. Habitat Goals — Implementation Targets Habitat goals outline both the necessary future ecological conditions to support a viable salmon population and shorter term implementation targets designed to assess plan implementation progress. WRIA 9 developed goals for key ecological indicators that reflect priority habitat needs and environmental stressors that span all life stages of Chinook salmon - adult migration, spawning, incubation and emergence, stream rearing, downstream migration, estuary rearing, and nearshore foraging. The indicators and associated goals presented in Table 2 are organized by subwatershed. This Plan Update does not outline specific goals related to marine migration outside of WRIA 9 boundaries. WRIA 9 developed long-term goals - or necessary future conditions - during the development of the 2005 plan using scientific guidance developed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. The 2004 WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment and 2005 Salmon Hab- itat Plan summarize the full suite of necessary future conditions to support a viable salmon population in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed. They were not amended as part of this Plan Update. The subset of necessary future conditions outlined in Table 2 represents a strategic subset that can be readily assessed related to project implemen- tation across shorter intervals of time. Table 2 also outlines updated short term -10 year - habitat targets used to directly track plan imple- mentation. The 10-year targets were developed by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee based on a review priority stressors, limiting factors, implementation progress under the 2005 Plan, and a review of common indicators proposed for regional tracking by the Puget Sound Partnership. Specific targets are intended to be aspirational and reflect the significant level of investment needed to substantive- ly advance recovery within the watershed. The Mon- itoring and Adaptive Management chapter summa- rizes recommended methodology and timelines for periodic assessments of these and other longer -term status and trends indicators (e.g., water temperature, contamination). Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. ConditionsNecessarV Future . 10-year Target Necessary Future 2005 Plan Recommended 10-year Habitat Indicator Cond. (2005 Plan) (achieved) Current Condition Target (2030) Shoreline Armor 65% of shoreline in Restore 13,500 ft of 36%/33 mi of Remove 3,000 ft of hard natural condition shoreline (1500 ft shoreline in natural armor and achieve a net restored - net gain condition reduction in hard armor. of 70 ft of armor). Marine Riparian 65% of marine No target developed 40%/36 mi of Revegetate 60 ac and/or Vegetation shoreline shoreline has 3.25 mi (-3.5% gain) of characterized by riparian tree cover shoreline. riparian tree cover, Shoreline Not applicable Protect 5 mi of 9.5 mi of adjacent Acquire 2 mi of shoreline Conservation shoreline. (4 mi upland protected for permanent protection, protected). as natural lands prioritizing beaches and feeder bluffs. Duwamish Shallow Water 173 ac of shallow Restore 26.5 ac Unknown Create 40 ac of shallow Habitat water habitat in the of shallow water water habitat between transition zone (RM habitat (-6 ac RM 1-10. 1-10) (30% of historic) restored) Riparian Forest 65% of each bank of No target was 69 ac/12% of 165 ft Revegetate 170 ac (-29% the river has > 165 ft developed buffer contains tree of 165-ft buffer)/9,8 mi of of riparian tree cover- cover streambank. age (586 ac total) Off -Channel Habitat 45% of historical Restore 16.5 ac of 3,800 ac of Restore 240 ac of off -channel habitat. reconnected connected 100-yr floodplain habitat. Restore 2.8 mi of side off -channel and floodplain that channels, 450 ac of riparian habitat is accessible to Side Channels: floodplain wetlands, (20.7 ac restored) juvenile fish 550-ft high flow/ and 5,039 ac of 3,740-ft low flow connected 100-yr Floodplain Tributaries: floodplain habitat 3,080 ft (total of 8,839 ac of connected 100-yr Backwater: 75 ac floodplain). Floodplain Wetland: 66 ac Other 100-yr Floodplain: 99 ac Riparian Forest 75% of each bank No target was 222 ac/27% of Revegetate 250 ac of the river to developed 165-ft buffer (-30% of 165-ft buffer)/ >165 ft wide (828 ac contains tree cover 8.52 mi of high -priority, total) unforested shoreline (continued on next page) Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. (Continued) ConditionsNecessarV Future -. 10-year Target Necessary Future 0• • Habitat Indicator Cond. •0• continued,Lower Green, Large woody debris 1,705 pieces per mi No target developed. 2004: 54 pieces/ Achieve 425 pieces/mi. (21 key pieces) mi. 2014: 48.5 pieces/ mi, Bank armor No new, decreasing No new, decreasing 2014: 42 mi of Set back 1 mi of levee, amount amount river bank armored (177-mi levees; 9.8 mi maintained revetments; 14.5 mi of semi -armored roads acting like levees and natural _9UW banks) Middle Floodplain Floodplain subject Restoration of 2017: 1,751 ac or Reconnect 200 ac of connectivity/lateral to lateral channel 50 ac of off -channel 55% of historic floodplain as measured channel migration migration represents habitat and riparian floodplain by area subject to lateral 65% of historical vegetation (45 ac connected channel migration. conditions restored) Riparian forest > 65% of Channel No target developed 2005: 50.3% Revegetate 175 ac (8% of Migration Zone (1,424 2009: 50.5% of the Channel Migration Zone). of 2,190 ac) and up Channel Migration to 165 ft wide where Zone forested possible Large wood debris 10 jams/mi No target developed 2006: 2.2 jams/mi Achieve 5 jams/mi. 2015: 3.8 jams/mi Bank armor No new, decreasing No new, 2004: 25% Set back 1 mi of revetment/ amount decreasing amount armored levee, (>1% reduction) 2009: 24% armored •• Fish passage Up and downstream Fish passage Upstream passage Provide downstream fish passage at provided (upstream facility complete. passage at Howard Hanson Howard Hanson Dam passage provided) Downstream Dam. passage not complete. Bank armor No new, decreasing No new, decreasing 2004: 15% armored Remove/setback 0.5 mi of amount amount 2009: 15% armored bank armoring. The 2005 Strategic Assessment provided the scien- tific foundation for the Salmon Habitat Plan. Although the majority of science remains relevant today, new research findings have refined our understanding of priority pressures and limiting factors related to Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria. The 2005 Strategic Assessment evaluated functional linkages between priority pressures; habitat conditions; and Chinook abundance, diversity, productivity and spatial struc- ture. The functional linkages were used to create a series of conservation hypotheses that outlined how improvements in habitat conditions and natural pro- cesses will drive changes in VSP parameters. From 2017-2018, WRIA 9 produced a series of white papers as addendums to summarize new research and address priority data gaps in the original 2005 Strategic Assessment. White papers included Fish Habitat Use & Productivity (Higgins 2017); Water Temperature (Kubo 2017); Contamination (Colton 2018); and Climate Change (Engel, Higgins and Ostergaard 2017). This chapter provides a summary of the highlights of those papers as they relate to priority pressures impacting Chinook salmon in the Green/ Duwamish Watershed, These refinements in our understanding of priority pressures informed both the recovery strategies presented in Chapter 6 and the prioritization of capital projects in Chapter 7. Priority Pressures (Basin of Focus) Addressing priority habitat stressors is critical to restoring a viable salmon population in the Green/ Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. The following stressors have clear functional linkages to one or more VSP parameters (abundance, pro- ductivity, diversity, and spatial structure). Applicable research and monitoring information is highlighted to reflect new research and best available science since the 2005 Plan, Altered Instream Flows (Middle Green, Lower Green) Watershed Status Operations at Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) and the Tacoma Headworks diversion dam regulate instream flows within the mainstem Green River below river mile 64.5. Water storage, diversion, and release are jointly managed by the U.S. Army Corps and Taco- ma Water utility. Although flood risk reduction is the primary mission of HHD, water storage also supports Tacoma municipal and industrial uses, and fish con- servation uses. In 2007, Tacoma Water's Additional Water Storage Project provided capacity to store an addition 20,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) for municipal use. Figure 7. Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and allocation. 0 +1 Dam crest elev.1,228 ft 1 Spillway invert elev.1,176 ft 19-ft outlet tunnel invert elev.1,035 ft Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Water capture and storage generally occur between late February and June 1. Figure 7 depicts how a spring water storage target of 49,000 ac-ft is legally allocated between municipal and fish conservation uses. Phase 2 of the Additional Water Storage Project (to be completed at a later date following down- stream fish passage) would raise the conservation pool to 1,177 feet and store an additional 12,000 ac-ft of water. The U.S. Army Corps convenes a bi-weekly Green River Flows Management Coordination Com- mittee to inform water capture and a subsequent flow augmentation period that extends from July 15 to November depending on fall rainfall. Augmentation of flows is intended to support Chinook salmon migra- tion and spawning, maximize summer rearing habitat, and minimize dewatering of steelhead redds. Lim- ited Fish Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration allotments frequently require tradeoffs among these ecological benefits - especially in dry and/or warm years with low snowpack. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan establishes a minimum stream flow of 225 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Auburn ELEVATION 1,224 ft 1,206 ft 1,167 ft 1,147 ft 1,141 ft 1,075 ft 1,035 ft gauge. During the summer of 2015, the minimum flow at the Auburn gauge reached 226 cfs. Although flows are not regulated in tributaries, in - streams flows are impacted by stream withdrawals and groundwater wells used to support residential and agricultural uses. In 2018, the Washington Leg- islature passed the Streamflow Restoration Law to offset the impacts of future permit exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals and help restore instream flows. The law was in response to a 2017 Washington State Supreme Court decision (Hirst Decision) that restricted building permits for new residential homes that would be reliant on permit -exempt wells. The legislature appropriated $300 million over 15 years to support implementation of projects to improve stream flows across the state. The Washington State Department of Ecology is developing a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to identify and prioritize water offset projects in WRIA 9. Research/Monitoring Flow management at HHD dictates instream habitat conditions within the mainstem Green River. As a result, water storage and subsequent release timing not only impacts natural hydraulic processes, but also influences available salmon habitat and produc- tivity. Maintaining minimum instream flows of 250 cfs during dry summer months provides important benefits to available fish habitat. However, associated water capture and storage has reduced the frequency and magnitude of high - habitat forming - flows while prolonging the duration of moderate flows (Higgins 2017). Moderate flows between 5000-8000 cfs are not sufficient to drive process -based habitat formation, but do have the potential to scour redds (R2 Re- source Consultants 2014). Long-term juvenile Chinook outmigration data col- lected by WDFW highlights the function relationship between instream flows and Chinook productivity (Anderson and Topping 2018). High flows (between -8,000-10,000 cfs) from November through mid -Jan- uary appear to scour eggs, sharply reducing the overall productivity of the number of juveniles per spawner. High flows (-6,000-8,000 cfs) during the typical fry outmigration period (mid -January through the end of March) reduce the number of parr pro- duced in the Middle Green, likely because fish are flushed into habitats downstream of the trap. The frequency of spring flows (April through June) above 1,200 cfs appears to increase the number of parr produced. This is likely due to increased connectivity to off -channel habitats, like side -channels. A separate study (R2 Resource Consultants 2013) showed that, at flows below 1,200 cfs, side channel habitats become less connected to the mainstem and overall habitat complexity decreases. Climate Change (Watershed -wide) Watershed Status Climate change science was not incorporated into the 2005 Plan because future climate scenarios were unclear. However, climate change has been the focus of intense research, both global and regional, over the last decades. This research highlights the need to prepare for the current and future impacts of climate change and incorporate what we know about climate change into salmon recovery actions. Climate change will directly impact salmon recov- ery work in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. The UW Climate Impacts Group (Mauger et al. 2015) and others predict that Pacific Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bring- ing warmer, wetter falls, winters, and springs. Floods will be more intense and more frequent, with peak flows expected to increase by 28-34 percent by 2080. As winters become warmer and wetter, the water- shed is projected to shift from mixed rain and snow to a rain -dominated basin with less mountain snow melting earlier in the spring. The decrease in amount and earlier disappearance of the snow pack will exacerbate drought -like summer low flow conditions in currently snow -dominated areas of the watershed, Summertime rain is expected to decrease by -22% by 2050. A projected 4-5°F increase in air tempera- tures will increase water temperature in both rivers and the ocean. Nearshore and estuary areas will be impacted by sea level rise, food web alteration and ocean acidification. A changing climate will exacer- bate typical climate variability, causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The potential impacts to various life histories of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, as a result of climate change are summarized in Figure 8. Climate Change Impacts on WRIA 9 Salmonids Adapted from Beechie et al. (2012). Fish timing represents typical fish behavior. Jun. I Jul. I Aug. I Sept. I Oct. I Nov, I Dec. I Jan. I Feb. I Mar. I Apr. I May I Jun. I Jul, Aug, I Sept, I Oct. I Nov. I Dec. I Jan. I Feb. I M May I Jun. I Jul. I Aug. • • River entry Sp E2 awn Incubate Rearing SubyearlingSmolt Yearling River entry E Spawn Incubate M o Rearing p Smolt 11 ESpawn • !M �= c — pubate 0 _ Rearing 0 Smolt 'a c River entry N Spawn d CM Incubate v o d N JRearing SmoltE7M = ii River eSteellhead nt Spawn OR Incubate cv o - 1-2 Year Rearing ilk Smolt River entry Pink Spawn > Incubate �o M_ Rearing Smolt Increased summer temperature may decrease growth or kill Loss of spring snowmelt may juvenile salmon where temperatures are already high and block/delay decrease or eliminate spawning migration. May also decrease spawning fecundity (e.g. Chinook). opportunities for steelhead, may Increased winter floods may increase scour of eggs, or increase alter survival of eggs or emergent mortaility of rearing juveniles where flood refugia are not available, fry for other salmonid species, displace juveniles to less desira ble habitats, cause early dewatering of off - Decreased summer low flow may contribute to increased tempera- channel and side channel habitats, ture, decrease rearing habitat capacity for juvenile salmonids, and and reduce connectivity to the decrease access to or availability of spawning areas. floodplain. Figure B. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a result of climate change. Research/Monitoring A changing climate will exacerbate typical climate variability causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. The summer of 2015 likely provided a glimpse of the future ecological conditions in the Green/Duwamish watershed. A warm, wet winter with extreme low snowpack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon. (DeGasperi 2017) The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reported adult Chinook salmon dying in the stream just below the Soos Creek hatchery (H. Coccoli, pers. comm.), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) data indi- cated higher than typical numbers of female Chinook mortality with high egg retention (pre -spawn mortal- ity) (Unpublished WDFW data). Other sublethal im- pacts associated with temperatures in excess of 17°C can include developmental abnormalities, altered growth rates, and non -fertilization of eggs; altered migration timing; altered predator/prey relationship; and reduced disease resistance. Sea level in Puget Sound rose 20 centimeters from 1900-2008 and scientists project sea level will rise an additional 0.6 meters by 2100. A 1-foot increase in water surface elevation means an order of magnitude increase in high water events —so a 100-year event turns into a two year event (Mauger et al, 2015). Sea level rise will have myriad effects on the marine nearshore habitats, including increased bank/bluff erosion, landslides, and lost nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass, forage fish spawning habitat, estuary mudflats, etc,) due to the "coastal squeeze" adjacent to armored shorelines. In addition, increased risk of erosion could contribute to a growing demand for additional shoreline armoring. NATURAL SHORELINE Future sea level Future MHHW ARMORED SHORELINE Future sea level Figure 9. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn and are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (Coastal Geologic Services). A growing body of research is focusing on the po- tential impacts of ocean acidification on the Puget Sound ecosystem. Ocean acidification is driven by the absorption of carbon dioxide and is expected to impact survival, growth and behavior of marine organisms. In addition to observed impacts to calci- fying organisms (e.g., oysters and crab) there is more recent evidence that ocean acidification may impair sense of smell in salmon, impede growth in herring and other species, and alter plankton populations - which may have a cascading impact on marine food webs. Experiments have shown that coho salmon's ability to avoid predators declines and risk of being eaten increases in low pH waters (Dunagan 2019). Although considerable uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of ocean acidification on salmon, there is potential for it to exacerbate the issue of marine survival, Elevated Water Temperatures (Watershed -wide) Watershed Status Water temperature is a key determinant of the bio- logical integrity of a river - especially as it relates to cold -water dependent salmonids. High water temper- atures can act as a limiting factor for the distribution, migration, health and performance of salmon. Wash- ington State's water quality standards are protective of viable salmonid habitat in the Green River by assigning a numeric criterion of 16°C, above which the water body is considered impaired (WAC 173- 201A-602). A supplemental criterion of 13°C, in effect between September 15 and July 1 further protects sal- monid habitat. The widespread removal of tall, native trees along the riparian corridor - especially in the middle and lower Green River - allows solar -atmos- pheric radiation to rapidly warm water as it moves downstream below HHD. As a result, large stretches of the Green River, Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek regularly exceed established water quality standards for temperature. In 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures. Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. The Green/Duwamish experienced widespread po- tentially lethal water temperatures in 2015 (DeGasperi 2017). In response, WRIA 9 led the development of the Re -Green the Green; Riparian Revegetation Strategy (2016) to emphasize the critical need for increasing riparian canopy and to prioritize revegetation efforts within the watershed. The strategy was adopted as an addendum to the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. It incorporated solar aspect shade maps published in 2014 by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to prioritize areas where increased tree canopy - and thus shade - could provide the largest benefit to preventing ele- vated water temperatures. It also established reveg- etation goals that were directly incorporated into this Plan Update. WRIA 9 developed a Re -green the Green grant program using Cooperative Watershed Management funds from the Flood Control District to accelerate revegetation efforts across the watershed. Research/Monitoring In addition to periodic exceedances of potential lethal water temperatures, a review of 7-DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge (RM 41.5) shows that instream temperatures regularly exceed established thresholds for sublethal impacts to salmon. Figure 10 shows 7-DMax temperatures from 2001-2016 in rela- tion to key Chinook salmon life history stages. These data suggest migration, early spawning, egg incuba- tion, yearling and parr rearing all potentially subject to sublethal impacts associated with elevated water temperatures. A literature review completed for WRIA 9 (Kubo 2017) provides a summary of potential temperature -relat- ed impacts to Chinook salmon. Adult fish migrating upstream may be subject to increased metabolic demand, delayed migration, increased disease expo- sure, decreased disease resistance, and even direct mortality. Spawning fish may experience reduced gamete quality and quantity and reduced fertilization success. Chinook eggs may be subject to reduced embryo survival, decreased hatching -emergence condition, increased abnormalities, and altered meta- bolic rates. Juveniles and outmigrants may be subject to reduced feeding and growth rates, increased dis- ease susceptibility, and accelerated onset of smoltifi- cation and desmoltification, Although many impacts may be sublethal, they can contribute to an increase in delayed mortality. Protecting and restoring mature riparian tree canopy, protecting cold water sources, and promoting hy- porheic exchange between the river/floodplain and the alluvial aquifer are essential to build ecological 25 DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) 2001-2014 Patentlal ly Lethal —2015 — 2016 E 20 t ,y Sub -Lethal - 15 � 1 a w 10 LU Dec Chino k life stages VD —LILT UPSTREAM MIGRATION SPAWNING INCUBATION INCUBATION Figure 10. Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured from 2001-2014. State stand- ards for designated uses are noted by the orange line and potentially lethal impacts are indicated by the red line. State standards for designated uses include core summer salmonid habitats (July 1 - September 15) as well as spawning and incubation periods (September 16 - July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook lifestages included below. resilience to rising temperatures and moderate the impacts associated with climate change. By 2080, it is expected that the number of river miles exceeding salmonid thermal tolerances (>18°C) will increase by 70 miles in the Green/Duwamish watershed (G. Mauger 2016). One study suggests that warming of 2-5.5°C could result in the loss of 5-22 percent of salmon habitat by 2090 (O'Neal 2002). Source: Adapted from King County 2016. Fish Passage Barriers (Watershed -wide) Watershed Status: Fish passage barriers are a critical obstacle to Chinook salmon recovery in the watershed. The presence of Howard Hanson Dam and the Tacoma Headworks Diversion facility block access to approx- imately 40 percent of the historical Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat (NOAA 2019). This barrier alone blocks access to somewhere between 78-165 miles of suitable fish habitat. The 2005 Plan assumed fish passage would be provided by 2015. Ta- coma completed an upstream trap and haul facility at the headworks facility in 2007; however, downstream fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam has not been completed. In 2019, the NOAA Fisheries released a biological opinion (BiOp) that concluded U.S. Army Corps operations at Howard Hanson Dam would "jeopardize the continued existence of ESA -listed Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW), and that the proposed action is likely to result in the adverse modification of these three species' critical habitat designated under the ESA;' In issuing the jeopardy opinion, NOAA stat- ed that without fish passage the population's abun- dance, productivity, and spatial diversity could not achieve established viability criteria, thus increasing the risk of extirpating the population. In order to avoid jeopardizing ESA -listed Chinook, the BiOp concluded that the U.S. Army Corps must provide operational downstream fish passage no later than February 2031. The resulting facility would be required to satisfy established performance criteria, including achieving 98 percent survival of all fish passing through the facility. The BiOp states that if established performance standards are satisfied, the Upper Green watershed could support self-sustaining populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead, "dra- matically improving the likelihood that the Chinook salmon population would achieve a highly viable status' In addition to HHD, an unknown number of smaller fish passage barriers impact Chinook salmon move- ments within the watershed. There is a growing recognition that a number of barriers associated with smaller tributaries adjacent to roads, revetments and flood control structures block juvenile access to critical rearing habitats. One of the larger existing barriers is the Black River Pump Station. The pump station is a flood control facility built in 1970, located near the mouth of the Black River. While the facility was originally constructed with both upstream and downstream fish passage facilities, they are outdat- ed and currently do not meet federal fish passage criteria (Jacobs 2020). In its current state, the facility limits both upstream and downstream fish passage and restricts access to over 50 miles of stream, including Springbrook Creek, Panther Lake Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek. Although the majority of stream habitat is primarily suitable for coho and steelhead, Chinook salmon have been found in the system, and the area immediately upstream of the facility could provide important rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile Chinook. Research/Monitoring A 2019 study evaluating the use of small non -natal trib- utaries (streams that do not support Chinook spawn- ing) by juvenile Chinook highlighted the importance of these habitats for both juvenile rearing and flood refuge. Juvenile Chinook were identified in eight of the nine tributaries sampled in the Lower Green River basin and were found up to 480 meters above the con- fluence with the Green River. The results demonstrated (1) widespread use of non -natal tributaries for extend- ed lengths of time; (2) heavily urbanized streams with a large amount of impervious surfaces appear capable of supporting non -natal juvenile rearing; (3) juvenile up- stream passage is an important consideration for fish barriers; and (4) variability in flapgate performance for juvenile fish passage (King County 2019). A follow-up study was funded by WRIA 9 in 2019 to assess flapgate performance and identify potential retrofit and replace- ment options to improve juvenile passability. Long-term fish -in fish -out monitoring by WDFW indicates that Chinook salmon population produc- tivity is limited by available rearing habitat and that parr outmigrants disproportionately contribute to the abundance of returning adults (Anderson and Topping 2018). Restoration of non -natal tributaries has the potential to complement ongoing restoration efforts in the Lower Green River mainstem to provide additional capacity to support fry growth into parr prior to outmigration to the Duwamish estuary. Larger (basins >100 acres), low -gradient (<2%) tributaries likely provide a large amount of rearing habitat and support higher densities of juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor et al. 2011; Tabor and Moore 2018; Tabor, Murray and Rosenau 1989; Scrivener et al. 1994; Bradford et al. 2001). Figure 11. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flopgate flood control structures. RIVER Tributary Mouth Habitats (Barrier at River) - Section View Tributary Mouth Habitats (Barrier Set Back) - Section View Source; King County, 2019: Juvenile Chinook Use of Non -natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River Land Conversion (Watershed -wide) Watershed Status Located within the greater Seattle metropolitan area, population growth and economic development have significantly modified the watershed, its underlying hydrology, and the salmon habitat within it. In ad- dition to legacy impacts (Chapter 3 of 2005 Plan), the watershed experienced tremendous population growth and development in the 15 years since the 2005 Salmon Plan. The population of King County population swelled approximately 25 percent, adding an additional 444,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2019; King County 2006). During the same timeframe, 46,000 new housing units were constructed in the watershed (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). The extensive development pressures within the watershed - especially in the Nearshore, Duwamish and Lower Green watershed - have degraded large portions of the watershed from natural conditions. In addition to direct habitat loss, land conversion contributes to increased impervious coverage and stormwater runoff. Refer to the Stormwater section in this chapter for additional information on stormwater impacts on salmon. Approximately 32 percent of the watershed is located within established urban growth areas (UGAs), Competition for scarce available land contributes to high restoration/acquisition costs and the loss of restoration priorities to redevelopment pressures. Research/Monitoring Despite the tremendous growth and development pressure, growth management efforts have concen- trated new housing construction within urban growth areas. Only about 3 percent of housing units con- structed in the watershed since the 2005 Plan have occurred outside of UGAs (WA Dept. of Commerce 2017). While this is a positive outcome, a compreo hensive assessment of changes in forest cover and impervious surfaces has not been completed since 2006. In addition, the basin -wide effectiveness of critical area and shoreline protections has not been assessed. A WRIA 9-funded study of marine shoreline development from 2016-2018 observed a net increase in shoreline armoring and permit compliance rates below 50 percent (King County 2019). Additional information about the status of marine shorelines is presented in the Shoreline Armoring section. Levees and Revetments (Middle and Lower Green) Watershed Status An extensive network of flood containment and train- ing levees and revetments protect economic develop- ment and agricultural land in the Lower and Middle Green River valleys. In total. there are approximately 36 miles of levees and revetments in the watershed. Over 27 miles of facilities provide flood protection for the Lower Green River valley - the second larg- est warehouse and distribution center on the west coast. The valley contains $7.3 billion of structures and associated content, supports over 100,000 jobs, and generates an annual taxable revenue of $8 billion (Reinelt 2014). Flood control facilities degrade floodplain function and reduce habitat complexity. They disconnect large portions of the historical floodplain, off -channel hab- itats, and tributaries - all important juvenile salmon rearing and refuge habitats. Associated vegetation maintenance standards limit riparian revegetation and contribute to elevated instream temperatures. Facilities also disrupt sediment delivery and filtration, water storage and recharge, and large wood input to the river channel. In addition to the direct impacts of the facilities, they also support land use development on historic floodplains habitats. Due to the diversion of the White and Black rivers, much of the "connected" floodplain is perched above the river channel and only connected during very high flows. Current flows with a 100-year flood event equate to an historic two-year event (King County 2010). At these flows, only 18 percent (3,518 of 19,642 acres) of the historic Lower Green River floodplain is connected (Higgins 2017). The loss of juvenile ChiT nook salmon -rearing habitat reduces juvenile survival and overall population productivity. Restoration of floodplain habitat in the Lower Green River valley not only requires levee setbacks, but also requires ex- tensive fill removal to reconnect perched floodplains across a larger range of flows. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, studies have shown higher growth rates for Chinook salmon accessing flood - plains when compared to fish rearing exclusively in the mainstem. Increased growth likely results from increased food availability and foraging efficiency in floodplain habitats (Henning 2004; Sommer et al. 2001; leffres, Opperman and Moyle 2008; and Lestelle et al. 2005). This research also suggests that any increased risk of stranding during retreating flows is offset by the potential for increased growth rates. These studies emphasize how important flood - plain habitats are to juvenile Chinook growth and provide an important context for understanding how the magnitude of habitat loss in the Lower Green and to a lesser extent in the Middle Green have impacted juvenile Chinook production locally. Analysis of juvenile life history success in adult Green River Chinook salmon (2015-2017) found parr outmi- grants disproportionately contribute to adult returns relative to their abundance. Although parr comprised 3-56 percent of the out -migrating juveniles, more than 97 percent of returning adults were found to have exhibited the parr life history. In comparison, the parr life history is reflected in 64 and 76 per- cent, respectively, of the adult returns in the Skagit and Nooksack watershed (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). These data indicate that Chinook salmon life history success varies between watersheds and that productivity (adult spawner abundance) in the Green is currently driven by parr production, as juveniles exhibiting the fry life history rarely survive to adulthood. An analysis of long-term juvenile outmigration data collected by WDFW identified a density -dependent relationship between adult spawner abundance and relative parr abundance (Anderson and Topping 2018), Figure 6 shows that adult escapements in excess of 3,000 fish did not generally result in increased parr production. In contrast, fry production was observed to be density independent. Juvenile Chinook require rearing and refuge habitats (e.g., off -channel habitats, side -channels, etc.) to grow into parr prior to outmigration. When considered in con- cert with the Campbell and Claiborne studies, these results highlight the importance of reconnecting floodplains and restoring rearing habitat to increasing Chinook returns. Sediment Contamination (Duwamish) Watershed Status Industrial and commercial development in the Duwamish estuary not only led to dredge and fill of historical estuarine wetlands, but also left a legacy of persistent contaminants within the working water- front. Two Superfund sites require additional clean-up in the Duwamish, the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and Harbor Island/East Waterway (EW). Both sites contain elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), as well as dioxins and furans, The EPA's Record of Decision for the LDW (2014) outlines the cleanup plan for the 412 acre site, which includes 105 acres of dredging or partial dredging, 24 acres of capping, 48 acres of enhanced natural remediation and 235 acres of monitored nat- ural attenuation. Although early action areas (Slip 4, Terminal 117, Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge, Diag- onal Combined Sewer Overflow [CSO], and Norfork CSO) resulted in cleanup of approximately 50 percent of PCB contamination, cleanup will not be completed until after 2031. Cleanup options for the EW site are under development. 500,000 ¢ 400,000 LL p 300,000 cc W 200,000 z 100,000 500,000 - 400,000 a a 0 300,000 cc m 200,000 z 100,000 (A) (B) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 SPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP Figure 12. Spawners -recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2017). Transport pathways carry contaminants from sources to surface waters, as well as within surface waters. Contaminants reach the Green/Duwamish receiving waters via point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and CSOs discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmo- spheric deposition, as well as by spills/leaks and bank erosion. Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated prey. Chinook experience greater chemical exposure during the juvenile phase than during the adult phase due to the comparatively different lengths of time they spend in the Duwamish during these life stages (Colton 2018). Although the 2005 Salmon Plan hypothesized that sediment cleanup would benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on productivity at the time. Research/Monitoring A growing body of research findings suggests that contaminant exposure for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish and Elliott Bay is affecting juvenile Chinook salmon growth, disease resistance, and immunosuppression, and ultimately marine survival. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in industrial estuary and nearshore habitats (e.g., Duwamish, Puyallup and Snohomish) contain elevated levels of organic contaminants as compared to those rearing in less developed watersheds (Skagit and Nisqually) (O'Neil et al. 2015; Varanasi et al.1993). Juvenile Chinook salmon whole body PCB tissue concentrations from the Duwamish and associated nearshore areas have exceeded adverse impact thresholds (O'Neil et al. ;� *" t9 Id 41 7 2015; Johnson 2007). PCB levels in wild fingerlings have also been shown to have significantly higher PCB levels than their hatchery counterparts, suggest- ing that wild Chinook have a longer residence time within the Duwamish estuary (Nelson, et al. 2013). An examination of 37 years of hatchery data from 20 hatcheries across 14 watersheds found 45 percent lower smolt -to -adult survival rates for hatchery Chi- nook that outmigrate through contaminated estuaries as compared to uncontaminated estuaries (Meador 2014), The study evaluated the findings against the total amount of estuary habitat, length of freshwater habitat between each hatchery and estuary, as well as growth rates and did not find these factors could explain observed variation in survival rates. Because wild Chinook - especially the fry outmigrant life his- tory type - are more dependant on and have longer residence times in estuarine habitat, the observed decline in survial may be more pronounced in wild Chinook salmon. A recent study by scientists at the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center estimated the potential impact remediation of the Lower Willamette River Su- perfund site would have on Chinook salmon recovery (Lundin et al. 2019). The study used a combination of field and laboratory -collected exposure, growth, and disease resistance data to estimate acute and de- layed mortality rates for juvenile Chinook. These esti- mates were then incorporated into a life cycle model that estimated sediment remediation could improve juvenile survival by 54 percent and increase popula- tion abundance by 20 percent. This study provides a population -scale assessment of the potential impacts of legacy pollutants on Chinook salmon and suggests that remediation in the Duwamish could be a signifi- cant driver for Chinook recovery. Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience very low marine survival rates In contrast to less developed watersheds, estuarine -reared fry in the Green/Duwamish are not contributing significantly to adult returns. The research on potential adverse impacts to juvenile Chinook as a result of contaminant exposure is con- sistent with a recent analysis of juvenile life histories expressed by adult Chinook salmon in the Green/Du- wamish River. Analysis of otoliths from returning adult salmon allow resource managers to back -calculate size upon entry in marine waters, allowing differentia- tion between parr and fry migrants. Otolith collection from adult Chinook salmon (2015-2017) indicate that less than 3 percent of fish returning to the water- shed entered marine waters as a fry migrant, despite representing between 44 and 97 of the total juvenile outmigrants (Campbell and Claiborne 2017; Campbell et al. 2019). Additional research is needed to assess the relative importance of contamination in relation to other stressors (i.e., existing estuarine habitat quality and capacity) in contributing to poor marine survival. Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) are another area of emerging research. The EPA defines CECs as "chemicals and other substances that have no reg- ulatory standard, have been recently 'discovered' in natural streams (often because of improved analytical chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause del- eterious effects in aquatic life (e.g., endocrine disrupt- ers) at environmentally relevant concentrations" (EPA 2008). CECs include hormones, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), and industrial process chemicals. An analysis of juvenile Chinook whole body tissue in several Puget Sound estuaries detected 37 of 150 surveyed PPCPs (Meador et al. 2016). Metabolic disruption consistent with starvation was also observed in juvenile Chinook collected ad- jacent to waste water treatment plants in Sinclair Inlet and the Puyallup River (Meador 2018). The potential impacts to Chinook salmon growth, reproduction, and behavior are not well understood. Stormwater (Nearshore, Duwamish, Lower and Middle Green) Watershed Status Stormwater runoff and associated hydrological modifications resulting from forest conversion and land use development within the Green/Duwamish watershed adversely impact water quality and salmon habitat. Approximately 59 and 24 percent, respectively, of the 165-foot riparian buffer in the Duwamish and Lower Green is characterized by im- pervious surfaces (King Co. unpublished data, 2013). Although watershed -wide data are not available, the impacts associated with the loss of forest cover and increase in impervious surfaces are not confined to riparian areas. At the basin -wide scale, these levels of impervious coverage can contribute to a two -three fold increase in stormwater runoff above natural conditions (Paul and Meyer 2001). Increased runoff contributes to rapid changes in flows, with larger peak flows and lower low flows; increased pollutant transport and degradation of water quality; shifts in benthic macroinvertebrates communities; elevated water temperatures; increased bank erosion and sediment transport capacity; and altered channel morphology and hydraulics. The majority of the development within the water- shed - and across Puget Sound - predates existing critical area ordinances and low -impact development standards designed to mitigate impacts to aquatic ecosystems. As a result, stormwater runoff is recog- nized within the region as one of the more significant challenges facing both salmon and Puget Sound recovery efforts. Research/Monitoring Since the 2005 Plan, a significant body of research has focused on stormwater toxicity impacts to salm- on in urban creeks. Consistently high levels of mor- tality (up to 90 percent) in adult coho salmon have been observed in urban watersheds, with the extent of mortality rate related to an urbanization gradient and, more specifically, density of motor vehicle traffic (Scholz 2011; Feist 2017), More recent studies have connected observed mortality events to pollutants associated with highway runoff (Scholz 2016; Peter 2018). Although studies have shown treatment of runoff can prevent acute toxicity, the large capital expenditures associated with stormwater retrofits have precluded widespread implementation. A comprehensive needs and cost assessment for stormwater retrofit within the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound wa- tershed was completed in 2014. The study evaluated 278 square miles of the watershed, excluding Seattle and areas upstream of Howard Hanson Dam. An esti- mated $210 million per year would need to be spend over the next 30 years to build necessary regional facilities, retrofit roads and highways, and retrofit non -forested lands not redeveloped within the next 30 years (King County 2014). Shoreline Armoring (Nearshore) Watershed Status The Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed encompasses 92 linear miles of marine shoreline. Associated nearshore habitats provide not only important rearing and migratory habitat for juve- nile salmon, but also spawning habitat for forage fish (e.g., sand lance and surf smelt), which are important prey items for salmon, birds and marine mammals. Delivery of sediment and trees from natural bluffs helps sustain nearshore habitat complexity (beaches, spits, eelgrass beds, etc.) and shoreline resilience to coastal erosion and sea level rise. The degradation of marine shorelines and associated ecological functions has implications not only for Chinook salmon recovery, but also for the ESA -listed southern resident orca population. Shoreline armor - especially along feeder bluffs - disrupts sediment supply and transport, altering nearshore habitat quantity and quality. Shoreline land use ranges from commercial and industrial waterfront in Elliott Bay, urban residential between Seattle and Federal Way, to rural residential and undeveloped shorelines along Vashon Island, Approximately 65 percent of the shoreline is currently armored and only 22 of 52 drift cells have greater than 50 percent of historical feeder bluffs intact (King County 2019; WRIA 9 2012). Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project (Ecology). Research/Monitoring Recent research reinforces assumptions in the 2005 Plan about the importance of nearshore habitats to salmon. The range of physical and biological impacts in response to shoreline armoring varies across spa- tial and temporal scales. Shoreline armoring impacts wrack and log accumulation, juvenile fish utilization, forage fish spawning, beach profiles, sediment grain size, and marine riparian vegetation. In particular, drift cells with a high proportion of armoring tend to be characterized by skinnier beaches, coarser sedi- ments, fewer drift logs, fewer prey species (Dethier et al. 2016). Natural shorelines convey important benefits to juvenile Chinook salmon. Small juvenile salmon preferentially use low -gradient, unarmored shorelines (Munsch, Cordell and Toft 2016). Riparian vegetation associated with unarmored beaches provide a source of terrestrial prey items for juvenile Chinook and ben- efit forage fish egg survival by moderating substrate temperatures and maintaining humidity (Rice 2006; Toft, Cordell et al. 2007). Even small-scale beach restoration projects (i.e., Olympic Sculpture Park) have resulted in measurable increases in larval fish abun- dance, juvenile salmon, and invertebrate diversity as compared to adjacent armored shorelines (Toff, Ogston et al. 2013). The magnitude of unpermitted shoreline modifica- tions threatens to negate investments in shoreline restoration and undermine the goal of "no net loss" established within the Shoreline Management Act. From 2013-2018, the watershed saw a net increase of 364 feet of shoreline armor despite armor removal and restoration of 382 feet shoreline during the same timeframe. Only 42 percent of observed shoreline modifications were permitted by local governments prior to construction (King County 2019). Although juvenile Chinook from the Green/Duwamish River have been observed to use the marine shore- lines throughout Central Puget Sound, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative importance of non -natal coastal streams and pocket estuaries. A study in the Whidbey Basin found abundant use of non -natal coastal streams (32 of 63 streams) by juve- nile Chinook. The presence of juvenile Chinook was influenced by (1) distance to nearest natal Chinook salmon river; (2) stream channel slope; (3) watershed area; and (4) presence and condition of a culvert at the mouth of a stream. The importance of non -natal coastal streams to juvenile Chinook salmon dropped significantly beyond 7 km from the mouth of a Chi- nook bearing river (Beamer, et al. 2013). Additional research is needed to prioritize non -natal coastal streams in WRIA 9 with respect to potential contribu- tion towards Chinook salmon recovery. :loll[: -?ecovery 5tratpPic WRIA 9 developed 11 overarching recovery strategies to organize watershed priorities and guide future investments. These strategies outline priority areas of focus intended to advance salmon recovery over the next 10-20 years. Recovery strategies are not prioritized. Implementation across the portfolio of recovery strategies is necessary to address priority pressures; increase salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity; and build long-term population resil- iency. Successful implementation hinges on partner coordination and investment to ensure local land use planning, capital investment programs, and commu- nity outreach messaging are consistent with identi- fied watershed priorities. WRIA 9 hosted a series of subwatershed workshops to review and update policies and programs from the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. Revised policies and programs are organized by recovery strategies - as opposed to subwatershed - to reduce redundancy and improve alignment with other Puget Sound salmon plan updates, This structure is intended to provide project sponsors and other recovery part- ners a streamlined communication tool for a shared understanding of what needs to happen, where, and what policy considerations are necessary at the local and regional level to advance Chinook salmon recovery. Strategy: Restore and Improve Fish Passage Location: All Subwatersheds Fish passage barriers block access to important spawning and rearing habitat and can exacerbate localized flooding issues. Legacy transportation and flood control infrastructure were not regularly de- signed for fish passage and/or elevated flood flows associated with climate change. Although address- ing fish passage barriers was a priority in the 2005 Plan, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the State has a treaty -based obligation to address culverts under state -maintained roads in order to preserve tribal harvest rights within their usual and accustomed areas. This ruling has reinforced the need and elevated the urgency for addressing identi- fied barriers in a systematic and strategic manner. Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing habitat in non -natal tributaries. Photos. Mike Perfetti. Figure 16 Healthy juvenile Chinook (right) and coho (left) salmon sampled from a non -natal tributary in 2018. Photo: Chris Gregersen. Programs Fish Passage Barrier Removal WRIA 9 partners should work towards a compre- hensive inventory of fish passage barriers in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Wa- tershed, and prioritize barrier removal across the watershed to maximize the benefit of fish passage investments. Although the majority of existing barriers in the watershed impact coho salmon and steelhead, special consideration should be given to removing barriers to non -natal tributary rearing habitats. Recent fish monitoring studies have demonstrated the importance of non -natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook and remedying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Recent fish moni- toring studies have demonstrated the importance of non -natal tributaries to juvenile Chinook (King County 2019; Tabor and Moore 2018) and reme- dying these barriers will expand available rearing habitat and increase Chinook productivity. Many partner jurisdictions do not have the capacity to implement a programmatic approach to barrier identification and removal; instead, barrier removal is driven by infrastructure repair needs and local capital improvement programs. Some, such as the City of Seattle, have an inventory and prioritized list of fish passage barriers but lack sufficient funding for implementation. To support a more compre- hensive approach to fish passage, WRIA 9 partners should leverage available technical assistance from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Passage and King County Fish Pas- sage Restoration Programs to assess and prioritize barriers for removal outside of their scheduled capital improvement programs to expedite high - priority barrier removals. Jurisdictions should apply for funding for high -priority projects through the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board. Regional coordination among WRIA 9 partners on fish barrier removal priorities should help identify synergies and accelerate barrier removal in priority subwa- tersheds. Programmatic improvements within the County Fish Passage Restoration Program may support increased efficiencies within other jurisdic- tions. Fish passage accomplishments and lessons learned should be shared regularly to expedite bar- rier identification and increase coordination across the watershed. Policies Fish Passage (FP)1: Provide efficient and safe fish passage where built infrastructure (e.g., road cross- ings and flood control facilities) intersects instream habitats. Fish passage design considerations should not only facilitate adult upstream migration, but also ensure juvenile salmonid access to rearing habitat provided in non -natal tributaries. Project sponsors should use WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines (2013) to assess feasibility and support alternative development. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Floodplain Connectivity Location: Lower and Middle Green The process of channel migration within the floodplain creates side channels, back -water sloughs, and other off -channel habitats that are critical for juvenile salm- on rearing and refuge. Floodplains also facilitate an exchange of nutrients and organic material between land and water, and provide important flood storage capacity that can mitigate flood damages to adjacent communities. The historic loss of flood - plain habitat within the Green/Duwamish watershed resulted in a loss of habitat complexity, increased peaks flows and water velocities, and a loss of groundwater storage and important cold water recharge during summer months, Flow regulation at Howard Hanson Dam and the diversion of the White River into the Puyallup River has reduced the frequency and mag- nitude of flood events and left much of the floodplain perched well above the current river channel. Reconnecting floodplains and restor- ing floodplain habitats is essential to increas- ing both the available rearing habitat and corresponding salm- on productivity of the system. Figure 1 Z The Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project is a multi -benefit project that provides flood risk reduction, habitat restoration, and recreational enhancements. Programs None identified. Implementation relies on individual capital projects that will be identified in project list. Policies Floodplain Connectivity (FC)1: Support multi -benefit flood risk reduction projects that also enhance salmon habitat by allowing rivers and floodplains to function more naturally. Multi -benefit projects can (1) reduce community flood risk; (2) provide critical salmon habitat; (3) increase floodplain storage; (4) improve water quality; (5) replenish groundwater; (6) expand public rec- reation opportunities; and (7) strengthen commu- nity and ecological resilience to extreme weather events due to climate change. FC2: Wherever possible, flood protection facilities should be (re)located away from the river edge to reconnect floodplains and re-establish natural riv- erine processes. During conceptual design of alter- natives, project sponsors should evaluate opportu- nities to pursue relocation of existing infrastructure and real estate acquisition to support levee set- backs. A process -based approach to restoration is ideal for species recovery; however, where a levee setback is infeasible due to the constraints of past land use activity, alternative facility designs (e.g., levee laybacks) should strive to incorporate plant- ing benches and wood structures that mimic lost ecosystem services and improve critically needed edge habitat. FC3: Local government should utilize critical areas and shoreline regulations and associated land use policies to protect creek riparian areas and asso- ciated floodplains to increase the flood storage capacity of these areas. FC4: Vacating and relocating roads should be evaluated as tools to support salmon restoration priorities where impacts are negligible and/or can be mitigated. Coordinating transportation infra- structure improvements with salmon habitat needs (e.g,, floodplain reconnection and fish passage) can improve outcomes and reduce project costs. Road vacation policies should be updated to consider level of use and road standards. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Channel Complexity and Edge Habitat Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Flood protection facilities (e.g., Howard Hanson Dam, revetments, and levees) and loss of riparian habitat have disrupted sediment transport, simplified hab- itat complexity, contributed to a loss of rearing and refuge habitat, and impeded natural recruitment of spawning gravels. Although process based restora- tion is preferred, ongoing intervention is necessary to replace/mimic natural processes where they cannot be restored. Middle Green River Gravel and Wood Supplementation Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Pub- lic Utilities should continue gravel and wood sup- plementation in the Middle Green River to account for disruption of natural sediment transport and wood recruitment caused by Howard Hanson Dam. Up to 14,000 tons of spawning gravels are deposit- ed annually at two sites located near river mile 60, just downstream of the Tacoma Headworks Facility, High flows during the winter months engage the deposited gravel and naturally distribute it down- stream, Regular monitoring of gravel distribution should inform quantity, size gradation, and timing to maximize benefits for salmonids. The U.S. Army Corps Corps should continue to transport large wood (> 12 in. diameter; > 20 ft. in length; >4 ft, diameter root ball) that is stranded in the reservoir to below the Tacoma Headworks Facility. Large wood increases channel complexi- ty, provides habitat for juvenile fish, and provides nutrients and substrate for aquatic insects. The upper watershed is heavily forested and large wood is transported to the reservoir during high flow events, but is unable to move downstream of the dam without intervention. Existing quantities of large wood downstream of the dam remain signifi- cantly below recommended wood volumes (Fox and Bolton 2007) to support salmon recovery. Peri- odic surveys should be completed to monitor large wood volumes and ensure project success. Policies Channel Complexity (CC)1: Project designs should incorporate best available science related to climate change predictions and anticipated changes to seasonal instream flow patterns to enhance channel complexity and edge habitat across a range of flows. Lower spring and summer flows could make restored rearing habitat inacces- sible during juvenile Chinook outmigration, Special consideration should be given to project designs that ensure juvenile salmon rearing habitat remains accessible in low flow years. CC2: For habitat restoration projects calling for the addition of large woody debris, placement of wood should consider risk to river users, such as boaters and swimmers. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Riparian Corridors Location: All Subwatersheds Healthy riparian corridors provide a critical role in pro- viding cool and clean water for salmon. Riparian vegeta- tion shades instream habitat and moderates water tem- peratures; reduces erosion by stabilizing streambanks; captures rainwater and filters sediment and stormwater pollutants; provides terrestrial nutrient and food inputs; and is a source of large wood, which is critical to habitat complexity, Restoring riparian corridors is essential to addressing high summertime water temperatures and building long-term resilience to predicted changes as- sociated with climate change, The Washington State De- partment of Ecology (Ecology) developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Green River and Newaukum Creek in 2011 that outlined an implementation plan for improving temperatures, Another TMDL for Soos Creek is under development. Refer to the "Integrate Agricultur- al Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives" strategy for a discussion of riparian corridors within agricultural lands, Programs Re -Green the Green Revegetation Program The 2016 Re -Green the Green Strategy prioritizes riverine, estuarine and marine areas for revegetation, establishes interim goals, and outlines strategies for securing necessary funding. Riparian revegetation priorities are based on the solar aspect shade maps developed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (2014). This effort identified and prioritized shorelines where shade is critically needed to reduce instream water tempera- tures that frequently exceed water quality standards. WRIA 9 should continue to run an annual grant pro- gram that supports program implementation across priority shoreline areas. As of 2020, approximately $500,000 of annual Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Funds provided by the King County Flood Con- trol District have been set aside to support Re -Green the Green project implementation by WRIA 9 partners. This funding is intended to provide a baseline level of revegetation funding that can be leveraged to access other sources of funding. Riparian revegetation proj- ects help improve water quality, lower water tempera- tures, stabilize shorelines, contribute insects (prey) for juvenile salmonids, increase stormwater infiltration, and improve aquatic habitat quality when trees fall into the river, Implement coordinated and comprehensive approach to noxious/invasive weed removal along river and marine shorelines WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with the King County Noxious Weed Removal Program to prior- itize and sequence weed removal efforts through the watershed. Noxious weed control should be conducted in parallel with priority riparian reveg- etation efforts. Ongoing invasive removal on res- toration sites is critical until native plants become established (- five years). Invasive plants spread quickly, impede growth and establishment of natives, and degrade riparian habitats by destabilizing riverbanks and reducing tree canopy needed to help maintain cool water temperatures. Priority species impacting the ripar- ian community in the Green/Duwamish include knotweed species (Class B), purple loosestrife (Class B), policeman's helmet (Class B), English ivy (Class C), Himalayan blackberry (Class C), and reed canary -grass (Class C). Long-term Restoration Site Stewardship and Maintenance WRIA 9 partners should explore potential funding sources for a professional stewardship/mainte- nance crew to provide long-term site maintenance of restoration sites across the watershed. Salmon recovery funding generally does not provide for site maintenance beyond several years, and main- tenance typically falls outside the scope of regular park maintenance operations. A shared mainte- nance crew would provide cost savings to jurisdic- tions for maintenance of the growing portfolio of restoration sites. Priority tasks for a crew would include invasive species removal, planting as needed, and litter cleanup. In addition to these basic functions, this crew could play an important role in helping to manage the growing challenge of encampments within the Green River corridor. This program would ensure a regular staff presence at restoration sites to assist with outreach and public safety in addition to enhancing long-term ecological outcomes. In Figure 18. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re -Green the Green Strategy. SINCE 2015 15 watershed partners have revegetated 414* acres along 75y314 linear feet I4.3 miles) of shoreline in the Green/Duwamish watershed —that's nearly 5 Foster Golf Courses or 235 Sounders soccer fields of new revegetated shoreline! w1w1w � 1J *414 (17%) acres out of the 2,384 acre goal established in the 2016 Re -Green the Green Strategy. The goal reflects a proportion of the total riparian buffer (developed and undeveloped) that has less than 50% tree cover. addition, a shared crew would address stewardship and maintenance needs at sites that are not suitable for citizen volunteers. Policies Riparian Corridor (RC)1: Protect and enhance ri- parian corridors to help achieve temperature water quality standards established to protect salmon mi- gration, spawning and rearing. Local governments should support implementation of the Green River and Newaukum Creek TMDLs by protecting and re-establishing mature riparian vegetation within established stream buffers. RC2: Revisit levee vegetation guidelines to im- prove revegetation opportunities along flood facilities. Guidelines must balance the critical need for riparian shade (i.e., Ecology TMDL) with the need to inspect the structural integrity of facilities and maintain public safety. Remote sensing (i.e., ground -penetrating radar, drones, or boat inspec- tions) may provide a viable alternative to traditional visual inspections that require a clear zone. RC3: Project sponsors who receive WRIA 9 fund- ing should request funding for up to three years post -construction maintenance funding for plant establishment, and should document the ability to maintain habitat restoration and protection projects to ensure long-term objectives are achieved. Main- tenance may include, but is not limited to, noxious weed and invasive plant control, revegetation, and deterrence of undesired uses such as dumping and occupancy that can damage habitat. RC4: River corridor trails should be compatible with salmon recovery priorities. Trail design standards should balance the need for riparian tree canopy to maintain cooler water temperatures with needs for important recreational view corridors and sight - lines for user safety. Trail design/placement should also not preclude reconnection of critically needed floodplain habitats. Trails offer residents an oppor- tunity to connect with the river; interpretive signage should highlight the presence of salmon and the ecological importance of riparian and floodplain habitat. RC5: Encourage regional efforts to develop a Bon- neville Power Authority (BPA) mitigation program for power transmission impacts across Puget Sound. The BPA has a significant footprint within the Upper Watershed and the Soos Creek Basin where vegetation management and tree removal under transmission lines precludes adequate ripari- an canopy cover. Although the BPA has established mitigation programs for Columbia basin operations, a comparable program does not exist within Puget Sound. Strategy: Protect, Restore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality Location: All Subwatersheds Clean, cold water is essential for salmon growth and survival. A growing body of evidence suggests clean- up of legacy industrial contamination and stormwater pollution control may improve early marine survival and increase Chinook productivity. Recent scientific literature suggests contaminant exposure pathways (e.g., legacy industrial contamination, stormwater run- off, municipal wastewater discharges, etc.) are having sublethal and lethal impacts on juvenile Chinook salmon. Although the acute toxicity of stormwater runoff to coho salmon in urban watersheds is well documented, potential sublethal impacts to juvenile Chinook salmon as a result of contaminate exposure pathways are not well understood. Programs Green/Duwamish Watershed Pollution Loading Assessment (PLA) Ecology should continue to lead development of a pollutant loading assessment (PLA) that will (1) include a watershed -based model to evaluate cumulative effects of pollution; (2) assess relative contribution of toxic pollutants from different sources/pathways in the watershed; and (3) help prioritize source control efforts. The PLA is essential to maximizing effectiveness of Lower Duwamish Waterway cleanup and avoiding subsequent recon- tamination, The PLA is an interim strategy for improving water quality - it is not a TMDL or another regulatory instrument. It represents a foundational effort that will inform future actions to address source control issues. Following its completion, WRIA 9 partners should coordinate with Ecology to address priority pollutant sources within their jurisdictions. Implement Pollution Identification and Control (PIC) Programs The Vashon-Maury Pollution Identification and Con- trol (PIC) program provides incentives (technical support and financial) to replace or repair failing septic systems, and address other pollution sources (e.g., animal waste) contributing to water quality degradation in the marine nearshore. Failing or inappropriately sited septic systems have resulted in water quality concerns and closure of beach and shellfish harvest areas - especially within Quarter Master Harbor. While the direct impact on shellfish harvesting is a human health concern, the water quality pollution can negatively affect various parts of the nearshore ecosystem that supports Chinook salmon. Although the 2005 Salmon Plan focused on Quarter Master Harbor, PIC programs should be expanded to other nearshore areas as warranted to identify pollution sources, provide technical support, and offer financial incentives to remedy failing septic systems and other sources of pollution. Over the last decade, investments made by Public Health — Seattle & King County and other partners have resulted in improved water quality and reopening of 493 acres of shellfish harvest areas. Creosote Removal Program WRIA 9 organizations should partner with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Creosote Removal Program to identify and remove creosote -treated debris and derelict structures from marine and estuarine waters. Creosote structures leach chemicals and can create toxic conditions for organisms that live within beach and marine sediments, as well as disrupt the marine foodweb. Studies have found creosote exposure can contrib- ute to mortality of herring eggs and alter growth and immune function of juvenile salmonids. Dere- lict structures can also interrupt sediment transport and displace aquatic vegetation. Since adoption of the 2005 Plan, the program has removed over 21,000 tons of creosote debris and 8.0 acres of overwater structures from Puget Sound, However, thousands of derelict creosote pilings re- main within Puget Sound. WRIA 9 partners should continue efforts to inventory and prioritize focus areas based on concentration of creosote debris and potential impacts to forage fish and juvenile salmon rearing. Policies Water Quality (WQ)1: Promote Low -Impact Devel- opment (LID) and green infrastructure (natural and engineered systems) to address stormwater runoff. Given the magnitude of development constructed prior to existing stormwater controls, extensive stormwater retrofits are needed to address legacy sources of water pollution. LID techniques should mimic, where possible, pre -disturbance hydrologi- cal processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evap- oration and transportation. LID techniques include; • Vegetation conservation: native vegetation and small-scale treatment systems; • Site design: clustering of buildings and narrower and shorter roads; • Retention systems: bioretention, bio-swales, rain gardens, wetlands and vegetated roofs; • Porous or permeable paving materials: sidewalks, trails, residential driveways, streets, and parking lots; and • Rainwater catchment: rain barrels and cisterns. WQ2: Support local and regional watershed -based stormwater management initiatives (e.g., Our Green Duwamish, STORM, etc.) that prioritize programs and projects that can effectively demonstrate large- scale, watershed -wide, water quantity and water quality improvements that benefit salmon recovery. Potential priorities include: • Collaborative source control strategies such as education and outreach, business inspections, pollution prevention, and programmatic mainte- nance; • Regional retrofit programs focused on restoring natural hydrology and the removal of toxics; and • Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) incentive programs that promote the voluntary use of GSI WQ3: Source control efforts across multiple sectors (commercial, industrial, and agricultural) should ensure that water and sediment quality support salmon growth and survival. Source control suffi- ciency is a critical milestone that must be achieved to initiate contaminated sediment cleanup. Ensur- ing implementation, maintenance, and enforce- ment, where necessary, of source control best management practices will help reduce pollutant loading into water bodies and ensure pollutants don't undermine sediment cleanup efforts in the Duwamish. Incentives to promote effective source control include spill prevention and response, technical support, and hazardous waste vouchers to local businesses. WQ4: Protect and enhance rural and urban for- ests, which provide diverse social, economic and ecological benefits. In Rural Areas of King County, at least 65 percent of each sub -basin should be preserved as natural forest cover and impervious coverage should not exceed 10 percent of a sub - basin, Where forest cover exceeds this threshold, the goal of no net loss in forest cover should be pursued, In Urban Growth Areas, local govern- ments should adopt goals to achieve 30-40 percent ecologically healthy urban tree canopy coverage and reduce impervious surfaces. Adopting goals specific to riparian canopy could help prioritize riparian restoration. Local education, outreach, and incentive programs should be supported to in- crease urban forestry programs and associated tree canopy coverage. Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park. Although Stormwater toxicity is not lethal to Chinook salmon, potential sublethal impacts are not well understood. Photo: Matt Goehring. WQS: Ensure cost -share agreements between the U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tacoma Water, and private landowners are maintained and that road mainte- nance and abandonment plans achieve sediment reduction goals. Support opportunities to abandon unnecessary forest roads as they are identified to reduce overall road density. WQ6: Support regional and state legislative efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills in Puget Sound and ensure the state remains a leader in oil spill preven- tion and response. Over 20 billion gallons of oil are transported through Washington each year by ves- sel, pipeline and rail. A catastrophic spill could cost the region over $10 billion and impact over 150,000 jobs. It would also cause significant harm to aquatic ecosystems and disrupt maritime industry, recre- ation, and tourism. WQ7: Local governments should adopt the Inter- agency Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines, as amended, for maintenance of existing infrastructure. Govern- ments should participate in the associated Regional Forum to support ongoing adaptive management to improve outcomes. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines Location: Marine Nearshore Marine nearshore habitats, including beaches, pocket estuaries, eelgrass beds, inlets, and deltas, provide important rearing and migration habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon and many other animals in Puget Sound. They are also critical spawning habitat for forage fish - a key prey species for Chinook salmon. Decades of alteration and armoring of the Puget Sound marine shoreline has reduced shoreline length and habitat complexity, disrupted sediment supply and transport, and eliminated forage fish spawning habitat. Restoring natural shorelines will increase nearshore productivity and salmon growth and survival in the marine environment. Programs Develop/maintain a "Toolbox" of Shore Friendly Alternatives for Privately -Owned Shorelines (aka Do-it-yourself approach for residential shoreline improvement) WRIA 9 partners should develop a "shoreline toolbox" to provide shoreline owners guidelines for implementing shore friendly alternatives that clearly outline stewardship concepts and best manage- ment practices for private shorelines. It should not only outline the range of alternatives for different shoreline types (e.g., beach and bluffs), but also highlight important design, feasibility, maintenance, and permitting considerations when considering shoreline improvements. Topic areas should include native shoreline vegetation, erosion control, shore- line access, docks, and stormwater management. The toolbox should be designed to supplement shoreline workshops and technical assistance programs and could be made available online to provide guidance to property owners who may elect to take a "do-it-yourself approach" to shoreline management. It should be tailored to reach private landowners and contractors and connect them with available local and regional resources. The toolbox should draw from regional efforts such as WDFW's Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines, the Shore Friendly King County collaborative, Green Shores for Homes, and Green Shorelines for Lake Figure 20. Before and after Phase // restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien. Construction was completed in 2014. Photos. Hugh Shipman. Washington and Lake Sammamish, and highlight local examples of shore -friendly approaches within WRIA 9. Expand Shore -Friendly Technical Assistance and Cost -Share Programs to Accelerate Armor Removal and Soft Shoreline Protection (aka Supported Approach for Residential Shoreline Improvement) Access to technical information about shoreline erosion and protection alternatives and the finan- cial costs associated with marine shoreline armor removal have been identified as key barriers to motivating shoreline landowners to consider soft shoreline protection. Soft shoreline protection is less preferred than outright removal, but prefera- ble to traditional hard armor in that it helps main- tain and enhance some natural marine shoreline functions (e.g., sediment transport and delivery). Bulkhead removal is expensive and site -specific erosion risk is not conducive to the use of standard models or templates for soft shore protection. In addition, many landowners and consultants are unfamiliar with how to design/implement success- ful soft shoreline protection projects. Technical assistance to help landowners better understand risk, to provide design and permitting support, and to assist with access to cost -share funding should help to overcome existing barriers to armor removal on private property and promote expansion of soft shoreline protection alternatives. The King Conservation District (KCD) has histori- cally provided technical assistance on environmen- tally friendly ways to manage shoreline properties, including shore -friendly alternatives to traditional bulkheads. The KCD also has a cost -share incentive program to encourage revegetation and removal of existing armor and/or soft shore protection designs where site -specific conditions allow. In 2020, KCD established a Shore Friendly King County collabo- rative between multiple partners. This program is seen as part of a local adaptation of the regional Shore Friendly approach to reducing marine shore- line armoring. Although this is an existing program, additional resources are needed to expand ca- pacity. Landowners are identified through parallel marine shoreline landowner workshops. Priority should be given to currently unarmored shorelines and armored properties where site -specific factors (e.g., structure location, fetch, bank/bluff geology, etc.) make armor removal and/or soft shoreline protection alternatives feasible. Implement Acquisition Strategy to Protect and Restore Functioning Nearshore Habitats Acquisition of priority marine shorelines supports conservation and restoration of critical nearshore processes and rearing habitats used by multiple stocks of juvenile Chinook - including Green/Du- wamish Chinook. A number of planning efforts have identified and prioritized conservation of nearshore habitats within WRIA 9, including the Prioritiza- tion of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration (2006), Vashon-Maury Island Greenprint (2007), and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (2012). Although many of the highest priority sites have been specifically identified as unique projects within the Habitat Plan, WRIA 9 should support opportunistic acquisi- tion of other functioning nearshore habitats if they become available. Although the bulk of the acquisition opportu- nities for functioning habitats are located on Vashon-Maury Islands, additional opportunities exist on the mainland nearshore, Successful im- plementation of a nearshore acquisition strategy requires consistent outreach to landowners and operational flexibility to capitalize on acquisition opportunities before they are lost. The sale of prop- erties previously unavailable for decades frequently can represent a once in a generational opportunity to protect a priority stretch of marine shoreline. In- dividual acquisition opportunities should be evalu- ated based on ecological value/potential of near - shore habitat and risk of development. Available funding sources to support acquisition include King County Conservation Futures, King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Manage- ment Program and Coastal Erosion Program, Wash- ington Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, and various Washing- ton State Recreation and Conservation Office grant programs. Policies Nearshore (NS)1: Avoid shoreline infrastructure or stabilization except where demonstrated to be nec- essary to support or protect a legally -established primary structure, critical public infrastructure, or shoreline use in danger of loss or substantial damage. Support armor removal and alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization (e.g., setbacks and relocations) where feasible to reduce impacts to existing natural shoreline processes. Protection and restoration of important sediment sources (e.g., feeder bluffs) is needed to restore nearshore processes and sediment transport. Where the need for bank stabilization is supported by analysis of a geotechnical engineer, "soft" shoreline stabiliza- tion techniques (e.g., bioengineering techniques and vegetation enhancement) should be required where feasible. "Soft" stabilization measures should be designed to preserve or restore natural shoreline processes (e.g., sediment transport). "Hard" shore- line stabilization should only be allowed where softalternatives do not provide adequate protection. Refer to WDFW Marine Shoreline Design Guide- lines, Green Shores for Homes, Integrated Stream - bank Guidelines, and Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines for additional guidance. NS2: Encourage multiple family/neighborhood use of docks, boat ramps, and beach access stairs. Local jurisdictions should minimize impacts to the nearshore marine environment by encouraging consolidation/joint-use of structures that could serve multiple landowners. Opportunities to pursue joint -use should be evaluated during development and redevelopment. Boat docks, ramps and beach access stairs can shade aquatic vegetation, disrupt juvenile salmon migration and foraging, alter near - shore sediment transport and degrade nearshore habitats (e.g., eelgrass), Possible incentives include permit streamlining, fee reductions, and dimension- al incentives (e.g., increased length, width, etc.). NS3: Jurisdictions should promote derelict vessel prevention and coordinate with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) on der- elict vessel removal. Derelict vessels can contribute to contamination of aquatic lands, degrade water quality, and damage sensitive aquatic habitats (e.g., eelgrass), Although the WADNR Derelict Vessel Removal Program has removed more than 580 ves- sels from marine waters, local efforts are critical to ensuring effective prevention and rapid response. NS4: Support beach nourishment, where appropri- ate, to offset interruption of natural sediment supply and transport caused from extensive shoreline modifications (e.g., bulkheads, etc.). Beach nourish- ment has been used successfully to protect shore- lines, restore natural beach profiles, and enhance nearshore habitats, NSS: Support regional efforts to identify and test actions to increase juvenile survival during outmi- gration through Puget Sound and increase local ef- forts to stabilize or improve foodweb function such as forage fish habitat protection and restoration. