HomeMy WebLinkAbout2030RESOLUTION NO. 2O3O
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9,
2O2L Update to the Salmon Habitat Plan, "Making
our Watershed Fit for a King," dated February
202L.
RECITALS
A, 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. Seventeen local
governments in WRIA 9 ("Parties"), including the City of Kent, have partnered
through an interlocal agreement (ILA) (2OOL-2O06,2007-2Ot5, 2OL6-2O25) 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'),
B. In March L999, 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).
Local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat-based aspects of Chinook
2027 Update to WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan
1
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.
C. The WRIA 9 partners recognize participating in the ILA and
implementing priorities in the WRIA 9 Plan demonstrate their commitment to
proactively working to address the ESA listing of Chinook salmon. Coordination
and cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, businesses,
non-governmental organizations, landowners, community members, and other
interests are essential to implement and adaptively manage a salmon recovery
plan.
D. 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, The WRIA 9 Plan is one of
15 watershed-based chapters of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. The
City of Kent 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.
E. 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, Salmon recovery is
interrelated with flood risk reduction, water quality improvement, open-space
protection, recreation, economic development, and tribal treaty rights.
F. The City of Kent has a strong interest to achieve multiple benefit
outcomes for people and fish across the watershed. 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, It is important to provide jurisdictions,
2027 Update to WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan
2
the private sector and the public with certainty and predictability regarding the
course of salmon recovery actions in WRIA 9. 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'
G. The Parties previously took formal action to ratify the 2005 Salmon
Habitat Plan, and staff recommends the City Council similarly ratify the 2021
update to the WRIA 9 Plan,
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 7. - Ratify 2021 lJpdate to WRIA 9 Plan. The City of Kent
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 2O2L, a copy of which is available
online at: www.govlink.orglwatersheds/9/pdf/W9-SHP-2021.pdf, with the
appendices available online at: www.govlink.org/watersheds/9/reports/salmon-
habitat-plan-update/appendices.pdf. Ratification is intended to convey the City
of Kent's support for the following:
Protecting and restoring habitat based on best available science
with the intent to achieve sustainable, resilient, and harvestable
populations of naturally spawning Chinook salmon.
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.
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.
2027 Update to WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan
1
2
3
3
APPROVED AS FORM
PATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
5 2027 Update to WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan
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
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.
SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or
sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution
and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. - Corrections by City Clerk Upon approval of the city
attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this
resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or
subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon its ge.
.-L)
Auoust L7.2O2L
Date ApprovedDANA RALPH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
4
5
August L7, 202I
Date Adopted
2027 Update to WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan
KIMBE LEY MOTO,LERK
4
i+t***tl.l:.o '
Salmon Habitat Plan
2021 Update
Green,/ Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
1r;,
F,f Fo,
4
e
oE
MAKING OU'R WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING
GREEN/DUWAMISH AND
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED
Water Resource lnventory Area I (WRIA 9)
Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on
February 11,2021
Green / Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
W
Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UPdate
MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
Water Resource lnventory Area I (WRIA 9)
Approved by the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum on February 11,202'l
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 lnvestory Area 9 (WRIA 9).2021,
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Water-
shed Salmon Habitat Plan202l Update' Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King, Approved by the Watershed
Ecosystem Forum FebruarY'11, 2021'
File Archive:
2102-lO102L-W9SH P-REPORTt.indd
King County lT Design and Civic Engagement Unit archives
3Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
Contents
Foreword 8
Chapter 2: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed - A Snapshot
Chapter 3: The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle - Connecting a Diverse Watershed 2?
Marine Nearshore Rearing
Chapter 4: Current Population Status and Recovery Goals.. """""""27
Viable Salmon Population Criteria - Current Status and Goals". """"""""27
Ghapter 5: Strategic Assessment Update - New Science on Priority Pressures ....................33
Strategy: Restore and lmprove Fish Passage
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, Bestore, and Enhance Sediment and Water Quality .....'.'."""""""""55
Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Marine Shorelines
Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance Estuarine Habitat.,",...... """"""""' 60
Strategy: Protect, Restore and Enhance lnstream Flows and Cold Water Refugia 6)
Strategy: Expand Public Awareness and Education ,..."'..,..,..'..' '.".'."""""""""64
Strategy: lntegrate Agricultural Protection and Salmon Recovery lnitiatives '.."..'...'.66
Strategy: lntegrate Salmon Recovery into Land Use Planning '"...-'-"..'".-- """"""""""""68
70
t7
23
23
24
24
25
25
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
4
Chapter 7: Capital Proiects 73
74
Chapter 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management...'............'.. """""" 167
List of Figures
Figure l. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery timeline,',,'..'
Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Watershed Map,'.,.....'.'
Green/Duwamish (WRIA 9) Land Use Designations Map'-..-.,-,.,- .'.....'......'..""'21
The Salmon Cyc1e..,,,.,.,...,,24
Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified
25
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
29
Howard Hanson Dam spring water storage and a||ocation,......,,,,,,,,,...,. "'..'....""34
Figure B. Projected impacts to Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound salmon as a
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
Figure fl. Representative tributary mouth habitats associated with flapgate flood
control structures,
Figure 12. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance of fry and parr produced based on
estimated adult Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping 2018)"'."'.'....'.
Figure 13. Chinook salmon that enter the estuarine waters as fry (< 60 mm) experience
Figure 14. Shoreline modification identified during Marine Shoreline Monitoring and
Compliance Project (Eco
Figure 15. Juvenile fish passage barriers block juvenile Chinook salmon access to important
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 t8. Progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9
54
Figure 19. Stormwater-induced mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creek, Normandy Park",'..,,....'...'......'..."""...'.",.57
Figure 20.Before and after Phase ll restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien"..,
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 sa1mon,.,,....,
14
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
36
39
41
43
44
46
50
58
61
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
6
F-gure22.
Figure 23.
66
Figure 24. The Riverview Park Project created approximately 800 ft of side channelto
increasing juvenile Chinook rearing and refuge habitat in the Lower Green River,..,...",'."'..'.'.'."'...'...."71
Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adapt
168
List of Tables
Table 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals'.,,...""". "'''''--"""""'J1
Appendices
Appendix A: An Evaluation of Potential lmpacts 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 lmpacts on Salmon
Appendix E: Capital Project Evaluation Template
Appendix F: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
Appendix G: RecoverY Strategies
Before (2013)and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek..,........"
A community volunteer examines a salmon carcass as part of the Miller/Walker
63
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Figure 31.
PAGE
7Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
-7
_€.
r{,w '/
*
t .t-
.t
.t. a
-I>
oot
{$arershed
Fif frra
+4t
Pr
B:
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 2021WR|A 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. lt
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
entitieJin the last 15 years helped leverage over $200 million of local, state and federalfunding
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 ihat 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 org.nizations - 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 Biver corridor:
Green / Duwamish &
Central sound
PAGE
I Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
As we look at the Green River corridor, we must say, 'This is the way the
people want it to bei 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,
g""n d/"/"*{
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
PAGE
9Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
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
Jenn ifer Harjehausen, Covi ngton
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 Bassmussen, 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 Brin kley, 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
lmplementation Technical
Committee
Joe Anderson, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Kerry Bauman, King CountY
Katie BeaveL King County
Elizabeth Butler, Washington State
Recreation and Conservation Off ice
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
lnterlocal 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
PAGE
l0 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
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, lt 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 1O-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 numericaltargets
for key habitats serve as a benchmark for evaluating
plan implementation over time 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 longterm population resiliency' Successful
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
PAGE
ll
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. lndividuals 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 potentialto 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,
PAGE
12
Green/Duwamish and centrat Puget sound watershed salman Habitat Plan 2021 update
I
,.,:,-!1.{e .
t-:i;
llili il
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, lt 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, lt
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 ofthe
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-
PAGE
t3Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
Figure 7. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Chinook salmon recover7 timeline.
Chinook Salmon
Recovery Timeline
Railroad 1870
Northern Pacific Bailroad survey triggers land boom
Population 1890
Seatlle populalion 42,000
White River t906
Diverted out of the Green River into the Puyallup River
Harbor lsland linished 1909
Much of the Duwamish Estuary filled for industry
Cedar Rivert9l6
Diverted away from the Green River,
into Lake Washington
Grcen Riverl9l9
Private levee construction begins
throughout the river
Green Biver
Ghinook salmon escapement
."1" .""" ."""
"""""$o "$o
8,000
2000
6,000
5,000
4000
3,000
2,000
r,000
0
togging l88l
First splash dam built for logging in Washington
650k
550k
450k
350k
250k
150k
50k
i
Puget Sound
Wild Chinook
Population
4
!dA.
"qt
WRIA9 Chinook
salmon abundance goals:
1, 0 0 0 - 4,200 I'mn:*i.'l'li'flJ,0*
27,0 A o :;'tillti :il;;l ff i[,,Population 1950
Seattle 465,000t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
Green River 1963
Howard Hanson Dam Built
\
0k
1870 1881 1890 1906 1909 1913 1916 1919 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 20192016
Puget Sound
Chinook
listed as
threatened
species
Lowest number
of natural origin
spawners (182)
recorded in the
Green River
Population 2016
Seatlle:689,000 i
-
Natural spawners
source: WDFW s6lmonid
stek inventory
14
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
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
RCq is a Governor-appointed lO-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
NOAAs 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 lnventory Area (WRIA) 9 serves as
a lead entity for salmon recovery under the State
of Wash i n gton's watershed -based f ra mework for
salmon recovery established under RCW 77.85, lt 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'bompile 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 potentialfederal, state, local,
and private funding sourcesj'
The lT local governments within the Green/Duwa-
mish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA
9) formalized a partnership under an interlocal
agreement (lLA) (WRIA I 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 1O-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, lt is comprised of elected
officials from the ILA partners and other watershed
stakeholders. The Management Committee serves as
the executive committee to the WEF, lt directs work
plan development and manages the ILA budget'
The lmplementation Technical Committee (lTC) 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 lustice
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, lntegrating 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.
PAGE
t5Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
t5 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
atepdn Eoz ueH ]FJtlqeH uowps paqslaleln punos p6nd p4uoc pue qslwer na/uaor,SovdLI'[yntlcnpo.td uoutlesloourqC 6ursealcut ol lectltlc are {ltcedec lelrqeq 6ut-rear 0utpuedxa pue Altntlceuuoc ureldpool; 6ut'tolseg'saqcear auos 0uo;e r{lrxelduoc lauueqc paptldtulsa^eLl - 6urpoo;; luanatd o1 pasoddo se - uotlelDtutlauueqc lelalel lculsal o1 peuOrsap saanol Dututell;oIio/vUau e'uotltppe ul 'luaulpas pue poon a6le;;oyodsuerl leJnleu paldrusrp aneq seutDal MoU pa4l-poyyssrnletadual uleallsul polenala ol 0utlnqttluoclellqeq ueuedt.t lo ssol ul pallnsal seLl sollelnqlll pueroArJ ol luacelpe lueuldo;anap asn puel 'lueudo;eneplerluoprsal lelnJ pue spuel lernllncu0e {q [;lueutuop-ard pazttalceJeqc st uaolg alpplt oql ul osn puel'IooutqC e;tuannf lol lellqeq e6nlet pueOuuear lueyodur aptnold'e6pa lentt pue'spuellamuteldpoo;;'s;euueqcepls'slellqeq lauueqc-#o6urpn;cur'sleltqeq [1tcolan-mol'slaalC u'lnlne/v\aNpue soos - lantg uaoig aql ol sallelnqr'r11sa6le;o/v\l aql sepnlcul ll 'zg pue 9't9 sallul .la^lJ uaaMloqspualxa paqsrale/v\qns uaar9 alpp!ru eql'potlslale6 taddl aq1ol a6essed qst; 6urprnotd uo spuedap uoules looulqO;o A:anocal utal-6uo1'lellqeq ctlenbe'alqtssacceutA;luernc 1e{'[1r;enb-qDrq {;enrlelal sule}uoo pue pado-la^opun r{;a6rel st poqs.la}emqnS uoale radd6 aq}'sa-celd utronu aql pautellsuoc aneq luauu6t;e peol;tetpue peor e 'A;;euorllppv 'eulocel lo AtlC aql lol Alddnsralem ;edtctunut Aleul.td aqt te sanlas osle uaolgredd6 aq1'r{r1sa.ro; letclauuoc sl asn puel fueuttdaq1 qOnoqlly'luauaOeueu puel paleulplooc salec-rldutoc paqslolel qns aql ut dtqsleurno palalsaLlCp u e u ec uo,s., a^, c .i13'^';fi t;lJ'Tfi li5,,'#':l-rquroc e Aq palcolq uaaq seq ebessed qsrl qbnoqlle'lellqeLl ueallsul olqellns lo sallul 99t-8/ uoaMlaqsasseduocua ll 'uoulles looulqC lol lellqeq 0utlea'trolen qsarl pue 6uturureds luelrodut peptnold uaolereddn eq1 [;lectlo]stH 'poqsJa]e/v\ JaAIU qslule/v\nq/uoarg oql lo luacred gt {leteurtxoldde s}uasaldelpue'g'tg oltul lonll 'ue6 uosueH ple/v\oH lo [!eaJ]s-dn spueya poqsrele/nqns uaerg laddl eq1'ueld leltqeH uouiles 90OZ aql Io € latdeqCaql ol Jalal asee;d '/v\alnal antsuaqalduoc oloul e.ro3 'sraldeqc luenbasqns ul paulllno suollce puesarDalerls ot.ll lol xaluoo saptnotd osle ll 'ftanoca'tuoutles lo' llomauel; 0utqctelano ue se anlas1eq1 (aroqsleoN pue 'qstulervrno 'uoaJ9 loMo-l 'uoai9alpplt 'uaolg teddl) spaqslale^ qns a^U otll lo Mal^-rano lanal-Llbtq e septnold uotlcas slql'lsalol qynol6plo panrasatd o11uot;lele/v\ leulsnpul uP uloll 6ut0ue.r'adecspuel aslo^tp lo soltttl alenbs 919 sueds paqslol-eA punos 1a6n6 lelluaC pue Llslule/v\nq/uaalg oqfn,*1:-"'?tl' -zn?::" -"'J-^ "ntLItIIIIItatnd lerlloqsdPus u -r{s!urEmno/uaar9:z raldPqlfr:L.a'\r.s.ib., -a-rFr*.24.I,'f+,._
The Lower Green River Subwatershed flows
from river mile 32 downstream to river mile 11. lt
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
controlfacilities (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 Nearshore Subwatershed extends 92line-
ar miles from Elliott Bay south to the Pierce County
boarder, including Vashon lsland. lt 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 speeies 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 lsland is predominant-
ly rural. lmproving nearshore habitat is essentialto
increasing juvenile salmon residence times, growth
rates, and overall marine survival.
The Duwamish Subwatershed extends from river
mile 11 at the Black River Pump Station downstream
to the north end of Harbor lsland. 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-
logicaltransition from fresh to saltwater habitats.
Extensive dredge and fill of the Duwamish has
transformed the estuary into an industrialwaterway,
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.
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
18
tDIAMONDVALLEYEURIEN-SeattleBayElliottPugetSoundNDUWAMISHESTUARYSUBWATERSHEDSULokeYoungsMIDDLE GREEN RIVERSUBWATERSHEDUPRiver MileRiver/creekLOWERGREEN RIVERSUBWATERSHEDc{l.jkileyCl
FEDERAL WAY"tLakeYoungsOTHER SYMBOLSNAME lncorporated Area Name'---/-- River/Creek-=.2-- Major Road\-^ Urban Growth Area Line\-^ WRIA 9 BoundaryNome- 0pen Water and NameKing County Boundary. -,Tribal Lands"lLAND USE CATEGCI lndustrialI Commerciali.ff-i,ryfl Mixed UseResidentialRural ResiderAgriculturalPublic LandsI Forestflfff.i$ Parks,Open IMineral ResoAviation/TranUndesignaterI
t.
i i\
Chapter 3:
The Chinook Salmon Life Cycle -
Connecting a Diverse Watershed
+
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
Spawn i n g genera lly occu rs m id-Septem ber th rough
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 in2007, a downstream
fish passage facility has not been completed at
Howard Hanson Dam. The dams also block natural
gravel delivery and transpor| however, available
spawning habitat does not appear to be a limiting
factor in Chinook recovery,
Egg I ncu bation/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.
PAGE
23Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
luvenile Freshwater Rearingl
Migration
Juvenile Chinook salmon rear in the Lower and
Middle Green subwatershed from mid-December
to midJuly, 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. lnstream flows
influence accessibility of off-channel rearing habitats
During low-flow periods, off-channel habitats and
floodplain wetlands may become disconnected from
the mainstem. ln 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 +
luvenile Estuary Rearing
Subyearlying Chinook salmon generally migrate
downstream into the Duwamish estuary between
February and July, with frytype life histories predom-
inantly entering earlier in the year (Feb-Ma0 than
parr (MayJun). 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 l-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,9,, 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 industrialwaterway, 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
+dfb{w,
lncubationSpawning and emergence
rearing
Adult
/Migration
Maturation
(Marine
waters)
Nearshore
Foraging
Pitl
lilt/
The Salmon Cycle
iligration
To Puget Sound
(-
Downstream
migration
\F+t:
>.e
,r/\Estuary
rearing
1-/#
MARINE NEARSHORE
SUBWATERSH ED/OFFSHORE
DUWAMISH ESTUARV
SUBWATERSHED
f--.
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE
24
Figure 5. Primary Chinook satmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from
Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2OO4).
DUWAIIIISHLOWER GREENMIDDLE GREEN
Green/Duwamish
River Chinookluvenile
Rearing Trajectories
D
J>(daYs) ?
(daysto weeks)
SMOLT
(daYs) ?
(to weeks) ?
RIVER
(40 mm)
D@F@ ,/+
D@
FFY(ran-npr) .-+ @D *""LtT"n', Dgfu SMOLT
(weeks)?ryfu
q
%FRY @
SMOLT
o$:fJ*
%D Far FBY(ttavsl Efi@ (daYs)F@
Marine Nearshore Rearing
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'
The most intense shoreline modifications are located
in urbanized Elliott Bay, with more natural shorelines
located along the largely ruralVashon lsland'
Ocean Migration
By fall, most Green River Chinook exit the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and migrate north along the outer coast
of Vancouver lsland, 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, ln addition to predators, Chinook
salmon are subject to various commercial fisheries
during their marine migration.
PAGE
25Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat PIan 2021 Update
PAGE
26 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
i'i,;fu' ;
,l l,1i'l /,tr,1 1 \',. r J
,i),ll,l(lt1lti1r
I':
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,
I'li",tiil,1,rl:li'tlr,r'tr;)il i,'irrr),t,ll.,rti.iiri,i ri,;r''ii;'.11'i,';i
't,t1,':1','llr, ;i 1i;rt,.,rrlrl lj,1 1l
The Viable Salmon Populationl (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,
r,'r'," I : ;.ti,,.,'.',ii., I': t,. :'.'tJl;ti"i.r' .
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
sal mon populations: abunda nce, productivity, spatia I
structure and diversity, These parameters are rea-
sonable predictors of extinction risk, reflect general
processes important to all salmon populations, and
measurable over time,
l\ i'r I I I I r i,i;i i I r',r l
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)' ln 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,
\ I -.i
!'11 rltji:'1 {';,; ri iiil :,1
/l.i. .J
tt 'il'1,,1-
:, iLl!,.i,1ttiri1t'.';,ti!ii lj,;'tir:!!,:],iliti{.iil:'ltt/,.i:lilrtit
lrllitl
' ta.l'
Table 7. Viable Solmon Population (VSP)Gools
Data Source:WDFW Salmonid Stock lnventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database
"2016-2018
2 A range is used because the productivity of each year's run varies depending on a variety of factors, lf 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,
27,000963
(average)
2041
(average)1000-42002NaturalOrigin
Spawners
1975
(average)
>8o/o5.3o/o">8o/o2.9o/o 8,70/oEggto-Migrant
Survival
Decreasing <30o/o56,4o/o 60,60/o 68.20/oPercent Hatchery
Origin
>15o/oN/A lncreasing19.2 9,60/oProportion 5-6 yr-
old Spawners
No Target30.60/o 32,8o/o^No Target3460/oRelative
Abundance of Parr
Spawning
above
Howard
Hanson
Dam
Maintain
spawning
distribution
Spawning in Green River mainstem
(below Howard Hanson Dam),
Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek
Spawning
Distribution
PAGE
28 Green/Duwamish and centra! Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
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)'
Eggto-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 10.4 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
eggto-migrant survival rate has exceeded the
8 percent target in five of the last 10 years of data'
VSP-Spatial Structure
The WRIA has not directly tracked a specific indicator
or metric for spatial structure, Howeve[ 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, lt 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.
Figure 6. Green River Chinook salmon escapement.
U'
CE
IJJ
=
=4(n
l&o
CElrJ@
===
12000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,0m
0
1990 1995
-
fslslspawners
-
Natural origin l0-Yr. VSP goal (range)
Data Source: WDFW Salmonid Stock lnventory and NOAA Salmon Population Summary Database,
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Green/Duwamish and centra! Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update 29
PAGE
VSP-Diversity
Diversity is the variety of life histories, sizes, and
other characteristics expressed by individuals within
a population, WRIA t 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
over time. 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 45 years
of 15.4 percent.
Habitat Goals -
I mplementation 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 I 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 I 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 1O-year targets were developed by
the WRIA 9 lmplementation 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 Managemenf chapter summa-
rizes recommended methodology and timelines for
periodic assessments of these and other longer-term
status and trends indicators (e,9., water temperature,
contamination).
30 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
Toble 2. Green/Duwamish and Centrol Puget Sound Habitat Goals.
Remove 3,000 ft of hard
armor and achieve a net
reduction in hard armor,
367o133 miof
shoreline in natural
condition
Restore 13,500 ft of
shoreline (1500 ft
restored - net gain
of 70 ft of armor),
Shoreline Armor 65Vo of shoreline in
natural condition
Revegetate 60 ac and/or
3,25 mi(-g,Sor gain) of
shoreline.
No target developed 4o0/o136 mi ot
shoreline has
riparian tree cover
650/o ol marine
shoreline
characterized by
riparian tree cover
Marine Riparian
Vegetation
Acquire 2 mi of shoreline
for permanent protection,
prioritizing beaches and
feeder bluffs,
Protect 5 mi of
shoreline, (4 mi
protected),
9,5 mi of adjacent
upland protected
as natural lands
Not applicableShoreline
Conservation
Create 40 ac of shallow
water habitat between
RM 1-r0.
Unknown173 ac of shallow
water habitat in the
transition zone (RM
1-10) (30% of historic)
Restore 26.5 ac
of shallow water
habitat (-6 ac
restored)
Shallow Water
Habitat
69 acll2% of 165 ft
buffer contains tree
cover
Revegetate 170 ac (-29%
of 165-ft buffer)/9.8 mi of
streambank.
No target was
developed
Riparian Forest 650/o ol each bank of
the river has > 165 ft
of riparian tree cover-
age (586 ac total)
3,800 ac of
connected 100-yr
floodplain that
is accessible to
juvenile fish
Restore 24O ac ol
floodplain habitat.
Side Channels:
550-ft high flow/
3,740-ft lowflow
Floodplain Tributaries:
3,080 ft
Baclarater:75 ac
Floodplain Wetland:
66 ac
Other 100-yr Floodplain:
99 ac
Restore 16,5 ac of
reconnected
off-channeland
riparian habitat
(20,7 ac restored)
45o/o of historical
off-channel habitat,
Restore 2,8 mi of side
channels,450 ac of
floodplain wetlands,
and 5,039 ac of
connected 100-yr
floodplain habitat
(total of 8,839 ac of
connected 100-yr
floodplain).
Off-Channel Habitat
Revegetate 250 ac
(-30o/o of 165-ft buffer)/
8,52 mi of high-priority,
unforested shoreline
222acl27o/o ol
165-ft buffer
contains tree cover
75o/o ol each bank
of the river to
>165 ft wide (828 ac
total)
No target was
developed
Riparian Forest
Necessary Future Conditions and lmplementation Targets
Habitat Indicator
Marine Nearshore
Necessary Future
Cond. (2005 Plan)
lO-year liarget
2005 Plan
(achieved)
Recommended l0-year
Target (2030)Current Gondition
Duwamish
Lower Green
(continued on next page)
PAGE
31Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
TAble 2. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Habitat Goals. (Continued)
Achieve 425 pieces/miNo target developed.2OO4:54 pieces/
mi.
2014: 48,5 pieces/
mi.
1,705 pieces per mi
(21key pieces)
Large woody debris
Set back 1 mi of levee.No new decreasing
amount
2014:42mi of
river bank armored
(17,7-mi levees;
9,8 mi maintained
revetments;14,5 mi
of semi-armored
roads acting like
levees and natural
banks)
No new decreasing
amount
Bank armor
Reconnect 200 ac of
floodplain as measured
by area subject to lateral
channel migration,
Restoration of
50 ac of off-channel
habitat and riparian
vegetation (45 ac
restored)
2017:1,751ac or
55o/o of historic
floodplain
connected
Floodplain subject
to lateralchannel
migration represents
650/o of historical
conditions
Floodplain
connectivity/lateral
channel migration
Revegetate 175 ac (8o/o ol
Channel Migration Zone),
No target developed 2OO5:50.3o/o
2009: 50,5026 of the
Channel Migration
Zone forested
> 65% of Channel
Migration Zone (1,424
of 2,190 ac) and up
to 165 ft wide where
possible
Riparian forest
Achieve 5 jams/mi,No target developed 2006:2,2 jams/mi
2015:3,8
10 jams/miLarge wood debris
Set back 1 mi of revetment/
levee,
2OO4:25o/o
armored
2009:24o/o
armored
No new
decreasing amount
(>17o reduction)
Bank armor No new decreasing
amount
Provide downstream
passage at Howard Hanson
Dam,
Upstream passage
facility complete,
Downstream
passage not
complete.
Up and downstream
fish passage at
Howard Hanson Dam
Fish passage
provided (upstream
passage provided)
Fish passage
Bemove/setback 0,5 mi of
bank armoring.
No new decreasing
amount
2OO4:15o/o armored
2OO9=15o/o armored
No new decreasing
amount
Bank armor
Necessary Future Conditions and lmplementation Target+ continued
Necessary Future
Habitat Indicator Cond. (2005 Plan)
Lower Green, continued
l0-year Target
2OO5 Plan
(achieved)
Recommended t0-year
Target (2030)Current Condition
Middle Green
Upper Green
PAGE
32 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
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.
From2017-2018, 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 Frsh
Habitat llse & Productivity (Higgins 2017); Water
Te m p e ratu re ( Ku bo 2017 ) ; Co nta m i n ati on (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 Focusl
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 lnstream Flows
(Middle Green, Lower Greenl
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. ln 2002 Tacoma Water's Additional
Water Storage Project provided capacity to store an
addition 20,000 acre-feet (ac-ft)for municipal use'
Green/Duwamish and centrat Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
33
Figure 7. Howord Hanson Dom springwoter storage and ollocation.
Dam crest
elev.l,228 ft
t Spillway invert elev.1,176 ft
ELEVATION
1,224ft
1,206 ft
tJ67 ft
1,147 fi
1,141ft
1,075 ft
1,035 ftt'
Mt NlClPAt & INDU$TAHL 0WSP) - 20,000 ac{
Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,
l9.ft outtet tunneflnvert elev. lro3$,ft
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 cubicfeet per second (cfs) at the Auburn
gauge. During the summer ol2015,the minimum flow
at the Auburn gauge reached 226 cts'
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. ln 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 Io 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 l5 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.
TIOWABD
HANSON DAM
bypass pipe
eleu 1,069 ft
48-in.
invert
PR0BABLE MA)(MUM FL00D - 180,000 ac-ft
AUIII0HIZED Ft00D eONTR0t - 104000 ac-ft
FISH CONSERVATI0N - 24,000 ac-ft
TURBIDITY P00L- 600 ac-ft
ac-ft
PAGE
34 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
Resesreh/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).
Climate Change (Watenshed-widel
Wstershed 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 lmpacts Group
(Mauger et al. 2015) and others predict that Pacific
Northwest precipitation patterns will change, bring-
ing warmeri 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 -22o/o
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,
I
I
i
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 midJan-
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 (midJanuary 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,
PAGE
35Green/Duwamish and Central PugetSound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
Climate Change lmpacts on WRIA 9 Salmonids
Adapted from Beechie et al. (2012). Fish timing represents typical fish behavior,
Year 1 Year 2
Ju11.Jul,Allq,Sepr.0d.l,lov,0ec.Jan,Feb.ll,lar,JlJ'l.llll,0d.Nov.0ec.Jan.ieb.ll,lar.
Chinook
Year 3
Jiln.JlJl.
Loss of spring snowmelt maY
decrease or eliminate spawning
opportunities for steelhead, may
alter survival of eggs or emergent
fry for other salmonid species,
cause early dewatering of off-
channel and side channel habitats,
and reduce connectivity to the
floodplain,
Subyearling
Yearling
Coho
Chum
Steelhead
Pink
>*
)*
'pc
6
ui
o6a
.g
a
.9*r
o(
tr
Ooi
Io
oN
lncreased summer temperature may decrease growth or kill
juvenile salmon where temperatures arealready high and block/delay
lnigration, May also decrease spawning fecundity (e'g' Chinook)'
lncreased winter floods may increase scour of eggs, or increase
mortaility of rearing juveniles where flood refugia are not available,
displace juveniles to less desira ble habitats'
Decreased summer low flow may contribute to increased tempera-
ture, decrease rearing habitat capacity for juvenile salmonids, and
decrease access to or availability of spawning areas,
FigUre g. Projected impacts to Green/Duwsmish and Central Puget Sound salmon as o result of climote change,
EfiiilrI@
I
@il
-llilitr
)
_+@ilI
@I I
tI
-i,tllll
t
-{t'fill-
Bearing
E8Eil
+@ @ I
coc
.lE
c
sF
<6O
$eclo
(E
q)(,o
T'c
oo
o)E"
o-$eYo
I
eF
c$o
c
9F
.ao
PAGE
36 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
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 2015likely 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 lndian 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
m igration tim i n g; a ltered predator/prey relationsh ip;
and reduced disease resistance.
NATURAL SHORELINK
Current sea level
Current MHHW
ARMORED SHORELINE
Current sea level
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 l-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
nea rshore habitats, i nclud ing increased banki bluff
erosion, landslides, and lost nearshore habitats
(e.g., eelgrass, forage fish spawning habitat, estuary
mudflats, etc,) due to the 'boastal squeeze" adjacent
to armored shorelines, ln addition, increased risk of
erosion could contribute to a growing demand for
additional shoreline armoring,
NATURAL SHORELINE
Future sea level
Futule MHHW
ARMORED SHORELINE
Future sea level
Future MHHW
Current MHHw
FigUre 9. Coastal squeeze in neorshore graphic along the Puget Sound Neorshore refers to the shallow areas
where forage fish spown ond are being squeezed out of existence by shoreline armoring and sea level rise
(Coo sta I G eo I ogi c Se rvi ces).
Water temperatures as moasurod
on July 4,2A15, exeeeded the
potential lethally threshold (22"C) for
salmonids downstream of the Green
River Gorge (DeGasperi 2017).
PAGE
37Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
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, ln addition to observed impacts to calci-
fying organisms (e.9,, 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)'
Althoug h considera ble uncertai nty 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-widel
Wotershed 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-
20"|A-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, ln 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).ln 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' lt
incorporated solar aspect shade maps published in
2014by the Muckleshoot lndian Tribe to prioritize
areas where increased tree canopy - and thus shade
- could provide the largest benefit to preventing ele-
vated water temperatures, lt 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.
Reseorch/Monitoring
ln 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
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
38
25
DMax water temperatures at Whitney Bridge station (GRTIOl
PotwrrJrlly kc*ral
rt 20
e-utCE
E15CEr4
=r
=toUJ
=
5
Chinook life stages
',.,,1t,,",,r:li,,,lffi$trt rii'l'.,',
Figure 1O. Plotof 7-DMax water temperatures for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years measured by King County
atihe Whitney Bridge station (GRTt0) compared to 7-DMax temperatures measured lrom 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 I - September 15) as well as
spawning and incubation periods (September 16 - July 1). Timing of specific Green River Fall Chinook lifestages
included below.
Source: Adapted from King County 2016,
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 thermaltolerances (>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 ol5-22 percent of
salmon habitat by 2090 (O'Neal 2002),
Fish Passage Barriers (Watershed-widel
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 haulfacility at
the headworks facility in 2007; howeve[ downstream
fish passage at Howard Hanson Dam has not been
completed,
2001-2014
-
2015
-
2016
3ub-LetlrrI
tt
YEARLING REARING
Predicted temperature increases,
lower summer flows and altered
precipitation patterns are likely to
exacerbate tem perature-related
stress for Chinook salmon.
PAGE
39Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
ln 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-Iisted 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 ESAI' ln 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.
ln orderto avoid jeopardizing ESA-Iisted Chinook,
the BiOp concluded that the U,S, Army Corps must
provide operational downstream fish passage no later
than Februa ry 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, 'Ura-
matically improving the likelihood that the Chinook
salmon population would achieve a highly viable
statusi'
ln 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).ln 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.
Researe h/Msnitoring
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 ( ) 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
Toppi n g 201 B), Restoration of non-nata I tri buta ries
has the potentialto 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-gradienl (<2o/o) 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 a1.2001).
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updaEPAGE
40
Figwre 17, Representotive tributnry moutft hobitats associated with flopgate flood control structures'
S- S. i: :i
RIVER
\l v
,.F
.*ffiF;r+t'
-,
*l d.-
Tributary Mouth Habitats {Barier at River} - Section View
Lamd Comuersi,nm {Watensfred -wide}
Wntershed Stutws
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, ln 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 addition al 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)'
UJ
zulfJr&z
,8
Tributary Mouth Habitats {Barrier Set Back) - SectionView F<
'q
I
t
':E
o
I
E
Source: King County, 20'19: Juvenile Chinook Use of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green River
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,
ln 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,
srig r$La'tE
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. ln 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 Greenl
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. ln 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
ma intenance standa rds I imit ripa rian 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, ln 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 'bonnected" 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. lncreased growth likely results from
increased food availability and foraging efficiency
in floodplain habitats (Henning 2004; Sommer et al,
2001; Jeffres, 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, ln 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.
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
42
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. ln contrast, fry production
was observed to be density independent. Juvenile
Chinook require rearing and refuge habitats (e.9,,
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 (Duwamishl
Watershed Status
lndustrial and commercialdevelopment 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 lsland/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 112 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.
o 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2000
1,000 2,ooo 3,000 4000 5,000 6,000 z0oo
SPAWNERS ABOVE TRAP
Figure 7 2. Spawners-recruit plots showing abundance
of fry and parr produced based on estimated adult
Chinook salmon escapement (Anderson and Topping
2017).
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Ell
lto
El!6Efz
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
EE
d
u-oEullo
=fz
0
0
0
(A)
a aaoaa
a
ao
a
a
o a
tl
(B)
o
oo
u
06o
oo
Productivity in the Green/Duwamish is currently constrained by
available rearing habitat in the Lower and Middle Green rivers'
Green/Duwamish and centra! Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
43
Transport pathways carry contaminants from sources
to surface waters, as well as within surface waters'
Conta m i na nts reach the Green/Duwam ish receivin g
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,9,, 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'
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 a|.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 7 3, Chinook solmon thdt enter the
estuarine waters ds fry (< 60 mm) experience
very low marine suruivol rates. ln controst to less
developed wotersheds, estuarine-reared fry in the
Green/Duwamish dre not contrihuting significantly
to adult returns.
r,T
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
44
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 Cla iborne 2017 ;
Campbell et a1.2019), 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
'bhemicals and other substances that have no reg-
ulatory standard, have been recently Uiscovered'in
natural streams (often because of improved analytical
chemistry detection levels), and potentially cause del-
eterious effects in aquatic life (e,9,, endocrine disrupt-
ers) at environmentaIly 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 lnlet
and the Puyallup River (Meador 2018), The potential
impacts to Chinook salmon growth, reproduction, and
behavior are not well understood,
Stormwater (Nearshore, Duwam ish,
Lower and Middle Greenl
Watershed Ststus
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), lncreased 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
benth ic macroi nvertebrates com m u n ities; elevated
water temperatures; increased bank erosion and
sediment transport capacity; and altered channel
morphology and hyd raulics,
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),
GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update 45
PAGE
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 $210 million per year would need to be spend
over the next 30 years to build necessary regional
facilities, retrofit roads and highways, and retrofit
non-forested lands not redeveloped within the next
30 years (King County 2U$.
,ilit,rtiiti '
/'\ rilrit', , , (l\j1r'11''ilr,lill)
;,1, i,,,',,/i/.r',' rl r'
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 lsland, 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 I2012)'
q-,
i,#,\-FF -''r. *:
rr.t ,*
. :*,r *If'" 'jw=ry
"\
:5'-
,I
tl
I
H;,;ll l:r;-
EJI''*i#,r;S'sil,'rl :
t7.t
l
r.,, t
*.
i.lrlrl
Researctt/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. ln particula4
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
a1,2016).
Natural shorelines convey important benefits to
juvenile Chinook salmon. Small juvenile salmon
preferentia lly use low-g rad ient, u na rmored shoreli nes
(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 larvalfish abun-
dance, juvenile salmon, and invertebrate diversity
as compared to adjacent armored shorelines (Toft,
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,
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update 47
PAGE
48 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
WRIA I 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, lmplementation across the portfolio of
recovery strategies is necessary to address priority
pressures; i ncrease sa I mon abu nda nce, prod uctivity,
and diversity; and build long{erm 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 t 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 lmProve 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,
PAGE
49Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
Figure 7 5. luvenile fish passage barriers block
juvenile Chinook salmon access to important rearing
habitat in non-nataltributaries. Photos: Mike Perfetti.
Figure 16. Healthy juvenile Chinook (right) and coho
(left)salmon sampled from a non-natal tributary in
2O18. 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 ava ilable techn ical 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.
PAGE
50 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
Policies
> Fish Passage (FP) l: Provide efficient and safe fish
passage where built infrastructure (e,9., road cross-
ings and flood controlfacilities) 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, Beconnecting
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 17. The Lower
Russell Road Levee Setback
Project is a multi-benefit
project that provides flood
risk reduction, habitat
resto rotio n, a nd rec reoti on a I
enhancements.
Scour Dellectors
Setback leveeHabitatArea A
(Main Channel Edge)
HabitatArea B
(Bacl(water)
Relocated Van Doren's
Landing Park
Hand-Carry
Boat Launch
Relocaled
Trailhead
MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS
LOWER RUSSELL LEVEE SETBACK
Grading Contour (1 ft.)
