° Fine sediment  incubation life stage, rated high impact. In stream habitat has been severely degraded by a combination of upstream impacts. Siltation from de forested and channelized segments has degraded spawning gravel conditions. In addition, the collapse of the Irondale road crossing ( RM 1.3) and its fill in 1983 caused downstream sedimentation and " cementing" of the stream gravel making redd construction difficult for salmon ( Ray Lowrie, pers. comm., 1996). These conditions have improved in recent years, but percentage of fine sediment in the spawning gravel remains high ( M. Kennedy, stream restoration volunteer, private comm.).

° Peak flow, freshwater wetland loss, and channel instability  incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. The historic conversion of the Chimacum lowland valleys from beaver pond wetlands and forested bogs to pasturelands may increase the duration and magnitude of winter flood flows. The valley still serves as a flood reservoir however it is suspected the valley may release floodwater more rapidly than the previous beaver pond dominated valley. Areas around Chimacum, Port Hadlock, and Irondale are rapidly urbanizing, with an expected increase to the severity of winter floods from impervious surfaces.

° Low flow  spawning life stage, rated moderate low impact. Water withdrawal for irrigation and loss of wetlands in the Chimacum valley may impact summer chum survival, with a more severe impact in years when the summer dry season overlaps the Summer Chum spawning season ( mid August to mid October). DOE has an administrative closure to further surface water diversion ( DOE 1998).

° Water quality  spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate low impact. The good condition of this riparian zone helps reduce high summer stream temperatures coming from the agricultural valleys upstream. Temperature monitoring ( 1998) at the mouth indicates that while state AA standards were exceeded in July, by the end of August temperatures averaged 14 ° C and declined to below 12 ° C by the end of September. Chum prefer spawning temperature of 12 14 ° C, this is considered a moderate to low impact. Dissolved oxygen at the river mouth averaged between 9.3 and above 10 mg/ L, with the state AA standard of 9.5 mg/ L. In 1998, fecal coliform at RM 1.1 averaged just below the state AA standard of 50 FC/ ml ( Al Latham, JCCD). However, in dry years when the summer dry season overlaps the fall spawning season, stream temperatures may be a significant impact. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.155 ° Riparian forest  spawning and incubation life stage, rated low impact. The riparian forests range from absent or severely degraded, to those in advanced stages of recovery. Most of the degraded riparian forests occur between RM 1.3 3.0. Above RM 1.3, riparian forests are small diameter (< 12 in), deciduous or grass dominated and narrow in extent (< 66 ft). Below RM 1.3, the forested strip is wide (> 200 ft), mixed conifer/ deciduous, and with a medium average diameter ( 12 20 in). Since summer chum is primarily found below RM 1.3, it is these forest conditions that reduced the overall riparian impact from moderate/ high to low.

° Subestuary habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated moderate impact. Out of all the 20 sub estuaries, this was the only one that did not have a road directly across or shortly upstream of the subestuary. However, south of the river mouth approximately 30 ac of tidal marshland was filled, probably in the late 1800s. A road now crosses most of the fill, but ends at the river mouth. There are no other roads, jetties or dikes, dredged, ditched or excavated areas evident in this comparatively small, 0.02 km ( 5.2 ac, 1 km [ 0.6 mi] perimeter) delta. Historically, 2 the bay at the mouth of the creek was used for log storage.

Factors for Recovery The following recommendations are provided to allow recovery of Summer Chum habitat in the lower river. Jefferson County should realize that designating Chimacum, Port Hadlock, and Irondale as Urban Growth Areas under the Growth Management Act should consider the impact to the lower Chimacum Creek and subestuary. A general discussion of protection and restorations strategies for each habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Fine sediment and water quality  Investigate replacement of the fill and culvert at the Irondale Road crossing with a bridge to remove the possibility of future culvert failure. The costs and benefits of this project should be weighed against other Chimacum Creek projects. Within the valley, reestablish forested riparian zones along the east and west forks of Chimacum Creek to reduce high summer water temperatures and input of fine sediment.

° Peak flow and summer low flow  Restore wetlands where possible to increase flows in the summer and to help reduce the impacts from peak flows in the winter. There are several areas where wetland and beaver pond restoration could be accomplished without impacting existing farmers. Conduct an extensive assessment of surface and groundwater withdrawals to determine the extent of impact on summer low flow and to identify potential remedies. Locate and monitor potential runoff sources from impervious surfaces. Monitor the potential impacts from peak flows to the channel bed with scour chains.

° Riparian forest and LWD  Protect the riparian and wetland habitat in the entire lower 1.3 miles ( below Irondale Road) and upstream areas that are still forested and in good condition. The Jefferson Land Trust and WDFW are currently working to acquire conservation easements to protect key salmon refugia throughout the watershed. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.156 ° Protect tidal floodplain and estuary  The subestuarine fill site has been highlighted by conservation groups for aquisition and restoration. Upstream of the mouth, the subestuary narrows and enters a canyon where it is relatively unimpacted by development. The subestuary in the canyon is contiguous with the undeveloped lower 1.3 miles of riparian forest. This entire stretch should be protected with easements or outright purchase.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs The Chimacum Watershed Coho Salmon Restoration Assessment ( Bahls and Rubin 1996) provides a fairly thorough base of information upon which to evaluate the status of habitat for summer chum salmon. However, because most of the impacts on summer chum habitat are an indirect result of upstream habitat changes, confidence in the assessment is moderate.

The following are research and monitoring needs:

1. Determine the impact ( if any) on surface and groundwater withdrawals on summer low flow. 2. Conduct scour monitoring to determine the magnitude of peak flow on redd scour. 3. Annual monitoring of fine sediment both above and below Irondale Road. 4. Continuous temperature monitoring at regular intervals below RM 3.0.

References Bahls, P. and J. Rubin. 1996. Chimacum watershed coho salmon habitat restoration assessment. Port Gamble Tribe Fish Management, Kingston, WA.

WDOE ( Wash. Dept. of Ecology). 1998. Needs assessment for the Eastern Olympic Water Quality Management Area. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.157 Little Quilcene Watershed Narrative WRIA 17.0076 Watershed Description The Little Quilcene watershed drains to Quilcene Bay. It is bounded by Snow Creek to the North, Donovan and Tarboo Creek to the east, Big Quilcene to the south, and Dosewallips to the west. The Little Quilcene has a watershed area of 30 square miles, total mainstem length of 12.2 miles and combined tributary length of 81.2 miles. The upper 1/ 3 of the watershed lies within the basalt rich Crescent formation, and is primarily Forest Service land. Watersheds of this rock type are steeply dissected with limited anadromous habitat ( e. g. similar to most of west Hood Canal from the Big Quilcene south). Port Townsend diverts water ( 9.6 cfs water right, with a 6 cfs mimimum instream flow requirement at diversion) at RM 7.1 to Lords Lake Reservoir on Howe Creek, which is removed from the watershed ( USFS and WDNR 1994). This water right is junior to a total of 5 cfs water rights held by landowners in Quilcene. Lords Lake ( generally filled during April and May) is used to supplement Port Townsend water diverted from the Big Quilcene when flows decline below the Big Quilcene minimum instream flow level, or when the Big Quilcene contains excessive suspended sediment during floods ( USFS and WDNR 1994, S. Cupp, US Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994). WDOE has an administrative closure to further surface water diversion ( WDOE 1998).

From approximately RM 7.0 to the mouth, the watershed is composed of unconsolidated glacial sediment layers interbedded with siltstone and sandstone, and alluvium deposited by the river ( Grimstad and Carson 1981). This portion of the watershed contains extensive low gradient anadromous habitat and associated development for agriculture, homes, and the town of Quilcene. The Little Quilcene reaches the town of Quilcene at about RM 1.0.

Sixty percent of the riparian zone below RM 3.0 is developed ( major landuse are 33% Agriculture, 11% roads or dikes, 8% rural residences and 6% forestry, Appendix Report 3.7), which is considered a high impact. The lower 0.8 miles contains dikes and bank armoring for floodplain residences. Dikes, roads, and ditches impact the tidal delta.

Summer Chum Distribution Summer chum spawn in the mainstem up to RM 3.0, however most spawning occurs below RM 1.8. It is unlikely summer chum use tributaries such as Leland Creek due to low summer flows.

Population Status Escapement declined in the 1980s from the several hundreds with occasional escapements of over one thousand to less than two hundred spawners. From 1989 through 1994 escapement was 12 spawners or less, with four years of 0 or 1. An improvement in escapement to 265 was seen in 1996. In 1997 escapement dropped to 29, but was again 265 in 1998 ( Appendix Table 1.1). The recent increases may be affected by the summer chum supplementation project in the immediately adjacent Big Quilcene River. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.158 Factors for Decline The Little Quilcene is similar to the Big Quilcene in terms of factors for decline. The habitat is in poor condition, especially below RM 0.8. Factors for decline are: water withdrawal, low channel complexity, estuarine diking, channel aggradation, and young or absent riparian vegetation. These factors are not separate, but interact to increase pressure across all life stages. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low flow Spawning life stage, rated high impact. Mean annual flow for the Little Quilcene is 54 cfs, with low flows of 5 to 13 cfs ( Jamestown S'Klallam 1994). The Little Quilcene is overallocated during low flow periods. The City of Port Townsend and local landowners combined hold a total of 14.6 cfs in water rights. The 5 cfs of senior irrigation water rights held by local landowners in the lower river is downstream of the 6 cfs the City of Port Townsed is required to maintain in the river. The City of Port Townsend ( and Port Townsend Paper) " divert very little if any water from the first part of September until the first major rains in the fall" ( Stan Cupp, Port Townsend Paper, pers. comm.). The impact of water withdrawal on fish habitat needs further investigation. For eastern Jefferson County, water consumption is expected to increase 78% ( over 1990 levels) by the year 2020 ( Jamestown S'Klallam 1994). Developing water resources in the glacial deposits of the Little Quilcene, where continuity may exist between surface water and groundwater, may further reduce already low summer flows. An aquifier study for the Big Quilcene was inconclusive on the connectivity between the Big Quilcene and the glacial deposits between the Big and Little Quilcene ( Schwartzman 1998). This relationship needs further study for both rivers.

° Channel complexity Spawning and incubation life stages, rated high impact. From habitat surveys, the Little Quilcene has ( within the summer chum range) 32% pool, 0.1 pieces of LWD/ m., and an average of 5.3 channel widths between pools. Together these numbers translate into highly degraded channel habitat. A 1932 survey of the Little Quilcene noted many logjams and six areas of beaver activity in the lower 10 miles ( Amato 1996). Most of these logjams are gone. Six hydraulic permits for LWD removal were issued from 1989 to 1995 alone ( WDFW HPA database). The stream catalog reported ditching of the Little Quilcene below RM 0.8 ( Williams et al. 1975). Portions of the south riverbank currently are hardened with riprap ( B. Rot, pers. comm.).

° Subestuary habitat loss and degradation Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. Undiked river mouths are connected to multiple slough channels, which are heavily utilized by summer chum for spawning and rearing. Dikes along the river and paralleling the coast south of the river mouth have physically isolated the river channel from slough habitat. Through aerial photo analysis, we estimate that 25% of the historic delta area of approximately 230 ac. is diked along the western margin of the delta. These diked areas appear to be controlled by at least two tidegates. Four road or causeway segments totaling 0.45 mi. in lineal extent, may constrict or prevent natural tidal inundation of adjoining wetlands. Ditches, filling and dredging were not detected in the delta. No docks, log storage, jetties or other structures are evident. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.159 ° Riparian forest Spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Seventy percent of the forested buffer contains small trees (< 12 in dbh), 51% is deciduous dominated or has no riparian forest, and 60% is < 66ft in width and/ or sparsely vegetated ( Appendix Report 3.7). The riparian forest was first harvested in the early 1900s by the Otto Beck Logging Company to supply the Green Shingle Mill located in Quilcene ( Amato 1996). At the time, the floodplain between and surrounding the Big and Little Quilcene rivers was mostly old growth cedar swamp and forest. The mill was closed in 1915 when the accessible cedar had been harvested. In addition to historical effects, bank armoring, home building, and agriculture in the 100 year floodplain has reduced the extent of functional riparian forest.