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat Location: Duwamish The Duwamish estuary provides critical rearing habi- tat for juvenile salmon as they make the physiological transition from fresh to saltwater habitats. Industri- al development within the Duwamish valley drove extensive fill of tidal wetlands, armoring of shore- lines, and navigational dredging. The modifications straightened the estuary and eliminated 98 percent of the historic wetlands. Despite the magnitude of loss of habitat, the Duwamish continues to play a critical role in supporting juvenile Chinook salmon. Both cleanup of legacy industrial contamination within the Lower Duwamish Superfund Site and restoration of shallow water rearing habitat are needed to increase juvenile salmon survival and overall productivity with- in the watershed. Program Implement and Adaptively Manage the Duwa- mish Blueprint The Duwamish Blueprint outlines strategic guid- ance for governments, businesses, non-profit or- ganizations and citizen groups working to improve the estuarine ecosystem and increase juvenile salmonid productivity. It identifies approximately 100 acres of shallow water habitat restoration po- tential within the Duwamish estuary transition zone (RM 1-10). Many of the habitat opportunities are conceptual and have not been prioritized. Periodic evaluation of conceptual opportunities is needed to elevate and refine project ideas as the Duwamish landscape changes (e.g,, Superfund cleanup, Natu- ral Resource Damage Assessment [NRDA], and real estate availability). Restoration in the Duwamish is complex, expensive, and will require flexibility, innovation, and extensive coordination and collaboration to be successful. The former Duwamish Blueprint Working Group, which was convened to develop the Blueprint, would provide a framework to facilitate coordina- Figure 21. Duwamish Gardens created 1.3 acres of shallow water rearing habitat in a critically important transition zone of the Duwamish Estuary. Subsequent monitoring has documented extensive use of the site by juvenile Chinook salmon. Photo: Mike Perfettii, tion across key partners. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the Blueprint Working Group to identify opportunities to enhance partnerships to (1) pursue larger project footprints; and (2) overcome barriers to implementation. Given limited land availability, WRIA 9 should opportunistically evaluate potential acquisitions and consider elevating conceptual projects as part of adaptive management based on habitat benefit, acquisition feasibility, and readiness. Policies Duwamish Estuary (DE)1: Engage in the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) Superfund cleanup process to coordinate and sequence potential salmon habitat projects with Superfund activities to maximize benefits to salmon recovery. Strategic acquisition should be prioritized over habitat project construction prior to competition of the LDW clean- up to avoid potential contaminated sediments and minimize potential for re -contamination. DE2: Engage with NRDA trustees and potentially liable parties to inform project development and design and maximize potential benefit to salmon re- covery. NRDA settlements within the Duwamish will result in large capital investments in habitat resto- ration that should provide a significant lift to salmon recovery. Coordination with the NRDA process will also support identification of potential synergistic opportunities, and help identify and resolve barriers to maximize restoration outcomes. For example, it may be possible to leverage NRDA settlements to expand existing and/or planned restoration projects. Although NRDA has a broader scope than Chinook salmon recovery, priority NRDA habitats signifi- cantly overlap with salmon recovery needs in the Duwamish (e.g., estuarine marshes, intertidal mudflats, and riparian habitats). Tracking NRDA project implementation will be important to under- standing the status of habitat restoration efforts in the Duwamish. Given the existing uncertainty associated with juvenile Chinook survival in the Duwamish, WRIA 9 should engage with the trust- ees to share emerging research, exchange lessons learned in restoration, inform adaptive manage- ment of restored sites, and identify priority sites for restoration. DE3: Encourage the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Seattle to identify strategies for dredging that; (1) minimize impacts to salmon hab- itat and (2) improve salmon habitat through use of beneficial re -use where suitable, Soil contamination may limit opportunities for re -use. Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Instream Flows and Cold Water Refugia Location: Lower, Middle and Upper Green Green River flows are regulated to support both flood control and water supply needs. The Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan requires maintenance of minimum instream flows during summer months. Although water capture and storage behind Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) support maintenance of mini- mum instream flows and periodic flow augmentations during summer and early fall, it can also reduce the frequency of high flow events that drive lateral chan- nel migration (i.e., habitat forming flows) and availa- bility of juvenile Chinook rearing habitat throughout spring. Low snowpack and drought conditions ex- acerbate already difficult tradeoffs in timing of water release designated for fish conservation purposes. Water temperatures also regularly exceed established water quality standards for Salmon Core Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat. Climate change forecasts predict the watershed will experience reduced snowpack, lower summer time flows, and elevated instream temperatures. These changes will impact the already difficult reservoir refill strategies at HHD, potentially putting greater stress on refilling earlier and having a bigger impact on juvenile Chinook habitat. Prolonged low flows can cutoff access to critical rearing habitats and exacerbate high instream temperatures. High water temperatures can delay adult migrations, contribute to increased susceptibility to disease, and even be lethal above 23°C. Protecting instream flows and cold water refugia is essential to strengthening watershed resilience to climate change. Cold -water refugia are characterized as being at least 2°C colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters. Develop Watershed Management Plan to Address Permit -Exempt Well Development WRIA 9 partners should coordinate on develop- ment of the Ecology's Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan to assess and offset potential consumptive impacts of new rural, domestic water use on stream flows in the Green/Duwamish water- shed. Maintaining legally established minimum in - stream flows has proven challenging during recent years with below average precipitation. Climate change models indicate that changes in precipita- tion patterns could exacerbate streamflow issues and further stress salmon. Implementation of the plan is required to not only offset permit exempt domestic water use, but also provide for a net ecological benefit. The legislature plans to direct $300 million in funding through 2035 to benefit fish and streamflows. WRIA 9 should position itself to leverage this funding source to support implementation of appropri- ate projects in this plan that meet the flow or net ecological benefit guidance and/or develop addi- tional project elements that do so. If instream flows remain problematic in the future, additional consid- eration should be given to integrating other cate- gories of water use into an expanded Watershed Management Plan and implementation program. Develop a Strategy to Protect and Restore Habi- tat in the Upper Green River and its Tributaries Conduct a planning effort to develop a long-term, comprehensive approach to protecting and restor- ing ecosystem processes in the Upper Green River subwatershed. Current checkerboard ownership Figure 22. Before (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. The project protected cool waters from a natural spring. complicates land management and a strategic approach is needed to leverage the relatively intact upper watershed to maximize benefits for salmon and steelhead recovery. Access to the upper water- shed has long been identified as critical to long- term salmon recovery. However, the delay of fish passage and the degraded condition of the lower watersheds have resulted in limited investments in the upper watershed. Projected shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns associated with climate change further emphasize the critical importance of this landscape to long-term salmon recovery. A number of assess- ments should be completed to inform a strategic approach to management of the upper watershed, including: • Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management As- sessments (VELMA): Quantify long-term effects of forest management and climate scenarios on salmon habitat (i.e., hydrological flow regimes and instream temperatures); • Model intrinsic habitat value of stream segments within the upper watershed to inform conserva- tion and restoration priorities; Beaver Assessment: Assess current activity, mod- el potential benefits, and explore potential reintro- duction if warranted; and � ' Rl a j a-- K u C • Assess important wildlife migratory corridors and key landscape level linkages to inform acquisition priorities. The results of these assessments should be used to prioritize salmon recovery investments in the upper watershed with respect to potential land consolida- tion, land use management changes, and potential road abandonment. Policies Stream Flows (SF)I: Support reevaluation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water storage sched- ule and Fish Conservation Guide Curve at HHD to increase benefits for salmonids while maintaining downstream flood control benefits. The current water capture period overlaps the juvenile Chinook rearing period and impacts accessibility and/or amount of important rearing habitats during outmigration• Utilize the existing Green River Flow Management Coordination Committee to assess fish habitat needs based on best -available science and basin -specific climate change projections. SF2: Protect existing cold water refugia and en- hance water storage and hyporheic exchange by reconnecting historic floodplain habitats to instream habitats. These habitats facilitate heat dissipation and provide an influx of cooler waters to moderate seasonal fluctuations in stream tem- peratures and flows, providing physiological and ecological benefits for cold -water salmonids. SF3: Support forest management and harvest rotation programs that increase hydrologic function and improve base flows to minimize impacts on sal- monid habitat, support climate change resiliency, and maintain viable silviculture. Additional research is necessary to quantify potential benefits. SF4: Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water withdrawals to provide instream flows and water temperatures that support adult salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing. Local gov- ernments, water purveyors, and state and federal regulators should; • Protect groundwater resources and critical aqui- fer recharge areas; • Manage groundwater and surface water with- drawals seasonally to maximize the benefits to salmonid habitat; • Develop drought management plans to supply safe and reliable drinking water while minimizing impacts to salmonids during periods of drought; • Ensure rural domestic use does not adversely impact salmonid habitat; • Support water rights acquisition programs that can augment chronic low flows; and • Limit or preclude mining and other significant excavation activities that could adversely impact groundwater hydrology. SF5: Support expansion of reclaimed/recycled wastewater to reduce demands on stream and ground withdrawals. Reclaimed wastewater can be used safely and effectively for non -drinking water purposes such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial pro- cessing. Reclaimed water is available year-round, even during dry summer months or when drought conditions can strain other water resources. See also policies SW4-6 above. Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education Location: All subwatersheds Education and outreach are fundamental to protect- ing and restoring salmon. It raises awareness, builds political support, and promotes positive behaviors that benefit salmon. Long-term salmon recovery will not be successful without public support. Broad - based community support provides political leverage to protect and expand local, state and federal invest- ments in habitat restoration, It is also helps promote positive behavior change and minimize behaviors that can negatively impact salmon or undermine recovery investments. For example, ecological gains associat- ed with marine shoreline restoration in WRIA 9 have been predominantly offset by new armor installations. General outreach is not sufficient to drive widespread and long-lasting behavior change. Targeted social marketing strategies must identify and overcome both real and perceived barriers to promote positive behaviors that contribute to salmon recovery, Programs Implement a Comprehensive Communications Plan to Promote Behavior Change that Expedites Salmon Recovery in WRIA 9 Integrate lessons learned from the regional Shore Friendly programs into a locally adapted commu- nication plan designed to increase implementation of behaviors that support salmon recovery. Key outcomes include; Increased public recognition of the urgency around salmon recovery and connection to southern resident orcas; • Improved public understanding and stewardship of riverine and nearshore ecosystem processes that support salmon and forage fish; • Technical assistance provided to interested shoreline residents; Target audiences make informed decisions based on knowledge of Shore Friendly practices, climate resilience, and adaptation; A suite of tools and incentives developed to address identified barriers to adoption of desired behaviors; • Messaging and outreach tailored to contractors and realtors; • The value of riparian vegetation is communicat- ed to the public, including riverside landowners, elected officials, and trail/park users; and Partners conducting outreach and education receive positive reinforcement and feedback from the salmon recovery community. Additional effort is needed to refine target audi- ences and develop associated social marketing approaches. The intent of the communication plan should be to build awareness, expand stewardship, and promote advocacy. A regional Social Marketing Strategy to Reduce Puget Sound Shoreline Armor- ing was developed for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2015. A Green/Duwamish River Revegetation Outreach and Engagement Plan was developed in 2019. These plans provide an ex- isting framework that can be expanded to integrate other priority salmon recovery issues. Expand Volunteer Stewardship Increase citizen participation through new steward- ship programs and by expanding and supporting existing stewardship programs that engage vol- unteers in restoring, maintaining, and monitoring habitat protection and restoration projects. These projects not only benefit salmon recovery, but also improve stormwater retention, carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat and include important themes and messages for participants to change behavior at home. Local volunteer programs should: • Foster environmental stewardship and personal connection to salmon recovery; • Educate people about threats to salmon and the role of habitat in salmon recovery; • Leverage additional resources to implement recovery actions; and • Expand the constituency to advocate for salmon recovery. The Green/Duwamish Watershed has a number of volunteer stewardship programs that play an instru- mental role in invasive vegetation removal and na- tive revegetation. Many of these programs provide long-term stewardship of large capital restoration sites, Traditional salmon recovery funding is not available to fund long-term (beyond two to three years) stewardship and maintenance of restoration sites. As a result, local funding or creative partner- ships are essential to ensure restoration projects achieve desired outcomes into the future. Expand Community Science Monitoring Develop and implement community science pro- grams to address data gaps and foster watershed stewardship among residents. Community science programs can provide capacity to collect important long-term monitoring data while serving as an out- reach tool to educate residents about local natural resource issues. They can also create opportunities to introduce students to scientific research and provide important data for resource managers. Since 2005, citizen science programs include: Beach Nearshore Ecology Team (BeachNet): The Vashon Nature Center coordinates a forage fish monitoring program that collects data on forage fish presence/absence, spawning timing, beach substrate preferences, and intertidal and upland habitat conditions within the marine reserve. Data are shared with WDFW and is used to inform protection of spawning beaches. BeachNet also contributes to shoreline restoration monitoring in partnership with University of Washington, King County, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Miller -Walker Basin Community Salmon Investi- gation (CSI): The CSI program has conducted 10 years of salmonid spawning surveys to assess long-term trends in salmon abundance and the urban runoff mortality syndrome in coho salm- on. Data are shared with local jurisdictions and resource managers. A partnership with the UW Tacoma Center for Urban Waters has helped identify both the suite of toxic chemicals contrib- uting to coho mortality and priority areas within this watershed to focus future stormwater im- provements. » Shoreline Workshops and Technical Assistance Implement workshops to educate target audiences (landowners, landscapers, contractors) about shoreline stewardship and common misconcep- tions about shoreline erosion. Promote alternative approaches to shoreline management that provide for the use and enjoyment of property in a manner that benefits fish and wildlife. Priority focus areas include: • Shoreline processes and salmon habitat; • Erosion control; • Noxious/invasive weed control; • Revegetation guidance; • Natural yard care; and • Stormwater management. Workshops should connect target audiences with local and regional resources (e.g., technical assis- tance) designed to overcome barriers to improving shoreline stewardship. Materials and messaging should be tailored to specific subwatersheds and groups of landowners to increase effectiveness. The Green Shores for Homes program developed in 2015 is an available tool to guide the design of improved shoreline conditions for Puget Sound properties. Policies Education and Stewardship (ES)1: Support edu- cational programs that integrate watershed science and salmon into problem -based learning exercises for school children. These programs instill a sense of place, encourage appreciation of natural resourc- es, and promote environmental literacy among the next generation of future decision makers. ES2: Support diverse outreach and education pro- grams that promote awareness of salmon recovery and positive behavior change. Programs should employ community -based social marketing to iden- tify and overcome barriers to targeted behaviors. Priority focus areas include shoreline stewardship, riparian revegetation, and stormwater manage- ment. Strategy: Integrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery Initiatives Location: Lower and Middle Green Salmon recovery and the preservation of viable agriculture are two regional priorities that intersect in the Middle and Lower Green floodplain and along Newaukum Creek. King County designated over 16,295 acres of land within the Green River watershed for agriculture within three Agricultural Production Districts (APD). Some additional, but relatively small amounts of agricultural activities occur within the cities of Kent and Auburn. Over 5,763 acres of land within the APD have been enrolled within the Farm - Figure 23. A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker Basin Community Salmon Investigation. The program has leveraged community support and a partnership with the University of Washington to advance our understanding of Stormwater runoff impacts on local salmon. Photo. Miller/ Walker Stewardship Program. land Preservation Program (FPP). Restrictive cove- nants on FPP properties are designed to permanently protect agricultural use and open space. The 2005 Plan acknowledged that salmon recovery and agricultural production operate within a shared landscape along the Green River valley. It prioritized sequencing of restoration projects over the first 10 years of plan implementation to focus first on existing public lands, then on lands within the rural and urban growth areas, and finally on lands within the APD, but not enrolled in the FPP. The plan acknowledged that projects that negatively impact tillable surface may need to be reconsidered at a later date. This Plan Update acknowledges that the implementa- tion of high -priority salmon projects critically needed to advance salmon recovery will result in localized loss of existing farmland. Research indicates that rearing habitat availability in the Lower and Middle Green River is the primary limiting factor for Chinook productivity within the watershed. Collaboration be- tween agricultural and salmon recovery interests will be necessary to identify and advance shared prior- ities and ensure salmon and agriculture can coexist productively within a shared landscape. Lessons learned from other watersheds should be reviewed for applicability within the Green River watershed. Farm Conservation Planning Farm conservation plans can help landowners protect natural resources while achieving their land use goals. They can also help access and leverage agricultural incentives to improve conservation practices on agricultural lands. Priorities include stream and wetland buffer revegetation and live- stock management. Agriculture is widespread throughout the Middle and Lower Green and farm- land preservation is a regional priority. Expanding riparian buffer revegetation on Green River valley farms has the potential to greatly benefit salmon recovery, especially where agricultural lands over- lap with high priority areas identified by the Muck- leshoot solar aspect shade maps (2014). Limiting livestock access to stream buffers can also greatly improve water quality and riparian conditions. Available incentive programs include: • King Conservation District rural services pro- grams (e.g., Land Owner Incentive Program, Farm Conservation Technical Assistance, and Agricul- tural Drainage Program) • King County Small Habitat Restoration Program • USDA Farm Service Agency Conservation Re- serve Enhancement Program • King County Livestock Program (i.e., BMP cost share) Landowner recruitment is essential to program success. Additional resources and strategies are needed to expand participation. Policies AGt: Protect, enhance, and restore high quali- ty salmon habitat in the Agricultural Production Districts in a manner that strives to reduce loss of viable agricultural land and ensure the long-term viability of agriculture. Projects that displace tillable farmland should strive to provide benefits to adja- cent farm lands in attempt to offset impacts. Local governments, state and federal agencies, non -profits, and special purpose districts should work with agricultural landowners in the Agricultur- al Production Districts to: • Correct water quality problems resulting from agricultural practices; • Implement best management practices for live- stock and horticulture; • Prevent additional degradation or clearing of forested riparian buffers; • Encourage landowners to pursue voluntary sus- tainable actions for fish, farms, and soils; • Conduct compliance monitoring and regulatory enforcement where necessary to protect critical habitats; • Identify opportunities where salmon recovery projects can provide parallel benefits (e.g., flood risk reduction and drainage improvements) to adjacent agricultural lands; and • Limit the extent of actively farmed lands dis- placed by priority salmon restoration projects. AG2: Evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory flexibility given to agricultural landowners that obtain a farm plan from the KCD. If the flexibility leads to better habitat and water quality outcomes, other opportunities should be explored to provide additional flexibility. If the flexibility has not led to better outcomes, the County should evaluate if there are improvements to the regulatory structure (e.g. require some amount of the farm plan be im- plemented versus implementation being voluntary) that would improve the outcomes of the flexible approach. Strategy: Integrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning Location: All Subwatersheds Historical population growth and development within the watershed displaced habitat, altered natural hydrology, and polluted local waters. Local land use plans should provide a blueprint for future growth and development that is consistent with salmon recovery. Land use decisions should reinforce the importance of preservation of intact, functional hab- itats and provide a pathway for restoration of priority habitats. While the Salmon Habitat Plan is not a reg- ulatory document, integration of identified recovery strategies and habitat priorities within local land use plans, policy and decision -making can accelerate implementation and ultimately dictate success of recovery efforts within the Green/Duwamish. Incentivize Voluntary Restoration Practices Local governments and state agencies should pro- mote landowner adoption of voluntary conserva- tion and restoration actions through implementing associated incentive programs, Regulatory com- plexity, fees, access to technical assistance, and project costs have all been identified as barriers to expanding adoptions of voluntary best manage- ment practices on private property. Priority areas to address include invasive removal and native reveg- etation along shorelines, soft shoreline stabilization, and green stormwater infrastructure. Jurisdictions should review existing barriers and evaluate incen- tive opportunities, including: • Streamlined permitting process; • Reduced fees for restoration projects; • Free technical assistance (e.g., engineering, plant- ing plans, etc.); • Cost share/financing programs; and Regulatory flexibility, Voluntary adoption of best management practices by private landowners has been sporadic. Addi- tional targeted investments are needed to expand implementation beyond early adopters. Improving coordination and consistency across regulatory jurisdictions (i.e., local, state and federal govern- ments) is also needed to improve consistency and reliability of the permitting process and increase adoption of best management practices. A coordi- nated effort across the watershed to identify target- ed practices and assess best practices related to available incentives could reduce costs and im- prove efficiency. Using the Green Shores for Homes or similar programs as an incentive -based program to increase the number of properties that voluntari- ly improve shoreline conditions on their property should be explored. Regulatory Compliance Monitoring and Associ- ated Enforcement Jurisdictions should assess regulatory compli- ance with shoreline master programs, critical area protections, floodplain regulations, and agricultural regulations (e.g., Livestock Management Ordi- nance) to assess and improve protection of salmon habitats. Regulatory compliance is fundamental to achieving no net loss of ecological function along marine and freshwater shorelines and to ensuring that ongoing impacts to salmon habitat do not undermine salmon recovery investments. Periodic compliance monitoring should be used to assess the status of jurisdictions and the status of local regulatory implementation and to inform a strategic approach to address shortcomings. If a regulatory framework is not achieving intended outcomes, local jurisdictions should assess changes to staffing levels, outreach and education, technical training for staff, interagency coordination, and enforcement to improve compliance rates. A WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Com- pliance Project (2018) found that only 42 percent of shoreline modifications between 2013-2018 obtained local permits, Even fewer shoreline modifications obtained a WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval, Furthermore, more new shoreline armor (mostly unpermitted) was constructed than re- moved through restoration projects. These results indicate that unpermitted shoreline modifications are undermining salmon recovery investments and overall efforts to achieve "no net loss of ecosystem function" as required through the Shoreline Man- agement Act. Jurisdictions should take a program- matic approach to identify and address barriers (e.g., permit fees, regulatory uncertainty/confusion) to improve shoreline compliance rates and achieve outcomes that protect salmon habitat. Coordination and sharing of lessons learned across jurisdictions and the larger Puget Sound are recommended to improve efficiency. Policies Land Use (LU)1: Ensure salmon recovery priorities are integrated into long-range planning efforts, including Shoreline Master Programs, Compre- hensive Plans, and Open Space and Parks Plans, Planning documents should be consistent with the Salmon Habitat Plan and support implementation of habitat protection and restoration priorities. WRIA 9 should provide technical assistance to pro- mote compatibility. LU2: Land use development, annexation, and cap- ital improvement programs within the watershed should be consistent with the salmon recovery plan and promote progress towards achieving the necessary future conditions (and associated imple- mentation targets) for a viable salmon population, Development proposals should be evaluated with respect to impacts on key habitat indicators and identified habitat projects for the respective subwa- tershed, LU3: Local governments should use compre- hensive plans and associated land use policies to direct growth and development within existing Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to protect ecologically important landscapes in rural areas. Specifically, avoid future expansions to existing UGAs that could result in additional land conversion and landscape degradation. LU4; Strictly apply and improve compliance with critical area, shoreline, vegetation conservation, floodplain, and agricultural regulations designed to protect important ecological habitats. Avoid use of variances in priority areas identified for protection and restoration in the salmon habitat plan. LU5: Local governments should support flexible development tools that encourage protection and/ or restoration of ecologically important salmon habitat. Possible tools include, but are not limited to, transferable development rights, mitigation banking/ reserve programs, incentive zoning, Green Shores for Homes, and Public Benefit Rating System tax programs, LU6: WRIA 9 partners should incorporate sea level rise projections into long-range planning docu- ments, habitat project designs, and development standards to promote long-term ecosystem resil- iency. Nearshore habitats adjacent to armored shorelines could be lost as water levels rise (i.e., coastal squeeze) if shorelines remain fixed. Low- lying shoreline areas should be identified to support landward migration of nearshore habitat as sea levels rise where appropriate. LU7: Encourage certified development standards (e.g., Built Green, Salmon -Safe Certification, and Green Shores for Homes) that minimize the impacts of urban development on the natural environment. Incentives could include reductions in flexible development standards, expedited permitting, and reduced or waived permit costs. LU8; Incorporate Salmon -Safe Certification stan- dards into best management practices for park and grounds maintenance procedures. Certification is available for parks system, golf courses, and urban development. Salmon -Safe Certification is a peer -re- viewed certification and accreditation program that promotes practices that protect water quality, improve watershed health and restore habitat. LU9: Local governments should evaluate shorelines and critical areas, open space (e.g., parks and golf courses), and public lands with respect to identified salmon habitat priorities and notify WRIA 9 staff prior to approving significant land use conversion, or pursuing sale/exchange of public lands. LU10: Incorporate Green Shores for Homes Certifi- cation standards into best management practices for residential shoreline development. The WRIA should support municipal efforts to establish a Green Shores for Homes certification process during permit review to help expedite permitting. Green Shores for Homes is an EPA -funded certifica- tion and accreditation program that was developed by technical Shore Friendly design of shoreline properties. • Responding to citizen inquiries concerning water- shed issues; and Expanding public education and outreach oppor- tunities Basin stewardship covers the Middle and Lower Green River sub -basins, Miller and Walker Creek basins, and Vashon Island, Priorities for expan- sion include mainland nearshore and Duwamish sub -basins. Plan Implementation and Funding » Land Conservation Initiative (LCI) Location: All Subwatersheds The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Interlocal Agreement provides a framework for managing and coordinating imple- mentation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. It recognizes that salmon recovery transcends political bound- aries and calls for strong collaboration between local, state, and federal partners. Success hinges on strong relationships, strategic coordination, and collective action. Working effectively across such a diverse landscape as the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound requires creative partnerships with non-traditional partners. Leveraging shared resources to implement multi -benefit projects will help overcome land availability constraints and high restoration costs. Programs Basin Stewardship Support and expand existing basin stewardship programs across the Green/Duwamish subwater- sheds, Basin stewards are instrumental to imple- mentation of the salmon habitat plan. They advo- cate for salmon recovery, coordinate across diverse stakeholders, and build on -the -ground relationships that facilitate large capital restoration projects. Key tasks for basin stewardship include; Coordinating and implementing restoration proj- ects; Coordination and collaboration across jurisdic- tions; Securing grant funding (including grant writing) for restoration and acquisition projects; • Promoting voluntary stewardship on private property; The LCI represents a coordinated effort to preserve river corridors, urban open space, trails, natural lands, farmland and forestlands. It is a regional collaboration between King County, cities, business people, farmers, environmental partners, and others to strategically preserve our last, most important places. The initiative sets forth the goal of conserv- ing and preserving 65,000 acres of high conser- vation value lands throughout King County within the next 30 years. The primary funding source is the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) fund, which is a property tax on all parcels in the county. The LCI is an important funding source for pursuing open space acquisitions throughout the Green/ Duwamish watershed. WRIA 9 partners should leverage the LCI to execute high -priority land acquisitions within the Green River Corridor to improve hydrological integrity, support salmon recovery, and expand recreational opportunity. Much of WRIA 9 is mapped as an "opportunity area" where households lack access to open space. Implementation of the LCI has the potential to align salmon recovery investments with needed invest- ments to address equitable access to open space throughout the watershed. U.S. Army Corps Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) WRIA 9 partners should continue to engage U.S. Army Corps leadership to advocate for appropri- ation of funding to implement ERP projects. The original collaborative effort resulted in identification of 45 projects, 29 of which were carried forward in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, U.S. Congress autho- rized $113 million in 2000 to be cost shared be- tween the federal (65%) and local partners (35%). Since the 2005 Plan,13 of the original projects have been completed, with seven completed under the ERP authorization (e.g., North Winds Weir, Codiga Farms, Riverview Side Channel) and six completed by local sponsors (e,g., Porter Levee Setback, Fen- ster levee Setback, and Gale Creek). The Congressionally authorized ERP represents an important federal resource to support critically needed and underfunded salmon restoration work in the watershed. As of 2016, the ERP has only been allocated 8.25 percent of the authorized amount. A 2018 Green/Duwamish ERP Comprehensive Cost Update removed 12 projects based on the ratio of perceived habitat value to cost and the presence of hazardous materials. However, the recommend- ed "de-scoped" plan still includes a number of high -priority projects including NE Auburn Creek and the Hamakami, Turley, and Lones levee setback projects. The cost update for the modified ERP scope is $260 million and the congressionally au- thorized cost adjusted for inflation is $269 million. Policies Implementation (1)1; The WRIA 9 2016-2025 Inter - local Agreement outlines the governance, funding, and decision -making structure for coordination and implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. Figure 24. The Riverview Park approximately 800 ft of side channel to increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the project, sponsored by the City of Kent, was constructed in 2012 in partnership with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers under the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Photo: City of Kent. 12: Process -based habitat restoration - where feasible - is preferable to other approaches that rely on more intensive human intervention. However, the magnitude of alteration within portions of the watershed render true restoration of degraded pro- cesses infeasible in some locations. Rehabilitation and substitution projects require additional moni- toring and maintenance to ensure desired functions are achieved. WRIA 9 should support periodic investments in adaptive management of completed projects to ensure maximize long-term ecological benefits. 13: Support use of mitigation funds to implement priority salmon habitat enhancement projects. Off - site mitigation programs (e.g., in -lieu fee and mitiga- tion banking) can help improve ecological function in critical locations (e,g,, Chinook Wind in the Duwamish Transition Zone) as a means of offsetting unavoidable impacts in less sensitive areas of the watershed. Development of mitigation opportuni- ties should be coordinated with the WRIA to ensure proposals are consistent with and do not preclude identified salmon recovery priorities. The WRIA should explore the potential for innovative partner- ships that could combine mitigation and restoration funding to expand the overall ecosystem benefit of habitat projects. However, habitat improvements associated with mitigation funds must be tracked as separate and discrete from those achieved with restoration -based grant funding. 14: Salmon recovery planning and habitat project development should integrate social justice and equity considerations. Public access and recre- ational improvements should be considered where demonstrated need exists and when compatible with salmon recovery goals. WRIA 9 should seek multiple benefit solutions that consider displace- ment and social justice issues. 15: Coordinate Salmon Habitat Plan implementation with other watershed -wide and regional initiatives to identify synergies, leverage available funding, avoid conflicts, and improve salmon recovery out- comes. Existing watershed -wide and regional initia- tives include the King County Flood Hazard Man- agement Plan, King County Flood Control District Lower Green River Corridor Plan, Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Cleanup, Puget Sound Action Agenda, Our Green Duwamish, WRIA 9 Watershed Restoration Enhancement Committee, and the Puget Sound South Central Action Area Local Inte- grating Organization. 16: Support examining new funding sources and fi- nancing strategies for implementing priority habitat projects and programs throughout Puget Sound. The WRIA 9 Watershed Forum will seek representa- tion on regional committees tasked with the exam- ination of public and private funding strategies at the local and regional level. » 17: Salmon recovery funding should support adaptive management of previously constructed projects where monitoring data shows design changes are necessary to improve habitat function. Salmon recovery capital projects preserve, enhance, create or restore the habitats and physical processes that support salmon. Projects include acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement approaches. Although significant progress has been made im- plementing projects identified in the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan, many projects remain unfunded and under-resourced. Since 2005,165 projects have been completed or are in progress, totalling over $160 million of investments. While many of the remain- ing projects identified within the 2005 Plan are still viable, other opportunities have been lost to develop- ment and/or a change in ownership. This update provides a current, comprehensive list of potential capital projects that align with established goals for Chinook salmon recovery in WRIA 9. A couple of plan amendments added new projects to the 2005 Plan, including; a 2007 plan amendment; and the 2014 Duwamish Blueprint. As part of the 2020 update, all projects described in the plan (and its amendments) or the appendices of the plan were evaluated for inclusion in updated project list. WRIA 9 staff developed an updated list of capital projects in partnership with ILA member jurisdic- tions, non-profit partners, state agencies, and others engaged in salmon recovery. Partners were asked to submit projects and provide specific project infor- mation including a project sponsor, location, scope, goals, alignment with recovery strategies, and pro- jected habitat gains. In some cases, an identified project did not have a clear sponsor, but was includ- ed due to the perceived importance of the project. The request for projects primarily targeted Chinook salmon -focused projects, but several coho salmon projects were accepted. A few additional project guidelines were developed in refining the project list; • Policies and Programs - Project submittals were not required for actions that fell within the scope of larger programmatic actions (e.g., fish barrier removal). Discrete footprint - Projects were required to articulate a specific project footprint to support evaluation of feasibility and magnitude of ecologi- cal benefit. • Implementable within 10-15 years - Project spon- sors were directed to submit projects that could be implemented within a 10-15-year timeframe, provid- ed adequate funding and landowner willingness. Project Prioritization A team of subject matter experts was recruited to review, evaluate and tier projects for inclusion in the Plan. This four -person prioritization team brought expertise in restoration ecology, fish biology, and habitat project management, and over 50 years of knowledge from working in the Green/Duwamish River and Central Puget Sound. A balance of inter- ests was represented to eliminate bias for specific projects. The review process evaluated all concep- tual projects based on their full potential to provide habitat lift. Future constraints identified during design and feasibility could impact overall project scope and associated benefits. Project prioritization was based on subject matter expert evaluation of: • Habitat Quality (lift): the relative importance and value of a specific proposed habitat; and • Habitat Quantity (size): the potential amount (acreage and shoreline length) of habitat created or enhanced based on the entire project footprint. The scoring process was weighted so that habitat quality comprised 75 percent of the score and habitat quantity comprised 25 percent of the score. The tier- ing process assumes habitat benefits are positively correlated with size. Larger projects not only provide more habitat, they allow increased habitat heteroge- neity. Smaller, more homogeneous habitats, are less resilient to perturbations, and site constraints can be problematic for optimizing habitat. A small modifier was added to allow consideration of high -value geo- graphic locations (e.g., proximity to existing restora- tion sites, feeder bluff, etc.). Potential lift reflects the projected immediate and long-term habitat benefits to addressing limiting factors for Chinook salmon re- covery. Processed -based restoration was considered to provide more certainty of long-term benefits. A total of 118 projects were submitted and ranked as part of the project solicitation process, Projects were ranked within a specific subwatershed - not across subwatersheds, Given the large number of projects, projects were tiered based on overall benefit and to provide an indication of priority for financial support from the WRIA. Tiers were defined as follows: • Tier 1 - high potential; substantially contribute to recovery goals in each subwatershed. • Tier 2 - moderate potential; clear alignment with Chinook salmon recovery goals. • Tier 3 - limited potential; associated with Chinook recovery (or not primary species impacted); com- pliments broader recovery efforts in the subwater- shed. A simplified scoring methodology based on habitat quantity and quality provides a foundation for long- term planning by setting high-level implementation priorities within each subwatershed. Tiers were as- signed to projects by identifying natural breakpoints in the full list of projects within a subwatershed. These established breakpoints serve as a scoring baseline for projects received through future biennial calls for projects. Future proposed projects will be scored under the same criteria and assigned a tier. The proposed project will be added to the tiered list for future funding, with near -term funding priority giv- en to those projects previously identified as in need of funding. The final list of projects was approved unanimously by the Implementation Technical Committee and Wa- tershed Ecosystem Forum in 2019 and will serve as the comprehensive list of recovery actions that help achieve recovery goals, and ultimately toward the delisting of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. 1 19 Upper Green Duwamish (UG) I (DUW) 39 Nearshore Number (NS) of WRIA 9 Projects by Subwatershed 45 Lower 14 *MOVGreen (LG) Middle Green (MG) Figure 25. Number of projects by subwatershed. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed................................p. 76 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed.............................p.102 Lower Green River Subwatershed..............................p.116 Middle Green River Subwatershed............................p.146 Upper Green River Subwatershed ............................ p.160 �l 39 Marine Nearshore Subwatershed projects NS-7........... Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-29........ Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and NS-8.......... Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Reclamation Estuaries NS-43........ Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration NS-11.......... Beaconsfield on the Sound NS-45........ Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration NS-15......... McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder NS-49........ Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal Bluff restoration NS-53........ Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration NS-21......... Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-61......... Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration NS-23,,,.,,,,Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions NS-62........ Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration NS-24.,,..,,.Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration NS-63........ Green Valley Creek Acquisition and NS-28,,,,,,,,Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration Restoration NS-66........ Camp Kilworth Protection • : • • - ,,kr A NS-13......... Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project NS-14......... Raab's Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration NS-25........ Judd Creek Pocket Estuary NS-27........ Finer Point Acquisition and Restoration NS-2........... Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow Water Habitat NS-16......... Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration and Water Quality Improvements NS-22........ Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation NS-35........ Lower Shinglemill Creek habitat restoration NS-39........ Walker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition NS-40....... Salmon Creek Fish Barrier Removal NS-42........ Miller Creek Regional Detention Facility NS-54........ West Galer Street/32nd St. Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration NS-31......... Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration NS-44........ Portage Salt Marsh Restoration NS-60....... Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration NS-67........ Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration NS-58........ Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration Project NS-59........ Mileta Armor removal and shoreline restoration NS-68........ Longfellow Creek Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration NS-70........ Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage NS-72........ Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration Project/Perkins Lane Utility Access Road NS-73........ Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Project Figure 26. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Projects f • River mile NS-1 • Project location and name N S-1 1 Project location and name River/creek Major road —� King County boundary I f► Maine Nearshore Subwatershed boundary ✓� WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks NS-21 NS-35 Incorporated area Fill` / Open water N 0 1 2 3 Miles I NS-7 • • I 1 Vashon Island NS-63 1 NS-�v8 1 NS-25 • • NS-24 — 1 NS-43 NS-62 Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_NS,ai LPRE GIS File: QA20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT X DNS-45M �a"Vshed F(t p r o, 49 F / Tier 1 Project: NS-7 Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI - 13-28; KI -11-7) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: rem WO Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: V or Nearshore Nearshore Feeder Bluff Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION, Protect and improve riparian vegetation, improve tributary access, remove armoring and fill, increase vegetated shallow nearshore and marsh habitats, protect and enhance pocket estuaries and tributary stream mouths. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor 20 �a'ershed Fit Fo 01§ cel °s m F Tier 1 Project: NS-8 Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI-12-4) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: 10 0 Nearshore Riparian Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties at the mouth of Dillworth and Gorsuch Creeks to restore stream delta and pocket estuary habitat. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: Increased rearing habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT watershed F(tp IPA r o, �s f � Tier 1 Project: NS-11 Beaconsfield on the Sound PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Normandy Park (KI-7-3) PROJECT TYPE: r©.a Acquisition Restoration 1114* :I'Ac3Illfit9 Bankside Iw jurisdiction: Nearshore Normandy Park Feeder Bluff Project sponsor: Normandy Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect and restore 1085 ft. of active feeder bluff along mainland marine nearshore. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor 0 J�-6"VshedFltFoq Tier 1 Project: NS-15 °° McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder Bluff Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Des Moines (KI - 8 - 3) Bankside jurisdiction: Des Moines Project sponsor: King County/ State Parks PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Enhancement/ Planting In Monitoring & Planning/ Restoration Assessment Design PROJECT DESCRIPTION: KEY HABITAT: Restore historic pocket estuary, protect feeder bluffs, remove marine shoreline armoring and enhance low -impact recreational activities. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation 20 �a"Vshed F(tp r o, �9 F / Tier 1 Project: NS-21 Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 11-2) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore nearshore habitat by removing shoreline debris, hard armor, and derelict docks. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation �a"Vshed Fitp r C� 79 f / Tier 1 Project: NS-23 Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI-13-2) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: r©..a Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: 0 Nearshore Riparian Feeder Bluff Acquire properties to protect and restore beach feeding processes and salt marsh at spit. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation >_o �a"Vshed Fitp q hs r f � Tier 1 Project: NS-24 Cross Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI-13-23) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: ra Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: E Nearshore Riparian Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire beach feeding parcels, remove fill, restore salt marsh, remove road, and reroute road drainage. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation 20 watershed Fit Fo o, �s f Tier 1 Project: NS-28 Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI 13-20) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore about 209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with approximately 4615 feet of bluff -backed beach shoreline. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer Images, 2020 KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �aWshed F(tp r o, °s f Tier 1 Project: NS-29 Maury Island Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI-14-2) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,050,000 PROJECT TYPE: Restoration KEY HABITAT: LWJ Nearshore Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove invasive species, add topsoil, and revegetate about a mile of marine shoreline. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation zo �a"Vshed Fitp r q 49 m F Tier 1 Project: NS-43 Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI-13-8) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Riparian Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation 20 -1A "Yshed Fit Fo r o, °s F Tier 1 Project: NS-45 Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury Island (KI - 13 - 21, KI - 13 - 22) Jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: Vashon/Maury PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: a Nearshore Nearshore Feeder Bluff Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, restore creek meander and fish passage, remove bulkhead, and restore nearshore, estuary and marsh habitat. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation �o Tier 1 Project: NS-49 �a"Vshed Fitp r o, 49 m Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI -5 -1) Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation PROJECT TYPE: Planning/ Restoration Design KEY HABITAT: 1.10 Nearshore PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 700 feet of rip rap and timber bulkhead along the shoreline. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Recreation opportunities • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: (;hnrPlinP armnr )zo �a"Vshed F(t p r o, 49 f Tier 1 Project: NS-53 Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: City of Seattle (KI - 3 - 2) Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Feeder Bluff Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline conservation 20 �a"yShed Fit Fo q °s F Tier 1 Project: NS-61 Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI -10 - 3) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: �® Nearshore Riparian Pocket Estuary Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and fill. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • ShnrPlinP armnr 20 �a',Vshed Fit Fo r opt F / Tier 1 Project: NS-62 Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI -10 - 3) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: r ..a Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: 0 Nearshore Riparian Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire to protect and restore shoreline and forage fish habitat. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor Shnreline ronSPrvatinn 20 Watershed F(t For pay rn °s m� F Tier 1 Project: NS-63 Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Vashon/Maury (KI -13 - 26) Bankside jurisdiction: Vashon/Maury Project sponsor: King County Budget: $4,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: J0 Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: ,rF -9 V 4 Nearshore Riparian Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire undeveloped lots along the Green Valley Creek, restore creek mouth, and remove hard shoreline armor. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs • Shoreline armor reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • Marine riparian vegetation • Shoreline armor 120 �a"Vshed F(t p 0 79 m / f i Tier 1 Project: NS-66 Camp Kilworth Protection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Drift cell: Federal Way (KI -10 - 3) Bankside jurisdiction: Federal Way Project sponsor: Forterra and Kilworth Environmental Education Preserve (KEEP) Budget: $3,100,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Protect 900 feet of active feeder bluffs that occurs in the first third of the drift cell. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines. Benefits: • Improved forage fish spawning habitat • Reconnect historic feeder bluffs Contribution to goals metrics: • Shoreline armor 'o Tier 2 Project: NS-13 Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Project PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore (NS) Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: $3,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Pocket Estuary V Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore the stream, create fish passage, remove the jetty and rock from the south bank, and create a pocket estuary. Tier 2 Project: NS-14 Raab's Lagoon Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI -13 - 9 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: rJ Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Pocket Estuary Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire vacant lots, restore riparian forest habitat and connectivity by removing the weir and bulkhead. Tier 2 Project: NS-25 Judd Creek Pocket Estuary PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Nearshore Nearshore J' Jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 0 -1 Acquisition Nearshore Feeder Bluff Bankside jurisdiction: r King County Restoration Nearshore Project sponsor: Pocket Estuary King County Budget: $6,000,000 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat with wood placement, removal of derelict barge, and additional vegetation near mouth of Judd Creek. Tier 2 Project: NS-27 Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Nearshore Nearshore J jurisdiction: Acquisition Nearshore Nearshore KI -13 - 8 Feeder Bluff Bankside jurisdiction: King County Restoration Riparian Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder bluffs. PF I M arid.■ ,.,,. fl 3 Tier 2 Project: NS-31 Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: LJ Nearshore Feeder Bluff PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads, and restore feeder bluffs. Tier 2 Project: NS-44 Portage Salt Marsh Restoration Project PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI -13 - 6 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $2,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: r©.a Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Feeder Bluff 0 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install bridge or box culverts, restore fish access, and restore habitat to salt marsh. Tier 2 Project: NS-60 Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI -13 - 4; KI-13-5 Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Pocket Estuary 0 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore habitat at Ellisport Creek stream mouth, and allow for fish passage. Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Tier 2 Project: NS-67 Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Nearshore Nearshore jurisdiction: Nearshore KI - 8 - 2 Bankside jurisdiction: City of Des Moines Project sponsor: City of Des Moines Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: in Planning/ Design Restoration KEY HABITAT: Nearshore Pocket Estuary 0 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove approximately 500 feet of hard shoreline armor and pull back fill material to create a more natural shoreline and stream transition. River mile and Project Bank side/Nearshore No. Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1) Jurisdiction Goal alignment NS-2 Myrtle Edwards Park Pocket • Planning/Design Remove shoreline armor and restore natural beach adjacent Seattle Parks and Nearshore KI - 4 -1- Protect, restore and City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation Beach Shallow Water Habitat • Restoration to a previously created pocket beach. Recreation NAD enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor • Scoping/Reconnaissance NS-16 Dash Point State Park Estuary • Restoration Project will remove armoring to restore estuary and re -align Washington State Parks Nearshore KI - MA - 014 Protect, restore and City of Federal Way LG- Off -channel habitat Restoration and Water Quality • Scoping/Reconnaissance creekto more sinuous route. Improve water quality in park & Recreation enhance marine shorelines Improvements through parking lot improvements, reduce erosion associated with stormwater runoff, creosote -treated pedestrian bridge replacement, and wetland enhancement. NS-22 Smith Cove Shallow Water Planning/Design Remove some level of shoreline armor and plant native Seattle Parks and Nearshore KI - 3 -2/3 - 3 Protect, restore and City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation Rehabilitation vegetation along a stretch of barren riprap. The riprap leads Recreation NAD, KI - 3 - 3 enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor to a protected sandy pocket beach that exists at all tidal elevations. There may be additional opportunity for nearshore restoration on adjacent Port property. The Port also has a marine habitat restoration pilot site adjacent to this project, NS-35 Lower Shinglemill Creek Restoration Add LWD into stream reach west of Cedarhurst Road. King County Nearshore KI - 11 - 4 Protect, restore and Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation Habitat Restoration enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline conservation (continued on next page) Table 3. Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects, continued River mile and Project Bank side/Nearshore No. Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1) Jurisdiction Goal alignment NS-39 Walker Creek Headwaters Land • Enhancement/Planting The project plan is to seek partnership or acquisition City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and City of Burien Shoreline conservation Acquisition • Restoration & Acquisition opportunities with the property owners within the project enhance marine shorelines • Scoping/Reconnaissance area, with the goal of acquiring and restoring additional contiguous areas beyond the current city -owned wetland parcels within the project site. NS-40 Salmon Creek Fish Barrier • Planning/Design The project plan is to seek a partnership or acquisition City of Burien Nearshore KI - 5 -1 Protect, restore and City of Burien • Marine riparian vegetation Removal • Restoration opportunities with the property owners within the project enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor area, with the goals of removing the fish -barrier weir at the • Shoreline conservation mouth of the creek, and removing and replacing a culvert with a modern fish passable one. NS-42 Miller Creek Regional Planning/Design The project plan is to identify one or more large commercial City of Burien Nearshore KI - 7 - 3 Protect, restore and City of Burien Shoreline conservation Detention Facility properties in Burien that have no existing stormwater enhance sediment and treatment or flow control, and partner with them to construct water quality regional stormwater facilities on their site(s), NS-54 West Galer Street/32nd St. • Planning/Design Remove/reduce shoreline armoring, remove fill, relocate Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and City of Seattle Shoreline armor Boat Ramp Shoreline Armor • Restoration an SPU-owned pump station if feasible, and re -vegetate enhance marine shorelines Removal and Restoration • Scoping/Reconnaissance shoreline. Potential acquisition of adjacent properties. NS-58 Tsugwalla Creek Pocket Restoration & Acquisition Restore fish passage and salt marsh habitat at mouth of King County Nearshore KI -13 -15 / Protect, restore and Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation Estuary Restoration Project creek. KI -13 -14 enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-59 Mileta Armor Removal and Restoration Remove shoreline armoring, evaluate and improve fish King County Nearshore KI -13 -10 Protect, restore and Vashon/Maury • Marine riparian vegetation shoreline restoration passage. enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor • Shoreline conservation NS-68 Longfellow Creek Fish Passage • Acquisition This project will evaluate restoration opportunities at five Seattle Public Utilities RM 0 / left bank Protect, restore, and City of Seattle DUW - Riparian forest and Floodplain Restoration • Planning/Design sites along a 1,7-mile section of Longfellow Creek. Future enhance riparian corridors • Restoration restoration may include; floodplain reconnection, fish • Restoration & Acquisition passage improvements (culvert replacements or daylighting), • Scoping/Reconnaissance stream channel realignment, stream channel and riparian restoration, wetland creation and/or enhancement. NS-70 Fauntleroy Creek Fish Passage • Acquisition Replace two aging fish passage barrier culverts with new Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore / KI - 5 -1 Restore and improve fish City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation • Planning/Design culverts that meet fish passage standards. Includes partial passage • Shoreline armor • Restoration daylighting and stream channel restoration. • Restoration & Acquisition NS-72 Perkins Lane Protection and • Planning/Design Assess feasibility of modifying the utility service road and Seattle Public Utilities Nearshore KI - 3 - 2 Protect, restore and City of Seattle • Marine riparian vegetation Restoration Project/Perkins • Restoration sewer access points in order to remove shoreline armor and enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor Lane Utility Access Road • Scoping/Reconnaissance restore to a natural beach. • Shoreline conservation NS-73 Beall Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Replace current surface water extraction system with a fish Water District 19 2923039086/Water Protect, restore and Water District 19 • Marine riparian vegetation Project friendly system to allow for the return of salmon and other District 19 enhance marine shorelines • Shoreline armor salmonids • Shoreline conservation t - Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed DUW-2...... Rendering Plant DUW-7...... Chinook Wind DUW-7a.,,.Chinook Wind - Extension DUW-25... Desimone Oxbow Restoration DUW-29... Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek DUW-32... Duwamish River People's Park & Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) DUW-64... U-Haul River Project DUW-66... Terminal 25 South Tier _• DUW-3.,,,..SeattleLAFreightRevetmentSetback DUW-18 .... Codiga Off -channel Habitat Expansion DUW-22.,,Cecil Moses DUW-24.,,Carrossino Restoration DUW-26 ... S104th St. Ban kStabiIization/Restoration DUW-60,,,Herring's House ParkFishAccess Improvement DUW-61.... George Long DUW-63 ... S,115th St. Road Setback DUW-67...,,.,Codiga to TCC Corridor DUW-14.... Duwamish Waterway Park DUW-19.... Southgate Creek Restoration 19 projects Figure 2 Z Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Projects Duw-1 • Project location and name Urban Growth Area Line f® Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed boundary WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Incorporated Area 0 1/4 1/2 Mile October 2020 Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.ki ngcountygov/services/gis/Ma ps/terms-of-u se.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_D1JW.ai LPRE GIS File: Q:\20009\WRIA9_Watershedmxd KLINKAT �a'etshed Fit,,,� s Tier 1 Project: DUW-2 Rendering Plant PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 10,1 - 9,7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,730,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore seven + acres with side channel and backwater habitat enhancements and reforestation. PROJECT TYPE: • OHO Planning/ Scoping/ Design Reconnaissance J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCEfile: 2010_10202L LPRE GISfile Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps,mxdKLINKAT �a"rshed Fit,, °` �Tier 1 Project: DUW-7 m Chinook Wind PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.7/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: King County Budget: $14,900,000 PROJECT TYPE: 0 Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Duwamish Duwamish Mudflat Marsh PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance low velocity, shallow water rearing rearing habitat (shallow subtidal and intertidal) in the Duwamish transition zone. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Watershed Pit,, ci` ���Tier 1 Project: DUW-7a Chinook Wind Extension PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: J Duwamish (DUW) 0 River mile: Acquisition Restoration Duwamish RM 6,8/ • right bank Bankside jurisdiction: Planning/ Design City of Tukwila Project sponsor: KEY HABITAT: City of Tukwila Budget: $1,418,000 Duwamish Duwamish Mudflat Marsh 'a 0 Edge Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand and enhance the land between Chinook Wind Mitigation and Duwamish Gardens to create a unified park and rest. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT watershed F(t For Tier 1 Project: DUW-25 Desimone Oxbow Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 5.3/left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: Unknown Budget: $84,193,945 PROJECT TYPE: •• Enhancement/ Planning/ Planting Design Restoration Acquisition KEY HABITAT: a = Backwater Duwamish Duwamish Marsh Mudflat 'AlliJ Edge Riparian Side Channel PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 45.4-acre site located on the western shore of the Duwamish River between river miles 5 and 6 resulting in 23.6 acres of marsh created,10.8 acres of vegetation, and 34.4 acres refuge habitat created. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat • LG - Off -channel habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a'efshed Pit, qi,. c� " F Tier 1 Project: DUW-29 Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 5.0 - 4.8/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Project sponsor: Seattle City Light Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Restoration KEY HABITAT: a Backwater Tributary Nearshore Pocket Estuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create off channel habitat and shallow water esturarine habitat in the area north of the existing Duwamish 230 kV - 26 kV substation. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat, Benefits: Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT �a�etshedF(tFor Tier 1 Project: DUW-32 Duwamish River People's Park & Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117) PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish 4.5 - 4.1 / left bank Jurisdiction: Port of Seattle Project sponsor: Port of Seattle PROJECT TYPE: 0 Enhancement/ Planning/ Restoration Planting Design PROJECT DESCRIPTION: :WaM11-1111rA9 !m Duwamish Duwamish Marsh Mudflat 0 Edge Restore approximately 13.5 acres and 2,050 linear feet of upland and aquatic habitats. The project will expand off -channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring, and add large wood. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT �a�Letshed Fit,, r oot q�. m f Tier 1 Project: DUW-64 U-Haul River Project PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Duwamish RM 6.5 - 6.3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $11,770,000 PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration Im Planning/ Scoping/ Design Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: a Backwater Duwamish Duwamish Mudflat Marsh PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore 4.4-acre parcel by creating off -channel mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Riparian forest • DUW - Shallow water habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020 KCIT-DCE file: 2010_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Watershed Pit, Tier 1 Project: DUW-66 Terminal 25 South PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: Enhancement/ Planning/ Restoration Planting Design Duwamish 0.4 / right bank KEY HABITAT: Jurisdiction: Port of Seattle Project sponsor: Backwater Duwamish Port of Seattle Marsh Budget: 4911 TBD Duwamish Edge Mudflat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore critically needed estuarine in the East Waterway. Project will expand off -channel habitat as well as establish marsh vegetation and riparian forest, restore estuarine shoreline via removal of armoring & creosote pile, and add large wood. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Increased rearing habitat • Sediment quality improvement Contribution to goals metrics: • DUW - Shallow water habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Tier 2 Project: DUW-3 Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 9.7- 10.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,230,000 PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/Planting Planning/ Design ® ra Restoration Acquisition OHO Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: Duwamish Duwamish Marsh Mudflat 111 M Edge Floodplain Q Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback the revetment, create shallow water edge habitat with backwater refuge for salmonids, and improve shoreline conditions in this freight district in Tukwila. Tier 2 Project: DUW-18 Codiga Off -channel Habitat Expansion PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8,6/right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $642,000 PROJECT KEY TYPE: HABITAT: •• OM Planning/ Duwamish Duwamish Design Marsh Mudflat ® 3 0 Restoration Floodplain Riparian Side Channel PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand Codiga Park habitat restoration project by turning the backwater area into a side channel to increase rearing and refuge for salmon during higher flows. E 0 3 m 0 0 0 Tier 2 Project: DUW-22 Cecil Moses PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 6.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and Recreation Budget: $5,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: J , Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhance access to and expand existing off -channel habitat to increase quality and quantity of available rearing habitat in the transition zone by expanding existing inlet/outlet, removal of tire revetment, and potential acquisition and restoration of adjacent downstream creek parcel. Tier 2 Project: DUW-24 Carrossino Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 6 - 6.1 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $16,304,000 PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planting In Planning/ Design Restoration J Acquisition KEY HABITAT: a Backwater Duwamish Marsh Duwamish Mudflat Riparian tdo Edge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties and create shallow mudflat, marsh, and backwater habitats. Tier 2 Project: DUW-26 S. 104th St. Bank Stabilization/Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 5.6 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $5,930,000 PROJECT TYPE: Planning/ Design Restoration GA.& Acquisition 0 Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: a Backwater Duwamish Marsh Ali Duwamish Edge Mudflat Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, abandon and remove the road, and create shallow water edge and backwater habitat in the transition zone. Tier 2 Project: DUW-60 Herring's House Park Fish Access Improvement PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Duwamish (DUW) • River mile: Planning/ Nearshore RM 1.1 / left bank Design Pocket Estuary Bankside jurisdiction: City of Seattle Restoration Riparian Project sponsor: Seattle Parks and 43) Recreation Side Channel Budget: $1,250,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adaptively manage an older restoration project to increase fish use by expanding channel opening width, removing shoreline armor and considering a bridge over the channel for recreational access. fl a Tier 2 Project: DUW-61 George Long PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: 10.4 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $9,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planting 0 Restoration Acquisition Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: a Backwater Duwamish Marsh Na 0 Duwamish Edge Mudflat Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create backwater refuge and riparian habitat at the uppermost limit of the transition zone. Tier 2 Project: DUW-63 S. 11Sth St. Road Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 7 / right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $4,699,000 PROJECT TYPE: Restoration OHO Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: Duwamish Duwamish Marsh Mudflat Edge Side Channel PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate local road and create shallow water edge, backwater mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat as part of the Duwamish Hill Preserve Master Plan. Tier 2 Project: DUW-67 Codiga to TCC Corridor PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Duwamish (DUW) River mile: RM 8,1-8,3/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget: $12,525,000 PROJECT TYPE: KEY HABITAT: ® a-% Acquisition Restoration Backwater Edge 0 Education Enhancement/ & Outreach Planting Duwamish Duwamish Marsh Mudflat OHO 0 a Planning/ Scoping/ Design Recon. Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties to create a public greenbelt and shallow water and riparian habitat extending from Codiga Park to the Tukwila Community Center. Table 4 Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj# Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1) Jurisdiction Goal Alignment DUW-14 Duwamish Waterway Acquisition Acquire adjacent properties, pull back bank armoring, revegetate. incorporate Seattle Parks and RM 3,6/left bank Protect, restore and enhance City of Seattle Marine riparian vegetation Park Planning/Design recreational uses. Recreation marine shorelines; Shoreline armor Restoration Shoreline conservation Scoping/Reconnaissance DUW-19 Southgate Creek Other This project would improve fish passage, water quality and flooplain/flood- City of Tukwila RM 7.90/left bank Protect, restore and enhance City of Tukwila DUW - Riparian forest Restoration Planning/Design control in Southgate Creek, which is piped and channelized through most of instream flows and cold water DUW - Shallow water habitat Restoration its lower reach; the confuence of the Green would be improved for off -channel, refugia Acquisition tributary Chinook use, Studies are required, Scoping/Reconnaissance ti>_ Th,L -.0. Lower Green River Subwatershed 1 LG-3........ Horsehead Restoration Project LG-6........ Wrecking Yards Restoration Project LG-8........ Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration LG-22...... Wetland Floodplain Off -Channel Habitat Reconnection LG-28...... North Green River Park LG-33.,,,, Midway Creek Wetland Complex LG-34.,,,,Johnson Creek Floodplain Project LG-35.,,,, P-17 Stormwater Pond Connection 45 projects LG-39.,,,, Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection LG-40.,,,, Downey Side Channel Restoration LG-29...... North of Veteran's Drive Floodplain LG-42.,,,, Lower Russell Road; Habitat Area A Reconnection LG-45.,,,,Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration projects LG-1,,,,.,,,, Reddington Habitat Creation LG-5........ Northeast Auburn Creek Restoration LG-7,,,,.,.,, Mullen Slough LG-10...... Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation LG-12,,.,,,, Briscoe Park Off -channel Habitat LG-17,,.,,,, Fort Dent Revetment Setback LG-18,,.,,,, Black River Marsh LG-19,,.,,,, Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation LG-23 ...... 8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off -Channel Habitat LG-26...... Valentine Revetment Setback LG-2 ........ Olson Creek Restoration LG-15,,.,,,, Nelsen Side Channel LG-16...... Gilliam Creek Fish Passage and Riparian Rehabilitation LG-20.,,,, Riverview Plaza Off -channel Habitat Creation LG-21,,.,,., Best Western Revetment Setback LG-38.,,,, Fenster Slough Wetland Connection LG-43.,,,, Panther Creek at East Valley Road Improvement Project LG-27 ...... 8th Street Acquisitions LG-30.,,,, Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration LG-31,,.,,,,South of Veteran's Drive Floodplain Reconnection LG-32...... Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection LG-37...... Strander Boulevard Off -channel Habitat Creation LG-46.,,,, Mill Creek Protection and restoration near Emerald Downs LG-49.,,,, Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements LG-51...... Milwaukee 2 Improvements LG-55.,,,, Frager Road Levee Setback LG-52...... Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage Improvement LG-53.,,.,Signature Pointe Levee Improvements LG-54.,,,, SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee LG-56.,,,, Kent Airport Levee Setback LG-57...... Barnaby Truong Off -Channel Habitat Creation LG-58.,,., Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements PAGE 118 B, ck IV Figure 28. t' r •LG-19 Lower Green River TUKWILA LG-1712 °'�' LG-15 :LG 16 SUbwatershed Projects A LG-21 LG-20 •t , .- � • LG-43 LIS 1�• LG-37 o RENTON t ' River mile • LG-35'14 • LG-52 • Project location � . LG-12 15 River/creek • Aa'` `D Major road • LG-58 .17 Urban Growth Area Panther LG-10 s 2/�O�r Lake line LG-34 • 1) f� Lower Green River LG-55 6A LG-42 Subwatershed �4 boundary LG-29 �•�G= � KENT _ •.•� WRIA 9 boundary LG-31 • a, v LG-45 Open water LG-33 • ��0^L13-54 _ LG-40 KENT � Public lands r<022 23 LG 30 • /•r' LG-32 Incorporated area / ( LG-51 LG-53 26 • LG-6� LG-3 N KENT 1 iG-56 .5 • LG 28 I • 27 LG-7-� ��p LG-49 LG-5 `• LG-22 L Z, + Star 0 1/2 1 2 Miles LG-8 • ti .2s LG-3910 FEDERAL t /• LG-2 WAY tr ' r LG-1 • LG-46 29 + 3A LG-26 AUBURN • LG-23 a `.'31 • LG-27 0 `' 32 Note:The use of the information in this map is subject to the rALGONA LG-38 terms and conditions found at:www.kingcountygov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of Lake these terms and conditions.Geneva KCIT-DCE File: 2011_20202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_LGR.ai LPRE GIS File: Q,\20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT �a ershed Fit,, °' ���Tier 1 Project: LG-3 Horsehead Restoration Project PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: Restoration 25.7 - 26.5 / left bank KEY HABITAT: Bankside jurisdiction: King County a F3 Project sponsor: Backwater Floodplain King County Budget: $11,100,000 Edge Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create approximately 13 acres of backwater habitat and revegetate 3,000 feet of river bank. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Off -channel habitat watershed Pit,,, Tier 1 Project: LG-6 Wrecking Yards Restoration PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: Q_a Lower Green (LG) River mile: Acquisition Restoration 24.1 - 24.9 / left bank KEY HABITAT: Bankside jurisdiction: King County Backwater Edge Floodplain Project sponsor: King County Budget: Riparian Side channel Wetland $37,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire, remediate and restore wrecking yards with side channels and backwater features. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: Increased habitat connectivity Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a"Vshed FitFo r o, 49 F / Tier 1 Project: LG-8 Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 23.7/left bank (Mill Creek 0.3-2.3) Bankside jurisdiction. King County Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: J , 0 Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: V 'dgi M- Tributary Edge Floodplain PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve aquatic habitat by remeandering the tributary channel, revegetating, and adding large wood to the creek channel. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �aershed Fit Foy d§ 61 Tier 1 Project: LG-22 41 Wetland Floodplain Off -channel Habitat Reconnection Riversands AUBURN Park r 0 Park 0 Public Urban Growth - Inc. Area 0 200 400It N Lands Area Line Body. Boundary v PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: ISM Lower Green (LG) r� River mile: Acquisition Restoration 27.2 - 27.6 / right bank KEY HABITAT: Jurisdiction: King County 4401 Edge Floodplain Riparian Project sponsor: King County 1 U ]� Budget: Side channel Tributary Wetland $1,165,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire and restore approximately 30 acres of floodplain wetlands and provide access to 2,000 feet of non -natal tributary rearing habitat. Project would address an existing fish barrier at the mouth of the creek and setback 1,800 feet of Green River Road. Project design will need to consider future location of the Green River Trail. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT �a"Vshed FitFo r 0 49 C f / Tier 1 Project: LG-28 North Green River Park PROJECT FACTS I PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: o 1 0 Lower Green (LG) CROP River mile: Acquisition Restoration 26.5 - 27.3 / KEY HABITAT: right bank Jurisdiction: a,,,4n King County Backwater Edge Floodplain Project sponsor: a a I Ur King County Budget: Riparian Side channel Tributary $17,100,000 Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore floodplain habitat by removing revetments, restoring reconnecting floodplain wetland, creating side channels and backwater features, and integrating stream channel from the adjacent project (LG-22). Project design will need to preserve or relocate important regional recreational amenities (i.e., soccer fields and Green River access). Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Bank armor • LG - Off -channel habitat Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a"Vshed Pit,,, 01 4Tier 1 Project: LG-29 North of Veterans Drive Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: R M 18.9 - 19.2/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: 0 Enhancement/ Planning/ Restoration Planting Design KEY HABITAT: ®®® Floodplain Riparian Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect floodplain wetland to river, improve wetland area, while preserving Frager Road Trail's connection to the Green River. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Recreation opportunities Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a'ershed FitFo r o, �9 C Tier 1 Project: LG-33 Midway Creek Wetland Complex PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM19.6-21,1/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent PROJECT TYPE: J 0 Acquisition Enhancement/ Planning/ Planting Design Monitoring & Restoration Scoping/ Assessment Reconnaissance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: KEY HABITAT: Restore Midway Creek and floodplain wetland complex by removing wetland fill and improving fish passage to enhance connectivity between the Midway Creek and the Green River. Project design should maintain/enhance regional trail connectivity. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: 0rtho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a'tershed Fit Fo r o, °s E Tier 1 Project: LG-34 Johnson Creek Floodplain PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 172 -17.8/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent PROJECT TYPE: 0 Education Enhancement/ Monitoring & & Outreach Planting Assessment •• Planning/ Restoration Design KEY HABITAT: 13 ® Er Floodplain Riparian Tributary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties, setback road and trail, reconnect floodplain, and create off -channel habitat to improve water quality and increase fish Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: 0rtho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxc1KLINKAT Watershed F(tFo r �g f � Tier 1 Project: LG-35 P-17 Pond Connection Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 13.7-13.9/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration la OHO Planning/ Scoping/ Design Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: F3 U Floodplain Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocate the City of Tukwila's stormwater pond; clean and connect the existing pond to the river, setback the levee to create up to 7 acres of off channel habitat. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Off -channel habitat Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a'tershed Fit Fo r o, °s Tier 1 Project: LG-39 Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection PROJECT —277tg 5t Corridor 1Yp1� PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG)� Restoration River mile: 27.9 - 28.2 / left bank KEY HABITAT: Jurisdiction: City of Auburn no Project sponsor: Floodplain Riparian Port of Seattle io Budget: Backwater wetland :� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect the Port of Seattle's existing wetland mitigation site with the 100-year floodplain. Within the -78 acres of reconnected floodplain, approximately 11 acres would be available as regularly inundated off -channel rearing habitat for Chinook salmon. The Port also owns an adjacent 34 acre site to the west which could support restoration of additional wetland habitat and further enhance floodplain connectivity. Project Design will need to address future Green River Trail alignment around this project area. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: Project Area Map: Ortho20191KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxc1KLINKAT Watershed Fit Ro r opt q,F. rn °s m F , Tier 1 Project: LG-40 Downey Side Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM21.5-22/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: 0 Monitoring & Restoration Assessment KEY HABITAT: 83) Side channel Create network of side channels to provide rearing habitat and increase flood storage capacity, add large wood to create habitat complexity, cover and refuge, and lower peak flood elevations during 100-year flood events. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Watershed Fit,,, OJT "9,% o °.s mS , Ell Tier 1 Project: LG-42 Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A PROJECT FACTS PROJECT TYPE: Subwatershed: • Lower Green (LG) Enhancement/ Planning/ River mile: Planting Design RM 17,9 -18,3/ right bank Ba n ksid a Monitoring & Restoration Assessment jurisdiction: City of Kent KEY HABITAT: Project sponsor: City of Kent 4ali Edge Floodplain Side channel Budget: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create off -channel habitat by grading and reshaping the bank, widening the channel, restoring channel complexity and meanders, excavating low benches, installing large wood, and planting native vegetation. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity, Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT 11A "Vshed Fit,,, 0 rw Tier 1 Project: LG-45 Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 20 - 20.8 / left bank Jurisdiction: Kent Project sponsor: King County Flood Control District PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planning/ Restoration Planting Design KEY HABITAT: a % F3 Backwater Edge Floodplain a a a) Ur Riparian Side channel Tributary Uoland Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore 36 acres by creating side channel and backwater habitat on a largely undeveloped shoreline in City of Kent. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Flood risk reduction • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • LG - Large woody debris • LG - Off -channel habitat • LG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.rrxdKLINKAT Tier 2 Project: LG-1 Reddington Habitat Creation PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 28.6 - 28.2 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECT KEY TYPE: HABITAT: ® a F Restoration Backwater Floodplain .M ) Edge Side Channel PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The previous Reddington Levee Setback project was done with a focus on flood risk reduction benefits and left two areas waterward of the levee that have room for side channel and/or backwater type habitats. This project would design and create additional habitat integrated with the existing habitat features on site. Tier 2 Project: LG-5 Northeast Auburn Creek Rehabilitation PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 25.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $5,500,00 PROJECT KEY TYPE: HABITAT: y Restoration Edge Floodplain to [AF Riparian Tributary Wetland Enhance floodplain and stream habitat by creating off channel rearing and high flow refuge habitat for juvenile salmon. Project will improve fish passage, which is currently partially obstructed by a flapgate at the mouth of the creek. Tier 2 Project: LG-7 Mullen Slough PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 21.5 / left bank (Mullen Slough 1-2) Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $9,600,000 PROJECT KEY TYPE: HABITAT: 'Ami F1 Restoration Edge Floodplain �®U Acquisition Riparian Tributary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project would remeander and revegetate the tributary, increasing quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. Tier 2 Project: LG-10 Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) Ali River mile: 17 -17.8 / right bank Enhancement/ Edge Planting Jurisdiction: City of Kent F3 Project sponsor: Restoration Floodplain City of Kent OHO Budget: TBD Scoping/ Riparian Reconnaissance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Balance future habitat, flood protection and recreation on the site. Explore opportunities to add alcove habitat, excavate low benches and alcoves, install large wood, and plant native riparian vegetation, while maintaining/enhancing the recreational trail user experience. Tier 2 Project: LG-12 Briscoe Park Off -channel Habitat PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY TYPE: HABITAT: Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: Enhancement/ 'Ami Edge RM 15.6 -16.1 / right bank Planting Bankside jurisdiction: FM City of Kent Restoration Floodplain Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create off -channel habitat at Briscoe Park by removing bank armor, excavating perched floodplain, installing large wood, and planting riparian vegetation. Project design needs to address potential impacts to recreational amenities at Briscoe Park. Tier 2 Project: LG-17 Fort Dent Revetment Setback PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) • � River mile: Enhancement/ Planning/ Backwater RM 11 - 11.8 / Planting Design right bank Bankside Edge jurisdiction: Restoration Si City of Tukwila Reconnaissance Project sponsor: 91 City of Tukwila Floodplain Budget: 0 $4,699,000 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Setback portions of the Fort Dent revetment to create shallow water habitat, riparian forest, and off -channel habitat. E 0 a 3 m 0 0 d Tier 2 Project: LG-18 Black River Marsh PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) In • a = River mile: RM 11 - 11.8 / Enhancement/ Planting Planning/ Design Backwater Duwamish Marsh right bank Bankside jurisdiction: Restoration Acquisition Duwamish 'Ami Edge City of Tukwila Mudflat Project sponsor: OHO 0 City of Tukwila Budget: Scoping/ Reconnaissance Riparian $4,699,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create an island at the confluence of the Black, Green, and Duwamish Rivers, and increase edge habitat, flood storage, and off -channel refuge. Revegetate the shoreline along the Black River up to the Black River Pump Station. Tier 2 Project: LG-19 Lower springbrook Reach Rehabilitation PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) ��In a River mile: RM 11 / Monitoring & Planning/ Edge Riparian Assessment Design right bank Bankside J Ur jurisdiction: Restoration Acquisition Tributary Wetland City of Renton Project sponsor: City of Renton Budget: Scoping/ Reconnaissance $20,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve the aquatic and riparian habitat for Lower Springbrook Creek with riparian plantings, large woody debris, pool construction, channel branch excavation, and potential two -stage channel. E 0 Tier 2 Project: LG-23 8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park Off -Channel Habitat PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) inQ.J River mile: Acquisition Enhancement/ Floodplain RM 30.4 - 31.1 / Planting right bank Bankside M 0 EM jurisdiction: Planning/ Restoration Riparian City of Auburn Design Project sponsor: City of Auburn Side Channel Budget: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire private properties and restore off -channel and riparian habitat, including up to 0.25 miles of potential side channel. Tier 2 Project: LG-26 Valentine Revetment Setback PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) • • F3 River mile: Enhancement/ Planning/ Floodplain RM 30.1 - 29.8 / Planting Design right bank Bankside J jurisdiction: Restoration Acquisition Riparian City of Auburn Project sponsor: City of Auburn Budget: Tributary TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Setback the existing revetment and relocate Green River Road to the north, away from the river. Realign the unnamed fish stream into the historic channel and install a fish friendly culvert. Tier 2 Project: LG-27 8th Street Acquisitions PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) "I River mile: RM 31.1 - 31.4 / Acquisition Floodplain right bank Bankside .� jurisdiction: Planning/ Riparian City of Auburn Design Project sponsor: City of Auburn Restoration Budget: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire properties and restore off -channel and riparian habitat. Tier 2 Project: LG-30 Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) Q 4 River mile: Acquisition Edge RM 23.2- 23.7 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: Restoration Floodplain City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Riparian Budget: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire left bank properties from Mill Creek (Auburn) to Washington Ave. S. bridge and install native plantings. Tier 2 Project: LG-31 South of Veterans Drive Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 19.4 -19.3 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planting 0 Planning/ Design Restoration KEY HABITAT: n Floodplain PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create off -channel habitat in small triangle of flat land behind Frager Road. Tier 2 Project: LG-32 Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM23.9-24/ right bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: OHO Scoping/ Reconnaissance 10 Planning/ Design KEY HABITAT: a Edge Floodplain Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore off -channel habitat within the park, while balancing flood protection and recreation. I% Tier 2 Project: LG-37 Strander Boulevard Off -Channel PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) • River mile: Planning/ Backwater RM 13.1 / right bank Design Bankside F1 jurisdiction: Floodplain City of Tukwila Project sponsor: Si Reconnaissance City of Tukwila Riparian Budget: $10,000,000 Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project would connect an isolated wetland area in between two railroad tracks with the river creating floodplain connection and use for salmonid rearing and refugia. Habitat Creation Tier 2 Project: LG-46 Mill Creek Protection and Restoration Near Emerald Downs PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Lower Green (LG) in River mile: RM 23.7 / left bank Restoration Floodplain (Mill Creek RM3.0-4.4) Bankside Acquisition Riparian jurisdiction: King County Ur Project sponsor: Tributary King County Budget: T B D Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire property and restore creek meander of the existing channel, revegetate the riparian zone and associated wetland habitat, and increase channel capacity to reduce existing flood risks. fl Tier 2 Project: LG-49 Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat Improvements PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.25 - 26.25 / right bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planting 0 Planning/ Design Restoration Scoping/ Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: J4 Edge Floodplain �U-al Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Setback levee segments, and install large wood structures along the riverbank to provide salmon habitat. Tier 2 Project: LG-51 Milwaukee 2 Improvements PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: 24.0 - 24.3 / left bank Jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Enhancement/ Planting 0 Planning/ Design Restoration J Acquisition KEY HABITAT: M Edge n Floodplain 0 Riparian Upland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Excavate a backwater channel, remove all invasive vegetation and hardscape, and replace with native plants and trees. Place large wood within the project area. The project increases rearing and refuge habitat for salmon. The project must balance flood protection and recreation goals, including regional trail improvements. v 4W4:.... }f a Tier 2 Project: LG-55 Frager Road Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM17.25-18.75/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Kent Project sponsor: City of Kent Budget: TBD PROJECT TYPE: Restoration KEY HABITAT: a Edge 0 Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconstruct the toe, slope and levee crest to a stable configuration with a fully bioengineered solution, including a vegetated bench. Table 5 Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects River mile and Bank side/ Proj# Project Name Project Type Description Sponsor Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1) Jurisdiction Goal Alignment LG-2 Olson Creek Restoration Improve quality of aquatic habitat through setting backthe banks, adding large King County RM 28.4 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance City of Auburn LG - Large woody debris Restoration wood to channel, and expanding riparian vegetation along the creek. Increase instream flows and cold water LG - Off -channel habitat amount and quality of flood refuge habitat by reconnecting southern grassy area refugia LG - Riparian Forest at lower flows and restoring as a wetland. This project will build off of a KCDOT project to fix the fish passage barrier at the mouth in 2020. LG-15 Nelsen Side Channel • Acquisition This project reconnects a segment of the former river channel that was discon- City of Tukwila RM 12.5 /right bank Protect, restore, and enhance City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris • Enhancement/Planting nected with construction of 1-405 and rerouting of the river. channel complexity and edge LG - Off -channel habitat • Planning/Design habitat LG - Riparian Forest • Restoration LG-16 Gilliam Creek • Enhancement/Planting This project will replace a large flapgate that inhibits salmonid usage of the City of Tukwila RM 12.5 / left bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Tukwila LG - Off -channel habitat Fish Passage • Planning/Design Gilliam Creektributary, and restore nearly 300 lineal feet of the lowest stretch of and Riparian • Restoration Gilliam Creek. Rehabilitation LG-20 Riverview Plaza • Enhancement/Planting This City -owned parcel once had a modest picnic area for viewing, but those City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / left bank Protect, restore, and enhance City of Tukwila LG - Large woody debris Off -channel Habitat • Planning/Design have since been removed. There are several, large cottonwood trees in this low channel complexity and edge LG - Off -channel habitat Creation • Restoration bank area with opportunities to create shallow water habitat while preserving habitat LG - Riparian Forest most or all of the trees. It is waterward of the levee and Green River Trail. LG-21 Best Western • Acquisition This project would setback this revetment to the extent possible. There is a hotel City of Tukwila RM 12.7 / right bank Protect, restore and enhance City of Tukwila 1. Off -channel habitat Revetment Setback • Restoration 80' landward; setting it back somewhat could create some edge habitat. Should floodplain connectivity 2. Riparian look for opportunities in the event of property redevelopment. 3. Large Woody Debris Forest LG-38 Fenster Slough • Enhancement/Planting Reconnect approximately 1/2 acre of wetland area to the Green River that is City of Auburn RM 40 / left bank Protect, restore and enhance City of Auburn LG - Off -channel habitat Wetland Connection • Planning/Design currently cut off by the Fenster II Levee. The area has the potential to provide floodplain connectivity • Restoration backwater/off-channel and riparian habitat functions, LG-43 Panther Creek at • Acquisition The project is intended to provide daylighting and habitat improvements of Pan- City of Renton RM 11 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off -channel habitat East Valley Road • Enhancement/Planting ther Creek from river mile 0.5 to 0.0 and the adjacent East Valley wetlands. This Improvement • Planning/Design includes improving hydrologic and hydraulic function through repairing and/or Project • Restoration replacing the existing culverts at East Valley Road and Lind Ave SW. LG-52 Panther Creek at • Acquisition The project intends to provide fish passage and improved conveyance through a City of Renton Surface RM 11 / right bank Restore and improve fish passage City of Renton LG - Off -channel habitat Talbot Road South • Other culvert replacement along Panther Creek at the Talbot Road South culvert, Water Utility Fish Passage • Planning/Design Improvement LG-53 Signature • Enhancement/Planting Setback levee segments and slope. Install large wood and native riparian plants. City of Kent RM 23.15 - 21.75 / left Protect, restore, and enhance City of Kent LG - Bank Armor Pointe Levee • Planning/Design Address potential for recreational impacts of moving the trail further from the bank channel complexity and edge LG - Large woody debris Improvements • Restoration river and closer to residential units. habitat LG - Off -channel habitat • Acquisition LG-54 SR 516 to S 231st • Planning Balance habitat, flood protection, and recreation. Set back existing levee to allow City of Kent RM 21.75 -19.2 5/ left Protect, restore and enhance City of Kent LG - Bank Armor Way Levee • Scoping/ for more flood storage and habitat improvements. These potential improvements bank floodplain connectivity LG - Off -channel habitat • Reconnaissance include flatter riverbank side slopes, log jams along the river, and increased LG - Riparian Forest riparian plantings. LG-56 Kent Airport Levee • Planning/Design Setback the levee, incorporate current stormwater pond into riparian buffer, and City of Kent RM 24.1- 23. 8/ left bank Protect, restore, and enhance City of Kent LG - Riparian Forest Setback • Restoration install native plants. channel complexity and edge • Acquisition habitat LG-58 Briscoe Levee • Enhancement/Planting Re -grade side slopes that are overly steep, remove non-native invasive plant City of Kent RM 170 -16.1 / right bank Protect, restore, and enhance City of Kent LG - Off -Channel Habitat Riparian Habitat • Planning/Design species, and plant new native vegetation in areas that have not already been channel complexity and edge Improvements • Restoration improved. The project also includes installation of large wood structures along habitat the river's edge throughout the length of the levee reach where feasible. 14 Middle Green River Subwatershed projects MG-3.,.,,., Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection MG-9 ...... Lones Levee Restoration MG-11 ...... Turley Levee Setback MG-13.,,., Hamakami Levee Setback MG-19.,,., Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration MG-21.,,.,Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration MG-24,,., Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback MG-26,,., Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition and Restoration - lr;�r 2 (ScorrL7-18) 5 projects MG-6...... Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement MG-10.,,., Burns Creek Restoration MG-16.,,., Ray Creek Restoration MG-20,,.,Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration MG-22.,., Kanaskat Reach Restoration M MG-25,,., Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood Figure 29 Middle Green River Subwatershed Projects 0 1 2 4 Miles 1 • River mile MG-1 • Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line f` Middle Green River Subwatershed boundary --ol WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Incorporated area Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 2011_10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_MGR.ai LPRE GIS File: QA20009\WRIA9_Watershed.mxd KLINKAT �a"Vshed FitFo r f � Tier 1 Project: MG-3 Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 42-44/both banks Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: la Planning/ Restoration Design KEY HABITAT: a Ur Side channel Tributary Remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under -structure into the river channel, place large wood in river channel and associated wetland, and extensively the revegetate riparian zone throughout state park. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.rrxdKLINKAT Watershed Fit Fo r C� 79 f / Tier 1 Project: MG-9 Lones Levee Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 38/right bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: Restoration �.4*0Fill -1111fit 11� alala) Backwater Riparian Side channel UF Tributary Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing levee, install setback feature to protect agricultural land, place large wood in river channel and remnant river channel, and reintroduce gravel from remnant levee into river channel. Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a"Vshed FitFo r o, 49 F / Tier 1 Project: MG-11 Turley Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 37 / left and right bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $6,000,000 PROJECT TYPE: ©ra Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: ■e1 Backwater Floodplain Riparian aI Ar Side channel Tributary Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove existing levee, setback new revetment away from river channel, and increase complexity with large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: 0rtho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �ateyshed Fit Fo r C� 79 f / Tier 1 Project: MG-13 Hamakami Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 35/right bank Bankside Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: a a @a) Backwater Riparian Side channel PROJECT DESCRIPTION: UF Tributary Wetland Acquire land, remove levee, relocate gravel in the levee under -structure into the river channel, construct revetment away from river, and place large wood in river channel and associated wetland. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.rrxdKLINKAT Tier 1 Project: MG-19 �atetshed Fit For opt q�. F / Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33.3/right bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: 0 a a) Riparian Side channel Ur Tributary Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and increased water quality with placement of large trees in streams and associated wetlands, and plant native trees and shrubs along riparian edge. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT �a"Vshed F(tFor Tier 1 Project: MG-21 Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration sit l �6.Wr+ _ MG-21 a Gree PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 41 / left and right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: n 0, Floodplain Riparian Acquire approximately 40 acres, and install several hundred pieces are large wood on -3,500 lineal feet of river. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho20191KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT �a"Vshed FitFo r o, 49 F / Tier 1 Project: MG-24 Meyer/Imhof Levee Setback PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: 40,5-41.5/ right bank Jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: no Floodplain Riparian Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire land, remove levee, construct set -back structure away from the River, add wood to floodway, and revegetate with native plants. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits: • Habitat preservation • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Bank armor • MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho20191KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GISfile QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxdKLINKAT Tier 1 Project: MG-26 Watershed Fit Fo r Qot q�. m / Newuakum Creek Tributary Acquisition PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40,4/left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $3,500,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: a a a) Riparian Side channel Ur Tributary Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore habitat and improve water quality with placement of large wood in the stream channel and associated wetlands, revegetating the riparian area. Primary strategy Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and edge habitat. Benefits: • Habitat preservation Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • MG - Large woody debris • MG - Riparian forest Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo KCIT-DCE file: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT Tier 2 Project: MG-6 Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 40 / left bank Acquisition Riparian Bankside jurisdiction: 0) King County Restoration Side Channel Project sponsor: King County UF Budget: $2,500,000 Tributary Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Place large wood in the stream channel between RM 6 -10 and remove hardened streambanks. Tier 2 Project: MG-10 Burns Creek Restoration PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Middle Green (MG) River mile: J RM 33 / right bank Bankside Acquisition Floodplain Riparian jurisdiction: County ® UrKing Project sponsor: Restoration Tributary Wetland King County Budget: $1,500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restore lower two miles of Burns Creek by acquiring several parcels or portions of parcels, place large trees with rootwads attached in streams and associated wetlands, plant native trees and shrubs to significantly improve fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, and water quality in an area which is very important for over -wintering salmon. r yt , -At, , ,K , r. Tier 2 Project: MG-16 Ray Creek Restoration PROJECT FACTS PROJECT KEY Subwatershed: TYPE: HABITAT: Middle Green (MG) Bankside J jurisdiction: King County Acquisition Floodplain Riparian Project sponsor: County UrKing Budget: Restoration Tributary Wetland $1,500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire several conservation easements of at least 100' buffers, place large wood in stream, and plant native trees and shrubs in riparian buffer. Build fencing for livestock exclusion to immediately improve of fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, water quality in a degraded area. Tier 2 Project: MG-20 Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 33 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $350,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: in® Floodplain Riparian Wetland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove gravel road in floodway, expand notch of previously -constructed side channel, add large wood, and plant native vegetation. Tier 2 Project: MG-22 Kanaskat Reach Restoration PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Middle Green (MG) River mile: RM 59 / left bank Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County Budget: $600,000 PROJECT TYPE: J Acquisition Restoration KEY HABITAT: Riparian PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire about 3.5 acres, remove large house/garage/ septic, convert 3,300 lineal foot gravel road to backcountry trail, and extensively revegetate site. Table 6 Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects Proj. No. Project Name Project Type Project Description Sponsor River mile and Bank side/Nearshore jurisdiction Primary Strategy (pick 1) Jurisdiction Goal alignment MG-25 Little Soos • Education and outreach Little Soos Creek at stream mile 1 runs through City of Covington Mid Sound Fisheries RM 33.3/right bank Protect, restore, and enhance City of • MG - Floodplain Restoration • Planning/design owned open space through the Coho Creek development, The stream Enhancement Group riparian corridors; Covington connectivity/lateral channel - Wingfield • Restoration historically has been armored, disconnected from its floodplain and a migration Neighborhood • Scoping/reconnaissance paved trail adjacent to the creek is often flooded in the winter. There • MG - Riparian forest is an opportunity to restore in stream and floodplain habitat in the stream through reconnecting the creek to its floodplain, restoring side channels, removing artificial armoring, adding large wood, and revegetating the riparian zone. �T Upper Green River Subwatershed UG-4,,,,,,, Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage Figure 30 Upper Green River Subwatershed Projects ♦ .65 Howard U• Hansen 6 Reservoir a 67 1 • River mile UG-1 • Project location and name River/creek Major road Urban Growth Area line King County boundary 7s J. Gree 76�"• � Rig n Note: The use of the information in this map is subject to the terms and conditions found at: N www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.asp x. Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of these terms and conditions. KCIT-DCE File: 11 2011 _10202L_W9SHP_ProjMap_UGR.ai LPRE 1 GIS File: 0 1 2 4 Miles Q:\20009\WRIA9 Watershed.mxd KLINKAT 1 project ..o00"1 Upper Green River Subwatershed boundary ✓l WRIA 9 boundary Public lands Parks Incorporated area Open water �o SmaY Cr. 4. Watershed Fit Fo r opt 9�. o, °s E '. Tier 1 Project: UG-4 Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Upper Green (UG) River mile: King County (RM 64) Bankside jurisdiction: King County Project sponsor: King County/Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TYPE: 0 OHO Planning/ Scoping/ Design Reconnaissance KEY HABITAT: 083) Edge Riparian Side channel I Ar Tributary Upland PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Creation of downstream fish passage at the Howard Hanson dam is the highest priority project within the Green/Duwamish watershed as it would have an immediate and dramatic impact on all Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters of Chinook and steelhead. Primary strategy Restore and improve fish passage. Benefits: • Increased habitat connectivity • Increased rearing habitat • Water temperature reduction Contribution to goals metrics: • UG - Bank armor Project Area Map: Ortho2019KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth KCIT-DCEfile: 2011_10202L LPRE GIS file QA20009\WRIA9_ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT There are three major funding sources that sup- port implementation of the projects and programs prioritized within the Salmon Habitat Plan - Salm- on Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR), and King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) grants. The WRIA also supports project sponsors in seeking funding from various other local, state and federal sources. Annual Funding Package WRIA 9 develops an annual funding package of pro- jects based on anticipated allocations. The proposed funding package is reviewed and approved by the WRIA 9 Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) and Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF). This funding package serves as the WRIA 9 Lead Entity's habitat project list, as defined in RCW 77,85.050. Several factors are considered when building the annual project list for funding. Primarily, the WRIA supports projects from the list that demonstrate readiness to proceed and have a high likelihood of success, and where WRIA funding is critical to mov- ing the project forward. Project tiering (Chapter VII) will assist the ITC and WEF in making tough fund- ing choices when there are more projects in need than funding available. Project planning efforts with partners have allowed the WRIA to project out -year project funding needs which provides time to antic- ipate funding shortfalls and seek outside support. This long-term planning effort also allows sponsors to align salmon projects with other jurisdictional priorities, like those within their jurisdiction's Capital Improvement Plans and Transportation Improvement Plans, as well as realistically phase large projects that span multiple years. Yearly, project sponsors assess the status of their projects and funding needs and notify the WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator of their intent to apply for WRIA funding, and for how much. Projects undergo a technical review by WRIA staff and the ITC. For those projects competing for SRFB funding, projects undergo an additional rigorous technical review by the SRFB review panel, Salmon Recovery Funding Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) funding is administered through the Recreation and Conser- vation Office (RCO). It is a fund source of combined state salmon funds and federal Pacific Coast Salm- on Recovery Funding (PCSRF). This annual fund is allocated by a SRFB approved interim allocation formula based in NOAA's Chinook delisting criteria. For several years, the Green/Duwamish watershed has received $295,895 annually to support implemen- tation of the Plan. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund (PSAR) is co -managed by the Puget Sound Partner- ship and the RCO. This is a Puget Sound specific fund source appropriated through the State budget pro- cess, within RCO's budget request. In 2007, Governor Christine Gregoire formed PSAR in direct response to the growing need to restore habitat for salmon and other wildlife within Puget Sound. The Green/Duwa- mish has received just over $1.1 million biennially to support implementation of the Plan. RCO serves as the fiduciary for both PSAR and SRFB funding, so all projects funded through SRFB and PSAR are re- viewed and approved through the SRFB process. King County Flood Control District Cooperative Watershed Management Funds (CWM) are provid- ed by the King County Flood Control district (KCFCD) The KCFCD is a special purpose government creat- ed to provide funding and policy oversight for flood protection projects and programs in King County. Funding for CWM is a small portion of the tax assess- ment to support salmon recovery projects within the four WRIAs in King County. In 2020, CWM funding was doubled, and WRIA 9 now receives $3.63 million annually to support high priority projects and pro- grams. The FCD approves project lists annually. Other Local, State and Federal Funding Sources - In addition to these funding programs, sponsors are encouraged to compete for other local, state and fed- eral funds, It typically takes multiple funding sources to implement projects due to project complexity and cost. Many projects are initiated with and sustained by local funding provided by the sponsoring juris- diction. Other state and regional grant programs that support salmon recovery include, but are not limited to, the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP), Floodplains by Design (FbD), Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board (FBRB), Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), and Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Addition- ally, many of the projects within King County are supported through the County's Conservation Futures Tax (CFT), a program passed by the Washington State Legislature in the 1970s to ensure citizens have are afforded the right to a healthy and pleasant environ- ment. This fund specifically protects urban parks and greenways, watersheds, working forests, and salmon habitat as well as critical links connecting regional trails and urban greenbelts. WRIA 9 CWM Funding Allocation High -Priority Capital Projects - CWM funding (> 65%) and all SRFB/PSAR capital funding. The WRIA invests the majority of annual funding on high priority capital projects that protect and restore critical hab- itats. These projects are identified through planning efforts like the Duwamish Blueprint, Middle Green Blueprint, and the Lower Green River Corridor plan- ning process. More recently, projects incorporated in this Plan Update were solicited from partner organi- zations. Regreen the Green small grant program - Up to $500,000 of CWM funding. This grant program orig- inated in 2016 after the completion of the "Re -Green the Green Revegetation Strategy" to support imple- mentation of the priority sites identified in the plan. It has served as a primary source of funding to those focusing on revegetation efforts along critical areas in the Green/Duwamish. Additionally, this program has supported successful coalition building, landowner outreach campaigns, and network development that helps achieve broader Plan engagement goals. Monitoring, Research and Adaptive Management - Up to 10% of CWM funding. This funding is essential to informing adaptive management and maximizing return on investment with respect to salmon recovery. This funding allocation also supports the Green River smolt trap managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Stewardship, Engagement and Learning - Up to 5% of CWM funding. This funding supports Stew- ardship, Engagement and Outreach efforts designed to increase awareness around salmon recovery and promote positive behavior change. Outyear Project Planning (6-year HCPIP) WRIA 9 maintains a Habitat Capital Project Imple- mentation Plan (HCPIP) that identifies all projects with expected funding needs for three biennium (6 years). While these numbers are estimates they pro- vide a sense of the magnitude of funding needed per year. This implementation plan supports staff in work- ing with partners to properly sequence and support projects throughout the project life cycle, and to seek out additional funding to compliment WRIA directed funds. In many cases, WRIA directed funding sources are inadequate to support the full scope of a project but enable project sponsors to leverage other local, state and federal funds. The HCPIP will be updated annually based on evolving project needs, and will be published beinnially along with a call for projects. To ensure projects acquire, restore, rehabilitate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they was described in the original project description for the 2020 Salmon Habitat Plan capital project solicitation (or subsequent calls for projects), project sponsors will be required present to the ITC or project work - group (below) for at least one of the significant mile- stones of the project design process. This team will support ranking and tiering of any new proposed large capital restoration projects and pro- vide input on design for WRIA funded projects. Performance Management Projects receiving funding through grants directed by WRIA 9 are often subject to various pressures from other local, state, and regional funders, stakeholders, and interested parties during project development. In order to make sure projects acquire, restore, rehabil- itate, or create the type and amount of habitat that they described in the projects original description for the Salmon Habitat Plan, project sponsors will be required to present to the ITC or project workgroup (below) for at least one of the significant milestones of the project design process. For very large projects that will likely seek PSAR Large Capital funding, or large-scale complex projects with multiple objectives, the WRIA may request sponsor design teams include a WRIA technical representative to support WRIA 9 salmon recovery project priorities. An ad hoc project workgroup will be established to support elements of project development, made up of three to five members of the ITC. This team will rank and tier newly proposed large capital restoration projects and provide input on design for WRIA-fund- ed projects. The goal of this workgroup would be to provide feedback that will maximize salmon benefits, incorporate lessons learned from previous projects, ensure projects meet the highest possible outcomes for salmon, and help reduce project costs by address- ing issues early in design. It is anticipated that project sponsors will work with the Habitat Project Coordinator to present to the project workgroup or the ITC as follows, or if major changes/updates were made to the design; 1. Alternatives analysis - Project Workgroup 2. 30% design - Full ITC 3. 90% design - Full ITC Project sponsors are expected to maintain fidelity to the original habitat deliverables. Naturally projects will evolve as more is learned about project design and feasibility. The project sponsor is responsible for alerting the WRIA if substantive modifications to the original scope are required. Modifications to the scope of the project may invoke a full project team review to affirm the project tier and may require subsequent approval from the ITC or WEF. Failure to notify the WRIA of these changes, or use of funding outside of the approved scope, could result in the withholding of future funding or constitute a breach of contract. r}n. iapter 9: Dnitoring and Adaptive Manageme Adaptive Management Framework The 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan outlined a sci- ence -based blueprint for prioritizing Chinook salmon recovery efforts in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. This Plan Update reflects an ongoing commitment to adaptive management to ensure prioritization and sequencing of investments reflect best available science and maximize benefits to Chinook salmon, in terms of established viable salmon population criteria. WRIA 9 convenes a regu- lar Implementation and Technical Committee (ITC) to oversee monitoring and adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The ITC informs monitoring pri- orities, evaluates plan implementation and recovery progress, and makes formal policy and funding rec- ommendations to the Watershed Ecosystem Forum. In 2020, WRIA 9 developed a Monitoring and Adap- tive Management Plan (Appendix F) that outlines a framework to; • Prioritize research and monitoring investments to address important data and knowledge gaps; • Support status and trends monitoring to assess es- tablished habitat -related recovery goals and viable salmon population metrics; • Promote collaboration among partners engaged in research and monitoring within the watershed; and • Guide adaptive management of the Salmon Habitat Plan. The WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) outlines three categories of monitoring intended to help evaluate and inform strategic adaptation of recovery efforts (Figure 31). Each category of monitoring is intended to answer under- lying questions related to implementation progress, effectiveness of actions, and overall impact on Chinook recovery. • Implementation Monitoring: Is the plan being implemented as intended? Are we on track to meet established habitat targets? • Effectiveness Monitoring: Are habitat projects functioning as expected? Are habitat status and trends improving throughout the watershed? • Validation Monitoring: Are salmon recovery efforts benefiting the Green River Chinook salmon population (i.e., VSP criteria)? Are the underlying scientific assumptions of the plan accurate? Figure 31. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary. 11 FUNDING 1/ PROJECT 11 PROJECTS Routine Physical 11 PROGRAMS Biological Enhanced 11 CUMULATIVE HABITAT CONDITIONS Periodic assessment of these questions allows wa- tershed partners to reassess plan implementation, underlying recovery strategies, and/or reallocate resources to maximize outcomes. Implementation Monitoring The Plan Update outlines numeric targets for key habitats (Table 2, Chapter IV) linked to Chinook salmon productivity and recovery. The targets are intended to inform tracking and assessment of plan implementation (i.e., projects constructed, specific habitat gains, funding secured) in relation to estab- lished long-term goals. Regular evaluation of imple- mentation progress feeds into an adaptive manage- ment decision framework (Figure 32). This framework connects decision makers (i.e., Watershed Ecosystem 11 GREEN POPULATION I/ ONGOING RESEARCH & DATA GAPS Forum) with important monitoring and research find- ings, informing corrective actions to recovery strate- gies when necessary. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is designed to assess if hab- itat restoration projects are functioning as intended and achieving physical and biological performance standards. It includes both project -level and cumula- tive habitat conditions. Capital habitat project imple- mentation can take over a decade from conceptual design to construction and costs millions of dollars. Effectiveness monitoring is essential to ensure large capital investments maximize benefits to salmon and help identify potential design improvements and cost efficiencies that can be adapted into future projects. Figure 32. Adaptive management decision framework. Routine Monitoring Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether restored habitat is functioning the way it was intended 3-10 years after the project is built. Project specific monitoring plans should be designed to assess project -specific goals and objectives. Project sponsors are encouraged to begin development of a monitoring plan at the project's 30 percent design milestone to allow for pre -project monitoring that can be essential for verifying if future changes are due to the project's actions or natural variability. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 2) outlines routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations based on project type and subtype. The highlighted indicators and metrics are designed to be relatively affordable and consistent with regulatory permit monitoring requirements. Project sponsors are generally expect- ed to undertake routine monitoring for WRIA-funded projects and report monitoring results to the ITC. Enhanced Fish Monitoring Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish use a restoration project type. Unlike routine project monitoring, which asks whether a certain type of habitat was created and sustained, enhanced monitoring is meant to evaluate how fish utilize the habitat, and which restoration techniques convey the most benefit. Projects should be evaluated with a combination of Before -After Control -Impact or reference/control sites research designs. Enhanced fish monitoring is outside the scope of monitoring for many project sponsors, nor is it frequently required by regulatory agencies. Due to the costs associated with enhanced monitoring, WRIA 9 intends to contin- ue to financially support enhanced fish monitoring of select projects. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 3) also outlines a prioritization framework (certainty of bene- fit, process -based vs. engineered design, project type frequency, and project cost) for WRIA-directed invest - ments to support enhanced monitoring. Monitoring results should be reported to the ITC and inform necessary maintenance and/or design modifications. Cumulative Habitat Conditions The Salmon Habitat Plan outlines a suite of projects, programs, and policies intended to improve cumula- tive habitat conditions across the watershed. Monitor- ing status and trends in cumulative habitat conditions allows us to assess the overall effectiveness of plan implementation. It provides data on the net change (improving, no change, degrading) in specific habitat conditions over time that supports evaluation of hab- itat restoration in relation to ongoing impacts to, and loss of, habitat. This information will help identity any gaps in the watershed's approach to salmon recov- ery and help (re)direct partner resources to potential areas of concern. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 4) outlines priority habitat metrics recommended for inclusion as part of a periodic cumulative habitat as- sessment that are consistent with the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report 2005-2011 (ITC 2012). The WRIA 9 ITC should complete a cumulative habitat conditions every five years, Validation Monitoring Viable Salmon Population Criteria The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) developed the viable salmon population (VSP) concept as a tool to assess the conservation status of a population. NOAA defines a viable sal- monid population as "an independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental varia- tion, and genetic diversity changes over a 100- year time frame" (McElhany, et al. 2000). Four parameters are used to assess population status; abundance, productivity; spatial structure, and diversity. These measures of population status indicate whether the cumulative recovery actions in our watershed are improving the population's overall viability and long- term resilience. The MAMP (Appendix F, Table 5) outlines recom- mended metrics to evaluate VSP criteria that should be monitored to assess the population status of the Green River Chinook salmon population. Additional NOAA-approved VSP targets are presented in Chap- ter IV, Table 1. Although VSP parameters are not a direct measurement of habitat conditions, habitat availability, distribution and quality are inherently reflected in VSP criteria. Tracking trends in the rec- ommended VSP parameters allows resource man- agers to evaluate how the population is responding overtime to the net impact of conservation actions and ongoing land use development activity in the watershed. Over a long enough timeframe, results can also inform recalibration of recovery strategies if the conservation status of the population does not improve or continues to decline. The VSP concept - and conservation status of Green River Chinook salmon - is influenced by a variety of factors outside the scope of this plan (i.e., habitat). The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan emphasiz- es that the conservation status of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit is ultimately linked to the "Four H's" - habitat, hydro- power, hatcheries and harvest. "Each of these factors independently affects the (Shared Strategy Develop- ment Committee 2007) status of salmon populations, but they also have cumulative and synergistic effects throughout the salmon life cycle, The achievement of viability at the population and ESU level depends on the concerted effort of all three factors working together, not canceling each other out, and adjusting over time as population conditions change" (Shared Strategy Development Committee 2007). Research and Data Gaps The Salmon Habitat Plan Update reflects an update to the scientific framework (i.e., Strategic Assessment) of the original 2005 Plan. New scientific data improved our understanding of the functional linkages between environmental stressors, habitat, and population productivity, abundance, diversity and spatial distri- bution. This information is reflected in updates to the WRIA 9 recovery strategies and embedded projects, policies, and programs. Best avilable science is used to recalibrate the magnitude and sequencing of our strategic investments, maximizing the effectiveness of our investments. Numerous data gaps and uncertainties remain. Ongoing investments in research and monitoring will be essential to informing adaptive management of recovery strategies and ensuring that plan imple- mentation and associated funding decisions remain science driven. Additional information on research priorities and data gaps can be found in the Habitat Use and Productivity, Temperature, Climate Change, and Contaminant white papers in Appendices A-D, These papers build on the existing 2004 WRIA 9 Chi- nook Salmon Research Framework which utilized a conceptual life -cycle model to organize and prioritize research efforts to inform recovery planning. a:-. ""�...k iFTI�'il [� -3ete50erh0199 Anderson, J.H., and P.C. Topping. 2018. "Juvenile Life History Diversity and Freshwater Productivity of Chinook Salmon in the Green River, Washington." American Fisheries Society 38 (1): 180-193. B,E. Feist, E,R. Buhle, D.H. Baldwin, J.A. Spromberg, S.E. Damm, J.W. Davis, N.L. Scholz. 2017. "Roads to ruin: conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradient" Ecol. Appl. 27: 2382-2396, Beamer, E.M., WT Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non -natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. LaConner, WA: Skagit River System Cooperative. Campbell, L., A. Claiborne, N. Overman, and J. Anderson. 2019. Investigating juvenile life history of adult Green River fall Chinook salmon using otolith chemistry. Final Report (Draft), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Campbell, L.A., and A.M. Claiborne. 2017. Successful juvenile life history strategies in returning adult Chinook from five Puget Sound populations. Salish Sea Marine Survival Project - 2017 Annual Report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Colton, J. 2018. An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook salmon in the Green -Duwamish Watershed. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. DeGasperi, C.L. 2017. Green-Duwamish River 2015 temperature data compilation and analysis. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and and H.D. Berry. 2016. "Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects" Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175: 106-117 Dunagan, C. 2019, "Third Biennial Science symposium - Summary" University of Washington. Eaton, J.G., R.M. Scheller.1996. "Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States.' Limnol Oceanogr 41: 109-1115. Engel, J., K. Higgin, and E. Ostergaard. 2017 WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts. WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. EPA. 2008. Aquatic life criteria for contamnants of emerging concern: General challenges and recommendations. Draft White Paper, Prepared by the OW/ORD Emerging Contaminants Workgroup . Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Seattle, WA: Long Live the Kings. Henning, J. 2004. An evaluation of fish and amphibian use of restored and natural floodplain wetlands. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Higgins, Kollin. 2017. "A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon producitvity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004-2016).' J.P. Meador, A. Yeh, E.P. Gallagher. 2018. "Adverse metabolic effects in fish exposed to contaminants of emerging concern in the field and laboratory." Environ Pollut. 236: 850-861. Jeff res, C.A., J.J. Opperman, and P.B. Moyle. 2008, "Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California River" Environmental Biology of Fishes 83: 449-458. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, J.L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F. Anulacion, and T.K. Collier, 2007.2007. "Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of the United States." Environ. Monit. Assess 124: 167-194. K.T. Peter, Z. Tian, C. Wu, P. Lin, S. White, B. Du, J.K. McIntyre, N.L. Scholz, E.P. Kolodziej. 2018. "Using High -Reso- lution Mass Spectrometry to Identify Organic Contaminants Linked to Urban Stormwater Mortality Syndrome in Coho Salmon:' Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (18):10317-10327. King County. 2014. Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources Inventory Area 9: Compre- hensive needs assessmentand extrapolation to Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Jim Simmonds and Olivia Wright, Water and Land Resources Division. King County, 2010. Green River external advisory panel report.. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Tetra Tech. King County. 2019. Juvenile Chinook Use of Non -natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River. Seattle, Washington: Prepared by Chris Gregersen, Water and Land Division. King County. 2006. The 2006Annual Growth Report. King County, Washington. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project Phase 2 Final Report. Prepared by Kollin Higgins, Water and Land Resources Division. King County. 2019. WRIA 9 marine shoreline monitoring and compliance project phase 2 final report. Seattle, WA: Prepared by Kollin Higgins, King County Water and Land Resources Dvision, Science and Technical Support Section. Konrad, C., H. Berge, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T Olsen, and J. Guyenet. 2011, "Channel dynamicsin the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936-2002" Northwest Science 85: 1-14. Kubo, J. 2017 Green River temperature and salmon. Technical Briefing, WRIA 9. Lestelle, L.C., W.E. McConnaha, G. Blair, and B. Watson. 2005. Chinook slamon use of floodplain, secondary chan- nel, and non -natal tributaries in rivers of western North America. Report prepared for the Mid-Wilamette Valley Council of Governments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Widlife, Lundin, J.I., J.A. Spromberg, J.C. Jorgensen, J.M. Myers, P.M., Zabel, R.W. Chittaro, and et al. 2019. "Legacy habitat contamination as a limiting factor for Chinook salmon recovery in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, USA:' PLoS ONE 14 (3): e0214399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214399. Mauger, G.S, J.H. Casola, H.A Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, TM.B, Isaksen, L.W. Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of knowledge; Climate change in Puget Sound, Report prepared for the Puget Sound PArtner- ship and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration. Seattle: University of Washington. Mauger, G.S. 2016. "Climate Change and Salmon Habitat - Building Resiliency,' Presentation to the WRIA 9 Imple- mentation Technical Committee. McElhany, P, M,H, Rucklelshaus, M.J. Ford, TC. Wainwright, and E.P. and Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Pop- ulations and the Recovery of Evolutionary Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Seattle: NOAA, NMFS. Meador, J. 2014. "Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery -reared Chinook salmon?" Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71 (1): 162-180. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2016. "Fine scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish communi- ty: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning,' Marine Ecology Progress Series 557: 1-15. N.L. Scholz, M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, J.S. Labenia, J.K. McIntyre, G.M. Ylitalo, L.D. Rhodes, C.A. Laetz, C.M. Stehr, B.L. French, B. McMillan, D. Wilson, L. Reed, K.D. Lynch, S. Damm, J.W. Davis, TK. Collier. 2011. "Recurrent die -offs of adult coho salmon returning to spawn in Puget Sound lowland urban streams,' PLoS One 6: e29013. Nelson, T, H. Berge, G. Ruggerone, and J. Cordell. 2013. DRAFTJuvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliott Bay nearshore. Seattle: King County Water and Land Resources Division. NOAA. 2019. Biological Opinion on Howard Hanson Dam, Operations, and Maintenance, Green River (HUC 17710013) King County, Washington. Portland, OR: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. O'Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S, streams. Washington, D.C.; Defenders of Wildlife. O'Neil, S.M., A.J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West. 2015. Toxic contami- nants in juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. "The ecology of urban streams" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365. R2 Resource Consultants. 2013. "Juvenile salmonid use of lateral habitats in the Middle Green River, Washington'. A draft data report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District" R2 Resource Consultants. 2014. "Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River, Washington 2011/12 monitoring results' Reinelt, L. 2014. "Green River System -Wide Improvement Framework, Green River, Washington" King County Water and Land Resources, October 23, Rice, C.A. 2006. "shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus)" Estuaries and Coasts 29 (1): 63-71. Scholz, Julann A. Spromberg David H. Baldwin Steven E. Damm lenifer K. McIntyre Michael Huff Catherine A, Sloan Bernadita F. Anulacion Jay W. Davis Nathaniel L. 2016. "Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts" Journal ofApplied Ecology 53: 398-407. Scholz, N. 2019. "A cross -species evaluation of the Pacific salmon urban stream mortality syndrome" WA Storm - water Center 2079 Annual Research Review. Scrivener, J.C., T.G. Brown, and B.C. Andersen.1994. "Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) utilization of Hawks Creek, a small and nonnatal tributary of the upper Fraser River:' Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (5): 1139-1146. Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrel, W Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. "FLoodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival." Canadian Journal of Flsheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 325-333. Tabor, RA, and ZI Moore, 2018. Restoration monitoring of Mapes and Taylor Creeks, two nonnatal Lake Washington tributaries for juvenile Chinook salmon. Lacey, WA: U,S. Fish and Wildlife. Tabor, RA, J.A, Scheurer, H.A. Gearns, and M.M. Charles. 2011. "Use of nonnatal tributaries for lake -rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington basin, Washington" Northwest Science 85 (3): 476-491. Toft, J.D., A.S, Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R, Cordell, and E.E. Flemer, 2013. "Ecological responses and physical sta- bility of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline.' Ecological Engineering 57: 97-108. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A., Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. "Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound" North American Journal of Flsheries Management 27: 465-480. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: King County, Washington. July 1. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingcountywashington,US. Varanasi, U., C Edmundo, T.H. Arkoosh, D.A Misitano, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, T.K. Collier, B.B. McCain, and J.E. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyn- chus tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-8, NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service. WA Dept. of Commerce. 2077 Puget Sound Mapping Project. Olympia, 1101. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serv- ing-communities/growth-management/puget-sound-mapping-project/. WRIA 9 .2012. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Watershed Eco- system Forum. Published by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) CITY OF J WASHINGTON Burien The Cay of a MAP LLEY CITY OF Federal Way KENT� Enumclaw WASHINGTON wA=„-1.. King County CITY OF ♦ ♦ *NORMANDY PARK WASHINGTON ��j�0 City of Seattle Tacpma City of Algona City of Auburn City of Black Diamond City of Burien City of Covington City of Des Moines City of Enumclaw City of Federal Way City of Kent King Count City of Maple Valley City of Tacoma City of Normandy Park City of Tukwila City of Renton City of SeaTac �` � � ; � ^ r` `� jYI rs w .� ry _ _� ...'�r {s$ - e` :'�,+r�•.a`r-fit y- � - - = - GREEN/DUWAMISH AND CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11, 2021 List of Appendices Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Use in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Appendix G: Recovery Strategies Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green- Duwamish Watershed M fi v A � I .' ti y i ki�-4x, t . ROQE `T ABOR rncE Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November2020 A_1 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed January 2018 LQ' King County Department ❑f Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Science and Technical Support Section King Street Center, KSC-NR-0600 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 206-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 www.klngcounty.gov/EnvironmentaIScience Alternate Formats Available An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Prepared for: Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Submitted by: Jenee Colton King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks lQ King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Kollin Higgins for contributing references on juvenile Chinook ecology and providing feedback on report drafts. Elissa Ostergaard provided early feedback on the report outline and partial draft. Matt Goehring reviewed two full drafts of the report and Deborah Lester, Debra Williston, and Jeff Stern provided valuable comments on the draft final report. Many thanks to the WRIA 9 ITC members for contributing helpful feedback throughout paper development. Citation King County. 2018. An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by Jenee Colton, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County Science and Technical Support Section i January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Contaminant Pathways........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Transport Pathways............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Exposure Pathways.............................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Contaminant Information...................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Background on Health Effects of Chemical Contaminants to Fish ................................... 9 3.2 Chemical Contaminants in Water................................................................................................12 3.3 Chemical Contaminants in Sediments........................................................................................21 3.4 Benthic Community Health Assessment...................................................................................29 3.5 Chemical contaminants in Chinook Salmon and their Diet..............................................30 3.6 Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on Chinook...........................................................33 4.0 Current and Future Actions.................................................................................................................36 5.0 Uncertainty.................................................................................................................................................40 5.1 Data Quantity........................................................................................................................................40 5.2 Chinook Effects Assessment Methods........................................................................................41 6.0 Discussion and Conclusion..................................................................................................................44 7.0 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................48 8.0 References...................................................................................................................................................So Figures Figure 1. Conceptual transport pathways to Green-Duwamish River ........................................ 4 Figure 2. Invertebrate prey categories of juvenile Chinook salmon (n=321) from seven Duwamish Estuary locations (Nelson et al. 2013).............................................. 6 Figure 3. Contaminant exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon ................................... 7 Figure 4. Juvenile Chinook salmon residence times in the Green-Duwamish River ............. 8 Figure S. Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2017a) except for East Waterway Supplemental RI stations....................................................................................14 Figure 6. King County sampling stations in the Lower and Middle Green River (King County2014a)................................................................................................................................19 Figure 7. King County sampling stations in the Middle and Upper Green River (King County2014b)...............................................................................................................................20 King County Science and Technical Support Section ii January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to ChinookSalmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Figure 8. Surface sediment stations (collected 1991-2013) with benthic exceedances along the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways before EAA remediationactions.....................................................................................................................23 Figure 9. Total PCB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments (King County 2014b)...................................................................................................................24 Figure 10. Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non- remediatedareas..........................................................................................................................28 Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model and Pathways for Juvenile Chinook from LDW BaselineRisk Assessment.........................................................................................................34 Figure 12. Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 2014) ...........37 Tables Table 1. Common sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants and their adverse effects on freshwater fish....................................................................10 Table 2. Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled fromKing County(2017a)........................................................................................................14 Table 3. Summary of metals concentrations (mg/L) and WQS exceedances (bolded) in the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Green River (From Table 3-43 of KingCounty 2017a).....................................................................................................................16 Table 4. Total PCB concentrations (µg/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative to English Sole in the East Waterway and LDW (King County 2017a)..................31 Table S. Summary of Information available on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook...45 King County Science and Technical Support Section iii January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Acronyms µg/Kg micrograms per kilogram µg/g micrograms per gram CEC contaminants of emerging concern cfs cubic feet per second CSOs combined sewer overflows CSL cleanup screening level cy cubic yard Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ENR enhanced natural recovery EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EW East Waterway FS feasibility study HPAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon LDW Lower Duwamish Waterway ng/g nanogram/gram PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PBDE polybrominated diphenyl ethers PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PPCP pharmaceuticals and personal care products RI remedial investigation RM river mile ROD record of decision SCO sediment cleanup objective SQS sediment quality standard TBT tributyltin USGS United States Geological Survey WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WQS water quality standards WRIA water resource inventory area King County Science and Technical Support Section iv January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Executive Summary The 2005 Green-Duwamish Salmon Habitat Plan identified protection and improvement of sediment quality as a Tier 3 conservation hypothesis for salmon recovery. Although sediment clean-up was hypothesized to benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon productivity. Other habitat quality and quantity issues were more well-defined and identified as higher priority needs in the watershed. WRIA 9 commissioned this paper in 2017 - along with several other white papers - to address priority data gaps identified during the scoping of the 10-year update to the Salmon Plan. This paper summarizes research completed since the 2005 Plan was adopted on the potential impacts of chemical contaminants on Chinook salmon productivity in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The information is intended to inform identification and prioritization of recovery needs as WRIA 9 watershed partners update the 2005 Salmon Plan. Contaminants are carried from sources to surface waters as well as within surface waters, by transport pathways. Contaminants can be carried to the Green-Duwamish receiving waters by point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and combined sewer overflows [CSOs] discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmospheric deposition, as well as by spills/leaks and bank erosion. Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated food. The importance of an exposure pathway to a fish is dependent on several variables primarily related to the chemical properties of the contaminant (e.g., hydrophilic, hydrophobic) and the ecology of the species of interest (e.g., diet, benthic or pelagic habits). Generally, water exposure and food consumption are the greatest exposure pathways to Chinook. Because juvenile Chinook spend a longer amount of time in the Green-Duwamish watershed than adult Chinook, their exposure to chemicals and risk of health impact are greater. In addition, juvenile Chinook are feeding during this period and consuming prey that are potentially contaminated. Metals such as aluminum and selenium, have low toxicity under typical environmental conditions. Several other metals, such as copper, chromium, and lead, share similar acute symptoms resulting from disturbance of homeostasis. However, chronic exposure symptoms range widely from neurological and reproductive to sensory system and immune system impacts. Common classes of organic contaminants include pesticides, pharmaceuticals, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Three commonly detected organic chemical contaminants in the Puget Sound Region are PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs. There is a wide variety of possible health effects in fish from organic chemical exposure. The available ambient water, sediment, and Chinook salmon tissue chemistry and sediment bioassay data collected in the Green-Duwamish watershed and the ecological assessments that use these data are reviewed in this report. Key information found from this review includes: King County Science and Technical Support Section v January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Observations of potential impacts of contaminants • Chinook salmon return rates are substantially lower in contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, compared to uncontaminated estuaries. Tissue chemistry/biomarkers • Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and East Waterway (EW) risk assessments did not identify risk of impaired growth or survival for juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the LDW risk assessment noted reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile Chinook migrating through the LDW. • Subsequent studies, using more conservative assumptions, concluded PCBs may be causing health impacts in Chinook salmon. • The risks of impacts to Chinook salmon from Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) are unknown although these chemicals are likely present in wastewater discharges, and to a lesser degree stormwater discharges to the Green/Duwamish watershed. • Relatively little juvenile Chinook tissue data have been collected or evaluated in the Duwamish Estuary in the last 10 years, and less data are available for the Green River. Tissue chemistry data indicate juvenile Chinook salmon are bioaccumulating contaminants while in the Duwamish Estuary. Tissue assessments suggest that PCB exposure may be causing sublethal adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon. Sediment • In the most contaminated areas of the LDW and EW, contaminated sediments are potentially impacting benthic invertebrates which could reduce the quantity or quality of food for juvenile salmon. • Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals, and phthalates. • In the Duwamish Estuary, PCBs are the most widespread sediment contaminant. Sediment contaminants in the Green River need more characterization. Based on existing data, sediment contamination is highest in Mill (in Kent) and Springbrook creeks and may be a concern to benthic invertebrates. Mill Creek (in Auburn) is less contaminated, and Jenkins, Newaukum, Covington, or Big Soos creeks are of little concern. Arsenic and BEHP concentrations most frequently exceeded the no -effects benthic sediment cleanup level (SCO) in Green River tributaries. Superfund cleanup of contaminated sediments will be an important step in reducing the exposure of aquatic life including Chinook salmon to contaminants, particularly PCBs. Sediment recontamination will remain a risk from dredging activities during cleanup of the LDW and EW. Water chemistry Several water quality assessments have not identified any chemicals that are presenting notable risk to aquatic life. Of the chemicals investigated, mercury in water may be a chronic exposure risk for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Green River. King County Science and Technical Support Section vi January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed While tracking the LDW cleanup schedule, it is recommended that further direct work on Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon be supported by the WRIA 9 group. Work completed before cleanup begins on the LDW and EW will provide a foundation for comparison with future data to measure how juvenile Chinook health and contaminant impacts change over time. This work will be most efficiently directed at Chinook diet and tissue chemistry, biomarkers and sublethal effect measurement and improvement of Chinook -specific effect thresholds. In addition to ongoing support for cleaning up contaminants in sediments and limiting future contaminant transport to surface waters, specific recommendations for future work include: Conduct studies that measure contaminants in juvenile Chinook tissues and stomach contents at different life stages or residence times; e.g., in rearing habitat for Chinook, in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation. • Focus new studies on contaminants known to be elevated in the Duwamish Estuary and for which substantial effects data are published for some salmonids (PCBs, PAHs) and opportunistically explore CECs, such as pharmaceuticals, in water and Chinook salmon to build a chemistry database. CEC analysis is costly, effects analysis tools are lacking, and substantial new data are necessary to begin risk evaluation for Chinook. Therefore, prioritizing known contaminants first will optimize resources. • Establish one or more new tissue effect thresholds for PCBs that are Chinook - specific. Effects thresholds are a tool that allow chemistry results to be placed into the context of toxicity. PCBs are the most widespread contaminant in the Duwamish Estuary. Outside of Superfund risk assessments, there is only one published PCB effect threshold that has been developed to assess Chinook in this region. Given the highly variable assumptions made in defining an effects threshold, developing one (or more) new PCB thresholds would provide a more stable foundation for evaluating how PCBs are affecting Chinook survival. Support studies that examine other effects evidence (e.g., juvenile Chinook bioassays with Duwamish sediments, biomarkers) by providing in -kind or financial assistance. In addition to the types of evidence recently collected for Chinook salmon (tissue and stomach content chemistry concentrations), work on other lines of evidence that can demonstrate occurrence of contaminant effects. For example, encourage National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct laboratory exposure of salmon for PCB, PBDE, PAH effect endpoints using Duwamish sediments. Tease out cause(s) of lower smolt -to -adult return (SAR) by collecting juvenile salmon when they leave the Duwamish Estuary and measure body mass, nutrition and stomach contents and compare to mass of Chinook salmon at release from hatcheries. This would test if food quality (e.g., benthic invertebrates) between hatcheries and Duwamish Estuary mouth may be reducing juvenile health and decreasing SAR. King County Science and Technical Support Section vii January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed This page intentionally left blank. King County Science and Technical Support Section viii January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Green-Duwamish Salmon Habitat Plan identified protection and improvement of sediment quality as a Tier 3 conservation hypothesis for salmon recovery. Although sediment clean-up was hypothesized to benefit Chinook salmon, limited scientific data were available on the potential impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon productivity. Other habitat quality and quantity issues were more well-defined and identified as higher priority needs in the watershed. WRIA 9 commissioned this paper in 2017 - along with several other white papers (Engel et al., 2017, Higgins 2017, Kubo 2017) - to address priority data gaps identified during the scoping of the 10-year update to the Salmon Plan. It summarizes research completed since the 2005 Plan was adopted on the potential impacts of chemical contaminants on Chinook salmon productivity in the Green- Duwamish watershed. The information is intended to inform identification and prioritization of recovery needs as WRIA 9 watershed partners update the 2005 Salmon Plan. This report does not critique individual studies for the strength of their study design or sampling or analytical methods. This report does review the type and quantity of information available from published sources with the intent of summarizing any available evidence that Chinook salmon may be adversely affected by toxic contaminants as well as describing where the largest knowledge uncertainty lies. The concepts of contaminant transport and exposure pathways are defined to provide context and general information on the potential health effects of specific metals and some common organic chemical contaminants in fish is included. Then, summaries are provided of available chemical contaminant and biomarker data measured in Green-Duwamish watershed water, sediment, and aquatic biota including evaluations of their impacts to Chinook salmon and/or their prey. Recent and thorough data compilations have been completed for water and sediment data and are used for efficiency. Relevant findings for Chinook salmon from Superfund ecological risk assessments are also included. There are several ongoing Green-Duwamish watershed policy programs and initiatives which have potential to influence or spawn new actions that influence contaminant sources or cleanup. These programs/initiatives are briefly described. The majority of available contaminant information for the Green-Duwamish watershed comes from the Duwamish Estuary' because of investigations completed in the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) Superfund Site and the West Waterway and East Waterway portions of the Harbor Island Superfund Site. The LDW Remedial Investigation (RI) was initiated in 2001 and completed in 2010 (Windward 2010) and the Feasibility Study (FS) was completed in 2012 (AECOM 2012). EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) in 2014 (EPA 2014). Concurrently over this period, cleanup actions occurred in three of five Early Action Areas containing the highest levels of contamination. The LDW site is currently in pre -design phase before the remaining cleanup begins. A No Action Decision for the West 1 The Duwamish Estuary includes the Lower Duwamish, East, and West Waterways. King County Science and Technical Support Section 1 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Waterway unit of the Harbor Island Superfund Site (West Waterway) was issued by EPA in 2003 which did not require remediation for this site (EPA 2003). A supplemental RI was completed for the East Waterway unit in 2014 (Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). The draft East Waterway FS was completed in 2016 (Anchor and QEA 2016) and will be finalized in 2018 (pers. comm. Williston 2017). Relatively little information is available across the entire Green-Duwamish watershed regarding how chemical contamination impacts Chinook salmon. Therefore, information is also presented as it relates to salmon or fish in general to provide context regarding the overall level of contamination in the watershed. There are studies that characterize chemical concentrations in water and sediment but these have not been tied directly to salmon impacts. Potential benthic community effects have been assessed with sediment chemistry and bioassay data. Most of the available data are for sediments in the Duwamish Estuary because sediments are considered the key medium of contamination driving human health and ecological risk in the respective Superfund sites. Studies that have measured contaminants in juvenile Chinook salmon are limited. In addition, data from a small number of studies are available that have investigated potential adverse health effects of contaminants in the Duwamish Estuary on salmon. Contaminant information from these studies is summarized within this report. King County Science and Technical Support Section 2 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 2.0 CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS Contaminants are carried from sources to surface waters and also within surface waters, by transport pathways. Understanding which chemical transport pathways are most important assists in prioritization of sources. Once present in fish habitat, fish may be exposed to contaminants in various ways, some of which depend on their diet and behavior. The level of impact that contaminants have on Chinook salmon or other organisms is dependent on how the fish is exposed (i.e., the exposure pathway), contaminant quantity (i.e., dose) and the duration of exposure. The conceptual transport and exposure pathways for fish in the Green-Duwamish River are summarized below; these concepts are used throughout the document to discuss how chemical contaminants may affect salmon in the Green-Duwamish watershed. 2.1 Transport Pathways Contaminants can be carried to the Green-Duwamish receiving waters by point discharges (permitted industrial, stormwater and combined sewer overflows [CSOs] discharges), overland flow (stormwater runoff), groundwater, and direct atmospheric deposition (Figure 1) as well as spills/leaks and bank erosion. Once in the Green-Duwamish River watershed, contaminants can be transported geographically or within the food web by different mechanisms such as tidal currents, sediment resuspension by vessel traffic, and trophic transfer (i.e., through the food web). Transport pathways are not sources themselves, but routes by which contaminants are moved from sources to receiving waters or between different geographic areas of receiving waters. King County Science and Technical Support Section 3 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Atmospheric deposition Mixed ❑❑C1 ',_ ❑❑C land use a nfwn ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ Road runoff 1 -1 1 / 1 r* Overland Flow J Piscivorous ~J' fish " y trophic transfer Forage fish IRQII-1�91? King County Water and Land kes mes 17Nrlslan Groundwa efs—ee iss- -_— -- Figure 1. Conceptual transport pathways to Green-Duwamish River 2.2 Exposure Pathways Combined sewer and separated stormwater Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact and/or its ingestion, and/or through consumption of contaminated food. The importance of an exposure pathway to a fish is dependent on several variables primarily related to the chemical properties of the contaminant (e.g., hydrophilic, hydrophobic) and the ecology of the species of interest (e.g., diet, benthic or pelagic habits). For example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of chemicals that do not readily dissolve in water and tend to bind to solids due to their chemical properties. Therefore, PCBs tend to associate with sediments and accumulate in fish species that have close contact with the river bottom and/or consume benthic prey. These species experience higher exposure than those that reside in the water column and consume plankton or plants. These hydrophobic properties of PCBs result in their affinity for fatty tissue and their propensity to bioaccumulate. Therefore, fish that are piscivorous (i.e., consume other fish) tend to accumulate more PCBs than planktivorous or insectivorous fish. King County Science and Technical Support Section 4 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Chinook salmon are not a demersal species (i.e., one living on bottom sediments) like English sole. Thus, direct contact with contaminated sediments is likely a relatively minor pathway. In general, water ingestion through feeding or respiration and food ingestion are primary exposure pathways for any life stage of Chinook salmon. Incidental sediment ingestion through feeding may be an important pathway for juvenile Chinook depending on their feeding strategy. Studies throughout Puget Sound indicate that juvenile Chinook are opportunistic feeders in estuarine and marine waters, appearing to feed on a wide variety of prey as opposed to showing clear preferences for a specific category of prey (e.g., plankton) like other juvenile salmon species (Fresh 2006; Nelson et al. 2013; Figure 2). Stomach contents of juvenile Chinook from the Duwamish Estuary sometimes contain mainly terrestrial insects (Morley et al. 2012) or annelid worms, midges and bivalve siphons (David et al. 2015, Cordell et al. 2006). Directly targeting benthic instead of pelagic food would increase contaminant exposure of Chinook salmon from incidental ingestion of sediment. Juvenile Chinook may shift their diet as different prey become available which would also shift significance of their food and sediment exposure pathways. The importance of the sediment ingestion pathway to juvenile Chinook is uncertain in the Green-Duwamish watershed and likely variable in space and time. Risk assessments for juvenile Chinook may conservatively assume their prey is 100% benthic invertebrates because this results in higher contaminant exposure from food ingestion than from assuming a plankton diet. Potential exposure pathways of juvenile Chinook in streams and rivers are illustrated in Figure 3. King County Science and Technical Support Section 5 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 0 Uatlle _akr wk' Aoki acrest Cast 5'f�I#re�FY �4a�xrk d'd ! trrrs r�L-�s arrz,5' y:lri�r+.y Prey Habitat Category RM 3.5 aquatic 46 terre�s[ri al RM 3 emergeiit (marsh) RM 6.6 plant matter N r RM 1 : Figure 2. Invertebrate prey categories of juvenile Chinook salmon (n=321) from seven Duwamish Estuary locations (Nelson et al. 2013) King County Science and Technical Support Section 6 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Figure 3. Contaminant exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon. Arrow thickness denotes relative importance. Life stage is a key factor that determines which exposure pathways are most important for salmon. The different life stages of Chinook salmon have varied feeding strategies and residence times. Adult Chinook salmon in the Green-Duwamish watershed are returning to spawn, no longer feeding and cumulatively spend relatively little time (i.e., 3-5 months) in the watershed (Engel et al. 2017). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend months to 1+ years in the Green River and days to months in the Duwamish Estuary (Figure 4). Also, juvenile Chinook consume a diet of benthic invertebrates and some zooplankton and terrestrial insects (Cordell et al. 2006), giving them greater dietary exposure, as well as residence time, than adult Chinook in the Green-Duwamish watershed. King County Science and Technical Support Section 7 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed rr SMOLT • �-_.— 4daYst°'deeksl 1`"— as,a {tudwe ks�t • . RIVER (4U mm) pPR��1 �}an� .— SAIIOLT FRY (Jan -Apr) ..,* PARR (vueeks)? (weeks to MO ths) �A • 'r SMOLT FRY (days) lwceksV °'ij lta+nant11s1 11CI Green/Duwamish River ' Chinook Juvenile PRY (da}rsJ' FRY (days) Rearing Trajectories L.q.pd—d Feb 2©17 Figure 4. Juvenile Chinook salmon residence times in the Green-Duwamish River (modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004) King County Science and Technical Support Section 8 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.0 CONTAMINANT INFORMATION This section provides a summary of contaminant concentrations measured in watershed media and evaluations of their risks to Chinook salmon through direct and indirect exposure pathways. 3.1 Background on Health Effects of Chemical Contaminants to Fish Chemical contaminants can cause a variety of adverse effects in fish. Metals and organic chemicals are discussed separately in this section due to differences in their behavior and chemical properties, and, therefore, toxic effects. The following information applies to fish in general unless a particular species is mentioned. Mechanisms of acute toxicity and adverse effects of chronic exposure described here are primarily taken from a comprehensive review by Wood et al. (2012a and b) for metals and several local studies for organic chemicals. The mechanisms of metals toxicity in Chinook salmon and other marine/anadromous fish are not well understood (Wood 2012) but are informed by research on freshwater fish. Chinook salmon and other salmonids may be more or less sensitive to contaminants than freshwater species. Information specific to Chinook salmon are provided in this section, where available, particularly from local studies. However, an extensive literature search was not conducted on this topic. Therefore, this summary is not comprehensive and additional specific studies on adverse effects may be available for Chinook salmon. This information is intended to provide a general guide on health effects to fish. Metals commonly measured as potential environmental contaminants from human sources include aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. All metals are naturally occurring but also have human sources. Some metals are essential, meaning they are necessary for biological life in small amounts; some are non- essential. Both types can be toxic to fish, but non -essential metals are more toxic (e.g., cause effects at lower levels). Metals in aquatic ecosystems can be in free, dissolved form (most bioavailable) or bound to solids (least bioavailable). Table 1 outlines some common sources and adverse effects of different metals on freshwater fish. Metals such as aluminum and selenium, have low toxicity under typical environmental conditions. Several other metals, such as copper, chromium, and lead, share similar acute symptoms resulting from disturbance of homeostasis but range widely in their chronic symptoms from neurological and reproductive to sensory system and immune system impacts. Organic chemicals are those that contain carbon. The number of possible environmentally present organic contaminants outnumbers the possible metals contaminants by orders of magnitude. Common classes of organic contaminants include pesticides, pharmaceuticals, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Three commonly detected organic chemical contaminants in the Puget Sound Region are PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs. There is a wide variety of possible health effects in fish from organic chemicals. See Table 1 for examples of King County Science and Technical Support Section 9 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed adverse effects caused by exposure to these compounds. Ionic imbalance refers to problems with osmoregulation with the surrounding waters, usually due to interruptions of ion pumps located in the gill. Table 1. Common sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants and their adverse effects on freshwater fish. Contaminant Naturally Common Non- Symptoms Primary Chronic Occurring? natural Sources with Acute Exposure Effects Mortality Aluminum Yes Mining, aerospace, Only in Same as acute (Wood many consumer extreme pH: et al. 2012b). products (Wood et al. ionic 2012b). imbalance, respiratory disturbance (Wood et al. 2012b). Arsenic Yes Mining, smelter Acute Decreased growth rate, emissions (e.g. mechanism not possible reproductive Asarco), treated well effects (Wood et al. wood, roofing understood in 2012b). materials (Wood et al. fish (Wood 2012b, Norton et al. et al. 2012b). 2011). Cadmium Yes Mining, smelting, Ionic Ionic imbalance, oxidative roofing materials imbalance, stress, possible (Wood et al. 2012b, respiratory reproductive impairment Norton et al. 2011). disturbance (Wood et al. 2012b). (Wood et al. 2012b). Chromium Yes Pulp processing, Mucus Spinal deformities, electroplating, and overproduction, anemia, neurological products (e.g., ionic damage and possible stainless steel, spray imbalance, growth reduction (Wood paint) (WDOH 2O17). respiratory et al. 2012a). disturbance (Wood et al. 2012a). Copper Yes Mining, pesticides, Ionic Reproductive impairment, fertilizers, brake pads, imbalance, general health decline boat paint, roofing sensory from detoxification materials (Wood et al. impairment, (elimination of toxins from 2012a, Norton et al. reduced body), oxidative stress 2011). swimming (reactive oxygen damage speed (Wood repair), sensory et al. 2012a). impairment (smell and lateral line), immune suppression (documented in Chinook salmon) (Wood et al. 2012a). King County Science and Technical Support Section 10 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Contaminant Naturally Common Non- Symptoms Primary Chronic Occurring? natural Sources with Acute Exposure Effects Mortality Lead Yes Ammunition, lead Hypocalcemia Reproductive impairment, shot, wheel weights, and ionic general health decline fishing sinkers, imbalance from detoxification aviation fuel (Wood et al. (elimination of toxins from combustion (Norton 2012b). body), oxidative stress et al. 2011). (reactive oxygen damage repair), sensory (smell and lateral line) impairment, immune suppression, and mortality (Wood et al. 2012b). Mercury Yes Thermostat and Breakdown of Gonad growth impairment, fluorescent lamp neural spawning inhibition, disposal, mining, functions, and reduced growth, gill smelters, other damage, ionic imbalance, industrial/commercial physiological impaired digestion, emissions, petroleum issues (Wood nerve/brain damage, refineries (Wood et al. et al. 2012b). organ tissue damage 2012b, Norton et al. (Wood et al. 2012b). 2011). Nickel Yes Stainless steel, Loss of Reduced egg hatchability, batteries, many magnesium organ tissue damage, consumer products, balance in respiratory distress (Wood building materials, kidneys, et al. 2012a). inks/dyes, mortality electroplating, (Wood et al. medical equipment 2012a). (Wood et al. 2012a). Selenium Yes Metals mining, fossil Not seen in Developmental deformities fuel refinement and environment (Wood et al. 2012a). use (EPA 2016). due to low acute toxicity (Wood et al. 2012a). Zinc Yes Mining, galvanized Calcium Calcium imbalance, steel and other metal imbalance and reduced growth, possible products, roofing mortality reproductive impairment materials, tire wear (Wood et al. (Wood et al. 2012a). (Wood et al. 2012a, 2012a). Norton et al. 2011). PCBs No Transformers, light Can't Immune suppression ballasts, recyclers, accurately (Arkoosh et al. 2001), paint, caulk, pigments assess due to reduced reproductive (Ecology 2015). low solubility success, mortality (Eisler (Stalling and and Belisle 1996). Mayer 1972. King County Science and Technical Support Section 11 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Contaminant Naturally Occurring? Common Non- natural Sources Symptoms with Acute Mortality Primary Chronic Exposure Effects PAHs Yes Wood smoke, Not fully English sole: liver cancer creosote -treated understood; and other liver disease, wood, vehicle cardiotoxicity of gonad development emissions (Norton embryos failure, inhibited ovarian et al. 2011). (Incardona and development, reduced Scholz 2005). spawning success, disorientation, and mortality. Juvenile Chinook: reduced growth, embryo developmental abnormalities, cardiovascular problems, and immune suppression (Johnson et al. 2008). PBDEs No Flame retardants on Not applicable. Endocrine disruption, plastics, upholstery PBDEs are not disease susceptibility and foam (Ecology an acute (Arkoosh et al. 2010). 2006). contaminant. 3.2 Chemical Contaminants in Water Several studies have measured water chemistry in the Green River and Duwamish Estuary. Some of these studies have compared concentrations to Washington State water quality standards (WQS) for aquatic life. However, while the WQS are generally protective of 95% of aquatic species, and utilize salmonid data when available, they are not specific to Chinook salmon. Thus, WQS may be more or less protective of Chinook salmon. Therefore, these comparisons are general indications of water contamination. The results summarized below indicate which chemicals may potentially impact Chinook salmon in the Green- Duwamish watershed. 3.2.1 Duwamish Estuary From 2009 to 2011, Ecology measured pesticides (weekly from March to September) in several Western WA streams including one in the Green-Duwamish watershed: Longfellow Creek (Ecology 2013). Few pesticides were detected in Longfellow Creek, but herbicides were most common (dichlobenil, trichlopyr, 2,4-D). Concentrations were compared to WQS, pesticide registrations toxicity criteria, and EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2006) for aquatic life. Only methiocarb (insecticide) concentrations in some samples showed the potential to be sublethally toxic to invertebrates. The study concluded toxic impacts to invertebrates could have population -level effects and reduce food availability for juvenile salmon. King County Science and Technical Support Section 12 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.2.2 Duwamish Estuary and Middle Green River King County reviewed available water concentration data in the Green River and Duwamish Estuary published between 2000 and 2013 (King County 2017a). Locations for these water data are in Figure 5, except for 5 stations sampled in the East Waterway (EW) in 2008/2009 (Windward 2009). See Windward (2009) or Appendix C of King County (2017) for the mapped locations of these EW stations. Some of these datasets go as far back as the 1970s (Table 2). All samples were collected by King County, Ecology, or the East Waterway Group. More than 150 samples were analyzed for metals and other chemicals. The Lower Duwamish, East, and West Waterway data were compared to marine acute and chronic criteria due to their estuarine salinity; the Green River data were compared to freshwater acute and chronic criteria. Five samples exceeded freshwater chronic aquatic life standard for one metal (total mercury) in the Green River (GR 11.1, GR 40.6, GR 63.1) (Figure 5; Table 3). One East Waterway sample also exceeded the chronic aquatic life standard for total mercury (at EW-SW-1). One East Waterway sample exceeded the chronic aquatic life standard for tributyltin (TBT) (at EW-SW-2). No other metals exceeded aquatic life criteria. Detected organic chemicals included triclopyr (pesticide), estrone, 4 nonylphenol, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (endocrine disruptors), PAHs, PCB congeners, one dichlorobenzene, aniline, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, caffeine, phenol, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. However, all of these chemicals were infrequently detected except for PAHs and PCBs. It should be noted that when analyzed by the most sensitive method, PCBs are usually detected at some level in ambient waters because they are a ubiquitous contaminant. For organic chemicals with aquatic life criteria, none were exceeded. King County Science and Technical Support Section 13 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed k, ' Long Term Monitoring Sites N WW-ALf SEW King County WW- - LDW-0.1 N Ecology -- G 0 25 5Miles LDW-3.0 fJ 0 3 5Kilometers LD W--4. A~� DR-6.3 q Puget DR48 Soured ' GR-11.1 GR-11.6 1 GR-56.9 GR-32.8� ver Oe� R� GR-42.0 Howard Hanson GR-40.6 GR-63.1 Reservoir Figure 5. Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2017a) except for East Waterway Supplemental RI stations. Table 2. Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled from King Countv (2017a) Site ID Station River Depths Years Agency Description Locator Mile' Sampled Sampled — EW-SW-1 EWG East Waterway — Between Terminal 102 and Above and 2008-2009 104 below 1 m — EW-SW-1 EWG East Waterway — Between Terminal 102 and — Above and 2008-2009 Flood tide 104 below 1 m — EW-SW-2 EWG East Waterway — Off Terminal 25 — Above and 2008-2009 below 1 m EW-SW-2 Above and — Flood EWG East Waterway — Off Terminal 25 — below 1 m 2008-2009 Tide — EW-SW-3 EWG East Waterway — Slip 27 — Above and 2008-2009 below 1 m — EW-SW-4 EWG Lower East Waterway — east side of channel; Above and 2008 moved to EW-SW-5 after Round 1 below 1 m — EW-SW-5 EWG East Waterway — Slip 36; replaced EW-SW-4 — Above and 2008-2009 below 1 m — EW-SW-6 EWG Lower East Waterway — middle of channel — Above and 2008-2009 below 1 m — EW-SW-6 EWG Lower East Waterway — middle of channel — Above 1 m 2008-2009 Flood tide WW-a LTKE03 King County West Waterway — Upstream of the Spokane — Below 1 m 2005-2013 lower Street Bridge, middle of the channel King County Science and Technical Support Section 14 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Site ID Station River Depths Years Agency Description Locator Mile Sampled Sampled WW-a LTKE03 King County West Waterway — Upstream of the Spokane — Above 1 m 2005-2013 upper Street Bridge, middle of the channel WW-b 0305 King County West Waterway — Upstream of the Spokane — Below 1 m 1970-2004 lower Street Bridge, on west side of channel WW-b 0305 King County West Waterway — Upstream of the Spokane — Above 1 m 1970-2004 upper I Street Bridge, on west side of channel LDW-0.1 LTLF04 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway — At the south 0.1 Above 1 m 2003-2004 end of Harbor Island LDW-3.0 LTTL02 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway — Duwamish 3 Above 1 m 2007-2010 Waterway Park LDW-3.3 0307, King County Lower Duwamish Waterway — 16th Ave. S 3.3 Below 1 m 1970-2013 lower LTUM03 Bridge LDW-3.3 0307, King County Lower Duwamish Waterway — 16th Ave. S 3.3 Above 1 m 1970-2013 upper I LTUM03 Bridge LDW-4.8 LTXQ01 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway — Upstream side 4.8 Above 1 m 2009-2013 of Boeing pedestrian bridge, mid span DR-6.3 0309 King County Duwamish River — East Marginal Way Bridge 6.3 Above 1 m 1970-2008 at S 115th Street DR-9.8 FL319 King County Duwamish River — Foster Links Golf Course, 9.8 Above 1 m 2011-2012 downstream of confluence with Black River GR-11.1 3106, King County Lower Green River — Bridge at Fort Dent 11.1 Above 1 m 1970-2013 A310 Park upstream of Black River GR-11.6 0311, King County, Lower Green River— Renton Junction Bridge 11.6 Above 1 m 1970-2013 09A080 Ecology on West Valley Road at Highway 1 Lower -Middle Green River — Bridge on SE GR-32.8 A319 King County Auburn -Black Diamond Road, upstream of 32.8 Above 1 m 1972-2012 Soos Creek GR-40.6 B319 King County Lower -Middle Green River — Bridge on 212th 40.6 Above 1 m 1993-2013 Ave SE, upstream of Newaukum Creek Lower -Middle Green River— Bridge at SE GR-42.0 FG319 King County Flaming Geyser Road in Flaming Geyser 42 Above 1 m 2011-2012 State Park GR-56.9 09A190 Ecology Upper -Middle Green River— Bridge on 56.9 Above 1 m 1977-2012 Cumberland -Palmer Road at Kanaskat GR-63.1 E319 King County Upper -Middle Green River — Below Howard 63.1 Above 1 m 2001-2003 A. Hanson Dam, at USGS gage 12105900 I River miles conform to the convention used in the RI/FS for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site. The starting point of RM 0 is at the southern tip of Harbor Island (Windward 2010). EWG - East Waterway Group King County Science and Technical Support Section 15 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Table 3. Summary of metals concentrations (mg/L) and WQS exceedances (bolded) in the Lower Duwamish Waterway and Green River (From Table 3-43 of King County 2017a) Analyte FOD Mean Maximum Detected Max MDL Antimony 53/187 0.117 0.153 0.5 Arsenic 176/230 1.19 1.41 0.5 Cadmium 57/230 0.071 1.45 0.1 Chromium, total 153/238 0.85 10.8 0.79 Copper 172/233 1.44 2.94 0.4 Lead 26/230 0.0702 0.45 2.3 Mercury 49/195 0.00069 0.0058 0.2 Mercury, total 113/232 0.00501 0.0835** 0.2 Nickel 116/230 0.425 7.79 0.34 Selenium 56/189 0.188 0.38 1.5 Silver 4/226 0.0198 0.022 0.2 Zinc 161/240 6.16 16.9 0.5 Notes: Metals concentrations are in dissolved form unless noted. ** Exceeds freshwater (0.012) and marine (0.025) chronic aquatic life criteria FOD - frequency of detection (# samples detected/ total collected) MDL - method detection limit 3.2.3 Lower Green River The United States Geological Survey (USGS) sampled (Conn et al. 2015) whole and filtered water at Foster Links Golf Course RM 8 (same as station FL319 in Figure 6) during baseflow, storm flow and significant dam releases between November 2013 and March 2015. Composite samples were collected over 28 events and analyzed for metals, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, butyltins, volatiles and semivolatiles, and pesticides. Pesticides, butyltins, volatile and semivolatile chemicals were not detected except for methylene chloride and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (ubiquitous contaminants). Nine metals were frequently detected (>75% of samples). PAHs were infrequently detected and at low concentrations. PCBs and dioxins/furans were detected in most if not all samples. Concentrations were not compared to water quality standards. Chemical concentrations detected during storm events were consistently higher than at baseflow. Where detected, metals concentrations were higher during significant (>2000 cfs) Howard Hansen Dam releases compared to storm events. These dam releases send large water volumes from the Upper Green River downstream. Metals concentrations in unfiltered water samples generally increased with suspended sediment concentrations and were similar in filtered water samples across storms, significant dam releases, and baseline periods. These observations suggest that sediment -bound metals are more important than the dissolved fraction. The frequent detection of metals is not unusual given their natural occurrence. The most noteworthy findings of this study are the consistently higher chemical concentrations in storm events relative to baseflow and higher estimated chemical loads during significant dam releases relative to storm samples. The storm versus baseflow results align with similar studies in other areas of Puget Sound (King County 2013, Ecology and King County 2011) and suggest that stormwater contributes substantially greater contaminant loads King County Science and Technical Support Section 16 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed than baseflow. Higher metals loads during significant dam releases relative to stormflow indicate that dam flow regulation plays an important role in controlling loading and exposure of juvenile Chinook salmon to metals. The higher sediment bound fraction indicates metals are being stored in sediments behind Howard Hansen Dam and these solids are occasionally released with large dam openings. 3.2.4 Lower and Middle Green River and Tributaries King County (2014a) evaluated water quality in the Lower and Middle Green River and 4 tributaries (Mill Creek in Auburn, Soos Creek, Black River and Newaukum Creek) (Figure 6). Significantly higher dissolved arsenic concentrations were measured in Mill Creek than in the mainstem at Flaming Geyser or Foster Links, or in Newaukum Creek during storm events. Concentrations of total PCBs and PAHs increased with distance downstream during storm events. Significantly higher total high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (HPAH) concentrations were detected in the Black River during storm events compared to the mainstem at Flaming Geyser or in Newaukum and Soos Creeks. Total PCB concentrations were highest in the Black River (at the Pump Station) compared to Mill, Newaukum and Soos Creeks and the two mainstem locations although differences were not statistically significant. All measured total PCB and arsenic concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS. 3.2.5 Middle and Upper Green River King County conducted a 2013 study of Middle and Upper Green River water quality (King County 2015) sampling between Kanaskat-Palmer and 20 miles upstream of the dam (Figure 7). Results showed water concentrations of arsenic increase with distance downstream during storm events. All measured arsenic concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS. Concentrations of total PCBs and PAHs increased during storm events with distance downstream. All measured total PCB concentrations were below the Washington State freshwater aquatic life WQS (there were no applicable aquatic life standards for PAHs at the time of the report). King County Science and Technical Support Section 17 January 2018 4 F"We� j, jD. 10 go P_ I OF; Lu QQ L d0W_ Z LU co s i m r r ■ A Ir m 4 _ •��•_ � •, ham, __ . An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.2.6 Duwamish-Green Sub -basins King County (2005) conducted an aquatic life screening risk assessment for the Green River in 2005 using existing metals and organic contaminant data collected by King County and USGS from 1999 through 2003. These data included a mix of grab and composite water samples collected from 67 stations during baseflow and storm flow spanning all sub -basins from the Duwamish Estuary to just below Howard Hansen Dam in the Upper Green (see Figure 3-1 http:/(your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/KCR1883.pdf). Chemical data were available for nutrients, metals and several organic chemicals (phenols, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and other volatile and semivolatile chemicals). Quartiles and 51h and 951h percentiles of resulting concentrations were compared to (in hierarchical order): Washington State WQS (WAC 173- 201A 2003 version), EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2002), an EPA toxicity database (AQUIRE) or other thresholds from the scientific literature. Of the 187 chemicals targeted, 127 were never detected in any water samples. For 10 chemicals, at least one sample exceeded the selected risk threshold, but most had low exceedances (percentile concentration/threshold ratios <2). It was concluded that metals and organic chemicals posed minimal risk to aquatic life. 3.3 Chemical Contaminants in Sediments Some contaminants in sediments have been demonstrated to cause toxic effects in fish. For example, Puget Sound sediments contaminated with PAHs have been linked to toxic effects in English sole, a benthic species (Johnson 2000). For salmon and other non-benthic species that occupy the water column, their direct sediment exposure is lower than a benthic species, but to what degree is uncertain. However, juvenile salmon sometimes consume benthic invertebrates which can increase their chemical exposure relative to planktonic prey. In addition, a decline in benthic populations due to contamination may theoretically decrease the food quantity or quality for juvenile salmon. Therefore, sediment contamination may directly or indirectly impact Chinook salmon. King County conducted a sediment chemistry study of the Green River (King County 2014b) and completed a review of all available watershed sediment chemistry data (King County 2017a). Sediment chemistry data were compared to Washington State Marine Sediment Management Standards (WAC 173-204-320), more specifically known as the Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) and the Cleanup Screening Level (CSL) (WAC 173-204- 562). The SQS is a "no benthic effects" level while the CSL is a "minor benthic effects" level. The SQS is equivalent to a benthic sediment cleanup objective (SCO) used to develop a sediment quality goal for Washington State sediment cleanup sites. While there are no established freshwater sediment standards in Washington State, freshwater benthic cleanup levels, also referred to as SCO and CSL (WAC 173-204-563) have been developed. These standards and benthic cleanup levels were developed based on chemical concentrations that cause adverse effects to benthic invertebrates. Results of the King County (2017a) review do not reflect removal of contaminated sediments that has occurred from early action cleanups in the LDW. King County Science and Technical Support Section 21 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.3.1 Duwamish Estuary King County (2017) summarized existing sediment data collected between 1991 and 2013, comparing sediment chemistry results for Duwamish Estuary (King County 2017a) to benthic sediment standards described above (SQS and CSL). Figure 8 shows where any chemical exceeded the SMS; the metals and key organic chemical exceedances are summarized below. • All eight metals with benthic sediment standards exceeded the CSL in the East Waterway and LDW: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc. • The majority of the SMS exceedances were north of RM 1.3 in the LDW. • Several metals exceeded the CSL at two additional locations in the LDW, the west inlet at RM 2.2 and south of the Jorgensen Forge cleanup area between RM 3.7 and RM 3.9. • Cadmium exceeded the CSL approximately 50 m southwest of the Duwamish/Diagonal cleanup area and in the west inlet located at RM 2.2 in the LDW. • Mercury was widely dispersed and exceeded the CSL throughout the East Waterway, in the LDW between RM 0.0 and RM 1.3 (exceedances detected between RM 0.2 and RM 0.6 and RM 0.9 and RM 1.2), throughout the west inlet of the LDW at RM 2.2, south of the Jorgensen Forge cleanup area (RM 3.7 to RM 3.9), and in the LDW near the head of Slip 6. • The frequency of sediment standards exceedances was highest in the East Waterway and LDW for total PCBs and next highest for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Exceedance of PAH sediment standards was frequent in the LDW and tended to be within 50 m of shore. 3.3.2 Green River King County (2014b) collected and analyzed sediment samples from 2008 to 2012 in tributaries of the Green River. Of 58 samples collected, 24 exceeded the no effects level (freshwater benthic SCO) for one or more contaminants including three metals (arsenic, nickel and cadmium), bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octylphthalate, and total PCBs (Figure 8). Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and arsenic were the two chemicals with the highest frequency of exceedance. Tributaries included Big Soos Creek, Covington Creek, Jenkins Creek, Newaukum Creek, Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek in Kent and Mill Creek in Auburn. Creeks located in the most urbanized areas (e.g., Mill in Kent and Springbrook) generally had a greater number of freshwater benthic SCO exceedances than the lesser developed creek basins. Four stations were located in the Green River mainstem but there were no exceedances of freshwater benthic SCO at these locations. King County Science and Technical Support Section 22 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed N Eflew Say Lack HrN xye 7 � +Shipyard0 i ■ 'v r1• • i • Harbor • • Island .. • • • 'C 'SIB; . r Lockheed V e, Shipyard * g [}'Lr D 'Q^d' �Qi' • -• � �C� D E F faA d • ■ C. �7 G80 Name 1NPaEES N) 0. + + K a KWV OhrltV. a+ 15MAb + 'uiecrnebd .r�mnern ap ••+wn �� A Lwdw St(K(130)"' B Hari&d St 02 {Ke321' e C 5 Hinds St (5307k"l 0 Fa;tv4ar Rw (K037)' E SW "rim St {$Mq4 l F Chelan Am (KOM)' 0 OLvAmmishriost IK035j H FX WWn15h Eair1 (1t074}' I Hhr xd 3t 61 {1ie31? J ®iagonaI AvefSUW H riririJnn S1(KO41)' L Twminal l IS iKlk181' ' M r.11ch4gan;KMV9 N 4'resr McMgCD� en p' a 01ri A-o (KD" P kasr Mariiiinal (u001 a htr ak !1(0"? SLIS - Chemistry a a CSL } SOS and S CSL t SOS or non -detect SMS - Toxicity 0 ?CSL 0 }SOS and SCSL Q <SOS. Pass 0 Uncontrolled CSO d Controlled CSO 1.2 River mile Cleanup Area QuCfall CSO and separate Slo" dfaln system share outfall rim G 03 0.61010MUM 7� ■ • Slip 4 ERR • hoeing P1.11t 21 aargeneen Forge EAA 1E vs ■ T Norfolk germinal a EAA 117 ERA t� r, Figure 8. Surface sediment stations (collected 1991-2013) with benthic exceedances along the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways before EAA remediation actions. Original Sources: AECOM 2012, Windward and Anchor QEA 2014, Urban Waters Initiative (Ecology 2009), and PSEMP Database (Ecology 2015). King County Science and Technical Support Section 23 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed r i O f SEATTLE N4 ' f NEwlrASTLE ISSAQUAH 99 0 RURIEN black RENTON ltrver F 19 0317 �1 Ce rya �� R2ver f 4CRMANDY TUK p 31 - -... PARK ti 1 SE k1Ap7 s - Fr31 3 7 1 T318 N317 ".p C, t320 ..LaA 1, 55320� rYo F531 167 DES s4 b MO3NES �, C C531 318 RR320 7 KENT to m� 11320 [h ' 18 LW32D N �EP318 ' m N6 HH320 P320 A315 SH318ZJ Q320 m FR320 _—:'MAPLE EG318 .- VALLEY 5D315 0318 - µ`N COVINGTON FR315 Sea JK320 _ GG WX320 .� T5315 320 Y320• .�- 5320 AA320 .i 01 315 U11315 " - Pr320 AUBURN A320 �� �'(��¢ 10 .� ;7 � FEDERAL PC315� AD320 vn BLACK 0320 lI WAY _ CC320 G320 DIAMOND PR315 A319 '' - D320-i el een ✓?i� FG319 ALGONA,,, — 0322 h PACIFIC P'wd Md LTC, iI90,1116115322 > e Sample PCB Concentration -creeks and streams a E322@, Is Non -Detect -_ -� Watershed Boundary 322 G322 QQ322 • < 10 pglkg FF322 C 10 to 20 pg/kg -�AE322 ', A6322 �7 21 to 50 pglkg z a - C 51 to 100 pglkg Miles 100 pg(kg 0-1-2it13 s King County t7,e ihrermavan inciueetl nn Wls mep nes neen eampaea hom a yar�ttv of zaurcaz ane is Figure 4 suhle:t lg chanflo Wthoutne 1— King County makes no represent•tlans arw•rtsMlm, �ry es Implletl t y pl I II Bht to en 1..h Department of nl m d Th tl m xl i' Send tlfi eyp tl i, King C ty n l a eea I 1 rl R hnmMe Spatial Distribution of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment ntl. g o p w x f tM1e rrt i to tl M- p A y k ftM1s p I nne[ tM1--smep •pdM1ibil6daceptnywrtUenpeniaz•nIlin,1-1y. TOtaIPCBCOnCentratlOnS Division ri.Hn vrol• x•�ore mouwsmt•mvrolana ot¢seeimmw•porn•empifng res �n,eretlmxd (based on Aroclors) me'SCISCT2ntd16t1 Figure 9. Total PCB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments (King County 2014b).Two stations with highest concentrations exceed SCO. King County Science and Technical Support Section 24 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.3.3 Early Action Areas in LDW Based on identification of highly contaminated areas during the first phase of the LDW RI, five Early Action Areas (EAA) were selected by EPA and Ecology for early cleanup. Together, cleanups at all five EAAs cover 29 acres and are expected to reduce the LDW area -weighted average surface sediment PCB concentration by approximately 50% (EPA 2014). The status of cleanup actions in these areas is summarized below. See Figure 5 for locations of each EAA. Slip 4 Approximately 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of PCB -contaminated sediments were dredged and 3.4 acres were capped with clean sand, gravel, and granular activated carbon amended filter material, during October 2011 through January 2012, by the City of Seattle (with participation by The Boeing Company) under an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (consent order) (Seattle 2015). Upland plantings were also completed in 2012. A net gain of 1.1 acres of intertidal, shallow subtidal and riparian habitat resulted. Dredging and capping was monitored with one brief exceedance of the turbidity standard during placement of clean cap sand. The City of Seattle has been monitoring the cap and documented recontamination (exceedance of SMS) with PCBs in Years 1 and 3 (Seattle 2015). In -water construction activities in Year 3 may have influenced the surface sediments on the cap (pers. comm. Schuchardt 2017). Year 4 monitoring was completed, but did not include sediment chemistry (Seattle 2016). Terminal 117 Cleanup was performed by City of Seattle and Port of Seattle (Port of Seattle project website http://tll7.com). The Port of Seattle work was completed in 2015 and included dredging of 8,000 cy of sediment followed by backfill with clean sand, and removal of 36,000 cy of upland and bank soil (AECOM 2016). As source control actions, the City of Seattle completed cleaning of residential yards in 2013 and finished cleaning adjacent streets and stormwater infrastructure construction in 2016. A monitoring and maintenance plan is currently being developed with EPA. Habitat restoration is planned to occur in 2018 (pers. comm. Florer 2017). Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge (Across from Terminal 117) The Boeing Company initiated cleanup of river sediment and the shoreline of Boeing Plant 2 in 2013. Substantial upland source control actions were completed before 2013, including building structure removal, joint compound replacement, storm drain cleaning and installation of stormwater treatment systems (pers. comm. Anderson 2017). 163,000 cy of sediment was dredged (and backfilled with clean sediment) from the nearly 1-mile-long property footprint (Amec Foster Wheeler et al. 2016). Shoreline soils impacted by organic chemicals were removed and replaced with salmon habitat features including riparian and intertidal plants, along King County Science and Technical Support Section 25 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed with large woody debris features (Amec Foster Wheeler 2014). The project was completed in 2015. The Boeing Company has completed the first year post-remediation monitoring data report (Amec et al. 2016). Concentrations of all metals and organic chemicals including PCBs were below the no effect threshold (SQS). As expected, deposition of sediments is occurring on the surface of the clean backfill; 22 of 40 samples showed increases in PCB concentrations after one year. http: //www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/principles/environment/pdf/d uwamish backgrounder.pdf The Jorgensen Forge site is adjacent to Boeing Plant 2. In 2014, in -water sediments were dredged and bank material was removed and backfilled with clean materials. Several rounds of post -cleanup surface and subsurface sediment sampling have documented sediment PCB concentrations above cleanup levels (>SQS). EPA and Earle M. Jorgensen are currently negotiating an amendment to the Agreed Order to establish how remaining contamination will be addressed (Chu, pers. comm. 2017). Diagonal CSO/Storm Drain King County remediated 7 acres by dredging and capping in 2003/2004 (EBDRP 2015); a total of 68,000 cy of contaminated sediment was removed. Contamination of the surrounding sediments after dredging resulted in placement of a thin layer of clean sand, called an enhanced natural recovery (ENR) area, in 2005, to reduce contaminant concentrations in surface sediments. King County monitored the site and the surrounding sediments pre- and post- remediation through 2012. The largest storm drain to the LDW discharges to this area, in addition to City of Seattle and King County CSOs; sediment concentrations near the outfall have varied over time. Sediment PCB concentrations in a portion of the capped area remain consistently low. However, concentrations in other portions of the capped area are variable year-to-year and sometimes exceed the PCB marine SQS. The area -wide mean PCB concentration across remediated areas was 61 µg/Kg dw in 2010 falling within an anthropogenic background concentration for urban areas of 40-90 µg/Kg dw calculated in the LDW FS (AECOM 2012). PCB concentrations in the ENR area have been consistently low. Monitoring reports can be found here: http //www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment- management,/proj ects/DuDi.aspx Norfolk CSO King County completed cleanup in the river at Norfolk CSO in 1999 including dredging 5,190 cubic yards of sediment and backfilling with clean sediment. Sediment monitoring of the cleanup area was conducted for 5 years (project website: http: //www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment- management,/projects/Norfolk.aspx ). King County Science and Technical Support Section 26 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Monitoring in the early years identified the adjacent Boeing site storm drain as a source of PCBs to the Norfolk site (EBDRP 2005). The Boeing Company conducted dredging in 2003 to remediate this area. They also conducted source tracing and added treatment to the storm drain. After the last year of monitoring in 2004, two PAH compounds and PCBs were identified as chemicals at the Norfolk site that exceeded SQS. Monitoring Reports can be found here: http: / /www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/sediment- management,[projects/Norfolk.aspx Natural background for total PCBs in Puget Sound sediments is 2 ug/Kg dw and is based on concentrations in areas without influence of local human activity. This is also the total PCB cleanup level established by EPA for the LDW. Figure 10 is an updated map of benthic exceedances in the LDW with outdated EAA area data removed. Benthic SMS exceedances by any chemical are most numerous and widespread below RM 2.9. Above RM 2.9, benthic SMS exceedances are generally clustered around RM 3.7-4.2 and RM 4.8-5.0 and exceedances of only the SQS are scattered in between. King County Science and Technical Support Section 27 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed jimba L 4 • ° aD Y f o S o 7 ° ° /f r ar�� Qrr I � �a 4! ° o .j'o b a 00 ° 6a $ O ° 0 .9l fp 4 b ❑ � 5lr 1 tb sop 6 a UPP 4" � ° o Basin 6 ° 0 As SOSCSL step rks for all SMS dwmials Al awfs aadhma d locafions • aCSL. dw-i o a SOS and s CSL., deleel a �CSL. non-da1ecl o x SO$ and s CSL.. non-dewd ® s SQ6. dow l and nwt4Md 0 €"Anon Area [1 Loi4 Study Arcs —Havipawn Ctw nnei —ftrw ►ftle iv G G.t PJ z No f lMS owfim wetl veouw* Sil8 i ■ J44 rrtx�� D 0? vhval Ll [. a aoa g saf.a bsmske aVh Yllaf lFrp Figf ure 10. Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non-remediated areas (Windward unpublished; Data through 2010). King County Science and Technical Support Section 28 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.4 Benthic Community Health Assessment As mentioned earlier, Chinook salmon can be exposed to contaminated sediments by direct ingestion, direct contact, or eating contaminated food, such as benthic invertebrates. In addition, the adverse effects of chemical contaminants on the benthic community can theoretically reduce the quantity or quality of food for fish like juvenile salmon. However, studies were not identified in the Green-Duwamish watershed that examine potential effects of benthic community reductions on fish diets or health. Studies that have sampled benthic communityz taxonomic composition and tested sediments for chemistry and toxicity to benthic invertebrates are summarized here. Only studies that cover the Duwamish Estuary were located. • Taylor et al. (1999, as cited in Windward and Anchor QEA 2014) characterized epibenthic invertebrate taxa residing in intertidal habitat of the lower 2 miles of the Duwamish Estuary including East Waterway. At the three intertidal areas sampled, most taxa were identified as potential salmon prey. • Benthic community sampling was conducted in the 1990's at Kellogg Island, Duwamish/Diagonal CSO-storm drain, and the LDW Turning Basin. Areas of Kellogg Island demonstrated high abundance and species diversity relative to the Turning Basin and the Duwamish/Diagonal CSO-storm drain sites (Cordell et al. 1994 and 1996, Parametrix and King County 1999). The area sampled at Duwamish/Diagonal has since been remediated (see Section 3.3.3), but benthic community sampling was not part of the post-remediation monitoring activities. • Paired sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate toxicity testing were completed for the East Waterway RI (Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). Comparison of chemistry and toxicity test results to SMS indicated that approximately 21% of the EW area likely cause adverse effects to benthic invertebrates. Potential minimal adverse effects were indicated for 39% of the area and no adverse effects were indicated in approximately 40% of the EW area. • The East Waterway RI also assessed risk to benthic invertebrates by measuring chemical concentrations in tissues and comparing them to effect concentrations. Adverse effects for benthic invertebrates were indicated for TBT in 2 of 12 areas sampled and potential minor adverse effects were indicated for total PCBs in 10 of 13 areas sampled. • The East Waterway RI also examined volatile chemicals by comparing porewater chemistry data to effects concentrations. Napthalene was identified as likely causing adverse effects to benthic invertebrates in one location. No other volatile chemicals were concluded to present risk of adverse effects. 2 Benthic community assessments for contaminants have a different purpose than sampling for and calculation of the Benthic Index for Biotic Integrity (BIBI) (Karr 1998; Fore et al. 2001, Karr & Chu 1999, Kleindl 1995, Morley & Karr 2002). The BIBI is a biological indicator of stream condition integrating multiple stressors of chemical and non -chemical pollution, hydrologic conditions, and physical habitat characteristics. Contaminant assessments of benthic community health are more specific to contaminant effects and involve measurement of sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community taxonomic analysis, and/or sediment bioassays. King County Science and Technical Support Section 29 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Toxicity tests on benthic invertebrates in the LDW (Windward 2010) resulted in 30 of 48 samples that failed the SQS criteria for toxicity. Comparison of sediment chemistry and toxicity test results to SMS indicated (see Map 4-16 in RI for SMS results): o no adverse effects to benthic invertebrates were expected in 75% of the LDW area, o adverse effects are likely in 7%3 of the LDW area, and o adverse effects are uncertain in 18% of the LDW area. The LDW RI also examined volatile chemicals by comparing porewater chemistry data to effects concentrations. Cis -1,2-dichloroethane was identified as potentially causing adverse effects to benthic invertebrates in one location. No other volatile chemicals were concluded to present risks of adverse effects in porewater. 3.5 Chemical contaminants in Chinook Salmon and their Diet Chinook salmon tissue chemistry data has been collected by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (O'Neill et al. 2015), by Nelson et al. (2013) as part of the Juvenile Salmon Survival Study, and by the LDW Group and EW Group as part of Superfund RIs (Windward 2010, Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). Assessment of adverse effects on fish can be conducted using whole body tissue, bile or other organ chemistry, stomach content chemistry, toxicity tests and/or biomarkers that indicate exposure. Some chemicals do not bioaccumulate because they are metabolized or otherwise broken down in fish. For example, it is inappropriate to assess risk to fish from parent PAHs based on fish tissue concentrations because these chemicals are quickly metabolized resulting in tissue concentrations that do not reflect exposure (Johnson et al. 2008). Exposure to PAHs is more accurately assessed by measuring PAH metabolites in liver bile or PAHs in stomach contents. The WDFW and King County Chinook tissue and the LDW and EW Chinook tissue chemistry results are summarized here. All fish tissue concentrations are based on wet weight. Juvenile Chinook salmon appear to be exposed to significantly more copper and lead in the Duwamish Estuary than those in the Nisqually, Skagit and Snohomish River systems as reflected by gill concentrations (O'Neill et al. 2015). However, this study could not differentiate Duwamish Estuary from upstream exposure in the Green River. Gill tissue concentrations are indicative of the water exposure pathway. Cadmium and nickel concentrations in LDW Chinook gills were not significantly different compared to the other river systems sampled. Zinc levels in LDW Chinook gills were lower than those from the other three major river systems in Puget Sound. • Juvenile Chinook salmon wholebody concentrations suggest that more of their PCB and DDT burden is contributed from the Duwamish Estuary and/or Elliott Bay than 3 The sediment assessment was updated with more recent data in the LDW FS, resulting in a lower area of 4% with likely adverse effects. King County Science and Technical Support Section 30 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed from Puget Sound (O'Neill et al. 2015). Juvenile Chinook from offshore locations in Puget Sound (>0.5 km from shore in Whidbey Basin and south) had significantly lower concentrations of PCBs and DDTs than the LDW or Elliott Bay locations. However, PCB concentrations in Chinook salmon collected from nearshore Elliott Bay were higher than in fish from the Duwamish Estuary. The average total PAH concentrations of juvenile Chinook stomach contents were significantly higher in the LDW and Elliott Bay than in the Skagit or Nisqually River systems. Nelson et al. (2013) summarized a 2003 juvenile Chinook sampling effort in the Duwamish Estuary, Lower and Middle Green rivers and Elliott Bay. Twenty six composite samples each containing 6 to 32 subyearling Chinook salmon were analyzed for PCBs and mercury. Hatchery and wild fish were identified and sorted before compositing and analyzed separately. Average PCB levels in hatchery fingerlings from the Duwamish Estuary (29 µg/Kg) were less than half the levels in wild fingerlings (77 µg/Kg). Average PCB levels in Elliott Bay wild (27 µg/Kg) and hatchery Chinook salmon (25 µg/Kg) were similar to each other and slightly higher than Lower Green River wild (14 µg/Kg) and hatchery fish (15 µg/Kg). In theory, the longer residence time of wild Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary may increase their bioaccumulation of PCBs relative to hatchery Chinook salmon. The PCB levels across all samples of wild Chinook salmon from the Duwamish Estuary were highly variable (7.4 to 225 µg/Kg). Mercury levels in juvenile Chinook were low and did not vary by sampling location or fish origin. King County (2017a) reviewed all fish and shellfish tissue data used in the LDW and EW RI's and summarized tissue data for PCBs in juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish. These data were collected in the Green-Duwamish watershed from 1998 to 2007. Whole wild and hatchery juvenile Chinook salmon collected from East Waterway (12 composite samples) and LDW (24 composite samples) contained variable levels of PCBs with an average concentration up to 50 times lower than in adult English sole, the fish species measured with the highest PCB concentrations (Table 4). English sole fillet samples contain lower concentrations than wholebody samples; this is due to preferential partitioning into fatty tissues. Chinook tissue were also analyzed for pesticides and TBT. TBT was not detected in juvenile Chinook. These tissue chemistry data were used to inform the LDW and EW ecological risk assessments. See Section 3.6 for LDW and EW Chinook salmon risk assessment results. Table 4. Total PCB concentrations (fag/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative to English Sole in the East Waterway and LDW (King County 2017a). Fish Species Tissue Type FOD Minimum Maximum Mean East Waterway English sole Fish whole body-13/13 1,460 7,900 J 3,200 English sole Fish fillet with skin 20/20 409 5,700 1,700 Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 12/12 7.4 91.5 59 Lower Duwamish Waterway Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 24/24 6.9 1,200 140 FOD - frequency of detection (# samples detected/ # analyzed) King County Science and Technical Support Section 31 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed O'Neill et al. (2015) measured PCBs, PAHs, and PBDEs in composite samples of juvenile Chinook stomach contents. One sample was collected in the LDW estuary, two from nearshore (Elliott Bay) and one from offshore (Puget Sound). The authors estimated dietary effects thresholds of 3,800 ng PAHs/g for altered growth and 12,200 ng PAHs/g for altered growth and plasma chemistry based on Meador et al. (2006). The single Chinook stomach content sample collected in the Duwamish Estuary did not exceed the effect thresholds for PAHs. One of two stomach content samples collected in Elliott Bay exceeded the PAH threshold. O'Neill et al. (2015) calculated PBDEs effects ranges for increased disease susceptibility (greater than or equal to 470 to 2,500 ng/g lipid) and for altered thyroid hormone levels (greater than or equal to 1,492 to 2,500 ng/g lipid) in whole juvenile Chinook based on Arkoosh et al. (2013) and Arkoosh et al. (2010). None of the Duwamish Estuary juvenile Chinook tissue samples exceeded either threshold. One of 10 samples in Elliott Bay exceeded the PBDE effects threshold. From 1996 through 2001, Johnson et al. (2007) measured PCBs, DDTs, and PAHs in juvenile Chinook in the Duwamish Estuary (1998 and 1999 only) and other estuaries of Puget Sound. Results show increased exposure in the Duwamish compared to Puget Sound. PAH metabolites were also higher in Duwamish juvenile Chinook than any of the other 5 estuaries sampled on Washington's coast (Skokomish, Nisqually, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay). PAH metabolites may be relatively higher in the Duwamish Estuary due to urban development. It is important to note that chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) have been detected in Puget Sound (Miller -Schultze et al. 2014) and waters of the Duwamish Estuary (King County 2017b). The definition of CECs varies, but EPA defines them as "chemicals and other substances that have no regulatory standard, have been recently `discovered' in natural streams (often because of improved analytical chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause deleterious effects in aquatic life at environmentally relevant concentrations" (EPA 2008). Hormones, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), and industrial process chemicals are examples of CECs and are rarely targeted in environmental surveys. Yet, many of them have been documented as endocrine system disruptors in fish. Available information on CECs as pollutants in the Greater Puget Sound is limited to source pathways (e.g. wastewater), ambient surface waters, sediments, and invertebrate and fish tissue chemistry concentrations. A recent study of CECs by King County (2017b) found 17 of 130 CECs were detected in surface waters of the Duwamish Estuary (4 stations sampled). The first and only survey of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in Puget Sound Region wholebody fish tissue detected several (37 of 150) of these chemicals in juvenile Chinook salmon (Meador et al. 2016). Meador et al. (2016) detected more PPCPs in juvenile Chinook salmon than in staghorn sculpin in the areas sampled: Sinclair Inlet, Puyallup Estuary, and Nisqually Estuary. These data suggest preferential bioaccumulation of CECs in juvenile Chinook salmon. The reasons for this are unknown but could be related to differences in prey, habitat, life stage, and/or metabolic processes. King County Science and Technical Support Section 32 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 3.6 Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on Chinook Ecological risk assessments conducted under Superfund have estimated the likelihood that contaminants in the LDW and EW would cause adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon using a standard and simple model of exposure and effects. These models consider effects that directly influence mortality and growth. In addition to the risk assessments, several field and laboratory studies have investigated adverse effects of contaminants in juvenile Chinook or juvenile coho salmon. Findings of these studies are summarized below. 3.6.1 Modeled adverse effects An ecological risk assessment was conducted for both the LDW and EW RIs. In these assessments, risks to juvenile Chinook salmon from contamination in the waterways were evaluated (Windward 2007; Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). The LDW and EW risk assessments determined that the direct water contact and dietary exposure pathways were the greatest exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon (Figure 11). The LDW ecological risk assessment concluded that cadmium, arsenic, copper, and vanadium in juvenile Chinook salmon food pose low risk of adverse effects on survival or growth; effects levels were not exceeded but no -effects levels were exceeded. These four metals are not bioaccumulative. Other chemicals, such as PCBs and PAHs, were determined not to pose risk of impaired growth or survival to juvenile Chinook based on a screening step that uses conservative (i.e., high) exposure assumptions and no -effect thresholds (Windward 2007). The risk assessment included an uncertainty assessment, which acknowledged reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile salmonids migrating through the LDW. However, this risk assessment was not able to determine if a particular contaminant was the cause of the immunocompetence effect observed in the field. Similar to the LDW assessment, the EW ecological risk assessment concluded adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon growth and survival were unlikely from arsenic, mercury and TBT in surface water and were at low risk in their diet from cadmium, chromium, copper, and vanadium. Risks from cobalt, nickel, and dibenzofuran were concluded to be unknown because there was not sufficient toxicity information to assess them. Other chemicals, such as PCBs and PAHs, were determined not to pose risk of impaired growth or survival to juvenile Chinook (the same methodology discussed above for the LDW Ecological Risk Assessment was used) (Windward 2012). King County Science and Technical Support Section 33 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Pathways Receptors of Concem g - A SaEl 7,0 El■ ■ ■ Elsurfacowater o EnQ1ah Soto ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ Sources Sedanent 9MlniGGanmurtty . ■ Groundwater crap. ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ water biota (food) -� sediment ■ comploto and significant ❑ complete and significance unknown ❑ complete and Insignificant Conceptual Site Model for Benthic ® incompioto Invertebrates and Fish Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model and Pathways for Juvenile Chinook from LDW Baseline Risk Assessment (Windward 2007) Some effect thresholds have been calculated for juvenile Chinook salmon for purposes of comparison with PCB, PBDE, and PAH tissue concentrations. Although not an established tissue standard, Meador et al. (2002) statistically derived a lipid -normalized tissue effects threshold in juvenile Chinook for PCBs of 2400 ug/Kg lipid based on biochemical and immune system effects. This threshold was exceeded by juvenile Chinook sampled in the Duwamish Estuary in 1998 and 1999 (Johnson et al. 2007). More recently, in 2013, 25% (1 of 4) of juvenile Chinook samples from the Green-Duwamish watershed exceeded this effects threshold (O'Neill et al. 2015). 3.6.2 Observed Adverse Effects Juvenile Chinook salmon from the Duwamish Estuary have been observed with immunosuppression, reduced resistance to disease and decreased growth rates (Arkoosh et al. 2001, Johnson et al. 2008). It is uncertain if these changes were caused by an individual contaminant (e.g. PAHs) or a mixture. The observed biochemical changes do not indicate adverse health effects by themselves (Johnson et al. 2007). A type of pre -spawn mortality observed in coho is linked to stormwater and has been documented in small tributaries of the Green River and Duwamish Estuary where Chinook salmon are not found. There is a specific suite of pre -spawn mortality symptoms which King County Science and Technical Support Section 34 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed result in mortality of male and female coho before spawning. This is an acute mortality event associated with storm events and the cause is currently suspected to be chemical(s) in vehicle tires (Du et al. 2017). Local researchers have demonstrated that the symptoms are induced by urban stormwater runoff (Scholz et al. 2011, Spromberg et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2016) and eliminated by stormwater infiltration through bioretention soils (McIntyre et al. 2016). This phenomenon has not been observed in other co-occurring salmonids (e.g. chum). Local studies have demonstrated that urban highway stormwater runoff induces cardiotoxicity, reproductive effects and mortality in juvenile coho and other, non-salmonid fish (McIntyre et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2014) which can be eliminated by infiltration through bioretention soils (McIntyre et al. 2015, McIntyre et al. 2016). Chinook salmon is not a species that has been tested; thus, it is uncertain how they are affected. These studies indicate that stormwater runoff is potentially toxic to Chinook salmon in streams. The absence of impact to chum salmon also demonstrates how one salmon species can be much more sensitive to chemical contaminants than others. Meador (2014) analyzed Puget Sound coho and Chinook salmon hatchery release and return data to compare smolt -to -adult return rates (SAR) in contaminated and uncontaminated estuaries. Ten hatcheries located upstream of contaminated estuaries and 12 located upstream of uncontaminated estuaries were identified for this study. Three of the selected hatcheries (Soos, Crisp and Keta creeks) are located in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The Duwamish Estuary was categorized as a contaminated estuary. Thirty eight years of hatchery SAR data (1972-2008) were statistically compared for Chinook and coho grouped across years and year -by -year. A significantly lower SAR (45% lower) was calculated for Chinook from contaminated compared to uncontaminated estuaries across all years or year -by -year; these statistical differences in SAT were not found for coho in the same estuaries. King County Science and Technical Support Section 35 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 4.0 CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIONS Several ongoing programs and projects are planning actions in the Green-Duwamish watershed which may provide additional contaminant information relevant to Chinook salmon and/or may influence contaminant concentrations. Perhaps the two largest activities that will improve Duwamish waterway conditions are the LDW and EW sediment cleanups. The LDW cleanup plan will addresses 412 acres of contaminated sediment through a combination of active remediation and monitored natural attenuation. The EW cleanup plan is anticipated to be issued by EPA in the next year, which is expected to include remediation of a large portion of the EW. In addition to the LDW cleanup, King County and the City of Seattle's Our Green/Duwamish Program and Ecology's Pollutant Loading Assessment are developing tools and strategies to address water quality in the Green-Duwamish watershed. 4.1.1 The LDW Superfund Cleanup EPA's Record of Decision contains the LDW cleanup plan (i.e. Selected Remedy) which includes the following actions (EPA 2014). • 105 acres of dredging or partial dredging and capping; • 24 acres of capping; • 48 acres of enhanced natural remediation (placing clean sand to speed up the rate of natural recovery; and • 235 acres of monitored natural attenuation Figure 12 illustrates the geographic areas where each type of activity will occur in the LDW. These actions in combination with EAA cleanups are predicted to reduce PCB contaminant concentrations by 90% or more in sediment, fish, and shellfish. The cleanup is estimated to require 7 years of construction to complete followed by 10 more years for monitored natural recovery. Currently, the LDW Group (City of Seattle, King County, Port of Seattle, and the Boeing Company) and EPA are conducting pre -design studies which include: • Collection of water, sediment, and biota data to establish baseline conditions prior to the sediment cleanup; • A survey of waterway users to understand how this may affect sediment transport and remediation technology selections (e.g., current and anticipated tug and barge activities in the LDW); • Documentation of piers and other structures that may affect remediation design; and • Collection of supplemental sediment and bank data to assist Ecology with source control. King County Science and Technical Support Section 36 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to ChinookSalmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed BEN ,5 1 !1(]K•ra N.c.,r,�mnrs� fNR• w.�-.aN Mf.n!re�vay; x4aa"•rv�ri•,rlr+,n+. •1t xu.,nxrrnarn 2anw,e• r] - brt•c �MN tlwr•w a5�+ � Lr9end ieclx.obe, AinNw.emm, n..s. 5 .+ar.w-r�. OM1M1o.•v •,MN :+uev,n xrOpry •: v �o!nl ® ap-y gaege n,CaGrY aaN, M CBIU,aaF'H. mr.. . � `4�rwr�uxu�grM.�rrn���u n[•ea�a,. rna� 4NYwM relin�exea',r1iSVNea :reMRe•. v:Uf a¢YII. £xaY+tlir'FfM i*l awns rM+M�1Vrw soa F PA's Selected Remedy Feel Figure 12. Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 2014) King County Science and Technical Support Section 37 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Collection of new water, sediment, and biota data will provide more current contaminant data that could be used to update the information on Chinook salmon exposure levels provided in this report. The next step in the cleanup process will be remedial design sampling and engineering plans for the cleanup construction activities followed by the construction and long-term monitoring. 4.1.2 The EW Superfund Cleanup The FS for the EW is currently being completed. The FS develops a range of remedial alternatives to clean up contaminated sediments and provides relative rankings for each based on various Superfund cleanup criteria (e.g., long-term effectiveness, short-term impacts, and implementability). EPA will then develop a proposed plan for sediment cleanup and after a public comment period, EPA will then issue a Record of Decision outlining the selected remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in EW. The Proposed Plan is expected to be issued in 2018. 4.1.3 Our Green/Duwamish This project was initiated by King County and City of Seattle. The purpose is to develop a strategy to coordinate the many different efforts in the Green-Duwamish watershed with the objective of protecting and restoring its air, land, and waters (https://ourgreenduwamish.com/). An inventory of projects and programs (Phase I) was conducted in 2015. Workshops were held in 2016 and an initial Watershed Strategy was completed in 2017. The priority topics needing more work were identified as stormwater, open space, climate change, and air quality. Recommendations for actions for each of these topics were made, with the most attention focused on stormwater. Our Green/Duwamish will be developing a final strategy and implementation plan for additional stormwater control in the watershed. 4.1.4 Green-Duwamish Pollutant Loading Assessment Ecology and EPA are leading the Pollutant Loading Assessment (PLA) for the Green- Duwamish watershed which began in 2012 (Ecology Focus Sheet 2014; https:,[,Ifortress.wa.gov/ecy_/publications/SummaryPages/1410053.html ). This project is intended to provide information useful for addressing water quality issues in the watershed that will remain after the LDW Superfund Site cleanup. Clean Water Act violations and contaminated water upstream of the LDW are projected to persist after cleanup is completed. Therefore, EPA and Ecology are working with technical experts and stakeholders in the region to develop models that can: • Develop a modeling tool to assess pollutant loads from different sources (point and diffused) • Better understand the relationship between water, sediment and fish tissue quality Predict improvements in water, sediment and tissue quality expected to occur as a result of management actions King County Science and Technical Support Section 38 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed This effort will occur in phases over several years. As of early 2017, a modeling project plan has been completed (TetraTech 2016) and the watershed model is in development (TetraTech 2017). King County Science and Technical Support Section 39 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 5.0 UNCERTAINTY This section discusses key types of uncertainty associated with the information presented in this document. Measurement uncertainty is associated with data/sample collection methods and analysis for any field or laboratory study conducted. Results of desktop statistical analyses and modeling studies (e.g., ecological risk assessments) also have an inherent quantifiable error. This document does not evaluate each study presented here for these data quality uncertainties. Instead, it evaluates the collective knowledge uncertainty in relation to this document's objective: to assess whether there is evidence that Chinook salmon health is or is not adversely impacted from contamination in the Green-Duwamish watershed. The primary sources of uncertainty discussed are data quantity (completeness of spatial coverage, number, and representativeness of samples) and Chinook salmon effects assessment methods (effect threshold development/selection and endpoints evaluated). 5.1 Data Quantity When considering sample density, the majority of information gathered to characterize contamination in the Green-Duwamish watershed has been on sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate community health within the Duwamish Estuary. Sediment and benthic community health data are available at lower densities for the Green River subbasins. These contaminant data are helpful in describing exposure of juvenile Chinook salmon to contamination via their diet (benthic invertebrates), direct sediment contact, and incidental sediment ingestion. The benthic community assessments are also helpful in describing if there might be a reduction in benthic invertebrate food for Chinook salmon from contaminant impacts. Collection of water chemistry data has been very limited in scope and frequency throughout the watershed. The existing data provide some confidence that contaminant exposure to juvenile Chinook or other aquatic life is not a substantive chronic problem, but little certainty that acute or chronic exposures are not problematic under certain flow conditions and/or in some tributaries. Since 2000, 66 juvenile Chinook salmon composite tissue samples have been processed and analyzed for the studies reviewed in this report; however, all but 4 of these were sampled more than 10 years ago. With several Lower Duwamish remediation projects completed during this time, these older data may represent higher exposures than current conditions. Most of the available juvenile Chinook tissue chemistry data are from the Duwamish Estuary where chemical risk is likely highest. It is most efficient to remain focused on evaluation of Chinook salmon impacts from toxic contaminants in the Estuary before evaluating Chinook upstream. The overall higher spatial density of environmental data from the Duwamish Estuary likely represents the highest risk exposure scenario given this areas' more industrialized land use history compared to any area of the Green River. However, there may be more localized, small scale, but relatively contaminated sediments in some areas of the Green watershed that King County Science and Technical Support Section 40 January 2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed have not been identified to date. This seems unlikely but possible given the limited sampling conducted in this relatively large watershed. 