Floodwall
OHW
Habitat Wood
Eddy Feature and Number
Pump and Discharge Site
New Van Doren's Park Boundary
Green River Trail
Levee Trail
Secondary Trail
Road lmprovement
Wetland
Updated 08/1/2019
Grading Plan 5/3/18
0 500ft,t_r-i
IIIilI
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
5t
Progroms
None identified. lmplementation relies on individual
capital projects that will be identified in project list'
Policies
> Floodplain Connectivity (FC) l: 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
idealfor 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.9., 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,
Setback:
Relocation of the toe of the
levee/revetment landward of
ordinary high water to
provide for increased erosion
and channel migration.
Existing 100-year
flood elevation
100-year flood elevation
with setback levee
v
PAGE
52 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
Programs
> 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) tosupport salmon recovery. Peri-
odic surveys should be completed to monitor large
wood volumes and ensure project success.
Policies
Channel Complexity (CG) l: 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 criticalto habitat
complexity. Restoring riparian corridors is essentialto
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 "lntegrate Agricultur-
al Protection and Salmon Recovery lnitiatives" 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
secu rin g necessa ry fund i ng. Ri paria n revegetation
priorities are based on the solar aspect shade maps
developed by the Muckleshoot lndian 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 WBIA 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
juven ile sa lmon ids, increase stormwater infi ltration,
and improve aquatic habitat quality when trees fall into
the river.
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update 53
PAGE
) lmplement coordinated and comprehensive
approach to noxious/invasive weed removal
along river and marine shorelines
WRIA I 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),
lnvasive 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 I partners should explore potentialfunding
sou rces for a professiona I stewa rdsh i p/ma i nte-
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, ln 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, ln
Figure '18" progress towards the watershed revegetation goals established in the WRIA 9 Re-Green the Green Strategy"
.il , i,r..i,i,ji
..',....,].t
ffi-gll
ffififfiHm
grNcE 2015
il ild watershed partners have revegetated tfl"I/e:l'* acres along
,ri i ' .v .\ ,il .s .rl . '.'y' i' ) t,'' I t1, linearfeet ( 4 4-, ;.r miles) of shoreline
in the Green/Duwamish watershed-that's nearly
riF''
i.3 Foster Golf Courses or
..','i':;'".') Sounders soccer fields of new
revegetated shorel inelm '].:, .,,
-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) l: 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 CreekTMDLs by protecting and
re-establishing mature riparian vegetation within
established stream buffers.
> BC2: 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 fundin g 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.9,, legacy industrial contamination, stormwater run-
off, municipalwastewater 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 (PU)
Ecology should continue to lead development of
a pollutant loading assessment (PLA) that will
(1) include a watershed-based modelto 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
Green/Duwamish and centrat Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
55
instrument. lt 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'
tmplement Pollution ldentification ond Control
(PlC)Prsgrams
The Vashon-Maury Pollution ldentification and Con-
trol (PlC) 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 Frogra m
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) l: Promote Low-lmpact Devel-
opment (LlD) 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 sysfems; 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,
PAGE
56 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 202'l Update
> WQ2: Support local and regionalwatershed-based
stormwater management initiatives (e,9,, 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 lnfrastructure (GSl) incentive
programs that promote the voluntary use of GSl.
> WQ3: Source controlefforts 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, lncentives 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. ln Rural Areas of King County,
at least 65 percent of each sub-basin should be
preserved as naturalforest 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, ln Urban Growth Areas,localgovern-
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 7 9, Stormwater-induced
mortality in coho salmon in Miller Creel<,
Normandy Pork Although stormwater
toxicity is not letholto Chinook sdlmon,
potential suhlethol impacts are not well
understood. Photo: Mott Goehring.
> WQ5: 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, lt would also cause significant harm to aquatic
ecosystems and disrupt maritime industry, recre-
ation, and tourism,
PAGE
57Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
) WQ7: Local governments should adopt the lnter-
agency Regional Road Maintenance Endangered
Species Act Program Guidelines, as amended, for
maintenance of existing infrastructure. Govern-
ments should participate in the associated Begional
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, lt should not
only outline the range of alternatives for different
shoreline types (e,9,, beach and bluffs), but also
h ig h li g ht i m porta nt desig n, feasi bil ity, 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 'Uo-it-yourself approach" to shoreline
management. lt 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, eefore and after Phase ll restoration of Seahurst Park in the City of Burien. Construction was
completed in 2O14. Photos: Hugh Shipman.
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
58
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
Removaland Sott Shoreline Protection (aka
Supported Approach for Residential Shoreline
lmprovement)
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,9,, 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. ln
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
shoreli ne protection a lternatives,
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 ln 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 a lternatives feasi ble,
> lmplement 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 lsland 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 lslands, 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. ln-
dividual acquisition opportunities should be evalu-
ated based on ecological value/potentialof 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.
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat PIan 2021 update
PAGE
59
$aolicies
> Nearshore (NS) l: 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,9,, 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,9., 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, lntegrated Stream-
bank Guidelines, and Stream Habitat Restoration
Guidelines for additional guidance,
; ;ilt;,:i \t,,lli','1,1;r,"rri;,r;li1: i
;ir,i,ii,\.r; rr'ii'i'ir'i ll : l.' ],ii:1 ir
,. 't . . \
: tlri,l',iI ljt, i'iil,t,ii ,ili;1
:; i:,lii.ilit,r ,l . i;],i,1:',i;t,r'fi ii, l]ll
j,liIr;'' ;f,' III i: r.,I ;: irIi ],( l-1),i',iI
,. i,ltl liir,lt,tr i,i,i,i:i. iirli,i r i I i
> NS2: Encourage multiple family/neighborhood
use of docks, boat ramps, and beach access stairs.
Localjurisdictions 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,
Strategyi Protect, Restore and
Enhance Estuarine Habitat
fl-oeattom: Duwanrish
The Duwamish estuary provides critical rearing habi-
tat for juvenile salmon as they make the physiological
transition from fresh to saltwater habitats, lndustri-
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
u lmplement 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, lt identifies approximately
100 acres of shallow water habitat restoration po-
tential within the Duwamish estuary transition zone
(RM t-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.9,, 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-
tion across key partners, WRIA 9 partners should
leverage the Blueprint Working Group to identify
opportunities to enhance partnerships to (l) pursue
larger project footprints; and (2) overcome barriers
to implementation, Given limited land availability,
WRIA I 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) l: 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.
Figure 27. Duwamish Gardens
created 1.3 acres of shallow woter
reoring habitat in a critically importont
transition zone of the Duwamish
Estuory Subsequent monitoring has
documented extensive use of the site
by juvenile Chinook salmon.
Photo: Mike Perfefti.
PAGE
6lGreen/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
Although NRDA has a broader scope than Chinook
salmon recovery, priority NRDA habitats signifi-
cantly overlap with salmon recovery needs in
the Duwamish (e,9., 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 I 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: (l) 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 lnstream 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.
Programs
> 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.
lmplementation 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. lf 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
su bwatershed. Cu rrent ch ecke rboa rd ownersh i p
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
62
Figure 22, Aefore (2013) and after (2019) restoration photos of the Big Springs Creek. The proiect 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 criticalto 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,, hydrologicalflow 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
. 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)l: 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 proiections.
> 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 seasonalfluctuations in stream tem-
PAGE
63Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
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 habitaU
. 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,
> SFS: 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, lt 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, lt 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 t 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
> lmplement a Comprehensive Communications
Plan to Promote Behavior Change that Expedites
Salmon Recovery in WBIA 9
lntegrate 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:
. lncreased public recognition of the urgency
around salmon recovery and connection to
southern resident orcas;
. lmproved 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;
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE
64
. 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
lncrease 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. Localvolunteer 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, localfunding or creative partner-
ships are essentialto ensure restoration projects
achieve desired outcomes into the future,
n 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 toolto 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 lnvesti-
gation (CSl):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 localjurisdictions 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.
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PIan 2021 Update
PAGE
65
> Shoreline Workshops and Technical Assistance
lmplement 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;
. Naturalyard care; and
. Stormwater management,
Workshops should connect target audiences with
local and regional resources (e.9,, technical assis-
tance) designed to overcome barriers to improving
shorel i ne stewardsh i p, Materia ls and messag in g
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)l: 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: I ntegrate Agricultural
Protection and Salmon RecoverY
lnitiatives
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 o salmon corcoss os part of the Miller/Wolker Bosin Community
SaTmon Investigation. The program has leverdged community support and o partnership with the University
of Washington to advance our understonding of stormwoter runoff impdcts on locol salmon. Photo: Miller/
Wa I ker Stewardsh i p Progra m.
66 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UpdatePAGE
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. lt 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 PIan 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,
Programs
> 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 ruralservices pro-
grams (e.9,, Land Owner lncentive 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 essentialto program
success, Additional resources and strategies are
needed to expand participation.
Policies
> AGI: 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
agricultu ral practices;
. tmplement 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;
. ldentify opportunities where salmon recovery
projects can provide parallel benefits (e.9., 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'
Green/Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
PAGE
67
) AGz: Evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory
flexibility given to agricultural landowners that
obtain a farm plan from the KCD, lf the flexibility
leads to better habitat and water quality outcomes,
other opportunities should be explored to provide
additional flexibility, lf 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: lntegrate Salmon
Recovery into Land Use Planning
Location: Al I Subwatersheds
Historical population growth and development within
the watershed displaced habitat, altered natural
hydrology, and polluted localwaters, 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.
Progroms
> lncentivize 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.9,, 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-
tionaltargeted investments are needed to expand
implementation beyond early adopters. lmproving
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 Gompliance Monitoring and Associ-
ated Enforcement
Jurisdictions should assess regulatory compli-
ance with shoreline master programs, critical area
protections, f loodplain reg u lations, and agricultu ral
regulations (e,9,, 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. lf a regulatory
framework is not achieving intended outcomes,
localjurisdictions 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
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
68
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)l: 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,
> LUS: 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'
lncentives could include reductions in flexible
development standards, expedited permitting, and
reduced or waived permit costs.
> LU8: lncorporate 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,9., 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.
PAGE
69Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update
) LUIO: lncorporate 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,
Plan lmplementation and Funding
Location: All Subwatersheds
Th e WR IA I 2016-2025 l nterloca l Ag reement provides
a framework for managing and coordinating imple-
mentation of the Salmon Habitat Plan. lt 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;
. 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 lsland. Priorities for expan-
sion include mainland nearshore and Duwamish
sub-basins.
u Land Conservation lnitiative (LCl)
The LCI represents a coordinated effort to preserve
river corridors, urban open space, trails, natural
lands, farmland and forestlands, lt 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 I partners should
leverage the LCI to execute high-priority land
acquisitions within the Green River Corridor to
im prove hyd rolog ical i ntegrity, support salmon
recovery, and expand recreational opportunity.
Much of WRIA 9 is mapped as an uopportunity
area" where households lack access to open space.
lmplementation of the LCI has the potentialto align
salmon recovery investments with needed invest-
ments to address equitable access to open space
throug hout 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 (650lo) and local partners (35o/o).
Since the 2005 Plan, 13 of the original projects have
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 updatePAGE
70
been completed, with seven completed under the
ERP authorization (e,9,, North Winds Weir, Codiga
Farms, Riverview Side Channel) and six completed
by local sponsors (e,9,, 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
> lmplementation (l)l: The WRIA 9 2016-2025lnler-
local Agreement outlines the governance, funding,
and decision-making structure for coordination and
implementation of the Salmon Habitat Plan,
> 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.9, in-lieu fee and mitiga-
tion banking) can help improve ecological function
in critical locations (e.9., 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 potentialfor innovative partner-
ships that could combine mitigation and restoration
funding to expand the overall ecosystem benefit of
ha bitat projects. However, ha bitat i m provements
Figure 24.
The Riverview Park
Project created
approximately 800 ft
of side channel to
incredsing juvenile
Chinook rearing and
refuge habitot in the
Lower Green River. The
projecl sponsored by
the City of Kenl wos
constructed in 2O12
in partnership with
the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under
the Green/Duwamish
Ecosystem Restorotion
Project
Photo: City of Kent.
Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
PAGE
71
associated with mitigation funds must be tracked
as separate and discrete from those achieved with
restoration-based gra nt fundi ng.
> 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 I 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 lnte-
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 localand 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,
PAGE
72 Green/Duwamish and central Puget sound watershed salmon Habitat Plan 2021 update
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 I 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, ln 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,9,, 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.
. lmplementable within 10-15 years - Project spon-
sors were directed to submit projects that could be
implemented within a l0-1S-year timeframe, provid-
ed adequate funding and landowner willingness'
It i,ri
'r !.' ,
Project Prioritization
A team of subject matter experts was recruited to
revieq 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, Smalle[ 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,9,, proximity to existing restora-
tion sites, feeder bluff, etc.), Potential lift reflects the
projected immediate and longterm habitat benefits
to addressing limiting factors for Chinook salmon re-
covery, Processed-based restoration was considered
to provide more certainty of long-term benefits.
. Tier I - 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 lmplementation 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,
I
Upper Green
(UG)
t9
Duwamish
(DUW)
__l
39
Nearshore
(NS)
Number
Of WRIA 9
Projects by
SubwatershedA 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:
45
Lowen
l4
Middle
Green {l-G}
Green (MG)
Figure 25. Number of proiects by subwatershed'
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
74
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
Capital Project lnformation bY
Su bwatershed containi ng:
. Subwatershed project location maps
. Subwatershed project listings with tier rankings
. Project fact sheets with site maps
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat20zl Update
PAGE
75
r
Marine Nearshore Subwatershed
39
projects
NS-29,,,,,,,,Maury lsland Natural Area Revegetation and
Reclamation
NS-43,.,,,,.,D0ckt0n Reach Preservation and Restoration
NS-45,,,,,,.Jahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration
NS-49,*Arr0y0s Park Bulkhead Removal
NS-53,.,,,,,,Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration
N5-6l,,.,,,,,,Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration
N5-62,,.,,,,,Sprin9 Beach Acquisition and Restoration
N5-63,,,,,,,,Green Valley Creek Acquisition and
Restoration
NS-66.,..,,,,Camp Kilworth Protection
NS-7,,,,.,,.,,,C0ve Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration
NS-8,,,,,,,,,.Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket
Estuaries
NS-ll,,,,.,.,,,Beaconsfield on the Sound
NS-l5,,,,,,,,.McS0r|ey Creek Pocket Estuary and Feeder
Bluff restoration
NS-21,,,,,,.,,C0rbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration
NS-23,,.,,.,,P0int Heyer Nea rshore Acquisitions
NS-24,,,,,,,,Cr0ss Landing Pocket Estuary Restoration
NS-28.,,,,,,,Bi9 Beach Reach Acquisition and
Restoration
Tier 1 (Seore 18+) 17 proiects
Tier 2 (Score 7-181 I proiects
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,,,.,,,,Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration
NS-31..,,,,,.,Discovery Park Feeder Bluff Protection and
Restoration
NS-44.,,,,,,,P0rtage Salt Marsh Restoration
N5-60,,,,,,,Ellisport Creek Mouth Restoration
N5-67.,,,,,,,Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration
Tier 3 (Score <7) 14 projects
NS-2,..,,,,,,,,Myrt|e Edwards Park Pocket Beach Shallow
Water Habitat
NS-I6,,,,,.,,,Dash Point State Park Estuary Restoration
and Water Quality lmprovements
NS-22,,,,,,,,Smith Cove Shallow Water Rehabilitation
NS-35,,,.,,,,10wer Shinglemill Creek habitat restoration
NS-39.,,,,,,,Wa1ker Creek Headwaters Land Acquisition
NS-40,,,,,,,Sa1m0n Creek Fish Barrier Bemoval
NS-42,,,,,,,,Mi1ler Creek Regional Detention Facility
NS-54''West Galer Street/32nd St, Boat Ramp
Shoreline Armor Removal and Restoration
NS-58,,,,,,.,Tsu gwa I la Creek Pocket Estua ry Restoration
Project
NS-59.,,,,,,,Mi|eta Armor removal and shoreline
restoration
N5-68,,,,,,,.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,,,,,,,.Bea11 Creek Salmon Habitat Project
76 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
\
Figure 26.
Marine Nearshore
Subwatershed Projects
lo
NS-r a
Iij^
a---
--/''
River mile
Project location and name
Project location and name
River/creek
Major road
King County boundary
Maine Nearshore
Subwatershed
boundary
WRIA 9 boundary
Public lands
Parks
lncorporated area
Open water
NS-63
(
NS-2r
NS-35
I
NS-7
NS-24
N
I
0 2 3 Miles NS-62
KCIT-DCE File:
20ll-102021-W95HP_ProjMap-NS.ai LPRE
clS File:
Q:\20009\WRlA9 Watershed,mxd KLINKAT
NS-45Note:
The use ofthe inlormation in this map is
subiect to the terms and conditions found ati
wwiv,kinqcounlvgov/services/gis/Maps/terms'of 'use aspx
Your access and use is conditioned on your acceptance of
these terms and conditions,
NS-31
NS-72
SEATTLE
NS-49
NS-8
NS-73
a
SEATTLE
cl
BURIENt
NS-42
NS-23
NS-60
NS-11
NS-44
NS-67
NS-13
NS-43
NS-14
NS-59
Vashon
lsland
NS-28
NS-16
M
NT',I,I
Etr
@
@nElm n@
@
@ @
Puget
Sound
Elliott
Bay
PAGE
77Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
$ate(shed
Flf Aol
cf'"ou" Tier 1 Project: NS-7
oe:Cove Creek Pocket Estuary Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury lsland
(Kl - 13-28; Kl - 11-7)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$6oo,ooo
EG'
Acquisition Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
r-l .:t
Nearshore Nearshore
Feeder Bluff Pocket EstuarY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Protect and improve riparian vegetation, improve
tributary access, remove armoring and flll,
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
Pro,ect Area Map: Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial pholo Site photo; WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages,2020
KCIT'DCE filer 2011 102021 LPBE GIS file QI\20009\WBlAg-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporatedArea
PAGE
78
05t0
Mdury
Islonds
W Tier 1 Projectr NS-B
Dillworth and Gorsuch Creek Pocket Estuaries
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury
(Kt -12- 4)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:8
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Riparian
Budget:
$3,oo0,ooo
PRO'ECT 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:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photor WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE file: 2011-10202L LPBE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
NS-8
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0 5 10I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area Mll€r
PAGE
79
Vashon/
,4.
N
Maury
lslands
$a\.e(shed
Flt Aol
"ou, Tier 1 Project: NS-11
sc-
Beaconsfield on the Sound
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Normandy Park
(Kr-7-3)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Normandy Park
Project sponsor:
Normandy Park
Budget:
$600,000
BGT
Acquisition Restoralion
KEY HABITAT:
Nearshore
Feeder Blulf
PROIECT 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
Project Area Map; Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE tiler 20ll -102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlA9 ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
NS-il
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncorporated Ar€a
PAGE
80
0510
Vashon/
Maury
$arelshed
Fit A Tier 1 Project: NS-15
McSorley Creek Pocket Estuary
and Feeder Bluff Restoration
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
DesMoines(Kl-B-3)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Des Moines
Project sponsor:
King County/
State Parks
Budget:
$20,838,000
u
\c
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition
B H
Enhancement/
Planting
Monitoring& Planning/ Restoration
Assessment Design
@, @tr!
r-l glKEY HABITAT:
Nearshore Nearshore
Feeder Bluff Pocket Estuaty
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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'
Benef its:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Recreation opportunities
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
Project Area Map: Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photoi WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2011 102021 LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg,ProjectMaps,mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
r wRrAg
I lncorporated Area
05r0
PAGE
81
Vdthon/
Mouty
lslonds
Fit Fot -
'bo Tier 1 Project: N5-21
Corbin Beach Acquisition and Restoration
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury lsland
(Kr11-2)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$3,500,000
PROIECT TYPE:E
Acquisition Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
\-l
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
PRO'ECT 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
. Shoreline armor
' Shoreline conservation
Project Area Mapi Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo Site photo; Google Earth
KCIT-DCE liler 2011-102021 LPBE GIS file Qt20009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
NS-21
'rtilC'CgilN\--'. i r.-
IY-".',
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
82
05!0
Vathon/
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
Moury
tslonds
FIT A^
'on" Tier 1 Project; NS-23
a'
E Point Heyer Nearshore Acquisitions
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury
(Kr -13-2)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$10,000,000
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITATI
EG'
r-.1 Gl
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
Ripailan
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
projectAreaMapiOrtho20lgKCNATaerialphoto sitephoto:wDoEshorelinePhotoviewerlmages,2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-1o2O2L LPBE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
NS-23
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I ln(orporatedArea
PAGE
83
0s10
Vashon/
Maury
lslands
$are(shed
Flt Aor4
cP'uu, Tier 1 Project: NS-24
r-e'
a Cross Landing Pocket Estuarv Restoration
;' ., '1, :.t. . ,.1 i
'.', :'.,1; ,-l
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed;
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury
(Kr-13-23)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
BG'
€LI GT
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Riparian
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$3,500,000
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
Proiect Area Map: Orlho2olgKCNAT aerial photo site photoi wDoE shoreline Photo viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlA9-ProjectMaps,mxd KLINKAT
'3
NS-24
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
84
0510
Voshon/
I WRIA9
I lncorporated Area
$a\"etshed
Frl Aor4
cP'oo"Tier 1 Project: N5-28
Big Beach Reach Acquisition and Restoration
.0
-9:
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury lsland
(Kr13-20)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$15,000,000
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITATI
EGT
f'-l
PROJECT TYPE:
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire to protect and restore about
209 acres of upland and nearshore habitat with
approximately 4615 feet of bluff-backed beach
shoreline.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines,
Benefits:
. Reconnect historic feeder bluffs
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
'Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
Proiect Area Mapi Ortho2oigKCNAT aerial photo Site photoi wDoE shoreline Photo viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WRlA9-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
NS-28
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
85
N
0510
Miles
I U'RIAg
I lncorporated Area
Maury
lslands
.,$are(shed
Fil Forj
ov ou"
a'*-
E
Tier 1 Project: N5-29
Maury lsland Natural Area Revegetation and Reclamation
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
PROIECT TYPE:
Restoration
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury
tKt -14 -2)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,050,000
KEY HABITAT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Remove invasive species, add topsoil, and
revegetate about a mile of marine shoreline.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines,
Benefits:
' lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Recreation opportunities
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
Project Area lMap; Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photoi WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KclT-DCE fite: 2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\wBlAg-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
NS.29
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I In(orporatedAtea
PAGE
86
0510
Maury
lslands
$are(shed
Fll Fo.,4
cf'*.
a Tier 1 Project: N5-43
Dockton Reach Preservation and Restoration
sc'
a
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury
(Kr-13-8)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$2,600,000
Acquisition Restoration
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
KEY HABITAT:
B
\-l I
PROJECT TYPE:
Nearshore
Feeder Blulf
Riparian
@
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Restore 2000 feet of marine shoreline in the
Maury lsland Aquatic Reserve.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines
Benef its:
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
ProjectArea Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo site photo: wDoE shoreline Photo viewel lmages,2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-102021 LPBE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg ProjectMaps,mxd KLINKAT
NS-43
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
0510
PAGE
87
Vashon/
Moury
lslands
Fit Fo, -
p
*-
Tier 1 Project: N5-45
Tahlequah Creek Mouth Restoration
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury lsland
(Kl - 13 - 21,K|-13 -22)
Jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
EG'PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Project sponsor:
Vashon/Maury
Budget:
$zooo,ooo
Nearshore Nearshore
Feeder Bluff Pocket Estuary
Ll s!
I
Biparian
PRO'ECT 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:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
project Area Mapr Ortho2OlgKCNAT aerial photo site photoi wDoE shoreline Photo viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE file:2011.,10202L LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
NS-45
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
88
Vdshon/
^,N
0510
Miles
I WllA9
I lncoryorat€dArea
Maury
ttlonds
{Natershed
Fit Aor4
o'uu"Tier 1 Project: NS-49
Arroyos Park Bulkhead Removal
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
City of Seattle (Kl -5 - 1)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Seattle Parks and
Recreation
Budgetr
$2,500,000
+-:
PRO'ECT TYPE:
@Gt
Planningl
Design
Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
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
. Hecreation opportu nities
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
Project Area Mapr Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo site photor wDoE shoreline Photo viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCEfile;2011 102021 LPRE GISfileQ:\20009\WB|A9 ProjectMapsmxdKLINKAT
ffit
NS-49 a
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
PAGE
89
0510
I lncotpotatedArea
Vashon/
Mouty
lslands
F,t Fo"'4
+s-
a
out Tier 1 Project: N5-53
Perkins Lane Protection and Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell;
City of Seattle (Kl - 3 - 2)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Seattle Parks and
Recreation
PROIECT TYPE:EG'
Acquisition Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and
fiil.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines
Benef its:
. Habitat preservation
. Reconnect historic feeder bluffs
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Shoreline conservation
Projeci Area Map; Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages,2020
KCIT-DCEfiler 20ll-102021 LPRE GlSfileQr\20009\WRlA9 ProjectMaps,mxdKLlNKAT
NS-53
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
90
0510
Vashon/
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
Maury
lslands
$ate{shed
Fit For,
oo'unt Tier 1 Project: NS-51
Manzanita Reach Acquisition and Restoration
e
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury (Kl - 10 - 3)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$15,000,000
PROJECT TYPE:
Acquisition Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
EG$
silGt
Nearshore Riparian
Pocket Estuary
PROIECT DESCRIPTIONT
Acquire properties to remove old bulkheads and
fiil.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines
Benef its:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Reconnect historic feeder bluffs
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photor WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE file;2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WHlA9-ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
NS-6I
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncorporated Area
Vtshon/
Mauty
lslands
05r0
Mlle3
PAGE
9l
$a\e(shed
Flt
^b,
os o4t Tier 1 Project: N5-52
Spring Beach Acquisition and Restoration
.c'+-
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Dritt cell:
VashonlMaury (Kl - 10 - 3)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$5,000,000
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
E
€T GT
Nearshore Riparian
Pocket Estuary
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire to protect and restore shoreline and
forage fish habitat.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance marine shorelines.
Benefits:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
Project Area Mapr Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: WDOE Shoreline Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT'DCEiiler20ll-l0202L LPRE GlSfileQr\20009\WRIA9-ProjectMaps.mxdKLlNKAT
NS.62
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
- lncorpqrated Area
05r0
Mil€s
PAGE
92
Vashon/
Maury
Fo.'4
.a'+-
a
Tier 1 Project: NS-53
Green Valley Creek Acquisition and Restoration
.: ,",
,'i' j
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Drift cell:
Vashon/Maury (Kl - 13 - 26)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
Vashon/Maury
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$4,000,000
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
EG$
€r Gt
PROIECT TYPEI
Nearshore Riparian
Pocket Esluary
PROIECT 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:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Reconnect historic feeder bluffs
. Shoreline armor reduction
Contribution to goals metricsr
. Marine riparian vegetation
'Shoreline armor
. Shoreline conservation
project Area Map: Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo site photoi wDoE shoreline Photo viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCE file: 20ll-102021 LPBE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlA9 ProlectMaps,mxd KLINKAT
NS-63
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
f lncorporated Area
0510
PAGE
93
Maury
lsldnds
$are{shed
Fit Aor{
cl'+/;o Tier 1 Project: N5-66
Camp Kilworth Protection
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
oe
E
,{' '\
...,.,:..i
PROIECT TYPE:
Drift cell:
Federal Way (Kl - 10 - 3)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
FederalWay
Project sponsor:
Forterra and Kilworth
Environmental Education
Preserve (KEEP)
Acquisition
KEY HABITAT:
B
r-l
Nearshore
Feeder Blulf
Budget:
$3,100,000
PRO'ECT 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:
. lmproved forage fish spawning habitat
. Reconnect historic feeder bluffs
Contribution to goals metrics:
' Shoreline armor
Project Area Map; Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photoi WDOE Shorelilre Photo Viewer lmages, 2020
KCIT-DCEfiler20l!-102021 LPRE GlSfileQ:\20009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps.mxdKLlNKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lneorporatedArea
0510
PAGE
94
Maury
lslands
Tier 2 Project: N5- 1 3
Massey Creek Pocket Estuary and Fish Passage Proiect
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore (NS)
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
NearshoreKl-8-2
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Des Moines
Project sponsor:
City of Des Moines
Budget:
$3,000,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
Nearshore Kl - 13 - I
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsorl
King County
Budget:
TBD
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
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Bestoration
PROIECT
WPE:
Acquisition
Bestoration
KEV
HABITAT:
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Biparian
KEY
HABITAT:
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Riparian
o
Edo
.o.
I
E
=
o
_q
o
q
z
I
=
I
Fo
d
Oo+o
E
o
'o'
L
E
d
-q
a.o
'{
z
i
-t
L
I€
O
dOo
F
o
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire vacant lots, restore riparian forest habitat and
connectivity by removing the weir and bulkhead.
PAGE
95Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: NS-25
ludd Creek Pocket Estuary
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
NearshoreKl-0-1
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$6,000,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
Nearshore Kl - 13 - B
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,500,000
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Restore habitat with wood placement, removal of
derelict barge, and additionalvegetation near mouth of
Judd Creek,
fier 2 Project: N5-27
Piner Point Acquisition and Restoration
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Resloration
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
KEY
HABITATI
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
E
I
n
o
_9
aa
f;
z
I;
I
L
3
O
uoo{o
E
q
I
d
I
E
o
-9
qo
N
z
:'
I
g
o
oa
to
B I
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
Riparian
GT
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads,
and restore feeder bluffs.
a
NS-27
NS-27
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
96
Tier 2 Project: N5-31
Discoverv Park Feeder Bluff Protection and Restoration
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
NearshoreKl-3-2
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Seattle Parks
and Recreation
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Nearshore
Nearshore
jurisdiction:
Nearshore Kl - 13 - 6
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$2,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire remaining properties, remove bulkheads,
and restore feeder bluffs.
Tier 2 Project: NS-44
Portage Salt Marsh Restoration Project
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT:
Nearshore
Feeder Bluff
KEY
HABITAT:
E
:
c
I
E
=
4o
-9
Lo
z
I
N
I
x
!
o
uoo*o
!
6d
'o
o
I
E
=
d
_q
ao
'a
z
l-
I
I
!
o
oo*o
a
Nearshore
Feeder Eluff
ru
I
Riparian
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
lnstall bridge or box culverts, restore fish access,
and restore habitat to salt marsh.
aNS-44
PAGE
97Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: N5-60Ellisport Creek Mouth RestorationTier 2 Project: N5-(Des Moines C-PROIECT FACTSSubwatershed:NearshoreNearshorejurisdiction:NearshoreKl -8-2Banksidejurisdiction:City of Des MoinesProject sponsorlCity of Des MoinesBudget:TBDPRO'ECT DESCRIPTIORemove approximatelyarmor and pull back fillnatural shoreline and slPRO'ECT FACTSSubwatershed:NearshoreNearshorejurisdiction:Nearshore Kl - 13 - 4;Kt -13-5Banksidejurisdiction:King CountyProject sponsor:King CountyBudget:$3,000,000PROIECTTYPE:AcquisitionRestorationKEVHABITAT:NearshorePocket EstuaryRiparianqd'6'L6g9Io'azILooOo*OPROIECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire and restore habitat at Ellisport Creek streammouth, and allow for fish passage,Toble 3.Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 ProjectsDash Point State Park EstuaryRestoration and lUater Qualitylmprovements. Restoration. Scoping/ReconnaissanceProject will remove armoring to restore estuary and re-aligncreekto more sinuous route, lmprove water quality in parkthrough parking lot improvements, reduce erosion associatedwith stormwater runoff, creosote-treated pedestrian bridgereplacement, and wetland enhancement.RivermilBanksidrNearshorrNADWashington State ParksSponsorSeattle Parks andRecreationHsiectllessipthnRemove shoreline armor and restore natural beach adjacentto a previously created pocket beach,Froiectlype. Planning/Design. Restoration. Scoping/ReconnaissanceFrrdettlaneMyrtle Edwards Park PocketBeach Shallow Water HabitatProiectHoNS.2l,lS-16& RecreationNearshort
Table 3.Marine Nearshore Subwatershed Tier 3 Projects, continuedSeattle Public UtilitiesKing CountyKing CountySeattle Public UtilitiesCity of BurienCity of BurienSeattle Public UtilitiesSponsorCity of BurienReplace two aging fish passage banier culverts with newculverts that meet fish passage standards. lncludes partialdaylighting and stream channel restoration,Remove/reduce shoreline armoring, remove fill, relocatean SPU-owned pump station if feasible and re-vegetateshoreline. Potential acquisition of adjacent properties.Restore fish passage and salt marsh habitat at mouth ofcreek,Remove shoreline armoring, evaluate and improve fishpassage.This project will evaluate restoration opportunities at fivesites along a 1.7-mile section of Longfellow Creek. Futurerestoration may include: floodplain reconnection, fishpassage improvements (culvert replacements or daylighting),stream channel realignment, stream channel and riparianrestoration, wetland creation and/or enhancement.The project plan is to seek partnership or acquisitionopportunities with the property owners within the projectarea, with the goal of acquiring and restoring additionalcontiguous areas beyond the cunent city-owned wetlandparcels within the project site,The project plan is to seek a partnership or acquisitionopportunities with the properly owners within the projectarea, with the goals of removing the fish-barrier weir at themouth of the creeh and removing and replacing a culvertwith a modern fish passable one.The project plan is to identify one or more large commercialproperties in Burien that have no existing stormwatertreatment or flow control, and partner with them to constructregional stormwater facilities on their site(s).Project Description. Acquisition. Planning/Design.Restoration. Restoration & Acquisition. Planning/Design. Restoration. Scoping/ReconnaissanceRestoration & AcquisitionRestoration.Acquisition. Planning/Design.Restoration. Restoration & Acquisition. Scoping/ReconnaissanceProiectType, Planning/Design. BestorationPlanning/Design. Enhancement/Planting. Restoration & Acquisition. Scoping/ReconnaissanceFauntleroy Creek Fish PassageTsugwalla Creek PocketEstuary Restoration ProjectMileta Armor Removal andshoreline restorationLongfellow Greek Fish Passageand Floodplain RestorationSalmon Greek Fish BarrierBemovalMiller Creek RegionalDetention FacilityWest Galer Street/32nd St.Boat Ramp Shoreline ArmorRemoval and RestorationProject llameWalker Creek Headwaters LandAcquisition1{S-59NS-68l{s-70NS-42NS-54NS-58ProiectIrlo.NS-391{S-40RivermileBank sideNearshoreNearshoreNearshoreNearshoreNearshoreKl-13-14NearshoreRM0/leftNearshoreNC-7tDarLina I ana Drnfaalian andDlanninn /DaoinnAcoaoc {aooihilihr n{ mnr{i{rrinn lha r rlilihr oarrriaa rnad andQaa*la Dr rhlin I l+ili+id6hlaarohnra
t 19
projects
b"?
Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed
DUW-2,,,,,,Rendering Plant
DUW-7,,,,,,Chinook Wind
DUW-7a.,,,Chinook Wind - Extension
DUW-25,.,Desimone 0xbow Restoration
DUW-29,,,Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek
DUW-32.,Duwamish River People's Park & Shoreline Habitat (Terminal 117)
DUW-64,,,U-Hau I River Project
DUW-66,,.Termi nal 25 South
Tier 1 (Sco,re 18+) 8 projeets
Tier 2 (Score 7-181 9 projects
DUW-3.,,,,.Seattle l-A Freig ht RevetmentSetback
DUW-18.,,,C0di ga 0ff-cha n nel Ha bitat Expa nsion
DUW-22.,,Cecil Moses
DUW-24,,,Ca rrossino Restoration
DUW-26,,,S I 04th St, Ba n k Sta bi I ization/Restoration
DUW-60,..Herring's House ParkFishAccess lmprovement
DUW-61,,..George Long
DUW-63,,,S,115th St, Road Setback
DUW-67*Cod iga to TCC Conidor
Tier 3 (Score <7) 2 projects
DUW-I4,..,Duwamish Waterway Park
DUW-19.,,,Southgate Creek Restoration
PAGE
102 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
St, Viaduct
SEATTLE
DUW-32
DUW-24
7
DUW-67
DUW.7
o
D
BURIEN
SEATAC
TUKWILA.
l
Elliott Bay
Figure 27.
Duwamish Estuary
Subwatershed Projects
\lr
DUW-I a
.'-
'.tfr
River mile
Project location and name
River/creek
Major road
Urban Growth Area Line
Duwamish Estuary
Subwatershed boundary
WRIA 9 boundary
Open water
Public lands
lncorporated Area
Bridge
0 114 ll2Mile
I::-_---r
October 2020
GIS File:
Q:\20009\WRlAg-Watershed,mxd KLI NKAI
N
Noto:
The use of the inlormation in this map is subject to
the terms and conditions found at:
wwkingcounty,gov/setvices/gis/[4aps/terms-of-u
se,aspx, Your access and use is conditioned on your
acceptance of these terms and conditions.
KCIT-DCE File:
20i'l_20202L_W9SHP_PrciMap-DUWai LPRE
T
DUW.2
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
t03
Green / Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
_c'
*\atershed Fif Ao,'4
o$'n, Tier 1 Pro ject: DUW-2
Rendering Plant
PROIECT 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
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire and restore
seven + acres with side
channel and backwater
habitat enhancements and
reforestation.
PRO'ECT TYPE:
Planningl Scoping/
Design Beconnaissance
KEY HABITAT:
@@
N
BG!
Acquisition Restoration
mtE
Floodplain Riparianr'
Backwater
Duwamish
Mudflat
E
i
.-
Edge
G\Z
Duwamish
Marsh
Side Channel
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and
edge habitat,
Benefits:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Riparian forest
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Project Area Mapi Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earlh, 2020
KCIT-DCE filer 2010 102021 LPFE GIS file Q120009\WRlAg-ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
DUW-2
r-rpark rrf::jT -- f"flt"fi*
PRO'ECT AREA MAP
Foster Golf Links
\f
. ",,1.:57th Ave,.S'
'MiniPark
lu+ooo"
Riuec i
'.'..s
't
IIir0a
II
I is
4j
,J
^,
.t
N
XING c0ul,lTY?.
L,.