° Sediment Spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. The channelized and diked lower river near the mouth has resulted in channel aggradation and avulsions at least three times in the past six years below RM 0.3, leaving the main channel dry for at least several weeks ( R. Johnson, WDFW, Port Angeles, WA, pers. comm.). The channel avulsed both north and south of the diked mainstem. While very little information exists regarding potential sediment sources within the watershed, failing Forest Service roads, diking of the estuary and lower channel, and increasing percentage of impervious surfaces are suspected primary factors.

Factors for Recovery A general discussion of protection and restoration strategy for each factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Low flow the extent of water usage or draw down by Port Townsend during August and September and its potential impact to summer chum spawning is unknown. While DOE has the river on administrative closure, the IFIM study currently in progress is expected to provide information needed regarding relative impacts of surface water withdrawal on fish. Further study is needed on whether there is a relationship between well use and instream flows.

° Property buyout and floodplain easements protect the few remaining spawning areas in the lower three miles with intact riparian forest and good instream habitat. Identification of these areas could be done with the assistance of the Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary group.

° Construction permits below RM 0.7, the 100 year floodplain has extensive development to the south of the river. Except for a road, the north side is relatively undeveloped, although at least one lot is for sale. A recent springtime flood crossed this property. In areas of high channel migration, bank hardening follows floodplain development. The county should restrict future development to areas outside of the 100 year floodplain throughout the summer chum zone.

° Riparian forest and LWD educate local landowners on the importance of LWD to channel complexity and connected forested floodplains. Encourage farmers and residential landowners to plant conifer where the forest is absent or dominated by deciduous species, and discourage removal of LWD ( see Riparian Forests toolkit, Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>). Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.160 ° Channel aggradation conduct an assessment using the methodology in the Watershed Analysis mass wasting module to determine the source of channel aggradation. ° Restoration of estuarine diked areas   Purchase or obtain an easement of estuarine property, remove dikes ( both paralleling the channel and the coast south of the channel) and restore connection to the lower floodplain and subestary. In addition, restore channel sinuosity through this reach. This represents a potential recovery of over 25% of the historic juvenile summer chum rearing and migration habitat in this estuary ( see Subestuarine toolkit, Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>). Conversion of fill road causeways to pile causeways may also recover additional estuarine habitat.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence in the assessment is high given the channel habitat surveys, riparian forest and landuse data for the Little Quilcene, coupled with the large amount of data for the nearby Big Quilcene River.

Information needs include:

1. An understanding of the range of annual summer low flows ( given withdrawal) and whether these are adequate to support recruitment goals. If not, what flow is necessary and what density will the existing range of flows support. 2. A study to look at well development and instream flows. 3. A sediment source assessment for the watershed. 4. A study evaluating the relative effect of road fill causeways on the creation and maintenance of tidal slough channels, and the feasibility of dike removal in the lower channel and estuary.

References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Grimstad and Carson. 1981. Geology and ground water resources of eastern Jefferson County, Washington. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA. 125 p.

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. 1994. The Dungeness Quilcene water resources management plan. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim, WA.

Schwartzman, P. 1998. Study of residential well connectivity between Quilcene and Big Quilcene R. Jefferson County Dept. Pub. Works, Port Townsend, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service) and WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1994. Big Quilcene watershed analysis  an ecological report at the watershed level. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.161 WDOE ( Wash. Dept. of Ecology). 1998. Needs assessment for the Eastern Olympic Water Quality Management Area. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 974 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.162 Big Quilcene Watershed Narrative WRIA 17.0012 Watershed Description The Big Quilcene watershed drains to Quilcene Bay in west Hood Canal, and is bounded by the Little Quilcene to the north, the Dungeness to the west, and the Dosewallips to the south. The Big Quilcene has a watershed area of 68 square miles, total mainstem length of 19 miles, and combined tributary length of 80 miles. Thirty percent of the Big Quilcene watershed ( headwater) is contained in the Buckhorn wilderness. Below the Buckhorn, the Forest Service, State, and private forestland owners manage most of the remaining watershed for timber production. This portion of the watershed is steep, with relatively weak, easily eroded rock. The Big Quilcene is a tier II Key Watershed under the President's Forest Plan ( FEMAT 1993). The primary water source for the City of Port Townsend ( 30 cfs water right) is diverted at RM ( river mile) 9.4. This is a consumptive use and is diverted out of the basin. The majority of water supports the operation of a paper mill.

Below RM 4.8, the channel gradient moderates and flows through an increasingly wide floodplain. This area of small private land blocks occupies about 5% of the watershed. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery ( QNFH) is located at RM 2.8, and utilizes water from both the Big Quilcene and nearby Penny Creek. On the Big Quilcene, they have a 15 cfs water right with an additional 25 cfs when flows in the mainstem at the hatchery exceed 50 cfs from July 1 to February 28, and 83 cfs from March 1 to June 30 ( Jamestown S'Klallam 1994). This water is removed from the Big Quilcene for about 1/ 2 mile between the hatchery intake and outlet. Penny Creek is a 25 cfs water right ( Jamestown S'Klallam 1994).

Thirty eight percent of the riparian zone to RM 4.8 is occupied by landuse, primarily roads or dikes ( 21%) and agriculture ( 10%, Appendix Report 3.7). The channel below RM 0.8 is diked, and portions of the channel between RM 0.8 and 4.8 has been dredged, diked, or the bank armored. The Big Quilcene flows through the town of Quilcene at approximately RM 0.8.

Summer Chum Distribution Summer chum spawn in the mainstem up to RM 2.8 where the hatchery weir prevents further passage, however most spawning occurs below RM 1.0. Since historical summer chum distribution may have extended up to RM 5.0 on the mainstem ( USFS 1994), we examined habitat conditions up to RM 5.0. It is unlikely that summer chum historically spawned in tributaries such as Penny Creek due to low summer flows.

Population Status Escapement dropped substantially from estimated in the thousands prior to 1978 to estimates below on hundred from 1983 to 1991, excepting 1998 with 120 spawners in 1988 ( Appendix Table 1.1). In 1992, the Tribes, WDFW, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a 12 year brood stocking program ( USFWS Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.163 1994). The run was to be restarted from chronically low levels while chum habitat was enhanced to support a wild run.

Factors for Decline The Big Quilcene watershed has historically been managed for timber, water, and hatchery fish production. The habitat is in poor condition, especially below RM 1.0 where the primary summer chum spawning grounds are located. The habitat is degraded due to: water withdrawal, low channel complexity, subestuarine modifications; sediment accumulation, and a young deciduous dominated ( or absent) riparian forest. The decline in summer chum cannot be attributed to any one factor. These factors are not mutually exclusive, but interact to increase pressure across all life stages. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low flow Spawning life stage, rated high impact. Discharge ( below the diversion dam from August 15 to October 15, for the years 1994 1996) ranged between 23 to 82 cfs, with an average of 30 cfs. Summer chum return to the Big Quilcene in late August and spawn from September to mid October. In 1994, Port Townsend agreed to reduce or halt water withdrawal during low flow to maintain a minimum of 25 cfs in the channel for fish. Prior to that, an informal arrangement between the dam operators and the hatchery ensured enough water was maintained in the river to satisfy QNFH needs. Another issue is whether residential or municipal wells have the potential for drawing down the Big Quilcene R. ( e. g. whether hydrologic continuity exists between the two). A recent study was not conclusive ( Schwartzman 1998).

° Channel complexity and floodplain loss Spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. In the late 1950s, the lower Big Quilcene between RM 1.0 and 3.8 was a narrow, meandering, single thread channel, with reported good levels of LWD, pools, and an intact riparian forest. A structurally complex channel reduces the amount of stream energy available to scour summer chum redds. The channel is now wide, braided and in poor condition. The river has few, widely spaced pools ( 31% spaced at 5.1 channels widths between each pool) and relatively few pieces of LWD ( 0.16/ m, PNPTC 1992, Appendix Report 3.8). While simplification of the channel has occurred throughout the past 150 years, substantial LWD has been removed since the 1960s by the WDF stream improvement division and also by local landowners. More recently, dredging ( RM 2.5 to 2.2, and below RM 1.0), bank armoring, and dike construction/ enhancement ( RM 2.5 to 2.2, and below RM 1.0) have increased the continuing channel instability. During floods, a diked reach will have more energy to scour redds to a greater depth than an undiked reach at the same location. In 1995, Jefferson County removed a portion of the northern dike below RM 0.5 as a first step to reduce flooding hazard and improve fish habitat ( Williams et al. 1995). Channel cross sections surveyed annually by the Jefferson County Conservation District since 1993 indicate a period of channel stability during that time. Further dike removal is needed ( Jefferson County 1998).

° Subestuary habitat loss and degradation Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. Undiked river mouths are connected to estuarine slough channels, which are utilized by summer chum for spawning and rearing. Dikes along the river and paralleling the coast south of the river mouth have physically isolated the river channel from slough habitat. Summer chum juveniles are unable to access estuarine rearing habitat without first moving into Quilcene Bay. Predation impacts resulting from this Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.164 are unknown. In the past 100 years, the river mouth has extended 1,700 ft out into the bay due to dredging and diking ( Jefferson County 1998). Dikes obstruct about 21% of the estimated historic delta area of 125 ac ( 3.5 mi. perimeter). About 3% of the historic delta is filled for commercial and residential use in four areas primarily located in the southeastern corner of the delta. About 2% of the historic delta area was excavated for one large pond ( for use by waterfowl). No dredging in the intertidal zone, or road causeways in the delta has been observed. One piledike 0.45 mi. in length apparently runs along the outer edge of the southern delta. The influence of this piledike on estuarine circulation cannot be determined. No other log storage, docks, or other structures were observed in the delta.

° Sediment aggradation Spawning and incubation life stages, rated high impact. Forest Service logging roads built between the 1940s and 1960s were poorly located and constructed, and form a dense network in the middle and upper watershed. Road failure in these areas, with sediment accumulation in the lower watershed has been a chronic problem since the late 1960s. The simplified, braided channel ( below RM 4.0) with its lower capacity to transport sediment ( see channel complexity) has increased local channel movement and bank erosion which has introduced even more sediment into the system. Recovery begins with stabilization or removal of roads and properly sized culverts on Forest Service land as outlined in the Watershed Analysis ( USFS 1994). This is needed to permanently reduce the amount of sediment moving through the Big Quilcene watershed.

° Riparian forest Spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. A mature conifer dominated riparian forest will provide stable LWD to create structurally complex channels. Forty four percent of the lower Big Quilcene is < 12 in dbh, 49% is deciduous dominated or has no riparian forest, and 45% of the forested portion of the riparian zone is < 66 ft in width ( Appendix Report 3.7). Recruitment of stable LWD in the future is poor to moderate due to the composition of the surrounding riparian forest. If the primary chum spawning reaches below RM 2.8 were only considered, the riparian forests would rate a high impact. Diking, agriculture, harvest and erosion in the lower Big Quilcene have reduced the extent of functional riparian forest.

Factors for Recovery A general discussion of the protection and restoration strategies for each habitat factor is presented in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Low flow   Starting in 1998, there was a cooperative effort to monitor stream flows for spawning availability between the City of Port Townsend, QNFH, Port Townsend Paper Co., USFWS, Jefferson County Conservation District, and Tribes. An IFIM study recently conducted by WDFW in part leaves unanswered whether the given low flow of 25 cfs is sufficient to provide good spawning habitat for summer chum. The IFIM flow recommendations were well in excess of late summer flows in the absence of withdrawal, and likely are better applied to fall chum. Data developed by the cooperative effort will be needed to assess the impacts of stream flow on spawning habitat.

° Dike removal and property buyout in lower mile   This relates to the low channel complexity and sediment aggradation habitat factors. The 1998 Big Quilcene Flood Management Plan ( Jefferson County 1998, and Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.165 Williams et al. 1995) calls for dike removal and property buyout from willing landowners on the north side of the river below RM 1.0. Floodplains are dynamic through time; to maintain residences on them has high social, economic, and ecological costs. The dike north of the channel would be set back to the outer extent of the 100 year floodplain. Additionally, the Linger Longer bridge would be extended as a causeway to allow floodwaters to flow underneath it and across the floodplain. Finally, a sinuous channel pattern found in lowest portion of the channel should be restored. These projects may have several benefits, 1) sediment aggradation will be reduced in the mainstem below RM 1.0, with the capacity to store sediment on the floodplain. In turn, flooding hazard to the houses to the south of the main channel should be lowered. 2) The level of energy or stream power for a given flood level will decline with the dissipation of floodwaters across the floodplain, thereby reducing the erosive energy available to scour summer chum redds.