5.2 Chinook Effects Assessment Methods 5.2.1 Effect Thresholds Several studies reviewed here have compared contaminant concentrations to WA state standards (e.g., WQS, SMS). The WQS were developed to be protective of aquatic life while the marine sediment standards and freshwater and marine benthic cleanup standards were developed to protect benthic invertebrates. The WA state WQS and SMS were derived using effect thresholds for many different species. However, Washington State WQS (last issued in 2006) have not kept pace with EPA's updates in criteria. For example, the freshwater copper WQS is still calculated based only on hardness whereas EPA has updated their freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life copper criteria to account for the influence of dissolved organic carbon concentrations (i.e., using the Biotic Ligand Model). It is unknown how well WQS protects Chinook salmon absent incorporation of modern toxicity information into the WQS. Because they protect benthic invertebrates, the sediment standards do not include any fish toxicity data. Therefore, studies summarized in this report comparing sediment chemistry to SMS reflect how contaminants may impact the health of benthic invertebrate populations, an important food source for juvenile Chinook. However, these data are not directly relevant for evaluating adverse impacts of contaminants on Chinook health. More meaningful are the Chinook tissue data and measures of chemical effect. However, many sources of uncertainty present themselves in the interpretation of these data. There are no existing Washington State (or federal) regulatory standards for tissue concentrations that are protective of fish (some exist for protection of human health or wildlife). Therefore, effect thresholds for fish tissue assessments require project -specific derivation and these efforts can result in very different threshold values for the same contaminant and species of interest. This is partially because of uncertainties in the many assumptions required to identify an effect threshold. For example, the LDW screening ecological risk assessment (Windward 2007) used the highest no -effect thresholds from published studies compared to the maximum measured chemical concentrations in juvenile salmon. The intent for the risk assessment thresholds was to estimate a value below which adverse effects to Chinook salmon would not occur. The final selected threshold for PCBs was 27,000 ug/Kg tissue wet weight based on mortality in spot fish. During the EW risk assessment screening, a lower effect threshold for PCBs was identified (1,400 µg/Kg) based on survival of pinfish4. Criteria leading to these threshold selections were defined based on several assumptions, such as that growth and mortality effects are protective but reproductive effects do not need consideration because juvenile salmon do not grow to reproductive age in the LDW or EW. Other examples of assumptions included: 4 The 1,400 µg/Kg no effect level was based on applying an uncertainty factor of 10 to an observed adverse effects level of 14,000 µg/Kg ww in pinfish (Hansen et al 1971). King County Science and Technical Support Section 41 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed • Only used tissue concentrations provided in study; none were estimated, • effects study data on any fish species can be considered, not just salmonids or Chinook, • the highest qualifying no -effect concentration below the lowest qualifying effect concentration should be used for endangered species assessment, • and effect and no -effect concentrations should be in wet weight, not lipid normalized. The rationale for the appropriateness of these and other assumptions is provided in the LDW and EW ecological risk assessments (Windward 2007, 2012) and is not the subject of discussion here. In comparison, Meador et al. (2002) estimated a PCB Chinook salmon tissue effects threshold for sublethal effects using different assumptions that resulted in 2.4 µg/g lipid, equivalent to approximately 144 µg/Kg tissue wet weight (assuming 6% lipid). Criteria leading to this threshold selection were defined based on assumptions such as the 101h percentile concentration of biological effect studies is protective of individual Chinook salmon. Other example assumptions used by Meador et al. (2002) included: • that 75% of an injected Aroclor PCB dose or 50% of ingested food dose is adsorbed into body tissues (used to estimate tissue concentrations from injection or food exposures if not reported), • only salmonid species effects studies should be used to calculate an effects threshold, • a PCB effect concentration should be lipid normalized before evaluation, • lipid content, to allow lipid -normalization, was estimated from the literature for different Chinook salmon lifestages (adult, fry and juvenile), • and immune system/biochemical effects should be considered, but mortality and growth effects excluded. Several other assumptions are described in Meador et al. (2002). These three different PCB effect thresholds (27,000 µg/Kg, 1,400 µg/Kg and 140 µg/Kg) were generated using different assumptions including different target endpoints (growth and survival versus biochemical changes). Biochemical endpoints are more sensitive and provide additional protection than other endpoints, but their link to individual health and survival is more tenuous than growth, reproduction, and survival endpoints. In this comparison, the no -effect thresholds (27,000 and 1,400 µg PCBs/Kg) are much higher than the effect threshold (144 µg PCBs/Kg); the largest difference is two orders of magnitude. This comparison highlights one reason tissue effect thresholds are highly uncertain and can result in different conclusions regarding the potential risk of effects. The quantity of available exposure and effect studies for salmonids is much lower than for other fish species. Often, available salmon studies are limited to rainbow trout, a species King County Science and Technical Support Section 42 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed bred captively for mass production and questionable in its representation of wild salmon. For example, six dietary exposure studies were identified for the LDW ecological risk assessment of arsenic in fish (Windward 2007). All but one of these tested rainbow trout and the remaining species was striped bass, a non-salmonid. Very few effect thresholds have been developed for the numerous CECs that are documented to adversely impact fish. Therefore, although these chemicals have been detected in Puget Sound and its urban estuaries, there is currently no established method for interpreting measured concentrations. 5.2.2 Exposure Pathways Chinook salmon can be exposed to contaminants through respiration (uptake through gills), dietary ingestion of prey, and incidental ingestion of sediment. Exposure through gill uptake can be significant for contaminants like many metals; thus, gill tissue concentrations can provide valuable information. The most uncertain estimation is for direct exposure to sediments through ingestion. However, this pathway is usually a small contribution to total exposure. The dietary pathway for fish is often of significant magnitude for certain chemicals, but it is difficult to accurately quantify exposure from this pathway. Some studies measure chemical concentrations in dietary components (e.g., stomach contents, invertebrate prey) which can have high natural variability due to individual preferences and food availability. Even with this information, there is uncertainty in the chemical uptake rate from food into fish tissue that is challenging to characterize. Dietary exposure assessment may be more valid than salmon tissue assessments if the contaminant(s) present are metabolizable by fish, such as with PAHs. Using tissue chemistry data to estimate exposure has the advantage of integrating accumulation from all exposure pathways. Thus, it is found useful when assessing bioaccumulative chemicals. 5.2.3 Multiple Contaminant Effects It is rare for only one chemical contaminant to be elevated in natural surface waters, especially in urban environments like the Duwamish Estuary. The effects of exposure to contaminant mixtures on fish are poorly understood and can only be assessed for a limited number of related chemicals (e.g., dioxins). Chemicals can have additive, antagonistic or agonistic effects but the net effect of multiple contaminants on fish are unknown. For this reason, biomarkers or evidence of adverse health in fish are sometimes used to evaluate contaminant effects. Perhaps the largest challenges in using biomarkers are determining which environmental contaminant causes the measured effects and if the observed effects impact the health and long-term survival of the fish. Lastly, the combined effect of chemical exposures and other stressors, such as higher temperatures and low dissolved oxygen, on fish is also difficult to assess. King County Science and Technical Support Section 43 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Observations of potential impacts of contaminants to juvenile Chinook salmon: • Chinook smolt -to -adult (SAR) return rates have been found to be significantly lower in contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, relative to uncontaminated estuaries. Tissue chemistry/biomarkers • LDW and EW risk assessments did not identify risk of impaired growth or survival for juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the LDW risk assessment noted reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile Chinook migrating through the LDW. • Subsequent studies using more conservative assumptions concluded PCBs may be causing health impacts. • The risks of impacts to Chinook salmon from CECs are unknown although these chemicals have been detected in the Lower Duwamish Estuary. • Relatively little juvenile Chinook tissue chemistry data have been collected or evaluated in the Duwamish Estuary in the last 10 years, and even less data are available for the Green River. Available tissue chemistry data indicate juvenile Chinook salmon are bioaccumulating contaminants while in the Duwamish Estuary. Tissue assessments suggest that PCB exposure may be causing sublethal adverse effects to juvenile Chinook salmon. Sediment • In the most contaminated areas of the LDW and EW, contaminated sediments are potentially impacting benthic invertebrates which could reduce the quantity or quality of food for juvenile salmon. • Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals and phthalates. • In the Duwamish Estuary, PCBs are the most widespread sediment contaminant. Sediment contaminants in the Green River need more characterization. Based on existing data, sediment contamination is highest in Mill (in Kent) and Springbrook Creek and may be a concern to benthic invertebrates. Mill Creek (in Auburn) is less contaminated and Jenkins, Newaukum, Covington or Big Soos creeks are of little concern. Arsenic and BEHP concentrations most frequently exceeded the no -effects benthic sediment cleanup level (SCO) in Green River tributaries. Superfund cleanup of contaminated sediments will be an important step in reducing the exposure of aquatic life including Chinook salmon to contaminants, particularly PCBs. Sediment recontamination will remain a risk from dredging activities during cleanup of the LDW and EW. Water chemistry Several water quality assessments have not identified any chemicals that are presenting notable risk to aquatic life. Of the chemicals investigated, mercury in water may be a chronic exposure risk for juvenile Chinook salmon in the Green River. King County Science and Technical Support Section 44 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed A qualitative summary of information on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook salmon reviewed in this report is presented in Table S. The summary considers whether the completed assessments using each data type are directly reflective of risk to Chinook salmon, the level of risk posed to Chinook by the contamination, and how much knowledge uncertainty is associated with the information. Considering the low sample density and spatial distribution of water samples across the whole Green-Duwamish watershed, uncertainty associated with water data is concluded to be high although risk based on existing data appears to be low (Table 5). The risk from sediment contamination in the LDW and EW to Chinook from direct ingestion has not been quantified but is likely low relative to other pathways. However, the knowledge uncertainty on this risk is high due to limited information available on sediment consumption during feeding activities. Sediments in the LDW and EW are well characterized, but the impacts of sediment contamination on Chinook salmon are highly uncertain because direct exposure data are unavailable. The impacts of sediment contamination in some areas of LDW and EW on benthic invertebrates is highs (adverse impacts) to moderate (minimal impacts) potentially reducing Chinook salmon food quality or quantity. The knowledge uncertainty regarding how these benthic impacts affect Chinook salmon is high. Chinook tissue and biomarker data are the most directly relevant to Chinook salmon. Tissue chemistry assessments using these data in the LDW and EW RIs concluded low contaminant risks while the most recent assessment by WDFW indicates PCBs may be adversely affecting juvenile Chinook. Due to low sample density and effects assessment methods, knowledge uncertainty is high. Only water and sediment chemistry data were identified as available from the Lower and Middle Green River subbasins (Table 5). Aquatic life assessments suggest overall chemical exposure to Chinook salmon is low. The risk from sediment contamination in the Lower and Middle Green River to Chinook salmon from direct ingestion has not been quantified, but is likely low relative to other pathways. The knowledge uncertainty on this risk is high due to limited information available on sediment consumption during feeding activities. Similarly in the Upper Green, only water chemistry data are available and the overall chemical exposure appears low. The knowledge uncertainty associated with these data is high due to low sample density and lack of updated Chinook -specific thresholds in the WQS. Table 5. Summary of Information available on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook. Duwamish Estuary Chinook Risk Level Uncertainty Notes specific assessment? Water No — Aquatic Low High Low data volume; Life not evaluated with updated Chinook - specific thresholds. 5 Risk definitions used here are not equivalent to regulatory definitions used in Superfund process. King County Science and Technical Support Section 45 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Duwamish Estuary Chinook Risk Level Uncertainty Notes specific assessment? Sediments — Direct None completed Low High Lack of exposure Exposure data; unknown and indirect effect on Chinook. Sediments and Benthic No — Indirect High (for 4% of High Large volume, Invertebrates exposure via LDW);Moderate indirect and prey (for 18% of LDW); unquantified effect Low in other areas on Chinook; multiple lines of evidence. Tissue/Food/Biomarkers Yes Moderate (PCBs) High Small data volume and highly uncertain effect thresholds. SAR (return rates) Yes High High Contaminants as cause for low SAR unconfirmed. Need further analysis and other lines of evidence. Low to Mid -Green Water No — aquatic life Low Moderate Small data volume; Black River levels highest for PCBs and PAHs. Sediments — Direct No Low High Lack of exposure Effect data; unknown and indirect effect on Chinook. Sediments and benthic No — Indirect Low in mainstem High in Indirect and invertebrates effect on prey and most mainstem; unquantified effect tributaries; Moderate in on Chinook; Low moderate in tributaries. sample density in Springbrook and mainstem; >10 per Mill (Kent) creeks. creek. Upper Green Water No — aquatic life Low High Small data volume; not evaluated with Chinook -specific thresholds. Relatively recent tissue chemistry data, biomarkers, and smolt -adult -return rate analysis provide multiple lines of evidence, although from only a handful of studies, that juvenile Chinook may experience adverse effects from contaminants in the Green-Duwamish watershed. However, substantial basic knowledge uncertainties are associated with these studies. Recent Chinook tissue assessments are based on only one published Chinook - specific effects threshold for PCBs, one for PAHs and one for PBDEs. Additional studies are needed to bound the uncertainty in relating tissue thresholds and effects in juvenile Chinook. The biomarkers measured by Johnson et al. (2008) and (Arkoosh et al. 2001) need to be connected to Chinook survival and repeated in additional studies. Additional work is needed to demonstrate that lower SARs for Chinook in contaminated estuaries like the King County Science and Technical Support Section 46 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Lower Duwamish result partly or wholly from contaminants and not lack of refugia, food, slower growth or other factors. Considering all of the information reviewed in this report, findings relevant to chemical contaminants and Chinook are: The Chinook salmon smolt -to -adult return rates have been found to be significantly lower in contaminated estuaries (including the Duwamish Estuary), relative to uncontaminated ones. • Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon are more contaminated than those in other Puget Sound waterbodies; • Duwamish Estuary juvenile Chinook salmon may experience adverse effects from contaminants; reduced immunocompetence may occur in juvenile salmonids migrating through the LDW. Better effects data are needed to evaluate effects from PCBs and additional contaminants. No information on potential impacts of CECs on salmon are available for WRIA 9 although limited data show some are present in the Duwamish Estuary. • Biomarkers, demonstrating contaminant exposure, have been observed in LDW Chinook salmon. • Benthic invertebrates in some areas of the Duwamish River experience adverse effects from contamination. Therefore, it is possible this could reduce food availability for juvenile Chinook salmon and/or shift diet composition. • Generally, water and sediment contaminant concentrations increase with distance downstream making the Upper Green the least contaminated and Duwamish Estuary the most contaminated; • In general, tributaries with evidence of highest sediment contamination are the most urbanized (Springbrook and Mill [in Kent] creeks). King County Science and Technical Support Section 47 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Although there are several substantial knowledge uncertainties related to contamination in the Green-Duwamish watershed, the highest risk to Chinook salmon from chemical contaminants is most likely in the Duwamish Estuary. Focusing future Chinook salmon work on this part of the watershed will increase the likelihood of success in determining if contaminants are impacting Chinook survival. However, contamination in the Lower Green River, while less severe than the Duwamish River, may also impact Chinook survival. Therefore, supplementing Duwamish Estuary sampling with some in the Lower Green River is recommended to provide context on relative spatial contributions and inform if management of chemical contamination upstream of the LDW will be necessary. While tracking the LDW cleanup schedule, it is recommended that further direct work on Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon be supported by the WRIA 9 group. Work completed before cleanup begins on the LDW and EW will provide a foundation for comparison with future data to measure how juvenile Chinook health and contaminant impacts change over time. This work will be most efficiently directed at Chinook diet and tissue chemistry, biomarkers and sublethal effect measurement and improvement of Chinook -specific effect thresholds. Although any single type of exposure or effect measurement may have substantial uncertainties, collectively, multiple lines of evidence can more accurately characterize chemical impacts on Chinook salmon. Recommendations for Future Work: • Conduct studies that measure contaminants in juvenile Chinook tissues and stomach contents at different life stages or residence times; e.g., in rearing habitat for Chinook, in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation. • Focus new studies on contaminants known to be elevated in the Duwamish Estuary and for which substantial effects data are published for some salmonids (PCBs, PAHs) and opportunistically explore CECs, such as pharmaceuticals, in water and Chinook salmon to build a chemistry database. CEC analysis is costly, effects analysis tools are lacking, and substantial new data are necessary to begin risk evaluation for Chinook. Therefore, prioritizing known contaminants first will optimize resources. • Establish one or more new tissue effect thresholds for PCBs that are Chinook - specific. Effects thresholds are a tool that allow chemistry results to be placed into the context of toxicity. PCBs are the most widespread contaminant in the Duwamish Estuary. Outside of Superfund risk assessments, there is only one published PCB effect threshold that has been developed to assess Chinook in this region. Given the highly variable assumptions made in defining an effects threshold, developing one (or more) new PCB thresholds would provide a more stable foundation for evaluating how PCBs are affecting Chinook survival. • Support studies that examine other effects evidence (e.g., juvenile Chinook bioassays with Duwamish sediments, biomarkers) by providing in -kind or financial assistance. In addition to the types of evidence recently collected for Chinook King County Science and Technical Support Section 48 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed salmon (tissue and stomach content chemistry concentrations), work on other lines of evidence that can demonstrate occurrence of contaminant effects. For example, encourage National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or WDFW to conduct laboratory exposure of salmon for PCB, PBDE, PAH effect endpoints using Duwamish sediments. Tease out cause(s) of lower SAR by collecting juvenile salmon when they leave the Duwamish Estuary and measure body mass, nutrition and stomach contents and compare to release mass of Chinook salmon from hatcheries. This would test if food quality (e.g., benthic invertebrates) between hatchery and Duwamish Estuary mouth may be reducing juvenile health and decreasing SAR. King County Science and Technical Support Section 49 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed 8.0 REFERENCES AECOM. 2012. Final Feasibility Study for the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA. Prepared by AECOM for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. http://Ildwg.org/rifs docs9.htm#fina12012 AECOM. 2016. Removal Action Construction Report. Phase 1: Sediment and Upland Cleanup. Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, Terminal 117 Early Action Area. Prepared by AECOM Environment for Port of Seattle. Amec Foster Wheeler. 2014. Habitat Project Construction Completion Report. Submitted by Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. to The Boeing Company. Seattle, Washington. Amec Foster Wheeler, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand; and Floyd Snider. 2016. Corrective Measure Implementation Report: Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank. Corrective Measure. Boeing Plant 2. Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Submitted by Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., Dalton, Olmsted, & Fuglevand Inc., and Floyd/Snider, Inc. to The Boeing Company. Seattle, Washington. Anchor QEA and Windward. 2016. Feasibility Study. East Waterway Operable Unit Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Draft Final. October 2016. Arkoosh, M.R., D. Boylen, J. Dietrich, B.F. Anulacion, G. Ylitalo, C.F. Bravo, L.L. Johnson, F.J. Loge, and T.K. Collier. 2010. Disease susceptibility of salmon exposed to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Aquat. Toxicol. 98(1): 51-59. Arkoosh, M., E. Clemons, P. Huffman, A. Kagley, E. Casillas, N. Adams, H.R. Sanborn, T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein, 2001. Increased susceptibility of juvenile chinook salmon to vibriosis after exposure to chlorinated and aromatic compounds found in contaminated urban estuaries J. Aquat. Anim. Health 13(3): 257-268. Arkoosh, M., J. Dietrich, G.M. Ylitalo, L.J. Johnson, and S.M. O'Neill. 2013. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and Chinook salmon health. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Newport, Oregon. 49 pp. plus Appendices. Conn, K.E., B.W. Black, A.M. Vanderpool -Kimura, J.R. Foreman, N.T. Peterson, C.A. Senter, and S.K. Sissel, 2015. Chemical concentrations and instantaneous loads, Green River to the Lower Duwamish Waterway near Seattle, Washington, 2013-15: U.S. King County Science and Technical Support Section 50 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Geological Survey Data Series 973, 46 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds973. Cordell, J., L.A. Tear, C.M. Simenstad, W.G. Hood. 1996. Duwamish River Coastal American Restoration and Reference Sites: Results from 1995 Monitoring Studies. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Cordell, J., L.A. Tear, C.M. Simenstad, S.M. Wenger, and W.G. Hood. 1994. Duwamish River Coastal American Restoration and Reference Sites: Results and Recommendations from Year 1 Pilot and Monitoring Studies. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Cordell, J., J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and A. Gray. 2006. Fish assemblages and patterns of Chinook salmon abundance, diet and growth at restored sites in the Duwamish River. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Technical Committee and WRIA 9 Steering Committee. David, A.T., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, C.S. Willings, A. Gray, and H. Berge. 2015. Wetland loss, juvenile salmon foraging performance and density dependence in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. Estuaries and Coasts, 39:767-780. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fsl2237-015-0041-5 Du, B, J. K. Lofton, A. Peter, C.A. Gipe, J. James, N. McIntyre, J. Scholz, E. Baker, E.P. Kolodziej, 2017. Development of suspect and non -target screening methods for detection of organic contaminants in highway runoff and fish tissue with high -resolution time -of - flight mass spectrometry. Environ. Sci.: Processes and Impacts, 19:1185-1196. EBDRP. 2005. Norfolk CSO Sediment Remediation Project, Final Monitoring Report - Year S. Panel Publication 38. Prepared by the King County Water and Land Resources Division for the King County Wastewater Division and the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program. EBDRP. 2015. Duwamish/Diagonal Sediment Remediation Project Final 2010 Monitoring Report. Panel Publication 43. Prepared by the King County Water and Land Resources Division for the King County Wastewater Division and the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program. Ecology. 2009. Urban Waters Initiative, 2007. Sediment Quality in Elliot Bay. Prepared by V. Partridge, S. Weakland, E. Long, K. Welch, M. Dutch, and M. Jones. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Ecology Publication 09-03-014. King County Science and Technical Support Section 51 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Ecology. 2013. Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in salmon -bearing streams, 2009-2011 Trienniel Report. D. Sargeant, E. Newell, P. Anderson and A. Cook. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Agriculture. Olympia, WA. Ecology No. 13-03-002. Ecology. 2014. A Pollutant Loading Assessment (PLA) for the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. Publication 14-10-053. https: [/fortress.wa.gov/ecXll2ublications/documents/1410053.pdf Ecology. 2015. PSEMP Sediment Database (last updated 2/5/2013, accessed 5/27/2015). Washington Department of Ecology, Marine Sediment Monitoring Program, Olympia, WA. Ecology and King County. 2011. Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound: Assessment of Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA and King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Ecology Publication No. 11-03-055. https:llfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publicationslpublications/1103OSS.l2df Eisler, R., and A. Belisle. 1996. Planar PCB Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Biological Report 31 of the Contaminant Hazard Reviews. National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. Engel, J., K. Higgins, and E. Ostergaard. 2017. Draft WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon. Chapter of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Update. EPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. Office of Water and Office of Science Technology. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-822-R- 02-047. EPA. 2003. Harbor Island Superfund Site, West Waterway Operable Unit, Seattle, WA: Record of Decision. EPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria listings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed May 2008. www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wq,criteria.html EPA. 2014. Record of Decision: Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. http://ldwg.org/ (EPA website under construction) King County Science and Technical Support Section 52 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Fore, L.S., K. Paulsen, and K. O'Laughlin. 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46: 109-123. Fresh, K.L., 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Johnson, L. 2000. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to protect estuarine fish. Prepared by Lyndal Johnson of Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/NMFS, Seattle, WA. Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, J.L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F. Anulacion, and T.K. Collier, 2007. Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of the United States. Environ. Monit. Assess. 124(1-3): 167-194. Johnson, L.L., MR. Arkoosh, C.F. Bravo, T.K. Collier, M.M. Krahn, J.P. Meador, M.S. Myers, W.L. Reichert, J. Stein. 2008. Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fish from Puget Sound. Chapter 22 in The Toxicology of Fishes. DiGiulio, R., and D. Hinton (eds). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. USA pp. 877-923. Karr, J.R. 1998. Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape management. Pages 502-528. In Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby (editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer, New York, NY. Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC. King County. 2005. Screening Level Risk Assessment of the Green River Watershed. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. King County. 2013. PCB/PBDE Loading estimates for the Greater Lake Washington Watershed. Prepared by Curtis DeGasperi, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2014a. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control: Green River Watershed Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Carly Greyell, Debra Williston, and Deb Lester. Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. King County Science and Technical Support Section 53 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed King County. 2014b. Sediment Quality in the Green River Watershed. Prepared by Dean Wilson, Carly Greyell, and Debra Williston, King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. King County. 2017a. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on the Duwamish Estuary. Prepared by Chris Magan, Timothy Clark, Kate Macneale, Martin Grassley, Bob Bernhard, and Dean Wilson, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington King County. 2017b. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Prepared by Richard Jack and Martin Grassley, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. King County. 2015. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control: Upper and Middle Green River Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Carly Greyell, Richard Jack, and Debra Williston, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. Kleindl, W.J. 1995. A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Puget Sound Lowland Streams, Washington, USA. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. McIntyre J.K., J.W. Davis, K.H. Macneale, B.F. Anulacion, C. Hinman, N.L. Scholz, J.D. Stark. 2015. Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere 123:213-219 Open Access: http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653514014805 McIntyre, J.K., R.C. Edmunds, M.G. Redig, E.M. Mudrock, J.W. Davis, J.P. Incardona, J.D. Stark, N.L. Scholz. 2016. Confirmation of stormwater bioretention treatment effectiveness using molecular indicators of cardiovascular toxicity in developing fish. Meador, J.P. 2014. Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery -reared Chinook salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71: 162-180. Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2002. Use of tissue and sediment -based threshold concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the US Endangered Species Act. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 12(5): 493-516. Meador, J.P., Sommers, F.C., Ylitalo, G.M., and Sloan, C.A. 2006. Altered growth and related physiological responses in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63(10): 2364-2376. King County Science and Technical Support Section 54 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Miller -Schultze, J., A. Gipe, D. Overman, and J. Baker. 2014. Contaminants of emerging concern in Puget Sound: A comparison of spatial and temporal levels and occurrence. Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference Proceedings. http://cedar.wwu.edu/ssec/2014ssec/Day3/141 Morley, S.A., and J.R. Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology. 16:1498-1509. Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft, and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal habitat in a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 35:774-784. Nelson, T., H. Berge, G. Ruggerone, and J. Cordell. 2013. DRAFT Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliott Bay nearshore. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle. O'Neill, S.M., A.J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West. 2015. Toxic contaminants in juvenile Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tsawytscha) migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Report FPT 16-02. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife in Olympia, and Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Parametrix and King County. 1999. King County CSO Water Quality Assessment for the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. Appendix B4 Methods and Results of Aquatic Life Risk Assessment. Pers. Comm. Anderson. 2017. Email communication between Brian Anderson of The Boeing Company and Jenee Colton of King County on May 5, 2017. Pers. Comm. Chu. 2017. Phone conversation between Rebecca Chu of EPA Region 10 and Jenee Colton of King County on April 28, 2017. Pers. Comm. Florer. 2017. Email conversation between Joanna Florer of Port of Seattle and Jenee Colton of King County on June 27, 2017. Pers. Comm. Schuchardt. 2017. Email communication between Dave Schuchardt of City of Seattle and Jenee Colton of King County on June 27, 2017. Pers. Comm. Williston. 2017. Email communication between Debra Williston and Jenee Colton of King County on December 4, 2017. Ruggerone, G.T., and D.E. Weitkamp, 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc and Parametrix, Inc. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, Seattle Washington. King County Science and Technical Support Section 55 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Scholz, N.L., M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, J.S. Labenia, J.K. McIntyre, et al. 2011. Recurrent Die - Offs of Adult Coho Salmon Returning to Spawn in Puget Sound Lowland Urban Streams. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28013. Seattle. 2015. Slip 4 Early Action Area (EAA): Long Term Monitoring Data Report: Year 3 (2015). Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by City of Seattle, Seattle, WA. Spromberg, J., D. Baldwin, J. McIntyre, S. Damm, B. Anulacion, J. Davis, and N. Scholz. 2015. Coho salmon spawner mortality in western U.S. urban watersheds: Bioinfiltration prevents lethal stormwater impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365- 2664.12534 Open Access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365- 2664.12534/epdf Stalling, D. and F.L. Mayer. 1972. Toxicities of PCBs to fish and environmental residues. Env. Health Persp. 1:159-164. Tetra Tech. 2016. Modeling Quality Assurance Project Plan for Green/Duwamish Pollutant Loading Assessment. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. Contract EP-C-12- 055. Tetra Tech. 2017. Revised Draft LSPC Model Development and Hydrology Calibration for the Green/Duwamish River Pollutant Loading Assessment. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. https://www.ezview.wa.gov/Portals/ 1962/Documents/DGPLA/DuwamishMode] D ocumentation020117Hy_dro.12df Windward. 2007. Phase 2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Appendix A of Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and WA Department of Ecology for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. Windward. 2009. East Waterway Operable Unit Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Final Surface Water Data Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 for the East Waterway Group. Windward. 2010. Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental King County Science and Technical Support Section 56 January2018 An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. Windward. 2012. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Appendix A of East Waterway Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 for the East Waterway Group. Windward and Anchor QEA. 2014. East Waterway Operable Unit. Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Prepared by Windward Environmental LLC and Anchor QEA for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. Wood, C.M. 2012. An Introduction to Metals in Fish Physiology and Toxicology Basin Principles. Chapter 1 in Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals. C. Wood, A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner (eds). Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. pp. 1-51. Wood, C., A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner. 2012a. Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals. Volume 31A in the Fish Physiology Series. Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. 494 pp. Wood, C., A.P. Farrell, and C.J. Brauner. 2012b. Homeostasis and Toxicology of Non - Essential Metals. Volume 31B in the Fish Physiology Series. Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. 504 pp. King County Science and Technical Support Section 57 January2018 Appendix B: A Synthesis of Changes in our Knowledge of Chinook Salmon Productivity and Habitat Uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) M fi A � I .' ti y - t . ROGERTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE B-1 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Purpose: This technical briefing synthesizes and evaluates available Chinook salmon habitat use and productivity literature that has become available since 2004, with an emphasis on WRIA 9 specific information. The information should pertain to possible updates the WRIA could make to amend programs, policies or project rankings as part of the Chinook salmon recovery effort that was documented in the 2005 Chinook salmon Habitat Plan. The paper is organized into two primary sections, issues that cross subwatersheds, or 'watershed wide issues' and then issues focused on individual subwatersheds. Following the description of major topic area is a subsection summarizing the primary technical recommendations and implications for recovery actions. Three other technical briefings will cover climate change, chemical contaminants in the watershed, and water temperature issues. In sum, these briefings will be considered an addendum to the 2005 WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report -Scientific Foundation for Salmon Habitat Conservation, and provide the scientific foundation for updating the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan. Watershed Wide Issues Viable Salmonid Population Parameters and Green River Chinook In order for Puget Sound Chinook to be removed from the Endangered Species Act listing, two populations within the South Puget Sound geographic region (Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Duwamish/Green, and Lake Washington) will need to attain a low risk status of extinction. The watershed conditions for the remaining populations need to be improved compared to conditions at the time of listing. To be considered low risk of extinction, a population will need to meet the NOAA viability criteria for all Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). NOAA defines VSP as: • Abundance is the number of individuals in the population at a given life stage or time; • Productivity or population growth rate is the actual or expected ratio of abundance in the next generation to current abundance; • Spatial structure refers to how the abundance at any life stage is distributed among available or potentially available habitats; and • Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by individuals within a population. VSP-Abundance The number of natural origin Green River Chinook spawners is the primary life stage that is tracked for the abundance indicator. The overall trend in abundance has been steadily declining since before the first plan was adopted in 2005 (Figure 1 and Table 1). In 2009, the number of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) was the lowest ever recorded, with less than 200 fish. For five of the past seven years (2010- 2017), the number of NOS has been less than the lowest planning target range (1,000 NOS) for WRIA 9. A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) 14000 12000 10000 c 3 fl, 8000 w 0 6000 E z 4000 2000 0 4 cb 1�1 Green River Chinook in River Spawning 1 r� Total Spawners Natural origin spawners --------- Linear (Total Spawners) Linear (Natural origin spawners) Figure 1. Trends in natural origin Chinook spawners and all spawners (hatchery origin plus natural origin). (Data from NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database and WDFW Nathanael Overman) Table 1. Status of VSP metrics of the Green River Fall Chinook population from 2005 through 2015. (Data from NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database and WDFW Nathanael Overman. 2005-2008 numbers from WRIA 91TC 2012) From WRIA 9ITC 2012 From NOAA SPSD and WDFW (Nathanael Overman) Population Indicators of change Units Target 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Productivity Egg -to -Migrant Survival %of eggs —8% (RM 34-60) deposited 1.47 0.09 3.66 2.07 2.10% 5.70% 8.00% 6.02% 9.72% 11.39% 8.75% Abundance Natural origin spawners # 1000-4200 1046 2535 2022 4227 182 909 640 1685 559 1069 864 Diversity Hatchery -origin recruits spawning in river %of total <30% 60 60 53 35 74 60 40 47 74 63 79 Diversity Relative abundance of par r % parr TBD 70 31 37 39 39 90 49 53 28 20 3 Diversity Timing of peak fry 3/11- 3/30- 3/30- 3/29- 3/7- 2/20- 3/11- 3/3- 2/2- outmigration 3/16 4/5 4/5 4/4 3/13 2/26 3/17 3/9 2/8 Diversity Timing of peak parr 6/2- 6/15- 6/15- 6/7- 5/23- 6/4- 5/27- 5/26- 6/15- outmigration 6/8 6/21 6/21 6/13 5/29 6/10 6/2 6/1 6/21 Diversity Proportion 5 and 6 year %of NOR 65% 1% 7% 2% 16% 17% 6% old spawners returns Increase not evaluated Spatial Changes to spawning Structure distribution No data not evaluated not evaluated VSP-Productivity The WRIA has tracked egg -to -migrant survival rates as a primary means of evaluating productivity (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Egg -to -migrant survival rate is defined as the proportion of fertilized eggs that become juvenile migrants (fry or parr) into the Lower Green, as quantified by the WDFW smolt trap at river mile 34. Although, the average rate for wild Chinook populations is 10.4% (Quinn 2005), the WRIA has set a target of 8% because the Green River Chinook population has high rates of hatchery fish spawning with 2 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) wild fish (see diversity metric below). Between 2005 and 2015 the survival rate has ranged from 0.09% to 11%, with an average of 5.4% (Table 1). While the average over the last 11 years is below the WRIA's target, there has been an increase in the egg -to -migrant survival rate, with an average over the last 5 years (2011-2015) of 8.7%, compared to the previous 5 years (2006-2010) average of 2.9%. VSP-Spatial Structure The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator or metric for spatial structure. However, natural origin adults predominately spawn in Newaukum Creek and the mainstem Green River. Due to genetic goals at the Soos Creek Hatchery, most of the adults passed above the hatchery to spawn naturally in Soos Creek are of hatchery origin. Furthermore, adults are still not being passed upstream of Howard Hanson Dam. For the spatial structure of the population to improve, natural origin spawners will need to be spawning in both of these areas that were part of their historic range. VSP-Diversity The fourth VSP parameter, diversity, refers to variation within a population which covers a wide range of characteristics, one of which is life history type. For example, within WRIA 9, juvenile life history types have been classified according to how long they reside in different parts of the Green River, with special emphasis on the Middle Green as well as the Duwamish. There are three broad life history types: fry migrants, parr migrants, and yearlings (Figure 2 and Table 1), however fry migrants can be broken down into three categories, making a total of 5 life history types. 1. The first fry life history type is early or marine direct fry migrants. These fry leave the Middle Green shortly after hatching and move quickly from the estuary into Puget Sound. Based on fish use sampling (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Nelson et al. 2012 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013, ICF International 2010) this life history type does not occur in large numbers, but appears to be present. 2. The second fry life history type leaves the Middle Green from Jan through March and rears for weeks to months in the Duwamish until they reach smolt size. This life history type is considered common and generally is the most abundant juvenile life history type (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Nelson et al. 2012, Topping and Anderson 2014), but recent data from 2015 and 2016 showed very few of this life history type survived to adulthood in 2015 (Personnel Communication Lance Campbell, WDFW 2017. See the otolith section below for more information). 3. The third fry life history type, Lower Green parr, are fish that leave the Middle Green as fry, but rear in the Lower Green until they are parr size and ready to smolt. The evidence for the prevalence of this life history type is incomplete due to limited fish use sampling and the constant immigration of new fish from the Middle Green River. Recent sampling shows some amount of preferential use of select habitats within the Lower Green, indicating that at least some fish are likely rearing in the Lower Green until reaching parr size (McCarthy et al. 2017 and Gregersen 2017). However, the Lower Green generally lacks adequate off channel habitat that would allow large numbers of fry to rear long enough to reach parr size (R2 Resource Consultants 2014). 4. The fourth life history type is the Middle Green parr that rear in the Middle Green River as fry and migrate out of this area from late March through June. They are considered relatively common, and are generally the second most abundant life history type (Topping and Anderson 2014, Anderson and Topping 2017). 5. The fifth life history type are yearlings, which are juveniles that spend an entire year in freshwater before immigrating out of the Green River. It is not clear where in the broader Green River they overwinter. The majority of yearlings captured in the past are from hatchery releases 3 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) of yearling fish that were purposefully held for a year in an attempt to residualize the fish to create year round fishing opportunities in Puget Sound. These fish are commonly referred to as being part of the'blackmouth' fishery. The wild yearling life history type has been found in small numbers at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) smolt trap (Topping and Anderson 2014) and in the limited floodplain accessible habitats of the Lower Green (Lucchetti et al. 2014). Last updated Feb 2017 Figure 2. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). WRIA 9 has used three metrics to measure diversity. 1. The first metric is the percentage of hatchery origin spawners spawning in the wild with natural origin Chinook. The target is for there to be less than 30% hatchery origin Chinook spawners. This has not been met in the last 10 years, during which time the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds has ranged from 35% to 75% (Figure 3 and Table 1). 2. The second metric is the percentage of juvenile Chinook that outmigrate as parr. Based on recent analyses by Anderson and Topping 2017 (described in more detail below in Middle Green subwatershed section), this indicator should no longer be used because the observed percentage relies heavily on basic habitat capacity, the number of natural origin spawners, and 4 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) the flow experienced during rearing. Tracking the percent of parr does not provide a reliable metric to compare trends given the number of factors that affect it. The final metric is the proportion of natural origin adults that return as five and six -year old fish, with a simple target of an increasing percentage of older fish returning over time. In the last seven years there have been no six -year old fish, thus all the data discussed summarizes only five-year old Chinook. Excluding 2009, which was an outlier year with the lowest return of adults on record, the proportion of five-year olds has ranged from a high of 17% to a low of 1% (Table 1). The average percent return for the last 10 years, 14.4%, is similar to the average over the last 46 years of 15.4%. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% SO% C[+YA 20% 10% Percent of Hatchery Chinook Spawning in the Green River Percent Hatchery Chinook on the Spawning Grounds Plan Target <30% 0% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 3. Percent of hatchery Chinook in the Green River spawning grounds compared to natural origin Chinook (from the 2014 WRIA 9 Implementation Progress Report 2005-2014) Technical Recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • The overall trend in wild Chinook salmon population abundance is still declining. The returns of wild fish to the Green River in 2009 were the lowest recorded in the last 30 years, with less than 200 wild fish spawning in the river (Figure 1). As noted above, a primary way to increase adult abundance is to create or get access to more rearing habitat. Improving and increasing rearing habitat in the Middle and Lower Green and providing access to the upper watershed are primary ways of achieving this goal. • Productivity has improved in the last five years (2011-2015), compared to the previous 5 years when the WRIA last evaluated the egg -to -migrant survival rate. It is unclear why the rate has improved. Based on findings described in the diversity section above, the WRIA should likely 5 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) focus on evaluating the number of parr leaving the Middle Green versus the proportion of parr to fry as a better indicator of long term habitat capacity and productivity because the number of fry leaving the Middle Green is highly variable, which makes using the metric of the percentage of parr useless. Spatial structure is not being tracked. There is a suggestion in the Strategic Assessment that the WRIA create a method to track to what extent spawning habitat patches are utilized every year. The ITC also recommends creating a metric to evaluate Chinook parr distribution, possibly through minnow trapping as has been done in some Alaska watersheds (Bryant 2000). The WRIA should develop spatial structure metrics that can be cost efficiently tracked. Spatial Structure is still greatly limited compared to historic conditions. The lack of fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) greatly impacts the WRIA's ability to meet this goal. The upstream fish passage facility is complete. However, the downstream fish passage facility at HHD (Project # UG-4) has not been built and it is unclear when it will be. Given the large quantity and high quality of spawning and rearing habitat above the dam in combination with the highly constrained built -out condition of the lower two thirds of the watershed, the lack of access to the habitat upstream of HHD is negatively affecting all VSP parameters. Providing fish passage at the dam is a critical need and this project should continue to be a high priority for the WRIA. Diversity metrics show there are still very high numbers of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. Since plan adoption, the percent of hatchery spawners has not fallen within the target range set by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) for an integrated stock like the Green River. This points to a need for the 'H' integration process to be restarted and reinvigorated with the co -managers so that solutions for issues like the number of hatchery adults spawning with wild fish can be implemented. Fish Passage • The majority of known barriers are found higher up in most stream systems, limiting habitat access to primarily coho salmon and steelhead. A comprehensive fish passage barrier assessment has never been done within WRIA 9 and the list of known barriers comes from assessments of small geographic areas that underwent an assessment for one reason or another over many years. Given the built out nature of the lower two thirds of the watershed, there are many stream crossings that have never been assessed for passage. Furthermore, the ability of fish to pass a structure changes over time as stream conditions change. WDFW suggests that partial barriers and passable stream crossing be evaluated roughly every ten years (Price et al. 2010). With the recent establishment of the statewide Fish Barrier Removal Board, there has been renewed effort at the state level to fund and address known fish passage barriers. While there are many known barriers within WRIA 9, there are two barriers that are of higher importance than most others: o Howard Hanson Dam (HHD): In 2005 it was expected fish passage at the dam would be provided within five years. While the upstream passage facility was built, the downstream fish passage structure has not been built yet. There are differing estimates as to how much salmon habitat would be accessible above the dam. The range of fish habitat that would be opened up is from 78 miles to 165 miles (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1998 and WRIA 9 Salmon Plan 2005). The lack of downstream passage has had a huge impact on the trajectory of recovery for the population. The large amount of generally higher quality habitat above the dam that is still inaccessible, which affects all VSP parameters (WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment 2005). 0 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) o Black River pump station: New technical documents produced in 2015 as part of the Black River Needs Assessment and Capital Improvement Planning indicate that the pump station has a variety of fish passage issues related to how the facility is structured and managed. The description implies that velocities through parts of the structure would limit upstream passage of smaller juvenile salmonids. Passage equipment is run only during certain times of the year, greatly limiting both upstream and downstream passage. Some of the pump intakes lack fish exclusion screens to keep fish out of the intakes for the pumps; these unscreened pumps are each run an average of hours a year. The pump station is located near the mouth of the Black River, which limits access to over 50 miles of stream, including Springbrook Creek, Panther Lake Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek (Kent) (Figure 4). Habitat assessments done in the 1990s indicate that much of the physical habitat is not in ideal condition and there are a large variety of water quality problems (Harza 1995). While Chinook have been found in the system (Harza 1995 and Personal Communication Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011) the stream habitat is more typical for coho and steelhead. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • Implementation of the existing Salmon Plan Project UG-4 (Upper Green project #4), which would provide downstream fish passage at HHD, remains a critical gap to all VSP parameters - especial spatial structure. • Work with King County to prioritize improvements in both the fish passage infrastructure as well as standard operating procedures at the Black River pump station. • Invest in a fish passage program that would provide an ongoing comprehensive assessment of potential barriers, with an emphasis on areas within the typical range of Chinook salmon. • Map and prioritize fish passage barriers in WRIA 9 according to the amount and quality of habitat upstream. Given issues described in the water quality temperature technical memo, an emphasis on cold water refugia and rearing habitat should also be considered in any passage program (Kubo 2017). Spawning • Chinook have been seen spawning in tributaries they were not previously documented in and we have more detailed data for where they spawn within Soos Creek (Figure 5). a. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) surveys in Soos Creek during the last five years have documented the primary spawning areas more definitively than past efforts. The vast majority of the spawning in the Soos Creek Watershed is occurring on the mainstem of Soos Creek from the mouth of Jenkins Creek downstream to the hatchery. b. Since plan adoption in 2005, Chinook have been seen spawning in: Bingamon Creek, tributary to Mullen Slough within the Agricultural Production District in 2010 (Personal Communication Don Finney King County, 2010), and by the ACOE in of Springbrook Creek in 2011 (Personal Communication Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011), Watercress Creek, a tributary to Newaukum Creek by KCDOT in 2007 (Personal Communication Stephen Conroy, King County, 2017), and Big Spring Creek in 2016 (Personal Communication Josh Latterell, King County, 2017). 7 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Figure 4. Map of the subwatershed that feeds into the historic Black River. M A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Major Road River/Stream King County Boundary Open Water Wetlands Q King County WRIA 9 Area UPDATED CHINOOK DISTRIBUTION IN WRIA 9 El lit) gEA7rLE C7 �y 9 BURIEN Chinook Distribution - Chinook Distribution - River/Streams Marine 2001-2017: Present - Species should be present due to `!� First Hand Information suitable habitat conditions and knowledge of species life history. Species is known to be present based on first Juvenile presence estimated hand observations in new locations since 2001. above7 meterdepth. ...1� pre-2001: Present - First Hand Information Species is known to be present due to first-hand observations, or from electro-fishing, spawner surveys, field reports, and other di rest sources of data. Pre-2001:Present - Second Hand Information Species isthought to be present from second-hand observations and information. 1� Pre-2001: Should be Present Species should be present d ue to suitable habitat conditions, presence in adjacent waters, and absence of known barriers, though presence has not been observed. (\\ Pre-2001: Barrier Prevents Presence r1 Species should be present because of suitable habitat conditions, but is not beca use of artificial ba rrier. Present According to the WDFW WRIA Catalog of Streams (Williams, 1975) a KING COUNTY — — — PIE—------------z, RCE COUNTY t t- theinformationihd mthismaphas been dbystaff fromavarietyor sources ' and is sublaHID change wRhouf entice. King Counn1,.ty makes m represenfafions or wamuNes, express griff l,r asto accuracy, conple[errss, timeliness,arightstg the use King shall not be liable fr any general special, indirect, of such al, -r-.v �- ,nation. d d— rwtitleidal, or consequential tlamages imlutling, brd not limited to, bst revenues or loft profits msuNrg from th use ar misuse of the i�rtormation mnbtinetl an this map. My sale of this ( ^ -, \� map or information on Nia map is pmM1ibiletl except by rmisaon of Kirg comity- L Datasources: King County G IS datasets,Pre-2001 fish distribution from Fish9 King County l ' shape file, 2001-2017 fish distribution hand drawn based on firsthand observations. Path of Big Spring Creek redrawn to reflect field observations. Department of 0 2 4 Miles Map created by KCIT Design 8 Civic Engagement, Natural Resources and Parks — File 8685w W9 chinook dist.ai Water and Land Resources Division October 2017 Figure S. Locations of previously undocumented Chinook spawning areas. Adapted from the WRIA 9 Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment 2000. M A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) In the 2005 plan, a landslide located in the Middle Green near river mile 45.5 was singled out as a concern because of potential sedimentation of redds. However, a subsequent assessment indicated that there was no ongoing sedimentation impact from this slide (Booth 2012). The gravel supplementation program (Plan Program M-1) has been implemented for over ten years to supplement spawning gravel in the Middle Green to counteract the impacts of the HHD which had starved the Middle Green of spawning gravels. Concerns had been expressed about the high number of redds occurring in the immediate area supplemented with gravel and because of the potential for redds to be undermined by the mobility of recently placed substrate. In response to those concerns, the ACOE has modified how it places gravel and reduced the size uniformity of the gravel to make it less mobile so that the gravel more slowly gets incorporated into the river (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017). Since plan adoption, different methods to estimate spawner abundance have been used and explored by the co -managers. There are large differences in the escapement estimates created by redd counting versus genetic mark -recapture. More work is needed to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods. This is predominately an issue to be worked between the Co -managers, but it affects the WRIA in because of how much the population abundance monitoring and tracking rely on the Co -managers' data. The MIT tagged and tracked adults shortly after entering the estuary in 2015, 2016, and, 2017, with tags that included temperature gauges. They undertook this study due to gain a greater understanding about the possible impacts of high water temperatures on adult Chinook migrating through the lower river. Temperature gauges on and in the fish provide a more accurate understanding about the conditions the fish experience while holding and migrating through the river and can provide insight into if fish are finding and utilizing any cold water refugia. Although the results of this research will not be available for this addendum to the Strategic Assessment (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017), the results should be tracked to see if different actions might be called for before the next 10 year update. Anderson and Topping's (2017) verified that spawning habitat in the Middle Green River is not currently limiting the productivity of the Chinook salmon population; rather the lack of juvenile rearing habitat is the primary limiting factor. No matter the number of spawners, a similar number of parr are leaving the Middle Green each year. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • Management Strategy 1 (also known as Policy MS-1) guides differentially allocating funding to specific subbasins based on limiting factors and habitat needs, page 5-16 of the Salmon Plan. This policy should be reviewed for relevancy given all the information we now have. It is often difficult to determine how much an individual project improves spawning versus rearing habitat when restoring riverine processes. At a minimum, the stipulation related to spending one third of funding resources on spawning habitat restoration should be evaluated since spawning habitat does not appear to be limiting the population at this time. • Devote resources to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of counting spawner returns, and encourage use of the most accurate methods. • Continue to track the ACOE's gravel supplementation effectiveness monitoring and the MIT's adult archival tagging monitoring effort. Consider incorporating findings into a plan update prior to the next 10 year update if findings warrant it. 10 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Floodplain Habitats The Salmon Plan does not generally describe the floodplain's value to salmonid rearing as much as it notes the large acreage loss of connected floodplain area and the conversion of land cover from forested floodplains to some form of developed land cover (industrial, residential and agricultural). The most intensive changes in land use and development patterns occurred along the banks of and within the floodplain of the Lower Green subwatershed (Strategic Assessment 2006). Since plan adoption, there have been many papers out of the Sacramento River area (Summers et al. 2001a and 2001b, 2004, 2005, Jeffres 2007, Feyrer et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2007, Henry et al. 2010, and Katz et al. 2013), Columbia River system (Lestelle et al. 2005) and the Chehalis River (Henning 2004) showing that Chinook growth was greater for fish with access to the floodplain versus those rearing in mainstem habitats only. It is theorized that the increased growth rate is due to that they have access to a greater amount of food resources in the floodplain than in the main channel and that the risk of stranding is offset by the potential for increased growth rates. These papers describe how important floodplain habitats are to juvenile Chinook growth in general and aid in understanding how the magnitude of habitat loss in the Lower Green and to a lesser extent in the Middle Green have impacted juvenile Chinook production locally. The habitat area within the bank full width of mainstem channel in the Lower Green is approximately 282 acres (unpublished King County GIS data 2017). Historically, the Lower Green River had approximately 19,642 acres of connected floodplain (Collins and Sheikh 2004) and currently has only 3,518 acres of partially connected floodplain. The estimate of the current amount of connected floodplain was created by the WRIA 9 ITC in 2014 for the Lower Green SWIF based on analyses of existing FEMA 100 year floodplain data that excluded the majority of the right bank area within the City of Kent due to this area not really being connected in a meaningful way for fish and the City's efforts to bring all its levees in this area up to 100 year flood protection. This amounts to a complete loss of 82% of floodplain area. The remaining 18% of floodplain has very limited connectivity due a variety of factors (e.g. the White and Black Rivers being diverted, HHD). The timing of late winter and early spring flooding historically aligned with providing the early migrating fry life history type with substantial slow, shallow water habitat in the floodplain (WRIA 9 ITC 2012). Due to the loss of floodplain noted above (due to levees, HHD water management, etc.) fry are now more much more restricted in extent of potential rearing habitat, especially in the Lower Green. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • The new information on the importance of floodplain habitats to juvenile Chinook growth should be considered when prioritizing recovery actions. Survival/0tolith Data: Otoliths are ear bones in fish that look like a cross section of a tree, showing rings for each day of growth. The bones are made up of the minerals that were available to the fish in its specific environment. There are different levels of minerals, like strontium, in the marine and estuarine environments that create a mark on the ear bone that allows one to determine how old juvenile 11 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) salmon were when they left freshwater and began rearing in estuarine/marine waters. This also allows one to estimate what size they were when they entered salty water as well as look for patterns around which juvenile life history types are surviving to adulthood. This data will not allow us to compare the survival rate of all five life history types noted above. The format of the data lumps the five types into three groupings of juveniles: yearlings, Middle/Lower Green Parr and direct/estuarine fry. • Ruggerone and Volk (2004) looked at juvenile Chinook in the Duwamish toward the end of the outmigration period. The results showed low surival of estuary reared Chinook, but these results should be treated carefully as they evaluaterd a very small portion of a single migratory period. • Campbell and Claiborne (2017) indicated that the Duwamish estuarine rearing fry life history type's contribution to the adult return in 2015 was extremely low (<1%), based on a subsample of adult otoliths analyzed as part of the larger Puget Sound Marine Survival project. Juveniles that were smaller than 60mm in size when they began to rear in salt water were almost nonexistent in the adult returning Chinook. Whereas the Skagit and Nooksack's fry contribution was 36% and 24%, respectively. This indicates other watersheds estuarine rearing fry types are surviving to adulthood at much higher numbers than Green River's. WRIA 9 provided WDFW funding to collect adult otoliths from the 2016 and 2017 spawning seasons. Draft data for the 2016 adults found very similar results with less than 3% of the returning adults originating as estuarine rearing fry (Personal Communication Lance Campbell). Based on smolt trap data, an average of 60% of all juveniles migrate past the trap as fry. Some of these fry likely rear in the Lower Green and become the Lower Green parr life history type, but based on other data (Ruggerone et al. 2006, and Nelson et al. 2012) it is known that many of the fry rear in the Duwamish (Figure 6). If we apply the recent otolith findings to the previous research looking at size, abundance, and timing of fry using the estuary (Nelson et al. 2012, and Ruggerone et al. 2006) we see that fry in the Duwamish prior to early April did not survive to adulthood and many fry from early April to mid -May also did not survive to adulthood. While still tentative with only two years of similar data, the loss of almost all the fry that reared in the Duwamish is severely limiting fry productivity, overall population productivity, and abundance, as well as reducing overall life history diversity. • If the outcomes of the 2017 data collection and analyses, are similar to 2015 and 2016, the ITC may need to reevaluate actions/recommendations made in specific subwatersheds, especially the Duwamish shortly after this plan update has occurred. • There has been no new information on habitat use by yearling Chinook in the Green River. They have been found in the past in the Lower Green River floodplain within channels of the two larger streams that are accessible (Auburn Mill Creek and Mullen Slough). Limited data on fish use by yearlings in the Snoqualmie River have shown them to use similar small stream channels that are located within the floodplain of the Snoqualmie River. Draft work by Lance Campbell showed that wild yearlings made up a small portion (-5%) of the returning adults in 2015 based on a subsample of otoliths analyzed as part of the larger Puget Sound Marine Survival project (Personal Communication with Lance Campbell, WDFW, 2017). Interestingly, this number appears to be much larger than the percentage of yearlings outmigrating that have been captured by WDFW's smolt trap. There are several possible reasons for this. Fry and parr may migrate past the trap and choose to reside for a year in accessible habitats of the Lower Green, thus the trapping data would not record them as yearlings. It is known that the smolt trap has greater trapping efficiency with smaller fish than yearlings, thus there could be higher numbers of yearlings in the Middle Green, but they are able to avoid the trap when the outmigrate. And finally, it is possible the trap is accurately estimating the number of yearlings leaving the Middle Green. It is known that the larger fish are (like yearlings) when they outmigrate, the higher their 12 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) survival rate is to adulthood. This differential survival means that a very small number of juveniles of this life history type could make up a much larger proportion of adults. 80 60 40 7s 12m 10o 80 60 40 20 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 Jan 26 to Feb 22 AIL- Feb 23 to Mar 15 Mar 15 to Apr 5 Apr 6 to Apr 26 Apr 27 to M ay 17 May18toJun7 Jun 8 to Jun 28 Jun 28 to Jul 27 0 30 4,0 50 er, t 0 80 OC. 16f 110 120 130 Length (mm) Figure 6. Shows juvenile Chinook timing from sampling that occurred in 2003, combined with highlighting to show survival to adulthood based on 2015 and 2016 otolith data. The red highlight shows timing and size of juveniles that would not survive to adulthood and the green highlight showing highest survival based on 2015 and 2016 data. Adapted from Nelson et al. 2012. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • See Duwamish subsection below for related recommendations. • Update strategies based on new findings after more years of otolith work are completed. • Conduct research to determine where yearling Chinook are currently rearing/overwintering, so that these areas can be identified for protection and restoration. Begin by looking in small stream channels along the mainstem Green River. 13 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Combined with the floodplain subsection above, it provides more context to the value of accessible floodplain habitats to provide habitat for fry, which do not appear to be surviving to adulthood in large numbers. Relevant Co -Manager Topics • As part of a recent update to the Hatchery Genetic Management Plan, the Co -managers changed hatchery practices and began a new program to create unclipped 'highly integrated' hatchery juveniles. These hatchery juveniles are managed separately from the primary Soos Creek hatchery fish and are reared and released farther upstream at the Pautzke ponds. Given that these hatchery fish are not externally marked, it will be difficult to tell them apart from naturally spawned fish. This is a concern because it will affect current monitoring protocols, and affect WRIA 9's monitoring approaches, assumptions, and recovery goals around the number of natural origin adult returners as well as that more juvenile fish are being released and how that higher number of hatchery fish may impact juvenile productivity. The Research Framework noted that the historic run timing of Chinook returning to the Soos Creek hatchery has been shifted three weeks earlier due to older (pre-1960s) hatchery practices. Given that the Green River system has been managed as an integrated stock and that there has been a higher proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds than recommended in the HSRG, it is assumed that the wild population's timing was also shifted earlier. Bowerman et al. 2016 noted that spring and summer Chinook, which enter fresh water earlier than fall Chinook, are more susceptible to energetic depletion and environmental stressors like high water temperatures. The Green River Chinook population timing being shifted earlier likely has negative impacts on abundance and productivity due to lower water levels and higher temperatures, early emergence of fry before prey is available. Expected environmental and habitat changes associated with climate change will only exacerbate those negative impacts. NOTE: This issue may be best addressed via a recommendation for a future H-integration effort to evaluate the broader issue. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: Addressing climate change impacts on Chinook may require changing hatchery and harvest practices, which are not within the WRIAs purview to directly affect or change. The WRIA should work with the co -managers to lay out a process or framework where these technical and policy issues can be discussed. An 'H' integration process needs to be restarted and reinvigorated so that issues like the number of hatchery adults spawning with wild fish and how the 'highly integrated' returning adult fish effect HSRG goals related to managing integrated stocks, productivity of wild fish, as well as monitoring and assessment efforts. 14 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Subwatershed Specific Issues Upper Green River Program Upper Green 1 (U-1) is the development of planning effort focused on a long term comprehensive restoration and planning approach for the upper watershed. It did not occur prior to this Salmon Plan update. The 2015 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest: Forest -Wide Sustainable Roads Report was recently completed. The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Forest includes much of the Upper Green River basin. It lays out the USFS recommendations for which forest roads to maintain and abandon. Since 2001, Tacoma Water has implemented several fisheries -related habitat conservation measures projects under its habitat conservation plan. Briefly they include: o Construction and operation of an adult fish trap and haul facility and downstream juvenile bypass system at the Tacoma Water Municipal Intake (RM 61) o Replacement of impassable culverts on twenty-five streams within the Upper Green River o In cooperation with the USACE, installation of individual LWD and ELJs within approximately thirteen miles of the mainstem Upper Green River and approximately six total miles of tributary stream o Provided approximately 70 pieces of LWD annually from the Upper Green River for release into the Middle Green River below the Tacoma Water Headworks As part of the Additional Water Storage Project (AWSP), baseline habitat surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2006 by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2) (2007). The first post-AWSP survey was conducted by Tacoma Water in 2012 and 2013 (in review). The second post-AWSP survey is scheduled to be conducted by Tacoma Water in 2017 and 2018. While habitat surveys done by different crews or in different years can result in habitat changes that are not 'real' but an artifact of surveyor bias, it is believed the statistical differences between years noted below are real (Personal Communication Tyler Patterson, Tacoma Water, 2017). The post ASWP in 2012 and 2013 habitat monitoring surveys were conducted on Tacoma Water - owned portions of the mainstem river (RM 68-85) and several tributary streams, including the Sunday Creek (RM 0-3.5), Smay Creek (RM 0-1.8), and the North Fork Green River (RM 0-2) and compared against baseline surveys from six years prior by R2. Results indicated: o Pool frequency (pools per channel width) and total pool area (feet2) improved throughout the mainstem between surveys, while residual pool depth (feet) remained about the same. o Pool frequency increased substantially in the major tributaries of the Upper Green River (i.e. Sunday Creek, Smay Creek and the NF Green River) between surveys. Total pool area increased in Smay Creek and the NF Green River, but decreased slightly in Sunday Creek. The decrease in Sunday Creek total pool area was due to a substantial decrease in mean pool area. Like the mainstem, residual pool depths and canopy cover remained relatively constant between surveys in these tributaries. o Canopy cover did not change significantly between surveys, moving from a mean of 20% in the baseline to 23% post-AWSP. The adjacent riparian areas along the mainstem and major tributaries are within Tacoma's "Natural" Forest Management Zone. This zone is managed "to preserve health and vigor of the vegetative cover to reduce erosion and provide habitat for fish and wildlife". Substantial portions of the riparian areas within 15 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) this zone are still composed of young alder and black cottonwood with mature alder and black cottonwood interspersed. Conifers are present but are mostly subdominant in these areas. These immature canopy areas are adjacent to channel banks and appear to the result of channel migration over time versus any active management measures. The six year time span between surveys is not likely long enough to see significant improvement in canopy -related shading overall. o The frequency of Large Wood Debris (LWD) increased from 140 pieces mile to 208 pieces per mile between surveys and jam frequency increased from 4 jams per mile to 8 jams per mile. In comparison, the LWD and jam frequencies in the Middle Green River in 2012 were 141 pieces mile and 4jams per mile, respectively. Median bed surface grain size (D50) decreased throughout the mainstem likely indicating increased sediment storage capacity behind jams and sediment supply rates out pacing the system's ability to transport it. This is likely the result of that there has been an increase in total LWD frequency from both engineered projects and natural bank input. Two substantial high flow events (2006 and 2009) occurred between the baseline and first post-AWSP surveys which likely increased natural LWD input, sediment supply (e.g. bank erosion), and sediment storage. o The frequency of LWD also increased substantially in all three tributaries, while the frequency of logjams increased in Sunday Creek and remained about the same in Smay Creek and the NF Green River (Table 2). A similar trend in sediment grain size seen in the mainstem was observed in the three major tributaries with greatly reduced D50 between surveys. Table 2. LWD and wood jam frequency comparisons between baseline and post-AWSP surveys for major tributaries in the Upper Green River. Major Tributaries LWD/mile Jams/mile Baseline Post-AWSP Baseline Post-AWSP Sunday Creek 238 317 7 12 Smay Creek 491 663 22 23 NF Green River 420 547 19 18 Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • The habitat in the Upper Green is generally of higher quality than the Middle and Lower Green River, but it is still inaccessible to anadromous fish. Given the continuing decline of Chinook abundance, there is a strong and urgent need to provide access to this habitat. • Development of Program U-1 should be a high priority because a more in depth planning process would help set priorities for remaining habitat issues in the Upper Green. WRIA 9 should seek funding to do this work over the next three years. This process should be tracked, and depending on the outcomes, another plan amendment should be considered at that time. Middle Green River Fish productivity associated with existing habitat conditions within the Middle Green River is discussed in detail in Anderson and Topping (2017); their findings, likely apply in the Lower 16 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Green River channel as well because that portion of the river provides the same rearing functions as the Middle Green. Many of their findings reinforce background technical information or assumptions in the Salmon Plan and Strategic Assessment, and provide greater certainty that a lack of rearing habitat is the primary limiting factor. Some of their primary findings are: • There is limited rearing habitat capacity (off channel habitats like side channels and backwaters) for fry in the Middle Green, and this is likely one of the main factors contributing to the early downstream migration of fry in large numbers. There is not enough habitat for large numbers of fry to grow into parr. Thus, the limited habitat capacity expresses itself by limiting the number of parr that can be produced, while the number of fry produced does not get limited. Since it is assumed that parr survive to adulthood at much higher rates than fry, the habitat limitation reduces our ability to meet abundance, productivity, and diversity Viable Salmonid Population goals. • High flows (between 8,000 to 10,000 cfs*) from November through mid -January appear to scour eggs in gravel, sharply reducing the overall productivity of the number of juveniles per spawner. • High flows (between 6,000 to 8,000 cfs*) during typical fry outmigration period (mid - January through the end of March) reduced the number of parr produced, likely because fish were flushed into habitats downstream of the trap. • More days with spring flows (April through June) above 1,200 cfs* appears to increase the number of parr produced. This is likely due to increased connectivity to off -channel habitats, like side channels. A separate study (R2 2010) showed that as flows drop below 1,200 cfs, side channel habitats become less connected to the mainstem Green. *flow ranges are tentative and should be refined over time as more data is collected. • A combination of reports from R2 and Tacoma Water looked at habitat availability and juvenile salmonid use in the Middle Green River over the last 15 years. The intent of the reports was to be able to compare changes in habitat and fish use over time. However, due to agency priorities and variations in annual weather/flow patterns, the results are not completely comparable. The findings of each effort are synthesized here. o The 2006 R2 report on fish use of lateral habitats showed high usage of mainstem slow velocity habitats by juvenile Chinook between 1998 and 2002. However, the observed use of these habitats may merely be a function of higher mean daily flow levels and outmigration timing with more fish being flushed out of the system early. The sampling design was not set up to evaluate habitat usage for different flow regimes, thus the recommend that future studies be designed to incorporate different flow regimes. A follow on study to evaluate the distribution of what habitats were available at different flows (R2 2013) showed that 500 cfs flows produced the most slow water habitats overall. However, most of the habitat was adjacent to unvegetated banks, was not complex, and occurred after most juvenile Chinook have left the Middle Green River making the amount of habitat available at 500 cfs less important. The transition point for complex vegetated mainstem edge habitat and side channel habitats appeared to be that as flows decreased below 1,200 cfs, wetted habitats begin to pull away from complex vegetated banks and that the more heavily armored lower reaches of the Middle Green had less slow velocity habitat available at all flows. 