TUKWITA
UNIIiCOBPORATTD\"
0 200 400 600 ftm
RENTON
Foster Golf Links
:L"t 1,,1,,,rr,;,' 7 1t 1,t1',.1,;,1,,r,
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
f lncorporatedArea
PAGE
r04
0510
Vathon/
Maury
lslands
$a\e(shed
Fft Aol
.rs'
a
Tier'l Project: DUW-7
Chinook Wind
PROIECT 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
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
B GT
5tg
Duwamish
Mudflat
Duwamish
Marsh
Gil
Riparian
PRO'ECT 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:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Riparian forest
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Project Area Mapr Ortho20lgKCNAT.aerial photo
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPRE GISfileQr\20009\WR!Ag ProjectMapsmxdKLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0510
PAGE
r05
Mawy
tslands
I WRIA9
I ln{orporaled Area
FiI A^'4
c'+-3
Tier 1 Project: DUW-7a
Chinook Wind Extension
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
Duwamish RM 6.8/
right bank
Bankside jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget: $1,418,000
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Resloration
Planning/
Design
KEY HABITAT:
BGT
E2
@
ct^-Edge
Duwamish
Mudllat
Duwamish
Marsh
Riparian
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Expand and enhance the land between Chinook
Wind Mitigation and Duwamish Gardens to create a
unified park and rest.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and
edge habitat.
Benef its:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. Recreation opportunities
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Riparian forest
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Project Ar€a Mapj Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE tile: 2010 102021 LPBE GIS file Q:\20009\WRIA9-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green / 0uwamish &
Central Puget Sound
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
r wfflA9
I IneorporatedArea
PAGE
r06
Vashon/
N
0510
Mile!
Maury
lslands
wq
-/'
{$a\ershed
Fif ,or
4 tzooos
*s'
Tier 1 Project: DUW-25
Desimone Oxbow Restoration
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
Duwamish HM 6.5 -
5.3/left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
Unknown
Budget: $84,193,945
PROIECT TYPE;
GI @
Enhancementl
Planting
Backwater Duwamish
Marsh
Restoration Acquisition
KEY HABITAT:
Planning/
DesignBG!
N:2 5t
Duwamish
Mudllat.-&lEEdge Riparian Side Channel
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire and restore 45.4-aue 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,
Benef its:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
' DUW - Hiparian forest
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
. LG - Off-channel habitat
Project Area lMap: Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPRE GlSfileQ120009\WRlA9.-ProjectNlapsmxdKLlNKAI
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
107
05t0
PAGE
Vashon/
Mawy
lslands
Flt Ao.'4
,e:
o+, Tier 1 Project: DUW-29
Seattle City Light North/Hamm Creek
PROIECT 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
PRO'ECT WPEI
Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Backwater Tributary
NUt
[s.-JE
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
PRO'ECT 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:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Site Photo: Wash. Dept. of Ecology Prcject Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 2011,102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlAg-ProiectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
# IEI"lr* "
tEll,#,',
\ r.''."f;!l- .I -.J i t;''r ''rl Ii.-l
rr Park n ffi - - il,l?il;|j*
I
I
I
I
\
I
nml
50t
I
I\
I \
9
€o
3_.
i
F?o
tr
,fot
,fl.
l:b
,,.Y
,sb
i):
[rHr,fi
PROJECT AREA MAP
-
l
r.-.t,. \
a
.h
Hainth Creeki.
.NaturalArca
furning Basin
Nunher i
o 2oo 4oo 6ooft N
r!
s
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0510I WRIA9
I ln(orporated Area Miles
PAGE
l08
Vashon/
^.N
Maury
lslands
.,$ate(shedF,'rFo,o Tigr 1 Project: DUW-32
e"' ^** Duwamish RiveuM shoreline Habit
r People's Park &
at (Terminal 1171
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
Duwamish 4.5 - 41 /
left bank
PROIECT TYPE:
Gt@
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/ Restoration
Design
KEY HABITAT:
Jurisdiction:
Port of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Port of Seattle
Budget:
TBD
Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudllat
/
Edge
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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:
. lncreased habitat connectivitY
' Recreation opportunities
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Site Photor Wash. Dept. ot Ecology Project Area Map: Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo
KC|T-DCEfiler2011 102021 LPRE GlSfileQ:\20009\WRlAg PrcjectMaps.mxdKLlNKAT
DUW-32 a
r I I lilll
r---t Publi( -- lncorp.ArealJ Lands Boundary
lsrEnu
t
Ja
fr:'#;f^'!Tg\.'\ti -irl' -',":'.*x***l-, t'lr " ' .3r-r
\
SEATTLE
I
t
KING
I
F1o
I
t
\
I
I
{f
\
'r,l llqll
r_:i
,E!' i'rl
----.ir
PROJECT AREA MAP
Tf, T
G
I
I
I
t
o 2oo 4oo 6oofr N
I
I
t
,.I
t
t..
t
:i.:
_'i
GO'U N }Y't t
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I ln(orporatedArea
0510
Mllet
vashon/
PAGE
109
Maury
tslands
{Nare(shed
Fit Aol{
*-
-3
'a" Tier 1Project: DUW-64
U-Haul River Project
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
Hiver mile:
Duwamish RM 6.5 - 6,3/
right bank
Bankside jurisdiction :
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget: $11,770,000
PROIECT TYPE:B G!
Acquisition Restoration
Planningl
Design
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
Gil
@
.J
Edge
NEz=KEY HABITAT:
Backwater Duwamish
Mudflat
Duwamish
Marsh
Riparian
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire and restore 4,4-aqe parcel by creating
off-channel mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance channel complexity and
edge habitat,
Benef its:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Recreation opportunities
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Riparian forest
' DUW - Shallow water habitat
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aelial photo Site photo: Google Earth, 2020
KCIT-DCEfile:2010 102021 LPRE GlSfileQr\20009\WRlA9 ProiectMaps.mxdKLINKAT
DUW.
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
tl0
0510
PAGE
vashot /
Maury
lslands
$are(shed
FirFb._9
E
Tier 1 Project: DUW-65
Terminal 25 South
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
Duwamish 0.4 /
right bank
Jurisdiction:
Port of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Port of Seattle
PROIECT WPE:
B@ GT
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/ Restoration
Design
KEY HABITAT:
Backwater
N!D
Duwamish
Marsh
Budget:
TBD Duwamish
Mudllat
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Restore critically needed estuarine in the East
Waterway. Project will expand off-channel habitat as
wellas 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:
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Sediment quality improvement
Contribution to goals metrics:
. DUW - Shallow water habitat
Project Area l\.4api Ortho20'I9KCNAT aerial photo
KCll-DCEfiler20li-102021 LPBE GISfileQ:\20009\WRlAg,ProjectlvlapsmxdKLINKAT
/
Edge
G
LOCATION MAP
0510
Miles
I wllAg
I lncorporated Area
Maury
blands
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
111
Tier 2 Project: DUW-3
Seattle LA Freight Revetment Setback
PRO'ECT 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 FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
BM 8,6/right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget: $642,000
PROIECT TYPE:
Enhancement/Planting
Planning/
Design
KEY HABITAT:g5t
/61
Duwamish
Marsh
KEY
HABITAT:
Duwamish
Mudflat ,;
=
d
!
&
B
o
-9
Io
ri
l
I3
Io
I
I
o
oo*o
G'B
Edge Floodplain
BiparianBestoration Acquisition
Scoping/
Beconnaissance
PROJECT
TYPE:
Planning/
Design
PROIECT DESCRIPTIONT
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
E
0d
I
&
=
ct
-9
6
<t5
lo
I3
I
L
g
o
Oo
to
Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
MudflatEta
Restoration Floodplain Biparian
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Expand Codiga Park habitat restoration proiect by
turning the backwater area into a side channelto
increase rearing and refuge for salmon during
higher flows.
PAGE
112 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
DUW-22
Tier 2 Project: DUW-22
Cecil Moses
PROIECT 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
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT:E
G'
;F\
-
q
o
'6'
I
I
g
E
o
-9
ao
G
:o
I;
I
!
O
uOo+
9
5t
fFTlz
G.1
Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudflat
PROIECT 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
Carrossi no Restoration
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:B NRiver mile:
6 - 6.1 I right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
@
B
Backwater Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudflat
Edge
Gil
Budget: $16,304,000 Restoration Riparian
Acquisition
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire properties and create shallow mudflat,
marsh, and backwater habitats.
a
DUW-24
E
o_
i
6
=
ao
_q
ao
o
N
f,o
I
I
L
g
o
0
uoo+
O
PAGE
fl3Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: DUW-26
S. 1O4th 5t. Bank Stabilization/Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
5,6 / right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsorl
City of Tukwila
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
RM 1,1 / left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Seattle
Project sponsor:
Seattle Parks and
Recreation
Budget: $1,250,000
KEY
HABITAT:
Backwaler Duwamish
Marsh
Ng
PROIECT
TYPE:
@
GT
B
Planning/
Design
Restoration
Acquisition
PROIECT
TYPE:
Planning/
Design
Restoration
5t .
Edge
o
E
-o'
d
I
E
=
o
-q
ao
.G
lo
I
B
I
I
9
o
oo*o
E6o
p
c
I
&3
o
_9
q.o
ct
=)o
I
I
L
Iso
uootI
Duwamish
Mudflat
cil
Budget: $5,930,000
Riparian
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
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-50
Herring's House Park Fish Access lmprovement
KEY
HABITAT:
Nearshore
Pocket Estuary
Riparian
Side Channel
PROIECT 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.
DUW-26
o
PAGE
114 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: DUW-61
George Long
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed;
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
10,4 / left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsorl
City of Tukwila
Budget: $9,500,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Duwamish (DUW)
River mile:
RM7 I right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget:
$4,699,000
N2
KEY
HABITAT:
Backwater Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudflat
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
PROIECT
TYPEI
Enhancement/
Planting
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Create backwater refuge and riparian habitat
at the uppermost limit of the transition zone.
Tier 2 Project: DUW-63
S. 1 1sth 5t. Road Setback
Restoration
Acquisition
PROJECT
TYPE:
Restoration
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
q
,q
d
I
d
=
o
Io
'q
=!o
I
=
I
N
f,
!o
O
oo
4I
q
:
'o'
d
I
g
E
=
o
.9.
Io
.G
=lo
I3
I
x
!eo
uO6*o
Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudflat
@ .-DEdge Side Channel
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Relocate local road and create shallow water edge,
backwater mudflat, marsh, and riparian habitat as
part of the Duwamish Hill Preserve Master Plan.
DUW.63
o
PAGE
fl5Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: DUW-67Codiga to TCC CorridorPROIECT FACTSSubwatershed:Duwamish (DUW)River mile:BM 8.1-8.3/right bankBanksidejurisdiction:City of TukwilaProject sponsor:City of TukwilaPROIECT TYPE:KEY HABITANN/HestorationBackwater EdgeE'ddE=o_qao'aB:oIIoOOO*OEducation Enhancement/& 0utreach PlantingGNH@BDuwamish DuwamishMarsh MudflatRiparianPlanning/DesignScoping/Recon.Budget:$12,525,000PROIECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire properties to create a public greenbelt andshallow water and riparian habitat extending fromCodiga Park to the Tukwila Community Center.Table 4Duwamish Estuarv Subwatershed Tier 3 ProjectsSponsorProleet llescriFtionftolectTypeProiectilameProi#Eiver mside/NtDuwamish Waterway.Acquisition. Planning/Design. RestorationAcquire adjacent properties, pull back bank armoring, revegetate, incorporaterecreational uses.Seattle Parks andRecreationDUW'I4ParkRM 3,6/l
Lower Green River Subwatershed
45
projects
-.4.
LG-3,....,.. Horsehead Restoration Project
LG-6,.,.,,.. Wrecki n g Yards Restoration Project
LG-8,..,..., Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration
LG-22...,.. Wetla nd Floodpla i n Off-Cha nnel Ha b itat
Reconnection
LG-28.,.,.. North Green River Park
LG-29.,.... North of Veteran's Drive Floodplain
Reconnection
LG-33,,,,, Midway Creek Wetland Complex
LG-34,,,., Johnson Creek Floodplain Project
LG-35,,,., P-17 Stormwater Pond Connection
LG-39...., Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain
Connection
LG-40...., Downey Side Channel Restoration
LG-42..,., Lower Russell Road: Habitat Area A
LG-45,,,,, Teufel Off Cha n nel Ha bitat Restoration
Tier 1 (Score 18+) 13 proiects
Tier 2 (Score 7-181 19 projects
LG{ ,,,....,. Reddington Habitat Creation
LG-5....,.,. Northeast Auburn Creek Restoration
LG-7,,.,,..,, Mullen Slough
1Gi0....,. Boeing Levee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation
LG{2.,.,.,, Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat
LG{7.....,, Fort Dent Revetment Setback
LG{8,....., Black River Marsh
LG{9.,,,.., Lower Springbrook Reach Rehabilitation
LG-23.,..,,8th Street Bridge to 104th Ave Park 0ff-Channel
Habitat
LG-26,,.,.. Valentine Revetment Setback
LG-27.,,,,. 8th Street Acq u isitions
LG-30.,,,. Mill Creek to Washington Ave Bridge Acquisitions
and Restoration
LG-31,.,,.,.S0uth of Veteran's Drive Floodplain Reconnection
LG-32,.,.,, Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection
LG-37,,,,,. Strander Bou leva rd Off-cha nnel Ha bitat Creation
LG-46,,,,, Mill Creek Protection and restoration near
Emerald Downs
LG-49,.,., Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat
lmprovements
LG-51 ,.,,., Milwaukee 2 lmprovements
LG-55,.,., Frager Road Levee Setback
Tier 3 (Score <7) 13 projects
LG-2..,,,.., 0lson Creek Restoration
lGj5....,., Nelsen Side Channel
LG-l6.,.,..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 lmprovement
Project
LG-52,,,,., Panther Creek at Talbot Road South Fish Passage
lmprovement
LG-53 ..,., Signature Pointe Levee I mprovements
LG-54..,.,SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee
LG-56,.... Kent Airport Levee Setback
LG-57.,.,,, Barnaby Truong Ofi-Channel Habitat Creation
LG-58..,., Briscoe Levee Riparian Habitat lmprovements
PAGE
tI8 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LG-I9TUKWILALG-I7
LG-43
RENTON
LG-52
FEDERAL
WAY
KENT
LG-22
LG-26
LG-30
LG-5I
LG-I
LG-2
LG-23
LG-27
-
LG-46l
AUBURN
LG-39,4.
LG-12
LG-IO
LG-35
17 tr.
LG-55 LG=42
!E
KENT
LG-45
e.
LG-33
LG-40
KENT \
SIat Loke
,
12
LG-21
LG-29
LG.31
LG-34 4
-lt
LG-37
ALGONA
Figure 28.
Lower Green River
Subwatershed Projects
lo
a
aar?-
.tfr
I
River mile
Project location
River/creek
Major road
Urban Growth Area
line
Lower Green River
Subwatershed
boundary
WRIA 9 boundary
Open water
Public lands
Incorporated area
N
LG-38
0 112 I 2Miles
EI
Note:
The use ofthe information in this map is subiect to the
terms and conditions found at:
ww,kin gcounty,gov/seruices/gis/Maps/terms-of-use.aspx.
Your access and use is condilioned on your acceptance ol
these lerms and conditions,
KCIT-DCE Filer
2011-202021-W9SHP-PrcjMap-LGR,ai LPRE
cls File:
Q:\20009\WRlA9-Watershed.rod KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
1t9
Tier 1 Project: LG-3
Horsehead Restoration Proiect
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
25.7 - 26.5 / left bank
Bankside jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget: $11,100,000
PROJECT TYPE:
Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Backwater Fbodplain
N6t
I
Riparian
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTIONI
Create approximately 13 acres of backwater habitat
and revegetate 3,000 feet of river bank'
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity
Benefits:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
' lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Large woody debris
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
VC filer 20'10 102021-WgSHBPtact-HORSEHEAD.ai GIS lile Q:\20009\WBlA9-Proiect[/aps mxd
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
PAGE
120
0510
vashon/
Maury
lslands
F,t Ao",4
+s'
E
Tier 1 Project: LG-6
Wrecking Yards Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
24.1 - 243 / left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$32000,000
PRO'ECT TYPE:EG'
AI.l GI
Acquisilion Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Backwater Edge FloodPlain
Riparian Side channel Wetland
GI l}M
PROIECT DESCRIPTIONT
Acquire, remediate and restore wrecking yards
with side channels and backwater features.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benefits:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Site Photor Google Earth Project Area Map; Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPRE GlSfileQr\20009\WRlA9 ProjectMapsmxdKLINKAT
LG-6
-..-- i
0 200 ,100 600ft N
hr
+4
^
llt!
t1lIInt
i,itr_
ll
t
Ttail Sii,f. - Kent
PROJECT AREA MAPr|Il
River r - 1
.-. II ar.r
al:S I
tIFltr
Urban 6rowth
Area lire 8ndy.F-lPark nffi
!i
it
I
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
05r0
PAGE
121
Vathon/
Mlles
N
Maury
lslands
r ti\rRlA9
I ln(orporated Ar€a
$ate{shed
F/l Ao,
4o''." Tler 1Project: LG-8
Lower Mill Creek Channel Restoration
+s'3
PROIECT 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
Budget:
$23,900,000
PRO'ECT TYPE:E
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:u.-;t
Tributary Edge FloodPlain
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
lmprove 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:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
' LG - Large woody debris
' LG - Riparian forest
Project Area Map: Ortho20l9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 2011 102021 LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WBlA9 ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green / Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
L..
a/
(1.
KrNG cpuNrY .
. . ')---
{'r-
l
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
r WilAg
I lneorpora:edArea
0510
PAGE
122
Vashon/
Maury
Islands
Green / Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
.{Nate(shed
Flt Ao.4
cP'ou"Tier 1 Project: LG-22
Wetland Floodplain Off-channel Habitat Reconnection
6
sc
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
27.2 - 27,6 /
right bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,165,000
PROJECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
BG'
EI IEdge Floodplain Biparian
Side channel Tributary Wetland
!E ]T'M
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire and restore approximately 30 acres of
floodplain wetlands and provide access to 2,000
feet of non-nataltributary 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 Hiver Trail.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benefits:
' Habitat preservation
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Mapr Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WBlAg-ProjectMaps mxd KLINK.AT
LG-22
tI Park tl ffi H::l,::'illi,
PROIECTAREA MAP
.llMtllCr
L,-:-
t:It
f; I
I
- - - -s.277thst
slt
KENT
{
i,ti. t-
I(ENT r
\
,
I
Mill Creek
Notth Green
River Park
! ,.,i
*. UNINCORPORAIED 1
KING COUNTY,
I
Boundary
o zoo aooft Nr "^,
Earthworks Pa*
Biversands
AUBUBN PATK
i
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
l0
PAGE
123
Vashon/
^.N
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
Maury
lslands
p 17 For
6c_Tier 1 Project: LG-28
North Green River Park
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
26.5 -27,3 I
right bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
S 1 7,1oo,ooo
PROIECT TYPE:BG'
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
6t
Backwater Edge FloodPlain
Riparian Side channel Tributary
QDUl
M
Wetland
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Restore floodplain habitat by removing revetments,
restoring reconnecting floodplain wetland, creating
side channels and backwater features, and
integrating stream channelfrom the adiacent 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,
Benef its:
. Flood risk reduction
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Bank armor
. LG - Off-channel habitat
Site Photo: Google Earth Project Area Map: Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-l02O2L LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg-ProjectMapsmxd KLINKAT
a
LG-22
MIIIC/.
KING COUNTY
.\
\r
COUNTY
*l
i
:
.t
\o"
n earrr fI ffi
Biver Park
PROJECT AREA MAP
, \J - ,; I mncreek'
'9,-JEatthworks\ parktL----l -s,
Horsehead Bend
Natwal Arca A
o zoo loott. Nr ^
t/,
.:
ra
ts.
UrbancroMh .- lncArea
A.ea Line Bndy. Boundary
{.:}.
KING
',.|
:i:
" o#Eg
North Grcen I .;ri-'
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncorporat€d Area
0510
PAGE
124
Vashon/
Moury
Islands
Fit Fot -
,e-
oo, Tier 1 Pro ject: LG-29
North of Veterans Drive Floodplain
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 18,9 -19.2/
left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Enhancemenil Planning/ Restoration
Planting Design
KEY HABITAT:
PROIECT TYPE:
Floodplain Biparian Wetland
s@
GI GilM
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT 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:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Recreation opportunities
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
Projeci Area Mapr O.tho20l9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE filer 2011-102O2L LPBE GIS lile Q:\20009\WRIAg ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncotporaled Area
0510
Mlls
PAGE
125
Maury
lslonds
Fit Fot
-"q:
Tier 1 Project: LG-33
Midway Creek Wetland Complex
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 19,6 - 21rl
left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
Bg@PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Enhancementl Planning/
Planting Design
Monitoring & Restoration Scoping/Assessmeni Reconnaissance
KEY HABITAT:
@
N6lA
Backwater Floodplain Riparian
lE M
Sidechannel Wetland
PROIECT DESCRIPTION;
Restore Midway Creek and floodplain wetland
complex by removing wetland filland 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'
Benefitsr
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Project Area Mapr Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 20ll-102021 LPRE GIS lile Qr\20009\WRlA9 ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
PROJECT AREA MAP
*+I11:*
t(+i.ir" atY:t ,r''' .:.'t*trri-:'''',.-'; --'F',c
Trail Site - Kent
f.r
a
i..'!-r
E.t'
fliver
ftt
cr,"ln
{&.
,i\r,.'
i
\'RMr
i1
a
rrPark nffi--[f;fi:l
KING
GoltCourse, .
"o ^RMl[ 20
.il
F,O-"ri:i{;::rt
River
o 2oo 400ft. N
{ UNINCOR-. PORAI'ID
Eiveftend
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
126
05't0
PAGE
Voshon/
I WRIA9
I lncorpolated Area
Maury
lslands
Ftt A^
.c'
E
Tier 1 Project: LG-34
lohnson Creek Floodplain
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM17,2-17.8/
left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT TYPE:
Floodplain Biparian Tributary
Education Enhancement/ Monitoring&
& Outreach Planting Assessment
Planning/ Restoralion
Design
KEY HABITAT!
G8 g@
El 8l[
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire properties, setback road and trail,
reconnect floodplain, and create off-channel
habitat to improve water quality and increase fish
access,
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benefits:
. Flood risk reduction
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
' LG - Riparian forest
Project Area Mapr Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE tile; 2011 102021 LPRE GIS tile Q:\20009\WRlA9-ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncorporated Aaea
0510
Mile5
PAGE
127
Vashon/
Maury
lslands
Fit Ao.'4,u,Tier 1 Project: LG-35
P-17 Pond Connection Reconnection
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 13.7- 13,9/
left bank
,-c'
s
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget:
$3Z0oo,ooo
PRO'ECT TYPE:
Planning/ Scoping/
Oesign Reconnaissance
KEY HABITAT:
6l Gt
Floodplain Riparian
tE
Side channel
PROIECT 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
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
Project Area Map: Ortho20l9KCNAT aerial pholo Site photoi Google Earth
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPRE GlSfileQ:\20009\WRlAg ProiectMaps,mxdKL|NKAT
LG-35
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0510I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
128
Milet
PAGE
Vashon/
Maury
lslands
.\ater5hed Fit Fo,'4
o'>1 Tier 1 Project: LG-39
Port of Seattle Mitigation Site Floodplain Connection
+s'
-pa
l
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
27.9 - 28.2 / left bank
Jurisdiction:
City of Auburn
Project sponsor:
Port of Seattle
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT TYPE:
G'
Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
Floodplain Riparian
6te
N M
Backwater Wetland
PRO'ECT 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 additionalwetland habitat and
further enhance floodplain connectivity. Proiect
Design will need to address future Green River Trail
alignment around this project area.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benef its:
. Flood risk reduction
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Off-channel habitat
Project Area Mapi Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE file: 2011,102021 LPRE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
Green/ Duwamish &
Central Puget sound
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0510I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
129
Miles
PAGE
Vdshon/
^.N
Maury
lslonds
F'TA^
'u, Tier 1 Pro ject: LG-40
Downey Side Channel Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM21,5 -22/
left bank
PROIECT TYPE:
Monitoring& Resioration
Assessment
KEY HABITAT:
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
$6,800,000
D
Side channel
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
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
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Large woody debris
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerjal photo Site photoi Google Earth
KCIT-DCE lile: 2011 10202L LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlAg-ProjectMaps,mxd KLINKAT
o LG-40
d-,.I.,;d
,gj
I
,
I
t
t
I
,
\
zl'4
KING
A
I
,
I
\
niierbend
coutsg ,
fl eark tI ffi
PROJECTAREA MAP
I
I
UrbatrGrowth . -
lnt,Area
Area Line Brdy. Eoundaty
o zoo 4oott. N
:7 [nlqs
| _.:1
- i,- l'
. '',+.'\.
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
r30
0 5 10
PAGE
Voshon/
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
Moury
lslands
$arershed
F/f Ao.4
cP''"" Ti*r 1 Frojeet: LG*&2
Lna#er Russgli ffioad: hlabitat Arsa ft+-
PRGJTfT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 17,9 - 18,31
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budgetr
TBD
FROJHCT TYFT:g:t ffil
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
@uG'
Monitoring& Restoration
Assessment
KKY I-{&SITAY:
Edge Floodplain Side channel^dr} Hil
Pffi*J€ilT ffiffiSe ffilFTl&illr
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.
Frirmary str*t*gg
Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity,
ffienef €*s:
. Flood risk reduction
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
eslntri huticr: ts g*ais r:"letries:r
. LG - Large woody debris
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Riparian forest
Project Area lvlapr or{h02019KcNAT aerial photo Site photoi Google Earth
KCIT-DCE file: 2a11 fi202L LPRE GIS file Q|\20009\WRlAg Proiecttulaps mxd KLINKAT
atr
.,'-,.-'. \.
KING COUNTY
Fit Fo.'4
c'+-:
t;" Tier 1 Pro ject: LG-45
Teufel Off Channel Habitat Restoration
, --'.4ii-:':,,',.1
:1,,.i.,;,.'it:.:. - ftl
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
PROIECT TYPE:
River mile:
20 - 20.8 I
left bank KEY HABITAT:
Jurisdiction:
Kent
Backwater Edge FloodPlain
Project sponsor:
King County Flood
Control District Riparian Side channel Tributary
Budget:
$12,525,000 -
$33,975,000 Upland Wetland
PROIECT 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
. lncreased habitat connectivity
' lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. LG - Large woody debris
. LG - Off-channel habitat
. LG - Hiparian forest
Proiect Area Mapi Ortho20l9KCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 2011-102021 LPRE GIS file Q120009\WRlAg-ProiectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Enhancement/ Planning/ Restoration
Planting Design
s@Gt
N.amt
GT lEln
MNB
LG-45 a
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
PAGE
132
o5l0
Vashon/
Maury
lslnnds
a
LG-I
:I.ft,{
N
Mary
0lson
Farn
o
l--l Park [--l Publie Lands
- Notth
6reen Bivet
Park
I '.r,rlr ll!' ..,,r1
l .-","'- , tl ,lrlrl,'r
0 'r50 300 600ftrc
rlt tJltIL-tilrilul!
l j{,
Tier 2 Project: LG-1
Reddington Habitat Creation
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
28,6 - 28.2 I
left bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
TBD
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
25.3 / left bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$5,500,00
PROIECT
TYPE:
Bestoralion
PROIECT
TYPE:
ct
E
KEY
HABITAT:
Backwater Fbodplain
N6t
./ID
o
E
o
'o'
d
1
E
o
_q
ao
'q
oJ
l3
N
!
O
Oo*o
E
.o.
d
I
E
=
-oI
Io
.q
o
I-
-t
I
!
O
ooto
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
The previous Reddington Levee Setback proiect 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
Edge Side Channel
KEY
HABITAT:
Wetland
Restoration
/61Edge Floodplain
8aL
Riparian Tributary
NA
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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.
o LG-5
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
r33
Tier 2 Project: LG-7
Mullen Slough
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
21.51 left bank
(Mullen Slough
1 -2)
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$9,600,000
PRO'ECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:
u
I
.-
EdgeI
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
/
Edge
at
Floodplaing
Riparian
EI
@
GI
Restoration
B
Acquisition
Floodplain
!
q
o
S
.o'
&
I
E
=
o
_9
Ig
c
o)
-1
;p
O
uOotO
E
o
0c
I
d
=
o
_9
qo
ciTo
I3
N
I
L
!
o
uoo
to
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project would remeander and revegetate the
tributary, increasing quantity and quality of aquatic
habitat.
Tier 2 Project: LG-10
Boeing Leuee Setback Habitat Rehabilitation
Tributary
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
17 -17.8 / right bank
Jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROIECT 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.
PROIECT
TYPE:
Enhancement/
Planting
Restoration
a
LG.7
LG.lO
PAGE
r34 Green-Duwamish and Central Pugef Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-12
Briscoe Park Off-channel Habitat
PROJECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 15.6 -16J /right bank
Bankside jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 11 - 11,8 /
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget:
$4,699,000
Gl@
B
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITATT
Floodplain
I
.-
Edge
mt
Enhancement/
Planting
Restoration
ct
GT
PROIECT 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
PROIECT
TYPE:
Biparian
KEY
HABITAT;
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
N
Backwater
/
Edge
6l
FloodplainI
Hiparian
@G'
Restoration Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Setback portions of the Fort Dent revetment to create
shallow water habitat, riparian forest, and off-channel
habitat.
LG.12
o
5E IAC lt
',
,J
II
fl Park
lp
e.
I
rurwIA
f
n Publi<|J Lands
t(tt{?t
I
I
I
a
-,*
t\
'it
lBcorp. Area
Boundary
Bilscoe
Park
o 150300 600ft NEE
^,
-'--S
16\
q
o
'o'
c
I
E3
o
_q
2
'o
oiToJ
I
_t
;
I
o
Oo
4o
1G.17 o
RM
12
,l
l--l Park -
Publicu Lands
b I
q
1
1 q
4?\
,-
o
,,:)
g
, glaaf
'lj-
;
REiITOH
-l {r\t
TUr(WtrA
l5lst St
Tukwila
Park
lncorp. Area
Boundary
River..G
0 150300 600ft Nrc
^,
q
o
p-o
I
c3
-9
q.o
NTg
I:
I
'6
o
Uoo
to
PAGE
135Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-18
Black River Marsh
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 11 -',t1.8 /
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget:
$4,699,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 11/
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Renton
Project sponsor:
City of Renton
Budget:
$20,000,000
PRO'ECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:
Backwater Duwamish
Marsh
Duwamish
Mudflat
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
B@ Ng
Enhancement/
Planting
Planningl
Design
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Create an island at the confluence of the Black, Green,
and Duwamish Fivers, 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
Restoration Acquisition
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROIECT
TYPEI
Monitoring & Planning/
Assessment Design
@@ .aGt
B
Edge Riparian
TributarY Wetland
u,NB
Restoration Acquisition
@
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
lmprove the aquatic and riparian habitat for Lower
Springbrook Creek with riparian plantings, large woody
debrii, pool construction, channel branch excavation, and
potential two-stage channel.
E6:
L
E
o
_9
ag
Tg
I
I
I
I
Ieo
uo6+o
LG-19 o
E
o
'6
d
I
G
=
o9
ao
ot
o
i
i
a
p
a
Oo
aO
PAGE
t36 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-23
8th Street Bridge to 1O4th Ave Park Off-Channel Habitat
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
Biver mile:
RM 30,4 - 31J /
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Auburn
Project sponsor:
City of Auburn
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 30J - 29,8 /
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Auburn
Project sponsor:
City of Auburn
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:
Floodplain
Riparian
Side Channel
KEY
HABITAT:
Floodplain
Riparian
Tributary
BB
Acquisition Enhancement/
Planting
q
'6'
d
I
E3
o
-q
Io
.6
ai
oJ
I
I
C
6
o
Uoot:o
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire private properties and restore off-channeland
riparian habitat, including up to 0.25 miles of potential
side channel.
Tier 2 Project: LG-26
Valentine Reuetment Setback
Planning/
Design
Bestoration
Planning/
Design
PROIECT
TYPE:
El@
Enhancement/
Planting
Restoration Acquisition
PROIECT 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.
!
q
o
d
I
E
=
oI
L
'6
<t
aJ
I
=
1
I
=€o
oo*o
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 137
PAGE
LG.27
Tier 2 Project: LG-27
8th Street Acquisitions
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 31,1 - 31.4 I
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Auburn
Project sponsor:
City of Auburn
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
nM 23.2- 23.7 /
left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:B
@
GI
Acquisilion Floodplain
!
E
I
6
o
_9
Io
o
I;
p
o
uoo
tso
E6
,q
L
c3
o
ct
-9
9o
ci
oJ
I
I
I
9
o
ooto
I
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire properties and restore off-channel and
riparian habitat.
Tier 2 Project: LG-30
Mill Creek to Washington Aue Bridge Acquisitions and Restoration
G$
mf
-
Planning/
Design
Restoration
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
/
Edge
GI
Floodplain
I
Biparian
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire left bank properties from Mill Creek (Auburn) to
Washington Ave. S. bridge and install native plantings'
PAGE
138 Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-31
South of Veterans Driue Floodplain Reconnection
PROIECT 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
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 23p - 24 /
right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAT:6 GI
@
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
Bestoration
PRO'ECT
TYPE:
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
Planning/
Design
Floodplain
KEY
HABITATT
. ,::, l
-Edge
Floodplain
Fiparian
!
E6o
6'
d
I
E
o
o
-9
ao
a
I
i
-t
I
I
o
oo+o
E
6
L
I
c
=
N
o
,g
ao
6l
oJ
It
_t
I
o
o
uoo*o
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Create off-channel habitat in small triangle of flat land
behind Frager Road.
Tier 2 Project: LG-32
Foster Park Floodplain Reconnection
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Restore off-channel habitat within the park, while
balancing flood protection and recreation.
LG-3I a
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
139
LG-37
Tier 2 Project: LG-37
Strander Boulevard Off-Channel Habitat Creation
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 13.1 / right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
City of Tukwila
Project sponsor:
City of Tukwila
Budget:
$10,000,000
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
RM 23,7 / left bank
(MillCreek
RM 3.0 - 4,4)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
TBD
Planning/
Design
Scoping/
Reconnaissance
PROIECT
TYPE:
Bestoration
Acquisition
PROIECT
TYPE:
KEY
HABITAN
@ N
@ 6l
I
NB
Backwater
Floodplain
Riparian
KEY
HABITAT:
Floodplain
Riparian
Tributary
Wetland
eq
d
I
E
o
Io
.6
o
;'
L
6
o
Uoo
bo
E
tu
I
E
oI
Io
E
oJ
I
=
I
a
g
O
uoo+o
Wetland
PRO'ECT 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.
Tier 2 Project: LG-46
Mill Creek Protection and Restoration Near Emerald Downs
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.
PAGE
140 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-49
Horseshoe Bend Levee Riparian Habitat lmprovements
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
Biver mile:
24.25 - 26.25 /
right bank
Jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT
TYPE:
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
Restoration
Enhancement/
Planting
Planning/
Design
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT!B
@
@
t
.-
Edge
6t
Floodplain
I
Riparian
!
E6d
o_
c
I
e
ts
ao9
ao
ot
gJ
I3
a
I
O
oo+o
Scoping/
Beconnaissance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Setback levee segments, and install large wood
structures along the riverbank to provide salmon habitat
Tier 2 Project: LG-51
Milwaukee 2 lmprovements
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Lower Green (LG)
River mile:
24.A - 24.3 /
left bank
Jurisdiction:
City of Kent
Project sponsor:
City of Kent
Budget:
TBD
PROIECT TYPEI KEY HABITATI
Floodplain
Biparian
Acquisition Upland
!
Ed
o
d
I
s
3
o
_g
Io
g
I3
I
I
g
o
oo
bo
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Excavate a backwater channel, remove all invasive
vegetation and hardscape, and replace with native plants
and trees. Place large wood within the proiect area. The
proiect increases rearing and refuge habitat for salmon.
The project must balance flood protection and recreation
goals, including regional trail improvements.
a
LG.49
rr park r-r ilflT - - !Hll#"" Hll""t5ff** '#o ^L
al
ta rrea
II
I
I
'H
Srte
g
!s
-25
|!
€
!';:
ir
RM
26/I
t
,-.t . z
1
-st,; "-i
Horsehead
Eend\ Natural*-i.)
_t
I
FI
^*,"t,*H,'ilU}IINCOHPOBATED
KI}IG COUNTY
Green Biver 1' TrcilSite . I
f?
-::
KENT
s!
lr
t
T
F
-t-
PAGE
141Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Tier 2 Project: LG-55
Frager Road Levee Setback
PRO'ECT 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
PROIECT
TYPE:
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT:,fr
Edgea
Riparian
E
o
d
I
c3
o9
Io
rt
I
I3N
I
Ig
o
uooto
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
Reconstruct the toe, slope and levee crest to a stable
configuration with a fully bioengineered solution,
including a vegetated bench.
