° Low flow  Adult migration and spawning life stage, rated low impact. The impact of water withdrawal by the City of Bremerton is thought to have a low impact on Union River summer chum salmon, but the actual impacts are unknown. Based on 1998 flow data, outflow from the Union Reservoir exceeded inflow to the reservoir during the critical migration and spawning period of mid August to mid October 73% of the time ( 43 of 59 days) ( City of Bremerton 1998). Preceding years have not been assessed at this time. Out of basin diversion may reduce the amount of water available for summer chum migration and spawning from historical conditions and may reduce the amount of spawning area available to adults at the site and reach scale, including adequate access to upstream reaches and tributary streams. Mean annual flow for the Union River for the period of 1947  1959 was 54.7 cfs with a mean annual minimum flow of 42.7 and a 1 day low flow of 14 cfs. The Bremerton Water Utility maintains a continuous flow gaging station downstream of the dam which has operated from 1958 to the present, however no summary of flow data was available for this station ( PSCRBT 1991). An administrative low flow has been set at 3 cfs for the Union River below McKenna Falls and 10 cfs at the river mouth ( Cline 1998).

° Water quality ( toxics, nutrients, temperature)  Adult migration, spawning and rearing life stages, rated low impact. Toxic chemicals ( mercury, selenium, cadmium, arsenic, boron) have been found in sediment and water samples near the vicinity of the Olympic View Sanitary Landfill located near the East Fork Union River confluence. Although the impact on summer chum is thought to be low, there Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.197 has not been any analysis of the impacts. Additionally, the Lynch Cove subestuary at the mouth of the Union River had the highest levels of cadmium and arsenic found in Puget Sound and the third highest levels of chromium and copper ( documented by the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program in a letter to DOE from the Mason County Commissioners 1994). Sediment laden, petroleum smelling effluent at approximately RM 6 has been noted near a commercial paving company, but like the toxics mentioned above, the impacts are unknown. Livestock have direct access to the stream in several locations and may inhibit redd formation by creating unstable conditions in the immediate area. Nutrients from livestock and septic systems may impact water quality in the river and subestuary, causing shifts in primary and secondary production. Past water sampling has revealed high bacterial counts in the lower section of the river apparently attributable to septic systems and stormwater ( PSCRBT 1991). Summer temperatures may be elevated due to water withdrawals and the lack of riparian shading which can inhibit the upstream movement and migration of summer chum and induce premature immigration of fry from the redd environment increasing mortality Factors for Recovery A general discussion of restoration and protection options for these habitat factors is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Subestuarine habitat  Currently, Belfair and much of the watershed is designated as an urban growth area in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Union River and most of the nearshore marine areas in Hood Canal adjacent to the Union River have an urban designation under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. There is a need to strengthen the protection strategies for buffers, building setbacks and bulkhead constructions. The county and other entities should consider acquiring undeveloped estuarine and marine shorelines for permanent protection or acquiring conservation easements from willing landowners. Both existing diked and breached dike estuarine wetlands are likely limiting the potential for maximal rearing of summer chum within the estuarine delta. Restoration action in the form of dike breaching, with setback dikes to protect public and private property from flood damage if necessary, and ditch in filling should be considered as the most proactive approaches to recovering critical summer chum habitat in this subestuary. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of dikes and the relative impacts on the tidal/ freshwater environments and, if appropriate, negotiate restoration opportunities with the landowners.

° Riparian condition and LWD  Enhance existing riparian forests through underplanting of shade tolerant conifer and encourage riparian planting throughout the riparian corridor. Consider acquisition of sensitive properties or conservation easements from willing property owners. Modify local government ( county and state) riparian protection strategies to protect stream and riparian areas from further residential development.

° Channel complexity  Allow natural LWD input processes to occur and LWD to remain in the channel, and consider developing restoration projects to deliver additional wood to the channel. Enhance and restore degraded riparian areas through local partnerships. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.198 ° Water quality  Elevate best management practices ( BMPs) utilized by industrial landowners, small farms and residential homeowners to reduce impacts on instream habitat and water quality. Increase riparian protections through local and state ordinances and laws. Enact effective stormwater protections to reduce the impact of future projected growth on basin hydrology and water quality.