17 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) o Overall the R2 2013 report found that as flows increased more slow velocity lateral (off channel) habitat became available, but slow velocity mainstem habitat decreased. However, as flows decreased, more mainstem slow velocity habitats were available while the amount of low velocity lateral habitats decreased. o Juvenile use surveys of lateral habitat in 2011 were unable to sample sufficiently across the four flow targets established by R2 in 2010 to find patterns of use related to flow (Patterson et al. 2015). Most sampling occurred at relatively higher flows, with very limited sampling in the 500 and 800 cfs range. Unlike the R2 2006 study, the 2011 juvenile salmonid use study (Patterson et al. 2015) found higher use of off channel habitats than mainstem habitats. This higher use may be driven by the flow to habitat relationship noted in the previous year's habitat study, i.e., at higher flows there are more slow velocity lateral habitats available than similar velocity mainstem habitats. • Since 2001 there has been a slow increase in pool frequency in two reaches of the Middle Green, while the amount in the other three reaches was variable over time (R2 2012). • The amount of individual pieces of wood per mile has fluctuated, with the most recent data (2012) showing 32.3 pieces per mile, with a high of 47.8 pieces per mile in 2009 and with a low of 15 pieces per mile in 2001. However, while the number of jams has fluctuated between years, there appears to have been a relatively steady increase in the number of jams per mile (20010.8 jams/mile to 2012 4.2 jams/mile) (112 2012). • Channel Dynamics Middle Green o The extent and duration of higher flows are controlled by operations of the HHD. Stream flow greater than 8,829 cfs (250 cros) as measured at the Auburn USGS gauge is needed to force lateral bank migration, which in turn creates new off channel habitats necessary for juvenile Chinook rearing (Konrad et al. 2011). For the purpose of relating flow discharge to habitat, this report will refer to flow discharge in excess of 8,800 cfs as "habitat forming flows". o Flow management at HHD prolongs the duration of moderate flows (>5,900cfs) by 39% compared to historic conditions (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). o Scour of redds begins between 5,000 and 8,000 cfs (R2 2014 Zone 1 nourishment gravel stability). Thus, this report will refer to flow discharge in the range of 5,000-8,000 cfs as "redd scouring flows" to differentiate these high flows from higher ones that can have positive habitat benefits. o Combining the findings above, flow management appears to be increasing the number of days with redd scouring flows (directly reducing egg and fry survival) while at the same time reducing the number of years that attain habitat forming flows (indirectly leading to lower productivity through less off channel habitats created). Follow up analyses should look at whether there has been a continued increase in the number of days of "redd scouring flows" noted by Kerwin and Nelson (2000) and WRIA 9 ITC (2012). Future Status and Trends reports should quantify this metric as well as number of days of habitat forming flows (above 8,800 cfs). • MIT Draft smolt trapping data from Soos and Newaukum creeks ("2013-2016) indicate lower survival rates in these streams than previously calculated previously by WDFW based on several 18 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) years of trapping. MIT data indicate that the primary Chinook life history type leaving the creeks is fry, with very few fish rearing to parr size/age. (Personal Communication Holly Coccoli, MIT, 2017). Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • As supported by the numerous studies conducted in the Middle -Green subwatershed, there is a need to increase off channel habitat availability, especially in the Middle Green (and Lower Green River), in order to increase the abundance of habitat that can support more fry rearing to parr sized juveniles, which have the highest likelihood of surviving to adulthood. Given our improved understanding and certainty that a lack of fry habitat is a primary limiting factor in overall abundance and productivity of the Chinook population, greater emphasis should be placed on creating more rearing habitats in the Middle Green or more specifically, removing infrastructure (levees and revetments) that limits of creation of and access to off channel habitat. The Middle Green has undergone several project identification efforts in the past. The projects that are most likely to create the type of necessary rearing habitat unfortunately overlap with both the County's'Upper Green Agricultural Production District as well as many Farmland Protection Program easements. County agricultural policies and programs create regulatory and implementation hurdles to implementing the aforementioned high priority restoration projects in the Middle Green. With the ongoing downward trend in Chinook abundance and the urgent need for more fry habitat, the Forum should engage the County to facilitate implementation of high priority salmon projects. • Evaluate the raw data from the earliest R2 study in the Middle Green against flows during the sampling periods to try to better understand the relationships between different flows and habitat use seen in later reports. • The WRIA should work with Tacoma Water, the ACOE, and the MIT to look at how river flows are managed to see if there is a way to limit the amount of "redd scouring flows" that occur between 5,000 and 8,800 cfs that likely scour redds and/or flush fry out of the Middle Green, but aren't high enough to cause lateral channel migration, which is necessary for high quality off channel rearing habitat creation. • Continued funding for the smolt trap is imperative. As can be seen above, the smolt trap has been in the river enough years that we are able to undertake analyses that show trends related to high and low flows and Chinook productivity. Some of the relationships are still tentative and more data will allow us to have greater confidence in the relationships that have been seen, as well as explore more relationships over time. These data are essential to Chinook recovery. Lower Green River The draft Retrospective, the Reddington Monitoring Report, the draft 2014 Juvenile Salmonid Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green River study, and the 2013-2014 MIT/R2 Lower Green Fish Use Report all describe differential use of some habitats by juvenile salmon use in the Lower Green River. This indicates it can function as rearing habitat when conditions are appropriate (e.g. off channel habitat exists). o Statistically significant higher catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of wild Chinook along banks with LWD (R2 2014a), though this finding was not replicated by the Retrospective work (KC 2016). 19 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) o Shallow or gradually sloped banks with modest levels of LWD had greater CPUE of juvenile salmonids than steep banks with high amounts of complex LWD. (R2 2014a). o Created shallow/slow water habitats at Reddington and Riverview had higher CPUE of juvenile Chinook than nearby vegetated and unvegetated steeper banks. The Retrospective study (2016) also showed higher Chinook CPUE with gradual banks than with slow water. o Most of the studies did not focus on the depth of the sample areas as much as velocity over a range of flows. o The data on overhanging cover and CPUE of Chinook showed a statistically significant decline in CPUE with increasing overhanging vegetation. However, areas with overhanging vegetation are notorious difficult to sample and generally cannot be sampled as efficiently as areas without overhanging vegetation. The likely catch biases from the sampling approach used were not accounted for in any of the studies. Therefore, the results should be treated carefully. o None of the studies attempted to directly assess whether juvenile Chinook are residing in the Lower Green or just passing through. Some of the data indicates juveniles are keying in on some habitats, using them in higher numbers. This preferential use implies fish are residing. More directed mark and recapture studies would help improve our understanding of how long juvenile Chinook reside in Lower Green Habitats. o In March of 2017, the recently restored Leber Homestead site on Mill Creek (Auburn) was sampled twice, once during lower flow conditions (-1,300 cfs, about mean flow during the January —June outmigration period) and once during high flow conditions (-7,000 cfs, about an annual flood) (Gregersen 2017). A small area near the outlet was being used by Chinook fry during lower flow conditions. During high flow conditions three weeks later, Chinook fry were found throughout the larger restored area. Interestingly, the fish that were present under low flow were roughly 5mm longer than the fish that used the site during high flow three weeks later. One explanation of this observation is that the earlier and larger fish at the restoration site migrated downstream volitionally and were residing in productive habitat, whereas the smaller juveniles three weeks later were likely unvolitionally flushed out of the Middle Green and used the Leber site as flood refuge. • Recent surveys of juvenile salmon habitat conditions in the Lower Green show that conditions are still very degraded (112 2014b) • Initial analyses related to sediment loads of the river for the Lower Russell Road Project indicate that there is a large amount of coarse and fine sand moving through the confined river channel. There is concern that this large sediment load might quickly fill in restored/created off channel habitats as the wider channel area will likely create depositional areas. The Salmon Plan acknowledged that off -channel creation projects in the Lower Green would not be as sustainable as true restoration projects and that maintenance would be needed occasionally for those projects to function as fish habitat. The current concerns are focused around how often maintenance would be needed and if the maintenance interval is financially sustainable. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • A greater understanding is needed of where fry go when they leave the Middle Green River, and if freshwater and estuarine rearing conditions downstream are conducive to fry rearing to parr size and surviving to adulthood. 20 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) • River bank stabilization/modification projects should strive to provide gradual slopes that inundate over a large range of flows, with large woody cover instead of constructing projects with steep slopes or benches that provide habitat at a very narrow range of flows. • In order to increase the number of fry that can grow into parr before entering the Duwamish, off channel habitat availability should be increased, especially in the Middle Green and Lower Green River. • Any major levee/bank set back project should consider how the project will be affected by sediment movement and deposition, and how this will affect sediment conditions downstream. • Detailed monitoring is needed of existing setback projects like Riverview, Leber, and Reddington to better understand potential maintenance intervals and risks associated with sedimentation. • Future juvenile salmonid use studies should attempt to: o Sample different habitat types (side channels, backwaters, bars, etc.) versus different bank types and with several methods (e.g. minnow traps, and electrofishing). o Explore CPUE effort and depth of habitat. o Focus on differences CPUE and overhanging vegetation to better inform project design o Undertake a mark and recapture study to help improve our understanding of how long juvenile Chinook reside in Lower Green Habitats. • Given the relatively low use of the broader Leber Homestead project site during lower flow conditions, more directed fish use and water quality monitoring should be undertaken to try to understand why more of the site is not being used by Chinook during lower flows. Duwamish River A significant research and planning effort, the Duwamish Blueprint, was completed in 2014 as part of the WRIA 9 planning effort to help understand how juveniles use the estuary, and to identify restoration opportunities. The first four bullets below are described in more detail in in the Duwamish Blueprint (2014): • Ruggerone et al. 2006 found that the entire estuary, not just RM 4-6, was used by juvenile Chinook, but by different life history types at different times of the rearing season. The lowest, saltier area of the estuary was more heavily used by early fry migrants, while the later, larger Chinook migrants (parr) had higher use of the area above RM 6. The Middle portion of the estuary appeared to be more heavily used by the large pulse of later fry migrants during late March, April and May. • Bigger inlets are likely better than smaller inlets for increased use of juvenile Chinook, (Ruggerone et al. 2006, Cordell et al. 2010, and Toft and Cordell 2017) • The findings from Ruggerone et al. 2006, combined with data from other reports (Ruggerone and 2004, Nelson et al. 2011, Oxborrow et al. 2016), and expected climate change impacts on habitat area within the Duwamish, indicate we need bigger restoration sites with more habitat heterogeneity (e.g. deeper water that would not drain out at low tide and available shallow water habitat throughout the full tidal range). • Brackish waters appear to have higher growth potential based on prey availability than more saline areas (Cordell et al. 2010). Other recent findings not included with in the Duwamish Blueprint include: • David et al. 2016 found that variation in abundance of different species of arthropods (prey for juvenile Chinook salmon) in estuaries across the west coast was driven predominately by types of 21 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) vegetation versus broad categories of land cover (e.g. developed, undeveloped, agricultural). Arthropod abundance was highest in freshwater emergent and mixohaline wetland vegetation, compared to scrub shrub wetlands and forested wetlands. Other physical environment factors that are not readily modifiable by humans, like temperature and precipitation, were also found to influence arthropod abundance. They also found that arthropod abundance in restored wetlands rapidly achieved levels found in reference wetlands. They did find that while abundance was similar in both newer and older restored sites, older sites had different arthropod assemblages, including having more energy rich trichopterans than recently restored sites. • Recent sampling from Toft and Cordell 2017 found similar results to the previous sampling efforts. Primarily, they found that the interior areas of restoration sites like Codiga and North Winds Weir are being used at a higher rates/densities than nearby non restored habitats, though the differences were not statistically different. Finding differences that are statistically significantly different can be difficult with this type of sampling, especially when there is so little habitat available. Similarly, the Herrings House restoration site continued to have relatively low use by juvenile salmonids. • Recent sampling by WDFW (O'Neill et al. 2015) and others showed that juvenile Chinook caught in the lower part of the Duwamish River had levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPS), including PCBs, and PAHs that may have adverse effects on fish health and growth rates, thus would be expected to decrease overall productivity. However, based on the limited spatial sampling, it is not clear if the POPS originated in the Duwamish or upstream in other parts of the watershed. • Work by Meador (2014) indicated that hatchery Chinook migrating through contaminated estuaries, like the Duwamish, had a 45% lower marine survival rate than hatchery Chinook that migrated through uncontaminated Puget Sound estuaries. He evaluated these findings against the total amount of estuary habitat, length of freshwater habitat between each hatchery and estuary, as well as growth rates and did not find these other factors to be explanatory of the lower survival rates seen. He also cited work by Varanasi et al. 1993 that showed Chinook from the Soos Creek hatchery and the Duwamish held in lab conditions for 40 days survived at a rate of 86% and 56%, respectively. The experiment was repeated for a second year with similar results. It is important to note that this specific evaluation looked strictly at hatchery Chinook and given their size at release they are not as reliant on the estuary as wild Green River Chinook fry and parr would be. Thus the effects seen on wild Chinook, that are more reliant on the estuary, would likely be more extreme. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • The information from various previous Duwamish fish studies should be compared and combined with the contaminant findings in the Water Quality white paper to see if there are specific overlaps in timing and location that might be more problematic for certain life history types/times of year. • An adaptive management plan or feasibility study should be completed to evaluate options to improve the habitat use by salmonids at the Herrings House restoration site. At a minimum, it has been suggested by Toft and Cordell 2017 that the inlet/outlet of the channel leading to the restoration area is too narrow and should be widened and shortened to allow for greater connectivity with the river. The site is generally dewatered during lower tides, thus it has also been suggested it could be deepened to increase the amount of habitat available and the duration of availability. • Results by David et al. 2016 show that restoring estuarine wetlands, especially freshwater emergent and mixohaline wetlands, can increase arthropod prey species that juvenile Chinook rely on fairly rapidly. This finding suggests that wetland restoration actions in the Duwamish 22 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) could have fairly quick benefits by providing both space to rear and food and that food resource quality will improve over time. The combination of recent sampling showing that juvenile Chinook from the Duwamish have levels of contamination that may negatively affect survival as well as the 2015 and 2016 data from Chinook otoliths showing few of the returning adults being from fry that reared in the Duwamish from Jan through April is concerning. Unfortunately, both studies covered only a short period of time and limited area, which means the level of certainty about the broader applicability of the results is lower than what would generally be recommended for taking a dramatically different course of action. In the near term, more studies are recommended to create a better spatial understanding of Chinook contamination levels in the Lower Green and Duwamish. This data would help to better understand contaminant patterns in juvenile Chinook in comparison to known sediment contamination. In addition, it is recommended that more years of otolith data on survival to adulthood of different life history types be collected. The Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site (RM 0 to 5) is currently in pre -design study phase. The next phase will include signing of responsible parties to a Consent Decree to perform the work as well as the detailed design of the sediment cleanup; both of these together are expected to take approximately 3-5 years. The in -water construction (e.g., dredging and capping of contaminated sediments), which follows design phase, has been estimated to take 7 years. The construction phase of the sediment cleanup, which will be followed by a period of natural recovery, may not be completed until after the 2028 time horizon of this Salmon Plan update. Given the Superfund cleanup timeline, WRIA led salmon habitat restoration projects in the Duwamish should be undertaken cautiously. It is currently not known if clean up actions will occur from upstream to downstream, but current source control strategy by Dept. of Ecology is planned for an upstream to downstream approach. This will likely reduce the risks of recontaminating WRIA sponsored salmon habitat restoration projects, but not eliminate the risks of recontamination. The areas of lower contamination, and thus less cleanup construction, are found in the upper mile of the waterway (RM 4-5). Thus restoration projects sponsored or funded by the WRIA in upper portion of the waterway could begin before full completion of the sediment cleanup with relatively lower risk of being recontaminated by cleanup activities. Until more information is available, a conservative project approach for WRIA funded capital projects over the next ten years in the Duwamish would be to continue to implement projects from the Duwamish Blueprint while taking the following into account: o The WRIA should invest resources into a monitoring/research study to evaluate if previously constructed WRIA restoration projects within the Duwamish have become contaminated. o For all areas of the Duwamish, emphasize acquiring and restoring the largest sites possible in order to provide a variety of elevations and slopes within the restoration sites to accommodate climate change and reduce the impacts of "coastal squeeze" (see climate change paper for more details), as well as having enough space to create habitats that retain at least a foot of water at low tide. Restoration sites should be designed with large openings, and focused on areas with brackish waters (typically where streams enter the Duwamish River or there is a reduced influence of the salt wedge). o From river mile 0 to 4.3 (just upstream of Slip 6), given the known contamination and long timeline for intended clean up actions of the primary area of the Superfund site: ■ Focus WRIA salmon recovery resources on acquiring large parcels for future restoration projects versus actually undertaking restoration projects until issues 23 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) associated with current contamination and potential recontamination are better understood or addressed. ■ Work with parties responsible for implementing Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) projects to find ways to enhance or enlarge project sizes with the intent of increasing the ecological benefits. o River mile 4.3 to 11: while it is much less contaminated than the downstream reach, it is still known to have some sediment contamination. The section from RM 4.3 to 5.0 is still located within the Superfund site, though remedial actions (e.g. dredging) that could have a higher likelihood of leading to recontamination are fewer in number and smaller in size. ■ Same as conditions noted above, but if a WRIA salmon habitat project sponsor moves forward with salmon restoration projects in this reach, it is recommended that the WRIA work with the project sponsor to fund more extensive feasibility analyses that evaluate the existing contamination issues as well as the likelihood of recontamination of the salmon habitat restoration site before fully funding the design phase of the project. Nearshore The bulk of the findings from the many new studies on marine nearshore habitat and fish uses issues reinforce or put more certainty behind previous findings and/or assumptions versus providing new information that would generally change the Salmon Plan's nearshore programs, priorities, or projects associated with the marine nearshore environments. Somewhat unusual, is that most of the recent literature for Puget Sound is based on data collected along various areas of WRIA 9's marine shoreline, which provides greater certainty about the applicability of the findings to the WRIA. Figure 7 below summarizes many of the findings from work over the last five to ten years (Dethier et al. 2016) 24 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) Temporal and spatial scales of Broad detectable armoring Impacts sediment Drift cell) grain size change Beach profile change Forage fish L spawning CJ Log accumulation ' Terrestrial JuvenileCL bird use fish use ----i Arthropods and other wrack associates Wrack Local a c( u nn u lati o n (rn) Fait Slaw (Days) Temporal Scale (Seasons to Years) Figure 7. Temporal and spatial scales at which different types off impacts of armoring can be detected. Impacts in dashed boxes are hypothesized but not thoroughly demonstrated. Speed of responses following restoration (armor removal) may follow the same temporal and spatial patterns (Modified from Dethier et al. 2016). The primary recent findings include: • Armored versus not armored shorelines. Importance of vegetated riparian areas near the marine shoreline for Chinook salmon has been verified via diet analysis within Elliott Bay. The research showed Chinook salmon rearing along developed shorelines with riparian vegetation had more terrestrial insects in their diet than Chinook rearing along developed shorelines without riparian vegetation had far fewer terrestrial insects in their stomachs (Toft et al. 2007). Differences in predominately armored versus unarmored drift cells have shown impacts to sediment processes (Dethier et al. 2016) that create skinnier beaches, beaches with fewer drift logs, and beaches with fewer prey species, etc. However, there has not been as much work to look for a direct link to Chinook salmon. Rice 2006 showed that armored beaches get more sunlight (due to less riparian vegetation being present), which in turn causes higher air temperatures, which in turn leads to hotter substrate temperatures, which in turn leads to reduced humidity. At a minimum, this combination of environmental changes leads to reduced forage fish egg survival on armored beaches compared to unarmored beaches. The environmental changes likely lead to many other similar biological responses, but they have not been studied yet. 25 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) d. Recent report showed that vegetated shorelines significantly contribute to the detritus on adjacent beaches versus it all being marine derived, helping drive the detrital food web (Dethier et al. 2016, Heerhartz). This further reinforces the importance of marine riparian areas. e. Toft et al. 2014 showed that the beach restoration at Seahurst Park had mixed results in how quickly the site's biological community re-established in density and richness compared to a nearby restoration site. The higher beach invertebrate community most quickly recovered to close to reference conditions, while the invertebrate community at the mid tidal elevations was much slower to respond. It is not clear if the slower response was caused by long term armoring impacts or by the beach nourishment restoration action. f. Before and after monitoring of the Olympic Sculpture Park (loft et al. 2013) showed: increased densities of larval fishes, increased densities of juvenile salmon, increased observance of juvenile feeding behavior, and had different invertebrates, and higher invertebrate taxa richness than nearby armored shorelines. All of these positive changes in habitat condition or use occurred on a site that is highly constrained, has high public use, and is surrounded by a highly urbanized environment. g. Munsch et al. 2016 found smaller juvenile salmon preferentially utilized low gradient shorelines, which were mostly unarmored, while larger juvenile salmon were associated with armored shorelines with deeper water and higher gradient transitions. h. Munsch et al. 2014 found that fish assemblages were different for seawall versus created beach sites in Elliot Bay. They found that chum and pink salmon were correlated with the beach sites at high tide while chum, pink and Chinook salmon were correlated with beach sites at low tides. They also found similar results to past studies that found most fish species avoided the heavily shaded areas under the piers in downtown Seattle. i. Munsch et al. 2015a found that for the diets of juvenile Chinook that insects were more abundant in smaller juvenile Chinook, while crab larvae were more abundant in larger juvenile Chinook. Chum salmon were found to preferentially consume harpacticoid copepods which had greater taxa richness at the beach habitats, but also found that they selected planktonic prey species predominately associated with armored shores. j. Munsch et al. 2015b found that fish species that are strongly associated with the bed of Puget Sound were impacted by the changes caused by shoreline armoring. They found fewer flatfish species associated with rocked/armored shorelines, while they found more lingcod associated with the armored shorelines. The flatfish results were similar to the results of Toft et al. 2007, where they found the densities of flatfish were reduced by shoreline armoring. k. Recent Puget Sound data has shown shoreline armoring impacts bird species, reducing the likelihood of song birds and shorebird presence, while increasing the frequency of gulls and crows. The results are similar to findings in California (Dugan et al. 2008). This information shows that there is a multi -species benefit to the removal of shoreline armoring (Heerhartz 2013). Beamer et al. 2013 looked at fry migrant Chinook use of non -natal streams along the marine shorelines in north of WRIA 9. While they did not directly sample streams in WRIA 9, they did find four factors that appeared to determine whether fry migrant Chinook would use non -natal streams: distance from a Chinook bearing stream/river; watershed area greater than 45 hectares; stream gradient less than 6.5%; and absence of a culvert at the mouth of the creek. 26 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) A 2014 Report has shown that new unpermitted armor has offset many of the restoration gains by the WRIA as of 2014, and many repairs to armoring are not going through the permit process (Higgins 2014). New surveys by WDFW show that forage fish spawn close to year round within the South Central Basin (unpublished data WDFW), combined with previous work on the importance of marine riparian vegetation for forage fish survival point to increased importance of riparian vegetation in WRIA 9, especially in south facing shorelines (Rice 2006). A new population of herring was found spawning in small numbers in Elliott Bay, near the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park in 2012. It is not clear what the parent stock is for this new spawning aggregation, or how long they have been spawning in Elliott Bay (Stick et al 2014). Given herring are an important food source for salmon, understanding this new population would be advantageous so it can be protected and enhanced. Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions: • Using the approach by Beamer et al. 2013, an analysis should be done of coastal streams throughout WRIA 9 to help prioritize which streams are most likely to support non -natal use by fry migrant Chinook so that those areas can be prioritized for future funding. • Findings by Munsch et al. 2016 point to the need to provide shallow water edge habitats in the marine environment, especially for the younger fry migrants that are smaller and in greater need of shallow habitats. Given the lower survival rates of the fry life history type noted in other sections above, providing this shallow water habitat like the pocket beach at the Olympic Sculpture Park should be a higher priority closer to the Duwamish where small salmonids first transition to the marine environment. • Future beach nourishment projects, like Seahurst Park, should be evaluated in a similar fashion as in Toft et al. 2014 to see if lower tidal elevations also experience slow recovery of invertebrate populations. Designs and monitoring should be implemented in a way to help differentiate the original impact of the shoreline armor versus the nourishment actions. • Undertake more spring and summer spawner surveys of forage fish in order to better understand how important riparian areas are to forage fish spawning in the WRIA 9 area are, especially for south facing beaches. • The issue of a high percentage of marine shoreline actions like bulkhead repairs and tree clearing being unpermitted, needs to be addressed or restoration gains will continue to offset by new impacts. • Continue to focus on restoring sediment recruitment and transport processes. 27 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) References by Section General & non -Green River specific 1. Bowerman, Tracy, M. Keefer, C. Caudill, 2016. Pacific Salmon Prespawn Mortality: Patterns, Methods, and Study Design Considerations. Fisheries, Vol. 41, No12. 2. Bryant, Mason D., 2000. Estimating Fish Populations by Removal Methods with Minnow Traps in Southeast Alaska Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20: 923-930. 3. Feyrer, Fredrick, T. Sommer, and W. Harrell. 2006. Importance of Flood Dynamics versus Intrinsic Physical Habitat in Structuring Fish Communities: Evidence from Two Adjacent Engineered Floodplains on the Sacramento River, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26:408-417. 4. Harza 1995. Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of Springbrook, Mill and Garrison Creek Watershed for the City of Kent. Bellevue, Washington. 5. Henry, R. E., T.R. Sommer, C. R. Goldman, 2010. Growth and Methylmercury Accumulation in Juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and Its Floodplain, the Yolo Bypass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:550-563. 6. Henning, Julie, 2004. An evaluation of fish and amphibian use of restored and natural floodplain wetlands. Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 7. Jeffres, C. A., J. J. Opperman, and P. B. Moyle. 2008. Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environmental Biology of Fishes 83:449-458. 8. King County, 2005. WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report -Scientific Foundation for Salmonid Habitat Conservation. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee, by King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 9. Kubo, J., 2017. Green River Temperature and Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee, by King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 10. Lestelle, L.C., McConnaha, W.E., Blair, G., Watson, B., 2005. Chinook salmon use of floodplain, secondary channel, and non -natal tributary habitats in rivers of western North America, Report prepared for the Mid -Willamette Valley Council of Governments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vashon, WA and Portland, OR. 11. Moyle, P. B., P. K. Crain, and K. Whitener. 2007. Patterns in the use of a restored California floodplain by native and alien fishes. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 5 12. Price, David M., T. Quinn, and R.J. Barnard, 2010. Fish Passage Effectiveness of Recently Constructed Road Crossing Culverts in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30.5: 1110-1125 13. Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 14. Ruggerone, G.T. and D. E. Weitkamp 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., and Parametrix, Inc. Seattle WA. 15. Sommer, T., B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001a. California's Yollo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries 26:6-16. 16. Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, and M. L. Nobriga. 2005. Habitat use and stranding risk of juvenile Chinook salmon on a seasonal floodplain. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1493-1504. Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, A. M. Solger, B. Tom, and W. Kimmerer. 2004. 28 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) Effects of flow variation on channel and floodplain biota and habitats of the Sacramento River, California, USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:247-261. 17. Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001b. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333. 18. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1998. Final Feasibility Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle District. 19. WRIA 9 ITC, 2012. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Seattle WA. Upper Green 1. Patterson et al. 2016 (DRAFT). Upper Green River Post-AWSP Habitat Monitoring: 2012/2013 Report. Tacoma Public Utilities - Water Division, Tacoma, WA. 2. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2007. Upper Green River Baseline Habitat Monitoring: 2005/2006 Report. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. Winans, G. A., M. Baird, J. Baker, 2010. A Genetic and Phenetic Baseline before the recolonization of Steelhead above Howard Hanson Dam, Green River, Washington. Middle Green 1. Anderson, J. H. and P. C. Topping, 2017. Draft Juvenile Life History Strategies and freshwater productivity of Green River Chinook Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee, Seattle WA. 2. Booth, D.B., J.B. Lando, E.A. Gilliam, T.E. Lisle, 2012. Investigation of fine sediment and its effect on salmon spawning habitat in the Middle Green River, King County, Washington. 3. Patterson, T., L. Sievers, R. Lamb, J. Lowry, and G. Volkhardt. 2015. 2011 RFM-02A Middle Green River Juvenile Salmonid Use Study. Tacoma Public Utilities Water Division, Tacoma Washington. 4. Konrad, C., H. Berge, R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen and J. Guyenet. 2011. Channel dynamics in the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936 to 2002. Northwest Science 85:1-14. 5. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2013. Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonid Habitat in Relation to Streamflow in the Middle Green River, Washington, Draft 2010 Data Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 6. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2006. Juvenile salmonid use of lateral habitat in Middle Green River, Washington, final data report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 7. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2013. Middle Green R. Habitat, Large Woody Debris Monitoring 8. R2 Resource Consultants (R2) 2014. Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River, Washington 2011/2012 monitoring results 9. Topping, P. C. and J. H. Anderson, 2014. Green River Juvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation: 2013 Annual Report. Lower Green 1. Gregersen, C. 2017. Draft 2014 Juvenile Salmonid Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle WA. 2. Lucchetti, G., K. Higgins, and J. Vanderhoof, 2014. A salmon -based classification to guide best management practices for agricultural waterways maintenance. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 3. McCarthy, S., C. Gregersen, K. Akyuz, L. Brandt, and J. Koon. 2014. Reddington levee setback project year 1 monitoring report. Water and Land Resources Division, King County. Seattle, Washington 29 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) 4. McCarthy, S., C. Gregersen, K. Akyuz, L. Brandt, and J. Koon. 2014. Reddington levee setback project year 1 monitoring report. Water and Land Resources Division, King County. Seattle, Washington 5. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2014. Lower Green/Duwamish River habitat Assessment. Duwamish 1. Campbell, Lance. 2017. New Otolith Study by WDFW from 2016 CWM grant. Results likely available late spring. 2. Cordell, J., J. Toft, A. Gray, G. Ruggerone, and M. Cooksey. 2011. Functions of restored wetlands for juvenile salmon in an industrialized estuary. Ecological Engineering 37:343-353. 3. Cordell, J., J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and A. Gray. 2006. Fish Assemblages and Patterns of Chinook Salmon Abundance, Diet, and Growth at Restored Sites in the Duwamish River. In 2005Juvenile Chinook Duwamish River Studies. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. David, A.T., P.A.L. Goertler, S.H. Munsch, B.R. Jones, C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, E.R. Howe, A.Gray, M.P. Hannam, W. Matsubu, and E.E. Morgan. 2016. Influences of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors and Tidal Restoration on Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages in West Coast North American Estuarine Wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts, 39: 1491 5. ICF International, 2010. Duwamish River Navigation Maintenance Dredging FY 2010: Water Quality Monitoring and Salmonid Report. Final Report; Seattle WA. 6. King County 2013. Draft. Juvenile Chinook Migration, Growth and Habitat Use in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers and Elliot Bay Nearshore. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle WA. 7. Meador, J. P. 2014. Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery -reared Chinook salmon? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71:162-180. 8. Morely, S., J. Toft, and K. Hanson. 2012. Ecological Effects of Shoreline Armoring on Intertidal Habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. Springerlink.com. 9. Oxborrow, B., J.R. Cordell, and J. Toft, 2016. Draft: Evaluation of Selected U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Habitat Restoration Projects, 2016. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. 10. O'Neill, Sandra M., A. J. Carey, J.A. Lanksbury, L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. Johnson, and J.E. West, 2015. Toxic Contaminants in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) migrating through estuary, nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. 11. Ostergaard, E., D. Clark, K. Minsch, S. Whiting, J. Stern, R. Hoff, B. Anderson, L. Johnston, L. Arber, and G. Blomberg. 2014. Duwamish Blueprint: Salmon Habitat in the Duwamish Transition Zone. Prepared by the Duwamish Blueprint Working Group for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Seattle, WA. 12. Ruggerone, G. T. and E. Jeanes. 2004. Salmon utilization of restored off -channel habitats in the Duwamish Estuary, 2003. Draft. Prepared for Environmental Resource Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. and R2 Consultants, Inc. Seattle, Washington 13. Ruggerone, G., T. Nelson, J. Hall, E. Jeanes, J. Cordell, J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and Ayesha Gray. 2006. 2005 Juvenile Chinook Duwamish River Studies. Habitat Utilization, Migration Timing, Growth, and Diet of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Duwamish River. Seattle, WA 14. Ruggerone, G. T. and E. C. Volk. 2004. Residence time and growth of natural and hatchery Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary and Elliott Bay, Washington, based on otolith chemical and structural attributes. Report to Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and Port of Seattle. 30 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016) 15. Simenstad, C., C. Tanner, C. Crandell, J. White, J. Cordell. 2005. Challenges of habitat restoration in a heavily urbanized estuary: evaluating the investment. Journal of Coastal Research. 40:6-23. 16. Toft, Jason D. and J.R. Cordell, 2017. Densities of Juvenile Salmon at Restored Sites in the Duwamish River Estuary Transition Zone, 2016, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. 17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2013. Duwamish River Fish Sampling Effort January -February 2013. Nearshore 1. Beamer, E.M., W. T. Zackey, D. Marks, T. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non -natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, WA. 2. Duffy, E. J. and D. A. Beauchamp. 2011. Rapid growth in the early marine period improves the marine survival of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Puget Sound, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:232-240. 3. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175:106-117. 4. Dugan, J.E., Hubbard, D.M., Rodil, I.F., Revell, D.L. & Schroeter, S. (2008). Ecological effects of coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Mar. Ecol., 29, 160-170 5. Heerhartz, S.M., Dethier, M.N., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Ogston, A.S., 2014. Effects of shoreline armoring on beach wrack subsidies to the nearshore ecotone in an estuarine fjord. Estuary and. Coasts 37, 1256e1268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl2237-013-9754-5 Publication: Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. 6. Heerhartz, S.M., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Dethier, M.N., Ogston, A.S., 2015. Shoreline armoring in an estuary constrains wrack -associated invertebrate communities. Estuary and Coasts. 7. Heerhartz, S.M. 2013. Shoreline armoring disrupts marine -terrestrial connectivity across the nearshore ecotone. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, PhD dissertation. 8. Higgins, K. F. 2014. WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring Compliance Pilot Project, King County Department of Natural Resources. Seattle WA. 9. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, and E.E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of Seawalls and Piers on Fish Assemblages and Juvenile Salmon Feeding Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:814-827 10. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2015a. Effects of seawall armoring on juvenile Pacific salmon diets in an urban estuarine embayment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 535: 213- 229. 11. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. 2015b. Effects of shoreline engineering on shallow subtidal fish and crab communities in an urban estuary: A comparison of armored shorelines and nourished beaches. Ecological Engineering, V 81, 312-320. 12. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, and J.D. Toft. Fine scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish community: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol 557: 1-15. 13. Rice, C.A. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification in northern Puget Sound: beach microclimate and embryo survival in summer spawning surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and Coasts 29(1):63-71. 14. Sitck, K.C., A. Lindquist, and D. Lowry. 2014. 2012 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia WA. 31 A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 — 2016) 15. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 465-480. 16. Toft, J.D., A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R. Cordell, E.E. Flemer. 2013. Ecological responses and physical stability of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline. Ecological Engineering, 57, 97-108. 17. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, and E.A. Armbrust. 2014. Shoreline armoring impacts and beach restoration effectiveness vary with elevation. Northwest Science 88:367-375 32 Appendix C: Green River Temperature and Salmon M fi A � I -41 44 .' ti y - t . ROGERTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE C-1 Green River Temperature and Salmon Technical Briefing for the Implementation Technical Committee By Josh Kubo February 27, 2017 WRIA 9 Technical Briefing Rationale • Warm water temperatures influence salmonid survival in WRIA 9 • Three areas in the Green River watershed have temperature TMDLs (completed or are still in process of completion): Middle and Lower Green River, Soos Creek, and Newaukum Creek • The WRIA 9 Forum recently adopted a new conservation hypothesis (All-7) that focuses on improving water temperature and reducing chemical contamination. This briefing documents the scientific basis for that decision, discusses known human impacts to water temperature, and discusses key actions that can improve water temperature. Water Temperature Drivers and Cold Water Refugia Factors influencing Stream Temperature (2, S, 8, 10, 12, 16, 21, 35, 37, 42, 71, 75, 89, 94, 99) • Climatic drivers (e.g., solar radiation, air temperature, precipitation, and windspeed) o Heat gains and losses from short -wave solar radiation (sun), long -wave atmospheric radiation (air temperature), and precipitation o Air temperature is the dominant factor explaining long-term stream temperature trends and inter -annual variability, except during the summer when discharge accounts for approximately half of the inter -annual variation in stream temperatures (e.g., during a dry year with exceptionally low flow, water is warmer) o Green River example: ■ Analyses indicate that air temperature appears to be the primary driver of water temperature in the Green River (20,44) • Stream morphology (e.g., dimension, pattern, profile, and bed materials) and topographic characteristics (e.g., aspect and confinement) o Friction created by water flowing over the bed increases water temperature and direct conduction from the stream bed can heat but usually cools water o Green River examples: 1 ■ Increase in daily temperature ranges (fluctuations between min and max) from Flaming Geyser State Park (RM 43.1) to just above Soos Creek (RM 33.4) is likely due to the relatively shallow water depth throughout this reach (Figure 1) (44) Figure 1: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the water depths estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (11,44) 1 1.2 25 U 20 Soos Creek Outlet of \ Mill Creek Howard Hanson Newaukum Creek Dam 1.0 0.8 L Q 0.6 co 0.4 0.2 0.0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile — Min -Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Water depth (m) ■ Smaller than typical increases in maximum temperatures in the Green River gorge (—RM 48-58) are likely due to topographic shading (44) ■ Narrowing of the daily temperature range and minimal increase in maximum temperatures from Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) are likely associated with alluvial deposits from historical connection to the White River (Figure 2) (44) Figure 2: Map showing the location of the historical confluence of the White River with the Green River(44) N 0 1.5 3 6 Miles �r1 `'{ 0 275 55 111GIomelers Legend ,j Digital Ground Model 1 -High 4400H Law Or! - Hlslorlcal While RNer c Iluence 1\� Coy -AY 1� Historical location of the White River ° 2 • Groundwater, hyporheic, tributaries, and tides o Infiltration and recharge throughout the watershed contribute to groundwater o Heat gains and losses from groundwater and tributary inputs can influence minimum and maximum temperature as well as buffer temperature fluctuations o Hyporheic exchange affects the minimum and maximum temperature, but has little effect on the daily average water temperature; hyporheic exchange doesn't lower the average temp, however, it can lower the 7-DMax as well as the range in daily temperatures o Tidal exchange can push colder estuarine salt -water up into lower portions of rivers o Green River examples: ■ Narrower temperature ranges around the Green River Gorge (—RM 48-58) are likely due to inputs of cold water via tributaries and springs (e.g., Palmer Springs, Icy Creek) and groundwater (20,44) ■ Narrow temperature ranges and minimal increases in maximum temperatures below Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) are likely due to increased hyporheic exchange along this portion of the river (Figure 3) (21,44) 30 25 �j 20 o ° m 15 N a E 10 5 0 Figure 3: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the hyporheic exchange flow estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL (20,44) Soos Creek Outlet of M\Creek Howard Hanson Newaukum Creek Min -Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Hyporheic Exchange Flow 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile 50 40 0 3 30ILL ° ° to rn c 20 U X W U 10 `o sz 2 0 -10 3 ■ In the Middle Green, primary diffuse flow (flows from ungauged tributaries and groundwater) occurs from RM 55 to RM 32 (Figure 4) (21,11) 30 25 �j 20 0 7 m 15 N a E H 10 5 0 Figure 4: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the estimated diffuse water inputs (ungauged tributaries and groundwater) estimated as part of the Green River Temperature TMD020,44) Outlet of Soos Creek Howard Hanson Newaukum Creek M\Creek n— Min -Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Diffuse TMDL model inflow 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile 30 25 5 0 ■ Large temperature ranges at downstream locations in the Duwamish River are likely due to fluctuations from warmer upstream water temperatures and cooler estuarine water(44) • Riparian corridor conditions o Riparian tree canopy buffers heat exchange between the river and solar -atmospheric radiation (heating caused by sun and warm air) ■ The effectiveness of shade provided by trees increases with the height of the trees, the width of riparian corridor, and the density of the planted riparian areas ■ Contiguous shade from wide riparian corridors (as compared to segmented or narrow corridors) is most effective at keeping water from warming from solar radiation o Wide riparian corridors support microclimate conditions that insulate stream temperatures from atmospheric radiation ■ Microclimate conditions from wide riparian corridors are most effective at insulating water from warmer air temperatures ■ A continuous buffer of at least 150 feet wide with trees —104 feet tall and 90 percent canopy density is necessary to prevent temperature increases o The absence of insulating and buffering influences will cause streams to rapidly trend away from groundwater temperature and toward atmospheric temperatures; where insulating and buffering influences are strong, downstream temperature trends are reduced or eliminated o Green River examples: ■ Downstream increase in maximum water temperatures below Howard Hanson Dam is primarily due to the lack of riparian shade (44) 4 ■ Shade deficit (difference between mature riparian shade and current conditions) exists throughout the Middle and Lower Green River riparian corridor, below Howard Hanson dam to the Green River George, and from below the gorge around Flaming Geyser State Park to Tukwila (Figure 5) (",") Figure 5: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on July 4, 2015 for the Green River mainstem compared to the estimated Effective Shade deficit determined as part of the Green River Temperature TMDL(20,44) 30 25 �j 20 o� 16 15 C a E 10 5 0 Soos Creek Outlet of Mill Creek Howard Hanson Newaukum Creek Dam 1� I I Min -Max Temperature (July 4, 2015) Effective Shade Deficit 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile 100 80 0 U 60 N m W 40 U W 20 ■ Priority areas for riparian plantings along the banks of the Green River, based on steep increases in maximum temperatures, include reaches downstream of Howard Hansen to —RM 58 and from —RM 48 to Newaukum Creek. ■ Geographic priorities for revegetation, in order of the most to least important, are: the mainstem Middle Green River and Lower Green River; Soos and Newaukum Creeks and their tributaries; the Duwamish River; tributaries to the Middle Green River, Lower Green River and the Duwamish; the Upper Green River; and finally, the marine nearshore, and nearshore drainages (98) Cold -water refugia for salmonids (52, 72, 86, 91) • Cold -water refugia are characterized as being at least 2°C colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters • Cold -water refuges provide areas that maintain temperature conditions beneficial for cold -water species such as salmonids; these areas provide physiological and ecological benefits • Permanent shifts in stream temperature regimes can render formerly suitable habitat unusable for native species • Fish may use cold -water refuges at various temporal and spatial scales o Basin scale: cold water refugia driven by elevation, topography, geology, channel slope, and interactions with surface and subsurface hydrology o Segment and reach scale: cold water refugia driven by tributary confluences, bounded alluvial valley segments (vertical hyporheic exchange), relic floodplain channels (lateral hyporheic exchange) 5 o Channel habitat unit scale = cold water refugia driven by tributary confluences, side -channels, vertical and lateral hyporheic exchange, diel and temporal variation • Cold water refugia can be eliminated by activities such as building levees and revetments along channels that block hyporheic exchange; urban development that prevents water infiltration, lowers groundwater tables, and removes trees • Potential cold water refugia in the Green River (below Howard Hansen Dam): o Green River gorge (—RM 48-58) (topographic shading and groundwater inputs) o Tributaries, confluences, and side -channels: Duwamish Tributary (RM 6.4), Palmer Springs (RM 56.3), Resort Springs (RM 51.3), Black Diamond Springs (RM 49.5), Icy Creek (RM 48.3), Crisp Creek (RM 39.6), Lones Levee Channel (RM 37.5), Coho Channel (RM 36.9) (Figure 6) (44) 30 25 & 20 N 7 15 aL Q H 10 5 0 Figure 6: Plot of 7-DMax water temperature on July 4, 2015 at Green River mainstem and selected tributary and side channel locations (20,44) Howard Hanson Mill Creek (41a) O Dam -------------- 0 0 Soos Creek (54a) Newaukum Creek (44a) Duwamisshh (13a) 0 CharleyCk LonesLeveeChnl i�utlaYCJL SmayCk 0 ✓ � r GaleCk Crisp Creek (40d) <>CohoChnl O Mainstem 7DMax NFGreen — — — Water Quality Standard Potential Lethality Threshold O Tributary 7DMax 80 60 40 20 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile o Groundwater and hyporheic exchange zones: RM 55 - RM 32 in the Middle Green; areas around alluvial deposits between Soos Creek (RM 33.4) to Mill Creek (RM 23.8) (Figure 3) (44) o Reaches downstream of Howard Hansen where hypolimnetic withdrawals bring colder water into the mainstem Green River • Potential cold water refugia in the Green River (above Howard Hansen Dam): o North Fork Green (RM 65.5), Charley Creek (RM 65.9), Gale Creek (RM 67.9), Smay Creek (RM 76.3), and Sunday Creek (RM 85.9) C N V c-i V n Ln O oo V n N Ln LO Ln N Ln M to Lr Lr) n oo i O N u 01 N lD Ln o6 n M LD N L') O oo V N V n a--i n M Ln N V Ln c-I oo �' (SS 4- c-I <0 N Lf) Ln 6lz n Ln c-I Ln o n N N Lr n M LO N Ln Ln Ol c�-I n lO V r, Ln m 0) U c c-I L!1 N Ln Ln o0 Ln oo lb N LD c-I N LO n �--I n Lnc-I V Ol Moo oo M LO N LO L!1 LO Ol Ln O Ln O C +, u O Q v 4� i� L OiL L CL U -2 >1 a) u 4 3 O Ln C a) v E LwLn U Ln LO > L U cu aJ � E v E a--' a) 0 —ai - 3 a, C u in OU m O E LE O f Q E -0a O >S a) 4-1 �+�+ UO j �iL lw M U Q) Lin () U C n s a) 16 E Q) E N C U �O Fa 0 v> O 'O O Ln Wm v> E — X D L N f6 Ln U 4-1 L� U — x a)>> v 7 � O L � f6 m L C= Q)O v C v a) O cr 4, n LnU co — E Q)Y -0 O Ln 6, O Ln 7 E cu v c6 "-' O O a S aU' c 1° a of a ate, �° .> _o Q E '°A 6 n U 4 O E E co a OL O n> E E� a = tw f- a a E twU n�-04-1 ai VI In N N a) a) a) a) (6 a) Ln -0 w Q) a) Ln 'O L f6 m +1 m M a) U U U U > M a) U U U m a) aJ v v U v U U U U a) L U a)a U U Q o Q N a a o • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • a U n x U U ° Q0 O -,a-U -i U N Q r-iLn ' N '11 N L M 0 � c-I N-4 h0 � n U U n v) U (j X N E cx6 � E Ln ,-I rl ra E ^ �^ 0) 7 ^ M Mu E x `° �' Q L " E -1 ,1 � ^ lfl p _ X n rl +, •X n n r-I ^ x mE Q x f6 n U E U ao nn r-in ' E ao Ln 0 E N a) U m a1 L dJ 0 M U o U O U p� ^> a) Lr);� U N> o > > i Ln r-I ' O n N U ~ m M M m I I (L6 N 00 r I U M N 1 o c�I n N I I > N I I +- v LNI n c I N M iD I I Cw f6 n N n II — M U — o C a) > m a) a) � 1 U -1 _ -1 n L v vv bn 4 II 00 E II bio cx6 a) a) a) > 0A E a� +, CL > b� ,1 v Y +� I� Oaj v M �—I (IjE N ; p aU) � (v > II v a) U a) > O t>o Q II Ln LO Ln Ln c6 II II > n > Ln c0 II II n W N E N E -0> h�0 O II E II Ln II O _ —4-1 °�° c° U `� O rB `° Q N E o v ra � ,FU Q E E E O O a)O O . n n f6 E U (0 E Ln 2 Q. I� U p rI p CD C7 Ln (D p L1 Ln E • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E ao tw4-1 o Q) C r L to Q O i) Q Q) a) ,� M p , 'a- V) = cu J Q C Q Q LU [6 10. Department of Ecology Sub -lethal and Lethal Temperature Thresholds • Water temperature is a key aspect of water quality for salmonids, and excessively high water temperature can act as a limiting factor for the distribution, migration, health and performance of salmonids (23, 24, 56, 57, 76) • Washington Department of Ecology established water temperature standards for salmon habitat at various stages of their life history in Chapter 173-201A of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) • Thresholds for sub -lethal impacts: 7-DMax (7 day average of the daily maximum temperatures) o Salmon and Trout Spawning = 13°C 7-DMax (September 151h to July 1st) o Core Summer Salmonid Habitat = 16°C 7-DMax (June 151h to September 15th) o Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, Migration = 17.5°C 7-DMax (September 16th to June 141h) • Thresholds for acute lethal impacts and barriers to migration: 7-DMax and 1-DMax (1 day average of the daily maximum temperatures) o Salmon acute lethality = 22°C 7-DMax and 23°C 1-DMax o Salmon barriers to migration = 22°C 1-DMax (3°C downstream differences) • Exceedances above the aforementioned thresholds indicate likely sub -lethal and lethal impacts to salmonid • If a water body is naturally warmer than or within 0.3°C of the standard/threshold for that water body, human caused increases (considered cumulatively) must not increase that temperature by more than 0.3°C Temperature Conditions in the Green River in 2015 (Following section based on King County 2016) The spring and summer of 2015 was abnormally warm and dry, with low snow pack due to a very warm winter. King County compiled water temperature data along the Green River from seven different entities in order to characterize water temperatures. According to climate change scenarios, we expect future years to look more like the spring and summer of 2015 than averages from the last 20 years. • Precipitation and air temperature: 0 2015 had average levels of fall and winter precipitation, but record warm temperatures led to winter rain rather than snow at higher elevations (snow drought) 0 2015 air temperature frequently exceeded the 901h percentile (1949-2015) on several occasions from January through July 2015 by as much as 5 °C; most notable were substantial excursions above the 90th percentile in June and July • Instream flow: o 2015 snowpack was low in the upper watershed; however, winter flows were not unusually low and summer flow targets set in the Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan for extremely dry weather were met or exceeded • Water temperature: o Water temperature in 2015 was similar to the 90th percentile (2001-2015) through late May; water temperatures were much higher than typical from late May through the beginning of July o 2015 peak daily maximum temperatures were observed in late June (compared to typical occurrence in July and August) o The relatively rapid rise in 7-DMax temperature between the outlet of Howard Hanson Dam and Kanaskat (approximately 6 miles downstream) was likely due to a lack of riparian cover o Relatively small increase in maximum temperature in the gorge is likely due to topographic shading and input of cold water via tributary springs o Increase in the diurnal range from Flaming Geyser State Park to Soos Creek is likely due to the relatively shallow water depth through this reach coupled with the lack of riparian shade o Narrowing of the temperature range below Soos Creek to Mill Creek is likely due to increased hyporheic exchange (potential for large alluvial deposits) • 2015 Compared to 2006 and 2003 o 2006 precipitation, snowpack, and air temperature were relatively typical of historic conditions; mainstem flows in 2006 were not unusually low o Water temperatures observed in 2006 were closer to 2001-2015 average conditions o The maximum 7-DMax temperatures observed downstream of the Green River gorge were consistently higher in 2015 compared to 2006 and 2003 o System potential shade model predictions illustrate that even with extensive amounts of additional shade along the entire river, water temperatures would still likely exceed criteria under critical flow and weather conditions ■ 2015 stands out as having the highest 7-DMax temperatures below the gorge — higher even than the "worst case" existing condition shade model Potential Temperature -related Impacts to Chinook in the Green (Following section based on King County 2016) • 7-DMax temperatures exceeded the relevant temperature standard throughout the mainstem — upstream and downstream of Howard Hanson Dam (exception being at the outlet of the dam up until late summer where discharge of cool hypolimnetic bottom waters from the pool behind Howard Hanson Dam cool mainstem temperatures) • The 7-DMax observed in July 2015 exceeded the 22 °C potential lethal criterion at almost every mainstem location sampled from Flaming Geyser State Park below the Green River gorge to the most downstream station in the Duwamish River • Green River Water Temperature Exceedances (Table 2) o Consistent exceedance of 7-DMax Salmon Core Summer Habitat criterion (mid -June to mid -September); 2015 had exceedance as early as late May o Consistent exceedance of 7-DMax Salmon Spawning Habitat criterion (mid -June to mid -September); 2015 had exceedance as early as late May o Occasional exceedance of 7-DMax Potentially Lethal criterion 0 >. c -a U') -o on L t t O -i O a) N O to 4+ _0 O L C N C O cLa \ E C N C co C a) C E E n3 CL O O O C a1 > O v C C L CC C C �--+ CC C Q L V) CC C 0 L Q L M ca a) m O L N m a) o 0 E Ln 0 +� ate+ UD L Ul +J t N U a) a) O (U+� O O _O 3 C O � N Q 2- -0 'a +L O V)O +� O +J 7 +� N W 4-1O -0 4-1 ai +� a) U }, N N C [O O bA a) �+ _0 C C O a1 \ _0 t l6 N L U O , U-0 U 4' t Ln 7 U c-I U O U x M x M c a x x x a) _ a) N O 0) a) 00 +, a) a) OA m a C C to � C - M U C C-CCU C a) c a) �a E 'E a) a) N .0 M a) a + ^ a) 2 •0 � a) M .c N 0 Q s 4 c m o v v c c a� c v� c W U E= @) oo Ll c v u a, u Ln c o .L O aa0i o +� x 0 0 o v n i O x= x c� .0 O L V) u U u L V) V) O C 3 U L V) U a) i V) i � I� V) \ N c U L 0 U a) a-•� 0 +' a) � 0 >. u� V) a) O a)) 4- 0 }, a) a-+ a) a-+ a) C C G a) 4- a) a) t0 L W) U L L � � t6 t6 L L to a) ut O t0 L t6 L a) L I6 O t0 L (0 L L a) c0 L a) L .= E •L •i L LL E CL L Q L Q Q ,} 0-L Q.. m Q co a) U s O a) u L Q) a ai a��i co a v c Q) v E v c CJ v X X a a ca x x '� L a) x a) o co -a x E x x c x L Q- co C ca a) C — C ? co O N M M E m a) a) a) a O m m co O 'i m E M -a -0 N p m p 0 >' p p � E p u u p p u p s p a O cV r� L n N .� 0 I� u n .� O vi X a) +� c6 X a! O I� u .� L u C I� r6 r-I N x m Lq Ln M M l0 l0 M rn l0 l0 M M N 2 ^ ^ rl e1 ^ ^ c-I c-I i--I ri ri ci rl ri ri c-I ci c-I ci p C C O O 00 M m h 0 dA i! 0 Ou Ou 7 C a 7 C C dA 0 O •+' 7 C M 0 4-1•+' C - OA 0 •+' 0A 0 •+' m 110 tw C f6 tz •� C C N -0 bA •� C M 7 w •� C M qA •� C M tz 0 L L O L L 0 M L ,C L L 0 M L L L L 'L •N \ L aA ca \ c tiq ca ca \ L oA ca Ma \ L oA ca mO m ra O a) C 0 O OC to 0 (n 0 Ln OC to 3 EL Ln m Ln Ln Ln o Ln o V � Y L a) v > p V)— Y Cn " u U C Y L Y a) a) M V' N CL 00 > v 7Lf 0 C L a) 0A d' a) m m Ut a) a) U CA N c c 0 Q) °) m N Ln L G Ln(7 - 0 OC n3 O O� 4-1 T i ra Y CO L a) Y Y CJ L a) = i -sea Q) 0) o� 0 > ace a) L - a ate+ r`a °C a) Li a)) Uu U N U +�•+ -am 6 a) mml6 — (0 f0 i co —4 Ln LL t (7 M N Ln • Green River Chinook life stages likely impacted by high water temperatures (Figure 7 & Table 3) o Parr rearing (core summer criterion) o Yearling rearing (core summer criterion) o Adult upstream migration (migration/spawning/incubation criterion) o Early spawning and incubation (spawning/incubation criterion) Figure 7 (adapted from King County 2016): Plot of 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County at the Whitney Bridge station (GRT10) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured from 2001-2014. State standards for designated uses are noted by the orange line and potentially lethal impacts are indicated by the red line. State standards for designated uses include core summer salmonid habitats (July 1—September 15) as well as spawning and incubation periods (September 16 —July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook life -stages included below. 25 2001-2014 Potentially Lethal —2015 —2016 20 Sub -Lethal 1 O�A V 15 _. vV E Vj A m 10 f 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Adult Upstream Migration I Spawning Incubation Incubation Yearling Rearing Fry Rearing Parr Rearing 11 N r-1 I I Lr) 1 111 Y N a1 N a) N N U U O O O E E 4J 7 a) O 1 a1 fC 3 rB 3 I Co I 00 O O z z 00 M 00 M 0C 00 00 cu aJ ro > I N v I N v O I O I 3 O N O c! 0 O t 0 O M O M O C C CC V) Q a1 �' �' vI V) (� CC VI E T E QI O •= a1 OA 4J 4 a1 w N +_�' aJ 00 i N 00 +' 1� 2 VI N — (SS m f6 `1 V) ra f0 V) O lD 4� 7 N C O l0 rO 4- 7 ° 0 N 4 C C ffu cc� G m J cc� G m J cc G CL c0 G C= U J 4- L Q) N V u � a a 3 s E an a°o > h cw ° u E mo ai 3 E ai >, c � a� > C ai v 00 V) w pp (B U C a, a `6 0 C t °° E Q a `° ° L 4' c0 E °' o a V, a)+' +� 0A 4- a. �} o N Q M (n 3 aJ M O Ln O L 4-1 a 4-1 a N .i v E v N fl o o° rn V) 4-1 •— L ., E E 4- c co a O E +� O_ E _ `� `a a' ° U sLn en _0 _0 v _0 v -0 E en -a V, _0 a) a, aEi v a, v a, 4 M a) o ° -a a _0 } V) ca v V) m 4--- V) tB > V) (a f6 a) V a) U a) U Q) U +� V) (u aj a) U a) U V) a� a) V Vl t0 v v O v E : � -a a) V ai v E a) -6 U U v U i V O v v v v diaJ O" +, a, a) Q v U a, w 0 V oC oC U Q ti Q Q a ai a c 0 4-1 _0 c E bb w C 1 O a1 a T (, M coo n ) Ln E a, to > J Q Q Q W 0 Potential Climate Change Impacts and Trends to Water Temperature Conditions • Climate Change impacts: higher air and water temperatures, lower summer flows, altered precipitation and hydrologic regimes, and increased magnitude/frequency of winter peak flows (4, 22, 37, 52, 53) • Summer periods of high temperatures and low flows o Summer flows have been trending lower for many decades resulting in decreased available habitats (48, 50, 77, 88) o Most models predict summer warming will exceed warming in other seasons (52,53,64) o At a summertime warming range of 2-5.5°C, there is potential for loss of 5 to 22% of salmon habitat by 2090 (69) o Significant increases in water temperatures and thermal stress for salmon statewide will occur with climate warming (52, 53) o Nearly 40-50% reduction in salmon cold -water habitat could occur with climate warming (19); Disrupting migration as fish hold in cold -water refuges (21,41,90) o Competitive interactions will be increasingly skewed towards species with warmer temperature tolerances (17,59) o Yearling likely sensitive due to increased exposure to the highest water temperature conditions in summer (4) • Changes in precipitation and hydrologic regimes o Changes in precipitation and temperature associated with regional warming in the PNW will alter snowpack and hydrologic regimes (22, 30, 49, 82) o Green River Watershed: significant reduction in snow water equivalence predicted to start in the 2020's; increased winter precipitation and decreased summer precipitation; higher runoff in cool season and lower runoff in warm season; altered timing of flows (22) o Shifting of watershed hydrographs from transient rain -snow and snow -dominant to rain -dominant (22) o Increased flood magnitude and frequency during incubation can decrease survival rates by scouring redds, crushing eggs, mobilizing gravels, and depositing fine sediments on redds (18, 7, 36, 61, 79) o Warmer cold season temperatures and warmer annual minima may shift biological processes (e.g. altered growth rates and food availability) ; warming trends will reduce the time between spawning and juvenile hatching (37); snowmelt driven freshets have advanced 2-3 weeks in last 50 years (73,88) o Possible desynchronization of juvenile hatching and emergence from optimal periods for flows and food availability (6) o Reduced availability of slow -water habitats, which can flush rearing juveniles downstream from preferred habitats and decrease freshwater survival rates (47) o Accelerated temperature regime during springtime can result in either earlier emigration (caused by more rapid development to the smolt stage) or less success in smoltification (caused by high temperature, desmoltification, or inhibitory effects) (16) Human alteration to river thermal regimes: o Dams: reduced thermal and flow variability, potential for hyporheic exchange to act as a temperature buffer is reduced by flow regulation, altered sediment dynamics, alter thermal dynamics from storage reservoirs (68, 70, 72, 93) ■ Howard Hanson Dam has a large, deep reservoir with hypolimnetic withdrawals releasing colder water during the summer and warmer water during late summer, fall, and winter 13 o Water withdrawals: reduced in -stream flows result in reduced assimilative capacity of streams, draw hyporheic water away from the stream (33, 60, 66, 72) o Channel engineering and connectivity (e.g., straightening, bank hardening, diking, and disconnection of surface -groundwater, side -channel, and floodplain exchange): decreases the interaction of stream channels with floodplain and alluvial aquifer, hyporheic areas, and reduces habitat variability (drive streambed hyporheic flow) (40,72,97) ■ Primarily Lower Green (King County maintains over 30 miles of levees and revetments on the Green/Duwamish); lower sections of the Middle Green. o Removal of vegetation (upland or riparian): reduced insulating properties (reduces convective heat exchange), limited blocking of solar radiation and trapping of cool air temperature, altered infiltration and hydrologic dynamics (35,56,6,98) ■ High priority areas with degraded riparian conditions include the Middle Green (RM 32 — 64), Lower Green (RM 11— 32), Soos and Newaukum, Duwamish River (RM 0 —11), small tributaries to Middle and Lower Green (e.g., Burns, Crisp, Mill, Mullen, Springbrook, Brooks creeks), etc. o Land use (e.g., impervious related development): altered hydrologic regime, decreased infiltration and recharge, altered exchange between reach and alluvial aquifer, reduced storage/higher winter flows and reduced summer recharge (10, 12, 67, 83) o Climate Change: increased air and water temperature, reduced snow storage (influencing summer low flows), altered precipitation and flow regime (frequency and timing of events), reduced rearing and suitable habitats availability, altered temperature -specific ecological timing across salmon life stages (4, 19, 22, 37, 48, S2, 53, 63) 14 Strategies for Cooler Water Temperatures • Protect riparian forested areas as buffers to air and solar radiation warming water. • Plant wide, contiguous riparian buffers of tall trees where possible. Priority areas include the six miles immediately downstream of Howard Hanson Dam, etc. (from above), and priorities listed in the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy. • Purchase conservation easements or fee simple acquisition of riparian areas in order to protect and maintain native trees along channels. • Protect existing cold water refugia from urban development, tree removal, and bank armoring. • Protect and restore areas known to contribute to groundwater recharge. • Restore areas of hyporheic exchange to cool water by setting back levees and taking other actions to reconnect channels to the historic floodplain. • Work with the ACOE to consider options for pulling cooler water from the reservoir behind Howard Hanson Dam, especially in late summer. • Reduce water withdrawals from the watershed, and encourage use of reclaimed water instead. • Encourage low impact development practices that reduce impervious surfaces, and lot sizes, maintain forested areas and wildlife corridors, and promote stormwater infiltration and treatment. • Retrofit developed areas to infiltrate and treat stormwater and plant trees to promote groundwater recharge, bolster summer stream flows, and cool stormwater runoff. 15 References 1. Alabaster, J, S,. 1988. The dissolved oxygen requirements of upstream migrant Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. J. Fish Biol 32:635-636. 2. Arismendi, I., S. L., Johnson, J. B. Dunham, and R. Haggerty. 2013. Descriptors of natural thermal regimes in streams and their responsiveness to change in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Freshwater Biol, 58: 880- 894. DOI: 10.1111/Fwb.12094. 3. Baker, P.F., T.P. Speed, and F. K. Ligon. 1995. Estimating the influence of temperature on the survival of Chinook salmon smolts (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha) migrating through the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta of California. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 52:855-863. 4. Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R. N. Palmer, K. K. Bartz, H. Imaki, and E. Korb. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proc of the Natl Acad of Sci of the U.S.A 104:6720- 6725. 5. Beschta, R. L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands: 25-28. 6. Brannon, E. L., M. S. Powell, T. P. Quinn, and A. Talbot. 2004 Population structure of Columbia River basin Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Rev Fish Sci 12:99-232. 7. Brett, J.R. 1958. Implications and assessments of environmental stress. pp 69-83 in P.A. Larkin (ed.) The investigation of fish -power problems, Vancouver, Institute of Fisheries, University of British Columbia. 8. Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman , J. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol Appl, 7: 1188-1200. 9. Brown, G. W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resour Res 5:68-75 10. Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas, 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289- 309. 11. Bumgarner, J., G. Mendel, D. Milks, L. Ross, M. Varney, J. Dedloff. 1997. Tucannon River spring Chinook hatchery evaluation. 1996 Annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hatcheries Program Assessment and Development Division. Report #H97-07. Produced for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cooperative Agreement 14-48-0001-96539. 12. Caissie, D., 2006. The Thermal Regime of Rivers: A Review. Freshwater Biology 51:1389-1406. 13. California Department of Water Resources. 1988. Water Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) with emphasis on the Sacramento River: A Literature Review. Northern District Office Report. Red Bluff, California. 42 p. 14. Clarke, W.C., and T. Hirano. 1995. Osmoregulation. In: Groot, C., Margolis, L., Clarke, W.C. Eds.., Physiological Ecology of Pacific Salmon. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 317-377. 15. Cooke, S. J., S. G. Hinch, A. P. Farrell, M. F. Lapointe, S. M. R. Jones, J. S. Macdonald, D. A. Patterson, M. C. Healey, and G. Van Der Kraak. 2004. Abnormal migration timing and high en route mortality of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, British Columbia. Fisheries 29:22-33. 16. Constantz, J. 1998. Interaction between stream temperature, streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine streams. Wat. Res. Research, 34: 1609-1615. 17. DeStaso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Trans Am Fish Soc 123: 289-297. 18. DeVries, P. E. 1997. Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and implications for scour studies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1685-1698. 19. Eaton, J. G., and R. M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnol Oceanogr 41:109-1115. 16 20. Ecology. 2011. Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 11-10-046. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1110046.html 21. Ebersole, J. L., P. J. Jr.Wigington, S. G. Leibowitz, R.L. Comeleo, and J. Van Sickle. 2015. Predicting the occurrence of cold -water patches at intermittent and ephemeral tributary confluences with warm rivers. Freshwater Science, 34: 111-124. DOI: 10.1086/678127. 22. Elsner, M. M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J. Deems, A. F. Hamlet, J. Vano, K. E. B. Mickelson, S. Y. Lee, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim. Change 102, 225e260. 23. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Biological evaluation of the revised Washington water quality standards. U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA. 24. Farrell, A. P., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, D. A. Patterson, G. T. Crossin, M. Lapointe, and M. T. Mathes. 2008. Pacific salmon in hot water: applying aerobic scope models and biotelemetry to predict the success of spawning migrations. Physiol and Biochem Zool 81(6):697-708. 25. Fish, F. F., and M. G. Hanavan. 1948. A report upon the Grand Coulee fish -maintenance project 1939-1947. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Science Report 55. 63 pp. 26. Fryer, J.L., and K.S. Pilcher. 1974. Effects of Temperature on Disease of Salmonid Fishes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Ecological Research Series. EPA-660/3-73-020. 114pp. 27. Goneia, T. M., M. L. Keefer, T. C. Bjornn, C. A. Peery, D. H. Bennett, and L. C. Stuehrenberg. 2006. Behavioral thermoregulation and slowed migration by adult fall Chinook salmon in response to high Columbia River water temperatures. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:408-419. 28. Greene, C. M., D. W. Jensen, E. Beamer, G. R. Pess, E. A. Steel. 2005. Effects of environmental conditions during stream, estuary, and ocean residency on Chinook salmon return rates in the Skagit River, WA. Trans of the Am Fish Soc 134:1562-1581 29. Hallock, R. J., R. F. Elwell, and D. H. Fry. 1970. Migrations of adult kind salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the San Joaquin Delta as demonstrated by the use of sonic tags. California Dept Fish Game Fish Bull 151. 92 pp. 30. Hamlet, A. F., and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Production of temporally consistent grid. 31. Healy, T. 1979. The effect of high temperature on the survival of Sacramento River chinook (king) salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, eggs, and fry. California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch, Administrative Report No. 79-10. 7 p. 32. Herring, T.A. 1982. Effects Of Temperature On Utilization Of Yolk By Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) Eggs And Alevins. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 39:1:184-190. 33. Hibbs, B., and J. Sharp. 1992. Impact of high capacity wells on flows of the lower Colorado River. New Waves 5:3- 4. 34. Holmes, R. M. 2000. The importance of ground water to stream ecosystem function. Pages 137-148 in J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholland (eds.). Streams and ground waters. Academic Press, San Diego. 35. Holtby, L. B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:502-515. 