1G.55 o
PAGE
142 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
143Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Table 5Lower Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 ProjectsCity of Renton SurfaceWater UtilityCity of KentCity of TukwilaCity of AuburnCity of RentonCity of TukwilaCity of TukwilaSponsorKing CountyCity of TukwilaSetback levee segments and slope, lnstall large wood and native riparian plants,Address potentialfor recreational impacts of moving the trail further from theriver and closer to residential units,Heconnect approximately ll2acre olwetland area tothe Green Riverthat iscunently cut off by the Fenster ll Levee, The area has the potential to providebackwater/off-channel and riparian habitat functions.The project is intended to provide daylighting and habitat improvements of Pan-ther Creek from river mile 0.5 to 0,0 and the adjacent East Valley wetlands. Thisincludes improving hydrologic and hydraulic function through repairing and/orreplacing the existing culverts at East Valley Road and Lind Ave SW,The project intends t0 provide fish passage and improved conveyance through aculvert replacement along Panther Creek at the Talbot Road South culvert.This City-owned parcel once had a modest picnic area for viewing, but thosehave since been removed. There are several, large cottonwood trees in this lowbank area with opportunities to create shallow water habitat while preservingmost or all of the trees, lt is waterward ol the levee and Green River Trail,This project would setback this revetment to the extent possible, There is a hotel80' landward; setting it back somewhat could create some edge habitat. Shouldlook for opportunities in the event of property redevelopment,Descriptionlmprove quality of aquatic habitat through setting back the banks, adding largewood to channel, and expanding riparian vegetation along the creek, lncreaseamount and quality of flood refuge habitat by reconnecting southern grassy areaat lower flows and restoring as a wetland, This project will build off of a KCDOTproject to fix the fish passage banier at the mouth in 2020,This project reconnects a segment ol the former river channel that was discon-nected with construction of l-405 and rerouting of the river,This project will replace a large flapgate that inhibits salmonid usage of theGilliam Creek tributary, and restore nearly 300 lineal feet of the lowest stretch ofGilliam Creek,. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. Restoration. Acquisition. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. Restoration.Acquisition. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. Restoration. Acquisition.0ther. Planning/Design. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. Restoration. Acquisition. RestorationProjectTypeRestoration. Acquisition. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. Restoration. Enhancement/Planting. Planning/Design. RestorationSignaturePointe LeveelmprovementsFenster SloughWetland ConnectionPanther Creek atEastValley RoadlmprovementProjectPanther Creek atTalbot Road SouthFish PassagelmprovementRiverview Plaza0ff-channel HabitatCreationBest WesternRevetment Setback0lson CreekRestorationl{elsen Side ChannelGilliam CreekFish Passageand RiparianRehabilitationProject Name1G.53lG.43LG-52tG-2r1G.38LG.I5LG-I6LG-20Proi#LG-2River ml{earshrRM 28.4RM 12.5RM 12.5RM 12.7RM r2,7RM40rRM,II /RMlI/RM 23JbankIE EAGD EtA $a G '!tta+Dl^n^ih^Dalanaa h^hi+^+ fl^^,{ arataa+ian ^h,.1 '^^'^^+i^h c^+ h^^1, ^-i.+i^^ l^..^^ +^ ^ll^..'Fi+.. a{ Uan+Dil ol 7
Middle Green River Subwatershed
14
projects
MG-3,,.,... Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection
MG-g....., Lones Levee Restoration
MG-l1,,,... Turley Levee Setback
MG{3.,... Hamakami Levee Setback
MG-l9,.,., Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration
MG-21.....Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration
MG-24.,,. Meyer/lmhof Levee Setback
MG-26,,,, Newua kum Creek Tri buta ry Acqu isition and Restoration
Tier 1 (Score 18+) I projects
Tier 2 (Score 7-1gtl 5 projects
MG-6,,,,,, Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement
MG{0,,,.. Burns Creek Restoration
MG{6.,,,. Ray Creek Restoration
MG-20..,.Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration
MG-22,.,. Kanaskat Reach Restoration
Tier 3 (Score <7) I project
MG-25.,., Little Soos Restoration - Wingfield Neighborhood
PAGE
146 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Figure 29
Middle Green River
Subwatershed Projects
I o River mile
MG-r . Project location and
name
!---/ River/creek
Major road
Urban Growth Area
line
.-? Middle Green River
Subwatershed
boundary
.--'- WRIA 9 boundary
Public lands
lncorporated area
I open water
Notro:
The use olthe information in this map is subject to the
terms and conditions found at:
ww,kin gcounty,gov/services/gis/lrlaps/telms-of -use aspx
Your access and use is conditioned on yout acceptance of
these terms and conditions,
KCIT-DCE File:
2011,102021_W9SHP-ProiMap-MGR,ai LPRE
64
I
KENT
COVrruCrOru ;t f
j,
,
BLACK
2
t
MAPLE
] VALLEY
MG-IO
t
MG-24
41 45
44
36
>
MG.I9 \
MG.16
MG-I3
MG-26a .'.
52
M
Dam
l
48
G-3 47
a
MG-6
a I j
i
Lake
MG-20
N
0 1 2 4Milesr clS File:
Q120009\WBlAg,Watershed,mxd KLIN KAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
147
l-c'
$arershed
Flt Aor4
o"+'o, Tier 1 Project: MG-3
Flaming Geyser Floodplain Reconnection
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
BM 42-44/both banks
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$6,000,000
PROIECT TYPE:
@
Planning/
Design
Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Side channel Tributary
lEln
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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.
Benef its:
. lncreased 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 Mapr Orth020lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE liler 2011,102021 LPBE GIS file Qr\20009\WRlAg,ProjectMaps.mxd KLINKAT
Green / Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound
''r-'t-.,-.-*r,- .f;.
4) '.
{
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
r wflA9
f hcorporaled.Ar€a
Vahon/
Mouty
lslands
0510
PAGE
148
Fit Fo_'4
6
:-s
E
Tier 1 Project: MG-9
Lones Levee Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
BM 38/right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$5,500,000
Backwater RiParian Side channel
N8;EuM
PRO'ECT TYPE:
Restoration
KEY HABITATI
Tributary Wetland
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Remove existing levee, install setback feature to
protect agricultural land, place large wood in river
channel and remnant river channel, and
reintroduce gravelfrom remnant levee into river
channel.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benefits:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased 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
Prcject Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KC|]-DCE filer 2011 102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlA9,ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0 5 l0
PAGE
149
Vashon/
Miles
Maury
lslonds
I WRIA9
I lncorporated Area
$arershed
Flt Aol{
oo''o Tier 1 Project: MG-11
Turley Levee Setback
+s'
E
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 37 / left and right
bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$6,000,000
PROIECT TYPE:
BG$
N6lg
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITATI
Backwater Floodplain Riparian
Sidechannel Tributary Wetland
tE U|NB
PROIECT 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:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
. MG - Bank armor
. MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateral channel migration
' MG - Large woody debris
. MG - Hiparian forest
Project Area lvlapr Ortho20l9KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE file: 2011 102021 LPRE GIS file Q:\20009\wBlAg,ProiectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
0510I WRIA9
f lncorporated Area
150
Maury
Islonds
Miles
PAGE
N
F it Fot
:
Tier 1 Project: MG-13
Hamakami Levee Setback
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 35/right bank
Bankside
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$6,000,000
PROIECT TYPE:Bgt
Acquisition Restoration
I(EY HABITAT:
Backwater Riparian Sidechannel
N8D
JN NA
Tributary Wetland
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
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,
Benefitsr
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased 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
Proiect Area Map: Ortho2ol9KCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE lile: 2011,102021 LPRE GIS tile Q120009\WRlA9 PojectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
^ta.
N
5 't0
Vashon/
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
PAGE
t5l
Mauty
lslands
Fif A^
4
+-s'
E
++, Fier 1P roject: MG-19
Lower Soos Creek Channel Restoration
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 33,3/right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,500,000
PROIECT TYPE:
Acquisition Bestoration
KEY HABITAT:
BG'
GilrE
Riparian Side channel
Tributary Wetland
lnM
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Bestore 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
Proiect Area il/ap: Ortho20tgKCNAT aerial photo site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPRE GlSfileQ:\20009\WR|A9 ProjectMaps.mxdKLlNKAT
MG.I9o
LOCATION MAP
I WRIA9
I lncolporated Alea
0510
Miles
Vashon/
Maury
lslands
PAGE
152 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Fit Fot
+-:
Tier 1 Project: MG-21
Whitney Bridge Reach Acquisition and Restoration
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
41 / left and right bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
TBD
PRO'ECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITANI
Floodplain Biparian
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Acquire approximately 40 acres, and install
several hundred pieces are large wood on -3,500
linealfeet of river.
Primary strategy
Protect, restore, and enhance floodplain connectivity,
Benefits:
' Habitat preservation
. lncreased habitat connectivitY
, lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
. MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateralchannel migration
. MG - Large woody debris
. MG - Riparian forest
Project Area lvlapr ortho20lgKCNATaerial photo Site photor Google Earth
KCIT-DCEfile:2011 102021 LPFE GlSfileQ:\20009\WRIA9 ProjectMapsmxdKLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I ln(oiporated Area
o 5 l0
PAGE
153
Vdshon/
Mdury
lslands
$are(shed
FitAb,
l-c'
E
4+.c Tier 1 Project: MG-24
Meye rllmhof Levee Setback
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
40,5 - 41.5 I
right bank
Jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,500,000
PRO'ECT TYPE:
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:6tI
Floodplain Biparian
Wetland
PROIECT 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
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
Contribution to goals metrics:
' MG - Bank armor
. MG - Floodplain connectivity/lateralchannel migration
. MG - Large woody debris
. MG - Riparian forest
Project Area Map: Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE filer 2011,102021 LPBE GIS file Q:\20009\WBlAg-Proiectlvlaps mxd KLINKAT
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
I WRIAg
I lncorporated Area
PAGE
154
0510
Voshon/
Maury
lslonds
Tier 1 Project: MG-26
Newuakum Creek Tributary Acqu isition
PRO'ECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
PRO'ECT TYPE;
River mile:
RM 40,4/left bank
Acquisition Restoration
KEY HABITAT:
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$3,500,000
PROIECT 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
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
' MG - Large woody debris
. MG - Riparian forest
Project Area Map; Ortho2olgKCNAT aerial photo
KCIT-DCE file: 2011 10202L LPRE GIS file Qj\20009\WBlA9 ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
Biparian Sidechannel
Tributary Wetland
lrM
LOCATION MAP
N
5 10
Milei
Vashon/
I WBIAg
f ln(orporal€d Area
Maury
lslonds
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 155
PAGE
MG-6a
Tier 2 Project: MG-6
Middle Newaukum Creek Riparian Planting and Large Woody Debris Placement
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 40 / left bank
Ba n kside ju risdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$2,500,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 33 / right bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$'1,500,000
Tributary
Wetland
KEY
HABITAT:
Floodplain Riparian
PROIECT
TYPEr
Acquisition
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT:E
G$
I
Riparian
o
I
6
=
d
_9
Io
<t
o
I;
I
I
6
o
oo
6
E
d
'o'
d
I
E
=
o
-9
qo
a
o
Ii
I
I
o
ooto
Side Channel
tE
u
M
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Place large wood in the stream channel between
RM 6 - 10 and remove hardened streambanks.
Tier 2 Project: MG-10
Burns Creek Restoration
PROIECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Bestoration Tributary Wetland
PROIECT 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.
r56 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
MG-16
Tier 2 Project: MG-15
RaV Creek Restoration
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$1,500,000
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Middle Green (MG)
River mile:
RM 33 / left bank
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County
Budget:
$350,000
PRO'ECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
PRO'ECT
TYPE:
Acquisition
Restoration
KEY
HABITAT
B
G'M
6l
u,
I
PROIECT 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.
Floodplain Riparian
Tributary Wetland
KEY
HABITAN
Floodplain Riparian
Wetland
o
E
'a
c
=
o
o
-9
ao
.6
<iIo
I-
I
J
I€
O
oo
F6
E6
E
'6-
L
I
E
B
N
o
-9
eo
ct
ryo
;'
I
I
I
o
ooto
Tier 2 Project: MG-20
Auburn Narrows Floodplain Restoration
PRO'ECT DESCRIPTION:
Remove gravel road in floodway, expand notch of
previously-constructed side channel, add large wood,
and plant native vegetation.
Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 157
PAGE
Tier 2 Project: MG-22Kanaskat Reach RestorationPROIECT FACTSSubwatershed:Middle Green (MG)River mile:RM 59 / left bankBanksidejurisdiction:King CountyProject sponsor:King CountyBudget:$600,000PROIECTTYPE:AcquisitionRestorationKEYHABITAT:Riparian!EogoE=o-9Lo'eoI-!OUOo*OPROIECT DESCRIPTION:Acquire about 3.5 acres, remove large house lgaragelseptic, convert 3,300 lineal foot gravel road tobackcountry trail, and extensively revegetate site.Toble 6Middle Green River Subwatershed Tier 3 ProjectsRivermsidelileiurisdlcLittle SoosRestoration- WingfieldNeighborhood. Education and outreach. Planning/design. Restoration. ScopingireconnaissanceLittle Soos Creek at stream mile 1 runs through City of Covingtonowned open space through the Coho Creek development, The streamhistorically has been armored, disconnected from its floodplain and apaved trail adjacent to the creek is often flooded in the winter, ThereMid Sound FisheriesEnhancement GroupSponsorfroiestDessiptionPrsiectTypeProiectllamePrsi lloMG-25HM 33,
Upper Green River Subwatershed
UG-4.,,..,,H0ward Hanson Downstream Fish Passage
1
project
r
Figure 3O
Upper Green River
Subwatershed
Projects
River mile
Project location and name
River/creek
Major road
Urban Growth Area
line
King County boundary
..? Upper Green River
Subwatershed boundarY
.,,'-^ WRIA 9 boundary
Public lands
Parks
lncorporated area
I open water
1o
UG.l .
Note;
The use ofthe information in this map i5 subjecttothe
terms and conditions found ati
\ffi.kingcounty.gov/services/gls/Map5/termr-of-use.asp
x.Youraccess and use i5 conditioned on your ac€€ptance
ofthese terms and conditions.
KCIT-DCE File:
2011_102021_W9SHP-ProjMap-UGR.ai LPRE
N
GIS File:
QI20009\wRlAg-Watershed,mxd KLINMT
0 'l 2 4Miles
r-----_--
Tier'! (Scsre 18+l I proiect
,. 75
I
cl.
73
Ca
Howotd
Honsen
Resetuoit
U
PAGE
160 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Saund Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
.{\arershed
Flt For4
o"ou, Tier 1 Project: UG-4
Howard Hanson Downstream Fish Passage
PROIECT FACTS
Subwatershed:
Upper Green (UG)
River mile:
King County (RM 64)
Bankside
jurisdiction:
King County
Project sponsor:
King County/Army
Corps of Engineers
Budget:
Unknown
PROIECT TYPE:
ryalE
Planning/ Scoping/
Design Reconnaissance
KEY HABITAT:
Edge Riparian Side channel
@@
usr
Tributary Upland
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONT
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 allViable Salmonid Population (VSP)
parameters of Chinook and steelhead.
Primary strategy
Restore and improve fish passage,
Benefits:
. lncreased habitat connectivity
. lncreased rearing habitat
. Water temperature reduction
Contribution to goals metrics:
' UG - Bank armor
Project Area N4api Ortho20lgKCNAT aerial photo Site photo: Google Earth
KCIT-DCE file: 2011-10202L LPRE Gls file Q:\20009\WBlA9-ProjectMaps mxd KLINKAT
o
UG-4
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salnon Habitat 2021 Update
LOCATION MAP
PAGE
161
l0
Vashon/
I WRIA9
I lncorporat€d Area
Maury
lslands
PAGE
162 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
,l
,i
,1
:11!
, : --1
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 I develops an annualfunding package of pro-
jects based on anticipated allocations. The proposed
funding package is reviewed and approved by the
WRIA I lmplementation and Technical Committee
(lTC) and Watershed Ecosystem Forum (WEF), This
funding package serves as the WRIA 9 Lead Entity's
habitat project list, as defined in BCW 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 Vll)
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 longterm planning effort also allows sponsors
to align salmon projects with other jurisdictional
priorities, like those within their jurisdiction's Capital
I m provement Pla ns and Tra nsportation I m provement
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 lTC. For
those projects competing for SRFB funding, projects
undergo an additional rigorous technical review by
the SRFB review panel.
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
t63
Salmon Recovery Funding
Salmon Fecovery Funding Board (SRFB) funding
is administered through the Recreation and Conser-
vation Office (RCO). lt 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, \n2007, 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 PSAB 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, \n2020, 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 -
ln addition to these funding programs, sponsors are
encouraged to compete for other local, state and fed-
eral funds, lt 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 Bestoration 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 Proiects - CWM funding (>
657o) and all SRFB/PSAR capitalfunding. 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 smallgrant 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 10o/o 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
5o/o of CWM funding, This funding supports Stew-
ardship, Engagement and Outreach efforts designed
to increase awareness around salmon recovery and
promote positive behavior change.
PAGE
164 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Outyear Project Planning
(5-year HCPIP)
WRIA I maintains a Habitat Capital Project lmple-
mentation Plan (HCPIP) that identifies all proiects
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 additionalfunding to compliment WRIA directed
funds, ln many cases, WHIA 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 callfor 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 regionalfunders, stakeholders,
and interested parties during project development. ln
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 Capitalfunding, 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 proiect priorities.
An ad hoc project workgroup will be established to
support elements of project development, made up
of three to five members of the lTC. This team will
rank and tier newly proposed large capital restoration
projects and provide input on design for WR|A-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. 30o/o design - Full ITC
3, 90o/o 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
approvalfrom 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.
PAGE
r65Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
166
l :,1
i
i\il:i )ilrl,t ii,'i,i, ll , lr:tl l i',;rt,l,r/ r
i
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 I convenes a regu-
lar lmplementation and Technical Committee (lTC)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,
ln2020,WR|A I 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,
. lmplementation Monitoring: ls the plan being
implemented as intended? Are we on track to meet
esta blished habitat ta rgets?
. 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?
VALIDATION
MONITORING
EFFECTIVEI,IESS
il0ilffoBtNG
COMPREHENSIVE
MONITORING PLAN
IMPEMENTATION
MONITORING
FigUre 37. Types of monitoring used to evaluate management strategies and adopt them as necessory.
D FUNDING D PROJECT
. Routine
- Physical
- Biological
. Enhanced
l) GREEN POPULATION
D PROJECTS
D PROGRAMS
D 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.
lmplementation Monitoring
The Plan Update outlines numeric targets for key
habitats (Table 2, Chapter lV) 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
D 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. lt includes both project-leveland 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 essentialto ensure large
capital investments maximize benefits to salmon and
help identify potential design improvements and cost
efficiencies that can be adapted into future proiects.
168 Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 UpdatePAGE
Figure 32. Adoptive manotement decision fromework.
Routine Monitoring
Routine project effectiveness monitoring evaluates
whether restored habitat is functioning the way it was
intended 3{0 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 lTC,
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-lmpact 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-
Was the target
achieved?
Does the metric
need to be revisited to
evaluate 2030
target?
Assessment
infolmation change the
understanding of cunent context?
Does Strategic
. fish use/habitat
. climate change
. water qualityls the
work
complete
No further
changes to
recommendations
Protect
restored
habitat
lmplement
towards 2030
target
whv?
HAnrAr t 05515
0;t5rrGAlllS
tultDrilG
NSUtIt(l$tr
uc( 0I0PmRrul{lIll5
0Rwrlu[6ilE55
HtuIIrqI[T
nt50un(E5 0R (A?AqrY
tiltoRilIil0il
6AP5
reoulations
en?orcement
inrentives
increase
funding
education/outreach
incentives
acquisition
permifting
staffing
fundinq strateqy
new metric
funding for
Plan
FACTORS TIMITING
IMPTEMENTATION
ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT
RECOMMET{DATIONS
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Hahitat 2021 Update 169
PAGE
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, lt 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 ol 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(lTC 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
demog ra ph ic variation, loca I environ menta I va ria-
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 lV 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 thatthe conservation status ofthe Puget Sound
Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit is
ultimately linked to the "Four H's" - habitat, hydro-
powe4 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 allthree factors working
together, not canceling each other out, and adiusting
over time as population conditions change" (Shared
Strategy Development Com m itte e 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 essentialto informing adaptive management
of recovery strategies and ensuring that plan imple-
PAGE
170 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat202l UpdaE
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 I Chi-
nook Salmon Research Framework which utilized a
conceptual life-cycle modelto organize and prioritize
research efforts to inform recovery planning,
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
171
PAGE
172 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Anderson, J,H., and P,C. Topping,2018,1uvenile Life History Diversity and Freshwater Productivity of Chinook
Salmon in the Green River, Washingtonl' 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.20lZ "Roads to ruin
conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradientl' Ecol, Appl' 27t 2382-2396'
Beamer, E,M,, W.T Zackey, D. Marks, D, Teel, D, Kuligowski, and R, Henderson, 2013. luvenile Chinook salmon
rearing in small non-natal streams draining into the Whidbey Basin. LaConner, WA: Skagit River System
Cooperative.
Campbell, 1., A, Claiborne, N, Overman, and J, Anderson, 2019, lnvestigating iuvenile life history of adult Green
River falt Chinook salmon using otolith chemistry. Final Report (Draft), Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife,
Campbell, 1,A., and A.M, Claibo rne,2017, Successfu/yuvenile tife 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., WW 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
effectsi' Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 175:106-117'
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
PAGE
173
Dunagan, C. 2019. "Third Biennial Science symposium - Summaryl' University of Washington.
Eaton, J,G,, R,M. Scheller. 1996, "Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United
Statesj' Limnol Oceanogr 41: 109-1115,
Engel, J., K, Higgin, and E. Ostergaard. 2017.WB\A 9 Climate Change lmpacts. WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem
Forum,
EpA, 200g, 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
HSBG. Seattle, WA: Long Live the Kings,
Henning, J,2OO4, 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, ZOIT."Asynthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon producitvity and habitat uses
in WRIA I (2004-2016):'
J,p, Meador, A. Yeh, E,P, Gallagher. 2018, ?dverse metabolic effects in fish exposed to contaminants of emerging
concern in the field and laboratory!' Environ Pollut.236: 850-861'
Jeffres, C.A., J,J. Opperman, and P,B. Moyle.200s. "Ephemeralfloodplain habitats provide best growth conditions
for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California Riveri' Environmental Biology of Fishes 83: 449-458'
Johnson, L,1,, G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A,N. Kagley, C, Stafford, J,L. Bolton, J. Buzitis, B.F Anulacion, and TK.
Collier, 2OOT, ZOOT,"Contaminant exposure in outmigrant juvenile salmon from Pacific Northwest estuaries of
the United Statesi' Environ. Monit, Assess 124:167-194'
KL Peter, Z.Fian,C, Wu, P Lin, S, White, B, Du, J,K, Mclntyre, N,L, Scholz, E,P, Kolodziej.20l8"'Using High-Reso-
lution Mass Spectrometry to ldentify Organic Contaminants Linked to Urban Stormwater Mortality Syndrome in
Coho Sa I mo n!' Envi ro n. Sci. Te c h n o l. 52 (1 8) : 10317 -10327.
King County. 2014. Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources lnventory Area 9: Compre-
hensive needsassessment and 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,luvenite Chinook tJse of Non-natal Tributaries in the Lower Green Birer Seattle, Washington:
Prepared by Chris Gregersen, Water and Land Division.
King County, 2006.The 2006 AnnualGrowth Report. King County, Washington,
King County, ZO1g. WR;A 9 Marine Shoreline Monitoring and Compliance Project Phase 2 Final Report' Prepared
by Kollin Higgins, Water and Land Resources Division.
King County, ZO1g, WRIA 9 marine shoreline monitoring and compliance proiect phase 2 final report' Seattle, WA:
Prepared by Kollin Hlggins, King County Water and Land Resources Dvision, Science and Technical Support
Section,
PAGE
174 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update
Konrad, C,, H, Berge, R, Fuerstenberg, K. Stefi T, Olsen, and J, Guyenet.20ll. "Channel dynamicsin the Mlddle
Green River, Washington, from 1936-2002!' Northwesf Scrence 85: 1-14'
Kubo, J. 2017, Green River temperature and salmon Technical Briefing, WRIA 9,
Lestelle, L.C,, WE, 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.1,, 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, USAI'PLoS
ONE 14 (3): e0214399, https://doi,org/10,1371ijournal'pone'0214399.
Mauger, G,S, J.H. Casola, H,A Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, T,M,B. lsaksen, L.W Binder, M.B' Krosby, and A.K.
Snovlr. 2015. Sfafe 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 Resiliencyl' Presentation to the WRIA I lmple-
m e ntati o n Tech n i ca I Co m m itte e.
McElhany, R M,H. Rucklelshaus, M.J, Ford, T.C, Wainwright, and E.P, and Bjorkstedt.2000, Viable Salmonid Pop-
ulations and the Recovery of Evolutionary Significant lJnits, NOAA Technical Memorandum N MFS-NWFSC-42,
Seattle: NOAA, NMFS,
Meador, ).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{5,
N,L. Scholz, M,S. Myers, S.G, McCarthy, J,S, Labenia, J.K, Mclntyre, 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, T.K, Collier.20ll. "Recurrent
die-offs of adult coho salmon returning to spawn in Puget Sound lowland urban streamsi' PLoS One 6: e29013'
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 Ettiott Bay nearshore. Seattle: King County Water and Land
Resources Division,
NOAA. 201g. Biotogical Opinion on Howard Hanson Dam, Operations, and Maintenance, Green River (HUC
U\OOB) King County, Washington Portland, OR: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service,
O'Neal, K.2OO2. Effects of globat warming on trout and salmon in ll,S, sfreams, 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 streamsl' Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32t
333-365.
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat 2021 Update 175
PAGE
R2 Resource Consultants.2013. ujuvenile salmonid use of lateral habitats in the Mlddle Green Rivef Washington'i
A draft data report for the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Districti'
R2 Resource Consultants.20'14, "Zone 1 Nourishment Gravel Stability Green Biver, Washington 2011112 monitoring
resultsl'
Reinelt, L,2O14,"Green River System-Wide lmprovement Framework, Green River, Washingtonl' King County
Water and Land Resources, October 23'
Hice, 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 Jenifer K. Mclntyre 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 impactsl' lournal of Applied Ecology 53:
398-407,
Scholz, N. 2019. ? cross-species evaluation of the Pacific salmon urban stream mortality syndromel' WA Storm-
water Center 2019 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 Riverl' Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (5): 1139-1146.
Sommer, T,R,, M.L, Nobriga, WC. Harrel, W Batham, and WJ, Kimmerer,200l. "Floodplain rearing of juvenile
Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival!' Canadian Journal of Flsheries and Aquatic
Sciences 58: 325-333,
Tabor, R,A,, and1,J,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, R,A, 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, Washingtonl' 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 physicalsta-
bility of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shorelinel' Ecological Engineering 57: 97{08'
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 Soundj' North American Journalof Flsheries Management2T:465-480.
U,S. Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts: King County, Washington, July 1.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts llactltablelkingcountywashington,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'
1g93. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in luvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyn-
chustshawytscha) from lJrban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NWFSC-8, NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service.
WA Dept. of Commerce,20tZ Puget Sound Mapping Project, Olympia, ll 01, https://www.commerce.wa'gov/serv-
in g-commun ities/growth-management/pu get-sound-mapping-project/.
WRIA g .ZO12.WR|A g sfafus and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010, Prepared for the WBIA 9 Watershed Eco-
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat202I UpdatePAGE
176
system Forum
Wtu
Published by the
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
Water Resource lnventory Area I (WRIA 9)
^ctrYoF * *
,
AUBURN ffi b
Burien
claw
City of Algona
City of Auburn
City of Black Diamond
City of Burien
City of Covington
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
City of Des Moines
City of Enumclaw
City of Federal Way
City of Kent
King County
sh
City of Seattle
City of Maple Valley
City of Normandy Park
City of Renton
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
@
IK "l
isFl'ieralway tf,F"E.NT KingCounty
.$A c!_Y oFZ NonUANDY PANX
WASHINGToN
H
Tacomam
City of Tacoma
City of Tukwila
creen / Duwamlsh &
Central sound
-&
Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 UPdate
MAKING OUR WATERSHED FIT FOR A KING
'.d{
4
:rl.r
Approved by the WRIA I Watershed Ecosystem Forum
on February11,2021
KCIT-DCE filer 2102-101021-W9SH P-REPORT.indd
I-:.'F'
dt*qF{t?"'i;' A'l'.' "a'+.'t-
\
t
Salmon Habitat Plan 2O2O
Appendices
Making our watershed fit for a King
creen / Duwamish &
Central Sound
Fr?
".e@
E
GREEN/DUWAMISH AND
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND WATERSHED
Water Resource lnventory Area I (WRIA 9)
Public Comment Draft. November 2020
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2020
An Evaluation of Potential
lmpacts of Chemical
Gontaminants to Chinook Salmon
in the Green-Duwamish
Watershed
January 2018
t{l
King County
Department of 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. kingcounty. gov/Environ menta lScience
Alternate For ats Available
An Evaluation of Potential lmpacts of
Ghemical Gontaminants to Chinook
Salmon in the Green-Duwamish
Watershed
Prepared for:
Water Resource lnventory Area 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum
Submitted by:
Jen6e Colton
King County Water and Land Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
\fl rins County
Depaftment of
Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division
An Evaluation of Potential Impac* 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 f eff Stern provided valuable comments
on the draft final report, Many thanks to the WRIA 9 ITC members for contributing helpful
feedback throughout paper development.
Gitation
King County.20I8.An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to
Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by f en6e Colton,
Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed
Ecosystem Forum.
King County Science and Technical Support Section i lanuary 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Table of Gontents
1.0
2.0
2.r
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
6.0
7.0
8.0
Contaminant Pathways
Transport Pathways
3
3
4Exposure Pathways.
Contaminant Information.......,.... ......".'.""....' 9
Background on Health Effects of Chemical Contaminants to Fish.............'."..'...'...'..'.." 9
Chemical Contaminants in Water ."...-"-L2
Chemical Contaminants in Sediments ..'...'..'....".....'.'2L
Benthic Community Health Assessment.'.....'......'.... ...."...'.'......".29
Chemical contaminants in Chinook Salmon and their Diet.....'.'.... .."........30
Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on Chinook'...'......'...." ..'.'...."."."'.33
Current and Future Actions ..36
Chinook Effects Assessment Methods. '....'."..'...."....'41
Discussion and Conclusion............ .'....'.."""'44
Recommendations...... '.'......."...."48
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6.
Figure 7
ConceptualtransportpathwaystoGreen-DuwamishRiver...""". .'....-"4
Invertebrate prey categories of juvenile Chinook salmon (n=321) from
seven Duwamish Estuary locations [Nelson et al. 2013)......""'......'..".........'.'....."""' 6
Contaminant exposure pathways to juvenile Chinook salmon....'. '..""'7
fuvenile Chinook salmon residence times in the Green-Duwamish River..'....'....- 8
Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2077a) except for East
Waterway Supplemental RI stations..." ....'....'.""74
King County sampling stations in the Lower and Middle Green River (King
County 20L4a)...... .'......".....19
King County sampling stations in the Middle and Upper Green River (King
county 20L4b) ....'.'.............20
King County Science and Technical Support Section ii January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical Contaminang to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Figure 8.Surface sediment stations (collected I997-20L3) with benthic exceedances
along the East, West, and Lower Duwamish waterways before EAA
remediation actions.. '.......23
Total PCB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments
(King county 20L4b)...... .....".'...........-.-24
Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non-
remediated areas .'..........".28
Conceptual Site Model and Pathways for fuvenile Chinook from LDW
Baseline Risk Assessment......., .".....'..34
Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 20L4) .....'..'..37
Figure 9.
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12.
Tables
Table L. Common sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants
and their adverse effects on freshwater fish
Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled
from King County (20LTa) .'-......'..'."-14
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 20L7a) ..."..--.L6
Total PCB concentrations (frg/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative
to English Sole in the East waterway and LDW (King County 20L7a)..................31
Summary of Information available on contaminant risk to juvenile Chinook. ..45
10
Table 2
Table 3.
Table 4
Table 5.
King Counfi Science andTechnical Support Section iii January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential ImpacB ofChemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Acronyms
lrylKs
tlg/g
cEc
cfs
CS0s
CSL
cy
Ecology
ENR
EPA
EW
FS
HPAH
LDW
ng/g
PAHs
PBDE
PCB
PPCP
RI
RM
ROD
SCO
SQS
TBT
USGS
WDFW
WQS
WRIA
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per gram
contaminants of emerging concern
cubic feet per second
combined sewer overflows
cleanup screening level
cubic yard
Washington State Department of Ecology
enhanced natural recovery
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
East Waterway
feasibility study
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Lower Duwamish Waterway
nanogram /gram
polyryclic aromatic hydrocarbons
polybrominated diphenyl ethers
polychlorinated biphenyls
pharmaceuticals and personal care products
remedial investigation
river mile
record of decision
sediment cleanup objective
sediment quality standard
tributyltin
United States Geological Survey
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
water quality standards
water resource inventory area
King County Science and Technical Support Section iv January 2078
An Evaluation ofPoten tiallmpacts of Chem ical Contaminants to ChinookSqlmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
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 1O-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 fstormwater 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 andf or its ingestion, andf 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 Chinooh 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 IPAHs), 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 ambientwater, sedimen! 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 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Observations of potential impacts of contaminants
o Chinook salmon return rates are substantially lower in contaminated estuaries, like
the Duwamish, compared to uncontaminated estuaries'
Tissue chemistry/biomarkers
o Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) and East Waterway (E\MJ risk assessments did
not identiff 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.
o Subsequent studies, using more conservative assumptions, concluded PCBs may be
causing health impacts in Chinook salmon.
o 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'
o 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
o 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.
o fuvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments
contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals, and phthalates.
o 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 fenkins, 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.
o 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
o 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 lanuary 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
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:
o 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
Chinooh in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green
River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation.
o 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.
o 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
for 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 ftissue 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.
o 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 20L8
An Evaluationof Potentiallmpacts afChemical ContaminanB n Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwambh Watershed
This page intentionally left blank.
King CounQr Science and Technical Support Section viii January 2018
An Ev aluation of P otentia I Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
{.O INTRODUGTION
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
20L7 - along with several other white papers (Engel et a1.,20\7, Higgins 20L7 , Kubo 2077)
- to address priority data gaps identified during the scoping of the LO-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, sedimen! 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 Estuaryl 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 20t0) and the Feasibility study (FS)
was completed in 2072 (AECOM 2072). EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) in2014
(EPA2014). 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 20L8
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
Waterway unit of the Harbor Island Superfund Site (West Waterway) was issued by EPA in
2003 which did not require remediation for this site IEPA 2003). A supplemental RI was
completed for the East Waterway unit in 20L4 (Windward and Anchor QEA 2014). The
draft East Waterway FS was completed in 2076 (Anchor and QEA 20L6) and will be
finalized in 2018 (pers. comm. Williston 20L7)'
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 charactetize
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 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
2.O GONTAMI NANT 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
fFigure 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 ofPoten tial Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
nt]iltll] []Li
:lL.,l.-it.-i
tt
Foragc firh
deposition
t;'.: . i
..,.:
T
&::- trophic tranrfcr
ta'F
Rordrunoff
Mtxed
land usei'i
'. {.
L'.' :
Y<
OvorlandFlow
@G
., : : ''
'' , F',.-:i-i:
: t-,l
Figure 1. Conceptualtransport pathways to Green-Duwamish River
2.2 Exposure Pathways
Fish are exposed to chemicals through multiple routes including water passing through
their gills and/or its ingestion, direct sediment contact andf 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., die! benthic or pelagic habits).
For example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBsJ 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 SupportSection 4 lanuary 2018
An Evaluation ofPoten tial 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., planliton)
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 etal.20L2) 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.
fuvenile 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 L00o/o 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 20L8
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
i:. a 8o'lfrlc-:.
EHfrt I
,
i
f.||tilLsltlr
It
t
jF Ero
i.n4rrYr!
r tl:
tvalrrury I
!
ii
..i,
t
rl
'l
:
lar* Ourrfirh
lll**/iy*'s
I
"J._ ,:.
FmnrtFhltat cat€gory
j
tr,'aqqs'c
I ter,reAuiat
i'
f rsffiS-i#lt(mersh).\l Pffirnaunr
rt i\r
A
t*iunr
RM3 I
:
ti.
RM
*
RfiI n
64aqt.rt,
j
l
RIrl 13
Figure 2 lnvertebrate 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 2078
An Evaluation of Potential ImpacB of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
FOOD
IN6ESTIONwg*
:ri$fut..(t..i...
Figure 3. Gontaminant 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 etal.20L7). fuvenile 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 etal.2006), giving them greater dietary exposure, as well as residence
time, than adult Chinook in the Green-Duwamish watershed.
CHINOOK
WATER
tNGESttoN:"'j,r-,\
*..
-gtl.",'. -u
: SEDIMENT .'' INGES]ION .
':.','.,'.'.' '
DIRTCT CONTACT
SEDIMENT
King County Science and Technical Support Section 7 January 2078
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
LOWER GREENMIDDLE GREEN D
GreenlDuwamlsh River
(hlnookJuvenlle
Reailng Trafectorles
Figure 4.
bt upded Feb 2Ol 7
Juvenile Ghinook salmon residence times in the Green-Duwamish River (modified
from Ruggerone and WeitkamP 2004)
King CountyScienceandTechnicalSupportSection I January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
3.O GONTAMINANT 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.{ Background on Health Effects of Ghemical
Gontaminants 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 etal. (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 fWood 20LZ) 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 levelsJ. 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 IPBDEs). 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-DuwamishWatershed
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. Gommon sources of common metals and organic chemical contaminants and their
adverse effects on freshwater fish.
Gontaminant Naturally
Occurring?
Common Non-
natural Sources
Symptoms
with Acute
Mortality
Primary Chronic
Exposure Effects
Aluminum Yes Mining, aerospace,
many consumer
products (Wood et al
2O12b).
Only in
extreme pH
ionic
imbalance,
respiratory
disturbance
(Wood et al
2012b).
Same as acute (Wood
etal.2012b).
Arsenic Yes Mining, smelter
emissions (e.9.
Asarco), treated
wood, roofing
materials (Wood et al
2012b, Norton et al.
20111.
Acute
mechanism not
well
understood in
fish (Wood
etal.2012b).
Decreased groMh rate,
possible reproductive
effects (Wood et al.
2012b).
Cadmium Yes Mining, smelting,
roofing materials
(Wood etal.2012b,
Norton et al. 201 1).
lonic
imbalance,
respiratory
disturbance
(Wood et al.
2012b).
lonic imbalance, oxidative
stress, possible
reproductive im pairment
(Wood et a|.2012b).
Chromium Yes Pulp processing,
electroplating, and
products (e.9.,
stainless steel, spray
paint) (WDOH2017).
Mucus
overproduction,
ionic
imbalance,
respiratory
disturbance
(Wood et al.
2012a\.
Spinal deformities,
anemia, neurological
damage and possible
growth reduction (Wood
et a|.2012a).
Copper Yes Mining, pesticides,
fertilizers, brake pads,
boat paint, roofing
materials (Wood et al.
2012a, Norton et al.
2011).
lonic
imbalance,
sensory
impairment,
reduced
swimming
speed (Wood
el al.2012a).
Reproductive impairment,
general health decline
from detoxification
(elimination of toxins from
body), oxidative stress
(reactive oxygen damage
repair), sensory
impairment (smelland
lateral line), immune
suppression (documented
in Chinook salmon) (Wood
et a|.2012a).
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 10 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Gontaminant Naturally
Occurring?
Common Non-
natural Sources
Symptoms
with Acute
Mortality
Primary Ghronic
Exposure Effects
Lead Yes Ammunition, lead
shot, wheelweights,
fishing sinkers,
aviation fuel
combustion (Norton
el al. 2011).
Hypocalcemia
and ionic
imbalance
(Wood et al.
2012b).
Reproductive im pairment,
general health decline
from detoxification
(elimination of toxins from
body), oxidative stress
(reactive oxygen damage
repair), sensory (smell and
lateral line) impairment,
immune suppression, and
mortality (Wood et al.
2012b).
Mercury Yes Thermostat and
fluorescent lamp
disposal, mining,
smelters,
i nd ustrial/com mercial
emissions, petroleum
refineries (Wood et al
2012b, Norton et al.
2011).
Breakdown of
neural
functions, and
other
physiological
issues (Wood
et al. 2012b).