° Subestuary habitat loss and degradation   Removal and dike setback could restore up to about 21% of the currently obstructed historic area of the delta to juvenile and adult summer chum use. Filling the excavated pond would restore an additional 3% of the historic area. Restoration of a sinuous channel pattern through the estuary would increase the amount of habitat for chum. Where feasible, intertidal fills could also be removed. Combined, these actions could reconnect the mainstem to tidal estuarine channels, heavily utilized by chum.

° Floodplain easement purchase ( RM 1.0 2.8)   The channel is active and dynamic between RM 1.3 and the Hwy 101 bridge at RM 2.5. Bank armoring or riprap is utilized in this reach to stabilize streambanks, although the Jefferson County Conservation District has tried more recently other techniques more favorable to habitat. Allowing or creating a sinuous channel pattern will over time decrease stream power, increase available habitat, and reduce aggradation downstream. A potential mechanism to achieve channel migration is outright property buyout or purchase of floodplain easements from willing property owners. Riverbank within each easement area could be stabilized with LWD and the easement area planted with conifers to serve as a future source of LWD to the channel. Several areas of relatively intact riparian forests exist between RM 1.0 and 2.5. Protection of these forests would provide a base to develop a riparian forest protection plan.

° Sediment aggradation   The 1994 Big Quilcene watershed analysis identified mass wasting from Forest Service roads as a causal factor for downstream channel aggradation. Removal of LWD, diking, and channel manipulations, especially below the QNFH, is also considered important ( Jefferson County 1998). The City of Port Townsend has entered an agreement with the Forest Service to pursue road obliteration in the portion of the watershed upstream of the diversion dam. The Forest Service has successfully obliterated roads in several sub basins, however with budget cuts, district office closures, and staff cutbacks it is unclear whether they will be able to complete all the mass wasting prescriptions outlined in the watershed analysis. This needs to be monitored. In addition the severity of the scour problem ( due to unstable sediment) in the lower river has not been quantified. The USFWS has the equipment and personnel to study this problem, it is hoped that funding will continue to be available. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.166 Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs The Big Quilcene is one of the most intensively studied watersheds in Hood Canal. Confidence in the assessment of habitat factors for decline is high. Further research and monitoring is needed on the following:

1. Determine whether new wells located in Quilcene between the Big and Little Quilcene will impact streamflow. 2. Continue to develop an understanding of the relationship of actual streamflow to the availability of summer chum spawning habitat. 3. Study the depth of bed scour throughout the summer chum zone concentrating on the diked areas below RM 0.8. 4. Update mass wasting data on Forest Service land from the 1994 watershed analysis and determine the extent that presciptions have been followed and whether the prescriptions have met resource objectives.

References FEMAT ( Forest Ecosystem Management Team). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Team, U. S. Government Printing Office 1993 783 071. U. S. Government Printing Office for the U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv.; U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Fish and Wild. Serv., Bureau of Land Mgt., and Nat. Park Serv.; U. S. Dept. of Comm., Nat. Ocean. and Atmospheric Admin. and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv.; and U. S. Envir. Prot. Ag.

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. 1994. The Dungeness Quilcene water resources management plan. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim, WA.

Jefferson County. 1998. Lower Big Quilcene R. comprehensive flood hazard management plan. Jefferson County Dept. Pub. Works, Port Townsend, WA. 38 p. + fig.

Schwartzman, P. 1998. Study of residential well connectivity between Quilcene and Big Quilcene R. Jefferson County Dept. Pub. Works, Port Townsend, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service) and WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1994. Big Quilcene watershed analysis  an ecological report at the watershed level. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

USFWS ( Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Quilcene National Fish Hatchery   annual report. USFWS Western Wash. Fish. Res. Off., U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Fish and Wild. Serv. Olympia, WA.

Williams, P. B., L. Fishbain, K. G. Coulton, and B. Collins. 1995. A restoration feasibility study for the Big. Quilcene River. Phillip Williams and Assoc., Ltd. San Francisco, CA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.167 Dosewallips Watershed Narrative WRIA 16.0442 Watershed Description The Dosewallips River is located in east Jefferson County on the west side of Hood Canal. The Dosewallips is one of the largest watersheds contributing to Hood Canal, draining 122 square miles and containing 28 miles of mainstem and 140 miles of tributary habitat ( Williams et al. 1975). It is bounded on the north by Big Quilcene and Dungeness watersheds, and on the south by the Duckabush watershed. The Dosewallips originates within the Olympic Mountains, flows east through steep terrain, and enters Hood Canal near the town of Brinnon. The middle portion of the watershed lies within the basalt rich Crescent formation, while various sandstone, siltstone, and slate bedrock formations predominate at the headwaters. Relatively limited glacial and alluvial deposits occur along the lower 13 miles of the river. Average annual discharge is 446 cfs ( range 67 13,200 for the years 1931 1958) at RM 7.1. There are two annual runoff peaks, one occurring November February associated with winter rain, the other occurring in May June associated with spring snowmelt ( USFS 1999).

The lower 2.5 miles of river is fringed by a large floodplain that has been developed for agricultural and rural residential use. Of all Hood Canal tributary deltas, the Dosewallips is second only to the Skokomish in size, historically occupying 444.6 acres (~ 1.8 km ) with a perimeter of 6.2 miles ( 9.9 km). North of the river 2 mouth numerous blind tidal sloughs ( e. g. Walcott Slough) drain a large estuarine marsh.

The upper 60% of the Dosewallips watershed is undeveloped and protected within Olympic National Park, while the middle 30% of the basin is in Olympic National Forest. As with other west Hood Canal watersheds, private land is concentrated along sensitive lower reaches of the river where use is dominated by pastureland, residential development, and clearcut logging. Dosewallips State Park occupies land on the south side of the river near the mouth, and the town of Brinnon is located to the north within the floodplaindelta area. Brinnon has no municipal water system; area residents derive domestic water supplies from individual wells, stream diversions, or shared community water sources. Since 1956, the City of Port Townsend has maintained a permitted water right to continuously divert 50 cfs of water from the Dosewallips for municipal use, but this application has never been acted upon ( USFS 1999). Currently, DOE has an administrative closure on further surface water diversion for the July October period. Minimum flow criteria have been developed for the Dosewallips River but have not been formally adopted ( Rushton 1985). The river is classified as a AA surface flow waterbody by the state and is not listed on EPA's 303( d) list of impaired and threatened waterbodies, though available ambient water quality data is limited ( USFS 1999).

Historically, intensive timber harvest and fires have impacted the slopes of the middle and lower watershed. Logging in the watershed began in 1859 using ox teams, and progressed to the use of railroads and splash dams near the turn of the century, which were replaced by trucks after 1920. A splash dam built by the Sims Logging Company at the head of the Dosewallips canyon ( RM 3.2) in 1917 was in operation for 9 10 years. When water was released, most logs that had been accumulated behind the dam were flushed all the way to Hood Canal suggesting the erosive power of these releases was likely catastrophic for salmon and their Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.168 habitat in the lower river. Railroad logging of the watershed was extensive; the longest railroad line was built on the south side of the river from Brinnon upstream to approximately RM 10.2. Most logging and road building on Forest Service land has occurred in the Rocky Brook subwatershed; between 1920 and 1990, 65% of this subwatershed was clearcut. A landslide inventory based on historic and current aerial photos identified 128 slope failures that have occurred in the watershed since 1939. Forty five ( 35%) were road or harvest related with 42 ( 93%) of these occurring within Rocky Brook subwatershed ( USFS 1999).

While only 14% of the entire Dosewallips watershed has ever been harvested for timber, 80% of the lower river area ( upstream to the confluence with Rocky Brook) has experienced forest harvest ( which encompasses the range of summer chum; USFS 1999). Beginning in the late 1800s, the lower river valley ( below RM 3.0) was converted from a forested floodplain, rich in LWD jams, side channels and active floodplain wetlands to a channelized river with adjacent pastureland ( Amato 1996). The subsequent construction of Highway 101 and development of Brinnon resulted in further wetland loss and degradation, severed the connection of numerous tidal channels to the river and/ or Hood Canal, and reduced tidal circulation in the estuary. Nearly 20% of the present day riparian zone ( by area) below RM 4.3 has been negatively impacted by recent land use ( 7% rural residences, 6% urban/ commercial, 3% agriculture, and 3% forestry  Appendix Report 3.7).

Summer Chum Distribution Natural barriers and high stream gradients limit summer chum to the lower 4.3 miles of the Dosewallips and most spawning occurs below RM 2.5.

Population Status Summer chum population data only extends back to 1972 for the Dosewallips River. During the 1970s, most escapements were over 1,000 spawners, extending up to over 3,000. Escapement decreased during the 1980s to less than 100 spawners in some years and several hundred in other years. In 1995 and 1996 escapement rose to almost 3,000 and 7,000, respectively, then declined again to 47 and 336 spawners in 1997 and 1998, respectively ( Appendix Table 1.1).

Factors for Decline Low channel complexity, estuarine habitat loss and degradation, riparian degradation, and freshwater wetland loss appear to be the principal factors associated with the decline of summer chum in the Dosewallips watershed. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate to high impact. Much of the lower river below RM 3.0 has been simplified since the late 1800s by the placement of riprap, dike construction, large woody debris removal, the scouring action of splash dam operation, and conversion of floodplain to pastureland and residential development. As a result, the river has become isolated from its floodplain, reducing habitat diversity and complexity and likely reducing the availability of stable Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.169 spawning gravels. Recovery has been hampered by the loss of riparian forests, which supply LWD to the channel, and the continuing removal of LWD from the channel by area residents ( Frissell 1998, T. Labbe, pers. comm.). Although there are no habitat surveys for the lower mainstem, 1990 US Forest Service surveys of Rocky Brook Creek identified 23% of the habitat area in pools and 0.02 LWD pieces/ m in the lower half mile of stream which indicate degraded habitat conditions ( P. DeCillis, USFS, pers. comm.). Additional surveyed reaches upstream also had poor habitat conditions ( 29% of habitat area in pools and 0.08 LWD pieces/ m) While summer chum are not known to utilize Rocky Brook Creek, it is the largest tributary to the lower Dosewallips mainstem ( entering at RM 3.6) and its degraded condition has important consequences for the supply of LWD and sediment to the lower river.

° Estuarine habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing/ migration life stage, rated moderate to high impact. At least six diked areas, totaling 68.5 ac, now occupy 15.4% of the original summer chum rearing and migration habitat in the Dosewallips estuary. Four tidegates appear to regulate or prevent tidal inundation in these diked areas, and one ditch or remnant dike 0.4 mi long attests to past attempts to further eliminate tidal inundation along the delta face. Ten road causeways totaling 1.2 mi bisect or fringe the delta, the most deleterious of which is the cross delta routing of Highway 101. Construction of the highway, and the subsequent development that derived from it, essentially cut off most of the secondary tidal channel connectivity across the delta, in particular two major distributary channels that appear to have historically linked with the river higher in the delta. Five identifiable fill areas associated with residential or agricultural development occupy 2.5 ac ( 0.6% of historical delta area). One aquaculture or similar modification to the delta surface covers 2.9 ac ( 0.6%), but it is not evident whether this poses a significant loss of estuarine habitat function, which depends to a large degree on the scale and frequency of disturbance to important habitat areas such as eelgrass.

° Riparian degradation  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Logging of oldgrowth floodplain forests, river channelization, and the expansion of pasture and residential areas along the lower 3.0 miles of the river has reduced both the original extent of riparian forests and the potential for LWD recruitment to the channel. Fifty one percent of the forested buffer below RM 4.3 is dominated by small trees (< 12 in dbh) and 41% is deciduous dominated, but 52% is mixed conifer and deciduous forest and 58% of the forested buffer is greater than 132 ft wide ( all percentages by length). An analysis of riparian LWD recruitment potential completed by the Olympic National Forest, ( Quilcene Ranger District) as part of the Dosewallips Watershed Analysis also identified fair ( 28%, by stream length) to poor ( 40%) riparian conditions predominating along the entire length of the river mainstem. In addition, the analysis found poor ( 91%, by stream length) riparian LWD recruitment potential along Rocky Brook Creek, indicating that LWD volumes in stream channels both in and above the zone of summer chum use will remain limited in the foreseeable future, unless mitigation occurs ( USFS 1999). For additional information about riparian data refer to Appendix Report 3.7.