36. Holtby, L. B., M. C. Healey. 1986. Selection for adult size in female coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:1946-1959 37. Isaak, D. J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler. 2011. Climate change effects on stream and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980-2009 and implications for salmonid fishes, Clim. Change, d o i :10.1007/s 10584-011-03 26-z. 17 38. Johnson, S. L. 2003. Stream temperature: scaling of observations and issue for modeling. Hydrol Proc 17:497- 499. 39. Johnson, H.E., and R.F. Brice. 1953. Effects of transportation of green eggs, and of water temperature during incubation, on the mortality of Chinook salmon. Prog. Fish-Culturist 15:104- 108. 40. Jurajda, P. 1995. Effect of channelization and regulation on fish recruitment in a flood plain river. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10:207-215. 41. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, B. High. 2009. Behavioral thermoregulation and associated mortality trade-offs in migrating adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): variability among sympatric populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1734-1747. 42. Keery, J, A. Binley, N.Crook, and J. W. N. Smith. 2007. Temporal and spatial variability of groundwater -surface water fluxes: Development and application of an analytical method using temperature time series. J Hydrol, 336: 1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.003. 43. Kiffney, P. M., C. M. Greene, J. E. Hall, J. R. Davies. 2006. Tributary streams create spatial discontinuities in habitat, biological productivity, and diversity in mainstem rivers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 63: 2518-2530. DOI: 10.1139/f06-138. 44. King County. 2016. Green-Duwamish River 2015 Temperature Data Compilation and Analysis. Prepared by Curtis DeGasperi, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. 45. Knowles, N, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the Western United States. J Clim 19:4545-4559. 46. Kurokawa, T. 1990. Influence of the date and body size at smoltification and subsequent growth rate and photoperiod on desmoltification in underyearling masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou). Aquaculture 86: 209- 218. 47. Latterell, J. J., K. D. Fausch, C. Gowan, S. C. Riley. 1998. Relationship of trout recruitment to snowmelt runoff flows and adult trout abundance in six Colorado mountain streams. Rivers 6:240-250. 48. Leppi, J. C. , T. H. DeLuca, S. W. Harrar, S. W. Running. 2011. Impacts of climate change on August stream discharge in the Central -Rocky Mountains Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0235-1. 49. Lettenmaier, D. P., A. W. Wood,R. N. Palmer, E. F. Wood, E. Z. Stakhiv. 1999. Water resources implications of global warming: a U.S. regional perspective. Clim Change 43(3):537-579. 50. Luce, C. H., Z. A. Holden. 2009. Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest United States. Geophys Res Lett 36116401. doi:10.1029/2009GL039407. 51. Major, R. L., J. L. Mighell. 1967. Influence of Rocky Reach Dam and the temperature of the Okanogan River on the upstream migration of sockeye salmon. Fish Bull 66(1):131-147. 52. Mantua, N.J, I. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Clim Change, 102: 187-223. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9845-2. 53. Mantua, N.J., I. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet. 2009. Chapter 6 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 54. Marine, K. R., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1998. Effects of Elevated Water Temperature on Some Aspects of the Physiological and Ecological Performance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha): Implications for Management of California's Chinook Salmon Stocks. Stream Temperature Monitoring and Assessment Workshop, 12-14 January 1998. Sacramento, CA. Forest Science Project, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 55. Materna, E. 2001. Issue Paper 4: Temperature Interaction. Prepared as part of U.S. EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. EPA-910-D-01-004. 18 56. McCullough, D., S. Spalding, D. Sturdevant, and M. Hicks. 2001. Issue paper 5 summary of technical literature examining the physiological effects of temperature on salmonids : prepared as part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Seattle, WA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 57. McCullough, D. A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to Chinook salmon. Water Resour Assess, U.S. EPA 910-R-99-010, 291 pp., Seattle, WA. 58. Mcdonald, J. S., M. G. G. Foreman, T. Farrell, I. V. Williams, J. Grout, A. Cass, J. C. Woodey, H. Enzenhofer, W. C. Clarke, R. Houtman, E. M. Donaldson, and D. Barnes. 2000. The influence of extreme water temperatures on migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during the 1998 spawning season. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2326 117 p. 59. McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, F. T. Barrows, J. H. Selong, R. J. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:1313-1326. 60. Meier, W., C. Bonjour, A. Wuest, and P. Reichert. 2003. Modeling the effect of water diversion on the temperature of mountain streams. J Environ Eng 129:755-764. 61. Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, D. Schuett Harries, T. P. Quinn. 1996. Streambed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1061-1070. 62. Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. J Am Water Resour Ass 41:813-834. 63. Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86:39-49. 64. Mote, P. W., and E. P. Salathe Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's future in a changing climate. Climate Change. d o i :10.1007/s 10584-010-9848-z. 65. Murray, C.B. and T.D. Beacham. 1987. The development of chinook and chum salmon embryos and alevins under varying temperature regimes. Can. J. of Zoology 65:11:2672-2681. 66. National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 452 pp. 67. Nelson, K. C., M. A. Palmer. 2007. Stream temperature surges under urbanization and climate change: data, models, and responses. J Amer Water Resources Ass 43:440-452. 68. Olden, J. D., R. J. Naiman. 2009. Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. Freshw Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02179.x 69. O'Neal, K. 2002. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 46 pp. 70. Poff, N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M. Acreman, A. Apse, B. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G. Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O'Keeffe, J. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme, and A. Warner. 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55:147-170. 71. Poole, G. C. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biol, 47: 641-660. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00922.x. 72. Poole, G. C., C. H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in -stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human -caused thermal degradation. Environ Manage, 27: 787-802. DOI: 10.1007/s002670010188. 19 73. Regonda, S. K., B. Rajagopalan, M. Clark, J. Pitlick. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the Western United States. J Clim 18:372-384. 74. Rice, G. 1960. Use of coldwater holding facilities in conjunction with king salmon spawning operations at nimbus hatchery. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 60-3. Region 2, Inland Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 75. Rice, S. P., M. T. Greenwood, C. B. Joyce. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal organization of macro invertebrate fauna along river systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 58: 824-840. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-58-4-824. 76. Richter, A., S. A. Kolmes. 2005. Maximum Temperature Limits for Chinook, Coho, and Chum Salmon, and Steelhead Trout in the Pacific Northwest. Rev in Fish Sci, 13:1,23-49. DOI: 10.1080/10641260590885861. 77. Rood, S. B., J. Pan, K. M. Gill, C. G. Franks, G. M. Samuelson, A. Shepherd. 2008. Declining summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: changing seasonal hydrology and probably impacts on floodplain forests. J Hydrol 349:397- 410. 78. Schreck, C. B., J. C. Snelling, R. E. Ewing, C. S. Bradford, L. E. Davis, C. H. Slater. 1994. Migratory behavior of adult spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette River and its tributaries. Oregon Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Project Number 88-160-3, Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 79. Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, L. Kishimoto. 2003. 2002 Skagit River wild 01 chinook production evaluation annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia 80. Servizi, J. A. and D. W. Martens. 1991. Effect of Temperature, Season, and Fish Size on Acute Lethality of Suspended Sediments to Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:493-497. 81. Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 127 pp. 82. Snover, A. K., A. F. Hamlet, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2003. Climate change scenarios for water planning studies: pilot applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84(11):1513-1518 83. Somers, K.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.B. Grace, B.A. Hassett, E.B. Sudduth, S. Wang, and D.L. Urban. 2013. Streams in the Urban Heat Island: Spatial and Temporal Variability in Temperature. Freshwater Science 32:309-326. 84. Stabler, D. F. 1981. Effects of altered flow regimes, temperatures, and river impoundment on adult steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. MS thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 84 pp. 85. Steel, E. A., C. Sowder, and E. E. Peterson. 2016. Spatial and temporal variation of water temperature regimes on the Snoqualmie River network. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1-19. DOI: 10.1111/1752- 1688.12423. 86. Steiger, J., M. James, and F. Gazelle. 1998. Channelization and consequences on floodplain system functioning on the Garonne River, SW France. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 14:13-23. 87. Stefansson, S.O., B. Th. Bj6rnsson, L. O. E. Ebbesson, and S. D. McCormick. 2008. Smoltification. In: Finn, R.N., Kapoor, B.G. (Eds.), Fish Larval Physiology. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp. 639-681. 88. Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. J Clim 18:1136-1155. 89. Sullivan, K., and T. N. Adams. 1991. The physics of stream heating: 2) An analysis of temperature patterns in stream environments based on physical principles and field data. Weyerhaeuser Company Technical Report 044- 5002/89/2. 90. Sutton, R. J., M. L. Deas, S. K. Tanaka, T. Soto, R. A. Corum. 2007. Salmonid observations at a Klamath River thermal refuge under various hydrological and meteorological conditions. River Res Appl 23:775-785. 91. Torgersen, C. E., J. L. Ebersole, and D. M. Keenan. 2012. Primer for identifying cold -water refuges to protect and restore thermal diversity in riverine landscapes, US Environmental Protection Agency Report 910-C-12-001, Seattle, Washington, 78 pp. 20 92. Velsen, F. P. J. 1987. Temperature and incubation in Pacific salmon and rainbow trout: compilation of data on median hatching time, mortality, and embryonic staging. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 626:58p. 93. Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:105-119. 94. Webb, B.W., D.M. Hannah, R.D. Moore, L.E. Brown, and F. Nobilis, 2008. Recent Advances in Stream and River Temperature Research. Hydrological Processes 22:902-918. 95. Webb, B. W, and Y. Zhang. 1997. Spatial and seasonal variability in the components of the river heat budget. Hydrol Proc 11:79-101. 96. Wedemeyer, G.A., R.L. Saunders, and W.C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental Factors Affecting Smoltification and Early Marine Survival of Anadromous Salmonids. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42:6:1-14. 97. Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. E, McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves, and J. R. Sedel. 1994. Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-326. 98. WRIA 9 Revegetation Work Group. 2016. Re -Green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). Written for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. 99. Zaugg, W.S., and H.H. Wagner. 1973. Gill ATPase Activity Related to Parr -Smolt Transformation and Migration n Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Influence of Photoperiod and Temperature. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 4513:955-965. 21 Appendix D: WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon M fi A � I .' ti y -- t . ROGERTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE D-1 WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon Technical briefing for the update to the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. Authored by Jessica Engel, Kollin Higgins and Elissa Ostergaard with input by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee. July 2017 Introduction In the twelve years since the adoption of the 2005 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (Plan), there have been many successes and challenges for the salmon recovery effort in our local watershed, and the greater Puget Sound. With each recovery project planned and implemented, we understand more about the complexity of this undertaking. One of the most pressing environmental concerns affecting the long-term success of salmon recovery in the Green/Duwamish Watershed is the impacts of climate change. Climate change science was not incorporated into the 2005 Plan, because future climate scenarios were unclear. However, climate change has been the focus of intense research, both global and regional, over the last decades. The research from the Puget Sound region, especially from the University of Washington's Climate Impact Group (CIG), has been informative. The clear message from this research is that we must prepare for the current and future impacts of climate change and incorporate what we know about climate change into salmon recovery actions. Climate change will directly impact salmon recovery work done in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. CIG and others predict that Pacific Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bringing warmer, wetter falls, winters, and springs. Floods will be more intense and more frequent. As winters become warmer and wetter, snow will melt from the mountains earlier and more quickly. The decrease in amount and earlier disappearance of the snow pack will exacerbate drought -like summer low flow conditions in currently snow - dominated areas of the watershed. Hotter air temperatures will increase water temperature in both rivers and the ocean. Nearshore and estuary areas will be impacted by sea level rise, food web alteration and ocean acidification. A changing climate will exacerbate typical climate variability causing environmental conditions that will negatively impact our salmonids and their habitat. This was observed in summer of 2015 when a warm, wet winter with extreme low snow pack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon (DeGasperi 2017). The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reported adult Chinook salmon dying in the stream just below the Soos Creek hatchery (H. Coccoli, pers. comm.), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data indicated higher than typical numbers of female Chinook with high egg retention (pre -spawn mortality) (Draft WDFW data 2017) . The true impact of 2015 will not be understood for several years. We do know that impacts from climate change are occurring, will continue and get worse, and will affect all life stages of Pacific salmon (Mauger et al. 2015). While we know the climate is changing, the magnitude and precise timing of those changes are less certain. This issue briefing is for planners, citizens, policy makers and restoration practitioners involved in salmon recovery to understand the expected impacts and help prioritize restoration and protection actions that will help mitigate the effects of climate change. For this paper, we rely on the science in the CIG State of Knowledge report, which predicts climate change impacts into mid-century. This document is intended to highlight the best available science about climate change and the ways salmon and their habitat will be impacted in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. The key actions from this report are recommendations for restoration priorities that build resilience for salmon as well as the larger ecosystem, rather than a list of specific prioritized habitat restoration projects. References to the relevant literature are included; readers may refer to those for more information on topics of interest. Climate variability, expected changes, and impacts to salmon The Puget Sound's diverse landscape and climate have driven adaptation and biodiversity in our local flora and fauna. The Pacific Northwest climate naturally varies seasonally as well as year to year between cool and hot, wet and dry. We are familiar with the natural variability in our atmospheric weather and oceanic patterns, but ocean conditions also vary on inter -annual and decadal scales. Year to year variability is generally associated with the familiar El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which affects ocean temperatures as well as global precipitation and temperature. Longer term decadal patterns are often described by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; see section 6 for more information), a pattern defined by variations in sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific (NWFSC, NOAA https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm). The Puget Sound region is already experiencing some of the ways climate change will exacerbate and prolong naturally occurring stressful environmental conditions. The rate of current greenhouse gas emissions will make these extreme conditions more common in coming decades. We have already seen higher than normal air temperatures; by mid-century, annual average air temperatures are projected to rise between 2.3 and 3.3 degrees Celsius (C) (4.2 — 5.9 degrees Fahrenheit), exacerbating surface water warming. Models used to inform the Climate Impact Group's State of the Knowledge Report show a decline in summer precipitation and increases in precipitation during fall, winter and spring. The region's snowpack is expected to decrease with warmer, wetter winters. The decline in snow pack has been observed through the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) snow telemetry monitoring (SNOTEL). In 2015, the water derived from snow melt was recorded well below the 30 year median from December to July. However, the data from NRCS show that overall precipitation in the Green/Duwamish watershed was average in 2015, indicating that in this year precipitation shifted from snow to rain (www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/snow/) (Figure 1). The data from NRCS and other sources show that typical snow - dominated elevations are shifting to more rain and less snow, and that headwater areas typically dominated by rain -on -snow events will become rain -dominated. This suggests that our region will experience more precipitation as rain, less snow, more frequent and severe rain -driven flooding events, and more very low summer flows (Mauger et al. 2015). Stampede Pass (788) Washington SNOTEL Site - 3850 ft in 8o 60 40 20 0 •20 Time Snow Water Equivalent (in) Median Snow Water Equivalent(1981-2010) (in) Precipitation Accumulation(in) Average PrecipitationAccu mulation (1931-2010) (in) Figure 1. Plot of cumulative snow water equivalent and precipitation for 2015 water year at the Stamped Pass SNOTEL site compared to historic data (from King County 2017 Climate change will challenge the survival of salmon in our watershed. Pacific Northwest salmon populations have declined dramatically over the last several decades, and climate change impacts are expected to further degrade salmon numbers in the years ahead, affecting salmon life histories, feeding, migration, growth, and health. Thus it is urgent that we implement projects and policies that restore and protect areas to improve our basin's hydrologic patterns and habitat functions that support salmon in their various life stages. Salmon recovery advocates in the basin must implement restoration and protection actions that remain successful under a changing climate. Climate effects should influence the way WRIA 9 partners approach recovery now and in the future. Projected climate changes and their impacts to salmon are summarized in Figure 2, which shows the anticipated timing of climate impacts seasonally and their effects on the associated salmonid life stages in fresh water and estuarine areas. Table 1 shows each climate impact's effects on salmon - as well as the primary areas of the basin where each effect will be felt. Together, the table and figure can be used to understand, in brief, how and where projected climate impacts will affect salmon in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed. m % @ » lil a / f \ r.L -0 j I -j E :#«:! §::f® -Ke:r ��\k( |;27z B§I,\ # Table 1. Anticipated climate effects, impacts to salmon and critical geographic areas of occurrence. Climate impact Salmon impact Primary geographic area Hydrology Shifting timing of life cycle transitions; Upper Green, tributaries and nearshore scouring/smothering redds; stranding drainages, especially where it is currently snow- redds and juveniles; loss of thermal dominated in winter will have the greatest and flood refugia; less complex habitat; impacts — Soos, Newaukum, Mill, Mullen creeks migration barriers due to extreme low (and other lower elevation tributaries) will be and/or high flows impacted primarily by increased winter rain intensities and lower flows as they are not directly affected by mainstem flow management or snow. Impacts to the Middle and upper Lower Green spawning reaches may be somewhat mitigated by water management at the HHD. Temperature Can be lethal above 22 degrees C; sub- Temperature will be a concern for the whole lethal effects above 17 C include watershed. However, the mainstem is generally developmental abnormalities, altered warmer than the tributaries and will likely to growth rates, non -fertilization of eggs; remain so into the future. altered food web; altered migration timing; altered predator/prey relationship; reduced disease resistance Stormwater runoff Increased peak flows and reduced Existing developed areas generally do not meet summer base flows causing channel today's stormwater control standards; runoff scour and incision, channel and habitat generally is directed quickly via pipes to streams degradation for fish as well as benthic and Puget Sound without treatment. Hydrologic invertebrates, resulting in an altered effects are primarily to tributary streams and food web, and compounding other direct drainages to Puget Sound. Infiltration hydrologic effects. Increased erosion reduces pollutant concentrations and slows the could cause an increase in mobilized flows into streams, reducing potentially harmful fine sediments, which in addition to peak flows. Frequent, intense peak flows could degrading habitat for salmon by filling result from a combination of increased urban in gravels and smothering redds, may density and more intense winter storms. Some carry toxic contaminants. Increased toxic pollutants may increase due to increased water pollution may cause chemical storm runoff in combination with increases in contamination of juvenile salmon and population, particularly those that are detected their prey, food web alteration and year-round. pre -spawn mortality. Sedimentation Lethal conditions, smothering of Upper Green, Middle Green interstitial spaces in redds and choking of gills; interference with migration cues; decreased resistance to disease; altered /decreased habitat Sea level rise Shifting habitat range; loss of estuarine The Puget Sound nearshore and the Duwamish habitat; altered food web; could create River. Lower lying areas and armored shorelines passive gains in habitat depending on in the Central Puget Sound watershed nearshore nearby infrastructure constraints, (West Point to Federal Way and Vashon-Maury elevation, and vegetation gradients Island) and Duwamish estuary are most at risk to habitat shifts/loss Ocean acidification and Altered food webs; decreased food Puget Sound, Salish Sea, and Pacific Ocean increased temperature availability; decreased ocean survival; diminished dissolved oxygen affecting metabolism; altered migration pattern Hydrology Climate Impacts on Winter Hydrology Stream flows in winter will be affected in the following ways: • More winter precipitation will fall as rain and less as snow. • Upper areas of the watershed will have less snowpack, which will change the runoff pattern dramatically. Instead of having moderate runoff events in winter and again in spring, there will be much more runoff in winter and much less in spring (Figure 4 and 4). This will affect water temperatures as well, especially in spring and early summer. • More intense rainstorms in winter will cause higher winter peak flows. • Winter peak flows are expected to increase by 28%-34% by the 2080s (Mauger et al. 2015). • Average annual rainfall is projected to increase slightly (but the increase will be small relative to natural variability) (Mauger et al. 2015). — Historical A1B 2040s AlB2080sZ rNearshore and Green River and � lowland upper elevation ti< tributaries 8 tributaries \ Get Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Month Month Figure 3. Streamflow is projected to increase in winter and decrease in spring and summer in all WRIA 9 drainages, with the biggest changes occurring in "mixed rain and snow" basins. Results are shown for a typical warm, lowland basin (left), and a typical upper elevation basin with substantial area near the current snow line. Adapted from Hamlet et al. (2013) r, Monthly Streamflow, Green River .c Source: CMIP3 Historical Moderate Emissions (Al B) Moderate Emissions range (Al B) v `'a "a Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Auq Sep 0 0 LO cD v o 00 8 o r� CV a: 0 0 \ / a Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Source: CMIP3 Historical Moderate Emissions (Al B) Moderate Emissions range (Al B) a 1 Anr Mav Jun Jul Aua Sen Month Figure 4. Less snow and more rain in winter is projected to cause higher peak stream flows in winter and less stream flow in spring. This pattern becomes more pronounced over time. Source: University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, PS State of Knowledge Report (Mauger et al. 2015).. Climate Impacts on Summer Hydrology Summer stream flows are expected to change in the future as follows: • Diminishing snowpack will lead to lower river flows earlier in the year and extending through summer. • Decline in summer rain (22% less summer rain likely by 2050's (Mauger et al. 2015)). • Less summer rain will extend the duration of low flow impacts such as warmer stream temperatures, streams disconnected from floodplains and lakes, changes from year-round to seasonal flow over more area, and less available habitat. • Lower water during summer will result in less complex habitat for fish because the channel edge will no longer be next to edge vegetation, which fish use as cover. Salmon Impacts • The change in hydrologic patterns from climate change will likely have both episodic and catastrophic impacts to the survival rate of salmonid populations. • Hydrologic disruption will alter the timing and magnitude of high and low stream flows and the corresponding temperatures. 7 Winter Impacts on Salmon • More frequent winter floods will increase the risk of redd scouring and flushing early hatched fry down into lower river and salt water habitats, reducing incubating egg and fry survival rates respectively. This impact will occur throughout spawning reaches, but especially in spawning reaches with levees that focus flood energy and limit floodplain connectivity. These risks can be reduced or increased on the mainstem by flow management choices made at the Howard Hanson Dam. Risks can be reduced by capturing flood waters above the dam. Risks can be increased, especially when flows are kept artificially high (above scour velocities) for longer periods than natural to reduce water levels in the reservoir to make room for incoming storms. CIG is undertaking further analysis of climate change impacts on the Green River that takes into account the effects of the Howard Hanson Dam. This section should be revisited after that analysis is completed. • In tributaries, increased winter flows can bring increased sediment loads that smother redds, and reduce a juvenile salmon's ability breath, reducing survival. In the mainstem Green River below Howard Hanson Dam, sedimentation rates are expected to be low because a large amount of the coarse sediment is captured above the dam in the reservoir. • High winter flows will decrease slower water habitat available for juvenile fish in some areas. In others, it will increase juvenile salmon access to off -channel, floodplain habitats for rearing. High flows may also cause benefits by causing channel migration, which could create new slow water habitats. In such cases, stranding of juveniles could occur. • Lack of slower water habitat increases the risk of flushing juveniles rearing in the freshwater out to estuary or ocean too soon. • Higher peak flows are expected to increase bank erosion, creating wider bank full widths for local area streams, especially in snow dominated areas. This will exacerbate existing undersized culverts (Wilhere et al. 2016). Summer Impacts on Salmon • Reduced water levels early and higher water temperatures could disrupt or modify juvenile chinook migration, and salmon and steelhead adult migration and spawning. • Less water will limit the amount of spawning habitat available. • Declining snowpack will reduce duration and volume of spring snow melt. • Decreased spring and summer flows and warmer water will be the result of dry summers and high air temperatures, as we saw in summer 2015 (Figure 5) (DeGasperi 2017). • Earlier low flows can disconnect stream habitats and strand juvenile fish and prevent access to spawning areas. • The concentration of fish in a few areas due to low flows, can increase the spread of disease, food competition and predation. 30 25 -j 20 0 ca 15 L Q E H 10 5 0 Soos Creek Outlet of \ Mill Creek Howard Hanson Newaukum Creek Dam r July 4, 2015 TMDL 7Q10 Existing Shade TMDL System Potential Shade Water Quality Standard — — — — — — - Potential Lethality Threshold July 24, 2006 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 USGS/WDFW River Mile Figure S. Stream temperatures measured along the length of the Green River from above the Howard Hanson Dam reservoir to Tukwila at River Mile 7.9 on July 4, 2015. Temperatures are well above state temperature standards for the 7-day average daily maximum, and reached lethal levels in all subwatersheds. From (DeGasperi 2017). Local context The majority of the basin will feel the effects of higher winter flows due to either reductions in snow fall or increases in rain intensity. Increases in the length of time of summer low flows will likely affect portions of the upper Green subwatershed most, as well as the mainstem Green River below the dam. The effects on the mainstem below the dam may be mitigated to a limited extent by water management of the reservoir. Reaches that are leveed, even partially, and disconnected from their floodplains will exhibit the largest impacts in frequency and intensity of winter flows. The Lower Green has a high proportion of leveed banks, and the Middle Green River has discontinuous levees. In the Lower Green the floodplain has been largely disconnected, with only about 20% of its historic floodplain area still accessible during a 100-year flood event (Figure 6). Even the less frequently leveed spawning reaches in the Middle Green River will be less hospitable to salmon with these hydrologic changes. 9 30.00 N 25.00 c° 20,00 a J i+ t lu 15.00 - ■ Not forested ■ Forested a 10.00 c 5.00 J 0.00 Duwamish Lower Green Middle Green Figure 6. Length of banks with levees and revetments managed by King County Flood Control District in each subwatershed area along the main stem Green and Duwamish Rivers, and the amount forested and unforested. Data from King County GIS (does not include all flood facilities). Lower summer flows will affect most streams and rivers. These conditions will reduce the amount of habitat area available, allow for quicker increases in water temperature, and the loss of the late spring/early summer increase in flows from snow melt may cause younger fish to leave the system earlier due to warm water and less habitat area, resulting in lower overall productivity. Small tributaries in the Green River valley, Duwamish tributaries, and nearshore drainages will likely go dry or become disconnected from the mainstem or Puget Sound more frequently. Technical Recommendations • To address low summer flows, groundwater, and low volume storm events, implement low impact development practices and green stormwater infrastructure, including runoff dispersion and infiltration, where soil conditions allow and where it will not increase risks of landslides or flooding downslope. Increasing infiltration can replenish groundwater and maintain stream flows during warm, dry weather. • Install and/or retrofit stormwater management infrastructure to address the increased runoff volume from current and future development and projected climate change. • Research and implement innovative restoration practices (e.g., beaver introduction, wetland restoration, stormwater management programs, policies and technologies) where appropriate to dampen the effects of shifting hydrology. Work toward resilience by encouraging natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. • Identify how habitat boundaries, such as floodplains, are changing. Protect shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change advances. Protect habitat outside current habitat boundaries. Secure land that will be inundated by increased flooding and sea level rise. 10 • Headwaters are critical to providing cool, plentiful water. Monitor land use closely to minimize impacts to hydrology. In particular, where headwater streams are disconnected from their floodplains, work on reconnection to restore processes of water storage. • Restore floodplain areas that provide flood storage and slow water during frequent, "ordinary" flood events (e.g., those that occur every one to five years) by reconnecting the floodplain (e.g., removing/setting back levees). This will be important above and adjacent to spawning grounds to counter the increased risk of higher flows scouring spawning areas. • Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries. • Culverts have a life span of 50 to 100 years. Design new and replaced culverts to accommodate expected flows in 50 to 100 years so new fish passage barriers are not created. • Work with water supply and dam operators like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Tacoma Public Utilities to use reservoirs to ameliorate hydrologic impacts, especially during low flow periods. • Undertake an evaluation of water rights in the basin. Consider creating a follow up program to acquire water rights to rededicate back to the river, and support efforts to retain sufficient flows for fish. • Support expanding outreach programs that reduce water usage in order to have more water available for streams and rivers (e.g. basic education, incentives for residences to upgrade to low flow devices, improve efficiency of irrigation systems). • Consider placing more importance on increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve hyporheic exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures. • Studies have shown that young tree stands (<100 years) can decrease summer base flows by almost half. Work with forestry managers and researchers to investigate longer stand rotations and selective logging to improve basin hydrology (Perry and Jones 2016). Temperature Climate Impacts • Water temperatures will be affected by the air temperature anticipated increase by 4 to 5 degrees F by 2080 (Figure 7) (Mauger et al. 2015, Mauger 2016), • Increased air temperatures keep streams from cooling down as they used to over evenings or seasons. Over the last century, the frost -free season has lengthened by 30 days, with nighttime temperatures increasing by 1.1 degrees C (Mauger et al. 2015). • Globally, fifteen of the last sixteen years have been the warmest years on record (NOAA 2016) (Mauger et al. 2015) • Warmer temperatures will accelerate snow melt in the summers and decrease snow accumulation in the winters. Streams will not have a source of cool water in spring in the upper portions of the watershed. • During low flow periods, groundwater will likely have a greater influence on streams as a water source and temperature regulator (King County, 2016, unpublished raw data). 11 _- Historic".. , Stream Temperatures < 120C 120C - 160C 160C - 180C ? 18 ° C Figure 7. Projections of how changes in air temperature produced by climate models will affect stream temperatures in the Green River Basin (Mauger 2016, based on NoRWeST data). Salmon Impacts • Warm water temperatures in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters can cause lethality and many sub -lethal effects that can reduce productivity for many life history stages of salmon • Water temperatures above 23 degrees Celsius can kill salmonids within a few seconds to hours (Ecology, 2000). • Warm water impacts on adult salmon: o Adult salmon avoid swimming through water warmer than 16 degrees Celsius, which can disrupt their migration for spawning. o Water at 21-22 degrees Celsius can block migration, resulting in pre -spawn mortality. o When salmonids hold and migrate in higher temperature water, there is an increase in sub -lethal effects such as egg abnormalities (e.g., odd number of eyes) or outright mortality (Richter and Kolmes 2005). 12 • Sub -lethal effects of warmer stream temperatures can lead to lower growth, reduced fitness and survival of juvenile salmonids as follows: o Warm water decreases the supply of oxygen available to fish, disrupts metabolism, and increases susceptibility to toxins (Crozier 2015). o Dissolved oxygen decreases in warm water, creating "dead zones." Even if fish can leave these zones, some important food sources cannot move and will die, decreasing salmon food supply. If the fish cannot escape the "dead zones," they too can die. o Warmer temperatures can reduce preferred insects and their availability, causing weight loss. o Slight increases in water temperatures increase juvenile metabolism rates, sometimes causing them to stop feeding even if food is available. o Warmer temperatures increase susceptibility to sediment toxicity (Servizi and Martens 1991). o Warmer temperatures early in the year can disrupt the smoltification process and change how and when juveniles outmigrate from the system. • By 2080 it is expected that in the Green River the number of river miles exceeding salmonid thermal tolerances (>18°C) will increase by 70 miles (Figure 7). Local Context Increased water temperatures are already a problem in many areas of the watershed, and are expected to worsen. • In extreme low -flow, hot summers, tributaries including Crisp Creek (RM 39.6), Icy Creek (RM 48.3), Palmer Springs (RM 56.3), Resort Springs (RM 51.3), Black Diamond Springs (RM 49.5), Lones Levee Channel (RM 37.5), Coho Channel (RM 36.9), and the Duwamish tributary at RM 6.4appear to maintain cooler temperatures, but some can still exceed state 7 day average temperature standards (DeGasperi 2017). • Many major tributaries to the Green River, while cooler than the Green River, regularly exceed state water temperature standards, including Soos, Newaukum and Mill Creeks, largely due to lack of riparian buffers (DeGasperi 2017). • Cold water refugia not associated with tributaries or side channels include the Green River Gorge due to topographic shading, groundwater and hyporheic exchange zones from RM 55-32 in the Middle Green, and areas around alluvial deposits between Soos Creek (RM 33.4 and Mill Creek (RM 23.8). • Above Howard Hanson Dam, cold water refugia may include the North Fork Green, Charley Creek, Gale Creek, Smay Creek and Sunday Creek (DeGasperi 2017). • The reservoir above Howard Hanson Dam becomes thermally stratified during the summer, with cooler, dense water at the bottom and warmer water near the surface. Water is released from approximately 40 feet above the bottom of the reservoir, and therefore, the Green River immediately downstream of the spillway is cooler during the summer and warmer in late summer and fall than it was at the same point prior to dam construction (DeGasperi 2017). Technical Recommendations • Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water. Protect cool headwater streams and other cold water refugia (at least 2 degrees Celsius colder than the daily maximum temperature of adjacent waters). Locate groundwater sources and seeps and protect natural processes 13 that create critical habitats like wetlands, tidal flats, marshes and estuaries; this will help ensure that water can be stored, recharged, and delivered at a moderated pace and temperature. • Protect and restore the Green/Duwamish tributaries that are cooler than the mainstem river and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. Emphasize opening access to floodplain tributaries, including small stream systems. Continue work to moderate mainstem temperatures by setting back levees and softening bank revetments, and planting trees. • Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. • Monitor land use changes, particularly tree removal and new development, to quantify and mitigate for impacts to temperature. • Undertake an evaluation of water rights in the basin. Consider creating a follow up program to acquire water rights to rededicate rights back to the river. • Look at creating/expanding outreach programs that reduce residential/commercial/industrial potable water usage in Tacoma in order to have more water available for streams and rivers (e.g. basic education, incentives for residences to upgrade to low flow devices, improve efficiency of irrigation systems) • Evaluate the impacts of water withdrawals for irrigation and cooling, and determine if other sources can be used, including reclaimed water. • Investigate the relative contribution of runoff from paved surfaces on water temperatures, and where appropriate, • Increase the use of low impact development practices in both developed and developing areas, including reducing impervious area, infiltrating or dispersing runoff, and planting trees to minimize the impact of urban areas on stream temperatures (Herb et al. 2008, Jones et al. 2012, Van Buren et al. 2000). • Promote and fund the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy (Ostergaard et al. 2016) to increase the rate of planting and protecting riparian buffers to help stabilize in -stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load. • Work with the ACOE to further explore work done by WEST (2011) regarding how water is passed from the reservoir to downstream habitats to determine whether the outlet could be redesigned to release cooler water. Ocean Conditions Climate Impacts Salmon spend much of their lives in the North Pacific feeding from the ocean's food web. Natural variations in climate cycles strongly influence ocean conditions. One of these cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). PDO is a climate index based on multi-decadal patterns in sea surface temperatures (NWFSC 2015). As an indicator, PDO has warm and cool phases. Over the past century, these phases oscillated irregularly over a period of 10-40 years with more recent short-term (3-5 year) events (NWFSC 2016). These phases are correlated with Northwest climate and ecology and variations in northeast Pacific marine ecosystems. Specifically, PDO is correlated with patterns in atmospheric pressure, prevailing winds, currents, coastal upwelling impacts, winter land -surface temperature and precipitation and stream flow, as well as historic salmon landings from Alaska to California (Mantua et al. 1997). These warm and cool phases are linked to composition, abundance, and distribution of plankton communities, the basis of the ocean food web. PDO is hypothesized to alter the source of ocean water off the West Coast. In cooler 14 phases, northerly winter winds bring cold water and boreal zooplankton communities from the Gulf of Alaska south into the California Current. Northerly winds cause coastal upwelling which generally brings cold, salty, nutrient -rich water to the surface. These conditions increase phytoplankton production that support zooplankton communities dominated by cold -water, lipid -rich copepods. These conditions are correlated with good salmon survival. When the PDO shifts to a warm phase, warm southwesterly winds result in more water from the warmer, fresher, North Pacific Current and its associated tropical and sub -tropical warm water lipid -depleted copepods. These conditions are correlated with poor salmon survival for populations in the lower 48 states. While regional climate in the Pacific Northwest is driven by these natural variations in climate and ocean conditions in the Pacific, we don't know how climate change will affect these variations. Climate change is expected to increase ocean temperatures in the northeast Pacific by 1.8C by 2040 (Mauger et al. 2015), which experts hypothesize will result in a 1-4% increase in marine mortality for salmon from Puget Sound to California. Weather patterns in 2014 and 2015 caused +2-4C temperature anomalies over a large area of the northeast Pacific Ocean labeled "The Blob," which may be a precursor of extreme climatic variations that will become more common in the future. Salmon returns in 2015 were some of the worst on record, and fish that did return to freshwater experienced high mortality from blob -related drought and subsequent warm and low stream flows in freshwater habitat (Peterson et al. 2015). Salmon Impacts • While it is clear that PDO cycles affect salmon survival, the impacts of climate change on the natural variations in PDO cycles that determine ocean conditions are not known, and the effect of ocean conditions on salmon is not well understood. • The ways in which salmon are impacted will depend on the life stage in the ocean ecosystem, how long they spend in the ocean, and other ocean variables like plankton communities. Further study is important to understand how climate change will affect salmon, and might be already doing so. Local Context and Technical Recommendations Effects of ocean conditions will be felt most strongly in Pacific Ocean, but may also be seen in the Puget Sound nearshore within WRIA 9. Stormwater Runoff Climate Impacts • Increases in predicted rainfall events will increase flow volumes from areas not retrofitted to new stormwater standards accounting for climate change impacts. In some cases, this could also increase pollutant discharges from stormwater runoff or groundwater leaching through contaminated areas into rivers and streams, particularly for those pollutants that are detected in stormwater year-round, such as PAHs, phthalates and pesticides (Hobbs et al. 2015). Some of these issues may be addressed by new stormwater standards being implemented with new and redevelopment. • Stormwater can also increase the peak flows during storm events, scouring stream beds and banks, adding to sediment loads due to channel and bank erosion, and flushing out habitat forming debris. Salmon Impacts • Stormwater impacts to salmon are varied and can cause both lethal and sub -lethal conditions. 15 • Toxics from stormwater can cause mutations in salmonid eggs and rearing juvenile salmonids, harm brain and heart development, and cause direct mortality (McIntyre et al. 2015). • Stormwater washes in excess sediment and nutrients that can cause dissolved oxygen to decrease, creating hypoxic conditions for both fish and macroinvertebrates, disrupting the food chain (McIntyre et al. 2015). • A direct, observable impact of untreated stormwater is pre -spawn mortality, when adult coho die before they are able to spawn (Spromberg et al. 2016). Local Context Stormwater affects urban and suburban areas that drain to small streams and tributaries, such as Miller and Walker creeks, Longfellow Creek, Soos Creek, Newaukum Creek, and Mill Creek, as well as urbanized areas along the Lower Green like Kent, Auburn, Renton and Tukwila. As detailed in a recent stormwater retrofit analysis of WRIA 9, most developed areas in the watershed did not initially have any stormwater controls, and the early Stormwater control methods and requirements have generally been deemed inadequate by today's standards in terms of improving water quality and impacts to stream hydrology. These areas are not yet retrofitted to minimize stormwater runoff (King County 2014). Cities and businesses are already implementing municipal and individual stormwater management permits (known as NPDES, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) to manage stormwater on new and redeveloping areas, control pollution sources at businesses, and track and eliminate illicit discharges into the storm system. In addition, treating and retaining stormwater on developed areas before it runs off into streams and rivers will reduce fish exposure to chemicals and stressful hydrologic and water quality conditions (Spromberg et al. 2016). Technical Recommendations • Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions (See King County (2014) for one possible approach). • Conduct small-scale subwatershed stormwater infiltration feasibility studies and prioritize potential retrofit projects, looking for cost savings where capital projects are already planned (e.g., Miller -Walker Stormwater Retrofit Implementation Plan (HDR Engineering 2015)). • Incentivize public -private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on private properties and road right-of-ways. • Infiltrate road and parking lot runoff wherever possible, prioritizing the areas with the highest use. Partner with Washington State Department of Transportation to develop and implement a plan to retrofit state highways throughout the basin. Use the Miller -Walker Basin as a case study to determine the amount of retrofit needed to improve hydrologic and water quality conditions. Sedimentation Climate Impacts • Heavier rains will increase landslide potential across the basin, including marine bluffs. • Heavier rains will also increase stream flows, which can increase erosion and move more sediment downstream. • Increased sediment loads can affect sedimentation rates in estuary and delta areas. • Increased fine sediments may temporarily cause spawning gravels to fill in, smothering incubating eggs. 16 Increased flows on the mainstem may be dampened by HHD operations, depending on flow rate decisions. Sediment is already decreased in the mainstem basin due to the amount of sediment trapped behind the dam; gravel supplementation is continuing in order to maintain spawning habitat in the Middle Green River. Salmon Impacts • High levels of suspended solids can kill salmonids by burying redds after spawning and potentially harm juvenile fish by decreasing dissolved oxygen or smothering their gills. • Suspended sediments also cause chronic sub -lethal and behavioral effects including; reduced foraging capabilities, stunted growth, stress, lowered disease resistance and interference with migration cues (Bash 2001). Local Context More frequent rain events will likely bring sedimentation impacts from landslides on the hillslopes throughout the watershed. There existing issues with increased sediment inputs above HHD due to historic logging practices (e.g. dense road network on steep slopes). The high rains will likely increase the rate of landslides and sedimentation in this area. While anadromous salmon don't have access at this time, creating access to the upper watershed is a high priority action in the Plan. Sedimentation in the upper basin will not impact the Middle and Lower Green River areas in the near term because the reservoir acts like a large sediment retention pond. However, there will likely be some increased sedimentation issues in the Middle and Lower Green caused by bank erosion and inputs from local streams. The off channel habitat creation projects in the Lower Green are at a higher risk than other project types if sedimentation increases. At this time, it is not clear if the increased sediment load will be substantial enough to degrade the resilience of restoration projects. The increased rain events will also likely increase the rate of landsliding and beach feeding along the marine shorelines of WRIA 9. Most drift cells within WRIA 9 have experienced shoreline armoring that has cut off significant amounts of beach feeding bluffs over the last 100 years (WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee 2012). While the exact effects are not known at this time and it will likely be drift cell specific, increased sedimentation/beach feeding rates may actually improve beach conditions by offsetting historic armoring that starved beaches. Technical Recommendations • Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load. • Protect intact buffers to reduce sediment load and minimize erosion. • Study and understand sedimentation changes in mainstem and nearshore areas. Coastal Effects to the ocean environment are harder to predict and quantify than freshwater effects, but there will be impacts to salmon survival. The most notable changes expected in Puget Sound's coastal and marine ecosystems are sea level rise and ocean acidification. 17 Sea Level Rise Climate impacts • Sea level in Puget Sound rose 20 centimeters from 1900-2008 and sea level rise (SLR) will continue, though it is hard to predict exactly how much. • The State of the Knowledge report projects sea level will rise 0.6 meters by 2100 (The Nature Conservancy and Climate Impacts Group 2016). • Beach habitats and infrastructure along Puget Sound shorelines are already being impacted by SLR. Nearshore • Increases in SLR means that extreme high water levels will increase and in response flood events will become more frequent. This means that damaging storms will occur more frequently because storms will occur at higher water levels (Mauger et al. 2015). • A 1ft increase in water surface elevation means an order of magnitude increase in high water events —so a 100 year event turns into a 2 year event (Mauger et al. 2015) • Sea level rise will have a myriad of effects on the marine nearshore, including increased bank/bluff erosion, landslides and "coastal squeeze." A study in the San Juan islands estimated that toe of bank erosion caused by SLR would likely double existing bluff erosion rates. • Combined with toe of bluff erosion, the predicted 22% more rain in the winter will increase the risk of destabilizing nearshore slopes and increase landslides that are triggered from upslope mechanisms. • While sediment supply is critical to a productive and healthy nearshore environment and increased beach feeding through landslides may benefit beach habitats, increased landslides could heighten the demand for new bulkheads and enlarging existing bulkheads, further degrading this important process. • Coastal squeeze is a phenomenon that occurs in response to SLR. Marine shorelines that are unarmored have beaches and beach habitats that migrate inland in response to SLR. Armored shorelines not only restrict the natural migration of beaches, the beach habitats slowly get squeezed out of existence (Figure 8). 18 The Coastal Squeeze Natural shoreline Natural shoreline current sea level future sea level Future Forage fish d Current spawning habitat MHHW spawning habitat MHHW migrates with beach translation Armored shoreline Armored shoreline current sea level ( future sea level C4 Future Forage fish �urrenY Forage fish spawning habitat MHHW spawning habitat lost above MHHW entirely lost due to due to armor armor and sea level rise Figure 8. Coastal squeeze in nearshore graphic along the Puget Sound Nearshore refers to the shallow areas where forage fish spawn being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise (from Coastal Geologic Services). Estuary • SLR may convert existing estuarine habitats into predominately salt water habitats and convert some fresh water habitats (e.g. wetlands) into estuarine habitats. • In the tidally influenced areas of the Duwamish River (up to approximately River Mile 11), SLR may convert shallow water mudflats to deep water, tidal habitats and marsh areas to mudflats. Marsh areas may be flooded, and as they move upslope on steep banks, become increasingly narrow edge habitats over time. • Sea level rise may move salt wedge further upstream into areas that are currently freshwater. • SLR will likely begin to flood low lying upland areas, creating a need to decide if the areas should be 'defended' against SLR with levees and other infrastructure or if the areas should be converted to wetland/estuarine habitats. Salmon impacts According to the CIG State of the Knowledge report, sea level rise will increase the area of salt marsh and transition marsh, shifting the ranges of habitat used by salmon. However, given that the Duwamish estuary and Central Puget Sound nearshore are highly developed with docks, bulkheads, tide gates and culverts, it will likely lose marsh and mudflat area and types from coastal squeeze. • Increased erosion from sea level rise and landslides is already bringing requests for more and bigger bulkheads along the nearshore to protect existing development; additional sea level rise will likely increase these requests (Kollin Higgins, pers. comm.). • Additional bulkheads will cut off the sediment supply needed by forage fish, a key salmonid prey. 19 • The amount of shallow water habitats heavily used by juvenile salmon in late spring early summer in the nearshore will decrease due to coastal squeeze within the largely armored shorelines of WRIA 9 Local Context Impacts of SLR and coastal squeeze will be focused in the Duwamish estuary and along the Central Puget Sound nearshore. Technical Recommendations • Identify areas most at risk of losing estuarine habitat, such as mudflat and marsh, by mapping elevations and monitoring the habitat over time. • Include a diversity of elevations in estuary projects to allow for shifting boundaries of intertidal and subtidal habitats into the future. • Undertake an evaluation of upland areas within the Duwamish most at risk of inundation through SLR, in conjunction with the communities, businesses, and other stakeholders, to look for opportunities to transition low-lying upland habitats to aquatic habitats in ways that provide economic, social justice, and environmental equity benefits (Figure 9). • Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change continues. • Protect habitat outside current habitat boundaries that will become future estuarine habitat. • Improve regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas. • Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs. • Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing infrastructure if necessary, to allow marine shoreline migration, bluff erosion and/or estuarine marsh migration. • Work with partners to understand vulnerability of estuary infrastructure under SLR, including levee maintenance and drainage needs, transportation corridors and wastewater facilities. 20 7 Figure 9. Map showing projected areas of inundation due to sea level rise in the Duwamish subwatershed, between the 1st Ave S. and South Park bridges (City of Seattle 2012). Ocean Acidification — Climate Impacts • Ocean acidification is projected to increase 150-200% by 2100 based on current CO2 emission scenarios (The Nature Conservancy and the Climate Impacts Group 2016). • Warmer air temperatures will likely cause sea surface temperatures to increase as well (Mauger et al. 2015). • Together these factors can have a wide range of impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems. 21 Salmon Impacts • Ocean acidification is expected to change food availability for salmon during the smolt and ocean life cycle phases. • The role affected species play in supporting Puget Sound salmon raises concerns about how acidification could affect the entire Puget Sound and ocean food web (Washington Department of Ecology 2012) Technical Recommendations • Protect and restore areas of carbon uptake — including forests, eelgrass and tidal marshes. Discussion Tremendous change is expected in the Puget Sound region over the next 20-30 years with respect to increased human population growth and climate change. The Puget Sound coastal shoreline counties account for 68% of Washington state's population: 4,779,172 out of 7,061, 530 people (Alberti and Russo 2016). Nearly half of these people live in King County. By 2030, the Puget Sound population is estimated to exceed 5.7 million — an 18.2% increase from 2014 estimates as compared to a 12.7% national growth rate predicted in the same time frame (Alberti and Russo 2016). This rapid and extensive growth has direct implications to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. With the growing demand for homes, clean drinking water, transportation systems, agricultural products, and strong economies, addressing the impacts of climate change for threatened salmonids is increasingly complex. Where and how people live in Puget Sound, including the patterns of development and transportation systems, and economic development all contribute to salmon survival, and hopefully, recovery in the Puget Sound. Climate change gives urgency to actions that can help mitigate known future effects, in particular, planting riparian trees for shade. It also gives more urgency to fish passage through Howard Hanson Dam, to open up this extremely large and higher elevation area for spawning and rearing. To address these competing forces, planning and implementing salmon recovery actions needs to become more complex, interdisciplinary, and integrated. We need solutions that benefit many interests and sectors. Salmon recovery and climate change information needs to be incorporated into local jurisdiction comprehensive plans, shoreline master programs, critical areas ordinances. We also need additional enforcement of existing land use regulations, particularly with riparian buffers and nearshore bulkheads. Efforts to address the impacts of climate change are already underway in many of the WRIA 9 jurisdictions. This work will need to continue and accelerate to keep ahead of the pace of population growth and climate change. Conclusions Different salmon species and their life history types are varied. Over the centuries, species have evolved with slight differences across the species and within salmonid types to better withstand and adapt to habitat, climate and ocean conditions. The Plan has identified recovery actions that address viable salmonid population (VSP) criteria, such as life stage diversity, abundance, productivity, and spatial structure. By addressing these criteria, we hope to give salmon the best chance for recovery. Climate impacts will directly affect these VSP criteria. For instance, water temperatures across the basin will likely increase, making some areas inhospitable to salmon, and 22 causing dire conditions for unique life history types such as yearling Chinook. Climate impacts could potentially decrease suitable summer habitat, impacting the spatial diversity in the system, or increased winter scouring could affect population abundance and ultimately productivity. The summer of 2015 shed light on what could be expected in years to come. Along with large-scale strategies at a global, national and state level to dampen these impacts, work must be done at a basin level. For salmon recovery, restoration and protection actions must amplify the species' natural ability to adapt. To give salmonids the best chance of survival, we must continue implementing the Plan strategy of restoring and protecting river processes that can adapt and create resilient habitat. The proposed actions above and summarized in Table 2 and 3 are not new. For the most part they are described in other Green/Duwamish planning documents. What has changed is the urgency and need to change the rate of implementing these actions. We must think beyond direct habitat needs (which are still important), to decrease the intensity of climate impacts likely in 10, 20, and 50 years. Table 2. Summary of technical recommendations that could be taken for each climate impact Climate impact Technical Recommendations Hydrology • Implement low impact development practices and green stormwater infrastructure in urban areas. • Work with water supply and dam operators to use reservoirs to ameliorate hydrologic impacts, especially during low flow periods. • Evaluate water rights in the basin, and support efforts to retain sufficient flows for fish. • Support expanding outreach and incentive programs that reduce water usage. • Consider increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve hyporheic exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures. • Work with forestry managers and researchers to investigate longer stand rotations and selective logging to improve basin hydrology. • Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. • Protect habitat uphill of current floodplains and beaches so habitats can shift and adapt. • Monitor land use in headwater areas to minimize impacts to hydrology. • Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters. • Remove and properly size barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools. 23 Climate impact Technical Recommendations Temperature • Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water. • Protect and restore tributaries and other areas that are cooler than the Green River and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. • Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. • Monitor land use changes, particularly tree removal and new development, to quantify and mitigate impacts to temperature. • Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help stabilize in -stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load by promoting and funding the WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Strategy. • Reduce summer water use by encouraging more potable water conservation in Tacoma and reclaimed water for irrigation and cooling where water is being withdrawn from the Green River. • Increase the use of low impact development practices and GSI. • Work with ACOE to determine whether colder water could be released from HHD. Stormwater • Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions. • Incentivize public -private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on private properties and road right-of-ways. • Infiltrate road and parking lot runoff wherever possible, developing partnerships and prioritizing areas of highest use. Sedimentation • Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load. • Protect intact riparian buffers. • Study and understand sedimentation changes in mainstem areas. Sea level rise • Identify how habitat boundaries, such as nearshore and estuaries, are changing. • Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change continues. • Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries. • Improve regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas. • Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs. • Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing infrastructure if necessary to allow marine and estuary shoreline migration and bluff erosion. • Evaluate upland areas in the Duwamish subwatershed at risk of inundation, and work with community partners transition to aquatic habitat while providing other benefits. Ocean • Protect and restore areas of carbon uptake, including forests, eelgrass and tidal marshes. acidification and increased temperature 24 Table 3. Summary of strategies and actions and what climate impact they address Strategies and Actions Climate Impact Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts. Hydrology, Temperature Encourage natural processes and novel restoration practices such as beaver Hydrology, Temperature reintroduction in appropriate areas to help moderate flows and temperature. Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries so Hydrology, Seal level rise habitats can shift and adapt. Monitor land use in headwater areas closely to minimize impacts to Hydrology, Temperature hydrology. Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters. Hydrology, Temperature Remove and resize barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to Hydrology, Temperature tributaries, connect side channels, and protect pools. Reduce summer water use by encouraging more potable water conservation Hydrology, Temperature in Tacoma and reclaimed water for irrigation and cooling where water is being withdrawn from the Green River watershed. Identify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water Temperature, Sedimentation (e.g., replant riparian forests, remove levees). Protect and restore Green River tributaries that are cooler than the mainstem Temperature river and can provide salmon with cold water refugia. Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to Hydrology, Temperature, tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia. Sedimentation Increase the rate of implementation of riparian buffer restoration to help Temperature, Sedimentation, stabilize in -stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load. Stormwater Runoff Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those Stormwater Runoff action Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored due to Sea level rise climate change. Improve regulatory protection on in all unarmored marine areas. Sea level rise Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at Sea level rise historic feeder bluffs Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing Sea level rise infrastructure if necessary in order to allow marine and estuary shoreline migration and bluff erosion. 25 References Alberti, M. and Russo, M. (2016) Puget Sound Trends: A Synthesis of the Drivers Shaping the Future of our Waters, Prepared by the Urban Ecology Research Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Bash, J.C.B.S.B. (2001) Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids, Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. City of Seattle (2012) Sea Level Rise Map, pp. The projections and scenarios are based on a 2012 National Research Council report ("Sea -Level rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future"). Water levels account for the National Tidal Datum Epoch 1983-2001 (NTDE 2083-2001). The base digital elevation model (DEM) used in the analysis was produced using a 2001 Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium study, which notes a vertical accuracy, or margin of error, of 2011 foot (NAVD2088). Finally, "breaklines" were not applied; therefore some objects such as piers may not be accurately depicted., Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA. Crozier, L. (2015) Impacts of Climate Change on Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: A review of the scientific literature published in 2014, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, Seattle, WA. DeGasperi, C.L. (2017) Green-Duwamish River 2015 Temperature Data Compilation and Analysis King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. Hamlet, A.F., Elsner, M.M., Mauger, G.S., Lee, S.-Y., Tohver, I. and Norheim, R.A. (2013) An Overview of the Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project: Approach, Methods, and Summary of Key Results. Atmosphere -ocean. Toronto ON 51(4), 392-415. HDR Engineering, I. (2015) Miller -Walker Basin Stormwater Retrofit Planning Study, Implementation Plan, Seattle, WA. Herb, W.R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O. and Stefan, H.G. (2008) Thermal pollution of streams by runoff from paved surfaces. Hydrological Processes 22(7), 987-999. Hobbs, W., Lubliner, B., Kale, N. and Newell, E. (2015) Western Washington NPDES Phase 1 Stormwater Permit: Final Data Characterization 2009-2013, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Jones, M.P., Hunt, W.F. and Winston, R.J. (2012) Effect of Urban Catchment Composition on Runoff Temperature. Journal of Environmental Engineering 138(12). King County (2014) Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources Inventory Area 9: Comprehensive Needs and Cost Assessment and Extrapolation to Puget Sound, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. Mantua, N.J., Hare, S.R., Zhang, Y., Wallace, J.M. and Francis, R.C. (1997) A Pacific Interdecadal Climate Oscillation with Impacts on Salmon Production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78(6), 1069-1079. 26 Mauger, G.S., Casola, J.H., Morgan, H.A., Strauch, R.L., Jones, B., Curry, B., Isaksen, T.M.B., Binder, L.W Krosby, M.B. and Snover, A.K. (2015) State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound, Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Washington, Seattle. Mauger, G.S. 2016. Presentation to the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee on October 26, 2016. Seattel WA. McIntyre, J.K., Davis, J.W., Hinman, C., Macneale, K.H., Anulacion, B.F., Scholz, N.L. and Stark, J.D. (2015) Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere 132, 213-219. NWFSC (2015) Pacific Decadal Oscillation, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NWFSC (2016) Ocean ecosystem indicators of salmon marine survival in the Northern California Current, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Ostergaard, E., Blanco, J., Coccoli, H., Cummins, A., Kahan, J., Knox, M., Koon, J. and Stanton, T. (2016) Re -green the Green: Riparian Revegetation Strategy for the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9), WRIA 9 Riparian Revegetation Working Group for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, Seattle, WA. Perry, T.D. and Jones, J.A. (2016) Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas -fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology, n/a-n/a. Peterson, W.T., Fisher, J.L., Morgan, C.A., Peterson, J.O., Burke, B.J. and Fresh, K. (2015) Ocean Ecosystem Indicators of Salmon Marine Survival in the Northern California Current, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Richter, A. and Kolmes, S.A. (2005) Maximum temperature limits for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead trout in the Pacific Northwest. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13(1), 23-49. Servizi, J.A. and Martens, D.W. (1991) Effect of Temperature, Season, and Fish Size on Acute Lethality of Suspended Sediments to Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(3), 493-497. Spromberg, J.A., Baldwin, D.H., Damm, S.E., McIntyre, J.K., Huff, M., Sloan, C.A., Anulacion, B.F., Davis, J.W. and Scholz, N.L. (2016) Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(2), 398-407. The Nature Conservancy and Climate Impacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate Impacts and Innovation in Puget Sound. Conservation, P.S. (ed), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The Nature Conservancy and the Climate Impacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate Impacts and Innovation in Puget Sound. J. Morse, J.I., L. Whitely Binder, G. Mauger, and A.K. Snover (ed), p. 24, The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA. 27 Van Buren, M.A., Watt, W.E., Marsalek, J. and Anderson, B.C. (2000) Thermal enhancement of stormwater runoff by paved surfaces. Water Research 34(4), 1359-1371. Washington Department of Ecology (2012) Ocean Acidification in Washington State: From knowledge to Action. WEST (2011) Development of a CE-QUAL-W2 Model for Howard A. Hanson Reservoir, Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Wilhere, G., Atha, J., Quinn, T., Helbrecht, L. and Tohver, I. (2016) Incorporating Climate Change into the Design of Water Crossing Structures, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (2012) WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005-2011, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 28 Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template M fi v A � I .' ti y - t . ROGERTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE E-1 CAPITAL PROJECT EVALUATION TEMPLATE Nearshore Evaluation Criteria Evaluation to How to. Criteria (sum of potential 100%) benefits Details to input column Iden tify the best places to.. work Project size 25 Project area Count only areas that Specify number of acres will be part of habitat project --not entire parcel Assumes most Shoreline Measure length of Specify number of linear feet (in 100's; other benefits length existing shoreline, ex 200 ft = 2) are positively whether armored, or correlated with unarmored. size Location Is the site in a high -value Feeder bluff located in the first third of location? the drift cell (4 pts) Feeder bluff elsewhere (2 pts) Pocket estuary/ stream mouth (2 pts) Priority in revegetation strategy (1 pt) Adjacent to or inholding of existing public land/easements (1 pt) Drift cell What percentage of 0-25% (0 pts) condition the drift cell sediment >25-75% (3 pts) sources are currently >75% (2 pts) "intact"? . - - - Immediate Bulkhead removal (or Length of bulkhead removal; Expected 75 post -project habitat lift stream bank armor for Linear feet (in 100's) benefits (rearing and stream mouths) forage fish/ intertidal) *If soft shoreline armoring to replace it, add "1" to input cell Acres of potential fill removal Fill removal Pocket estuaries If project restores the hydrology and extent of a pocket estuary (3 pts) If removing (3 pts) Overwater structures If upgraded to non -creosote and light -transmitting (_ pts) Long-term Feeder bluff restoration Percent of sediment sources restored habitat lift of the drift cell by the project after (process- restoration is eventually completed restoration) Riparian restoration 100 ft wide or greater buffer (3 pts) (partial includes view corridors or relatively Partial buffer improvement (_ pts) skinny widths) Duwamish Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Indicator Evaluation Criteria (sums . 00%) potential benefits Instructions How to assign Evaluation Level I Project size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part of Number of acres habitat project --not entire parcel Assumes Shoreline Measure length of existing shoreline, Linear feet (in 100's) most benefits are positively length whether armored, or unarmored. correlated Creek scores = count only one bank. with size Location Is the site in a higher value location? River Mile 1.0-4.3 (1 pt) River Mile 4.3-5.5 (2 pts) River Mile 5.6-10 (4 pts) Evaluation Level 2 Expected 75 Immediate BANK TREATMENTS: post -project habitat lift Estimate the change in the length of benefits (mostly enhancement (100's of feet) (optional) substitution and creation) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt) Linear feet (in 100's) Wood for habitat (does not include Linear feet (in 100's) soft armoring) (*0.2 pt) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100's) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-165 ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt ) REARING HABITAT CREATION; Number in acres Estimate the excavated area that will be wetted during Jan -June (at least) Change in length of erodible Number of linear feet shoreline that can generate sediment and wood Hydrologic lift/ Will the project allow increased If yes, specify number connectivity inflow to the site? Will it notch, of acres of reconnected move, remove a flood -containment floodplain or inundated levee or flap -gate, or lower the area ground surface (e.g., through fill removal or other excavation) so that it floods more readily? Lower Green Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Indicator Evaluation Criteria (sums . 00%) potential benefits Instructions How to assign Evaluation Level 1 Project size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be part Specify number of acres of habitat project --not entire parcel Assumes t other benefits are positively Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, or unarmored, Linear feet (in 100's) Location Is the site in a high value location? Within 1 km of a completed or correlated with size underway restoration site (1 pt) Associated with a stream mouth/ wetland (2 pts) In spawning areas (closeness to rearing habitat need for fry) (1 pt) Used as a creek modifier, to Likelihood of chinook use reduce scores of coho projects (range from 1.0 to 0.1) Expected 75 Immediate BANK TREATMENTS: Estimate post- habitat lift the change in the length of project (mostly enhancement (100's of feet) benefits (optional) substitution and creation) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt) Linear feet (in 100's) Wood for habitat (this does NOT Linear feet (in 100's) include soft armoring) (*0.2 pt) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100's) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-165 ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt) REARING HABITAT CREATION: Backwater acres Estimate the excavated area that will be wetted during Jan -June (at Side channel acres least) Hydrologic Will the project increase flooding If yes, specify acres of I ift/ connectivity of the site? E.g. Will it notch, move, remove a flood -containment levee reconnected tributary or flap -gate, or lower the ground surface (e.g., through fill removal or other excavation) so that it floods more readily? If ryes, specify acres of reconnected floodplain Change in length of erodible Linear feet (in 100's) shoreline that can generate sediment and wood Used as a creek modifier, to re- Likelihood of chinook use duce scores of coho projects (range from 1.0 to 0.1 pt) Middle Green Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Indicator Evaluation Criteria to 00%) potential benefits Instructions How to assign Evaluation Level 1 Project size 25 Project area Count only areas that will be Specify number of acres assumes part of habitat project --not most other entire parcel benefits are Shoreline length Measure length of existing shoreline, whether armored, Linear feet (in 100's) positively correlated with size or unarmored. (creek only count one bank) Location Is the site in a high value Associated with a stream mouth/ location? wetland (1 pt) Within the severe CMHZ (1 pt) Adjacent to an existing restoration project (1 pt) Priority in the revegetation strategy 0 A Used as a creek modifier, Likelihood of chinook use (range to reduce scores of coho from 1.0 to 0.1 pt) projects Value guidance --all mainstem areas, lower five miles of Soos or Newaukum (1 pt) River floodplain portion of other creek (0.5 pt) Mostly headwater/coho areas (0.1 pt) (Continued on next page) Middle Green Evaluation Criteria, continued (sums Indicator Evaluation to Criteria 00%) potentialwkelpit of benefits Instructions How to assign Evaluation Level 2 Immediate BANK TREATMENTS: Expected 75 post -project habitat Estimate the change in the benefits lift (edge length of enhancement (100's (optional) improvements, of feet) new rearing habitat) Creek remeander (*1 pt) Linear feet (in 100's) Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt) Linear feet (in 100's) Wood for habitat (*0.2 pt) Linear feet (in 100's) Revegetation length Linear feet (in 100's) Revegetation width 165 ft wide (0.5 pt) 100-16 5ft wide (0.4 pt) 50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt) <50 ft wide (0.1 pt) REARING HABITAT Number of acres CREATION or CONNECTION: Estimate the area that will be wetted more frequently during Jan -June (at least) Length of shoreline armoring Linear feet (in 100's) or levee that is being removed or set back farther from the river. Creek only Area of increased floodplain Number of acres connectivity or quality Long-term habitat lift (process- restoration) Measure total project area within likely new boundary protections; assume that roads are generally Number of acres permanent boundaries (with rare exceptions) - include FPP areas as being within possible boundary protections. Location Used as a creek modifier, to reduce scores of coho projects Likelihood of chinook use (range from 1.0-0.1 pt) Value guidance --all mainstem areas, lower five miles of Soos or Newaukum (1 pt). River floodplain portion of other creek (0.5 pt) Mostly headwater/coho areas (0.1 pt) Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan M fi v A � I .' ti y - t . ROGERTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE F-1 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan October 2020 Lal King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Science and Technical Support Section King Street Center, KSC-NR-0704 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 704 Seattle, WA 98104 206-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 www, kingcounty.gov/EnvironmentaIScience Alternate Formats Available 206-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Prepared for: The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum Submitted by: Kollin Higgins, on behalf of the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Funded in part by: The WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum L9 King County ❑epdrtment of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources division WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee members that contributed to this report over the last seven years. It may not have been timely, but it has finally been completed. Citation King County. 