Gonad growth impairment,
spawning inhibition,
reduced growth, gill
damage, ionic imbalance,
impaired digestion,
nerve/brain damage,
organ tissue damage
(Wood etal.2012b).
Nickel Yes Stainless steel,
batteries, many
consumer products,
building materials,
inks/dyes,
electroplating,
medical equipment
(Wood et al.2012a).
Loss of
magnesium
balance in
kidneys,
mortality
(Wood et al
2012a).
Reduced egg hatchabilitY,
organ tissue damage,
respiratory distress (Wood
el a|.2012a1.
Selenium Yes Metals mining, fossil
fuel refinement and
use (EPA 2016).
Not seen in
environment
due to low
acute toxicity
(Wood et al.
2012a).
Developmental deform ities
(Wood etal.2012a).
Zinc Yes Mining, galvanized
steel and other metal
products, roofing
materials, tire wear
(Wood etal.2012a,
Norton et al.2011).
Calcium
imbalance and
mortality
(Wood et al.
2012a).
Calcium imbalance,
reduced groMh, possible
reproductive impairment
(Wood elal.2012a).
PCBs No Transformers, light
ballasts, recyclers,
paint, caulk, pigments
(Ecology 2015).
Can't
accurately
assess due to
low solubility
(Stalling and
Mayer 1972.
lmmune suppression
(Arkoosh et al. 2001),
reduced reproductive
success, mortality (Eisler
and Belisle 1996).
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 11 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamishwatershed
Contaminant Naturally
Occurring?
Common Non-
natural Sources
Symptoms
with Acute
Mortality
Primary Ghronic
Exposure Effects
PAHs Yes Wood smoke,
creosote-treated
wood, vehicle
emissions (Norton
et al. 201 1).
Not fully
understood;
cardiotoxicity of
embryos
(lncardona and
Scholz 2005).
English so/e: liver cancer
and other liver disease,
gonad development
failure, inhibited ovarian
development, reduced
spawning success,
disorientation, and
mortality.
J uvenile Chinook: reduced
growth, embryo
developmental
abnormalities,
cardiovascular problems,
and immune suppression
(Johnson et al. 2008).
PBDEs No Flame retardants on
plastics, upholstery
and foam (Ecology
2006).
Not applicable.
PBDEs are not
an acute
contaminant.
Endocrine disruption,
disease susceptibility
(Arkoosh et al. 2010).
3.2 Ghemical Gontaminants 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 950/o
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 20\L, Ecology measured pesticides (weekly from March to September) in
several Western WA streams including one in the Green-Duwamish watershed: Longfellow
Creek fEcology 2013). Few pesticides were detected in Longfellow Creeh 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 2077a). Locations for
these water data are in Figure 5, except for 5 stations sampled in the East Waterway (EW)
in2008/2009 (Windward 2009). See Windward (2009) or Appendix C of King County
(2077) for the mapped locations of these EW stations. Some of these datasets go as far back
as the L970s (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 53.1)
fFigure 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-Z). 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 Ev aluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Long Term Monitoring 9ibs N
O King County
a Ecology
o 2.5 +5 Miles
6 Kilometers0
GR-1l.6
River
GR-63.'
LDW.3.0
6R.56.9
4R.42.0
I
cR-11.1
DR.6,3
Howard Hanson
Reseruoir
Puget ;
Sound
,
Figure 5. Water chemistry stations reviewed by King County (2017a1except for East Waterway
Supplemental Rl stations.
Table 2. Water chemistry sampling locations, sample depths and years sampled from King
Years
Sampled
River
Mile"
Depths
SampledDescriptionSite lD Station
Locator Agency
Above and
below 1 m 2008-2009EWGEast Waterway - Between Terminal 102 and
104EW-SW.1
Above and
below 1 m 2008-2009EW-SW-1
Flood tide EWG East Waterway - Between Terminal 102 and
104
2008-2009Above and
below 1 mEast Waterway - Off Terminal 25EW-SW-2 EWG
Above and
below 1 m 2008-2009EWGEast Waterway - Off Terminal 25
EW-SW-2
Flood
Tide
Above and
below 1 m 2008-2009EW-SW-3 EWG East Waterway - Slip 27
2008Above and
below 1 m
Lower East Waterway - east side of channel;
moved to EW-SW-S after Round 1EW-SW4 EWG
Above and
below 1 m 2008-2009EWGEast Waterway - Slip 36; replaced EW-SW-4EW-SW-5
Above and
below I m 2008-2009EWGLower East Waterway - middle of channelEW.SW-6
2008-2009Above 1 mLower East Waterway - middle of channelEW-SW-6
Flood tide EWG
2005-2013Below 1 mWest Watenivay - Upstream of the Spokane
Street Bridqe. middle of the channel
\rl/W-a
lower LTKEO3 King County
King County Science and. Technical Support Section 14 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contqminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
Site lD Station
Locator Agency Description River
Milea
Depths
Sampled
Years
Sampled
WW-a
uooer LTKEO3 King County West Waterway - Upstream of the Spokane
Street Bridoe. middle of the channel Above 1 m 2005-201 3
WW-b
lower 0305 King County West Watemay - Upstream of the Spokane
Street Bridqe. on west side of channel Below 1 m 1970-2004
WW.b
UDDET
0305 King County West Watennray - Upstream of the Spokane
Street Bridqe, on west side of channel Above 1 m 1970-2004
LDW-o.1 LTLF04 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway - At the south
end of Harbor lsland 0.'t Above 1 m 2003-2004
LDW-3.0 LTTL02 King County Lower Duwamish Watenrvay - Duwamish
Waterwav Park 3 Above 1 m 2007-2010
LDW-3.3
lower
0307,
LTUM03 King County Lower Duwamish Watenaay - 16th Ave. S
Bridqe 3.3 Below 1 m 1970-2013
LDW-3.3
UDOET
0307,
LTUMO3 King County Lower Duwamish Waterway - 16th Ave. S
Bridqe 3.3 Above 1 m 1970-2013
LDW-4.8 LTXQOl King County Lower Duwamish Waterway - Upstream side
of Boeino oedestrian bridqe, mid span 4.8 Above 1 m 2009-201 3
DR-6.3 0309 King County Duwamish River - East Marginal Way Bridge
at S 115th Street 6.3 Above 1 m 1 970-2008
DR-9.8 FL31 9 King County Duwamish River - Foster Links Golf Course,
downstream of confluence with Black River 9.8 Above 1 m 2011-2012
GR-11.1 31 06,
A310 King County Lower Green River - Bridge at Fort Dent
Park uostream of Black River 11 .1 Above 1 m 1970-2013
GR-l1.6 031 1,
09A080
King
County,
Ecoloqv
Lower Green River - Renton Junction Bridge
on West Valley Road at Highway 1
11.6 Above 1 m 1970--2013
GR-32.8 A319 King County
Lower-Middle Green River - Bridge on SE
Auburn-Black Diamond Road, upstream of
Soos Creek
32.8 Above 1 m 1972-2012
GR40.6 8319 King County Lower-Middle Green River- Bridge on 212th
Ave SE. uostream of Newaukum Creek 40.6 Above 1 m 1 993-201 3
GR42.0 FG319 King County
Lower-Middle Green River- Bridge at SE
Flaming Geyser Road in Flaming Geyser
State Park
42 Above 1 m 2011-2012
GR-56.9 09A190 Ecology Upper-Middle Green River- Bridge on
Cumberland-Palmer Road at Kanaskat 56.9 Above 1 m 1977-2012
GR-63.1 8319 King County Upper-Middle Green River - Below Howard
A. Hanson Dam, at USGS sase 12105900 63.1 Above 1 m 2001-2003
" River miles conform to the convention used in the RI/FS for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site. The starting point ofRM 0
is atthe southern tip of Harbor Island (Windward 2010)
EWG - East Waterway Group
King County Science and Technical Support Section 15 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Maximum
Detected Max MDLFODMeanAnalyte
0.117 0.1 53 0.5531187Antimony
0.5176t2301 .19 1.41Arsenic
1.45 0.15712300.071Cadmium
0.790.85 10.8Chromium, total 153t238
0.417212331.44 2.94Copper
0.45 2.326t2300.0702Lead
0.20.00069 0.0058Mercury491195
0.2113t2320.00501 0.0835**Mercury, total
7.79 0.34116t2300.425Nickel
1.50.1 88 0.38Selenium56/1 89
0.022 0.24t2260.0198Silver
16.9 0.5161t2406.16Zinc
Table 3. Summary of metals concentrations (mg/L) and WQS exceedances (bolded) in the
Lower Duwamish and Green River rom Table 343 of King CountY 2017a1
Notes:
Metals concentrations are in dissolved form unless noted.
** Exceeds freshwater (0.012) and marine (0.025) chronic aquatic life criteria
FOD - frequency ofdetection (# samples detected/ total collectedJ
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
20L5. 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 (>75o/o 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
2071) and suggest that stormwater contributes substantially greater contaminant loads
King County Science and Technical Support Section 16 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
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 (20Ma) evaluated water quality in the Lower and Middle Green River and 4
tributaries (Mill Creek in Auburn, Soos Creeh 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
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamkh Watershed
This page intentionally left blank.
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 18 January 2078
An Evaluation ofPotenE.:f:r'fr06fMilesi*r\aIli:lhlc coL['.lTYt('t.?\- i'.t"18F1t't3{t'?'.LaI\\\.\PUCE't'SOUNOl.t \PIIRCICOU}NTY\I
An Evaluation ofPoten*JJSlrs@flta&agfftostlwHll@ilav\I\..-'*'\,r.r'4t.I ' 'a' €' t'o',.far\I ttan{s s.mplilB LedisA lrtxtoy $mSins Lffitimgels and Stsffis.-.- CoulyLine!irx! Use Cdeg(y! ^r**,"f canmrcia.];1.lrt'i rtrouutdruoufut nrrg,1.., j,;tl f*tp*t*-*-.# n**d R"*r.erPrrtdop€n spaeMisc (lndu*tg lJtihtin CmmniatinslGrcq Riva Bain EondadmRaid.dirl - RmlR*iderilial - urhniI\Il(.o'q./t
An Evaluation of Potentiol 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 fromL999 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/KCR18B3.pd0. Chemical data
were available for nutrients, metals and several organic chemicals (phenols, PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and other volatile and semivolatile chemicals). Quartiles and Sth and 9Sth
percentiles of resulting concentrations were compared to (in hierarchical order):
Washington State WQS (WAC 173- 20IA 2003 version), EPA National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria (EPA2002), an EPA toxicity database (AQUIRE) or other thresholds from
the scientific literature. Of the 187 chemicals targeted, \27 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 Ghemical Gontaminants 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 (|ohnson 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
planlitonic 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 L73-204-320), more specifically known as the
Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) and the Cleanup Screening Level (CSL) (WAC 773-204-
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 (2077a) 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 January 2018
An Evaluation of P otential Impac*of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
3.3.{ Duwamish Estuary
King CounW P017) summarized existing sediment data collected betweenT99L and 2013,
comparing sediment chemistry results for Duwamish Estuary (King County 2077a)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.
o 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.
r The majority of the SMS exceedances were north of RM 1.3 in the LDW.
o Several metals exceeded the CSL at two additional locations in the LDW, the west
inlet at RM2.2 and south of the forgensen Forge cleanup area between RM 3.7 and
RM 3.9.
o Cadmium exceeded the CSL approximately 50 m southwest of the
Duwamish/Diagonal cleanup area and in the west inlet located at RM 2'2 inthe
LDW.
o Mercurlr 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
RMz.z,south of the forgensen Forge cleanup area IRM 3.7 to RM 3.9), and in the
LDW near the head of SliP 6.
o 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 Coun ty (2014b) collected and analyzed sediment samples from 2 008 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 Creeh |enkins
Creek, Newaukum Creeh Springbrook Creeh 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 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
',t
I
a,
SilS - CFtemistryr :f,SL
> $QS arld s CiiL. { $QS or nqn"detect
S!.tg - ToHl'lltF
I 3c$L
0 Fsrf$ f,nd =6gL0 c$fiS, Pass
trt
U116$ntr*llud e*O
Santrefed C,qfl
Ritrer mile1-!
ffi{teaaup*ea.r. €uilall
* C$O iltld sepil.ate
s!orivi d{alB 5}'$teitl
sheis DUlfBll
C nIS AS!{,.ti
c tl o.4hlhrmlr,T
Horfolkr. EAA
P
$Ep 4
EAA
t*,rr,nrrl
trTEAA f',t
fleht 2J
Soelng
Jorgerlten
Fotqa
EAA
tJ
$liP ?
Elrp 3r.+
't
i:
1io
a"J
t,' {.r'.' ,
L
l.'.,,.t;'fl}
-^Ll-l:\t
i
P\
f-ri
tJ
fi
hl
ll
!a
};
a
t,a"
,, \l
.tlt:. ..4
I SIIE Ert
fJ
i,1
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
I
J
l{
L
:ll
H
o
P
cr
B+
a
$hipyard
JI!Ctxilxl
DE
tn
Ia
t
EIdbff 8ey r:!:
,
r-1fl
'; I'
*!'
Itrn
F
G
ti
.l'
I
Slip 1
Srip .lE
.Mlt _qddrrl}
l.ilrc.tr tjt
l!
J
Harbor
lslandffiV\l d LockhaBdtQ str,pyaro
'I
.;;{.CSlip?r.:t
. a 'rb {tr
bo
Ounrgntish
Da8golr8l EAACSO l,lrm{ tHFgE$ tri
fi . HI}! Qllfd. 3: S{t:hB
rftddElcJ
:,i.llldl:trg.j] { lh rqa.ndq :':i
,t
,.*,"&n
" ,o.
.t,
4tp
.:6r^. IHI t
L
,! j.. I
;a.
r1 i
a.
,6 :'.'a'
ll ,.a.t It.fi'c.
a
!
?6
l1iil:hrd $t il1 lliriiltll
! Hindr 5t [5107trr
F;Itlir A€ t?iiirlr
:i,$ Hrxr ft lli,rll;'l
Cl'rlan Ar r:HUit l'
[Ls!{rrlt i{Elt lH|]]!l
fi.+nm':ih i*rr'l :HBal:i
l-;lntr(d :it *t jHtxl I lr
Dirronrl Arc{511Llr
Dr;}.rJJri |'r iKC':t1l'
T'rnrloirM5 il{lill!'I
llrItI!tn jHlSil]r
rt'*11 f,l!:n gurl i1.[.]: I'
Btn A!.n .tt{rj.r0t
Errt llJqr nrl r("i.1.1:lt
lh'crul;Htq4;!
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 lnitiative
(Ecology 2009), and PSEMP Database (Ecology 20151.
King County Science and Technical Support Section 23 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contqminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
!:'l
oll19
FS3
ssl20
|rtwc*gYLf,:33AQUAH
iaarToi!
tPl 1
Q320
': Eeilt
RR]20
FCIIS
al rrl
0120
[]20
HH32O
Sfl1t8
15-
0l
TSr15
u!115
sDt19
FR]1
PR] t
t8
s ]20/
F)
ti)o
PT]?O
Al19
c 120
JK320
coYlN6l0ai
4LACv,
DIAi'UilD
:taTt!n
gui:ta!
s€aTac
:;
i:r
ilq3ilatl9Y
DES
HO ta!€5
'€D€*L
t{ltaDit 88322
01)7
At322
AOl22
-il
.l
8122
?actF lc
Sample PCB Goncentration
-
creeksand Streams
O Non,Detect
O < 10 pg/kg
.,) 10 ro 20 pg/kg
a_.: 21 lo 50 pg/kg
{F 5i to roo pgr'kg
O > 100 pg/kg
$htershed Boundary
21024 [iles
+
Department of
Natural R€sources and Parks
Wastewater Treatment
Divasion
he inr.trodon rn.ludd onhr. tup h!. &fi cffipxd tron.v.d4d.0!..6.nd 6
lrblerech.ng.slhourdorco, Khgcounly6.kam.q..3dsnon!o.hrtr.il6,
eeias ortett*.ae to rcc!..cn conpl*n6., {mdl6!. ddgbb lo lho u..ol3!ch
rdormrfion. ft13dGUftsll. noliotd&d lo.0.6tt. ludryFd.i (ing cdunrY
3n.Inorbo [sr.rorlny gdoEr, ip*i.l,lndrrel. lndd6dbr, or con.cqurdr.l drmF
hcludlng,hlnollimltdto.lorlrilwdorlottprollkrsslttrynom&.u.otml.ui.
drh.'niom.ilon.onbrn.ddnhl.ruP. ^ny..l.orsiidtpdidm,rbnonthl.mlpb proha[d or..pr byM[ts peml!.bn ot Kho coudy
Spatial Distribution of
Total PCB Conc€ntrations
(based on Aroclors)Ffi. Nrmr a$WTO\ProJdr\Cr.dolMntifiFrolebwt3Sodh6n.pod[mPllng-FcE-coldd dd
30/3C 2013101?
\fl Kins county Figure 4
Figure 9.Total PGB concentrations in Green River tributary and mainstem sediments (King
County 2014b).Two stations with highest concentrations exceed SCO.
King County Science andTechnicalSupportSection 24 January 2018
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
o 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 in201'2.4 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. SchuchardtzDTT).
Year 4 monitoring was completed, but did not include sediment chemistry (Seattle
2076).
Terminal lTT
o 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 2076). 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
2016.4 monitoring and maintenance plan is currently being developed with EPA.
Habitat restoration is planned to occur in 2018 (pers. comm. Florer 20L7).
Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge (Across from Terminal 117)
o The Boeing Company initiated cleanup of river sediment and the shoreline of Boeing
Plant 2 in2013. 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 fpers. comm.
Anderson 20L7).163,000 cy of sediment was dredged (and backfilled with clean
sediment) from the nearly 1-mile-long properfy footprint (Amec Foster Wheeler
et a\.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 January 2078
An Evaluation ofPotential Impac* of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
with large woody debris features (Amec Foster Wheeler 2074). The project was
completed in 2015.
r The Boeing Company has completed the first year post-remediation monitoring data
report (Amec etal.20L6). 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
o The f orgensen Forge site is adjacent to Boeing Plant 2.Ln2074, 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 ItSQS). EPA and
Earle M. f orgensen 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 in2003/2004 (EBDRP
2075); 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 GNR) area, in 2005, to reduce
contaminant concentrations in surface sediments'
o King County monitored the site and the surrounding sediments pre- and post-
remediation through 2072. 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 pLg/Kg
dw in 2010 falling within an anthropogenic background concentration for urban
areas of 40-90 Vg/Kgdw calculated in the LDW FS (AECOM 2072).PCB
concentrations in the ENR area have been consistently low. Monitoring reports can
be found here:
http : //www.kingco unty. gov/s ervi ces/enviro n ment/wastewater/s ediment-
management/proj ects/DuDi.asPx
Norfolk CS0
o 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 fproject
website:
http : //www.kingcounty.gov/s ervices/environm ent/wastewater/s ediment-
management/proi ects/Norfolk.aspx ).
King County Science and Technical SupportSection 26 January 2078
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Waterched
Monitoring in the early years identified the adjacent Boeing site storm drain as a
source of PCBs to the Norfolk site IEBDRP 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.kingco un0r.gov/s ervices/enviro n ment/wastewater/s e diment-
management/proj ects/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 RM3.7-4.2 and RM 4.8-5.0 and exceedances of onlythe SQS are scattered in
between.
o
King County Science and Technical Support Section 27 January 2018
An Evaluation af Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminang to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
8o-
do',-
Od
.o et
oq
I$
lhtbl.
o)..
tOo
r 8btI
Stlt 2
oo oo
'oIa
o
o'
I
'o
s
6 slt 3
,.'='
o r '<i
t
s
o
o
I
o
ae o
o/'
o..
o.'
.8
Ar*ti r
Elp6
Upp( Tunlng8!h
o o
-aaili.
,oro
o.-9
i,
."-€
o,
cl
Oi
o
0
6.
k
ooo
o
boo o
o
oo o
$^O
*-,! e o sl
O os o0 .)a alp aq
o o
8i
'./ lo
";.s
lr- q)
i,o
''q
xrrbeg'hr
o'o5 -"
a o
OO
o.r\ oB
{\oo
6 os
o
4
SOSICBL qlttqltt ld lll 8Ig d.mL.b
.l ru.t&. ndlnml lsllru
I r CSL, detsl
o > so6 sd r c,sl d.tet
a > CSl, mn.dalecl
o > sos $d r cs[. Mdebcl
o s 306, dobd ed mn{elsl
I EsryA.bntua
I LDtiv srrdy Ats
- il6stdj6 Ch$mt
-
Rwrlflr
llon{mdldld nlFS sds tdliltl 9Il1
.rc..dM (rI ta*l dtf,t{qb}
1.6--\-.9.,,.,
1'd
o
o
o o.
o
o
I4
0dr02Hclh
0040.Hnretrdn
*bb.mE6etq
Figure 10. Updated map of SMS exceedances for the LDW surface sediments in non-remediated
areas (Windward unpublished; Data through 2010).
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 28 tanuary 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
3.4 Benthic Gommunity 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.
o 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.
o 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. L994 and
lgg1,Parametrix and King County 7999). 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'
r 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 2lo/o of the
EW area likely cause adverse effects to benthic invertebrates. Potential minimal
adverse effects were indicated for 39o/o of the area and no adverse effects were
indicated in approximately 40o/o of the EW area'
o 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 inZ of 12 areas
sampled and potential minor adverse effects were indicated for total PCBs in 10 of
13 areas sampled.
o 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 ofthe Benthic Index for Biotic Integrity (BIBI) (Karr 1998; Fore etal. 2001, Karr & Chu 1999,
Kleindl 1995, Morley & Karr 20OZ). 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 andTechnicalSupportSection 29 January 2078
An Evaluationof Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
o Toxiciry 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 4-76 in RI for SMS
results):
o no adverse effects to benthic invertebrates were expected in75o/o of the LDW
area,
o adverse effects are likely in7o/o3 of the LDW area, and
o adverse effects are uncertain in 18% ofthe LDWarea'
o 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 Ghemical contaminants in Ghinook 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
fuvenile Salmon Survival Study, and by the LDW Group and EW Group as part of Superfund
RIs (Windward 20L0,Windward and Anchor QEA 20L4). 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 (fohnson 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 summ arizedhere. All fish tissue concentrations are based on wet
weight.
r fuvenile 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 sample d.Zinc levels in LDW Chinook
gills were lower than those from the other three major river systems in Puget
Sound.
r Juvenile Chinook salmon wholebody concentrations suggest that more of their PCB
and DDT burden is contributed from the Duwamish Estuary andf or Elliott Baythan
3 The sediment assessment was updated with more recent data in the LDW FS, resulting in a lower area of 4o/o
with likely adverse effects.
King County Science and Technical Support Section 30 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
a
a
Table 4
from Puget Sound [O'Neill et al. 2015). fuvenile 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
Baywere 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) summarizeda 2003 juvenile Chinook sampling effort in the
Duwamish Estuary Lower and Middle Green rivers and Elliott Bay. Twenty six
composite samples each containing 6to 32 subyearling Chinook salmon were
analyzedfor 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 (291tg/Kg) were less than half the levels in
wild fingerlings (77 pe/Kg). Average PCB levels in Elliott Bay wild (27 1tg/Kg) and
hatchery Chinook salmon (251rg/Kg) were similar to each other and slightly higher
than Lower Green River wild (14 VE/K1) and hatchery fish (15 pglKg). 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 Stg/Kg). Mercury levels in juvenile Chinook were
low and did not vary by sampling location or fish origin.
King Counry Q0L7a) reviewed all fish and shellfish tissue data used in the LDW and
EW RI's and summarizedtissue 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.
Total PGB concentrations (pg/Kg wet) in juvenile Chinook salmon relative to English
Sole in the East Waterway and LDW (King Gounty 2017a1.
FOD - frequency of detection (# samples detected/ # analyzed)
Fish Species Tissue Type FOD Minimum Maximum Mean
East Waterway
Enqlish sole Fish whole body 13t13 1,460 7,900 J 3
Enqlish sole Fish fillet (with skin)20t20 409 5,700 1,700
Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 12t12 7.4 91.5 59
Lower Duwamish WateruvaY
Juvenile Chinook salmon Fish whole body 24t24 6.9 1,200 140
King County Science and Technical Support Section 31 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Ch emical Contaminants n Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
o 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 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 L0 samples in Elliott Bay exceeded the PBDE effects threshold.
o From 1995 through200L, fohnson etal. (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 ICECs) have been detected in
Puget Sound (Miller-Schultze et aL.2074) and waters of the Duwamish Estuary fKing
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 (20I7b) 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.
(20L6) detected more PPCPs in juvenile Chinook salmon than in staghorn sculpin in the
areas sampled: Sinclair Inle! 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, andf or metabolic
processes.
King County Science and Technical Support Section 32 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impac* of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
3.6 Modeled and Observed Adverse Effects on
Ghinook
Ecological risk assessments conducted under Superfund have estimated the likelihood that
contaminants in the LDW and EWwould 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.{ 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 (Windward2007; 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 unceltainty 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 fthe same methodology discussed above
for the LDW Ecological Risk Assessment was used) (Windward2012).
King County Science and Technical Support Section 33 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
$
$
E
€
E
g
l'
Patnways
$
a*l
*s$
Receplors of Concern
iE
&
!
r
?
Ug
co
gtoI
s
t;
E
ti,cIt
E
F6
FE
Sadimrnl
uu
E@I
@Et
IT
El@
I
I
I
I
I
TENru
tn
EI
II
-
wttpr'-*- biota (foodl
-
*edlmentr
E$fl
complolo and signiflcant
complsle rnd gignificenco unknown
complrte and lnslgnlfi cant Conceptual Site Model for Benthic
lnvertebrates and FishEl lncompleto
Jwrtll,.Surfacr
V1elor
Gnd.h
Surtrce
lYaler Blotr
Sourcgr
CrrDr6roundwatrr
Figure 11. Gonceptual Site Model and Pathways for Juvenile Chinook from LDW Baseline Risk
Assessment (Windward 20071
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 etal. (2002) statistically derived a lipid-normalized tissue effects
threshold in juvenile Chinook for PCBs of 2400 ug/Kglipid based on biochemical and
immune system effects. This threshold was exceeded by juvenile Chinook sampled in the
Duwamish Estuaryin 1998 andL999 (fohnson etal.2007). More recently, in2013,25o/o
(1 of a) of juvenile Chinook samples from the Green-Duwamish watershed exceeded this
effects threshold [O'Neill et al. 2015).
3.6.2 Obserued Adverse Effects
fuvenile Chinook salmon from the Duwamish Estuary have been observed with
immunosuppression, reduced resistance to disease and decreased growth rates (Arkoosh
et al. 2001, fohnson 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 (f ohnson 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 January 2018
An Ev aluatio n of P otentia I Impac* 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 etal.20L7). Local researchers have demonstrated that the symptoms
are induced by urban stormwater runoff (scholz etal.20L1, Spromberg et al. 20L5,
Mclntyre etal.20!6) and eliminated by stormwater infiltration through bioretention soils
(Mclntyre etal.20L6). 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 (Mclntyre et al. 2015, Mclntyre etal.20L4) which can be eliminated by
infiltration through bioretention soils fMclntyre et al. 2015, Mclntyre etal.2076). 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 (2074) analyzedPuget 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 (L972-2008) 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 January 2078
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
4.O GURRENT AND FUTURE AGTIONS
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 4I2 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 GleanuP
EPA's Record of Decision contains the LDW cleanup plan (i.e. Selected Remedy) which
includes the following actions (EPA 2014).
r 105 acres of dredging or partial dredging and capping;
o 24 acres of capping;
o 48 acres of enhanced natural remediation (placing clean sand to speed up the rate of
natural recovery; and
o 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 90o/o 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, Poft of Seattle,
and the Boeing Company) and EPA are conducting pre-design studies which include:
r Collection of water, sediment, and biota data to establish baseline conditions prior
to the sediment cleanuP;
o 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 LD\M);
o Documentation of piers and other structures that may affect remediation design;
and
o Collection of supplemental sediment and bank data to assist Ecology with source
control.
King County Science and Technical Support Section 36 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
,2
ol
r!
III
.)
J\$
S*,:!
Sr'p 3
i
1.
tt
-
Sitr, 4
'.t
II
I
T
Srp 6
uwl
T,ming---j
l
it
-
t?
2a
ab
29 ---
2,t
?5
:\
--i
I
)!
Ja
3l
t2
JJ
q
l
T
t.l
-
!5
t0
l9
I
I
St,p i
Slrp !
l
EPA's Selected Remedy
&X. {.d#6.ri txi. fidturrr@,lltssh'lF* $**hdcryfftus50'd<.Ma.P4@.
L.grnd
lih&!tlrdFd
I orr r-- nc!ra"a.u-r
J -*-'*"mqqq{l&n'
I "-..-c-"-'*.'''
I mr.o.*ra'
fliH '*b,dr.-Er&fr..r*r'.colt|-.$wtur@!cl& a*d.xor:!rd.
fJ t****,r-'-'
i,--_j lk'es''
;r ffAm'{aS*
-
ryaEt
0 5m 1.000rFeet
Figure 12. Remedial Actions in the EPA Selected Remedy for the LDW (EPA 2014)
King County Science and Technical Support Section 37 January 201-8
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 GleanuP
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 OurGreen/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 2076 andan initial Watershed Strategy was
completed in20t7. 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 in2012 [Ecology Focus Sheet 2074;
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1410053.htmI ). 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:
o Develop a modeling tool to assess pollutant loads from different sources fpoint and
diffusedJ
o Better understand the relationship between water, sediment and fish tissue quality
o 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 lanuary 2018
An Evaluation of Potential lmpacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
This effort will occur in phases over several years. As of early 20L7, a modeling proiect plan
has been completed (TetraTech 20L6) and the watershed model is in development
(TetraTech 20L7).
King County Science andTechnicalSupportSection 39 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical ContaminanE to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
5.O UNGERTAINTY
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 deslitop
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 Iower 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 ofP otential I mp acts of C h emi cal 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 Ghinook 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 ofthese 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 identiflr an effect threshold. For example, the LDW screening
ecological risk assessment (Windward2007) 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 Vg/Kd based on survival of pinfisha. 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:
a The 1,400 pg/Kgno effect level was based on applying an uncertainty factor of 10 to an observed adverse
effects level of 14,000 tLg/KCww in pinfish (Hansen et al 1971)'
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 41)lanuary 2018
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,
o effects study data on any fish species can be considered, not just salmonids or
Chinook
o the highest qualiffing no-effect concentration below the lowest quali$ring 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 (Windward2007,20L2) 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 pg/g lipid,
equivalent to approximately Laa Vg/Kgtissue wet weight (assuming 6% lipid). Criteria
leading to this threshold selection were defined based on assumptions such as the 1Oth
percentile concentration of biological effect studies is protective of individual Chinook
salmon. Other example assumptions used by Meador et al. (2002) included:
o that 75o/o of aninjected Aroclor PCB dose or 50o/o 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,
o 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),
o 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 lLg/K1,1,400 llg/Kgand 140 VS/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 L,400 pg PCBs/Kg) are much higher than
the effect threshold (Laa pgPCBs/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 January 2018
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 fWindward2007).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 quantifli 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 MultipleGontaminantEffects
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 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
6.0 DISGUSSION AND GONCLUSION
Observations of potential impacts of contaminants to juvenile Chinook salmon:
o 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
r LDW and EW risk assessments did not identiff 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.
r Subsequent studies using more conservative assumptions concluded PCBs may be
causing health impacts.
o The risks of impacts to Chinook salmon from CECs are unknown although these
chemicals have been detected in the Lower Duwamish Estuary'
o 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
o 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.
o fuvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish Estuary are exposed to sediments
contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, some metals and phthalates.
o 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 Kentl and Springbrook
Creek and may be a concern to benthic invertebrates. Mill Creek (in Auburn) is less
contaminated and fenkins, 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.
o 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
o 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 andTechnicalSupportSection 44 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical 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 5. 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. Su of lnformation available on contaminant risk to nile Ghinook.
s Risk definitions used here are not equivalent to regulatory definitions used in Superfund process.
NotesRisk Level UncertaintyGhinook
specific
assessment?
Duwamish Estuary
High Low data volume;
not evaluated with
updated Chinook-
specific thresholds.
No - Aquatic
Life
LowWater
King County Science and Technical Support Section 45 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Duwamish Estuary Chinook
specific
assessment?
Risk Level Uncertainty Notes
Sediments - Direct
Exposure
None completed Low High Lack of exposure
data; unknown and
indirect etfect on
Chinook.
Sediments and Benthic
lnvertebrates
No - lndirect
exposure via
prey
High (for 4% of
LDW);Moderate
(for 18% of LDW);
Low in other areas
High Large volume,
indirect and
unquantified effect
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
Effect
No Low High Lack of exposure
data; unknown and
indirect effect on
Chinook.
Sediments and benthic
invertebrates
No - lndirect
effect on prey
Low in mainstem
and most
tributaries;
moderate in
Springbrook and
Mill (Kent) creeks.
High in
mainstem;
Moderate in
tributaries.
lndirect and
unquantified effect
on Chinook; Low
sample density in
mainstem; >10 per
creek.
Uooer Green
Water No - aquatic life Low High Smalldata 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 f ohnson 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 SupportSection 45 January 2018
An Ev aluatio n of P ote ntia I Impacts of Chem ical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamishWatershed
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 repor! findings relevant to chemical
contaminants and Chinook are:
o 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.
o Duwamish Estuary Chinook salmon are more contaminated than those in other
Puget Sound waterbodies;
o 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.
o Biomarkers, demonstrating contaminant exposure, have been observed in LDW
Chinook salmon.
o 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 andf or shift diet composition.
o Generally, water and sediment contaminant concentrations increase with distance
downstream making the Upper Green the least contaminated and Duwamish
Estuary the most contaminated;
o 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 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
7.O REGOMMENDATIONS
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
Chinooh in restored habitat project areas, and where tributaries enter the Green
River. This work will strengthen the small dataset available for risk evaluation.
o 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.
o 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 4B January 2018
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 SupportSection 49 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
8.O REFERENGES
AECOM. 2012. Final Feasibility Study for the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA
Prepared by AECOM for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group'
http ://ldwg.org/rifs docs9.htm#fi nal2 0 1 2
AECOM. 2016. Removal Action Construction Report. Phase 1: Sediment and Upland
Cleanup, Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, TerminalL1-7 EarlyAction
Area. Prepared by AECOM Environment for Port of Seattle.
Amec Foster Wheeler. 20L4. 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. 20L6. Corrective
Measure Implementation Report: Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest
Bank. Corrective Measure. Boeing Plant 2. Seattle/Tularila, 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 .2076. Feasibility Study. East Waterway Operable Unit
Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Draft Final. October 2016
Arkoosh, M.R., D. Boylen, f. Dietrich, B.F. Anulacion, G. Ylitalo, C.F. Bravo, L.L, fohnson, F.f
Loge, and T.K. Collier. 2070. 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 f.E. Stein, 2007.lncreased susceptibility of juvenile chinook salmon to
vibriosis after exposure to chlorinated and aromatic compounds found in
contaminated urban estuaries f. Aquat. Anim. Health 13(3): 257-268.
Arkoosh, M., f. Dietrich, G.M. Ylitalo, L.|. fohnson, and S.M. O'Neill.20L3. 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, Newpor! Oregon. 49 pp. plus Appendices.
Conn, K.E., B.W. Blach A.M. Vanderpool-Kimura, f.R. Foreman, N.T. Peterson, C.A. Senter,
and S.K. Sissel, 2075. 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 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential 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/ds9 73.
Cordell, l.,L.A.Tear, C.M. Simenstad, W.G. Hood. 7996. Duwamish River Coastal American
Restoration and Reference Sites: Results from 1995 Monitoring Studies. Fisheries
Res earch I nstitute, University of Washington.
Cordell,l., 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, f ., f . 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, f.R. Cordell,l.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, 39:7 67 -780'
https ://link.springer.com/article/ 1 0. L 0 0 70' Fs 1 2 2 3 7- 0 1 5- 004 1 - 5
Du, B, |. K. Lofton, A. Peter, C.A. Gipe, |. fames, N. Mclntyre, J. Scholz, E. Baker, E.P. Kolodziej,
20L7. 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, 79:1L85-1L96.
EBDRP. 2005. Norfolk CSO Sediment Remediation Project Final Monitoring Report -
Year 5. 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. 20L5. 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. fones. Environmental
Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Ecology Publication 09-03-0 14.
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 51 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Ecology. 20L3. Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in salmon-bearing
streams, 2009-2077 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. 20L4.A Pollutant Loading Assessment (PLA) for the Green-Duwamish Watershed.
washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, wA. Publication 14-10-053.
https ://fortress.wa.goY/ecy/publications/documents/ 14 1 0 0 5 3'pdf
Ecology. 20L5. PSEMP Sediment Database (last updated2/5/2013, accessedS/27 /2075).
Washington Department of Ecology, Marine Sediment Monitoring Program,
Olympia, WA.
Ecology and King County. 207L. Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound: Assessment of
Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-20tL Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA and King County Department of Natural
Resources, Seattle, WA. Ecology Publication No. 11-03-055.
hnps ://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/ 1 1 0 3 0 5 5.pdf
Eisler, R., and A. Belisle. 1996. Planar PCBHazards 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.20fi} 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/wqcriteria'html
8PA.2074. Record of Decision: Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region L0.http:/ /ldwg.org/ (EPA website under
construction)
King County Science and Technical Support Section 52 January 20L8
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
Fore, L.S., K. Paulsen, and K. O'Laughlin .200L. Assessing the performance of volunteers in
monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46: L09-L23-
Fresh, K.L.,2006. fuvenile 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.
fohnson, L. 2000. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons to protect estuarine fish. Prepared by Lyndal f ohnson of
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/NMFS, Seattle, WA'
fohnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.R. Arkoosh, A.N. Kagley, C. Stafford, f.L. Bolton, f. 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. L24(L-3): 167 -L9 4.
fohnson, L.L., MR. Arkoosh, C.F. Bravo, T.K. Collier, M.M.Krahn, f.P. Meador, M.S. Myers,
W.L. Reichert, I. 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, f.R. 1998. Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape
management. Pages 502-528.1n Naiman, R. f. and R. E. Bilby (editors). River Ecology
and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer, New Yorh
NY.
Karr, f.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.20L4a. 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 SupportSection 53 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed
King CounW.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 QualityAssessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing
Data on the Duwamish Estuary. Prepared by Chris Magan, Timothy Clarh Kate
Macneale, Martin Grassley, Bob Bernhard, and Dean Wilson, Water and Land
Resources Division. Seattle, Washington
King CounW.20L7b. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Contaminants of
Emerging Concern. Prepared by Richard fack and Martin Grassley, Water and Land
Resources Division. Seattle, Washington.