° Increase awareness and education  Work with local groups ( Union River Basin Protection Association, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, Theler Wetland Project Center) and stakeholders to increase environmental awareness and educate the public about the importance of functional habitats to preserve and protect all salmon stocks.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence in this assessment is rated as moderate due to the amount of information available for analysis, including TFW instream ambient monitoring data, escapement/ survey data, historical research conducted by PNPTC and knowledge of experienced habitat biologists in the area.

More information is needed to assess the relative impacts in the summer chum habitat zone. Information needs include:

1. Assess and quantify the impacts from dikes located in the subestuary on summer chum salmon populations and potential for restoration. 2. Evaluate the recovery of vegetation communities and critical prey resources in the subestuary and intertidal areas. 3. Identify impacts from current water withdrawals by the City of Bremerton and possible measures to improve conditions if warranted. 4. Water quality monitoring ( toxics, nutrients, temperature) at industrial sites and throughout the summer chum habitat zone. 5. Continued stream channel habitat monitoring to determine habitat trends. 6. Monitoring of bed scour in selected reaches associated with instream flow measurements. 7. Increased survey effort to document summer chum utilization above the current index area at river mile 2.1 and in the various lower tributaries.

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.

City of Bremerton. 1998. Unpublished water flow and withdraw data. Water Resources Division of the Public Works Utility, Bremerton, WA.

Cline, V. 1998. Facsimile from Vicki Cline, WDOE to Carol Bernthal, PNPTC dated Dec. 28, 1998. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.199 Mason County. 1994. Letter from Mason County Commissioners to WDOE regarding Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program sampling results for Lynch Cove. Mason County, Shelton, WA.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council). 1995. 1993 95 Ambient Monitoring data ( unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

PSCRBT ( Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team). 1991. Lower Hood Canal Watershed, Mason and Kitsap Counties report. Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlatch, WA.

WDFW. 1998. Summer chum spawning ground utilization data ( Unpublished). Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA.

WDOE ( Washington Department of Ecology). 1998. In stream Resources Protection program   Kitsap Water Resources Inventory Area ( WRIA) 16. 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 A3.200 Big Mission Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0495 Watershed Description The Big Mission Creek watershed enters the eastern arm of Hood Canal and Lynch Cove at Plum Point approximately 2 miles west of the Union River and 3 miles west of the city of Belfair. It contains nearly 10 miles of mainstem and 10 miles of tributary streams. The mean annual flow for Big Mission Creek measured at river mile 4.8 from 1946 to 1953 was 12.4 cfs, with a mean annual minimum flow of 8.5 cfs and a peak flow of 403 cfs ( PSCRBT, 1991). The Washington Department of Ecology has closed Big Mission Creek, Mission Lake and their tributaries to further surface water appropriations ( WDOE, 1998).

The headwaters begin in a forested area above Mission Lake and in wetlands northwest of Mission Lake, which coalesce into a single stream immediately downstream of Mission Lake outlet. Channel gradients are typically less than five percent the entire length of the creek and flow through glacial advance and recessional outwash sediments consisting of unconsolidated silt, and gravel, which is highly erodible ( PSCRBT, 1991). The upper and middle portions of the watershed are forested and dominated by industrial forests managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources and other industrial forestland owners. The lower 2 miles has several county road crossings and a nearly continuous corridor of single family residences located in the riparian zone. The lower 1/ 10th mile flows through Belfair State Park and into Hood Canal via a heavily modified and constricted estuarine delta. Analysis of a 1944 aerial photo indicates the subestuarine delta ( which is now part of Belfair State Park) was diked and used as a farm at that time. Diking and other modifications have caused a significant loss in estuarine rearing and physiological transition habitat for chum salmon.