2020. WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan. Prepared by Kollin Higgins, Chris Gregersen, Matt Goehring, and Elissa Ostergaard, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County Science and Technical Support Section i October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................................. iv 1.0 Background and Purpose....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Planning Process and Structure.......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 How This Plan Was Developed..................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Types of Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Implementation Monitoring............................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Plan Implementation........................................................................................................................6 3.2 Project Implementation................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Effectiveness Monitoring...................................................................................................................10 4.1 Project Monitoring...........................................................................................................................10 4.1.1 Routine Monitoring...................................................................................................................11 4.1.2 Project Monitoring-Enhanced...............................................................................................20 4.2 Cumulative Habitat Conditions...................................................................................................23 5.0 Validation Monitoring.........................................................................................................................28 5.1 Population Status -Viable Salmonid Population Parameters...........................................28 5.2 Ongoing Research and Data Gaps..............................................................................................30 6.0 Recommendations................................................................................................................................32 7.0 References...............................................................................................................................................34 Figures Figure 1. Three primary types of monitoring are used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary............................................................................. 5 Figure 2. WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork................................................... 7 Tables Table 1e Updated habitat plan targets for 2028................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations by project typeand subtype........................................................................................................................13 King County Science and Technical Support Section ii October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Table I Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by project type and subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced monitoring....................................................................................................................................22 Table 4. Summary information on what, how, and when cumulative habitat conditions should be tracked................................................................................................25 Table 5. Viable Salmonid Population parameters, and who and how they are being measuredin WRIA 9.................................................................................................................29 King County Science and Technical Support Section iii October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) incorporates years of effort to create a monitoring plan that is both robust but simple to implement. The first version of this plan was drafted in 2013 by the WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) but was purposefully left as a draft to allow time for regional efforts to create standardized monitoring processes. As part of the larger WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan update, it was decided to finalize this MAMP, though not all of the regional monitoring efforts have been completed at this time. This plan focuses on tracking and evaluating large capital habitat restoration projects and does not address smaller routine habitat projects like basic revegetation, or noncapital projects like stewardship or education. This MAMP breaks the broad topic of monitoring into three main components: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. The implementation monitoring section is focused on tracking large capital project implementation to see if the habitat plan goals and targets are being reached and if not, why and what can be changed to meet those targets. The effectiveness section of the MAMP is broken into two broad categories, including project effectiveness and cumulative habitat conditions which is also known as status and trends monitoring. Additionally, the project effectiveness section is broken into two components: routine and enhanced project monitoring. Routine project effectiveness monitoring focuses on if the project is performing as we expected it to. It is expected that all project sponsors of large restoration projects receiving money through the WRIA will undertake the routine monitoring called for in the MAMP. The questions and metrics for routine monitoring focused on relatively simple and inexpensive physical metrics. The enhanced monitoring components address harder and more expensive to answer questions around if and how Chinook use restoration project sites. This type of monitoring should only be done on a limited number of projects and it is expected that the WRIA would use its funding resources to help implement this type of monitoring. The second half of effectiveness monitoring, cumulative habitat conditions, looks beyond what habitat has been created and attempts to evaluate larger habitat trends throughout the five subwatersheds. This is where we see if the sum of all the activities are having a net gain or lift in habitat conditions, or if the improvements made in the name of salmon recovery are being offset by ongoing development or redevelopment. These cumulative habitat condition metrics are centered around the updated Salmon Habitat Plan recovery strategies and build off of the 2012 WRIA 9 Status and Trends report. Some of the data is being collected by other entities, but some of it will need to be collected and or funded by the WRIA. It is recommended that the WRIA spread out the effort to undertake a status and trends report by collecting and analyzing some metrics every year while reporting the findings once every five years. Validation monitoring is composed of tracking Chinook Viable Salmonid Population parameters as well as validating assumptions or data and knowledge gaps in the Salmon Habitat Plan. The majority of the data used to evaluate Chinook salmon population metrics King County Science and Technical Support Section iv October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan is collected by the co -managers. One of the most important parts of evaluating the Chinook salmon numbers is the juvenile outmigrant trap, which has been in place for over twenty years. The WRIA has been contributing roughly a third of the funding for the trap, and given the data's importance to measuring salmon recovery efforts, the ITC recommended that the WRIA should continue to do so until a broader Puget Sound funding source for smolt traps can be secured. Additionally, the WRIA has used this category of monitoring to undertake applied research studies that will help validate assumptions that went into forming the Salmon Habitat Plan. These studies have greatly improved our knowledge of how Chinook use the system and have helped to elevate and prioritize additional actions for the WRIA to undertake. The ITC recommends that the WRIA continue to fund these types of studies into the future. King County Science and Technical Support Section v October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan This page intentionally left blank. King County Science and Technical Support Section vi October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Since the listing of Chinook salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, local and regional entities have been working together to understand the reasons for their decline and take action to recover the species. The 2005 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan, "Making our Watershed Fit for a King" (hereafter called "Salmon Habitat Plan") calls for habitat protection, programs, and projects to benefit Chinook and other salmonids in Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9). Monitoring the implementation of the plan, the quality of habitat, and the status of salmonid populations is the only way to know whether we are moving towards the goal of recovery. The Salmon Habitat Plan cites monitoring as integral to implementation and identifies the need for a comprehensive monitoring strategy and sustained monitoring effort. A monitoring and adaptive management plan is also called for in the Implementation Guidance for the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (2006). When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approved the Puget Sound Salmon recovery plan, it required each watershed to develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan (Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy's Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, 2006). The WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) began working on this Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) in 2011. The work was put on hold while the Puget Sound -wide monitoring and adaptive management framework was being developed by the Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT) During that delay, the ITC researched and wrote the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005-2010 (February 2012). The Status and Trends report documented the progress made during the first five years of implementation of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, identified key monitoring gaps, and formed the foundation for this MAMP. A draft of the MAMP was completed in 2013 and approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum, with the intent to finalize in a year or two once regional guidance was complete. Consistent regional guidance has taken longer than anticipated and the 2013 draft was updated in 2020 to coincide with a broader Salmon Habitat Plan update. It should be noted that this MAMP focuses on monitoring the actions in the Salmon Habitat Plan recommended to improve habitat conditions. It does not address monitoring of other limiting factors such as hatchery, harvest, or ocean conditions. It is possible that even if the Salmon Habitat Plan is fully implemented, the other limiting factors could limit our ability to reach recovery. The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan is intended to: • Serve as a framework for prioritizing monitoring actions and funding by the WRIA 9 WEF; • Provide guidance for adaptively managing implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan; • Promote collaboration among various entities collecting data in the basin; and • Provide guidance for tracking net gains and losses in salmon habitat. King County Science and Technical Support Section 1 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS AND STRUCTURE 2.1 How This Plan Was Developed This MAMP was developed in stages over seven years and represents multiple aspects of the salmon recovery planning effort. The 2013 draft MAMP focused on evaluating progress towards 2005 habitat goals and targets (implementation monitoring), if built projects are performing as expected (project effectiveness monitoring), and Tier one conservation hypotheses (validation monitoring) that are integrated throughout the Salmon Habitat Plan. If the plan is implemented as intended, projects are successful at improving habitat and we should eventually see an improvement in Chinook salmon Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters of productivity, diversity, spatial structure, and abundance. The updated 2020 MAMP includes the same topic areas, but includes recently updated Salmon Habitat Plan targets. The goals of the Salmon Habitat Plan were originally spelled out in the plan itself and in the Implementation Guidance for the Salmon Habitat Plan. The goals were updated in 2019 and are now found in Chapter 3, Table 2, and a shortened version in Table 1 below. The WRIA 9 ITC wrote a 5-year Status and Trends Report in 2012 with a focus on the highest priority (Tier 1) conservation hypotheses and interim plan goals. The Status and Trends report evaluated eleven of the eighteen conservation hypotheses and goals, for which monitoring data existed, and could be analyzed with existing or minimal resources. Gaps in ability to monitor plan progress were identified and resulted in 58 monitoring and adaptive management recommendations. Those recommendations are incorporated into this plan. This monitoring and adaptive management plan was written by WRIA 9 staff with extensive input from the ITC in 2013 and 2020. It relies heavily on previous work, including, the 2012 Status and Trends report, (WRIA9 ITC 2012), and several white papers written for the 2020 plan update (King County 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, and 2018). Once the MAMP is approved by Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF), the recommendations of the MAMP will be implemented annually through the WRIA processes and funding decisions. King County Science and Technical Support Section 2 October 2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Table 1. Updated Habitat Plan Targets for 2028. Habitat Necessary Future Current Condition Recommended 10-year Indicator Conditions Target (by 2028) Nearshore Shoreline 65% of shoreline 59 mi. of shoreline armored. Remove 3,000 ft. (<1 % Armor in natural improvement): achieve a net condition reduction Marine 65% characterized 21.8 mi. is dense trees; Revegetate 60 ac. and/or 3.25 Riparian by riparian tree 14.8 mi. is patchy trees] mi. (-3.5% gain) of shoreline Vegetation cover. Shoreline No condition 9.5 mi. of adjacent upland Protect 2 mi. of shoreline Conservation stated protected as natural lands Duwamish Shallow Water 173 ac. in the 5.8 ac. as of 2014 has been Create 40 ac. of shallow water Habitat transition zone restored habitat between RM 1-10 (RM 1-10) Riparian 65% of each bank 69 ac. of 165 ft. buffer Revegetate Forest of the river has > contains trees. 170 ac. (--29% of 165 ft. buffer) 165 ft. trees (586 9.8 mi. of streambank ac. total Lower Green Off Channel 2.8 mi. side Not assessed in a way to Side Channels Habitat channels; 450 ac. accurately state. A: High flow (above wetlands; 5039 ac. bankfull) 550 ft. floodplains B: Low flow (below bankfull) 3740 ft. Floodplain Tributaries: 3080 ft. Backwater: 75 ac. Floodplain Wetland: 66 ac. Other 100-yr. Floodplain: 99 ac Riparian 75% of each bank 222 ac. of 165 ft. buffer has Revegetate 250 acres/8.52 mi. Forest of the river to trees. of high priority, unforested >165 ft. wide (828 shoreline ac. total Large Woody 1705 pieces per 2004: 54 pieces/mi. Achieve 425 pieces/mi Debris mi. (21 key 2014: 48.5 pieces/mi. pieces) Bank Armor No new, 2014: 42 mi. are KC Set -back 1 mi. of levee decreasing maintained facilities. The amount other 14.5 mi. are a combination of semi - armored roads acting like levees and natural banks King County Science and Technical Support Section 3 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Habitat Necessary Future Current Condition Recommended 10-year Indicator Conditions Target (by 2028) Middle Green Floodplain Floodplain subject 2017: 1751 ac. or 55% of Reconnect 200 ac of floodplain Connectivity / to lateral channel historic floodplain as measured by area subject to Lateral migration connected; 45 ac. restored lateral channel migration Channel represents 65% of (including riparian) from Migration historical 2005-2014 conditions Riparian > 65% of Channel 2009: 50.5% of the Channel Revegetate 175 acres (8% of Forest Migration Zone Migration Zone forested CMZ) and up to 165 ft. wide where possible Large Wood 10 jams/mi. 2015: 3.8 jams/ mi. Achieve 5 jams/mi. Debris Bank Armor No new, 2004=25% Set back 1 mi. of decreasing 2009=24% revetment/levee amount Middle Green Tributaries Soos Creek 65% revegetated 2015: 150ft. riparian buffer is Revegetate 700 ac. or 11.7 mi. Riparian to 165 ft. 4200 ac., 1626 ac. is streambank Forest forested Newaukum 65% revegetated 2015: the 150 ft. riparian Revegetate 900 ac. or 14.0 mi. Creek Riparian to 165 ft. area is 4088 acres, 960 streambank Forest acres of which is forested Upper Green Fish Passage Fish passage Upstream passage facility Provide downstream passage provided at complete. Downstream at HHD Howard Hanson passage not complete Bank Armor No new, 2009=15% armored Remove/set back 0.5 miles decreasing 2.2 Types of Monitoring Monitoring for this plan was broken into three types. Terminology may differ from other regional efforts to create salmon recovery adaptive management plans, but they have been agreed to by WRIA 9 for the purposes of this plan. The three are: 1. Implementation: Did we implement the plan's projects, programs and policies as intended? 2. Effectiveness: Did the projects perform as expected and have all the activities combined improved habitat conditions as expected? 3_ Validation: What overall effects have habitat plan implementation actions had on the Green River Chinook salmon VSP parameters, and are the assumptions within the plan accurate? King County Science and Technical Support Section 4 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan We can adapt management strategies by learning the answers to the above questions and adjusting plan priorities and activities as needed. This plan is organized by the type of monitoring, as described above, and as shown in Figure 1. For each type of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, and validation), we identify what is being done, gaps, and propose activities or guidelines. Comprehensive Monitoring Plan • Funding • Project • Projects • Routine • Programs • Physical • Biological • Enhanced • Cumulative Habitat Conditions • Green Population • Ongoing Research & Data Gaps Figure 1. Three primary types of monitoring are used to evaluate management strategies and adapt them as necessary This plan also prioritizes monitoring activities in order to develop a long-term funding strategy for WRIA 9 salmon recovery funds. The routine project effectiveness monitoring guidelines are intended to be implemented by project sponsors under existing funding of restoration projects, a combination of grant and jurisdiction funds. It is strongly recommended that these guidelines are followed for consistent and scientifically defensible measurement of the effectiveness of projects, both at meeting goals for the particular site, and overall habitat and VSP goals. The funding and projects components of implementation monitoring will be undertaken by both WRIA staff and project sponsors. Program implementation will need to be monitored periodically by WRIA staff. King County Science and Technical Support Section 5 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING 3.1 Plan Implementation Implementation of the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan should influence Chinook salmon productivity and recovery in the watershed. While there are strategies in the Salmon Habitat Plan that describe programs and policies, and projects, this document does not directly address policies and programs. This section focuses on if the projects we are implementing are meeting habitat plan targets as described in Table 1. Knowing the status of the projects called for in the Salmon Habitat Plan, as well as the quantity and quality of habitat, will be important as the WRIA 9 stakeholders evaluate the effectiveness of recovery actions to date and update the Chinook recovery plan. To adaptively manage plan implementation, the ITC will review the status of the goals in Table 1. The ITC will use the adaptive management decision framework (see Figure 2) to evaluate and prepare recommendations to the WRIA 9 Forum of Governments (Forum) of Salmon Habitat Plan projects, polices, or programs that need to be initiated or accelerated in order to get the implementation timeline back on schedule. The framework includes three primary steps or questions. Question one asks if the target been achieved or on target to be achieved? If no, question two asks does the strategic assessment or new research change our understanding of the current context? Question three asks if the metric we are using to evaluate progress is the correct metric or if we need to update the metric. These questions are evaluated against a set of factors limiting implementation, which would also provide guidance for potential changes in course to address the lack of progress. These limiting factors include habitat losses offset gains, insufficient funding, lack of opportunities or landowner willingness, insufficient funding or capacity, and information gaps. The type of limiting factor helps set context around the recommended adaptive management action. The Forum will consider the ITC recommendations and make commitments of staff or other resources to take action to remedy obstacles to implementation. King County Science and Technical Support Section 6 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Adaptive Management Figure 2. WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork. 3.2 Project Implementation Detailed information about how projects are constructed, including the amount and type of each habitat created and the cost is needed in order to assess overall plan implementation. Previous efforts to describe progress of plan implementation were very challenging because there were no consistent expectations or regular reporting requirements. As part of the 2020 Salmon Plan update there will be a standard project status reporting mechanism and schedule so that information is reported to the WRIA in a timely manner to better track implementation of plan goals. Within three months of project completion, project sponsors will be required to report on final project outcomes and future stewardship activities by filling in the Project Completion Close Out form, which will automatically get submitted to the WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator. This data will be entered into the Habitat Work Schedule at http://hws.ekosystem. us to ensure the data is available to the public. King County Science and Technical Support Section 7 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Adaptive Management Process for Project Implementation An important component of project implementation is the comparison of the final design plans to the as -built completion plans created immediately after construction is complete. As-builts are project design drawings of the restoration project that are created shortly after construction and describe what was actually constructed versus what was on the design plans. An as -built can be created by modifying the existing design plans based on changes known to have occurred during construction or by undertaking a new site survey, which would be more costly, but is recommended if there has been a large amount of earth moving. The importance of having an as -built cannot be overstated. Without an as -built it is generally not possible to reliably track the physical changes occurring at any site. As-builts should be created as soon as possible, preferably before the upcoming flood season so the as -built conditions are not conflated with changes created by flood flows. Projects that get SRFB money for construction are now required to provide an as -built (see Appendix D-4: Construction Deliverables, RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants). As -built plans allow comparison to the project as approved by the ITC, WEF, and funding agencies, as well as documentation of the amount of different habitats that were built as part of the project in order to accurately track our progress towards the implementation goals and targets. The following are adaptive management roles and actions for project sponsors, the ITC, and the Forum. Project Sponsor Action: Submit an as -built drawing to WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator. Compare final design to as -built drawings/designs. If the as -built does not represent the permitted final design, project sponsor should describe why in the Project Completion Close Out Form submitted post completion. The Habitat Project Coordinator will evaluate if the extent of changes needs to be reviewed by the ITC or the Project subgroup. ITC actions: Review project sponsor analysis and make recommendations as needed. The ITC will respond based on type of issue, including the potential outcomes noted below: 1) Site condition different than anticipated (e.g. more contaminated soils, buried riprap, bedrock, etc.). 2) Recommend the project sponsor increase future project budgets to undertake more site reconnaissance in design/feasibility, and/or include a higher contingency. 3) Recommend that ALL sponsors of a specific project type or within a geographic area undertake a higher level of site reconnaissance than normal in design/feasibility. (implicitly assumes that ITC will support higher project costs of this nature) 4) Contractor error o Request the project sponsor work with contractor to have the contractor take corrective actions to address problems found. o Recommend project sponsor increase future project budgets to include more construction oversight. 5) Other -ITC respond as necessary. King County Science and Technical Support Section 8 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Forum actions: The Forum will consider ITC recommendations and may assign or procure other resources to advance efforts to expand the current project or propose another project concept to enhance or address omitted project elements. King County Science and Technical Support Section 9 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 4.0 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING' 4.1 Project Monitoring Monitoring to determine project effectiveness has been somewhat inconsistent, and frequently includes only required permit conditions. Typically, most local and state permits only require monitoring plant survival over three to five years after the project has been implemented. For most WRIA 9 projects, this level of monitoring does not provide enough information to understand if the project has successfully created and maintained the type of habitat anticipated from the project. Additionally, much of the other monitoring in the basin has similarly been started after the restoration was done, without proper controls or reference sites making conclusions from the monitoring less reliable. Monitoring plans should specifically address the goals and objectives of the particular project. The ITC encourages project proponents to start creating monitoring121ans when they reach the 30% design phase. This would allow for pre -project monitoring to begin prior to implementing the project, if appropriate. Additionally, the ITC recommends when possible using a Before -After Control -Impact (BACI) monitoring design, as it provides a solid scientific basis for the results. The ITC can provide assistance in developing aspects of the monitoring plan if the sponsor needs assistance The project effectiveness recommendations in the MAMP build on the Implementation Guidance Report (WRIA 9 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Workgroup and Anchor Environmental LLC 2006). That report provided general recommendations for the types of projects or issues that sponsors should monitor, but it did not provide detailed recommendations. This created variability in how project sponsors have monitored restoration projects, which has led to challenges in how to summarize effectiveness. The new recommendations are more detailed with the intent of promoting uniformity in how project success is described and reported back to the WRIA and other funding partners. For this report, project effectiveness was broken into two types: routine and enhanced. It is expected that routine monitoring will be done on all projects as existing sponsor funds allow and should satisfy permit conditions as well as provide basic information about whether the project continues to function as intended. Routine monitoring includes verX little biological monitoring, but rather relies mostly on physical habitat measurements to document performance and changes. For instance, routine monitoring of riparian vegetation should include evaluating the percentage of aerial cover that is occupied by non- native invasive plant species. Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring is more intensive and will be focused on projects with less certainty of success and higher expense. These are discussed in more detail in the next section below. 1 This section pertains to high priority capital habitat restoration projects that the WRIA contributes funding to and does not include education, stewardship or revegetation only projects. King County Science and Technical Support Section 10 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan As of 2020, each restoration funding source treats monitoring requirements differently. The SRFB recently created a pathway where the Lead Entity could use up to 10% of its annual SRFB allocation for monitoring projects, though using these funds for monitoring is not generally encouraged. Instead, the SRFB funds its own monitoring program that monitors a subset of projects throughout Washington. There are generally several WRIA 9 projects being monitored by the SRFB each year. While the WRIA 9 recommended indicators and metrics do not perfectly match the SRFB's metrics, project sponsors should explore ways to collaborate with SRFB monitoring efforts when possible. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) through the Green River Ecosystem Restoration Projects (ERP) not only requires monitoring of their projects, they also provide up to a 65% match to undertake the monitoring. Currently, the ACOE roughly allocates $20,000 a year for three years of post -construction monitoring. However, this amount could be increased to closer to $100,000 a year if the local sponsor had the ability to provide the 35% match. The ability to leverage monitoring funds on ERP projects would likely make them ideal for enhanced monitoring (discussed below). Projects that receive funding through the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) are able to fund monitoring of projects through the program. Furthermore, the ESRP is currently one of the few grant programs that funds "learning projects." This program could be a source of funding for enhanced monitoring efforts in the estuary and marine shoreline as well as for exploring research priorities that are included in the Validation Monitoring section of this report. Additionally, the WRIA directs some of its grant funding (e.g. Cooperative Watershed Management) towards monitoring and research needs. 4.1.1 Routine Monitoring Routine monitoring helps determine if the project is performing the way it was intended. For example, if a backwater habitat is built to function as rearing habitat, the recommendations suggest monitoring the number of days the habitat is inundated during the Chinook juvenile outmigration (January through June) as well as if the amount of physical habitat available changes over time. The recommended indicators and metrics were specifically chosen to be generally affordable and straightforward to implement. The primary indicators and metrics are typically focused on physical attributes of the site versus biological. By giving simple and inexpensive recommendations, it is believed that project sponsors will be able to undertake the recommended monitoring. If project sponsors do not undertake the recommended monitoring voluntarily, it may be necessary to create minimum monitoring requirements as a condition for receiving funding through the WRIA. It is expected that all projects will establish photo points and provide an as -built drawing. Photo -points are an extremely useful way of visually communicating the change that is (or isn't) occurring at a site. Without an as -built drawing it is generally not possible to reliably track the physical changes occurring at any site. Projects that get SRFB money for construction are now required to provide an as -built. King County Science and Technical Support Section 11 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan The monitoring recommendations for a particular project are in Table 2 below and broken into categories of project type and subtype, project objectives, and physical and biological monitoring questions with indicators and metrics for each The project type typically follows the nomenclature used by the SRFB monitoring program, while the project subtype more closely follows the terminology from the WRIA 9 Plan. The next column includes the primary project objective or objectives for that subtype. Defining the specific project objective helps clarify what the physical and biological questions should be. Generally, each project subtype has one primary objective. When there is more than one potential objective, each objective was noted by a bulleted letter that corresponds to bullets in following columns. The next two columns include the physical and biological questions along with the metrics and indicator that should be used to evaluate the specific question. In each of the two columns the questions are broken into primary and secondary questions. It is intended that the project sponsor's monitoring plan should at a minimum answer the primary questions. While the secondary questions would help refine how project success is described and reported, including is entirely up to the discretion of the project sponsor. Where the overall project includes more than one project subtype (e.g., planting combined with a levee setback), the project sponsor would answer the primary monitoring questions associated with each project subtype. King County Science and Technical Support Section 12 October2020 \ / { \ 0 \ / � 2 � &� ) ¥E /& CI. 2 2\ J 2 E/ m// /% • ■ / ■ 7 § t o LO 7 &4- 2 2 ^ E ran)ƒ r o 222 c C0 -/) = � R% _ oo—n ■ R $gE =E E\ enCL o E»/:2»r u°_ % a m ■ E O±= c�® 2 ƒƒ« c §_° y»\\ 0\% m%% _C: E >= n ° t E 2 m g = '� E _ m � > o o ■ ■ o m m ± u > , ° / f \ ° k o 0- a) E.2ow5 §k �f� / $�� 5/ m E a' m I m 0. m e = I > m : \ q % $ M � E \ \ ° / f % (� _ ƒ E % r 0—= = 0 7— = m G o > y=— 0 == w= n£°_ [ �� k $ s—_& gym% o — 2 o 2 A 2 Cl. v a § ®E f± § 0.2 G %.s = E a m n cj m 5> E U k% e / k \ � \/ =5 % / 0 \ y 22 Z \( EU) \/ E \ E I� k \ o :_ a5 > 2) U) U) 232 0 ^ &�- '\ \ 3 0) 0 IL / I > & 2 \.ƒ \ 0 .2 / \ R % c m § c = 0)/2k� \/\ 2/ ¢/f0% Im C-.9uCL k @ � \ $ \ s dLo a) p f�B p p fpB U)> ° O17- a L CD T (n mCo R o > ns a) CT IL U C .� (1) CY O ° CO a) CB O • Q) a) U L U O O Q) � O a > O L M cB v_UO a oa) OU ° U to Q o U U) r Q E L N. a)O 'p C M p Q m p C fB Cp CU (6 .p d 0 0 CO U p p p = p [V p o ca tNo p vOi �' cQO) O co �' ono �>W tLo CD — N m � oca i m m A .� >+ V. M. O_ �� p� U � Q co U Q J U •� � � ns O O a) U � N � -Q ty a O a� •3 a,oc mp �� ° � c �� � zZ o> O C) O a o° °co as.ca)°o � c� c� O ' Q. 0 a a) a =a c0 O E O ��coo O E a N > O v O `"O Q z d C N V N O i n M Q) L a5 20 z rz a N Q- d 0 ° i — N� cn� 7 v M O • .� cn Q = O aa z L � O m o C'. a)C° Cr3U a� �aC co O— �e N o ico 0 a 0 U Q a3 p O O 0 ° Q E z NCO � m o w'nLo U) M m _U� CO o N a> � O.� s ct N N N i m \ .� 1 0— 0 (n L U) p p to L C _0 O L C C6 O Q N = C Q > to .O > V N U) 0 a) L i_ 0) V U) c �--� U) _U a--• a) (6 .. CO Q Q E U U) O U L "O m O U.>_��'� O .r ca O (6 L o O E a> a) C V O O co o) o f o C6 C= .2) CI) om O CO (Q CO i�0 QcEms•co C CO L O to 0 0 C6 m6 OL 20a)m > �.� LL UEo> /L IL O C Q CO C C O iZ C6 L O tp .� (6 0- U O C O O O .� (0 O O U C: a) a) O — U 0-> O 5 N co L a) C d d ti N O �Y Ocn O O '- p ca L C -Q a) � �dE z3 LO ° to a M O R,y ° o o U' a� 4Qai vi y o y 0 m ayi ayi � .0 = O �.°� ���'' cm C, 0 •_ ill 0 y y ��' LL! M •� y O c6 O y N O 00 co 2 L) U E O_ Z a •Q L L co O Z o E c L O CL LOO O d 00 M t M R N Q) O Ur O N O t� V O L O L O t N N - Q R O O i d N •NJ N Q z d 0) cn a) N R M t C U .0 N O M m _� N N O t N d O Q) iz Ma� a Q Q) C ° �— c ° �0�� >M � m 3 r U a) c - CO� � O 0 P- --aj Lma> c. c a� a� � � ,N O (o i O O N ° N� c Q °o A ° mZ Ein a) t c N ++ M U) d L L a = CfB = fB fA O '' a aJ Nco rz y aS C i O a3 _N 0 Q N i "L M vi O N O O o C O L Q) d co 00 E o Q) a' w co �� Cl) > �a O° J '� +, y O L N O O a C o OL� O >• xd �a `—� N�oaQ)ca�a CD� Oa cn0Uc m a�Q, °'° m cna>>��I�u�� o0 0 1° `� `� CZ �a o U m U-0 c°o a' i ° a3 x ._ �- y° °'� �I - U , 2 E •—�1 0 I — co U) 6 a) O -C c o N M can m _0 U O O) 0 6 E cm N >, a) U cc: (o C-� _ M V) "O N (o C p 4) N N �> U O U 4_ O w .9 (n C C t C 4_ co L U c0 N C 0) Q) a) C E M C/) N Q C: Q) CL Q N M Q L Cn U) U U) .°— L.L C � E d N U R ++ V d M C. !C Q O N M C Ln N 0 a m o 0 �� ° a3 7 i > E a y U) Q o°� "-Z co 'Q cc co a) y.:° 0) ca N Qco� coo d Q a) V 1 -0.� N Y N N O Q co L 01 C .Q O p p (B O O N co Lv a)p Lo° o a o oo� ,_ mac' Fn c,a)y °a) � zmo ° -E- U CI. a Q UM CO m a_ � .VCC) Co _ U) U M coQ�E a3 p m U a) a� OO cm Zd +-� N o o o O a) (0 Q Q) O Q) L a5 a) L Cl' a3 .Q Q O -a ° a — C O y a) = 0 >% y � d op n L L +_ c L co Q � E a) m Co Q > v) nz � a) L p Q - a) � L Q N :E U cp a) p U i cn m L O Q Y Q � u o a) V a) m a3 ,-. W. L > O R n a) N t Z •O N a) Q a- i CO •� a O U -Q -Q U co L. C cB t`tm a) y 4- a a3 uJ O c�ov +' C .. co d LO c l° � mom Ya c Oo � CM L O a: y a3 ;� Q Z O O L 0 C U)L C i '�-• yi 'm ° m U i O p c 0 Q O O m +p-0 U) d N ++ N C Q co c d O d �•�_a N M O =>, U UJ�+ Cp j ° L r O L~ O O Ma �N O W =N A oC- N coa� d i N U) C r +r C c � a (B (B i te a+ U)) O 0 O a y Q p 0 m O i N Q) ° L cNa co E a) ns m .c a3 y L d c m 2 C- co c U E_ Q) > = R ca 2 cco N m m •� 2 d E �U L a)' 03 o C O a5 V) > 7 aS aS 0) E (6 > O L L O N L '� f6 _� L- = C O V X U p— m a) +_ C U CCo o m N U 0- a5 -0 °- •C aL L 0 M `) CL ) a5 -0 E a0 -0 m U. CT o cn U a E L U E U a) C O co� O j O O C O L a) N O J c0 L C -O "O E+ a) J L L m a) C L > C _ °>; a) O(D co 0 o2i _J.0 a5 'U5 N �� C ° U o m L co LO L c0 U ?� C N i� Lf) cp � N 3 m L) U N a) M a- U) ao QI 01—>EE I E3E+� m� QC�U a) Q � 3wr U O W O L w a- Cl) 3 = Us) 3 = ti N 0 a a� 1° ° �_ ° vi m _ 12 cco o�,o 0 .Q m m �E`� O .L U c� �� Q a� ca�a�m O N 'O co �� a) °arc) m �a O O N cn-Q+, m m m L N i O _ Y N O� O. r m �— p O O O �-Q+ m m m +� O i •� L L� Q U Q� '� U N "�� .0.. N O �� Q U Q�� � N "-• .0. N O UOO viOp Uc NC o O a)o N U � 4,NN NL a)O U�Lcn 'Q _U iE ° m O mm pO � Uam da - °� L cm .cUNoOn O O j. Q U N O U 1 Q) cr w O L m Q :� �o N ° U 1 Vi Q) ) QO m ° O p 00 m. O Q Q) a °�' cn•� p Q �� D U cU 0 a o� a) a) p acc °�' co p Q Y N U N •l! w a� c%• chi io CO to o cr i ate' O tv N 1 oc - a `o i •� a) ° M U O C p CA EO I-° U N 'DYCD cu mUQ) -CC N .> C Qcn ON rz m m co C O N °° `�E N E cu R a)a m� O C 7 0 cp a C p U� rn a U O i (�B 7 �; N C) v_ N p) O �' 0 E 7 i a� m L - 4? N co a) m .- m E m c cc 0) CO �� M� -a ''" °) O O 3 0 ° O ram. ma -Q m L •L O 0 � C O N 42 U U N Q) ram+ a1 O O 0 cn p0 ,C N .a ++ l6 co a Co p °a O L E �O O - -0 E N i cn a O ='� °' °� �� �a m m v �� cp) Ew o p L) � a �: ca,_ �— o U m� m c N m� ca 3 o L m m o ��Um, m p Q E m 3� Q o E >•o x 3a m = E x Er) xo� L a a-- O N O Q m L +_ N p cn N U 0 a .-. O T.- r U .-. N C O N 6 N r Q U.0 O� m °cam) O O MI LO O O O O _ L O-o O O C O C > mM c0 a)-0 > �� U 5.2 X C U� 0 m _ O O L O N U •� O O m7 L Q p N O O m O � a) L ". Cm O + O 0 LU L C U OIL Q m cn � U CT U L O O c O U '� C _ L O L C _ O a) V c0 Q N L c6 0 0 U O E m> a)O O N O O> O E a) � W 3w U Or O n ti N 0 a U o (Q L V) Co 0 O i O (6 .o a 0 o 00 c6 � c LO o rz d �- _0 cu a �.• O Q Q^) +.L (OL V _0 _Q) N N N U) (6 O O (6 O L 0 a i6 O T � 0 C 0 O Y coco M U k O O QSD 0 c6 -C C Q> v� N Ui � U) -0 N 0 O U Q) N L �, m d C N C (6 -0 m O a) N a m O cn co L _T c6 t ,� E C N O N� Uc N E c6 0 tm y i 0 w O '� 0 c6 •z ,� O Q� i � L U Cu � v i �• a) mo c6 O > C O •i O O M O 0) L c6 a cn O O � —O L -Q (6 _ �+ a 0) L y O s O O 4- O�i M L LQ-1 O O O V 0i6 O IcLn6 � m ° a� cn co o � 0o �o O � o� JOU Ei Z =�0)C O N 0 ++ O U (6 O 1 N O c6 10 O O 0) U IC (6 O O c6 O O i O s -0 N U N ++ N = N U O yt+ ,� (6 M U O N L H 01 t= (6 O E_ "O (5 E >,'` O� .L c6 i O a U 0 (6 O +„ N -Q a M = Z c6 O 1 O N L = 0 i c6 O O = O L N _� N C y O O .—� �+ d w> O U) 00i �a 0) a.�UQc6 0 0) O ��c6 O �C'1�Q (6 > �n0U 0 0) oo cfl000co O a o R L 2a�Uccn' O En 0-0 q)Q) OLD O U)"a— -0 (6 -0 IL U) i r_ O .7 E _ U Q N� L 0 L O'i� cu a) /� /�//�� LL VJ Q E 4- a Q al 3w� U O r CO 3 = 9 N _ O C m U � fB Lo O �''O N i 17Co U CO a) •E N O �d N L O fU E f`• O •U > E (6 .2 O L O O N O U U N 0 o E O 0 O 0) L Q U U a-� 0 0 �._ 0 o=� >E= �� 0 cooEar. m �0 C%• U QOj 'a i CO Q) CI. O >� E >� \ cB O L. Q U O 0 E C N �•.C: (B E U E (6 O U (0 M R Q +-6 N O •- C C O) $ -0 L- O N ram. O -0 4� -0 M U)0) C i O u yam. O N v= cE N� 0 E 0� c+� 0 ca �. '� m 0) O w 010 C'. v_ E _� a)L o N 7 0 (B (B C N +r L ) N 0) a)Q) O Q) 0) z co 0) U w i -C� O O mU) .O L 00 O N 0` O E 0 'V 0 O O U O Q) i d d ,s \ N tq 0) "O U 0) O �v) -0 O C co n3 7 0 ++ OS ��, N t � -Z i . U O z 0 E MO `= V� Q E i N CQ LO N m N L6 to M f0 Ci to yL m N v0 i O 0 0 U�') N 0)-? 0) c� .0 N y Co r- U) O O a)i > OQ • N !E, > U L co � z U U �a m M 2� O f0 2 U a�U � Nm 0) 0) C o o E o U U) U C 0 C O U Qi � C N C CO •� L �) C U> 0) 0) � •� L � f � L p -CN 0 05 0— O— 0 O IL 0 W cy u) E W cy U) 3 m rn a) OS >O N E C E 0 m 0) _� Z 0 a)0 C N O O of �cn QEo � (n (0 0) U O W 0 W 0) fC 4+ fC 4+ O 0 C W 7 Co U O (0 > O 0) +' O .E L U O N CM N .V L 0) L X m E E c0 N � 0) > (D > 0- 0 0) m (6 N O 0 E, 0 0 O O QN .L a�o� O CD () .E 0 U) cn Y v M Lo C 0— d 0) a V E U .r 0) U L 0 0 0 Q > O E O O c>6 O O O O 0 C + U) � � C 7 L O o Q 0 = 0 0 4) 0 U E 0) C •� O 0 N Q > C N 0 0) U Q-C O u .T) 0) 00 cm 00 O U 4) O M (�j0m co•- 0) 0) 00 >, -0 Q C O (6 7 0 0) M C U E .S ti WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Adaptive Management Process for Routine Project Effectiveness Monitoring Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether a project is functioning the way it was intended in the 3-10 years after the project is built. The timeframe for determining effectiveness will likely be longer for projects designed to restore processes, and shorter for projects designed to be static. The following are adaptive management roles and actions for project sponsors, the ITC, and the Forum. Project sponsor action: • Monitor project, report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5 for static projects, and years 5 and 10 for process -based projects. ITC action: • Evaluate and review project sponsor analysis —if project has shortcomings, determine if it is a result of project design or unanticipated processes that will prevent project from being sustained, with or without planned maintenance. • Evaluate options and recommend action as needed to project sponsor and/or the Forum (e.g., maintenance, modify the existing design, or initiating a new project to achieve the objective, and funding if needed). • Summarize recommendations for making future projects of this type more effective and sustainable/successful. • Recommend any additional monitoring needed to further evaluate site conditions to project sponsor. If recommended for enhanced project effectiveness, propose to Forum if approval for additional funding is needed. • If the project is successful, encourage project sponsors to present widely to various audiences (e.g., WRIAs, newsletters, conferences, web sites). Recommend similar projects and highlight the successful elements and techniques to project sponsors of projects of similar type. Forum action: 4. Consider ITC recommendations for enhanced monitoring for specific projects, or recommended actions for maintenance, modifications of the design or new projects. Consider approving actions and/or funding. 4.1.2 Project Monitoring -Enhanced Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish are using a restoration project type. Unlike routine project monitoring, which asks whether a certain type of habitat was created and sustained, enhanced monitoring is meant to determine how fish use the habitat, and which restoration techniques work best. While we generally know enough about Chinook distribution and habitat preferences to design appropriate restoration projects, we do not have all the answers. For example, past studies have compared the relative abundance of juvenile Chinook between different control and treatment habitats, but have not looked at condition factors to determine if restoration projects are also contributing to higher growth rates (and thus survival) of juvenile Chinook. It should be noted that project types that are prioritized for enhanced monitoring should not be King County Science and Technical Support Section 20 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan avoided, but rather, should be done and carefully evaluated. It is not suggested that this level of monitoring be done by all project sponsors. It is intended that the WRIA should at least partially financially support these types of monitoring projects. Also, as noted above, several of the project subtypes are part of the ACOE ERP program. It would be strategic to undertake enhanced monitoring efforts on ERP projects due to the ability to leverage federal dollars for monitoring. Enhanced monitoring overlaps with the research framework described below in the validation monitoring section of this report. Prioritization Framework Unlike the routine monitoring, which was focused on creating detailed recommendations, this enhanced monitoring section focused on creating a prioritization framework to rank where the WRIA should focus funding in its annual grant round (Table 3). Project subtypes for enhanced monitoring are grouped based on the subwatershed. This was done because some project subtypes have different levels of benefit or certainty based on where within the watershed they are undertaken. For example, placement of spawning gravel within the Middle Green River subwatershed is more likely to benefit and be used by spawning Chinook than material that is placed in the Lower Green River subwatershed, which historically had little available spawning habitat. Four criteria were used to evaluate the priority of action by subbasin. Each criterion was scored from 1 to 5 and summed across the four criteria. The higher the sum of the scores, the more effort the WRIA should put in to understanding the benefits of that project type within that subwatershed. Prioritization Criteria 1. What is the certainty of project benefit to Chinook? A score of 1 indicates high certainty, and a score of 5 indicates low certainty. Higher certainty indicates a strong scientific basis that the project type in that location will benefit Chinook. Where there is already a strong scientific basis, there is less need to verify the project's benefits. 2. Is the project subtype process -based? A score of 1 indicates projects that restore riverine processes (e.g., levee setbacks) and a score of 5 represents structural projects that add relatively static habitat features. The plan generally favors process -based restoration techniques because there is greater certainty that the project will provide habitat benefits over the long term. Structural fixes tend to be engineered and more likely to fail in the long term. Thus, it is a higher priority to verify the benefits of those types of actions. 3. How common is the project type? How many of this type are we likely to do in the next 10 to 20 years. A score of 1 indicates we are not planning many of the project type in this subwatershed, while a score of 5 indicates that many are planned. Before we make future investments in a particular type of project, we should make sure they function as expected. 4. How expensive is the project type? Projects with relatively low costs receive a score of 1, and expensive projects score 5. If a project type will require the investment of large financial resources, effectiveness should be verified before many of these project types are undertaken. King County Science and Technical Support Section 21 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan The project subtypes were scored by the ITC and are presented in Table 3. The scoring methodology creates a range of scores from the lowest possible score of 4 to a maximum score of 20. The actual summed scores ranged from 7 to 17, with 7 project subtypes scoring above 13 or greater points. The highest scoring project subtype was creating shallow water habitat in the Duwamish subwatershed. This is because while we have fairly high certainty of benefit, this project subtype is generally not processed based, expensive, and the WRIA expects to build many of them over time. When the factors are combined, the score indicates we should make certain our efforts in this location are having the benefits we want. The 21 project subtypes were binned into three tiers based on natural break points that created roughly equally populated tiers. Tier 1, or projects that warrant additional monitoring the most, included projects that scored 13 points or greater. Tier 2 included six projects that scored between 10 and 12 points. Tier 3 included seven projects that scored from 7 to 9 points. Table I Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by project type and subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced monitoring. Subwatershed Restoration project subtype (does not include acquisition, stewardship, fish passage, and education projects) Certainty of Benefit to Chinook (1= High to 5=low certainty) Process Based? (1=process to 5 = Creation) Relevance to future projects (number likely to do in the next 10 yrs) 1-few to 5-many Relevance to future projects (likely cost over next 10 years) Low=1, high=5 sum Tier Duwamish *Shallow water habitat creation 3 5 4 5 17 Middle Green *Spawning Gravel Supplementation 3 4 4 4 15 Lower Green *Backwater (nonflow thru off -channel habitat) creation 3 5 2 4 14 Lower Green Spawning gravel supplementation 4 4 1 4 13 1 Marine Pocket Estuary Enhancement 5 3 2 3 13 Lower Green *Side channel (flow thru off -channel habitat) creation 3 5 1 4 13 Middle Green LWD installation 3 4 3 3 13 Marine Soft -shoreline armoring 2 4 3 2 11 Middle Green *Setback of levee or revetment 2 2 2 4 10 Duwamish IRevegetation 2 1 4 3 10 Middle Green Revegetation 2 1 4 3 10 2 Tributaries *Revegetation 2 1 4 3 10 Tributaries *LWD installation 3 3 2 2 10 Lower Green *Setback or removal of levee or revetment 2 3 1 3 9 Lower Green *Revegetation 2 1 3 3 9 Marine Marine shoreline armoring removal -other shoreform 4 1 1 2 8 Marine Revegetation of riparian area 2 1 3 2 8 3 Middle Green Removal of shoreline armoring 2 1 2 3 8 Tributaries *Creek channel creation or relocation 3 2 1 2 8 Marine Marine shoreline armoring removal -feeder bluffs 3 1 1 2 7 Upper Basin Enhanced level of monitoring is not suggested until fish passage is provided N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * denotes a project subtype that could be monitored through the ACOE Ecoystem Restoration Program Adaptive Management for Enhanced Project Effectiveness Projects should be evaluated with a combination of BACI or reference/control sites research designs depending on site and circumstances. Adaptive management roles and actions for enhanced project effectiveness are similar to those described above for routine project effectiveness. King County Science and Technical Support Section 22 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Project sponsor or evaluator action: • Monitor fish use and report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5. ITC action: • Evaluate and review project analysis - if project has shortcomings, determine if it is a result of the specific project design, geographic location, or if it is an issue with the project type more generally. • Determine if additional fish use monitoring should occur beyond the initial phase and if additional information should be collected at the same time (e.g. water quality. • Recommend any potential corrective actions as needed to project sponsor and/or the Forum (e.g., maintenance, redesign, or initiating a new project to achieve the objective, and funding if needed). • Summarize recommendations for future projects of this project subtype to ensure we learn from additional examples of the project subtype. • If the project is successful, make sure this information is widely shared with other project sponsors. Encourage project sponsors to present widely to various audiences (e.g., WRIAs, newsletters, conferences, web sites). Recommend similar projects and highlight the successful elements and techniques to project sponsors of projects of similar type. Forum action: Consider ITC recommendations for enhanced monitoring for specific projects, or recommended actions for maintenance, redesign, or new projects. Consider approving actions and/or funding. 4.2 Cumulative Habitat Conditions The Salmon Habitat Plan calls for a variety of actions to be taken by local jurisdictions. Some of those actions are specific restoration projects while others are regulatory or programmatic in nature, like protecting forest cover. The intent of all the actions called for in the plan is to improve the cumulative habitat conditions for fish over time. The effectiveness of all the actions is represented in the cumulative habitat conditions, which require that we know both the gains and losses to habitat parameters throughout the basin so that we can evaluate the net loss or gain of any particular habitat metric. It is recommended cumulative habitat conditions be reported on every 5 years. The WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report 2005-2011 (ITC 2012), evaluated most Tier 1 and several Tier 2 Conservation Hypotheses. While it is recommended the WRIA continue to measure the same metrics into the future, the information has been reorganized around recovery strategies that are part of the larger Salmon Habitat Plan update. In addition to the tracking the same metrics as in 2012, it is recommended that two areas be added for future status and trends evaluation. Specifically, it is recommended tracking the amount of and change in intertidal fill along the marine shoreline. Baseline data for 2005 and 2015 have been created that allow for consistent tracking of this metric. King County Science and Technical Support Section 23 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan At the time the Salmon Habitat Plan was developed, the existing water quality data did not indicate a strong effect on Chinook salmon, thus all water quality parameters were considered a moderate priority. Since the Salmon Plan was developed, three different Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies indicated temperature is a serious concern in the mainstem Green River, as well as in Soos and Newaukum creeks. The 2012 Status and Trends report recommended tracking water temperature in the mainstem of the Green River in addition to the tracking water temperatures in Soos and Newaukum Creeks. Information on how cumulative habitat conditions will be evaluated is based on work done for the Status and Trends report in 2012 and is summarized in Table 4. The table includes information on: the method to be used, who is expected to collect the data, who will likely pay for the data, how often and when the evaluation should be done, and a rough cost range for data collection, analysis, and reporting. Unlike the 2012 effort where the ITC dedicated most of a single year to collect and analyze data for the report, it is the intent that some of the data and metrics in Table 4 will be collected and analyzed each year, rather than all the information being collected and analyzed at one time. This will spread the costs and time requirements across a five-year period, which will make the overall undertaking more manageable and affordable with limited resources. It is recommended that the ITC continue to annually coordinate with other entities conducting monitoring in the watershed and evaluate opportunities to leverage other monies and make recommendations to the WEF as to which opportunities to pursue. For example, the ACOE undertakes large wood survey of thirty miles of the Middle Green River every few years. This effort could be leveraged by paying the ACOE consultant to collect the same data in the Lower Green and Duwamish. Having the same data collection methods and same surveyors reduces startup costs and improves data consistency and the ability to reliably analyze trends throughout the river. King County Science and Technical Support Section 24 October2020 3 0 >+ �i ♦ S �i U Qi i CD N Co C CO a) (o w t N Q N > (n C O O p cn cn a) cn c0 2 W O "p m W Q _p 2 a J oU W D O L2 CD J-0 Can Z m CO OU CO U' CO oU U c0 R ui � —O 0 0� cO - �Wz c cn c�0 'a O Q � _ (6 C (6 Q O W� Co U p 0 U L CFo—' U) f-3 cQco ���,� ,o m y c a) E 0 c Q cn C 0 o w a) L Q) OoO.�CDa o•L o 00,00 O Q'� i .� a) 0 U U 0 U U L =i ►� =3 0 fn U C 0Q >+ (O� 0Q OQ OQ Q ��� CO 3 C IO ov co "" Q Z U U U U U O O OL Y> cOi U U p U) rn O 0 a) .� O) O a) L U o o C O ITS L O p a- 0) O C C Co > a) a co L o a) _ C Co O "-' 0.(n o .� CM 0 .� cO "p O C C m E L N c cn a--. - _O c .� Q a) O N E m a) 0 L L p Q c Co 0 a) m _N p p 0) L C C 2Z3�� Y U MCno m O N EC L cn .p L) ++ L N a)a) 0 70 � � � � c a) cO � CQ (moo Y IO L E o O _ cn _ O o .- O 0m aco) 0a) Z +' n O CO Q 0 q (n C LOCO a) p 0 U C Q o_ a) Xz m C a) Q 6 co = o_ 2� <)Co m Y O E L p Cn o Co O a) _ p C p cO C �0 rn �� ��m� p(O 3coo_w ��oE - Oc 0� c6 (>6 n O Q o_ O io N U .� (6 0 0 C� 0 0) o_ O � D � C 'E i -o a) (n D E U p o o m c L Cn CO o O C a) 7 v) 0 0 x N > J O p "p U c M Cn 0 Cn _ � � C) O _ O o Q a) >, � Cn /�� a) U p p ypy T a) LO (o (6 o U co (o (o (n O C(n L O L L C Q a) (6 :� 0 O U a) c0 O 0 m A E 0 io L .O a) a) O 0 L O L— L _� a) a) "O o (,) 0 a) a) (t5 om a)p C Q m ao)04- E 0 o Eo aL., °) 0 0 O L ° a) ITS Qc E o co O cu ' a) M Cn ITS a) a) -E (O .00 0 N N L 7 ccu (o U Cn c0 E co >, >, _0 ° C N to a) 0 p cO cO N N L p p E p c0 •� E -cm- -cm- O C cO a) li O cO C W C>o 0 m a)�N cO 0 Q d a W 0) U cO cO 2 .9 .� a) Q U' co +' N R � O C 5, >. >, c >+ >+ >, >> W oC m—_0 � �—� C E c 06 06 � a) C � a od c r a) .o L L a) m L a) C W a) O L L 'p a) m L a) m L a) L L /c/O� 7 U) a) C W L L E L O N C O p C O •L K 0 •L M O C U "a .� O C O rnn .Q U rnn a) (n t cO cn 0 > cn cO cn cO Cn y p) M 'E Cn Cn O m � m 0 M a) a) a) 2 (n 02 cn a) Q — a) a) a) i a) 0 X � a) .- � a) N w a) O � a) a) 0 � � a) X � a) > L) C p U C O C a c0 U C a) C C U C m i> > 0 C Q m U c O V a) (6 i O� L _� a) (6 p O�U _N CO "- a) CO C O= EZ �� C a) CO L OL O N CO L p� O a) CO !- pL� p) a) 0 a) CO U �� E� a) CO �= () L C O �WU L C �WoZf L C O CIS L C O dWU2o2St1WU L C L �W(n L C L dW(A L C Co WW2 _p L a) L C O c0 �CL0 06CL L C CLw a) 0) L a) C L "0 co C N O a).20 CE U ' a�� �Cn ram+ C U L Q C CO E L CO L Y Co a) 7 C O o� _oEQ O CO 0 -p v- > 0 .L 0 �O C a) C ) .( 0O C C O-0 — C U O R L E m m = = L a) a) C N a) U C E —_ 7 CO cO L "O = ITS a) >(D cm U > O p N 0 O > C 0 +6 C C 2 E in > 2 0 LL -o (n c0 0O m o ° < (00 2 a /\/ R // e // 3 m =/ a) f\ a2 2L§ _ 22 �0>0 fe0E0 -0C� � \ m n � q/ -0 a) 2 f R� t ® z= z fs u a u« ° f \ o o I U t o> 'a m 2> 'e 2/$//fƒ/\ EM3 0 » u Z o E n U Z 2 0 2 E o r 7 / 0 2 0 =\\ (D I '> I $ c @ ? 0) o \ a) \gym a) U ye = EaE �cc ƒ§/ ®2'U0 E 0 0 m / 70/ 0 0 m ° f 20° %\/ k0co 2\2 r7U) 0) a) b _0 B=> 0 �¥s o < a) @ 22/ \\mom m E a2 o=E2 Ea=_ E// = n E o> E& g E§£ ± o m E n �$ moo= G23 :§/E\ /�� n e\g 0 =3U) o� qk 0=2 3f\ E/»% 2 a)M E < 0-'7e7 ° ( m> _ ® _E= / ° cz \ 2 / / 0 f / o § / E 2� k\ �\ \ c c k o k _ 22 0 22 \ k 0 _E @ 7$ ƒ) /0) »\: ƒa) §cu ] u -\k aCL \/ �/k J ILIk ƒƒ CLI\ a)\ rn k / $ \ E kk% /\/k \? E= 5 E E( Z 3 a) _ 0"m = § 2 0 _ \ E $ \\ /m00 Jf k \ 0( 2 0cn /\\ = 0 0 m LL UE=IZm0R7 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Adaptive Management for Cumulative Habitat Conditions The ITC will prepare a summary of environmental indicator conditions in the watershed compared to the baseline conditions every five years. The summary will classify all environmental indicators investigated as improving, staying the same, or degrading. This information will be compared to the watershed -wide implementation monitoring to gain insight on whether activities to date address the environmental indicators. If so, but the environmental indicator conditions continue to decline, then it means that habitat is being lost faster than it is being gained. The ITC will prepare recommendations of projects to conduct (or project timelines to accelerate) and policies, programs, and regulations that can be useful in stopping habitat loss and providing an overall improvement in habitat. These recommendations will include consideration of: • Are there incomplete projects in the Salmon Habitat Plan that could improve habitat conditions in ways that would appear in environmental indicator monitoring? • Does it appear that un-enforced regulations are contributing to the degradation and/or is there a need for additional regulations? • Are there programs in the Salmon Habitat Plan that could improve conditions that are not being implemented, or is there a need for additional programs? The Forum will consider the ITC recommendations and make commitments of staff or other resources to take action to implement more projects or programs, enforce regulations, or develop new policies, programs, or regulations to address the issue(s). King County Science and Technical Support Section 27 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 5.0 VALIDATION MONITORING 5.1 Population Status -Viable Salmonid Population Parameters The central question when working towards salmon recovery is, what is happening with the Chinook? Specifically, we need to know the status (abundance, productivity, distribution/spatial structure, diversity) and long-term sustainability of the Green River Chinook population. These are described by NOAA as Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters. These measures of population status tell us whether the cumulative actions of society and the Salmon Habitat Plan are resulting in improvements in population's overall resiliency. There are factors outside the scope of the Salmon Habitat Plan that affect adult population abundance—i.e., ocean conditions, harvest rates, hatchery management, other Puget sound stock abundance (WRIAs 7, 8, 9, and 10)—so it is important to focus on aspects of the population that are predominately affected by WRIA 9 habitat actions. Table 5 shows VSP parameters, what each is intended to represent, how they will be measured, and who is collecting data associated with them. King County Science and Technical Support Section 28 October2020 a) C> L O a) a) U c6 C a) O O N a) v- O co -0 M m U) _ a) 0 0 .L O I i C cu O > c0 a) a5 > a) Z +J O > a) upj OZ rn -0 C U) a) O +J +� y L 0) c) �° •O p .� - C E C- a (6 p p �� 7 0 uj m c) O a) .� C C O <) C U) a) u) a? � O Q }..� E p C O 7 ~ Q > > 00 co M �' /p p O a) (ca •- to 0) ~ c mE L � O LLI � �_ 4t OV 0 �� LL L N . ( ) - a) L aS C .� � pU i _ E 5 y >> L O v 2 O� aS p ca E E is -o _p O _ -a O c0 O — c6 cv a L a3 > C � >, m C "O -0 - (6 0 C C C a) > U) >, p a) C -0-0 C > U C � +J a) a) a) -O "O _ > C C a) 0 —� �_�� Na— as u- u) " 0 E'O `°��—'' �' �° `� N C m�O .a a) a)Q� a3 NLL LL 0 N cQ E a— LL N 7 N C O m � — L L O C C 0 N� O� a) > LL O t N -p Q 2> C C O 0 0> f6 Q_m O 7� O Fz L 7 7 a) E m O (D-0 c� ��yo-0 � � >Zu)a_ a) a �_0 >,U"O-C a) CD m U)o G C ! 'H- L 0) -0 _ L C O L N p 0 c0 cv C O �p a)0 E (6 C m `� i to O a) > N 0) L 'C C' 0) (B - M C ++ L (6 E a) m C > C — ° c0 C E c� .� m p a) E a) C a> co �� > E 3� ELO L0 M.0 CL 0) L a) C O' C� (p p Q L N N a) C E O L N N p 3: . 0 0 i w O O) L 4) U j, O 0) C C 0) � �" C C .0 .O a) m i O a) � +' 0) _0-0 cn a) C w 0' m O g L a) a co > Q 0 c a) L d E m 0) C _O .0 L Q c0 O "O L U -0-0 N O L a) a) -p O C C> M m C C m O C w •� >`--'"O �'cl)`'O a) p W p O L p 0 L L a) E C c)•N U) to (6 L �O.0 p i O E L L a) a) •� p 7 0) ca C C- >, C -0 a) , E O 4- .O a) = (n C L a) O i m Lo O "C O L O E -0 U 0) C O O p a) C a) (6 M Q M to M N ._ a) (� M O Q L p C a) �, _N to to a) c0 cn 0 C _ U) O L 3 .>_ 2 3 C".- N a) E > coa) 0 0 w E M i E °? cn co cn 3 N 2 U) O cM cn Q O 0= Z CO Qc m i) $ 7 M M >O, i) L cm >O m C fn a) O Np O U () a) U p N -C cCo a) = C U Oa) 0) C L M a) >i -0_0 C CO a) i O CO LL O 0- m � :. a) C a) a) a cn -0 m n3 co 0 a) p O U 0- -0 C x .� •� a) >_ U a) L cv E -c � c N -0 a) E cn C 0) p c0 p a) L c6 a) c� •— Z3 0) a)-Cc: Y > > E � > O O � C 00 � m p CO � Q -p 0 C cn +� O C E a) C OL i0 a) > O. O_ C "p C m t a) Q U L C a) c6 7 -O C C 0) N U) ate+ a) (0 C X a)> E Ocn U) U to C C a) '� }^ O m U C =3 a) 4) a) N cn N a) cn 0 0 O E co E p a) C cn -C _ to m L� p O cn > O +, N Q� _ O can .0 E E p > p O} O 0- p> 0 E L L (p Q O `� O -0 p cn U O E O L O > E a p .L V C O E Q O "O a) cn O cn C "p O Q a) cn to Q E O p t a) - _ Lt y L O •� a) L_ i� C a) 7 C p O (6 C a) U to U �+ co C j L p O N +--i L M C w 0 0 -a 0 U) C E > C.O� p O C N += L'ro c6 O N - p.�0)Q O N a) L O Q QO �C-� 7 "O ++ •U O _U a) OL •N i co N E > a) E a5ia� C O a) Q m aaE C L C 0 c L >, "O cn +U M ♦pI1 O C �.., cn 0 7-C C-CL vJ L (n m c-> y m m m O X O c0 r-0 C Q a) in U L O Z a-6 E U C p p) � O CL O m O -a E cn E OE ) O O-0 C +C MO M n "O O(_. Q> a) C 0 m E p 7 (LO (p U L E F L U p 0 Q-C v- C E Q - .E O V) c6 a)- m C a3 m ti U m .� co _0) m C c0 C E Q -C C ° Q p E i c6 f O N (0 O p >, cO C .U) m U CT "O to m O L C 0 (i m "O m Q i a) M -0C � U M a L- V) O O i > /IBC /^L ��Q/) ���/) N WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Gaps in VSP monitoring Spatial structure is an important VSP parameter that influences the ability of a population to adapt to habitat complexity. Chinook spawning distribution data by reach has been collected by the co -managers for several decades. In several years, an effort was made to GPS each redd location during the spawning surveys, but this is not consistently done. It is recommended that the WRIA work with the co -Managers to facilitate the collection of detailed location information so that the WRIA can create a metric to measure and track spawning patches (i.e. finer scale redd distribution). This will become more important in the future when passage is provided at Howard Hanson Dam, and spawning distribution may shift due to a doubling of the spawning habitat. Currently, smolt outmigration is measured just above the confluence with Soos Creek, at River Mile 34; there is no smolt trap lower on mainstem to determine productivity of lower river rearing habitats. While Muckleshoot Tribe maintain a smolt trap on Newaukum Creek the data for that trap is not available for analysis. The WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004) recommended an additional smolt trap at River Mile 18 after the fish passage facility is installed at the Howard Hanson dam. A smolt trap was installed at this location for a short period in 2003, but it was done for a specific research project and was not considered an ideal site for trapping (King County 2013). A new approach to tracking juveniles in the lower Green River will be undertaken in 2021 using Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT). Once the results from the PIT tagging study are complete, the ITC should evaluate if it is appropriate to fund the PIT tagging array in the long term to quantify habitat use and survival through the lower Green. The smolt trap at River Mile 34 is a high priority. The smolt trap facilitates "fish in -fish out" monitoring. In combination with spawning abundance estimates, this trap is used to measure egg to migrant survival for each brood year and to collect data on aspects of life history diversity. It is the best available measure of salmon productivity in freshwater given the range of inter -annual variability with flood events and other factors. VSP monitoring needs to be done annually without breaks due to natural variability in populations. Over long time periods, data from the smolt trap can help detect changes in productivity and life history diversity which should result from the cumulative habitat restoration being undertaken. The smolt trap funding has been in doubt at various times. The current funding approach relies on contributions from four government entities and it is unclear how long this approach will be viable. A long-term regional funding plan is needed to ensure the trap continues operating. 5.2 Ongoing Research and Data Gaps In 2004 the WRIA 9 Technical Committee created the WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework to "provide guidance about which research efforts should be implemented in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed to inform recovery planning" (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). Existing information was used to create a conceptual model of how Chinook salmon use the watershed to help organize and prioritize data and knowledge gaps for future research. Research topics were categorized into three tiers. King County Science and Technical Support Section 30 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Topics in Tier 1 were developed in more detail within the report while Tier 2 and 3 topics were left undeveloped. Since 2004 many data gaps have been addressed or at least partially addressed through various studies. However, as is typical with research, for every question answered many more new questions are created. We now know some items originally listed as lower priorities in 2004 should actually be considered higher priorities and our list of data or knowledge gaps has expanded. There have been many reports with recommendations for additional research. Two newer reports that that compiled and described many new research needs are the WRIA 9 Status and Trends Report (ITC 2012) and the plan update white paper on Chinook use, temperature, climate change, and contaminant (King County 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2018). Given the fluidity of our state of knowledge, it was not deemed appropriate to expend significant resources in updating or amending the research framework within the MAMP when it will be out of date shortly thereafter. Instead, it is recommended that the ITC still use and refer back to the research framework as it has laid out many issues in need of additional study as well as possible methods and approaches to addressing the data gap while at the same time taking into account newer information generated since 2004. For example, there are several studies recommended to improve our understanding around how fry use the estuary, but these studies do not take into account our new understanding of how contaminated substrates may be driving the very low survival. King County Science and Technical Support Section 31 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Adaptive management involves using monitoring results to make changes to the Salmon Habitat Plan and projects, and requires testing assumptions, and sharing what is learned with the people implementing the plan and projects. Implementing this monitoring and adaptive management plan will be the backbone of our ability to say if recovery actions are working. This plan has identified the monitoring needs for WRIA 9 as it nears the end of the first 15 years of the Salmon Habitat Plan implementation and enters the next phase of salmon recovery with the first major update to the Salmon Habitat Plan. Findings from the monitoring efforts will allow the WRIA 9 stakeholders to adaptively manage for salmon recovery with the latest information about the pace of project and program implementation, the effectiveness of projects, and their effects on the abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure of Chinook salmon. In recent years, the WEF has dedicated a proportion of its local resources to monitoring and research needs. It is recommended that the WRIA continue to do so given the need to describe if the Plans actions are leading to changes in the Chinook VSP parameters. Specifically, it is recommended that the WRIA shift the current monitoring and research grant selection process into a more formal process than it has been. This will allow the WRIA 9 ITC to review and balance the various types of monitoring needs each year. It is expected the monitoring and research grant funding will predominately be directed at, cumulative habitat condition data collection and analyses, smolt trap funding, and some amount of enhanced monitoring and new research to address knowledge gaps. Specific adaptive management actions and roles are described for each type of monitoring in the sections above and are summarized below. Implementation Monitoring Priorities In order to track how the Salmon Habitat Plan is being implemented, it is recommended that project sponsors report project funding and habitat accomplishments to the WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator within 3 months of project completion. Additionally, it is recommended that WRIA 9 staff report in writing on a biennial basis on the status of Salmon Habitat Plan implementation related the habitat targets for each subwatershed, as listed in the implementation monitoring section (chapter 3) of this plan. Project Effectiveness Monitoring Priorities The routine monitoring for projects suggested in this report were prioritized because they should be relatively easy and inexpensive to collect and frequently integrate with permit required monitoring. Routine monitoring for individual project effectiveness should be paid for by project sponsors or grants they receive for project construction, where monitoring costs are allowed. While not encouraged, project sponsors or other groups may also apply for WRIA directed grants for routine monitoring and maintenance, but a high bar should be placed by the ITC to justify why the normal expectations should be discounted. Some projects with more risk or uncertainty in outcomes should be monitored more King County Science and Technical Support Section 32 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan intensively with funding support by the WRIA under enhanced project monitoring. It is recommended that the WRIA 9 dedicate some funding each year to enhanced project effectiveness monitoring in order to learn more about if specific project types are having the desired benefits. Opportunities to partner with the Army Corps of Engineers on enhanced project effectiveness monitoring for projects in the ERP should also be pursued whenever possible in order to leverage WRIA dollars. Cumulative Habitat Conditions For cumulative habitat conditions, the strategy recommended is to whenever possible use data from existing monitoring efforts that are already occurring, and to leverage those with the agencies or groups doing the monitoring to expand the efforts to fill any gaps. Also, in some cases, WRIA 9 staff and partners, especially from the ITC, may be able to meet monitoring needs at no extra cost to WRIA 9. Data and evaluation of cumulative habitat conditions should be undertaken each year in order to spread out the tasks and make them manageable with limited staff resources. The sum of all those conditions should be reported on once every five years. Validation Monitoring A backbone of any monitoring effort is knowing how the fish are doing. The comanagers currently collect most necessary data on adults returning to the Green River. In 2013 when the smolt trap was likely to be funded only once every 10 years due to budget constraints, the ITC recommended that the WRIA contribute to its funding. This is because the smolt trap data is at the heart of our ability to say if the changes in habitat are resulting in changes in Chinook VSP parameters. The trap has been in place for over 20 years, and data compilation and analyses from that data recently provided many valuable insights into recovery efforts (Anderson and Topping 2018). Thus, the ITC strongly recommends continuing to work with basin partners to fund the smolt trap until a more appropriate regional funding source can be found. It is suggested the ITC continue in its existing approach to ranking and funding priorities for research to fill data and knowledge gaps. Small investments in this type of work has provided useful information for the plan update, like the juvenile Chinook use of non -natal stream habitats in the Lower Green, which has raised the importance of restoring access to those habitats. King County Science and Technical Support Section 33 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 7.0 REFERENCES Anderson and Topping, 2018. Juvenile life history diversity and freshwater productivity of Chinook salmon in the Green River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 38: 180-193. Beechie, Timothy, Eric Buhle, Mary Ruckelshaus, Aimee Fullerton, Lisa Holsinger. 2006. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity, Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 4, Pages 560-572, ISSN 0006-3207, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.019. (http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/Vii/S0006320706000450) Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C. DeGasperi. 2011. Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 11- 10.046. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110046.html Greene, Correigh M. and Timothy J. Beechie. 2004. Consequences of potential density - dependent mechanisms on recovery of ocean -type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61:590-602. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2004. Auburn Narrows floodplain habitat restoration project: surface water Hydrology. Prepared by Kathryn Neal for King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County. 2013. DRAFT. Juvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the Lower Green River, Duwamish River, and nearshore of Elliott Bay, 2001-2003. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle. King County. 2017a. A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004-2016). Prepared by Kollin Higgins of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County Science and Technical Support Section 34 October2020 WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan King County. 2017b. Green River temperature and salmon. Prepared by Josh Kubo of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County. 2017c. WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon. Prepared by Jessica Engel, Kollin Higgins, and Elissa Ostergaard of King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County. 2018. An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by Jenee Colton, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle Washington, for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. Konrad, C., H.B. Berge, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Steff, T. Olsen, and J. Guyenet. 2011. Channel dynamics in the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936 to 2002. Northwest Science 85: 1-14. Latterell, Josh. 2008. Baseline Monitoring Study of Restoration Effectiveness in the Green River (Mile 32): Process and Habitats in the Channel and Floodplain. King County DNRP, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wlr/sections-programs/science-section/doing= science,[green-river-restoration -study.asp x Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team, R. Ponzio and K. Stiles. March 2013. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery: A Framework for the Development of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. Ruggerone, G.T. and D.E. Weitkamp. 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook Salmon Research Framework. Prepared for The WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Prepared by Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., and Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA. WRIA 9 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Workgroup and Anchor Environmental LLC. 2006. Implementation Guidance for the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, Seattle WA. pp101. WRIA 9 Implementation Technical Committee. 2012. WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report: 2005-2010. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. King County Science and Technical Support Section 35 October2020 Appendix G: Recovery Strategies M fi A � I .' ti y t . SPX r r ROQ RTABOR Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan • November 2020 PAGE G-1 APPENDIX G Recovery Strategies lecovery Strategy OlubwatershedsPrograms Restore and Improve Fish Passage All • Fish passage barrier removal (1) Protect, Restore and Enhance Lower & Middle • N/A (4) Floodplain Connectivity Green Protect, Restore, and Enhance Lower, Middle & • Gravel and wood supplementation (2) Channel Complexity and Edge Upper Green Habitat Protect, Restore, and Enhance All • Regreen the Green Revegetation (5) Riparian Corridors • Noxious/invasive weed removal • Site stewardship and maintenance Protect, Restore, and Enhance All • Pollution Loading Assessment (7) Sediment and Water Quality • Pollution Identification and Control • Creosote Removal Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Nearshore • Private landowner toolbox (5) Marine Shorelines • Shore Friendly Technical Assistance • Nearshore acquisition strategy Protect, Restore and Enhance Estu- Duwamish • Implement Duwamish Blueprint (3) arine Habitat Protect, Restore and Enhance Lower, Middle & • Watershed management plan (5) In -stream Flows and Cold Water Upper Green • Upper Green Watershed Strategy Refugia Expand Public Awareness and All • Behavior change communication plan (2) Education • Volunteer stewardship • Community science and monitoring • Shoreline workshops Integrate Agricultural Protection Lower & Middle • Farm conservation plans (2) and Salmon Recovery Initiatives Green • Livestock program Integrate Salmon Recovery into All • Restoration incentives (10) Land Use Planning • Compliance monitoring and enforcement Plan Implementation and Funding All • Basin stewardship (7) • Land Conservation Initiative • Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program ,Vshed Fit,, r OJ+ '9•F o� �9 m � � Published by the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) CITY OF BURN WASHINGTON Burien Th� Cay t a MAP LLEY i �... CITY OF �- Federal Way Enumclaw WASHINGTON KEN. WA=—,o. King County CITY OF ♦ 'T ♦ IIIi. *NORMANDY PARK WASHINGTON ��j.r0 City of Seattle Tacoma City of Algona City of Des Moines City of Maple Valley City of Tacoma City of Auburn City of Enumclaw City of Normandy Park City of Tukwila City of Black Diamond City of Federal Way City of Renton City of Burien City of Kent City of SeaTac City of Covington King County City of Seattle