King CounLy.2015. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control: Upper and Middle Green
River Surface Water Data Report, Prepared by Carly Greyell, Richard Iach and Debra
Williston, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington.
Kleindl, W.l. 1995. A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Puget Sound Lowland Streams,
Washington, USA. M.S, Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Mclntyre I.K.,l.W.Davis, K.H. Macneale, B.F. Anulacion, C. Hinman, N.L. Scholz, f'D' Stark.
20L5. Soil bioretention protects juvenile salmon and their prey from the toxic
impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Chemosphere 12322\3-219 Open Access:
http ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0045 65 3 5 1 40 1480 5
Mclntyre,l.K., R.C. Edmunds, M.G. Redig, E.M. Mudroch I.W. Davis, f.P.lncardona, f.D' Starh
N.L. Scholz . 20L6. Confirmation of stormwater bioretention treatment effectiveness
using molecular indicators of cardiovascular toxicity in developing fish.
Meador, |.P.2014. Do chemically contaminated river estuaries in Puget Sound (Washington,
USA) affect the survival rate of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon. Can. f. Fish. Aquat.
Sci.71: t62-L80.
Meador,l.P., T.K. Collier, and f.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): 4e3-5r6.
Meador, f.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. f. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 63 (10) : 2364-237 6.
King County Science and Technical Support Section 54 January 2018
An Evaluation of Potential Impacts ofChemical 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
E cosystem C onference Proceeding s. http: / / cedar.wwu.e du / ssec / 20 74sse c / D ay3 / L4 /
Morley, S.A., and f .R. Karr. 2002.Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the
Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology. l6:L498-L509.
Morley, S.A., ],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. 20L3. DRAFT fuvenile 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.l. Carey, f.A. Lanksbury L.A. Niewolny, G. Ylitalo, L. fohnson, and f.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 CounW. L999. King County CSO Water Quality Assessment for the
Duwamish River and Elliott Bay. Appendix 84 Methods and Results of Aquatic Life
Risk Assessment.
Pers. Comm. Anderson .20L7. Email communication between Brian Anderson of The Boeing
Company and ]en6e Colton of King County on May 5,2017 .
Pers. Comm. Chu. 2017. Phone conversation between Rebecca Chu of EPA Region 10 and
f en6e Colton of King County on April 28,20L7 '
Pers. Comm. Florer, 2017 . Email conversation between f oanna Florer of Port of Seattle and
f en6e Colton of King County on f une 27 ,20L7.
Pers. Comm. Schuchar dt.20L7. Email communication between Dave Schuchardt of City of
Seattle and f ent4e Colton of King County on |une 27 ,2017.
Pers. Comm. Williston.2077. Email communication between Debra Williston and ]en6e
Colton of King County on December 4,20\7 '
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 January 2078
An Ev aluatio n o f P otential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Wqtershed
Scholz, N.L., M.S. Myers, S.G. McCarthy, f.S. Labenia, f.K. Mclntyre, et al. 201L. Recurrent Die-
Offs of Adult Coho Salmon Returning to Spawn in Puget Sound Lowland Urban
Streams. PLoS ONE 6(L2): e280L3.
Seattle. 20L5. 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,I.,D.Baldwin, ]. Mclntyre, S. Damm, B. Anulacion, f. Davis, and N. Scholz' 2015'
Coho salmon spawner mortality in western U.S. urban watersheds: Bioinfiltration
prevents lethal stormwater impacts. fournal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1117/L365-
2664.72534 Open Access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-
2664.L2534/epdf
Stalling, D. and F.L. Mayer .7972. Toxicities of PCBs to fish and environmental residues. Env'
Health Persp. L:I59-L64.
Tetra Tech. 20L6. 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. 20t7. 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.
ocumentation0 2 0 1- L THydro.Pdf
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.20L0.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 January 2018
An Evaluation ofPotential Impacts of Chemical Contaminants to Chinook Salmon in the Green-DuwamkhWatershed
Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology for the Lower Duwamish
Waterway Group.
Windward .20L2. 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. 2074. 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.20L2.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.f. Brauner (eds). Academic Press, Elsevier, Waltham, MA. pp. 1-51.
Wood, C., A.P. Farrell, and C.f . Brauner. 20L2a. Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential
Metals. Volume 31A in the Fish Physiolory Series. Academic Press, Elsevier,
Waltham, MA.494 pp.
Wood, C., A.P, Farrell, and C.f. Brauner. 2072b. 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 January 2018
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2020
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2OO4-20t.6l
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in
wRrAg(2004-20161
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. ln 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
ln 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:
o Abundance is the number of individuals in the population at a given life stage or time;
o Productivity or population growth rate is the actual or expected ratio of abundance in the next
generation to current abundance;
o Spatial structure refers to how the abundance at any life stage is distributed among available or
potentially available habitats; and
o 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). ln 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-
2}t7l, the number of NOS has been less than the lowest planning target range (1,000 NOS) for WRIA 9
L
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 l2OO4 - 2OL6l
Green River Chinook in River Spawning
-f6t2l
Spawners
Natural origin spawners
Linear (Total Spawners)
Linear (Natural origin
spawners)
9s d ,4 ""& "$ "S "$
Figure 1. Trends in natural origin Chinook spawners and all spawners (hatchery origin plus natural
origin). lOata from NOM Satmon Population 1ummary Databose and WDFW Nathanael Overman)
Table L. Status of VSP metrics of the Green River Fall Chinook population from 2005 through 2Ot5. (Dato
from NOM Salmon Population Summary Datdbase and WDFW Nathanael Overman. 2005-2008 numbers from
wRtA 9 trc 2012)
From WRIA 9lTC 2012 From NOM SPSD and WDFW (Nathanael Overman)
Population lndicators of drange Units Target 2005 2006 2007 2008 2'JlJ9 2010 z'JtL 20t2 2013 20L4 2015
Productivity Egg-to-Mi gra nt Survival
IRM 34-60)
% of eggs
deoosited
^a%r.47 0.09 3.66 2.07 2.ro%s.70%LOO%6.02%9.72%tr.39%8.75%
Abundance Natural origin spawners #1000-4200 LO46 2535 2022 4227 t82 909 640 1585 559 1069 864
Diversity Hatchery-ori gi n recruits
spawning in river % oftotal <30%50 60 53 35 74 40 47 74 53 79
Diversity Relative abundance of
parr o/oParr TBD 70 31 37 39 39 90 49 53 28 20 3
Diversity liming of peak
outmigration
fry 3ltr-
3/16
3130-
4/s
3l30-
4ls
tlzs-
414
317-
3lt3
212G
2/26
3lLL-
3/L7
313-
3ls
2/2-
218
Diversity Timing of pea k
outrnigration
parr 6/2-
618
a/L5-
6/21
6/13-
sl2r
517-
6h3
sl23-
sl29
6/+
6lto
sl27-
6/2
sl26-
6/7
6/7s-
6/27
Diversity Proportion5andSyear
old spawners
% of NOR
returns I ncrea se
not eval uated
65%L%7%2%15%L7%6%
Spati a I
Structure
Changes to spawning
distribution No data not eval uated 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 7o.4% (Quinn 2005), the wRlA has set a
target of 8% because the Green River Chinook population has high rates of hatchery fish spawning with
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
t^
oc
=.!o.th
o
olt
E5z
0
2
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 l2OO4 - 2OL6l
wild fish (see diversity metric below). Between 2005 and 2015 the survival rate has ranged from 0.09%
to lLYo,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 8.7Yo, 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
HansonDam. Forthespatialstructureofthepopulationtoimprove,naturaloriginspawnerswillneed
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. 2OL2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013,
ICF lnternational 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 etal.2lL2,Topping and Anderson2}l4l, 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 20L7. 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. 2OI7 and
Gregersen 21t7l. 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 2OL4l.
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 20171.
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. lt 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 - 20161
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 Anderson2Ot4) and in the limited floodplain accessible habitats of the Lower Green
(Lucchetti et al. 2014).
larl updaFdFeb20l7
Figure 2. Primary Chinook salmon life history types in the Green River (updated and modified from
Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004).
WRIA t 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 from35%to75% (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
LOWER GREENMIDDLE GREEN DUWAMlSH
Green/Duwamish River
ChinookJuvenile
Readng Trajectoriet
(d6ys) ?J>
sMOUT(dr$t?
(totri'.t l?
?w$
q
\
%
\
Dr@
ldoYrtaweela)
FRv16,pap4 -.l} Dc@ ,**S$$'".no 'gfiEp
lft@D FRY145yr1
FRYraaysl 3a@ ,5.!I,,
n
sinour
,#;#J"l
RIVER
(4omm)
rE@]a@ a
ra@
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.
3. 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. ln 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 t7%to alow of I%
(Table 1). The average percent return for the last 10 years, t4.4yo, is similar to the average over
the last 46 years of I5.4%.
oa%
9c-%
BO%
70%
6o-%
50%
4c-%
3C-%
20%
10%
Oo/o
Percent of Hatchery Chinook
Spawning in the Green River
1970 1975 19BO 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
rltt
alll
Percent Hatchery Chinook
on the Spawning Grounds
Plan Target <3Oo/o
Figure 3. Percent of hatchery Chinook in the Green River spawning grounds compared to natural origin
Chinook (from the 2074 WR\A 9 tmplementotion Progress Report 2005-20141
Technical Recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions:
o 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. lmproving and increasing rearing
habitat in the Middle and Lower Green and providing access to the upper watershed are primary
ways of achieving this goal.
r Productivity has improved in the last five years (20LL-2O751, compared to the previous 5 years
when the WRIA last evaluated the egg-to-migrant survival rate. lt 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 l2OO4 - 20t.6l
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.
a
a
a
Fish Passaee
r 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): ln 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).
6
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016)
Black River pump station: New technical documents produced in 2015 as part of the
Black River Needs Assessment and Capital lmprovement 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 physicalhabitat is not in idealcondition and there are a largevarietyof
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 recornmendations and potential implications for recovery actions:
lmplementation 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.
lnvest 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 2OL7).
Spawning
r 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 lndian Tribe (MlT) 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 ,2O7Ol, and by the ACOE in of Springbrook
Creek in 2011 (Personal Communication Gordon Thomson, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2OLtl, Watercress Creek, a tributary to Newaukum Creek by KCDOT in 2OO7
(Personal Communication Stephen Conroy, King County ,2OL7l, and Big Spring Creek in
2016 (Personal Communication Josh Latterell, King County, 2OL7).
o
a
a
a
a
7
s Blbck R
S 2l2tr St
Basin
W$htthSt
Lake
Younds
2,
Bl!,r, f.,,,, ,
-l
.j;
,l'r .
:i
l
n
: LaRe Maildian
i
i
I
:],
li
lt:6,
c
€n
l
'jj
\.
?
I
1
,J
,t;
l
u.to
<l
!
No
:
I
'
ir
Petrovitsk1 Fd
I
:,!s)
:
N
Is 277rh st ..
kwiNa
'.i
':':'
ii..1:
Tac -.'' ''
:
t
.c:Df-."
}Li! ..,fri
StatLat<e ''.;,
!
s 188rh Sr
Angb Lake.
200tl,. st / "b, .9b,l*$
.v) ",,:i'1.:. l"
,/''
', Lake.
Sea
:,!
s'
ii
sr
:
:
i
i!
4'rlna
I
Q'
,i
s
i
aa
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.
8
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016)
UPDATED CHINOOK DI5TRIBUTION IN WRIA 9
Chinook Distribution -
Marine
Species should be pre5ent due to
guitable habitat (onditions and
knowledge ofspecies life history.
Juvenile presence eslimated
above 7 meter depth.
Chinook Distribution - River/Streams
-,-
2AO1-2017: Present -
First Hand lnformation
species is known to be present based on 66t
hand obseryations in new locations since 2ml.
--l- Pre-2001: Present -
First Hand lnformation
speies is known to be Present due to
fi rslhand obseruations, or front
elecko'fishang,spawnersurueys,field reports,
and other direct souKes of data.
_-.,.'. Pre-2001: Present -
Second Hand lnformation
spe.ies ir thought to be present from
seond-hand observations and irlformation.
*-!-a Pre-2001: Should be Present
Spe.ies should be present due to nritable
habitat (onditions, presence in adjacent
waters, and absence ofknown bariers,
though presence has not been observed
*"/* Pre-2001: Barrier
Prevents Presence
spe(ies ahould bepre*nt becauseof
suitable habitat conditions, but is not
be(ause of anifi(ial barier.
KING COUNTY
Present According to the WDFW
WRIA Catalog of Streams
(Williams, 1975)
@PIERCE COUNTY
Major Road
River/Stream
* *'* KingCountyBoundary
' .. --: OPen Water
Wetlands
I ringcountywRtAgArea
Tie nlorna@o dudd on th6 mq hs hn Mpbd bv slaf tlom a vs€ly d ilrcos
d rs $hecr to d@€ wMt mlrce. nng Cwnty m*es m tqesnldbs or
wffrdri6, €t@s sinpfud, as lo adracy, mplel€ress,lnoli6s, o! nghts lotre us
otswh inlomabn KngtunV sM[ mt & lbD6 td ilyqe@ral, W'd, indtrd,
inddord, or M$quontal tu4€s iddirg, bd ml limilod b, ht revtrues ot lct profils
esula4 lionr lho us d mM* ol lhe in,oruld onlefld oo hs map tuy sh ol lhF
map q inbrrtahn d lhis o!4 rs pd'bld exept by Mrld F n*sh ot K@ &unlv
Dala $urces: Klng couniy GIS dala*ts, Pre.200l tish distdbullon lrom Flshg
shape file, 2001-201 7 lish distilrulbn nild drawn based on fi6l hand obseryafions
Palh ol 8i9 Sping Creek redrawn to rellecl lield obseruafrons.
i.lap created by KCIT Deslgn & Civic EngatFnrent,
file: 1710 8685Lw9_chinook dist.al
(
<
u-t
tf,
KingCounty
Department of
Nalural Resources dnd Parks
W6t6r and Lrnd Reeourc.3 Division
0 2 4 Miles
october 20l 7
Figure 5. locations of previously undocumented Chinook spawning areas. Adapted from the WRIA 9
Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment 2000.
9
lil litttt
Ba{5TAME
o
@
gURIEN
@
VASHON
ISLANO
5tAIAC
KENT @
Pige't. .
.' sowirl.
o
@
IED€fiAL
AUBURN
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 l2OO4 - 2OL6l
. ln 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 2OL2l'
o 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. ln 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 (PersonalCommunication Holly Coccoli, MlT,2}t7l.
o 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.
o The MIT tagged and tracked adults shortly after entering the estuary in 2015, 20L6, 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, MlT,2OL7l, the results should be
tracked to see if different actions might be called for before the next 10 year update'
r 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' lt 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.
a
a
a
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).
o Since plan adoption, there have been many papers out of the Sacramento River area (Summers
et a|.2001a and 2001b, 2OO4,z}Os,Jeffres 2OOT,Feyrer et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2007, Henry et
al.2OtO, 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. lt 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.
o The habitat area within the bank full width of mainstem channel in the Lower Green is
approximately 282 acres (unpublished King County GIS data 2OI7l. 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 82o/o 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),
r 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 lTC2}t2l. 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:
o The new information on the importance of floodplain habitats to juvenile Chinook growth
should be considered when prioritizing recovery actions.
Survival /Otolith 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
1L
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 l2OO4 - 2OL6l
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.
o Ruggerone and Volk (2OOa) 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'
o 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 (<t%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 36To and 24Yo, 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 2015 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). lf we apply the recent otolith findings to the previous research looking at
size, abundance, and timing of fry using the estuary (Nelson et al.2Ot2, 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.
r lf the outcomes of the 2OL7 data collection and analyses, are similarto 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.
r 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%l 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,2OTT\.lnterestingly, 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. lt 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. lt is known that the larger fish are (like yearlings) when they outmigrate, the higher their
\2
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
20
1m
100
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
0
Jan 26 b Feb 22
,.,ililh
ilrl
Feb 23 tc Mar 15
,tl llr,,
ilil1iln',,,,,
Mar 15toApr5
.t
,,Jllillililllll,rr,r.r, ,
Apr 6 to Apr 26
Apt 27 b May 17
., ftilhhltlhhrl,il,,,, ,, .
May'18 to Jun 7
,,. .,,hllr ,lll lhh,,,,'....,
Jun 8 to Jun 28
.,.. ,'lllhll,t,lltt..,. ,.. , .
Jun 28 b Jul 27
-..-.1.r
30 40 50 60 to
*nn olltty
Figure 6. Shows juvenile Chinook timing from sampling that occurred in 2003, combined with
highlighting to show survival to adulthood based on 2015 and 2015 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.
X'echnical recornrnendations and potential irnplications fon recovery actions:
o See Duwamish subsection below for related recommendations.
r Update strategies based on new findings after more years of otolith work are completed.
o 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
r 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.
o 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 oddressed vio a recommendation for a future H-integration effort
to evaluate the broader issue.
Technical recommendations and potential implications for recovery actions:
o 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.
r 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.
a
L4
A synthesis of changes in our knowtedge 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 forthe upper watershed. lt 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. lt 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 lntake (RM 61)
o Replacement of impassable culverts on twenty-five streams within the Upper Green
River
o ln cooperation with the USACE, installation of individual LWD and EUs 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, lnc. (R2) (2007). The first post-AWSP
survey was conducted by Tacoma Water in 2OL2 and 2013 (in review). The second post-AWSP
survey is scheduled to be conducted by Tacoma Water in 2Ot7 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, 2OL7l'
The post ASWP in2OL2and 2013 habitat monitoring surveys were conducted on Tacoma Water-
owned portions of the mainstem river (RM 68-35) and severaltributary streams, including the
Sunday Creek (RM 0-3.5), Smay Creek (RM O-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 baselineto 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
a
a
a
a
a
15
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivlty and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2015)
o
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.
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. ln comparison, the LWD and jam frequencies in the Middle Green River
in 2Ot2 were 141 pieces mile and 4 jams 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 frequencyfrom 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.
The frequency of LWD also increased substantially in all three tributaries, while the
frequency of log jams 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 U r Green River
Major
Tributaries
LWD/mile Jams/mile
Baseline Post-AWSP Baseline Post-AWSP
Sunday Creek 238 377 7 L2
Smay Creek 497 663 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 sffong and urgent need to provide access to this habitat.
Development of Program U-l 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 G en River
Fish productivity associated with existing habitat conditions within the Middle Green River is
discussed in detail in Anderson and Topping (20171; their findings, likely apply in the Lower
a
a
a
16
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2016)
a
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:
r 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 ore tentative and should be refined over time os more dota 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 !,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 {2OO4 - 2OL6l
a
o Overall the R2 2013 report found that as flows increased more slow velocity laterol (oft
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 lateralhabitats 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 20t2l.
The amount of individual pieces of wood per mile has fluctuated, with the most recent data
(20721showing 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
(2001 0.8 jams/mile to 2OI2 4.2 jams/mile) (R2 2072]'.
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 cms) 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 2Ot4 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 (*20L3-2OI6) indicate lower
survival rates in these streams than previously calculated previously by WDFW based on several
a
a
a
18
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2OO4 - 2016l
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, MlT,
20t7l.
Technical recomrnendations and potential implications for recovery actions:
r 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.
o 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.
o 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.
r 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 iuvenile Salmonid
Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green River study, and the 2OL3-2OL4 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 2OI4al, though this finding was not replicated by the Retrospective work
(KC 2016).
a
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. (RZ 20t4al.
o Created shallodslow water habitats at Reddington and Riverview had higher CPUE of
juvenile Chinook than nearby vegetated and unvegetated steeper banks. The
Retrospective study (2015) 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 ln 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,OOO cfs, about an annual flood) (Gregersen 2077l.. 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.
lnterestingly, 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 stillvery degraded (R2 z0L{bl
lnitial 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:
o 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.
a
a
20
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 l2OO4 - 2OL6l
a
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.
ln 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.
a
a
a
a
a
Duwamish River
A significant research and planning effort, the Duwamish Blueprint, was completed in 2Ot4 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
Q0Lal:
o Ruggerone et al. 2006 found that the entire estuary, not just RM 4-6, was used by juvenile
Chinoo( 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.
r 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)
r The findings from Ruggerone et al. 2005, 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).
o Brackish waters appear to have higher growth potential based on prey availability than
more saline areas (Cordellet al. 2010).
Other recent findings not included with in the Duwamish Blueprint include:
o David et al. 2015 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
2t
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 20161
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.
o 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.
e 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.
o Work by Meador (2074) 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 56To, respectively
The experiment was repeated for a second year with similar results. lt 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:
r 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.
o 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.
o 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. ln 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. ln 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.9., 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. lt 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 proiects
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
a
a
23
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2015)
o
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'
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
assocjated 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)
Broad
{Drift cell}
Temporaland spatlal scales qf
deterfobte Ermorlng I mpacts Sedirnent
gr-ain sire change
Beach profile cltange
o
ft(J
v1
as
fia-fi
Forage fish
spawning
Log amumulation
-l
Juvenile
fish use
Arthrop*els and other
wrack asroriates
Local
{n,}
Wrark
arrumulatisn
Fast ,Slow
{Days} Temporal Scale {Seasans to Years}
Figure 7. Temporal and spatial scales at which different types off impacts of armoring can be detected
lmpacts 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:
o Armored versus not armored shorelines.
a. lmportance 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 a\.20071.
b. 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.
c. Rice 2005 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
survivalon armored beaches compared to unarmored beaches. The environmental
changes likely lead to many other similar biological responses, but they have not been
studied yet.
Terrestrial
bird use
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.2Ot4 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. lt 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 (Toft 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. 2074 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'
a
26
A synthesis of changes in our knowledge of Chinook salmon productivity and habitat uses in WRIA 9 (2004 - 2015)
o A2Ot4 Report has shown that new unpermitted armor has offset many of the restoration gains
by the WRIA as of 2074, and many repairs to armoring are not going through the permit process
(Higgins 20t41.
o 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 wRlA 9, especially in south facing shorelines (Rice 2006).
o A new population of herring was found spawning in small numbers in Elliott Bay, near the
Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park in 2OI2. lt 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
ZOL \. 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. 2073, 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.
o 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'
o 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'
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 - 2015)
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.
Z. 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. lmportance of Flood Dynamics versus
lntrinsic Physical Habitat in Structuring Fish Communities: Evidence from Two Adjacent
Engineered Floodplains on the Sacramento River, California. North American Journal of
Fisheries M a nagemen t, 26:4O8-4t7 .
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 lts 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 naturalfloodplain
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.
g. Kubo, J., 2017. Green River Temperature and Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 lmplementation
Technical Committee, by King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA.
10. Lestelle, 1.C., McConnaha, W.E., Blair, G., Watson, 8.,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
L2. 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: LILO-7I25
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, lnc., and
Parametrix, lnc. 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 L4:247-261'
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 lmpact Statement. Seattle District.
19. WRIA g lTC,2OI2. WRIA 9 status and trends monitoring report: 2005-2010. Seattle WA.
Upper Green
t. Patterson et al. 2016 (DRAFT). Upper Green River Post-AWSP Habitat Monitoringi 2012/2Ot3
Report. Tacoma Public Utilities - Water Division, Tacoma, WA.
2. R2 Resource Consultants (R2). 2007. Upper Green River Baseline Habitat Monitoring: 2OOi|2OOG
Report. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA.
3. 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
t. Anderson, J. H. and P. C. Toppin g,2Ot7. Draft Juvenile Life History Strategies and freshwater
productivity of Green River Chinook Salmon. Prepared for the WRIA 9 lmplementation Technical
Committee, Seattle WA.
Z. Booth, D.8., J.B. Lando, E.A. Gilliam, T.E. Lisle, 2012. lnvestigation 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. 20t5. 2}tl RFM-O2A 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 L Nourishment Gravel Stability Green River,
Washington IOLI/ 20t2 monitoring resu lts
9. Topping, P. C. and J. H. Anderson,2Ol4. Green RiverJuvenile Salmonid Production Evaluation:
2013 Annual Report.
Lower Green
1. Gregersen, C.2Ot7. Draft 2014 Juvenile Salmonid Use of Aquatic Habitats in the Lower Green.
King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle WA.
Z. Lucchetti, G., K. Higgins, and J. Vanderhoof, 2Ot4. Asalmon-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 l2OO4 -2016l
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
L. 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,andM.Cooksey.zOIt.Functionsofrestoredwetlands
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. ln 2005 Juvenile
Chinook Duwomish 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 .2Ot6.lnfluences of Natural and
Anthropogenic Factors and Tidal Restoration on Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages in West
Coast North American Estuarine Wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts, 39: L49L
5. ICF lnternational, 2010. Duwamish River Navigation Maintenance Dredging FY 2010: Water
Quality Monitoring and Salmonid Report. Final Report; Seattle WA.
6. King County 2OL3. 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.2OL4. 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 7L:L62-I8O.
8. Morely, S., J. Toft, and K. Hanson. 2012. Ecological Effects of Shoreline Armoring on lntertidal
Habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. Springerlink.com.
9. Oxborrow, 8., J.R. Cordell, and J. Toft, 2016. Draft: Evaluation of Selected U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Habitat Restoration Projects, 2016. Schoolof 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 tshawytscho) 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.
1"2. 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, lnc. and R2
Consultants, lnc. Seattle, Washington
13. Ruggerone, G., T. Nelson, J. Hall, E. Jeanes, J. Cordell, J. Toft, M. Cooksey, and Ayesha Gray'
2006. 2OO5 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,2Ot6, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington.
17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ,20L3. Duwamish River Fish Sampling Effort January-February
2013.
Nearshore
L. 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.
Z. Duffy, E. J. and D. A. Beauchamp. 2011. Rapid growth in the early marine period improves the
marine survival of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschal 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 L75:7O6-TL7.
4. Dugan, J.E., Hubbard, D.M., Rodil, 1.F., Revell, D.L. & Schroeter, S. f2008/. Ecological effects of
coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Mar. Ecol, 29, L6O-I7O
5. Heerhartz, S.M., Dethier, M.N., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Ogston, A.5.,20L4. Effects of shoreline
armoring on beach wrack subsidies to the nearshore ecotone in an estuarine fjord. Estuary and.
Coasts 37, t256eI268. http://dx.doi.org/10 .tOO7/sL2237-073-9754-5 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
M a n a gem e n t, 34:874-827
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.
1l-. 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 29lLl:63-7t.
14. Sitck, K.C., A. Lindquist, and D. Lowry. 20L4. 2OI2 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 - 20161
15. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou.2OOT. Fish distribution, abundance,
and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries
M anagement 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 -t08.
L7. 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
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2020
Green River Temperature and Salmon
Technical Briefing for the lmplementation Technical Committee
By Josh Kubo
February 27,2017
WRIA 9 Technical Briefing Rationale
r Warm water temperatures influence salmonid survival in WRIA 9
o 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
r 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' to'72'16'2r'3s'37'42'71'7s'8e'e4'eel
o 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
^'';'^i;::i::i."r" ,r,.'r, air temperature appears to be the primary driver of water
temperature in the Green River(20'aa)
o 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
T
o Green River examples
I lncrease 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 t) t+a)
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 TM DL {20' 44)
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.0
60 40 30 20 10
USGSA/VDFW River Mile
Smaller than typical increases in maximum temperatures in the Green River gorge (-RM
48-53) are likely due to topographic shading (++)
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 (Figure2lt44t
Figure 2: Map showing the location of the historical confluence of the
White River with the Green River(4)
30
25
0.8 +
E
o_0.6 €
q)
o
o.+ 3
620o
E
=815
oo-
E
P10
5
0
050
2
-
Min-Max Temperature (July4, 2015)
-
Water depth (m)
Mlll Creek
Newaukum Creek
Outlet of
Howard Hanson
Dam
Legend
Digital Ground Modelftgh 4000n
1,"* nn
Hlstdi.al lvh[e Rtos confr uenre
A
0 15 3 6vies
274 a5
Historical location of the White River
a Groundwater, hyporheic, tributaries, and tides
o lnfiltration 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, lcy Creek) and
groundwater (zo'++)
r 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) (zoa+l
Figure 3: Plot of 7-DMax and 7-DMin water temperature on luly 4, 2015
for the Green River mainstem compared to the hyporheic exchange flow
estimated as part of the Green RiverTemperatureTMDL{20'441
-10
50 40 30 20
USGSMDFW River Mile
30
25
20
5
C)o
oLl
(E
oo.
EoF 0
5
40
E
=30f,
oo,c
ct20E(Jxul
o
10 .PLoo.
I
0
0
'10 0
-
Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015)
-
Hy'porheic Exchange Flow
Mill Creek
Outlet of
Howard Hanson
Dam
Soos Cre€k
Newaukum creek
3
ln the Middle Green, primary diffuse flow (flows from ungauged tributaries and
groundwater) occurs from RM 55 to RM 32 (Figure 4l Qo'44t
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
a nd groundwater) estimated as part of the Green River Tempst'3furs JIU pl {zo a)
5
0
USGSMDFW River Mile
r Large temperature ranges at downstream locations in the Duwamish River are likely due
to fluctuations from warmer upstream water temperatures and cooler estuarine
water(4)
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 exomples:
r Downstream increase in maximum watertemperatures below Howard Hanson Dam is
primarily due to the lack of riparian shade (aa)
30
25
20 .ao
=o15E
ooa
rts10 i5
p
E)
GLoo-
EoF
30
25
20
15
0
5
0
102030405060
a
4
-
Min-Max Temperature (July4, 2015)_ Diffuse TMDL model inflow
Creek
Mill Creek
Dam
Outlet of
Howard Hanson
I 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) (zo'c+)
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' e)
100
0
60 10
USGSAIVDFW River Mile
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 (e8l
Cold-water refugia for sa I mon id s (s2' 72' 86' etl
o Cold-water refugia are characterized as being at least 2"C colder than the daily maximum temperature
of adjacent waters
e Cold-water refuges provide areas that maintain temperature conditions beneficial for cold-water species
such as salmonids; these areas provide physiological and ecological benefits
o Permanent shifts in stream temperature regimes can render formerly suitable habitat unusable for
native species
o 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
30
25
20
5
0
5
oo
d)L:t
(g
oo-
EoF
80
s
=o
60pU
o!(!
Ea40 o)
octts
uJ
20
0
20304050 0
-
Min-Max Temperature (July 4, 2015)
-
Effective shade Deficit
Mill CreekOutlet of
Howard Hanson
Dam
Soos Creek\
Newaukum Creek
a
o
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 woter refugia in the Green River (below Howard Hansen Dom):
o Green River gorge (-RM 43-58) (topographic shading and groundwater inputs)
o Tributaries, confluences, and side-channels: Duwamish Tributary (RM 6.4), Palmer Springs (RM
56.3), Resort Springs (RM 5L.3), Black Diamond Springs (RM 49.5), lcy Creek (RM 48.3), Crisp
Creek (RM 39.6), Lones Levee Channel (RM 37.5), Coho Channel (RM 36.9) (Fieure 6) (44)
Figure 6: Plot of 7-DMax water temperature on July 4, 2015 at Green River
mainstem and selected tributary and side channel 16631i6n5(zo*)
30
25
20o
o)
a(!
o)o
Eq)
F
5
0
5
0
208060 40
USGSA/VDFW River Mile
0
a
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
Potentiol cold woter 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)
5
Howard
Hanson
Dam
Mainstem TDMax
Water Quality Standard
Potential Lethality Threshold
Tributary TDMax
Mill Creek (41a)
Duwamlsh (13a)
Crisp Cr6ok (40d)
Charleyck
Smayck
GaleCk
Cohochnl
NFGreen
Soos Creek (54a)
Newaukum Creek (44a)
LonesL€veechnl f
Table 1: Temperature Impacts on Chinook Life StagesCitationst,11,15,24,25,26,29,4t,51,55, 56,57,s8,79,78,80,84t2,t4,23,24,26,55,56,57,76,78,80t4,22,24,56,57,75,7474,23,3t,32,39,56,57,65,81,953,7,14,23,26, 46,54, 55,56,57,8L,87,96,99Potential Temperature-related lmpactse lncreased metabolic demando Delayed migrationo lncreased disease exposureo Direct lethalityo lncreased susceptibility to disease le.g., lchthyophthiriusmultifillis, Ceratomyxa shosta, columnaris disease)o lncreased disease virulencer Decreased immune system conditiono Reduced gamete quality and quantityo Reduced fertilization successo Reduced embryo survival to emergencer Reduced embryo success, hatching-emergence, condition, andsurvivalo lncreased abnormalities and mortalitye Altered metabolic rates, metabolic energy deficitso Reduced growth and feeding ratesr Reduced competitive advantage with warm-water specieso Reduced survivalo lncreased susceptibility to diseaseo Altered development and migration timingo Accelerated onset of smoltification and desmoltificationlmpaired and Detrimental Temperature Rangeo Migration = average >15"C, maximums >18-20"C,7-DMax >20"Co Complete blockage = 2L-22"Ce Disease susceptibility = average >L7.5"C,7-DMax >15-19"Co lnstant mortality = 32-33"CDisease susceptibility = average >13-14'C,maximums >17-18"CGamete development = average >13-16'Caao Gamete viability = ?v€r?B€ >13-16'Co Spawning = average >t2-I3"C, 7-DMax > I2-L4"Co Mortality = 7-DMax 2\-25"C,maximum )q-ZS"Calncubation = average >8-10'C, maximum >13-15"Co Growth = average >13-15"C, 7-DMax > 14-t7"C,maximum >t7-Lg"Cr Rearing = average >16"C, 7-DMax > L5-18"Cr Disease susceptibility = average >L4-77.5"Co Feeding = average >18-20"Cr Smoltification = average >15.5"C, 7-DMax > 15-16'Co Migration = average >L8-22"Co Mortality = average >23'CLife StageAdult UpstreamMigrationAdult Pre-spawningAdult SpawningEggJuvenile rearingand outmigration7
Department of Ecology Sub-lethal and Lethal Temperature Thresholds
o 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 Q3'24'56's7'761
o Washington Department of Ecology established water temperature standards for salmon habitat at various
stages of their life history in Chapter I73-20tA of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
o 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 15th to July 1't)
o Core Summer Salmonid Habitat = 16"C 7-DMax (June 15th to September 15th)
o Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, Migration = !7.5"C 7-DMax (September 16th to June 14th)
o 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 l-DMax (3"C downstream differences)
o Exceedances above the aforementioned thresholds indicate likely sub-lethal and lethal impacts to salmonid
o lf 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.
a
a
a
Precipitation and air temperature:
o 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)
o 2015 air temperature frequently exceeded the 90th percentile (1949-2015) on several occasions from
January through July 2015 by as much as 5 oC; most notable were substantial excursions above the 90th
percentile in June and July
lnstream 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
8
o lncrease 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
Narrowing of the temperature range below Soos Creek to Mill Creek is likely due to increased hyporheic
exchange (potential for large alluvial deposits)
o
a 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)
o 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)
r 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
r Green River Water Temperature Exceedances (Table 2l
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 (midJune to mid-September);
2015 had exceedance as early as late May
o Occasional exceedance of 7-DMax Potentially Lethal criterion
9
Table 2; Department of Ecology salmon and trout designated aquatic use designation, respective 7-DMax temperature criteria, and 2015temperature trends. Use designation and temperature criteria based on Table 200 and 602 of WAC L73-2OLA-6O2.2015 Temperature Trendsr 7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/troutrearing and migration criterion untilabout September 2,2OLSo 7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/trout22oC lethal criterion for several days at the end of June and earlyJuly and the most downstream stations exceeded lethal criterionin July and again at the beginning of Augusto 7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/troutcore summer habitat criteriono 7-DMax temperatures exceeded the salmon/trout spawning andincubation criterion through July 1't and again at the end of thesummero 7-DMax temperatures from RM 34.8-41.2 (below gorge)exceeded the salmon/trout22oC lethal criterion for several daysat the end ofJune and beginning ofJuly; no observedexceedances from RM 23.8-33.4r 7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the salmon/troutcore summer habitat criterionr 7-DMax temperatures exceeded the salmon/trout spawning andincubation criterion at the beginning and end of the summero 7-DMax temperatures exceed the salmon/trout 22oC lethalcriterion for a few days at RM 70.2r 7-DMax temperatures consistently exceeded the char spawningand rearing habitat criterion7-DMax ('C)17.517.517.5\7.5131316L61313161513131299Use DesignationSa I mon/trout migrationand rearingo Migrationo RearingSal mon/trout migration,spawning, and rearingo Migrationr Rearingo Spawningo lncubationSalmon/trout coresummer habitato Migrationo Rearingo Spawningo lncubationSalmon/trout coresummer habitato Migrationo Rearingo Spawningo lncubationCharo Rearingo Spawningo lncubationLocation Along Green RiverMouth to Black River (RM 0-11)Black River to Mill Creek (RM11-23.8)Mill Creek to Flaming GeyserState Park (RM 23.8-42.3)Flaming Geyser State Park toheadwaters.(RM 42.3-85.9)Green River and Sunday Creek:all waters above confluenceSmay Creek and West ForkSmay Creek: all waters10
. 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.