Summer Chum Distribution Spawning ground surveys since 1974 show only a fall chum population in this watershed. This watershed is included in this plan based on the historical potential for summer chum utilization given available suitable habitat, stable late summer flows, and proximity to the Union River, which supports summer chum. Based on the presence of suitable habitat, summer chum could range up to RM 1.5.

Population Status Spawning survey data indicate that a summer chum population does not exist at this time ( WDFW 1998). However habitat and flow conditions appear conducive to summer chum and it is possible that prior to spawning surveys ( 1974), summer chum did exist in this watershed.

Factors for Decline The potential summer chum habitat zone in the lower 2 miles of the watershed is in poor condition when compared with the upstream forested areas, primarily due to residential development, road crossings, stream Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.201 modifications and timber harvesting. For summary results of the limiting factor analysis, refer to Part Three  section 3.4, Tables 3.17 and 3.18.

° Subestuarine habitat loss Juvenile rearing and adult migration/ spawning stages, rated high impact. The historical area of this small delta is estimated to be 30.3 acres. Two diked areas comprise 10.3 acres or 34% of the original intertidal habitat potentially available for chum salmon. One large diked area also contains a man made pond. This extensive diking has likely caused the expansion of the delta into the Canal, although the extent of this has not been estimated to our knowledge. The mesohaline reach of the subestuary is heavily constrained by dikes with minimal emergent or other wetland vegetation. The dikes have resulted in a significant direct loss of habitat and have altered the natural process of tidal mixing in the tidal/ freshwater zone which is an important zone for feeding success and transition area from freshwater to saltwater life stages. Two remnant ditches and dikes extend 0.14 miles within the delta, but their impact is unknown and thought to be relatively small.

° Riparian landuse Spawning and incubation life stages, rated high impact. Seventy percent of the riparian area in the potential summer chum reach is forested with 36% being < 12 inches dbh ( diameter breast height) and 98% dominated by deciduous trees. Forty five percent of the linear buffer length is sparsely vegetated or is less than 66 feet wide. Residential/ commercial development and roads cover 30% of the total buffer area, which has reduced the extent of a functional riparian forest ( PNPTC 1998, Appendix Report 3.7). The current riparian forest is unable to provide LWD ( large woody debris) needed for the creation of stable instream habitat, which impacts the spawning success of chum salmon.

° Channel complexity Spawning and incubation life stages, rated high impact. Habitat surveys conducted in Big Mission Creek revealed 33% pools, 0.07 pieces of LWD/ m., and an average of 6.5 channel widths between each pool within the potential summer chum reach ( Appendix Report 3.7). This compares to 43% pools and slightly higher wood frequencies and lower pool spacing in the forested area upstream ( PNPTC 1995). Bank armoring, removal of standing trees recruitable as LWD and removal of instream large woody debris all continue in association with existing residential development adjacent to the stream channel. A stream channel lacking diverse structure leads to increased redd scour and poorly sorted spawning gravels, which may inhibit redd formation. In the mid to late 1960s WDF stream cleaning crews removed log jams from 12 miles of the watershed and channelized the stream for 4 miles over a four year period in an attempt to improve upstream migration of fish ( Amato, 1996). This work presumably included portions of the summer chum zone. In addition, the channel entering the delta may have been channelized to some extent as well. The impacts of low channel complexity are believed to exert a high impact.

Factors for Recovery A full discussion of protection options and restoration stategies by habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Subestuarine habitat  Summer chum essentially have little or no brackish to mesohaline rearing habitat in the Big Mission subestuary due to diking and other development of the historic delta. Removal and Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.202 setback of dikes could contribute significantly to the recovery of a natural distributary tidal channel system and estuarine wetland communities that would significantly enhance rearing prior to migration into the adjacent Canal. Removal of unnecessary fills and bulkheads will allow natural shoreline processes to occur. Property buy outs or conservation easements may be appropriate for some critical areas. Consider negotiating with Belfair State Park and the Washington Parks Department to reconfigure lower stream channel if it is thought that the results would be favorable to summer chum salmon. Strengthen local governments' protection strategies for riparian protections, building setbacks, stormwater runoff and shoreline armoring.