° Floodplain loss  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. As discussed above, the loss of floodplain forests, most of which were probably forested wetlands, likely reduced the amount and diversity of habitats and increased the impact of flood flows on mainstem channel habitat due to lost floodwater storage capacity. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.170 Factors for Recovery Like other west Hood Canal watersheds, the Dosewallips is remote from the development pressures, such as exist on the Kitsap peninsula, and much of its headwaters are managed by public agencies with mandates for the conservation of indigenous species. However, development pressures are highly concentrated in and around the lower 3.0 miles of river, where most summer chum use occurs. Nonetheless, compared to other Hood Canal and eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca watersheds, prospects for the recovery of summer chum are good. A general discussion of protection and restoration strategies for each habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

Recovery of summer chum in the Dosewallips watershed requires:

° Protection and restoration of the lower 3.0 miles of river mainstem and associated riparian floodplain habitats. Properties in the lower floodplain should be targeted for acquisition or conservation easements from willing landowners, and conifers replanted in the riparian zone. This sensitive lower river area should also be examined for potential placement of engineered logjams to enhance channel complexity and stabilize spawning gravels for summer chum. The proximity and number of private residences in this lower river area also creates a potential for harassment and poaching, which needs further investigation ( Frissell 1998).

° Restoration of full tidal action to the various extant and failed diked wetlands across the delta. Numerous tidal channels north of the river mouth could be reconnected to the river and/ or Hood Canal, which would restore valuable summer chum rearing habitat.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Very little habitat research or survey data exists for the Dosewallips River, although it represents one of the larger, more pristine watersheds in Washington with high salmon production potential. A U. S. Forest Service watershed analysis has been completed for the Dosewallips. Most of the conclusions presented here are based on observations of current habitat conditions in the watershed and knowledge gained from historical research and habitat studies conducted in other similar watersheds, such as the Big Quilcene watershed. The strength of the evaluation is thus rated moderate to low due to the lack of site specific field studies. Information needs include:

1. Habitat surveys of the lower river. 2. An assessment of channel stability as it relates to spawning and incubation life stages. 3. A study of impacts to estuarine rearing potential from road causeway constrictions ( necessarily involving multiple estuaries under various degrees of impact).

References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.171 Frissell, C. A. 1998. Landscape refugia for conservation of Pacific salmon in selected river basins of the Olympic Peninsula and Hood Canal, Washington. Open File Report # 147 98. Flathead Lake Biological Station, Univ. of Montana, Billings, MT.

Rushton, C. D. 1985. Skokomish Dosewallips WRIA 16 technical document supplement, office report 74 B, background data and Information. Water resources planning and management section, Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service) 1999. Dosewallips River Watershed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 974 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.172 Duckabush Watershed Narrative WRIA 16.0351 Watershed Description The Duckabush River is located in east Jefferson County on the west side of Hood Canal. The Duckabush watershed is over 75 square miles in area and contains 25 miles of mainstem and 91 miles of tributary habitat ( Williams et al. 1975). It is bounded on the north by the Dosewallips and on the south by the Hamma Hamma watersheds. The river originates in the Olympic mountains, flows east through rugged terrain, and enters Hood Canal approximately four miles south of the town of Brinnon. As in the Dosewallips watershed, various sandstone, siltstone, and slate bedrock formations predominate at the headwaters while the lower two thirds of the watershed lies within the basalt rich Crescent formation. Limited alluvial deposits are found along the lower 6 miles of river. Average annual discharge is 411 cfs ( range 46 9,240 for the years 1939 1996) at RM 4.9. There are two annual runoff peaks, one occurring in November February associated with winter rain, the other occurring in May June associated with spring snowmelt ( USFS 1997). The Duckabush enters Hood Canal over a broad 291.6 acre ( 1.2 km ) estuarine delta with 2 minimal development impacts excepting those associated with Highway 101.

The upper 80% of the watershed is protected in Olympic National Park and the Brothers Wilderness ( Olympic National Forest). Timber extraction is the dominant land use in the lower watershed, on both National Forest and private lands. Timber harvest on lands now under National Forest ownership began in the 1900s. Webb Logging Company of Brinnon, Washington built a logging railroad up the Duckabush and logged most of lower and middle portions of the watershed in the early 1900s. Before the construction of the logging railroad, timber was harvested as far upstream as Collins Campground ( RM 5.5) and floated downstream to Hood Canal. There is limited evidence that early loggers may have employed splash damming in the Duckabush ( USFS 1997). The WDF Stream Improvement Division removed logjams and dynamited falls in the river between 1955 and 1970 with the goal of improving fish passage ( Amato 1996). More recently, dense recreational homesite development has occurred along the lower 1.5 miles of the floodplain.

The Washington Department of Ecology maintains an administrative closure on issuance of further surface water rights for the July October period, and minimum flow criteria have been developed for the Duckabush River but have not been formally adopted ( Rushton 1985). The loss of LWD and development on the floodplain has confined the river to a single channel and reduced channel complexity. Overall road density in the watershed is low ( 0.6 mi/ mi ), but moderately high road densities in the lower Duckabush ( 2.2 mi/ mi ) 2 2 subwatershed ( which encompasses the range of summer chum) has contributed to mass wasting ( USFS 1997). A landslide inventory based on historic and current aerial photos identified 191 slope failures that have occurred in the watershed since 1939, 133 ( 70%) of which were located within the lower half of the watershed. At least 65 ( 34%) were road or harvest related and 148 ( 78%) were estimated to have delivered sediment to stream channels ( USFS 1997). As in other Hood Canal watersheds, road causeways impact the Duckabush estuary, disrupting tidal circulation, and impeding fish access to productive marsh and slough habitats. Nearly 25% of the riparian zone ( by area) below RM 3.0 is now developed ( 12% urban/ commercial, 9% rural residences, and 3% roads/ dikes). Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.173 Summer Chum Distribution A series of cascades between RM 3.5 and 4.5 confine summer chum to the lower river. Most summer chum spawning occurs in the lower 2.2 miles.

Population Status Escapement estimates shows the Duckabush falling from levels in the thousands in the 1970s to less than 100 spawners in several years of the 1980s. In the 1990s, escapement estimates increased to the hundreds, except for 2,650 spawners in 1996, overall still substantially less than the 1970s ( Appendix Table 1.1).

Factors for Decline Low channel complexity, estuarine habitat loss and degradation, riparian degradation, and freshwater wetland loss appear to be the principal factors associated with the decline of summer chum in the Duckabush watershed. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate to high impact. The channel in the lower river appears to have been greatly simplified since the late 1800s by the scouring action of splash damming, large woody debris removal, and conversion of floodplain to pastureland and residential development. As a result, habitat diversity and complexity has been reduced ( e. g. side channels, deep holding pools, and stable spawning gravels). A 1992 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey from RM 0.2 2.3 found 31% of habitat area in pools and sparse woody debris, which indicates degraded habitat conditions ( Tabor et al. 1993).

° Subestuarine habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing/ migration life stage, rated moderate impact. Two diked areas totaling 3.9 acres occupy 2.8% of the original 291.6 acres of estuarine delta habitat; these diked areas are located at the northern edge of the delta in association with residential development adjacent to a small distributary channel. An estimated 0.2 acres ( 0.1%) of the historic delta area has been filled and two ditches or remnant dikes with a total length of 0.3 mi are evident in the delta. Five roads traverse the delta at various locations, the most obvious of which is Highway 101. The total length of these road segments is 0.4 mi but, as in the Hamma Hamma and other Hood Canal estuaries, these relatively short road causeways represent a major disruption to tidal circulation and fish movement across emergent wetlands in the mid reaches of the delta.

° Riparian degradation  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Logging of old growth floodplain forest and conversion to pasture and residential areas has greatly reduced the potential for LWD recruitment to the channel. The forested buffer below RM 3.0 is dominated by medium sized ( 12 20 in dbh) trees ( 66%) and, to a lesser degree, small (< 12 in dbh) trees ( 32%). As in the Dosewallips, mixed conifer and deciduous forests predominate ( 57%) in the riparian zone, and 59% of the forested buffer is > 132 ft in width ( all percentages by length). By comparison, another analysis of riparian LWD recruitment potential along both the mainstem river and tributaries in the lower Duckabush watershed Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.174 identified approximately 36% of riparian forests in poor condition, 11% in fair condition, and 53% in good condition ( USFS 1997). These data suggest that riparian forests are currently degraded, and that near term LWD volumes in stream channels both in and above the zone of summer chum use will remain limited in the foreseeable future, unless mitigation occurs.

° Floodplain loss  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. As discussed above, the loss of floodplain forests, most of which were probably forested wetlands, likely reduced the amount and diversity of habitats available to summer chum during freshwater life stages.

Factors for Recovery Like other west Hood Canal watersheds, the Duckabush is remote from development pressures such as exist on the Kitsap peninsula, and much of its headwaters are managed by public agencies with mandates for the conservation of indigenous species. As a result, prospects for the recovery of summer chum are good.

Recovery of summer chum in the Duckabush watershed requires:

° Protection and restoration of riparian floodplain habitat along the lower 2.5 river miles. Properties in the lower floodplain should be targeted for acquisition or conservation easements from willing landowners, and conifers replanted in the riparian zone. This sensitive lower river area should also be examined for potential placement of engineered logjams to enhance channel complexity and stabilize spawning gravels for summer chum.

° Restoration of a natural tidal distributary channel system across the waist of the estuarine delta through reduction of the impact from the Highway 101 road causeway. Rerouting or refitting of the Highway 101 road causeway across the delta would be required to significantly restore natural tidal circulation and juvenile salmon movement across or residence in the delta. One of the diked areas in the northern delta represents a viable opportunity for restoration of juvenile summer chum foraging habitat through the dike removal and recovery of full tidal inundation.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Very little research has been conducted on fish habitats of the Duckabush watershed, although it represents one of the larger, more pristine watersheds in Washington with a high salmon production potential. Only recently, a U. S. Forest Service watershed analysis was completed. Only cursory habitat survey data exist for the lower Duckabush River ( Tabor et al. 1993). Information needs include: 1) more detailed habitat surveys of the lower river, 2) an assessment of channel stability as it relates to spawning and incubation life stages, and 3) a study of impacts to estuarine rearing potential from road causeway constrictions ( necessarily involving multiple estuaries under various degrees of impact). Most of the conclusions presented here are based on observations of current habitat conditions in the watershed and knowledge gained from historical research and habitat studies conducted in other similar watersheds, such as the Big Quilcene watershed. The strength of the evaluation is thus rated moderate to low due to the lack of site specific field studies. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.175 References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Rushton, C. D. 1985. Skokomish Dosewallips WRIA 16 technical document supplement, office report 74 B, background data and Information. Water resources planning and management section, Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

Tabor, R. et al. 1993. Ambient monitoring data. Unpublished. U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Fish and Wild. Serv., Lacey, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service). 1998. Hamma Hamma R. and Hood Canal Tributaries Watershed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 974 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.176 Hamma Hamma Watershed Narrative WRIA 16.0251 Watershed Description The Hamma Hamma River is located in northern Mason and southern Jefferson counties on the west side of Hood Canal. It is bounded on north by the Duckabush, on the west by the Skokomish, and on the south by the Lilliwaup and Jorsted creeks watersheds. The Hamma Hamma watershed is about 85 square miles in area and contains 18 miles of mainstem and 93 miles of tributary habitat ( Williams et al. 1975). Average annual discharge is 559 cfs ( range 39 6,010 for the years 1951 1979). There are two annual runoff peaks, one occurring in November February associated with winter rains, the other occurring in May June associated with spring snowmelt ( USFS 1997). The Hamma Hamma originates on the rugged, eastern flank of the Olympic mountains and flows east through steep, forested terrain and drains to Hood Canal at the town of Eldon. Except for limited sandstone, siltstone, and slate bedrock formations at the headwaters, most of the watershed is underlain by the basalt rich Crescent formation with glacial and alluvial deposits along the river mainstem. Below RM 1.5 the stream gradient moderates and the river is flanked by a large floodplain. A major tributary, John Creek, enters at RM 1.4. The lower 0.6 miles of the Hamma Hamma is tidally influenced, and at high tide at least one small secondary channel connects the mainstem with a large tidal marsh, just north of the main channel.