'-*"-2001-2014
-
2015
-
2016
75
20
I
tU
:'15
o
c,4
E910
o
!O
=5
o
Potcntially Lathalt
Sub-Lithalt
Feb Nov DecJulAugsepOctMarApr May JunJan
Adult Upstream Migration
Spawning
lncubationlncubation
Yearling Rearing
Parr RearingFry Rearing
LL
Table 3: Locations across the Green River of potential temperature-related impacts on Fall Chinook life stages.Location in Green Rivero Migration lnhibited: RM 0 - RM 46o Blockages: RM 0- RM 44e Disease: RM 0 - RM 48o Lethality: RM 0 -23.8,34.8-4L.2,7O.2r Migration lnhibited: RM 0 - RM 45o Blockages: RM 0- RM 44o Disease: RM 0 - RM 48e Lethality: RM 0 -23.8,34.8-4L2,7O.2o Mainstem spawning: Middle Green RM 25.4 -RM 60.8r Tributaries: Soos Creek, Newaukum Creeko Mainstem spawning: Middle Green RM 25.4 -RM 60.8o Tributaries: Soos Creek, Newaukum CreekPotential Temperature-related lmpactsr lncreased metabolic demando Delayed migratione lncreased disease exposureo Direct lethalitye lncreased susceptibility to disease (e.g.,lchthyophthirius multifillis, Cerqtomyxa shasta,columnaris disease)o lncreased disease virulenceo Decreased immune system conditionr Reduced gamete quality and quantityr Reduced fertilization successo Reduced embryo survivalto emergenceo Reduced embryo success, hatching-emergence,condition, and survivalo lncreased abnormalities and mortalityo Altered metabolic rates, metabolic energy deficitso Reduced growth and feeding rateso Reduced competitive advantage with warm-waterspecieso Reduced survivalo lncreased susceptibility to diseaseo Altered development and migration timingo Accelerated onset of smoltification anddesmoltificationLife StageAdult Upstream MigrationAdult Pre-spawningAdult SpawningEggJuvenile rearing andoutmigrationt2
Potential Climate Change Impacts and Trends to Water Temperature Conditions
o Climate Change impacts: higher air and water temperatures, lower summer flows, altered precipitation and
hydrologic regimes, and increased magnitude/frequency of winter peak flows @'22'37's2's3l
o 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 152'53'641
o At a summertime warming range of 2-5.5"C, there is potential for loss of 5 to 22% of salmon habitat by
2g9g (es)
o Significant increases in water temperatures and thermal stress for salmon statewide will occur with
climate warming (sz' sr)
o Nearly 40-50% reduction in salmon cold-water habitat could occur with climate warming (ts); Disrupting
migration as fish hold in cold-water refuges 127'47'eol
o Competitive interactions will be increasingly skewed towards species with warmer temperature
tolerances(17'se)
o Yearling likely sensitive due to increased exposure to the highest water temperature conditions in
summer(al
o 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 Q2'3o'4e'821
o Green River Waterslred: 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 lncreased flood magnitude and frequency during incubation can decrease survival rates by scouring
redds, crushing eggs, mobilizing gravels, and depositing fine sediments on redds lr8'7'36'6r'7el
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); snowffi€lt 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 (a7)
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
tem peratu re, desmoltification, or inhi bitory effects) (s6l
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
t"t":"';*J;:':r",,'
Dam has a targe, deep reservoir with hypotimnetic withdrawals releasing colder
water during the summer and warmer water during late summer, fall, and winter
13
Water withdrawals: reduced in-stream flows result in reduced assimilative capacity of streams, draw
hyporheic water away from the stream 133'60'66'721
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
stream bed hyporheic flowl @o' tz'stt
. Primarily Lower Green (King County maintains over 30 miles of levees and revetments on the
Green/Duwamish); lower sections of the Middle Green.
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 (3s' 55' 6' e8)
. 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.
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
red uced sum mer recha rge o0' 1-2' 67's3''
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(a
19, 22, t7, 48, 52, s3, 631
o
o
o
L4
Strategies for Cooler Water Temperatures
o Protect riparian forested areas as buffers to air and solar radiation warming water.
o 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.
o Purchase conservation easements or fee simple acquisition of riparian areas in order to protect and maintain
native trees along channels.
o Protect existing cold water refugia from urban development, tree removal, and bank armoring.
o Protect and restore areas known to contribute to groundwater recharge'
o Restore areas of hyporheic exchange to cool water by setting back levees and taking other actions to reconnect
channels to the historic floodplain.
o Work with the ACOE to consider options for pulling cooler water from the reservoir behind Howard Hanson
Dam, especially in late summer.
o Reduce water withdrawals from the watershed, and encourage use of reclaimed water instead.
r Encourage low impact development practices that reduce impervious surfaces, and lot sizes, maintain forested
areas and wildlife corridors, and promote stormwater infiltration and treatment.
o 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. i. Fish Biol 32:635-636.
Z. Arismendi, 1., S. 1., 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 : IO.LLLT/Fwb.12O94.
3. Baker, P.F., T.P. Speed, and F. K. Ligon. 1995. Estimating the influence of temperature on the survival of Chinook
salmon smolts lOncorhyncus tshowytscho) 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. lmaki, 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. 1., M. S. Powell, T. P. Quinn, and A. Talbot. 2004 Population structure of Columbia River basin
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Rev Fish Sci t2:99-232'
7. Brett, J.R. 1958. lmplications and assessments of environmental stress. pp 69-83 in P.A. Larkin (ed.)The
investigation of fish-power problems, Vancouver, lnstitute 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. EcolAppl, 7: 1188-1200.
g. 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 lntensity lndex. 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-O7. 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 e hinook Salmon
(Onchorhynchus tshawytschal 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. ln: Groot, C., Margolis, 1., 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 29:2213.
16. Constan tz, J. LggS.lnteraction between stream temperature, streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine
streams. Wat. Res. Research, 34: 1609-1615.
17. DeStaso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. lnfluence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado
River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Trans Am Fish Soc L23:289-297.
18. DeVries , P. E. LggT . Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and implications for scour
studies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1685-1698'
L9. Eaton, J. G., and R. M. Schelle r. L996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United
States. Limnol Oceanogr 4l:109-1115.
r.5
20. Ecology .zltl, Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Quality lmprovement Report.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 11-10-046.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/pu blications/Summa ryPages/1 110046.htm I
21. Ebersole, J. 1., 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: LLI-L24. DOI : 10. 1086167 8127 .
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 .2OTO.lmplications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of Washington State. Clim.
Change t02,225e26O.
23. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Biologicalevaluation 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 L939-L947. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Science Report 55. 63 pp.
26. Fryer,J.L., and K.S. Pilcher. 7974.Eff ects of Temperature on Disease of Salmonid Fishes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Ecological Research Series. EPA-66013-73-020. LL4pp'
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 t34:1562-L58L
29. Hallock, R. J., R. F. Elwell, and D. H. Fry. 1970. Migrations of adult kind salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscho 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. Ig7g. The effect of high temperature on the survival of Sacramento River chinook (king) salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshowytscha, eggs, and fry. California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries
Branch, Administrative Report No. 79-10. 7 p.
32. Heming, T.A. 1982. Effects Of Temperature On Utilization Of Yolk By Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
Tshowytscho) Eggs And Alevins. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 39:1:184-190.
33. Hibbs, B., and J. Sharp. 1992. lmpact 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 kisutchl. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 45:502-515.
3G. 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. lsaak, 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,
doi : 10. 1007/s10584-011 -O326-2.
t7
38. Johnson, S. L. 2003. Stream temperature: scaling of observations and issue for modeling. Hydrol Proc77:497-
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 10:207-2L5'
41. Keefer, M. 1., C. A. Peery, B. High. 2009. Behavioral thermoregulation and associated mortality trade-offs in
migrating adult steelh ead (Oncorhynchus mykissl: variability among sympatric populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
66:t734-L747.
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 : LO.LOI6 fi .ihyd ro1.2006. 12.003.
43. Kiffney, P. M., C. M. Greene, J. E. Hall, J. R. Davies. 2005. 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/fo6-1-38.
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. lnfluence of the date and body size at smoltification and subsequent growth rate and
photoperiod on desmoltification in underyearling masu salmon lOncorhynchus masoul. 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 rout abundance in six Colorado mountain streams. Rivers 6:240-250'
48. Leppi, J. C. , T. H. Deluca, S. W. Harrar, S. W. Runnin g.2OIt.lmpacts 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
globalwarming: a U.S. regional perspective. Clim Change 43(31:537-579.
50. Luce, C.H.,Z.A. Holden. 2009. Declining annualstreamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest United States'
Geophys Res Lett 36:1L6401. doi:10.1029 /20O9GL039407.
51. Major, R. 1., J. L. Mighell. 1967. lnfluence of Rocky Reach Dam and the temperature of the Okanogan River on
the upstream migration of sockeye salmon. Fish Bull 66(I\:L37-L47.
52. Mantua, N.J, l. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet.2OtO. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime
stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Clim
Ch a n ge, 102: t87 -223. DO I : tO.IOOT / sIO584-010-9845-2.
53. Mantua, N.J., l. Tohver, A. F. Hamlet. 2009. Chapter 6 in The Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessment:
Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate, Climate lmpacts 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 lOnchorhynchus tshowytschal:
lmplications for Management of California's Chinook Salmon Stocks. Stream Temperature Monitoring and
Assessment Workshop, 12-!4 January 1998. Sacramento, CA. Forest Science Project, Humboldt State University,
Arcata, CA.
55. Materna , E. 1OOL.lssue Paper 4: Temperature lnteraction. Prepared as part of U.S. EPA Region 10 Temperature
water Qua I ity criteria G u idance Development Project. EPA-g10-D-01-004.
18
56. McCullough, D., S. Spalding, D. Sturdevant, and M. Hicks. 2001. lssue 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-99-01O, 291 pp., Seattle, WA.
58. Mcdonald, J. S., M. G. G. Foreman, T. Farrell, l. 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 717 P.
59. McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, F. T. Barrows, J. H. Selong, R. J. Danehy.2OO7. 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. Wiiest, and P. Reichert. 2003. Modeling the effect of water diversion on the
temperature of mountain streams. J Environ Engt29:755-764'
61. Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, D. Schuett Hames, 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-IO7 O.
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 41:8L3-834.
63. Mote, p. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western
North America. BullAm MeteorolSoc 86:39-49'
64. Mote, P. W., and E. P. Salath6 Jr.2OLO. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Washington Climate Change
lmpacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's future in a changing climate. Climate Change.
doi : 10. 1007/s10584-0L0 -9848-2.
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:!t:2672-268t'
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 43:44O-452'
68. Olden, J. D., R. J. Naiman.2009. lncorporatingthermal regimes into environmental assessments: modifying dam
operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. Freshw Biol. doi:10. LlLtfi.L365-2427 '2009.02179'x
69. O'Neal, K.2OO2. Effects of global warming on trout and salmon in U.S. streams. Defenders of Wildlife,
Washington, D.C.46 PP.
70. poff , N. 1., 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
developi ng regional environ mental flow standa rds. Freshw Biol 55:L47 -L7 O.
7L. poole, G. C.2OO2. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum' Freshwater
Biol, 47 : 6 47-660. D O I : 10. 104 6 fi .L365 -2427 .2OO2.00922.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, 27:787-8O2'DOl:
10. 1007/s002670010188.
L9
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. lnland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 60-3. Region 2, lnland 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 macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 58: 824-840. DOI: 10.1139/cifas-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, 73:L,23-49. DOI: 10.108O/LO64I26O590885861.
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-
4LO.
78. Schreck, C. 8., 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. 2OO3.2OO2 Skagit River wild 01 chinook production evaluation annual
report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia
80. Servizi,J.A.andD.W.Martens. lggl.Effectof Temperature,Season,andFishSizeonAcuteLethalityof
Suspended Sediments to Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutchl. 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. L27 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 lsland: 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 salrnon. MS thesis, University of ldaho, Moscow, lD' 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-L9. DOI: tO.LITL/1752-
7688.72423.
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. Bjrirnsson, L. O. E. Ebbesson, and S. D. McCormick. 2008. Smoltification. ln: Finn, R.N.,
Kapoor, B.G. (Eds.), Fish Larval Physiology. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp' 639-681.
88. Stewart, L 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.,andT.N.Adams. l-ggl.Thephysicsof streamheating:2)Ananalysisof temperaturepatternsin
stream environments based on physical principles and field data. Weyerhaeuser Company Technical Report 044-
5oo2l8e/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 Appl23:775-785.
9L. Torgersen, C. E., J. L. Ebersole, and D. M. Keenan.2OL2. Primerfor identifying cold-water refuges to protect
and restore thermal diversity in riverine landscapes, US Environmental Protection Agency Report 910-C-12-001,
Seattle, Washington, 7 8 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
Te m pe rat u re Resea rch. Hyd rol ogi ca I Processes 22:902-9L8.
95. Webb, B. W, and Y. Zhang. 1997. Spatialand seasonalvariability 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-L4.
97. Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. E, Mclntosh, 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 Tech n ica I 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. Wagne r. 1973. Gill ATPase Activity Related to Parr-Smolt Transformation and Migration n
Steelhead Trout (So/m o gairdneril: lnfluence of Photoperiod and Temperature. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.
458:955-965.
27
Green-Duwamish and Centrat Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan'November 2020
WRIA 9 Climate Change lmpocts on Salmon
Technical hriejinA t'ar the update ta the VVRIA I Salman Hobitut Plon. Authorecl by Jessica
F-nqel, Kallin Hig{lirts untl Elissa As?rgoard with input hy the WRII\ I lrnplementatir:n 'fethniccti
Comrnittee. July 201/
lntroduction
ln 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 lmpact Group
(ClG), 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 2075 when a warm, wet
winter with extreme low snow pack levels, coupled with a dry, hot summer, created dire conditions for salmon
(DeGasperi 2OL7).The Muckleshoot lndian 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
L
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 Niffo 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.eov/research/divisions/felestuarine/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 (Cl (4.2- 5.9 degrees Fahrenheit), exacerbating surface water warming. Models used to inform
the Climate lmpact 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). ln 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 20L5, indicating that in this year precipitation shifted from snow to
rain (www.wcc.nrcs.usda.sov/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).
2
Stampede Pass (788) Washittgton SNOTEL Site - 385O ft
!i!!l
rlt l
f. (;
-1)
lil
: Snow water Equrvalent {rn)
: l'#iT*ii'i"i!?, o ; t'"r
I Precipitation Accumulstion(in)
I Average
PrecrpriatronAccunlulitron
{1981-?010') lin)
s'
.1q
.\)'
-a .\_ t !-a: ritl
...i-
'i+ it'.t: c1:
..].t .*" .t:ii'..i:'I
,tr$'
\l'
'-t o",t't lar
-,rt
"at
-ae
{r't
TirrtE
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.
3
Glimate Ghange lmpactson WRIA 9 Salmonidslncreased summer temperature maydecreffie qruMh 0r kllluvenile salmonwhcre temperatures ae already high andbl00Mlelay ml0rat0n. May dso decreasesJ:'awninU fecuildity (e.g. (,lhinuok).Decaeas€d summer low flow mayfi'ntritille t0 rncrease(l temperalure,dedease reaing habital ca[Ecity l0rjwenrle salmonrds, and dedease am6stu 0r availabilily 0f sl'avfiinu a eas.Year 2lncreded wints fl0ods nlay rncreasesrour 0l eggs, 0r rncft,ase morkllity 0lrearin U juveniles wher e fl00d reluuiaarB n0t avalai,le. di{'lace luventles t0les {jesrablc habitas.r':-tr,-:-7T1i-lENatural Resources and ParksYear 3L6s 0f spring snowm€lt nray decrcas 0r elmlnatespawning 0pp{rtJnrtesl0r st{jelhead, may alter s[rvivalul rglls 0r e[]ergent fry lor other salmonid speues.caLrsd early dewatenno 0t off channel and srde chilnelhabitats, and r educc c0nnectrvity t0 lhe lloudplain.. I ,itf,KlngCanntyDepartment ofAdapted from Beechie et al. (2012). Fish timing represents typical fish behaviorYear 1Jun. J!1.Chinook}GFYearlngXGtuF&r'^-+*F.+.Li*;PCohoChumSteelh6adPinkF#i!"4SmoltlncubateRiverRivso!t6LeEdFOo>ETEsoTEgc'TchGOs+s-EGOgioe.EdG6t+Figure 2. Salmonid life stages and impacts of climate change {adapted from Beechie et al., 2012.}
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;
scouring/smothering redds; stranding
redds and juveniles; loss of thermal
and flood refugia; less complex habitat
migration barriers due to extreme low
and/or high flows
Upper Green, tributaries and nearshore
drainages, especially where it is currently snow-
dominated in winter will have the greatest
impacts - Soos, Newaukum, Mill, Mullen creeks
(and other lower elevation tributaries)will be
impacted primarily by increased winter rain
intensities and lower flows as they are not
directly affected by mainstem flow management
or snow. lmpacts 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-
lethal effects above L7 C include
developmental abnormalities, altered
growth rates, non-fertilization of eggs;
altered food web; altered migration
timing; altered predator/PreY
relationship; reduced disease
resistance
Temperature will be a concern for the whole
watershed. However, the mainstem is generally
warmer than the tributaries and will likely to
remain so into the future.
Stormwater runoff lncreased peak flows and reduced
summer base flows causing channel
scour and incision, channel and habitat
degradation for fish as well as benthic
invertebrates, resulting in an altered
food web, and compounding other
hydrologic effects. lncreased erosion
could cause an increase in mobilized
fine sediments, which in addition to
degrading habitat for salmon by filling
in gravels and smothering redds, may
carry toxic contaminants. lncreased
water pollution may cause chemical
contamination of juvenile salmon and
their prey, food web alteration and
pre-spawn mortality.
Existing developed areas generally do not meet
today's stormwater control standards; runoff
generally is directed quickly via pipes to streams
and Puget Sound without treatment. Hydrologic
effects are primarily to tributary streams and
direct drainages to Puget Sound. lnfiltration
reduces pollutant concentrations and slows the
flows into streams, reducing potentially harmful
peak flows. Frequent, intense peak flows could
result from a combination of increased urban
density and more intense winter storms. Some
toxic pollutants may increase due to increased
storm runoff in combination with increases in
population, particularly those that are detected
year-round.
Sedimentation Lethal conditions, smothering of
interstitial spaces in redds and choking
of gills; interference with migration
cues; decreased resistance to disease;
altered /decreased habitat
Upper Green, Middle Green
Sea level rise Shifting habitat range; loss of estuarine
habitat; altered food web; could create
passive gains in habitat depending on
The Puget Sound nearshore and the Duwamish
River. Lower lying areas and armored shorelines
in the Central Puget Sound watershed nearshore
5
nearby infrastructure constraints,
elevation, and vegetation gradients
(West Point to Federal Way and Vashon-Maury
lsland) and Duwamish estuary are most at risk
to habitat shifts/loss
Ocean acidification and
increased temperature
Altered food webs; decreased food
availability; decreased ocean survival;
diminished dissolved oxygen affecting
metabolism; altered migration pattern
Puget Sound, Salish Sea, and Pacific Ocean
Hydrology
e lirnate {rnpacts *n ltlinter i,lyt{rclogy
Stream flows in winter will be affected in the following ways
e More winter precipitation will fall as rain and less as snow.
o Upper areas of the watershed will have less snowpack, which will change the runoff pattern dramatically.
lnstead 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.
o More intense rainstorms in winter will cause higher winter peak flows.
r Winter peak flows are expected to increas e by 28%-34% by the 2080s (Mauger et al. 2015).
o Average annual rainfall is projected to increase slightly (but the increase will be small relative to natural
variability) (Mauger et al. 2015).
-
Historical
AlB 2040s
AIB 2080s
Nearshore and
lowland
tributaries
Oct Dec Feb ,Apr Jun Aug
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)
th
a
EL
={tz
g
oga
ea
o
a
t!
G
u
oI
0t
aq
F
aIcl
aIgr v
AuqJunApr
Month
FebDecOct
6
Monthly Streamflow, Green RiveroO
6
ooov
a.I2E(-)OA=^c!l:5LLO N
ooO
oOOo
ooo
-@=
F F=
ct
oct Nov Dec Jan Jun Jul Aug Sep
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)..
(lliwrate.: irrlpacts e n l5urnmer *-{Vr"{rc{t:$iy
Summer stream flows are expected to change in the future as follows:
o Diminishing snowpack will lead to lower river flows earlier in the year and extending through summer.
o Decline in summer rain (22% less summer rain likely by 2050's (Mauger et al. 2015)).
o 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.
r 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'
aIrrlr:rl Inrq:act::
o The change in hydrologic patterns from climate change will likely have both episodic and catastrophic
impacts to the survival rate of salmonid populations'
r Hydrologic disruption will alter the timing and magnitude of high and low stream flows and the
corresponding temPeratures.
ffi Feb r Apr
7
Source. CMlP3
-
Historical*** Moderate Emissions (A1 B)
Moderate Emissions range (A1B)
"''* --. \
f =--
F rM nJ
Source: CMIP3
-
Historical
-
Moderate Emissions (A1B)
Moderate Emissions range (A1B)
Winter lmpacts on Salmon
r 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.
r ln tributaries, increased winter flows can bring increased sediment loads that smother redds, and reduce
a juvenile salmon's ability breath, reducing survival. ln 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.
r High winter flows will decrease slower water habitat available for juvenile fish in some areas. ln 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. ln such cases,
stranding of juveniles could occur.
o Lack of slower water habitat increases the risk of flushing juveniles rearing in the freshwater out to
estuary or ocean too soon.
o 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 lmpacts on Salmon
o Reduced water levels early and higher water temperatures could disrupt or modify juvenile chinook
migration, and salmon and steelhead adult migration and spawning.
e Less water will limit the amount of spawning habitat available'
o Declining snowpack will reduce duration and volume of spring snow melt.
r 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) (DeGasperi2OLT|.
o Earlier low flows can disconnect stream habitats and strand juvenile fish and prevent access to spawning
areas.
r The concentration of fish in a few areas due to low flows, can increase the spread of disease, food
competition and predation.
8
July 4,2015
TMDL 7Q10 Existing Shade
TMDL System Potential Shade
Water Quality Standard
Potential Lethality Threshold
July 24,2006
_l
Mill CreekOutlet of
Howard Hanson
Dam
Soos Creek\
Newaukum Creek
30
c)o
c)L
J
(U
Loo-
EoF
25
20
15
10
50 10 0
Figure 5. 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 4,2OL5, Temperatures are well above state temperature standards for the 7-day average daily
maximum, and reached lethal levels in all subwatersheds. From (DeGasperi 2017)'
{-oeai 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. lncreases 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. ln the Lower Green the floodplain has been largely disconnected, with only
about 2O% 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.
5
0
60 40 30 20
USGSMDFW River Mile
9
6o
E
EO
o
E
o
E
o
oe,
Et!oo
o
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
I Not forested
irl Forested
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 G15 {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.
TecLrnical Recomnnendations
o 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.
lncreasing infiltration can replenish groundwater and maintain stream flows during warm, dry weather.
r lnstall and/or retrofit stormwater management infrastructure to address the increased runoff volume
from current and future development and projected climate change.
o 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.
r ldentify 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
o Headwaters are critical to providing cool, plentiful water. Monitor land use closely to minimize impacts to
hydrology. ln particular, where headwater streams are disconnected from their floodplains, work on
reconnection to restore processes of water storage.
o 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.
o Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
o Consider placing more importance on increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve
hyporheic exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures'
o 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 20L61.
Temperature
Clinnate lmpacts
o 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 2OL6l,
r lncreased 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).
o Globally, fifteen of the last sixteen years have been the warmest years on record (NOAA 2016) (Mauger et
al. 2015)
o 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.
o During low flow periods, groundwater will likely have a greater influence on streams as a water source
and temperature regulator (King County, 20L6, unpublished raw data)'
LL
Stream Temperatures
^r1F < 12'C
^A.n- 12"C-16'C
^.r\* 16'C - 18'C
..r\- > 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 lmpacts
r 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
r Water temperatures above 23 degrees Celsius can kill salmonids within a few seconds to hours (Ecology,
2ooo).
o 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 at2t-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).
t2
a
a
a
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. lf
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).
LocaI Context
lncreased water temperatures are already a problem in many areas of the watershed, and are expected to
worsen.
ln extreme low-flow, hot summers, tributaries including Crisp Creek (RM 39.6), lcy 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
20t7l.
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 20771.
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 2OI7l.
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).
a
a
a
O
'Ieehnica I Recomrnendations
o ldentify, 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
L3
a
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
im pacts 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.
lnvestigate the relative contribution of runoff from paved surfaces on water temperatures, and where
appropriate,
lncrease 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 a\.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 (IOLLll 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
eldrnate lmpacts
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 DecadalOscillation (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 2OL6l. 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. ln cooler
1,4
o
o
a
o
o
a
o
o
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 I-4% increase in marine mortality for salmon from Puget Sound to California.
Weather patterns in 2OL4 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).
5alrnon lnrpaets
o 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.
o 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.
Loaai Context and Technieal Reeornnnendatiot'ls
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
Clirnate lrnpaets
o lncreases in predicted rainfall events will increase flow volumes from areas not retrofitted to new
stormwater standards accounting for climate change impacts. ln 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
PAH5, phthalates and pesticides (Hobbs et al. 2015). Some of these issues may be addressed by new
stormwater standards being implemented with new and redevelopment.
e 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'
5alnron lampacts
. 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 (Mclntyre 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 (Mclntyre 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).
[-ocal eontext
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 2OLal. 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. ln 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 Recommendatitins
o Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions (See King County
(20L4) for one possible approach).
r 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 lmplementation Plan (HDR Engineering 2015)).
o lncentivize public-private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on private properties
and road right-of-ways.
o lnfiltrate 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
elimate lmpacts
o Heavier rains will increase landslide potential across the basin, including marine bluffs.
r Heavier rains will also increase stream flows, which can increase erosion and move more sediment
downstream.
e lncreased sediment loads can affect sedimentation rates in estuary and delta areas.
o lncreased fine sediments may temporarily cause spawning gravels to fill in, smothering incubating eggs.
a
a
a
t6
a lncreased 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.
SaNrnon lmpacts
o 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.
r 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).
l-ocal 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 t have experienced shoreline armoring that has cut off significant amounts of beach feeding bluffs over the
last L00 years (WRIA 9 lmplementation Technical Committee 2OL2l. 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.
Technica I Recommendations
o Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load'
o Protect intact buffers to reduce sediment load and minimize erosion.
o 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
elimate irnpact:s
o 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.
r The State of the Knowledge report projects sea levelwill rise 0.6 meters by 2100 (The Nature Conservancy
and Climate lmpacts GrouP 20761.
r Beach habitats and infrastructure along Puget Sound shorelines are already being impacted by SLR.
Nearshore
o lncreases 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).
r 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)
o 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.
r 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.
o 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.
o 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
Forage fish
spawning habitat
Forage fish
spawning habitat
lost above MHHW
due to armor
Natural shoreline
current sea level
MHHW
Armored shoreline
current sea level
MHHW
spawning habitat
migrates with
beach translation
ot
Forage fish
spawning habitat
entirely lost due to
armor and sea level rise
Natural shoreline
future sea level
ot Future
Armored shoreline
future sea level
Future
Figure g. 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
r SLR may convert existing estuarine habitats into predominately salt water habitats and convert some
fresh water habitats (e.g. wetlands) into estuarine habitats.
o ln 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.
o Sea level rise may move salt wedge further upstream into areas that are currently freshwater.
o 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.
$almon irnpacts
o 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.
o lncreased 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.).
o Additional bulkheads will cut off the sediment supply needed by forage fish, a key salmonid prey.
19
a 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
Loeal eontext
lmpacts of SLR and coastal squeeze will be focused in the Duwamish estuary and along the Central Puget Sound
nearshore.
Technicai Recornmendations
o ldentify areas most at risk of losing estuarine habitat, such as mudflat and marsh, by mapping elevations
and monitoring the habitat over time.
o lnclude a diversity of elevations in estuary projects to allow for shifting boundaries of intertidal and
subtidal habitats into the future.
r 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, socialjustice, and
environmental equity benefits (Figure 9).
o Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change continues.
o Protect habitat outside current habitat boundaries that will become future estuarine habitat'
o lmprove regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas.
o Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder bluffs.
r 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.
r Work with partners to understand vulnerability of estuary infrastructure under SLR, including levee
maintenance and drainage needs, transportation corridors and wastewater facilities.
20
Figure 9. Map showing projected areas of inundation due to sea level rise in the Duwamish subwatershed, between the lst Ave S. and
South Park bridges (City of Seattle 2012).
Ocean Acidification - Climate lmpacts
o Ocean acidification is projected to increase t5O-2O0% by 2100 based on current COz emission scenarios
(The Nature Conservancy and the Climate lmpacts Group 2OL6l.
o Warmer air temperatures will likely cause sea surface temperatures to increase as well (Mauger et al.
2o1s).
r Together these factors can have a wide range of impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems.
27
Salrnon lmpacts
o Ocean acidification is expected to change food availability for salmon during the smolt and ocean life cycle
phases.
r 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)
'Ieehnical Recornmendati*ns
o 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,!72 out of 7,06I,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 L8.2o/o
increase from 2014 estimates as compared to a t2.7% national growth rate predicted in the same time frame
(Alberti and Russo 2OLG).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. lt 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 localjurisdiction 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 summe r of 2OI5 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 IO, 20, and 50 years.
Table 2. Summary of technical recommendations that could be taken for each climate impact
Climate impact Technical Recommendations
Hydrology o lmplement low impact development practices and green stormwater infrastructure in
urban areas.
o Work with water supply and dam operators to use reservoirs to ameliorate hydrologic
impacts, especially during low flow periods'
o Evaluate water rights in the basin, and support efforts to retain sufficient flows for fish.
o Support expanding outreach and incentive programs that reduce water usage.
o Consider increasing amount of a large wood in rivers in streams to improve hyporheic
exchange that could moderate maximum temperatures.
o Work with forestry managers and researchers to investigate longer stand rotations and
selective logging to improve basin hydrology.
o Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts.
o Protect habitat uphill of current floodplains and beaches so habitats can shift and adapt
r Monitor land use in headwater areas to minimize impacts to hydrology'
o Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters'
o 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 r ldentify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water.
o Protect and restore tributaries and other areas that are cooler than the Green River and
can provide salmon with cold water refugia.
r Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to tributaries,
connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia.
o Monitor land use changes, particularly tree removal and new development, to quantify
and mitigate impacts to temperature.
o 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.
e 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.
o lncrease the use of low impact development practices and GSl.
o Work with ACOE to determine whether colder water could be released from HHD.
Stormwater o Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those actions.
o lncentivize public-private partnerships to increase the rate of stormwater retrofits on
private properties and road right-of-ways.
o lnfiltrate road and parking lot runoff wherever possible, developing partnerships and
prioritizing areas of highest use.
Sedimentation o Restore riparian buffers more quickly to help reduce sediment load
. Protect intact riparian buffers.
r Study and understand sedimentation changes in mainstem areas'
Sea level rise o ldentify how habitat boundaries, such as nearshore and estuaries, are changing.
o Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored as climate change
continues.
o Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries.
o lmprove regulatory protection in all unarmored marine areas'
o Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at historic feeder
bluffs.
o 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.
o 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
acidification
and increased
temperature
a Protect and restore areas of carbon uptake, including forests, eelgrass and tidal marshes'
24
Table 3. Summary of strategies and actions and what climate impact they address
Strategies and Actions Climate lmpact
Encourage natural processes that may moderate expected shifts.Hydrology, Tem perature
Encourage natural processes and novel restoration practices such as beaver
reintroduction in appropriate areas to help moderate flows and temperature
Hydrology, Tem perature
Protect habitat at higher elevations than current habitat boundaries so
habitats can shift and adapt.
Hydrology, Seal level rise
Monitor land use in headwater areas closely to minimize impacts to
ro
Hydrology, Tem perature
Reconnect disconnected floodplains in mainstems and headwaters Hydrology, Tem perature
Remove and resize barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to
tributaries, connect side channels, and protect pools.
Hydrology, Tem perature
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 watershed.
Hyd rology, Tem perature
ldentify, protect and enhance processes and habitats that provide cool water
(e.g., replant riparian forests, remove levees).
Tem peratu re, Sed imentation
Protect and restore Green River tributaries that are cooler than the mainstem
river and can provide salmon with cold water refugia.
Temperature
Remove and fix barriers like culverts and floodgates to ensure access to
tributaries, connect oxbows, and protect pools to restore cold water refugia.
Hyd rology, Tem perature,
Sedimentation
lncrease the rate of implementation of riparian buffer restoration to help
stabilize in-stream temperatures and reduce sediment and toxin load'
Temperature, Sedimentation,
Stormwater Runoff
Study and prioritize areas that need stormwater retrofits and accelerate those
action
Stormwater Runoff
Protect marine and freshwater shorelines at risk of being armored due to
climate change.
Sea level rise
lmprove regulatory protection on in all unarmored marine areas.Sea level rise
Encourage bulkhead removal or retrofit where possible, but especially at
historic feeder bluffs
Sea level rise
Buy land that will be directly impacted by sea level rise, remove existing
infrastructure if necessary in order to allow marine and estuary shoreline
migration and bluff erosion.
Sea level rise
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 (21t2l Sea Level Rise Map, pp. The projections and scenarios are based on a 2072
National Research Council report ("Sea-Level rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington:
Past Present and Future"). Water levels account for the NationalTidal 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
(NAVD2O88). Finally, "breaklines" were not applied; therefore some objects such as piers may not be
accurately depicted., Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA'
Crozier, L. (2015) lmpacts of Climate Change on Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: A review of the
scientific literature published in2OI4, 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, l. 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, l. (2015) Miller-Walker Basin Stormwater Retrofit Planning Study, lmplementation
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. (20L5) Western Washington NPDES Phase l Stormwater
Permit: Final Data Characterization 2009-20L3, 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 (2}t4l Development of a Stormwater Retrofit Plan for Water Resources lnventory 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 lnterdecadalClimate
Oscillation with lmpacts on Salmon Production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78(6),
ro69-LO79.
26
Mauger, G.S., Casola, J.H., Morgan, H.A., Strauch, R.L., Jones, 8., Curry, B., lsaksen, 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,
U niversity of Washington, Seattle.
Mauger, G.S. 2016. Presentation to the WRIA 9 lmplementation Technical Committee on October 26,
2016. SeattelWA.
Mclntyre, J.K., Davis, J.W., Hinman, C., Macneale, K.H., Anulacion, 8.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 . Chemosphe re L32, 2L3-2I9.
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. (20L6) Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the
Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology, n/a-n/ a.
Peterson, W.T., Fisher, J.1., Morgan, C.A., Peterson, J.O., Burke, B.J. and Fresh, K. (201-5) Ocean
Ecosystem lndicators 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 1'3(L1,23-49.
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., Mclntyre, 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(21,398-407 '
The Nature Conservancy and Climate lmpacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate lmpacts and
lnnovation in Puget Sound. Conservation, P.S. (ed), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
The Nature Conservancy and the Climate lmpacts Group (2016) Adapting to Change: Climate lmpacts
and lnnovation in Puget Sound. J. Morse, J.1., L. Whitely Binder, G. Mauger, and A.K. Snover (edl, 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), L359-t37t.
Washington Department of Ecology (2OL2l 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, l. (2016) lncorporating Climate Change into the
Design of Water Crossing Structures, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA'
WRIA 9 lmplementation Technical Committee (20L21WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring Report:
2OO5-2OLL, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA'
28
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2020
CAPITAL PROJ ECT EVALUATION TEM PLATE
Nearshore Evaluation Criteria
Count only areas that
will be part of habitat
project--not entire parcel
Specify number of acresProject size Project area
Specify number of linear feet (in 100's;
ex200ft=Z)
Shoreline
length
Measure length of
existing shoreline,
whether armored, or
unarmored,
Assumes most
other benefits
are positively
correlated with
size
Feeder bluff located in the first third of
the drift cell (4 pts)
Feeder bluff elsewhere (2 pts)
Pocket estuary/ stream mouth (2 pts)
Priority in revegetation strategy (l pt)
ls the site in a high-value
location?
Adjacent to or inholding of existing
public land/easements (l pt)
Location
0-25o/o (0 pts)
>25-75o/o (3 pts)
>75o/o (2plsl
Drift cell
condition
What percentage of
the drift cell sediment
sources are currently
"intact"?
25
Length of bulkhead removal;
Linear feet (in 100's)
*lf soft shoreline armoring to replace it,
add "1" to input cell
Bulkhead removal (or
stream bank armor for
stream mouths)
Acres of potential fill removalFillremoval
lf project restores the hydrology and
extent of a pocket estuary (3 Pts)
Pocket estuaries
lf removing (3 pts)
lf upgraded to non-creosote and
light-transmitting (_ pts)
Overwater structures
lmmediate
habitat lift
(rearing and
forage fish/
intertidal)
Feeder bluff restoration Percent of sediment sources restored
of the drift cell by the project after
restoration is eventually completed
100 ft wide or greater buffer (3 pts)
Partial buffer improvement (- pts)
Riparian restoration
(partial includes view
corridors or relatively
skinny widths)
Expected
post-project
benefits
75
Long-term
habitat lift
(process-
restoration)
Criteria
Weight lndicator
Evaluation (sum to of potential
Criteria 1007o) benelits Details
Evaluation level I - ldenlify the best places ts do work
How to assign values
to input column
Evaluation Level 2 -ldentify the prciects that can generate the most lift
t2 Green-Duwamish and Centra! Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat PIan. November 2020PAGE
Duwamish Evaluation Criteria
Number of acresProject area Count only areas that will be part of
habitat project--not entire parcel
Linear feet (in 100's)Shoreline
length
Measure length of existing shoreline,
whether armored, or unarmored.
Creek scores = couflt only one bank.
River Mile 1.0-4.3 (l pt)
River Mile 4.3-5,5 (2 pts)
ls the site in a higher value location?
BANKTREATMENTS:
Estimate the change in the length of
enhancement (100's of feet)
River Mile 5.6-10 (4 pts)
Linear feet (in 100's)Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt)
Linear feet (in 100's)Wood for habitat (does not include
soft armoring) (*0.2 pt)
Linear feet (in 100's)Revegetation length
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 )
Revegetation width
REARING HABITAT CREATION:
Estimate the excavated area that will
be wetted during Jan-June (at least)
Number in acres
Number of linear feet
lmmediate
habitat lift
(mostly
substitution
and creation)
Location
Change in length of erodible
shoreline that can generate
sediment and wood
Willthe project allow increased
inflow to the site? Will it notch,
move, remove a flood-containment
levee or flap-gate, or lower the
ground surface (e.9., through fill
removal or other excavation) so that
it floods more readily?
lf yes, specify number
of acres of reconnected
floodplain or inundated
atea
Project size
Assumes
most benefits
are positively
correlated
with size
Expected
post-project
benefits
(optional)
25
75
Hydrologic lift/
connectivity
Evaluation Level2
Howto assign valueslnstructions
Criteria
Weight lndicator
Evaluation (sums to of potential
Criteria 1009o) benelits
Evaluation Levell
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan ' November 2020
PAGE
t3
Lower Green Evaluation Criteria
Specify number of acresProject area Count only areas that will be part
of habitat project--not entire parcel
Linear feet (in 100's)Measure length of existing
shoreline, whether armored, or
unarmored.
Shoreline
length
Within I km of a completed or
underway restoration site (l pt)
Associated with a stream mouth/
wetland (2 pts)
ln spawning areas (closeness to
rearing habitat need for fry) (t pt)
ls the site in a high value location?