° Riparian condition and LWD  Enhance existing riparian corridors through underplanting of shade tolerant conifer. Consider acquisition of sensitive properties or conservation easements of developed properties that can be enhanced. Modify local governments' riparian protection strategies to protect the stream and riparian areas from further residential development by requiring functional riparian buffers. In the middle portion of the watershed the Washington Department of Natural Resources has developed a long term Habitat Conservation Plan for industrial forest activities on state land which will provide increased riparian protections during timber harvesting, but the adequacy of protections have not been evaluated completely. Nevertheless, it will be desirable to link the DNR riparian forests with the riparian corridors in the lower summer chum zone.

° Channel complexity  Allow natural woody debris input processes to occur and consider developing restoration projects to deliver additional wood to the channel. Remove unnecessary rip rap and restore sites with appropriate bioengineered techniques. Evaluate the effectiveness of culverts/ bridges to allow the free movement of wood, water and sediment to downstream reaches.

° Increase awareness and education  Work with local groups and stakeholders to increase environmental awareness and importance of functional habitat to preserve all salmon stocks. Develop local watershed groups to assist in monitoring environmental conditions.

Strength of Evaluation and Information needs Confidence for fish distribution is rated low, and based upon professional judgement of where summer chum would likely spawn. Confidence in the habitat assessment is high due to the TFW ambient monitoring data, historical overview, PNPTC riparian assessment and the field knowledge of several local biologists.

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

1. Water quality monitoring throughout the summer chum habitat zone. 2. Monitoring of bed scour in selected reaches associated with stream flow data and channel cross sections. 3. Increase in survey effort during the summer chum entry period in an attempt to document any current use by summer chum salmon beyond the current survey reach. 4. Analysis of the impact on freshwater and estuarine habitat created by the Belfair State Park and potential for restoration of this critical zone. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.203 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.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council). 1993. 1993 95 Ambient Monitoring data ( Unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

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

PSCRBT ( Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team). 1991. Lower Hood Canal Watershed, Mason and Kitsap Counties report. Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlatch, WA.

WDFW. 1998. Summer chum spawning ground utilization data ( Unpublished). Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA.

WDOE ( Washington Department of Ecology). 1998. In stream Resources Protection program   Kitsap Water Resources Inventory Area ( WRIA) 16. Wash, Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.204 Tahuya Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0446 Watershed Description The Tahuya River is the largest stream draining Kitsap Peninsula at 45.1 sq. miles, and is located east of Rendsland Creek and the Dewatto River, south of Big Beef Creek, and west of Big Mission Creek and the Union River. It headwaters in the Green Mountain on the plateau of the Kitsap peninsula and flows southwesterly entering the east side of Hood Canal at the community of Tahuya. The Tahuya River has a total mainstem length of 21 miles and a combined tributary length of approximately 64.9 miles.

Below Lake Tahuya, the Tahuya River flows through gently rolling hills with a low to moderate stream gradient. Below RM 14, the river flows through a broad alluvial valley. A distinctive feature of the Tahuya River and most of the streams draining southwest Kitsap Peninsula is the large wetland sections directly associated with the mainstem and numerous tributary wetlands within the drainage. The geology of this watershed is dominated by glacial till. The moderate terrain and low elevation of the Tahuya River watershed results in a rain dominated hydrologic pattern where many of the smaller tributaries go dry early in the summer season, or during winter dry periods. The numerous wetlands within the watershed are critical in moderating peak winter flow and augmenting summer low flow. To provide instream flows during the summer low flow period, the Department of Ecology has closed the Tahuya River to additional consumptive appropriations during the time period June 15 to October 15, per WAC 173 515 040( 2).