Nearly 95% of the watershed is under public ownership; 60% is managed public forestland and 34% is protected in National Park or designated wilderness. Private lands ( 5%) are concentrated in the productive, low elevation areas near the river mouth, and are managed primarily for timber extraction ( Heller et al. 1995). By the 1930s most of the Hamma Hamma watershed had been logged. Removal of LWD from streams began as early as 1953 when John Creek was cleared or diverted around 12 log jams. In 1958 the Hamma Hamma Logging Company constructed a dike, placed riprap, and dredged the mouth of the river to facilitate log booming ( Amato 1996). A 1930s era Hamma Hamma Logging Company timber cruise map reveals a 0.3 mile long side channel at RM 0.8 that is no longer in existence.

Manipulation of and timber salvage from the main channel has continued to the present, and some of this activity has been illegal ( T. Labbe personal observation, Cook Tabor 1996). Recent, intensive clearcut logging has likely contributed to severe landslides along John Creek and in the mainstem gorge area (~ RM 2.0; USFS 1997). Overall road density in the watershed is low ( 1.4 mi/ mi ), but in the lower Hamma 2 Hamma subwatershed ( inclusive of John Creek) road densities are high ( 2.4 mi/ mi ), approaching a level 2 where significant channel degradation can be expected to occur ( USFS 1997).

Most of the floodplain area along the lower 1.5 miles of the Hamma Hamma has been appropriated for agricultural and residential uses. Cattle have unlimited access to most of this lower river area. Thirty five percent of the riparian zone ( by area) below RM 3.3 has been impacted by recent intensive landuse ( 23% forestry, 10% agriculture, 2% rural residences). The Washington Department of Ecology maintains an administrative closure on issuance of further surface water rights for the July October period, and minimum flow criteria have been developed for the Hamma Hamma River but have not been formally adopted Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.177 ( Rushton 1985). An application by Mason County Public Utility District for hydroelectric development on the Hamma Hamma is currently pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Summer Chum Distribution Natural barriers and high stream gradients in the middle and upper watershed limit anadromous fish use to the lower 2.0 miles of the Hamma Hamma River and to the lower 1.8 miles of John Creek. Most summer chum spawning occurs below RM 1.8 in the Hamma Hamma and below RM 0.3 in Johns Creek.

Population Status Through the 1970s, escapement for the Hamma Hamma River and John Creek combined numbered in the thousands. After 1979, spawner density declined to hundreds per year. In the 1990s, estimated spawner density fluctuated from below 100 to several hundred ( Appendix Table 1.1).

Factors for Decline Low channel complexity, estuarine habitat loss, altered sediment dynamics, and riparian degradation appear to be the principal habitat factors associated with the decline of summer chum in the Hamma Hamma watershed. These factors are interrelated and the most severe impacts have occurred in the extreme lower reaches of the river, where summer chum spawning is concentrated. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate to high impact. Dredging and bank hardening of the lower mainstem, and removal of LWD from streams have reduced overall channel complexity in the Hamma Hamma watershed. A 1996 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat survey in the Hamma Hamma River from approximately RM 0.5 1.8 found 50% of the habitat area in pools, which is considered fair, and a LWD loading of 0.13 pieces/ m which is considered poor ( Appendix Report 3.8). In the lower 1.8 miles of John Creek, pools composed 51% of the total habitat area ( rated fair) but LWD loading was extremely poor ( 0.06 LWD pieces/ m). Most notably, large sized, " key" LWD pieces, which are important habitat forming and stabilizing features of larger rivers, were completely absent from the Hamma Hamma mainstem suggesting streambed instability that may result in redd scour during peak flow events is a potential threat to summer chum in this watershed ( Cook Tabor, 1996).

° Subestuarine habitat loss and degradation   Juvenile rearing/ migration life stage, rated moderate to high impact. Over 13% of the estimated 368.5 acre historic delta is diked in three areas, accounting for a loss of 48 acres of summer chum rearing habitat. One filled area in the outer, southern corner of the delta accounts for a loss of 3.2 acres ( 1% of historic delta habitat). An estimated 2.4 acres ( 0.6% of historic delta area) of the mainstem distributary channel where it crosses the outer intertidal area has been dredged, and at least seven areas of aquaculture or other modifications of the delta surface are apparent from contemporary aerial photographs which total 2.2 acres ( 0.6% of historic delta area). Three jetties or piledikes, totaling 0.4 mi in length, are evident in the delta. In addition, eight road and causeway Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.178 segments, totaling 1 mile in length, transect the delta, the largest of which is the Highway 101 causeway that has caused a direct loss of habitat and constrained tidal action and fish movement across the delta. The apparent isolation of the north bank estuarine marsh from the main river by dredging and dike/ road causeway construction at the river mouth has eliminated the connectivity of the river with a critical chum rearing habitat. As a result, outmigrant chum fry are routed directly into deepwater habitat and must reenter the marsh from the east ( via Hood Canal). The impacts of such a severe transition on summer chum outmigrants are unknown but they are suspected to be severe given the relative vulnerability of this life stage to physiological stress, predation, etc.

° Altered sediment dynamics  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Sediment aggradation in the lower reaches of John Creek has resulted in a series of high gradient cascades near the mouth where, in some years, subsurface flow occurs during late summer when summer chum adults return to spawn. In addition to impeding/ delaying the spawning migration of summer chum into John Creek, there is potential for the dewatering of redds. Logging induced landslides in upper John Creek have likely resulted in elevated sediment delivery rates to the channel.

° Riparian degradation  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Reduction in riparian forest extent has eliminated recruitment sources for LWD. Moreover, a shift from conifer dominated to alder dominated riparian communities ( along lower John Creek, in particular) has diminished the longevity and stability of LWD in the channel because alder logs are typically smaller than conifers and do not persist as long in streams. As a result, sediment is not retained in John Creek but routed downstream to accumulate near the mouth ( see above). Forty eight percent of the forested buffer below RM 3.3 is composed of small (< 12 in dbh) trees, and 45% is dominated by medium sized ( 12 20 in dbh) trees. Conifer ( 48%) and deciduous dominated ( 26%) buffers prevail along the lower river, and while 58% of the forested buffer is > 132 ft wide, the remaining 42% is sparse and/ or < 66 ft. In combination, these conditions represent moderate impact.

Factors for Recovery Like other west Hood Canal watersheds, the Hamma Hamma is remote from the development pressures such as exist on the Kitsap peninsula, and much of its headwaters are managed by public agencies with mandates for the conservation of indigenous species. One family owns most of the land in the lower reaches of the river where summer chum spawn, simplifying potential public private conservation efforts. Although summer chum habitat in the Hamma Hamma is presently degraded, conditions are not beyond recovery and past escapement estimates indicate the watershed has strong summer chum production potential. A general discussion of protection and restoration strategies by habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

Recovery of summer chum in the Hamma Hamma watershed requires:

° Protection and restoration of riparian forests to guarantee long term LWD recruitment sources. Illegal logging and timber salvage from riparian forests should be stopped and sites evaluated for the placement of engineered log jams to enhance channel complexity. In particular, logging of steep Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.179 erosive areas in John Creek and the mainstem along the gorge ( beneath the powerlines) should be curtailed as both these areas have high landslide risk.

° Reconnection of the river with the north bank estuarine marsh and reclamation of floodplain habitats for fish. Elimination of both inhibitors to migration and restoration of rearing habitat will be essential to provide significantly greater access to natural delta habitats. This would require removal of training dikes and cessation of dredging in the lower tidal distributary channel. Ultimately, however, rerouting or refitting the Highway 101 road causeway across the delta may be required to completely restore tidal circulation, and juvenile salmon rearing habitat in the Hamma Hamma delta.

° Reduction of upstream impacts of sedimentation ( particularly in John Creek) by preventing logging on potentially unstable slopes and removing and repairing roads with surface erosion or landslide hazard problems.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence in this assessment of habitat factors is moderate to high. To date, a U. S. Forest Service watershed analysis and a Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team report have been completed. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed the anadromous extent of both the Hamma Hamma and John Creek in 1996. Information needs include: 1) an assessment of the north bank estuarine marsh and its potential for reconnection with the main river, 2) an analysis of the sediment budget in John Creek, 3) an assessment of channel stability as it relates to spawning and incubation life stages, and 4) a study of impacts to estuarine rearing potential from road causeway constrictions ( necessarily involving multiple estuaries under various degrees of impact). References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Cook Tabor, C. 1996. Hamma Hamma watershed habitat surveys ( unpublished). USFWS Lacey Field Office, U. S. Dept. of the Int., Fish and Wild. Serv., Lacey, WA.

Heller, J., J. Smith, M. Floover, A. Trombley, T. Granger, B. McIntosh, and M. Hepp. 1995. West shore Hood Canal watersheds. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team ( PSCRBT) for Mason County, Shelton, WA.

Rushton, C. D. 1985. Skokomish Dosewallips WRIA 16 technical document supplement, office report 74 B, background data and Information. Water resources planning and management section, Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service). 1998. Hamma Hamma R. and Hood Canal Tributaries Watershed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 974 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.180 Lilliwaup Watershed Narrative WRIA 16.0230 Watershed Description The Lilliwaup Creek watershed is located in northern Mason county on the west side of Hood Canal. It is bounded on the north by Eagle, Jorsted, and Hamma Hamma watersheds, on the west by the Skokomish, and on the south by the Sund Creek watershed. The Lilliwaup watershed is underlain by the basalt rich Crescent formation, is 17.9 square miles in area, and contains 6.9 miles of mainstem and 10.8 miles of tributary habitat ( WDF 1975). Lilliwaup Creek is fed by extensive wetlands associated with Price Lake and upper Lilliwaup valley, totaling over 910 acres ( Heller et al. 1995). The remaining upper and middle watershed stream habitats are generally high gradient. Below a large falls at RM 0.7 the stream flows through a large well developed floodplain before draining to Hood Canal at the town of Lilliwaup.

Managed public forestland accounts for 89% of the watershed area. Private managed forestland ( 7%) and residential lands ( 2%) are concentrated to the east, along Hood Canal ( Heller et al. 1995). Little historical information on the watershed exists, but it is known that by the early 1930s, the entire Lilliwaup watershed had been logged ( Amato 1996). Much of the lower floodplain/ estuarine area has been developed for transportation and residential use. At some point during the 1960s or 1970s, a section of stream immediately above Highway 101 was straightened and dredged to route floodwaters away from homes on the east side of Lilliwaup Creek ( R. Endicott, personal communication). A hatchery operates on lower Lilliwaup Creek and rears summer chum for release into the creek ( summer chum salmon are the only species released into the stream). There are 7.75 cfs of issued surface water rights in the watershed ( Heller et al. 1995). A private landowner operates a small hydroelectric power facility immediately below Lilliwaup Falls ( RM 0.7). Road density in the Lilliwaup Creek watershed is 2.9 mi/ mi , significantly above the level where channel 2 degradation can be expected to occur ( USFS 1997). Forty eight percent of the riparian zone ( by area) below RM 0.7 is developed ( 28% roads, 20% agriculture).

Summer Chum Distribution Lilliwaup Falls at RM 0.7 blocks anadromous passage upstream. Spawning surveys indicate summer chum utilize the full extent of the anadromous zone in Lilliwaup Creek.

Population Status Annual escapement from 1971 1978 ranged from several hundred to over one thousand spawners. Since that time escapement has never exceeded 300, and generally is below 100 spawners ( Appendix Table 1.1).

Factors for Decline Riparian degradation, estuarine habitat loss, and low channel complexity appear to be the principal habitat factors associated with the decline of summer chum in the Lilliwaup Creek watershed. All of the factors Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.181 discussed below cover immediate impacts to the area accessible to summer chum but upstream cumulative impacts such as altered stream flow characteristics or sediment/ LWD delivery rates may also be important. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Riparian degradation  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Agricultural and residential development along the lower reaches of Lilliwaup Creek has reduced the extent and altered the age and species composition of the riparian forest. Elimination of riparian forests has decreased LWD recruitment sources for both the creek and estuary. Seventy nine percent of the forested buffer below RM 0.7 is dominated by medium sized ( 12 20 in dbh) trees of mixed conifer and deciduous composition, and 21% lacks a buffer altogether. Fifty two percent of the buffer is > 132 ft in width, while 48% is < 66 ft wide and/ or sparse.