Likelihood of chinook use
(range from 1.0 to 0.1)
Used as a creek modifien to
reduce scores of coho projects
BANK TREATMENTS: Estimate
the change in the length of
enhancement (100's of feet)
Linear feet (in 100's)Resloping/benching (*0.4 pt)
Linear feet (in 100's)Wood for habitat (this does NOT
include soft armoring) (*0.2 pt)
Linear feet (in 100's)Revegetation length
165 ft wide (0.5 p0
100-16s ft wide (0.4 pt)
50-100 ft wide (0.3 pt)
<50 ft wide (0.t p0
Revegetation width
Backwater acres
Side channel acres
Location
lmmediate
habitat lift
(mostly
substitution
and creation)
REABI NG HABITAT CREATION:
Estimate the excavated area that
will be wetted during JanJune (at
least)
lf yes, specify acres of
reconnected tributary
lf yes, specify acres of
reconnected floodplai n
Willthe project increase flooding
of the site? E.g, Will it notch, move,
remove a flood-containment levee
or flap-gate, or lower the ground
surface (e.9,, through fill removal or
other excavation) so that it floods
more readily?
Linear feet (in 100's)Change in length of erodible
shoreline that can generate
sediment and wood
Likelihood of chinook use
(range from 1.0 to 0.1 pt)
25
75
Hydrologic
lift/
connectivity
Used as a creek modifier, to re-
duce scores of coho projects
Project size
Assumes
most other
benefits are
positively
correlated
with size
Expected
post-
project
benefits
(optional)
How to assign valueslnstructions
Evaluation Level I
Evaluation Level2
Evaluation
Criteria
Criteria
Weight lndicator
(sums to of potential
100%) benelits
PAGE
l4 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2020
Middle Green Evaluation Criteria
Specify number of acresProject area Count only areas that will be
part of habitat project--not
entire parcel
Linear feet (in 100's)Measure length of existing
shoreline, whether armored,
or unarmored, (creek only
count one bank)
Shoreline
length
Associated with a stream mouth/
wetland (l pt)
Within the severe CMHZ (l pt)
Adjacent to an existing restoration
project (l pt)
Priority in the revegetation strategy
(l pt)
ls the site in a high value
location?
Likelihood of chinook use (range
from 1.0 to 0.1 pt)
Value guidance--all mainstem
areas, lower five miles of Soos or
Newaukum (l pt)
River floodplain portion of other
creek (0.5 pt)
Mostly headwater/coho areas
(0.1pt)
25
Location
Used as a creek modifier,
to reduce scores of coho
projects
Project size
assumes
most other
benefits are
positively
correlated
with size
Criteria
Weight
{sums
Evaluation to
Griteria lO0%)
Evaluation Levell
How to assign valueslnstructions
!ndicator
of potential
benefiis
(Continued on next page)
PAGE
15Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan . November 2O20
Middle Green Evaluation Criteria, continued
BANK TREATMENTS:
Estimate the change in the
length of enhancement (100's
of feet)
Linear feet (in 100's)Creek remeander (*l 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 Iength
165 ft wide (0.5 pt)
100-16 5ft wide (0.4 pt)
s0-100 ft wide (0.3 pt)
<50 ft wide (0.1 pt)
Revegetation width
Number of acresREARING HABITAT
CREANON Or CONNECTION:
Estimate the area that will
be wetted more frequently
during Jan-June (at least)
Linear feet (in 100's)
lmmediate
habitat
lift (edge
improvements,
new reanng
habitat)
Length of shoreline armoring
or levee that is being removed
or set back farther from the
river.
Number of acresArea of increased floodplain
connectivity or quality
Creek only
Number of acresMeasure total project area
within likely new boundary
protections; assume
ihat roads are generally
permanent boundaries (with
rare exceptions) - include FPP
areas as being within possible
boundary protections,
Long-term
habitat lift
(process-
restoration)
Likelihood of chinook use
(range from 1.0-0.1 pt)
Value guidance--all mainstem
areas,lower five miles of Soos or
Newaukum (l pt),
River floodplain portion of other
creek (0.5 pt)
Mostly headwater/coho areas (0.1 pt)
Used as a creek modifien
to reduce scores of coho
projects
75
Location
Expected
post-project
benefits
(optional)
Criteria
Weight
(sums
Evaluation toCriteria 100%)
Evaluation Level2
How to assign valueslnstructions
lndicator
of potential
benefits
PAGE
16 Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan ' November 2020
Appendix F:
Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
_�_ nw
JF-
1
i 7�• �� .,t _ .P r�.�I • � . r
Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon HeMat Plan •►November 2020
WRIA I Monitoring and
Adap tive Management Plan
October 2020
tf,
King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Water and Land Resources Division
Science and Technical Suppoft Section
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0704
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 704
Seattle, WA 98104
206-477-4800 TW RelaY: 711
www. ki ngcou nty. gov/Envi ron menta lScience
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 lmplementation 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
[fl rins County
Departrxent 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.
Gitation
King CounW.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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive Management Plan
Table of Gontents
1.0 Background and Purpose
2.0 Planning Process and Structure.
2.L How This Plan Was Developed
2.2 TypesofMonitoring..............
3.0 ImplementationMonitoring..................
3.1 Plan Implementation
3.2 Projectlmplementation........
4.0 Effectiveness Monitoring.............. .'.'....'.'.'.'..10
4.\ Project Monitoring .."'..'.'...'.'..10
4.L.7 Routine Monitoring.................. ....'.'.'....11
4.L.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
Figures
Three primary types of monitoring are used to evaluate management
strategies and adapt them as necessary,...............
WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork. .'.......'."..
Tables
L
2
2
4
6
6
7
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
5
7
Table 1.
Table 2.
Updated habitat plan targets for 2028.3
Routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations by project
type and subtype.... .....'.'...13
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection ii October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and AdaPtive ManagementPlan
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5.
Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by project type and
subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced
monitoring.................. ....'..--22
Summary information on what, how, and when cumulative habitat
conditions should be tracked '....'.......25
Viable Salmonid Population parameters, and who and how they are being
measured in WRIA 9 29
King County Science and Technical Support Section iii October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive Management Plqn
EXEGUTIVE 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 (lTC) 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 no! 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive Management PIan
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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive ManagementPlan
This page intentionally left blank.
King County Science andTechnicalSupportSection vi October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and AdaP tive Management Plan
{.O BAGKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Since the listing of Chinook salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
inL999,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). lVhen 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
Supplementto the Shared Stratery's Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, 2006). The WRIA 9 Implementation Technical
Committee (lTC) 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: 2005-20L0 (February 20L2).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 20L3 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:
o Serve as a framework for prioritizing monitoring actions and funding by the WRIA 9
WEF;
o Provide guidance for adaptively managing implementation of the Salmon Habitat
Plan;
r Promote collaboration among various entities collecting data in the basin; and
r Provide guidance for tracking net gains and losses in salmon habitat.
King County Science and Technical Support Section L October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitorinq and Adaptive Management Plan
2.O PLANNING PROGESS AND
STRUGTURE
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 20L3 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, anda shortened version in Table 1 below. The WRIA 9
ITC wrote a S-year Status and Trends Report in2072 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 lTC2012), and several white papers
written for the 2020 plan update (King County 20L7a,2077b,20L7c, 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 Adap tive Management Plan
Table 1. Updated Habitat Plan Targets for 2028.
Habitat
lndicator
Necessary
Future
Conditions
Gurrent Condition Recommended 1O-year
Target (by 2028)
Nearshore
Shoreline
Armor
65% of shoreline
in natural
condition
59 mi. of shoreline armored Remove 3,000 ft. (<1%
improvement): achieve a net
reduction
Marine
Riparian
Vegetation
65% characterized
by riparian tree
cover'
21.8 mL is dense trees;
14.8 mi. is patchy treesl
Revegetate 60 ac. and/or 3.25
mi. (-3.5% gain) of shoreline
Shoreline
Conservation
No condition
stated
9.5 mi. of adjacent upland
protected as natural lands
Protect 2 mi. of shoreline
Duwamish
Shallow Water
Habitat
173 ac. in the
transition zone
(RM 1-10)
5.8 ac. as of 2014 has been
restored
Create 40 ac. of shallow water
habitat between RM 1-10
Riparian
Forest
650/o ol each bank
of the river has >
165 ft. trees (586
ac. total)
69 ac. of 165 ft. buffer
contains trees.
Revegetate
170 ac. (-29% of 165 ft. buffer)
9.8 mi. of streambank
Lower Green
Off Channel
Habitat
2.8 mi. side
channels; 450 ac.
wetlands; 5039 ac
floodplains
Not assessed in a way to
accurately state.
Side Channels
A: High flow (above
bankfull) 550 ft.
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
Forest
75o/o of each bank
of the river to
>165 ft. wide (828
ac. total)
222 ac. of 165 ft. buffer has
trees.
Revegetate 250 acres/8.52 mi.
of high priority, unforested
shoreline
Large Woody
Debris
1705 pieces per
mi. (21 key
pieces)
2004:54 pieces/mi.
2014: 48.5 pieces/mi.
Achieve 425 pieces/mi
Bank Armor No new,
decreasing
amount
2014:42 mi. are KC
maintained facilities. The
other 14.5 mi. are a
combination of semi-
armored roads acting like
levees and natural banks
Set-back 1 mi. of levee
King County Science andTechnical SupportSection 3 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
Habitat
lndicator
Necessary
Future
Gonditions
Gurrent Condition Recommended 10-year
Target (by 2028)
Middle Green
Floodplain
Connectivity /
Lateral
Ghannel
Migration
Floodplain subject
to lateralchannel
migration
represents 65% of
historical
conditions
2017:1751 ac. or 55% of
historic floodplain
connected; 45 ac. restored
(including riparian) from
2005-2014
Reconnect 200 ac of floodplain
as measured by area subject to
lateral channel migration
Riparian
Forest
> 65% of Channel
Migration Zone
and up to 165 ft.
wide where
possible
2009: 50.5% of the Channel
Migration Zone forested
Revegetate 175 acres (8% of
cMzl
Large Wood
Debris
10 jams/mi 2015: 3.8 jams/ mi.Achieve 5 jams/mi
Bank Armor No new,
decreasing
amount
2004=25o/o
2OO9=24o/o
Set back 1 mi. of
revetmenVlevee
Middle Green Tributaries
Soos Greek
Riparian
Forest
65% revegetated
to 165 ft.
2015: 150ft. riparian buffer is
4200 ac.,1626 ac. is
forested
Revegetate 700 ac. or 11.7 mi
streambank
Newaukum
Greek Riparian
Forest
65% revegetated
to 165 ft.
2015: the 150 ft. riparian
area is 4088 acres, 960
acres of which is forested
Revegetate 900 ac. or 14.0 mi
streambank
Upper Green
Fish Passage Fish passage
provided at
Howard Hanson
Upstream passage facility
complete. Downstream
passaqe not complete
Provide downstream passage
at HHD
Bank Armor No new,
decreasing
2009=15% armored Remove/set back 0.5 miles
2.2 Types of Monitoring
Monitoring for this plan was broken into three types. Terminolo W 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PIan
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
identiff what is being done, gaps, and propose activities or guidelines.
Effectiveness Monitori ng
Comprehensive
Monitoring Plan
lmplementation Monitoring Validation Monitoring
. Funding
. Projects
. Programs
. Project
o Routine
. Physical
. Biological
. Enhanced
r 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
stratery 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
3.O IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
3.'l Plan lmplementation
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 L. 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 PIan 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 ofprogress. 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
Wasthe target
achleved?
ooer tha metrlc
need to be revliited to
evaluate 2030
target?
Assesrment
lnforrnation change the
understandlng of curtent context?
Does Stnt€gic
. water quality
' fish ure/habltat
, cllmate change
Protect
restored
habltit
towsrds 2030
lmplem€nt
target
Nofurthet I
changes to
re(ommendatlons
FACTORS LIMITING
IIIIPTEMENTATION
HA8llAll0S5l5
0frsttGilil5
tulDlll6
[{tutftcIt{r
t A(K0f 0PPoftruNlIl[s
0n$,ltliltGl{lst
Dtsurfl(l[ilr
nlt0unfts0R clPA(lTY
It{f0Rttail0l,l
GAP5
ADAPTIVE
MANA6EMENT
RECOMMEI{DATIONS
regulations
enforcement
incentives
tn(leaSe
funding
edu(ation/outrea(h
incentives
a(quisition
permitting
staffino
fundin! strategy
new metri(
fundinq for monitorinq
Monitoiinq Plan adiusiment
Figure 2. WRIA 9 Adapative Management Decision Framwork.
3.2 Project lmplementation
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 proiect 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive Management Plan
Adaptive Management Process for Proiect 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 modiffing 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.
Proiect 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-lTC respond as necessary.
King County Science and Technical Support Section I October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PIan
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 CountyScienceandTechnicalSupportSection 9 October 2020
WRIA9 Monitoring and Adap tive Mana,qement Plan
4.O EFFEGTIVENESS MONITORING,I
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 monitoring plans when
they reach the 300 design phase. This would allow for pre-project monitoring to begin
prior to implementing the projec! if appropriate. Additionally, the ITC recommends when
possible using a Before-After Control-lmpact (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 satis$z permit conditions as well as provide basic information about
whether the project continues to function as intended. Routine monitoring includes very
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 70 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitorin.q and Adap tive 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 650/o 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 RoutineMonitoring
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 (fanuary through fune) 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 proiect
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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive 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 clari$r 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 Counfi Science and Technical Support Section 12 October 2020
Table 2. Routine physical and biological monitoring recommendations by proiect type and subtype.WNA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PIanBiological monitoring questionsand I ndicator/m etric (Pri marybolded, Secondary regular font)1) How much aerialcoveragewas created by end ofyear 5?>50% aerial cover of nativesoecies after vear 52) What is the area of non-native, invasive plant coverageafter 5 years compared to yearo?<20% nonnative veqetation at endof vear 3: <10% nonnativeveqetative cover after vear 5lf on a creek (not on Green River),has the project affected instreamtemperature during summermonths?Com p are te m pe ratu re u pstre am,within. and downstream of proiectarea in vears 0. 3. 5. 10.lf conifer underplanting, what is theaerial cover after 5 years? >50%ioincrease in aerial canopv cover ofconifers after vear 10.Physical monitoring questions and I ndicator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)N/AProjectObjectiveEstablishvegetation (toprovide multiplebenefits i.e.shade, leaf litterinput, food, bankstability)ProjectSubtypeRevegetation ofriparian area,includingconifer under-plantingProject TypePlantingKing County Science and Technical Support Section13October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PlanBiological monitoring questionsand I nd i cator/metric (Pri marybolded, Secondary regular font)What is the area of non-native,invasive plant coverage after 5years compared to year 0?<107o nonnative veqetative coverafter vear 3b) Did fish use respond to LWDpresence?lf evaluatinq for onlv 1 vear: Hiqherrelative abundance of taroetspecies in LWD/treatment habitatthan in controlhabitatrepresentative of pre-proiectconditionslf usinq BACI: lncreased differencebetween abundance of tarqetspecies in LWD/treatment versuscontrol habitat after proiect thanbetween pre-proiectLWD/tre atme nt locatio n ve rsu scontrol habitat before proiect.Physical mon itori n g q uestions and I ndi cator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)N/Aa) Has bank been protected fromerosion/channel migration?%o adverse erodinq bank vear 0 versus vear 3/afterhiqh flowsb) Have habitat conditions improved withinproject reach?Stream-chanqe in mean residual pool depthbetween vear 0 and vear 3?River- Compare amount (ft2l- of edoe habitatavailable before and in vears 7. 3- and 5- Comnarevia GPS and velocitv meter. mappinq edqe habitatas 1.5 fUsec or less. usinq a modified Beechie et al2005 for habitat tvpes-bank edqe funarmored. bio-revetment. armored. bar edqe. side channel ed,qe.and backwaterb) ls the wood structure providing cover?lo of wood structure in contact with flow of 1200 cfsin vears 0 versus vear 3.ProjectObjectiveTo control non-native, invasiveplant speciesand allow fornative plants tonaturally recruitor grow in theirplace. (Thisassumes noreplanting isdone at thesame time andthat eradicationis not possible)a) Bankprotectionb) HabitaVpoolcreation,(stream vs.river)c) Recruit LWDto jamsd) Floodplaininteraction-forcing channelto migrate, split,aggrade, etc.ProjectSubtypelnvasive controlLWDinstallationProject TypelnstreamhabitatenhancementKing County Science and Technical Support Section14October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PlanBiological monitoring questionsand I n d i cator/metri c (Primarybolded, Secondary regular font)Has redd spatial distributionchanged with supplementation?Compare redd distribution by rivermile, in years 0, 3, 5 and 10.NOTE: redd presence is notrecommendedas a metricbecause it is not a guarantee ofredd success, and documentingredd success rb risky fo eggsand fry.NOTE: purposefully avoidedusing biological presence as ametric as absence of fish doesnot prove lack of access.Physical mon itori n g questions and I nd icator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)c) Has the number and/or size of jams increasedover time?Compare # LWD pieces in iams and ft2 in vears 0. 5.and 10d) ls channel more dynamic?Compare amount (ft2l, of edqe habitat availablebefore and in vears 1. 3. and 5. Compare via GPSand velocitv meter. mappins edqe habitat as 1.5fUsec or less, usinq a modified Beechie et a|2005for habitat tvpes-bank edqe funarmored. bio-revetment, armored. bar edqe. side channel edqe,and backwaterHas gravel remained in or moved to the placesintended for the time expected?1l Comnare substrate size distribution (lonoitudinaltrends in dl6, d50 and dB4) between vears -1, 0. 3.Els placed gravel as stable as reference reach?Compare scour depth of placed oravel withreference reach of naturallv recruited qravels underthe same flow conditions.Has gravel remained useable for spawning overtime or has it become embedded with fines ormoved into other reaches?1) %oembeddedness of spawninq oravel vears 0. 3.5. 10Do target species and/or life history phase haveaccess to new habitat?WDFW Fish passaoe and desiqn criteria are metvears 0, 3, and 5ProjectObjectiveEnhance/increasespawninghabitat or qualitywheremodificationshave limitednaturalgravelrecruitment.Provide fishaccess tohabitat that theycurrently do notProjectSubtypeSpawningGravelSupplementa-tionFish passageProject TypelnstreamhabitatenhancementFish passageKing County Science and Technical Support Section15October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PlanBiological monitoring questionsand I n di cator/metric (Primarybolded, Secondary regular font)1) How much aerialcoverage ofvegetation was created by endof year 3 and 5 (minus mudflatareas)?> 50%o aerial cover bv end of vear3. >80o/o aerial cover bv end ofvear 52) Are juvenile Chinook using thehabitat type?Number and condition factor ofiuvenile fish compared to areference site durino the sameseason. or to the proiect sitebefore the proiect was built1) Are juvenile Chinookpreferentially using the habitattype?lf evaluatin,q for onlv 1 vear: Hiqherrelative abundance of tarqetspecies in treatment habitats thanin control habitats representative ofpre-proiect conditionslf usinq BACI: lncrease indifference between abundance oftar,qet species in treatment versuscontrol habitat after proiect thanbetwe e n p re- p roi e ct treatm entlocation versus control habitatbefore proiect.Physical monitoring questions and I ndicator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)1) Has the amount of intertidal habitat remainedstable?Compare representative elevation profiles from as-built to vears 3 and 5. Quantifu ft2 of intertidal habitatartailahla in D Il aradaliana frnm n la4t itt I tif+2) Has substrate type remained as intended?Compare as-built (vear 0l to vear 3. and 5conditions1) ls there access to the habitat when the targetlife stage is nearby?Use elevation of inleUoutlet compared to waterlevels in late winter/earlv sprinq, when iuvenileChinook need it or use time lapse cameras todescribe number of "inundation" davs, duration,frequencv, and timinq of connectivitv2) Has there been deposition or erosion ofhabitat? Has substrate type remained asintended?Compare as-built (vear 0) to vear 3 conditionsProjectObjectiveby removingartificial barriersCreate orimprove highquality rearinghabitat in salineor partiallysaline habitats.Create highquality, butmostly static,rearing habitatby reconfiguringthe streamchannel to bemorehydraulicallycomplex.ProjectSubtypePocketestuariesANDDuwamishTransition zonevegetatedmarsh andmudflat (marsh= +5.5ls +12mean lower lowwater (MLLW),mudflat (-4 to+12 MLLW)habitat creationBackwaterhabitat creationANDGreen Riverside channelcreationProject TypeShallowwater/EdgeHabitatShallowwater/EdgeHabitatKing County Science and Technical Suppoft Section16October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PlanBiological monitoring questionsand I nd i cator/metric (Primarybolded, Secondary regular font)1) Are juvenile Chinookpreferentially using the habitattype?lf evaluatinq for onlv 1 vear: Hiqherrelative abundance of targetspecies in treatment habitats thanin control habitats representative ofpre-proiect conditionslf usinq BACI: lncrease indifference between abundance oftarqet species in treatment versuscontrol habitat after proiect thanbetwe e n p re- p roi ect tre atm e ntlocation versus control habitatbefore proiect.1) Are juvenile Chinookpreferentially using the treatedarea?lf evaluatinq for onlv 1 vear: Hiqherrelative abundance of tarqetspecies in treatment habitats thanin control habitats representative ofpre-proiect cond itionslf usinq BACI: lncrease indifference between abundance oftarqet species in treatment versuscontrol habitat after proiect thanbetwe e n pre-p roi ect tre atme ntlocation versus control habitatbefore proiect.Physical mon itori n g q uestions and I n di cato r/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)1) Has habitat quality and quantity increasedpost project and been maintained over time?Between vears 0. 3. and 5. chanqes in: meanresidual pooldepth. increased diversitv in habitattvpes b.q. pools. riffled. increased wetted area at aset flow. and increased sinuositv.2) Has the project affected instream temperature?Compare temperature upstream. within. anddownstream of proiect area in vears 0, 3, 5. 10.1) Has the length of unarmored bank increased?Compare lenqth of unarmored bank between vearsn 3 \and7O2) How much slow water habitat is available at1200 cfs? (This flow level was chosen fromAnderson and Topping 2018)Compare amount( ft2l. of edqe habitat availablebefore and in vears 1. 3. and 5. Compare via GPSand velocitv meter. mappinq edqe habitat as 1.5fUsec or less. usinq a modified Beechie et al 2005for habitat tvpes-bank edqe funarmored. bio-revetment. armored. bar ed,ae. side channel edqe.and backwater3) How much slow water habitat is available at the50th. and 75th percentile flow durinq the rearinqProjectObjectiveReconfigure orrestore thestream channelto be morehydraulicallycomplex andhave a morenatural channelconfigurationAllow the river tomigrate or gainaccess to asoecific area offloodplain andcreate highquality edge/offchannel habitat.ProjectSubtypeCreek channelrestoration orrelocationLevee orrevetmentSetback orremovalProject TypeShallowwater/EdgeHabitatShallowwater/EdgeHabitatKing County Science and Technical Support Section17October 2020
Biological monitoring questionsand I nd i cator/metric (Primarybolded, Secondary regular font)Physical mon itori n g q uestions and I ndicator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)period (adds higher rearing flows than #2 if sponsoris able to undertake)Compare amount( ft21 of edqe habitat availablebefore and in vears 1. 3. and 5. Compare via GPSand velocitv meter. mappinq edqe habitat as 1.5fUsec or less. usinq a modified Beechie et al 2005for habitat tvpes-bank edqe funarmored. bio-revetment. armored. bar edqe. side channel edqe.and backwater4) Has the rate of channel migration increased?Quantifu miaration rates before and after proiectusinq either aerial photos or GPS in field to measurebank locations and rate of mi,qration.5) Has the number and/or size of jams increasedover time?Compare # LWD pieces in iams and ft2 vear 0 tovears 3. 5 and 106) How much high flow refuge habitat is available at8800 cfs*Compare amount of habitat available before andafter proiect via topographic survevsHas sediment delivery increased?%o of treated shoreline with erodinq banks in vear 3.5. 10Has the amount of forage fish spawninggravel/habitat increased?Compare area/amount of habitat in the sameseason for vears 0. 3. 5 and 10ls sediment transport movino material downdrift?ProjectObjectiveRestoresedimentdelivery tobeach anddowndrifthabitats.ProjectSubtypeArmor removal-marine, atfeeder bluffProject TypeShallowwater/EdgeHabitatWRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PIanKing Counly Science and Technical Support Section18October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan*The inundated area at 8,800 cfs is an indicator of flood refuge habitat. lt corresponds with the approximate flow level that is effective at causingmeasurable channel changes in the period after Howard Hanson Dam was installed (Konrad et al. 201 1). The use of this metric assumes thatinundated area at 8,800 cfs is positively related to the quantity of slow-velocity (<45 cm sec-1) flood refuge habitat. lf so, maximizing area at 8,800cfs could potentially give juvenile Chinook more opportunities to avoid displacement and injury during floods, and survive at a higher rate.Biological monitoring questionsand I n d icator/m etric (Primarybolded, Secondary regular font)Did the benthic communityrecovery from burial?H as the be nthic/epibe nthiccommunitv shifted to a referencecondition between vear 0. 3. 5 and10?Physical monitoring questions and I nd i cator/metric(Primary bolded, Secondary regular font)Beach profiles for site and downdrift year 0 and vear3. and 5.Have basic beach habitat conditions improved?1) Compare amount of detritus (beach wrack. driftloqs. etc.) between vear 0 to vear 3.Has the amount of forage fish spawninggravel/habitat increased?Compare area/amount of habitat in the sameseason for vears 0. 3. 5 and 102) Has beach sediment remained stable?Beach cross section profiles at same time of vear forvear 0. 3. 5 and 10.1) ls the treated beach eroding?Annual beach cross section profiles at same timeeach vear for 3 vears2) Have basic beach habitat conditions improved?Compare amount of detritus (beach wrack. drift loqs.etc.) between vear 0 to vear 3.ProjectObjectiveEnhance habitatquality along theshorelinemarginsEnhance habitatquality along theshoreline marginwhile stillrestricting theability of theshoreline toerode.ProjectSubtypeArmor removalmarine, non-feeder bluffSoft shorelinearmoringProject TypeShallowwater/EdgeHabitatShallowwater/EdgeHabitatKing County Science and Technical Support Section19October 2020
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.
Proi ect sponsor action:
o Monitor projec! report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5 for static projects, and
years 5 and 10 for process-based projects.
ITC action:
o 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.
o Evaluate options and recommend action as needed to project sponsor and/or the
Forum (e.g., maintenance, modifli the existing design, or initiating a new project to
achieve the objective, and funding if needed).
o Summarize recommendations for making future projects of this type more effective
and sustainable/successful.
o 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.
o 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 andf or funding'
4.1.2 Proiect Monitoring-Enhanced
Enhanced monitoring is focused on understanding how fish are using a restoration proiect
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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Mqnagement 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
l. 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 veriSr 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
veriSr 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 L0 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitorinq and Adaptive Mqnagement 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 fromT to L7, 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 2L 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
fromT to 9 points.
Table 3.Enhanced project effectiveness monitoring priorities by proiect type and
subwatershed. Higher scores are a higher priority for enhanced monitoring.
Adaptive Management for Enhanced Proiect Effectiveness
Projects should be evaluated with a combination of BACI or referencefcontrol 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.
Subwatershed
Restoration project subtype (does Iq! include acquisition.
stewardshio, fish passage, and education projects)
certainty of
Benefit to
Chinook (1=
High to 5=low
certaintvl
Process
Based?
(1=process
to5=
Creation)
Relevance to future
projects (number
likely to do in the
next 10 yrs) 1-few to
5-many
Relevance to
tuture projects
ilikely cost over
next 10 years)
Low=1. hish=5 Iier
Duwamish *Shallow water habitat creation 3 5 4 5 L7
1
Middle Green rSoawnine Gravel Suoolementation 3 4 4 4 15
Lower Green *Backwater (nonflow thru off-channel habitat) creation 3 5 2 4 L4
Lower Green Soawnins sravel suoolementation 4 4 1 4 13
Marine Pocket Estuarv Enhancement 5 3 2 3 13
Lower Green *Side channel (flow thru off-channel habitat) creation 3 5 7 4 13
Middle Green LWD installation 3 4 3 3 13
Marine Soft-shoreline armoring 2 4 3 2 LT
2
Middle Green tSetback of levee or revetment 2 2 2 4 10
Duwamish Revesetation 2 L 4 3 10
Middle Green Revesetation 2 L 4 3 10
Tributaries 'Revesetation 2 L 4 3 10
Tributaries rLWD installation 3 3 2 2 10
Lower Green *Setback or removal of levee or revetment 2 3 L 3 9
3
Lower Green *Revegetation 2 1 3 3 9
Marine Marine shoreline armoring removaFother shoreform 4 1 1 2 8
Marine Revegetation of riparian area 2 1 3 2 8
Middle Green Removal of shoreline armoring 2 T 2 3 8
Tributaries *Creek channel creation or relocation 3 2 1 2 8
Marine Marine shoreline a rmoring removal-feeder bluffs 3 7 L 2 7
Uooer Basin
Enhanced level of monitoring is not suggested until fish
oassage is provided N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
* denotes a oroiect subwpe that could be monitored through the ACOE Ecoystem Restoration Program
King County Science and Technical Support Section 22 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Mana.qement Plan
Proiect sponsor or evaluator action:
o Monitor fish use and report on progress to ITC in years 3 and 5'
ITC action:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
o Summarize recommendations for future projects of this project subtype to ensure
we learn from additional examples of the project subtype.
o 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:
o Consider ITC recommendations for enhanced monitoring for specific projects, or
recommended actions for maintenance, redesign, or new projects. Consider
approving actions andf or funding.
4.2 Gumulative Habitat Gonditions
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 2005-2071 (lTC 20L2), 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 in2012, 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 andTechnicalSupportSection 23 October 2020
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 in2072 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. Havingthe 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 October 2020
ITC or Consultant;WRIAITC or consultant:WRIAITC, ACOE, TPU,consultant: WRIA(Lower Green andDuwamish), ACOE(Middle Green), andTPU (Upper Green)ITC or consultant;WRIAITC: WRIAWho collects datawho pays for datacollectionCounty or regionallyconsortium for photosWRIA would pay foranalysis.Available USGS dataNot WRIAEvaluate area of shallow water habitat created for netgain and linear feet of shoreline bank restored.Combine project reporting data with aerial photoanalysis of losses and potential natural gains similar toanalysis for nearshore fill.Habitat data needs to be collected in the field. Metricsinclude pieces of large wood and number of woodjams per mile, pools per mile, pool % by length, avgresidual pool depth, dominant pool forming faclor, o/opools formed by wood.Aerial photo and LiDAR comparison. Baseline data for2005 and 2015 completed. Map/define shoreline edgeand compare and contrast to baseline to identify filledor restored areas waterward of OWHMPrimary analysis relies on shoreline armor data todetermine impact of changes in shoreline armoring onsediment processesMethodPhoto interpretation of Middle Green CMZ, the banksof the Lower Green, Soos and Newaukum Creeks,and 200ft landward along the Nearshore (usenearshore field surveys supplement with aerial photos)Evaluation of # of days per water year that dailyaverage flow exceeds 8829cfsBoat based surveys of banksyesnoyesyesyesyesEvaluatedin2012?yesProtect, Restore andEnhance EstuarineHabitatlntegrate AgriculturalProtection and SalmonRecovery lnitiatives&Protect, Restore, andEnhance ChannelComplexity and EdgeHabitatProtect, Restore, andEnhance ChannelComplexi$ and EdgeHabitat&Protect, Restore andEnhance FloodplainConnectivityProtect, Restore &Enhance MarineShorelinesProtect, Restore &Enhance MarineShorelinesRecovery StrategyProtect, Restore, andEnhance RiparianCorridorsProtect, Restore &Enhance ln-stream Flows& Cold WaterFeeder bluff condition bydrift cellShallow water habitatamounVcondition in theDuwamish.River aquatic habitatcondition/complexity(wood and pools)Habitat forming highflowsRiverbank and marineshoreline armoringMarine intertidalfillHabitat MetricRiver, marine, and largestream riparianvegetation conditionTable 4. Summary information on what, how, and when cumulative habitat conditions should be tracked.HovrEverof ardoneavaiEverAnal-EvMarischeLow,MidccomEverUpdror 2l-Evr6beLastdoneshorNokamoBasrcolleBasrGreeBasrcolleBenthic lnvertebrateProtect, Restore, &yesGeneralwatershed health will be evaluated byKing County andCon
King County restartedcollecting data in 2013for two sites belowreservoir. Tacomacollects data above thereservoir.Who collects data:who pays for datacollectionNOAA collects landcover data. WDOE hasmodeled impervioussurface based onCCAP data.NoneMethodUse Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) landcover data to evaluate forested conditions. Use CCAPdata modified for impervious surface conditions.This requires minimaltracking and no analysis. Oncefish passage is provided there will be manyopportunities to leverage required monitoring by TPUand ACOEUse continuous temperature data collected atmainstem sites located at the Koss and Upper GreenRiver sites above the reservoir and two sites below thereservoir. Compare number of days the Green violatedState standardsnonoEvaluatedin2012?yesProtect, Restore, &Enhance Sediment &Water QualityReeovery StrategyProtect, Restore, &Enhance Sediment &Water QualityRestore and lmproveFish PassageChinook Salmonpassage up anddownstream of HowardHanson Dam.Number of days river,Soos and NewuakumCreeks violate Statewater temperaturestandardsHabitat MetricForest and imperviouscover throughout thebasinHonrccr201(colleOnc'dowrConyear
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 classi$r 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 for 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:
o Are there incomplete projects in the Salmon Habitat Plan that could improve habitat
conditions in ways that would appear in environmental indicator monitoring?
r Does it appear that un-enforced regulations are contributing to the degradation
and/or is there a need for additional regulations?
o 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitorinq and AdaPtive Management Plan
5.O VALIDATION MONITORING
5.'l 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 t 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 October 2020
WNA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management PlanTable 5. Viable Salmonid Population parameters, and who and how they are being measured in WRIA 9.Who is measuring?Green River Smolt Trap is operatedby Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife (WDFW), and is jointlyfunded by ACOE, Tacoma Water,WR|A9, and WDFW.WDFW and MIT count spawners.Otolith data for #5 would need tobe paid for and collected separatelyfrom existinq proqrams.WDFW and (MlT) collect andreport the data. Data is availablevia WDFW's SCORE database.NOAA's Salmon PopulationSummary Database includes aPuget Sound wide uniformescapement method to generatepopulation numbers.WDFW and MIT have collecteddetailed redd locations in someyears, but not consistently. Notcurrently evaluating this metricdue to the coarse resolution ofthe data.Green River Smolt Trap (seeabove) and adult counts byWDFW and MIT (also in NOAA'sSalmon Population SummaryDatabase)How is it being measured?Spawner surveys and juvenileoutmigrants moving downstream at RM34, since 1999. (1) Eggto-migrantsurvival; (2) Median short-termpopulation growth rate of natural-originspawners; and (3) Recruits per natural-origin spawner; (4) S-year average of #of parr; (5) proportion of adults from frylife historv tvpe.Number of natural origin spawnersannually through spawner surveysBroad redd distribution data by riverreach is collected during spawningsurveys, but a metric to track thisparameter has not been developed dueto the large reaches the co-managersuse to summarize spawners.(1) Percent of total river-spawningadults that originated from a hatchery;(2) timing of fry and parr outmigration;and (3) proportion of older (5 and 6years) spawners in natural-originreturns. (4) Median peak spawn timing(want to see it moving later in year andoreater ranoe)What does it mean?The natural-origin spawners will producesufficient juveniles to grow the population overthe long-term, withstand unproductive oceancycles, and provide an abundance of returningadults without subsidies from the hatchery.Sufficient numbers of Chinook exist to beresilient to disturbances and variation in theenvironment, allow for negative feedbacks tostabilize the population size, maintain geneticdiversity, and provide ecosystem benefits suchas marine-derived nutrients. When thepopulation is too small, the population isvulnerable to crashes from positive feedbacksthat reduce survival as abundance declines,and mav suffer from inbreedinq.The spatial structure is maintained by a netbalance of habitat creation and destruction,natural rates of genetic exchange betweenpopulations, the presence of some room toexplore (unused but suitable habitat), and bysome highly productive subpopulations thatcan prop up less productive ones.Natural patterns of run timing, age, size, eggproduction, body shape, behavior and geneticdiversity still dominate the population. Fishmay disperse unimpeded and gene flowcontinues with little alteration.What is it?The performanceof fish duringeach life stageThe number ofnatural origin fishin a populationTheconfiguration,quality, anddynamics ofsalmon habitatsand salmondispersalamonghabitatsGenetic, physical,and behavioraldifferencesamong and withinpopulationsVSPParameterProductivityAbundanceSpatialStructureDiversityKing County Science and Technical Support Section29October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive 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 Creeh 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 undertakenin202l
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 quantif,i 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
ln2004the 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 October 2020
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 in2004 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 (lTC20LZ) and the plan update
white paper on Chinook use, temperature, climate change, and contaminant (King County
2017a,20L7b,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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
6.0 REGOMMENDATIONS
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.
Proiect 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
intensively with funding support by the WRIA under enhanced project monitoring. tt 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. Ln2013 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 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adap tive Management Plan
7.O REFERENGES
Anderson and Toppi ng,2018. |uvenile life history diversity and freshwater productivity of
Chinook salmon in the Green River, Washington. North American fournal 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 0005-3207,
L0.L0L6 / j.biocon.2 0 06, 0 1.0 1 9.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320706000450)
Coffin, C., S. Lee, and C. DeGasperi.z}L1,.Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily
Load Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology
Publication No. 1 1 - 1 0.045. http ://www.ecy.wa, gov/biblio/ 1 1 1 0046.html
Greene, Correigh M. and Timothy f . Beechie, 2004. Consequences of potential density-
dependent mechanisms on recovery of ocean-type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Canadian f ournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67:590-602.
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.2073. DMFT. fuvenile Chinook migration, growth, and habitat use in the
Lower Green River, Duwamish River, and nearshore of Elliott Bay,200I-2003. King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources
Division, Seattle.
King CounLy.2077a.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 andTechnicalSupportSection 34 October 2020
WRIA 9 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
King CounW.20L7b. Green River temperature and salmon. Prepared by f osh Kubo of King
County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9
Watershed Ecosystem Forum.
King County.20LTc.WRIA 9 Climate Change Impacts on Salmon. Prepared by fessica Engel,
Kollin Higgins, and Elissa Ostergaard of King County Water and Land Resources
Division. Seattle, Washington for the WRIA 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum.
King CounW.20L8.An evaluation of potential impacts of chemical contaminants to Chinook
Salmon in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Prepared by fenee 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. 207I. Channel
dynamics in the Middle Green River, Washington, from 1936 to 2002. Northwest
Science 85: L-L4.
Latterell, fosh. 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.aspx
Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team, R. Ponzio and K. Stiles. March
20L3.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.20L2. WRIA 9 Status and Trends Monitoring
Report: 2005-20L0. 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 October 2020