° Subestuarine habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing/ migration life stage, rated moderate impact. Of the estimated 48.2 acres of historic delta, one diked area associated with a fish hatchery accounts for a loss of 1.5 acres ( 3.1% of historic delta area). Fill for residential development on the south side of Lilliwaup estuary accounts for a loss of 1.2 acres ( 2.6%), and a human excavated pond at a fish hatchery represents a loss of 0.5 acres ( 1%). In addition, the 0.12 mi long Highway 101 causeway that bisects the delta has constrained the estuarine distributary channels of Lilliwaup Creek, eliminated habitat area, and likely altered overall estuarine function by altering tidal circulation. Although a relatively small percentage of the historic delta area has been impacted, the location of these habitat alterations has likely contributed to their disproportionately large effect on the overall functional value of Lilliwaup estuary as juvenile rearing and transition habitat for summer chum.

° Low channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. No habitat survey data exist for Lilliwaup Creek. Based on aerial photo interpretation and communication with local residents, approximately 600 feet of Lilliwaup Creek at RM 0.2 was straightened and dredged. The lack of LWD in both the creek and estuary also contributes to reduced channel complexity, and raises the potential for channel instability and redd scour during peak flow events.

Factors for Recovery Limited spawning habitat likely restricted the summer chum population in Lilliwaup Creek under natural conditions. Human occupation and use of the Lilliwaup Creek floodplain and estuary has probably further diminished summer chum production potential. On a positive note, the large wetlands of upper Lilliwaup valley that appear to guarantee sufficient stream flow for returning summer chum remain intact and functional ( Heller et al. 1995).

Recovery of summer chum in the Lilliwaup Creek watershed requires:

° Restriction of human activity in the lower floodplain to allow for the reestablishment of riparian forests and natural recruitment of LWD to the main channel. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.182 ° Restoration of a natural tidal distributary channel system across the waist of the estuarine delta through reduction of the impact from the Highway 101 road causeway. ° Protection of the Washington DNR owned wetlands in upper Lilliwaup valley, which sustain summer flows in Lilliwaup Creek.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence in this assessment of habitat factors is moderate. To date, a U. S. Forest Service watershed analysis and a Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team report have been completed but little additional information exists. Information needs include:

1. An assessment of the condition and role of upstream wetlands in sustaining summer low flows suspected to be critical to summer chum. 2. A survey of lower Lilliwaup Creek to collect baseline habitat information. 3. An assessment of channel stability as it relates to spawning and incubation life stages. 4. A study of impacts to subestuarine rearing potential from road causeway constrictions ( necessarily involving multiple subestuaries under various degrees of impact).

References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Heller, J., J. Smith, M. Floover, A. Trombley, T. Granger, B. McIntosh, and M. Hepp. 1995. West shore Hood Canal watersheds. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team ( PSCRBT) for Mason County, Shelton, WA.

USFS ( United States Forest Service). 1998. Hamma Hamma R. and Hood Canal Tributaries Watershed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 974 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.183 Skokomish Watershed Narrative WRIA 16 Skokomish and North Fork Skokomish River 16.0001, Purdy Creek 16.0005, Weaver Creek 16.0006, Hunter Creek 16.0007, South Fork Skokomish River 16.0011, Richert Springs 16.0010, Vance Creek 16.0013 Watershed Description The Skokomish River is the largest river system in the Hood Canal Basin of Puget Sound with a watershed area of approximately 240 square miles comprised of 80 miles of mainstem and over 260 miles of tributaries. The Skokomish watershed drains the southeast corner of the Olympic Mountains and enters the southwest end of Hood Canal known as the Great Bend between the towns of Union and Potlatch creating the largest subestuary and intertidal delta in the Hood Canal Basin. Historically the Skokomish River system produced the Hood Canal region's largest runs of salmon and steelhead, most of which were produced in the North Fork Skokomish River.

The Skokomish watershed consists of three major drainages, the North Fork ( 33.3 miles) and South Fork Skokomish rivers ( 27.5 miles) and Vance Creek ( 11 miles). The North Fork Skokomish River originates in high mountainous areas of the Olympic National Park. Beginning in 1930, the construction of two dams as part of the Cushman hydroelectric project blocked all fish passage to the upper North Fork. The reservoirs behind the dams inundated a naturally formed lake and about 11.5 miles of the North Fork River channel and associated floodplain.

The Cushman project's lower dam diverts flow out of the watershed to a power plant on the west shore of Hood Canal. The project has reduced average annual North Fork flows below the lower dam by over 96% ( Stetson Engineers 1996). This out of basin diversion substantially dewaters eight miles of the lower North Fork and reduces by about 40 percent, the flow of the mainstem Skokomish River. An interim instream flow of 30 cfs has been set for the North Fork Skokomish River to be released at the lower dam ( WDOE, Vicki Cline, pers. comm.).

The South Fork Skokomish River originates in the Olympic National Park and flows through U. S. Forest Service ( USFS) timberland and land owned by the Simpson Timber Company, before joining the North Fork to form the mainstem Skokomish River. The Skokomish mainstem then flows for about 9 miles through a wide valley to its mouth and intertidal delta on Hood Canal. Upper Vance Creek flows through USFS lands and in its middle portions through timberland owned by Simpson Timber Company. The lower 3 miles of Vance Creek is bordered by several small farms and single family homes and enters the South Fork Skokomish River at river mile 0.8. Richert Springs is a spring fed system of channels coalescing into a single channel, which enters the mainstem Skokomish at river mile 7.9. Hunter and Weaver creeks are predominately spring fed tributaries that flow through agricultural lands in the southern portion of the Skokomish floodplain and join the mainstem Skokomish River at river mile 6.2 and 4.1 respectively. Purdy Creek begins in wetlands located above the alluvial floodplain and is fed by numerous springs before joining the mainstem Skokomish River just below Weaver Creek at river mile 3.6. Fish hatcheries operated by the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.184 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are located on Hunter, Weaver, and Purdy creeks where there is access to high quality spring water.

The upper portions of the South Fork and North Fork Skokomish rivers and Vance Creek are located in the Crescent Uplands, which consist of submarine basalt flows, and tuffs. Continental glaciation from British Columbia overran the lower basin and deposited hundreds of feet of sediment in the southern portion of the watershed. Soil depths are variable and generally less than 3 feet except in valley bottoms where soils are deep due to glacial deposition. River downcutting has formed steep gorges and valley walls and a broad flat alluvial valley in the lower basin, and has formed smaller gorges in the upper basin. The lower 11 miles of the watershed flow through an alluvial valley about 3/ 4 to 1 ½ miles wide consisting of large and small farms and numerous single family homes. The lower 5.9 miles of the river including a substantial portion of the subestuary are located on the Skokomish Indian Reservation.

The Skokomish watershed is designated as a Tier 1 Key Watershed under the President's Forest Plan ( FEMAT, 1993). Industrial forestry is the dominant land use above the valley floodplain. Agriculture and residential development dominate the alluvial valley. Portions of the lower river are diked and remnants of a system of dikes and tidegates remain in the subestuary and intertidal area.

Summer Chum Distribution Summer chum are considered extinct in the Skokomish River system and there is little population data upon which to assess potential historical distribution. However, based on observations made in a 1954 1955 study ( WDF 1957) and similarities in habitat attributes between streams, it is assumed that summer chum are likely to have been distributed in the mainstem, North Fork, Vance Creek, Richert Springs, and in Hunter, Weaver, and Purdy creeks. Several thousand summer chum spawners were observed in the mainstem on October 1, 1954 ( WDF 1957). Because there was no appreciable flow in the North Fork that year, owing to the Cushman hydroelectric flow diversion, no summer chum access was assumed to occur and there were no North Fork spawner surveys. Nevertheless, the habitat attributes of the North Fork suggest that summer chum may have historically ascended to the lower falls at river mile 15.6. Summer chum were observed in Purdy Creek in 1954, and while no surveys were performed in Richert Springs, Weaver Creek, or Hunter Creek, the latter streams possess habitat attributes similar to Purdy Creek and it is assumed summer chum salmon existed in them as well. Vance Creek is also assumed to have supported summer chum salmon production, due to its location, habitat characteristics and the observed early run timing of juvenile chum salmon emigrants ( consistent with expected summer chum emigration timing) observed in 1955 ( WDF 1957).

Population Status Few to no summer chum salmon have been observed in spawner surveys of the Skokomish River in recent years. The stock is thought to be extirpated. A spawning ground survey in Purdy Creek conducted on September 23, 1954 documented 9 adults and 8 redds 200 yards above U. S. 101 ( site of George Adams Salmon Hatchery). On October 1 of the same year an aerial survey of the Skokomish River documented over 3,000 live and dead chum from the mouth to the Hwy 101 bridge and 1,000 live and dead chum from Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.185 the bridge to the forks ( WDF 1957). Observations of early returning chum have been encountered during in river fisheries for chinook and coho and incidentally during spawning ground surveys targeting chinook since that time period, although the numbers are extremely small. In addition, a document discussing the Skokomish Indian fishery in the river presented data from 1936 through the early 1950s on catches of salmon. September counts of chum salmon were as high as 986 in 1940. Smaller catches were made during October throughout that period which may represent summer chums and early fall chums ( Smoker 1952).

Factors for Decline The Skokomish watershed has been managed primarily for timber, power production and agriculture. The habitat conditions overall are poor due primarily to water withdrawal, estuarine modifications, low channel complexity, extensive diking, sediment accumulation, peak flows, poor riparian conditions and water quality degradation. Impacts on summer chum habitat are not universal throughout the basin ( different streams and stream segments are affected by varied factors for decline). For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Low flow  Adult migration, spawning, incubation and juvenile rearing life stages, rated high impact. From 1930 through 1988, the Cushman Project diverted all flows out of the North Fork Skokomish River at the lowermost dam, causing much of the North Fork between the lower dam and the confluence to be dry or nearly so during dry periods. This eliminated summer chum from the North Fork and severely degrading fish habitat conditions in the North Fork, mainstem Skokomish River, subestuary and intertidal delta. Since 1988, the Department of Ecology has required a minimum flow of 30 cfs [ 4% of average annual flow] to be released to the North Fork from the lowermost Cushman dam, pending federal licensing ( WDOE 1987) . Presently with the 30cfs release, the North Fork does not meet state water quality standards due to insufficient flows for habitat and high temperatures ( WDOE 1994). According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Fork flow releases of about 228 cfs [ 28% of average annual flow] proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be inadequate for recovery of fish resources and inadequate to prevent continued impairment of fish habitat and degradation of the subestuary ( EPA, 1998). The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, and U. S. Department of Interior agree that substantial restoration of North Fork flow ( target of 84% natural) is the minimum protection required for aquatic resources of the North Fork and mainstem Skokomish River and subestuary/ delta ( USDI, 1997; EPA, 1998; NMFS, 1998).

° Subestuarine delta impacts  Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. Probably the largest long term impact to this delta for juvenile salmon rearing, in addition to many other ecological functions, has been the steepening of the delta and loss of approximately 17% of the delta's eelgrass habitat along the face of the delta ( Jay and Simenstad, 1996). This dramatic change is primarily attributed to the loss of sediment transport through the delta due to water withdrawals by the Cushman project. Diversion of the North Fork has severely degraded estuarine habitat conditions for summer chum by disrupting sediment transport abilities and natural salinity and nutrient regimes in the subestuary and intertidal delta, and by reducing extent of tidal influence in the Skokomish River. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.186 ° Subestuarine alterations  Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. Of the original 2,175 acre delta ( 11.2 miles perimeter), 14.4% ( 313 acres) was diked for agriculture. A recent dike breach in the largest contiguous diked farm area in the delta ( Nalley Farm, ~ 215 acres), has allowed tidal inundation of this area. Nine diked areas persist, totaling 99 acres ( 4.6% of original delta). Restoration of the Nalley Farm will contribute to increased juvenile summer chum rearing habitat although access is limited with the only dike breach located on the northern perimeter of the dike. Chum fry will have to migrate along existing dikes to the central portion of the delta before accessing the restoring wetland, and then predominantly at high tide. Dikes and several tidegates continue to keep wetlands isolated from the subestuary thereby cutting off the primary production in these once saltwater marshes. Two identifiable fill areas occupy approximately 5 acres ( 0.2% of historical delta area) of the delta and are thought to have a low impact.

° Subestuarine road causeways . Thirteen roads or causeways cross or encompass the delta, the total length of which is 4.7 miles. Almost all of these roads are associated with dikes surrounding the original agricultural lands or service roads to electric line transmission towers. Even in the restoring Nalley Farm site, the dike roadways inhibit cross delta movement of juvenile summer chum. Transmission tower service roads impact a long segment of the upper intertidal habitat, affecting tidal movement and fish foraging activity in the western portion of the delta.

° Miscellaneous subestuarine impacts  A debris dam and dilapidated concrete abutments are located at the junction of a major distributary channel in the delta that divides the Nalley Farm properties. The distributary once was a more prominent channel that provided access of migrating juvenile salmon to the central delta. Flow was intentionally reduced to this channel to reduce flooding potential, although some tidal flow persists ( B. Martino, Skokomish Tribe Nat. Res. Dept., Potlatch, WA, pers. comm. 1998).

° Channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Historically, the Skokomish valley floodplain contained numerous sloughs, side channels and forested cedar wetlands. In the late 1800s and early 1900s woody debris and logjams were removed from the South Fork and mainstem Skokomish rivers in an attempt to prevent flooding and to facilitate log transport to saltwater via river drives. One report documented a jam 3 miles thick formed over 50 years that took 18 months to remove using dynamite, horse teams and steam donkeys ( Richert, 1964). Continual channel manipulations for flood control and wood salvage have continued to the present. During the 1960s and 1970s, the WDF Stream Improvement Division removed log jams and beaver dams in Vance Creek, Purdy Creek and the North Fork Skokomish River. Despite the intense history of studies in the Skokomish basin, there is scarce instream habitat data available for the suspected summer chum reaches, although current wood loading has been characterized as poor in most channel segments ( USFS 1995; Simpson Timber Co. and WDNR 1997, Skokomish DNR and PNPTC 1994). Habitat surveys conducted in 1994 in the lower 3 miles of Vance Creek found 39% pools and a range of 1.5 to 2.6 channel widths between each pool. LWD counts ranged from 0.02 to 0.15 pieces of LWD/ m with much of the wood perched above the wetted perimeter, stranded on exposed gravel terraces ( Skokomish DNR and PNPTC 1994). The pool data is also misleading because much of the reach was dry during the survey, skewing the number of pool habitat units due to numerous small isolated pools Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.187 ( K. Dublanica, Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., pers. comm. 1998). Observations made during a July 1998 float trip from the lower end of the South Fork Skokomish River canyon ( approximately R. M. 3.0) downstream to river mile 4 on the mainstem Skokomish River ( total distance of nine miles) revealed a lack of pools, long glides and riffles and a scarcity of wood, particularly large wood and jams . Ambient Monitoring has not been conducted in the North Fork Skokomish River, but observations by local biologists suggests wood loading is poor with much of it being alder and small conifer ( K. Dublanica, Skokomish Tribe, personal communication 1998) The majority of the mainstem Skokomish and portions of the South Fork Skokomish River and Vance Creek have been diked and / or channelized, reducing channel complexity and sinuosity, eliminating important side channels, simplifying the remaining habitat and creating a disconnect between these streams and existing floodplain sloughs and side channels. The Highway 101 and 106 bridges over the mainstem Skokomish restrict channel migration, as do two Mason County bridges across Vance Creek. Riparian corridors in all summer chum habitat zones including the floodplain tributaries are sparse and do not provide the large woody debris necessary to maintain structurally diverse channels. Woody debris continues to be removed from the channel and riparian areas to prevent flooding and as a source of firewood and lumber. The summer chum zone is highly modified with dikes, roads and armored banks prevalent throughout the valley. Highly modified channels promote channel instability which impact summer chum by inhibiting redd construction and increasing redd scour.

° Sediment Spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Past timber management practices in the basin have increased sediment aggradation in Vance Creek, the South Fork and mainstem Skokomish rivers through mass wasting and road failures ( USFS 1995; STC 1997). Aggradation increases flooding, scouring of redds and bed materials, bank erosion and has led to more anthropogenic channel manipulations ( e. g., diking) in the valley in response to greater flooding. Bed aggradation and channel braiding in the valley is well documented and is attributable to 1) increased sediment from road and slope failures due to logging, 2) reductions in sediment transport abilities with loss of flows from the North Fork Skokomish, 3) dikes limiting transport of bed materials out of the channel and onto floodplain areas and cutting off side channels and sloughs and 4) loss of stable bars and banks throughout the basin due to reductions in instream woody debris and riparian forests. Aggradation has reduced the conveyance capacity of the mainstem from the pre Cushman level of 18,000 cfs to roughly 5,000 cfs ( Stetson, 1996). Aggradation has been estimated by numerous entities to range from 3.0 to 4.5 feet ( USDI 1997). Aggraded channels tend to be unstable with severe scour and fill episodes following storm events which destroy redds and hinder redd construction.

° Peak flows  Incubation life stage, rated high impact. Timber management has increased fall/ winter storm flows by broadening the hydrograph and increasing the duration of high flows by up to 18%. These changes could translate to increases in sediment transport and channel disturbance ( Simpson Timber Co. and WDNR 1997), scouring the redd environment. Road densities in some sub basins in the South Fork Skokomish and Vance Creek drainages are over 6 miles/ mile sq. and may contribute to peak flows by extending the stream network. Rain on snow peak flow events, combined with an aggrading channel, affects the incubation environment by bed scour and movement. Dikes contribute to bed scour by retaining water within the channel forcing the energy down onto the substrate rather than laterally across the floodplain. Typically depth of scour is greater in diked reaches than undiked Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.188 reaches. Dikes and removal and filling of important side channel habitats eliminated these areas from floodwater retention.

° Riparian condition  Spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Riparian and floodplain habitat was removed in the late 1800s and early 1900s as the thick old growth stands in the lower valley were cleared for farming, timber extraction and perceived flood protection ( Richert, 1964). A large portion of the valley is maintained in agricultural fields. Sixty two percent of the mainstem Skokomish River, 81% of Hunter Creek, and 57% of Weaver Creek are either agricultural fields, sparsely vegetated, and/ or have a forested riparian buffer < 66 feet in width. The South Fork and Vance Creek riparian forests are in slightly better condition overall with 20% and 32% respectively as sparsely vegetated or < 66 feet in width. The North Fork Skokomish and Richert Springs are the least disturbed with less than 20% of the riparian forest sparsely vegetated or with widths < 66 feet in width ( PNPTC, 1998). The majority of Purdy Creek flows through a large intact wetland system, except for the hatchery area above Hwy 101 which is the location of summer chum observations in 1954. Degraded or non existent riparian forests affect potential recruitment of LWD to stream channels. Lack of instream and potential sources of woody debris leads to reduced pool habitat, increased bank erosion, unstable bars and stream channels thereby affecting the spawning and incubation environment.

° Water quality ( temperature, nutrients)  Adult migration, spawning and rearing life stages, rated low impact. Elevated summer temperatures have been observed in the SF Skokomish River partially attributable to channel widening and aggradation which can inhibit upstream movement and migration of summer chum and induce premature emigration of fry from the redd environment ( K. Dublanica, personal communication, 1998). Elevated temperatures may occur in the mainstem as well where water withdrawal along with aggradation and channel widening could influence peak temperatures. Nutrients from livestock and septic systems may impact water quality in the river and subestuary causing shifts in primary and secondary production of marine organisms. Failing septic systems and livestock are thought to be responsible for high levels of fecal coliform noted in several tributaries including Purdy, Weaver, Hunter creeks and parts of the mainstem ( J. Park, Skokomish DNR, pers. comm. 1998).

Factors for Recovery In general, to assist in restoring summer chum habitat in the Skokomish watershed it is necessary to restrict development in critical reaches of the Skokomish Valley. Additionally, the following actions should be taken: 1) protect and restore the existing riparian and wetland habitats in the basin to enhance instream woody debris inputs, moderate temperatures and promote aquatic habitat diversity; 2) encourage the maximum amount of the watershed to be maintained as forestland; 3) restore floodplain connections of wetlands, sloughs and side channels with the main river channel; 4) reduce sediment inputs by road stabilization or abandonment, avoid timber harvests on unstable slopes; 5) restore riparian forests; 6) return flows to the North Fork to reduce bed aggradation in the mainstem Skokomish and return sediment transport to the delta, including reversal of eelgrass habitat loss in outer delta ( additionally, it will restore mainstem channel depth and conveyance capacity as mandated by the Department of the Interior and recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Skokomish Tribe, Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Hood Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.189 Canal Coordinating Council, Mason County and others ( USDI 1997)); and 7) restore and enhance subestuary habitat through modification of dikes and tidegates. The following are more detailed descriptions of factors needed for recovery.

° Water withdrawal  The Department of the Interior's mandatory conditions for future operation of the Cushman Project, which include managed restoration of North Fork flow and restoration of mainstem channel conveyance capacity, represent the minimum requirements for protection and restoration of anadromous fish in the Skokomish River system and subestuary, and are broadly supported by federal, regional and local resource agencies and comprehensive watershed planning led by the Skokomish Tribe. Substantial restoration of North Fork flow from the Cushman Project is essential to reduce or eliminate aggradation of the mainstem channel, enhance instream habitat conditions and reverse continuing degradation of critical estuarine habitat. In addition, restored flows during the summer low flow months would improve upstream migration of all salmonids including summer chum and promote the recovery of the North Fork Skokomish River channel. The DOI/ NMFS/ EPA agreement on Interior 4( e) flow restoration conditions, are the minimum necessary to protect aquatic resources.

° Subestuarine alterations  Restore subestuary migration and rearing habitat by eliminating dikes, tide gates and roadways, converting agricultural lands back to estuarine wetlands and natural distributary and dendritic channels. Restoration of flows from the Cushman project is essential for subestuary recovery ( Jay and Simenstad 1996). Several reports have been commissioned by the Skokomish Tribe to examine the structure of the delta and the potential for restoration, including environmental impacts and cost estimates for dike breaching ( USCOE 1995).

° Channel complexity/ aggradation  There have been several areas identified by the Mason County Department of Public Works where the potential for catastrophic channel avulsions may occur due to sediment aggradation and confinement by dikes. These reaches as well as others are extremely dynamic. Removal of dikes and property buy outs and/ or purchase of floodplain easements from willing landowners would allow the river to migrate and interact with its floodplain. Allowing the channel to migrate in these dynamic reaches will over time decrease stream power by increasing channel sinuosity, increase available habitat and reduce bed aggradation. Reconnection of isolated sloughs and side channels will increase habitat diversity and promote habitat development. In addition, in conjunction with restoration of North Fork flows from the Cushman project, there may be a need for mechanical removal of sediments in selected reaches of the river. However, on it's own, mechanical removal of sediment would not be cost effective or achieve the desired outcome of restoring channel capacity and natural stream function. Instream habitat may be protected and enhanced by experimenting with and monitoring the use of engineered logjams ( ELJ's) to stabilize bars and reduce erosion potential.

° Peak flows  At a landscape level it is necessary to restore ecosystem processes and lessen peak flow impacts by reducing road densities through obliteration and decommissioning, and improving the remaining road drainage network by installing larger and more frequent cross drains and water bars. The forest must be allowed to mature to improve hydrologic maturity and to reduce rain on snow Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.190 impacts. The forest stand age can be increased throughout the watershed by staggering harvest units and reducing even age ( clear cut) harvests.

° Riparian condition  The riparian corridors in all summer chum habitats in the Skokomish Valley need to be enhanced through revegetation efforts. Dike decommissioning and subsequent revegetation efforts along the mainstem streams will allow the river to migrate, connecting the river with its floodplain and incorporate riparian vegetation into the stream channels. Much of the adjacent agricultural lands ( especially Hunter and Weaver creeks) need to be enhanced by revegetation and fencing with livestock exclusion fencing. Riparian corridors need to be significantly wider and allow for the natural movement of the alluvial river segments in their floodplain. Water quality will be enhanced as well with the addition of wider riparian areas and fencing which will assist in moderating temperature impacts and preventing livestock access to the streams. A riparian forest protection/ restoration plan may assist in developing these riparian corridors and would be greatly enhanced by support from local citizens. Riparian corridors above the summer chum zone in Vance Creek, South and North Fork Skokomish rivers provide LWD to downstream reaches and need protection as well. Simpson Timber Company has proposed a 50 year timber management plan for their lands in the Skokomish basin ( Simpson Timber Company 1998), but the adequacy of protections have not been evaluated completely.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Numerous studies, reports and documents have been drafted discussing various issues in the Skokomish watershed. The major plans include a DNR/ Simpson Timber Co. watershed analysis on the South Fork Skokomish River ( Simpson Timber Co. and WDNR 1997) to direct watershed protection and identify sensitive habitats, a Draft Habitat Conservation Plan/ Landscape Plan proposed by Simpson Timber Company, the Presidents Forest Plan ( 1994) and a federal watershed analysis of the South Fork Skokomish River ( USFS 1995) to guide USFS land management and restoration efforts, a KCM Consultants ( 1997) to reduce the impact of flooding on people and property and finally the Skokomish Tribe's Watershed/ Ecosystem Improvement Action Plan ( in press). Numerous other documents are available as well including historical information on Skokomish valley settlement and activities ( Richert, 1964). Impacts to the aquatic system are well documented and the confidence in the habitat factors for decline is high but the confidence in the escapement and distribution of summer chum in the watershed is low to moderate.

More information is needed to determine current summer chum use and to assess the relative impacts of land use on summer chum habitat. Information needs include:

1. Monitoring of bed scour in selected channel reaches correlated to flows from existing USGS gauges or other means of measuring flows. 2. Monitoring habitat components in the subestuary as agricultural lands are converted back to subestuary habitats. 3. Dike reconnaissance throughout the basin to identify dikes structural integrity and dikes that have major negative influences on channel geometry. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.191 4. Increase survey effort throughout the Skokomish and tributaries to document any current summer chum utilization in the basin. 5. Investigate modification of the log jam at the top of Nalley slough to facilitate the movement of juvenile and adult salmon as well as sediment and flow. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.192 References Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood Canal basin, pre 1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Chinook Northwest Consultants. In press. Skokomish Water/ Ecosystem Improvement Action Plan. Chinook Northwest Consultants for Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlatch, WA.

EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Letter from Chuck Clarke, regional EPA administrator to Lois D. Cashell, FERC ( Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), January 30, 1998 ( subject EPA's request for rehearing, Cushman Hydroelectric Project). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Washington, D. C.

FEMAT ( Forest Ecosystem Management Team). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Team, U. S. Government Printing Office 1993 783 071. U. S. Government Printing Office for the U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv.; U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Fish and Wild. Serv., Bureau of Land Mgt., and Nat. Park Serv.; U. S. Dept. of Comm., Nat. Ocean. and Atmospheric Admin. and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv.; and U. S. Envir. Prot. Ag.

Jay, D. A., and J. C. Simenstad. 1996. Downstream effects of water withdraw in a small, West Coast river basin. Estuaries 19: 501 517.

KCM Consultants. 1997. Skokomish R. CFHMP. KCM Consultants Project # 2540037 for Mason County Dept. of Comm. Dev., Shelton, WA under DOE grant # G9400224 ( Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA).

NMFS ( National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Letters from Susan B. Fruchter, Dept. of Commerce Office of Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. Feb. 18, 1998; William Stelle Jr., Regional Administrator NMFS, July 28, 1998 to David P. Boergers, Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. ( subject NMFS request for rehearing on Cushman Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 460, August 29, 1998).

PNPTC ( Point No Point treaty Council). 1998. Riparian area assessment data ( unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Richert, E. 1964. A Long Time Ago in the Skokomish Valley. Publisher unknown. 84 p.

R2 Resource Consultants. 1996. Fisheries resources and sediment aggradation in the Skokomish River Valley, Washington. R2 Resource consultants for Northwest Economic Associates for U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Bureau of Indian Affairs. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.193 Simpson Timber Co. and WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1997. South Fork Skokomish Watershed Analysis. Simpson Timber Co., Northwest Operations, Shelton, WA., and Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., Olympia, WA.

Simpson Timber Co. 1998. Draft Habitat Operation Plan ( July 1998). Northwest operations, Simpson Timber Company, Shelton, WA.

Skokomish DNR ( Skokomish Tribe Department of Natural Resources) and PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council). 1994. Ambient Monitoring Project data ( unpublished). Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlach, WA.

Skokomish DNR ( Skokomish Tribe Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Water quality assessments ( Unpublished). Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlach, WA.

Smoker, W. 1952. The Skokomish R. Indian Fishery. Wash. Dept. Fish. and Wild., Olympia, WA.

Stetson Engineers. 1996. Technical report support recommended Section 4( e) conditions pertaining to hydrologic impacts on the Skokomish Indian Reservation, Washington.

USFS ( United States Forest Service). 1995. South Fork Skokomish Watershed Analysis. U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

USCOE ( United States Corps of Engineers). 1996. Restoration of tidal inundation to the Skokomish R. estuary. Dept. of the Army, U. S. Geo. Surv., Seattle District, Seattle, WA. 15 p.

USFS ( United States Forest Service) and BLM ( Bureau of Land Management). 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 74 p. + attachments.

USDI ( United States Department of the Interior). 1997. Section 4( e) conditions for adequate protection and utilization of Skokomish Indian Reservation. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington D. C.

WDF ( Washington Department of Fisheries). 1957. Research relating to fisheries problems that will arise in conjunction with current and projected hydroelectric developments in the Skokomish R. Wash. Dept. Fish. and Wild., Olympia, WA.

WDOE ( Washington Department of Ecology). 1987. Letter from Clark Haberman, WDOE to E. E. Coates, Tacoma Dept. Pub. Util., Dec. 30, 1987. Wash, Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

WDOE ( Washington Department of Ecology). 1994. Letter from Gary E. Hanson, WDOE to Lois Cashell, FERC, Oct. 27, 1994. Wash, Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.194 Union Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0503 Watershed Description The Union River enters Lynch Cove in the eastern arm of Hood Canal. The watershed area is approximately 24 square miles with 10 miles of mainstem and 30 miles of tributary streams. The headwaters are in the Blue Hills near 1,500 ft. elevation and flow through an undeveloped watershed before entering the Union River Reservoir constructed in 1955 57 as a municipal and industrial water supply. It provides up to 5 million gallons/ day for the City of Bremerton and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard ( Williams et al. 1975). The upper watershed contains moderate to steep side slopes with a relatively low gradient stream channel downstream to McKenna Falls located at river mile ( RM) 6.7 immediately below the water supply dam ( Cascade Dam) and reservoir. Below the falls, the gradient is also low with the lower 5 miles being quite flat and flowing through a broad shrub scrub floodplain. The Union River enters a subestuarine delta that has been heavily constrained by diking and filling, mainly for agriculture, flood control, and to protect residences located in the subestuary. The Washington Department of Ecology has closed the Union River and its tributaries from the mouth upstream to McKenna Falls to surface water appropriations ( WDOE, 1998).

The dominant landuse in the upper portions of the Union River and its tributaries is industrial forestry and water storage/ diversion. The middle and lower reaches have moderately heavy residential development as well as numerous small hobby farms and minor forestry operations ( Williams et al. 1975; PSCRBT, 1991). The City of Belfair is located directly east of the river mouth and subestuary. Three county owned bridge crossings and several privately owned bridges ( some of poor design) ( J. Lenzi, WDFW, Olympia, WA pers. comm.) exist which prevent the river from migrating throughout its floodplain.

Summer Chum Distribution Current summer chum distribution is primarily limited to the lower 2.5 miles, but extends upstream as well. Historical distribution is assumed to have extended to the base of McKenna Falls ( RM 6.7) under historical flow conditions. Several small tributaries exist within this reach, including Courtney, Bear and Hazel creeks and the East Fork Union River, however historical use by summer chum salmon is unknown.

Population Status Escapement estimates show 100 or less spawners during the 1970s. Since then, escapement has risen to several hundred most years with a high of almost 1,900 spawners in 1986. This population contrasts with the rest of the Hood Canal/ Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum populations in that the abundance of the stock has increased since 1978 ( Appendix Table 1.1). Although the stock has experienced a general increase over the last 15 years, it is still thought to be less than the historical run size. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.195 Factors for Decline The Union River watershed is dominated by residential development, small farms, and industrial forestry. The freshwater habitat overall is in fair condition with the majority of the impacts occurring from encroachment by homes and farms in the floodplain and dikes and agricultural activities and modifications in the subestuary and intertidal areas. The Union River is the only basin on the Kitsap Peninsula to possess a viable population of summer chum salmon. The potential for further habitat degradation remains high due to the trends in growth, urban landuse designations and inadequate stream, riparian and shoreline protections. For a comparison of the limiting factors in this watershed to other watersheds, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Subestuarine habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. For it's comparatively small size of 344.6 acres ( 6.1 miles perimeter), the estuarine delta of the Union River has been extensively diked and the tidal floodplain constrained as a result. Seven diked areas occupy 78.6 acres or 22.8% of the original summer chum rearing and migration habitat area. Some of these diked areas may be breached and now inundated by the tide but the extent of restoration to tidal circulation and the state of recovery cannot be verified without ground truthing. Several tidegates have been identified but their condition and impact on summer chum estuarine habitat is unknown ( M. Schirato, WDFW, Olympia, WA pers. comm., Oct. 1995). Juvenile summer chum rearing opportunities are presently limited compared to the historic state of the subestuary. In particular, habitat extent and quality in the mesohaline reaches of the subestuary, which chum fry may volitionally occupy for up to 1 2 weeks, are very limited due to the diking. Much of the breaching of marshes appears to be in an early state of restoration. Fills for commercial or residential use include two areas totaling 3.6 acres, approximately 8.9% of the historical delta area. At least one of these fills is located on the outer edge of the historic subestuary, thus imposing an intertidal barrier to migrating summer chum fry. One small ( 0.9 acres) pond or other excavation is evident within the delta but its impact is thought to be minor.

° Subestuarine ditches and remnant dikes  Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated high impact. Although much of the historically diked delta habitat in the Union River subestuary is now exposed to renewed tidal inundation, the associated ditching that accompanied diking and agricultural activities have heavily modified emergent marsh and other intertidal habitats. While these ditches and remnant dikes may not impose a direct impact, they likely inhibit restoration of natural drainage channel systems and delay long term recovery of estuarine rearing habitat for summer chum. At least 19 ditch and remnant dikes are present, and extend over approximately 2 miles of delta habitat. Many of these are concentrated in a large dike breach marsh in the lower extent of the delta, where chum fry would be expected to " stage" for migration into the Canal. Such ditching typically prevents or delays the formation of natural dendritic tidal channel systems, which in turn impacts foraging opportunities for juvenile salmon in the marshes. In addition, prey resources of the emergent marshes, which can be important to chum fry early in the estuarine migration, are likely progressing at a slower recovery rate than natural because of the ditching.

° Riparian condition  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated high impact. Most of the basin was completely logged of the original forests by the 1930s ( Amato 1996). Numerous farms, residential Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.196 developments and associated bank armoring exist in the riparian corridor affecting the functional status of the riparian forest. Currently fifty two percent of the riparian area is forested of which 96% is dominated by deciduous trees. Sixty two percent of the total riparian length is sparsely vegetated or less than 66 feet wide ( Appendix Report 3.7). Rural residential development, agriculture, and roads cover 46% of the riparian area. A more mature and diverse riparian forest is likely to provide stable LWD to create structurally diverse channel conditions and improve stream habitat overall.

° Channel complexity  Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. The Union River still possesses a structurally diverse channel network with 63% pools. However pool frequency is poor at 5.9 channel widths between each pool. The stream contains low levels of large size LWD due to past stream clean outs, riparian forest harvesting and natural transport downstream. Habitat surveys in 1993 found the Union River averaged 0.22 pieces of LWD/ m from the mouth to McKenna Falls with nearly 42% of the wood being in the small size class [ 10 20 cm diameter] ( PNPTC, 1995, Appendix Report 3.8). The low levels of large size instream LWD may result in redd scour and channel instability. Much of the current instream LWD is western red cedar, which has long instream residency times due to its slow rate of decay. Stream clean outs of LWD, particularly log jams and channelizations have been recorded back to the late 1800s but were more extensive during the late 1960s. For instance in 1967 the WDF stream improvement division noted that five log jams were removed from the Union River and it was channelized for 5 miles. In a three year period in the late 1960s, numerous log jams were removed from the Union River and 2 of the larger tributaries, Courtney Creek and Bear Creek. In addition, rip rap was placed along 2 miles of Courtney Creek in 2 consecutive years in 1967 and 1968 and the lower two miles of Courtney Creek appears to have been moved sometime in the distant past ( Amato, 1996). The previous channel alignment still exists on maps in existence today including the 7.5 minute U. S. G. S. Belfair Quadrangle map printed in 1994.