The primary historical land use in this watershed was timber harvest. A large portion of the watershed is still managed for timber in the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tahuya State Forest, and on the lands of private timber companies. Seventy one percent of the riparian zone is fully forested, with another 6% clearcut. Agricultural accounts for 8% of the riparian zone, mainly in the form of Christmas tree and small farms. Residential neighborhoods within the 100 year floodplain account for another 12% of the riparian zone. The immediate shoreline of Hood Canal is intensely developed. Many of the natural lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands in the Tahuya drainage are also intensely developed.

Summer Chum Distribution Past spawning surveys found summer chum below RM ( river mile) 3.0. However, given present flow and gradient patterns, summer chum could extend up to RM 8.0.

Population Status During the early 1970s estimated escapement ranged from the high hundreds to thousands. By the 1980s, it was reduced to less than 200. Summer chum have been detected at very low numbers since the early 1990s ( Appendix Table 1.1), and a viable population no longer exists. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.205 Factors for Decline Aerial photo analysis shows that the lower river channel from RM 0.0 to 3.0, where historically most of the summer chum spawned, has approximately 50 percent of the channel length impacted ( on at least one riverbank) by roads, agriculture, and residential development. The adjacent nearshore and estuary habitat has been intensely developed. The habitat is degraded due to ( in order of importance): nearshore habitat loss, loss of LWD, the loss of species diversity within the riparian forest, elevated water temperatures late in the summer season, and channel instability. As pressure to develop shoreline and floodplain increases, there is increasing conflict between natural shoreline and channel processes that maintain habitat and bank armoring, flood protection, and LWD removal. 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.

° Nearshore habitat loss Early rearing life stage, rated high impact. Nearshore development including, bulkheads, filling of near shore areas, erosion onto beaches, installation of docks, and loss of shoreline vegetation, has reduced and eliminated nearshore habitat. Bulkheads increase the rate of beach erosion, modifying and eliminating suitable habitat. Bulkheads and docks force fish into deeper water where they are subjected to increased predation by birds and other fish species. Installation of bulkheads reduces available habitat for chum prey. Bulkheads and filling of nearshore habitat eliminates eelgrass beds and salt marsh, important rearing and feeding habitats. Removal of shoreline vegetation reduces shade, shoreline LWD, and increases erosion onto beaches, all important factors in the survival of summer chum and their prey. Shoreline vegetation is also an important source of terrestrial chum prey. Dock installation through filling, shading, and physical disturbance of the beach eliminates eelgrass beds, micro and macro algae, disrupts salmon migration, increases predation by forcing salmon into deep water, displaces prey species, and disrupts beach spawning of prey species.

° Water quality, temperature Adult spawning life history stage, rated high impact. High water temperatures into late September can negatively affect summer chum by preventing the entry of adults into the river, exposing them to predation. Temperature data shows that on some years water temperatures are 12 degrees Celsius or higher through the first half of September ( PNPTC 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997). Reductions in the extent of riparian forests, and the size of trees within the riparian forest increase stream temperatures through a loss of shade and transpiration. Within the lower 9 miles of the Tahuya River 29% of the riparian forest is less than 66 feet in width or sparsely vegetated ( Appendix Report 3.7).

° Riparian forest condition Spawning and incubation life history stages, rated moderate impact. By 1930 most of the old growth in the Tahuya River watershed had been harvested ( Amato 1996). Historical riparian forests were dominated by a mixture of old growth western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and areas of younger alder. Stumps remaining in the riparian forest adjacent to the stream channel network show that in most areas all the large conifer trees available for recruitment into the stream channel were removed with timber harvest. Presently, 7% of the riparian zone ( by stream length) has no buffer, 24% averages < 12 in. dbh and, 69% is 12 to 20 inches dbh ( 12 20 in dbh). Species composition of riparian forest is 52% deciduous dominated, and 37% mixed conifer and deciduous. Forty four percent of the riparian forest is greater than 132 feet in width, 27% 66 to 132 feet in width, Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.206 and 29% less than 66 feet in width and/ or sparsely vegetated. Riparian land use within the riparian buffer is 71% forested, 12% rural residential and 8% agriculture ( Appendix Report 3.7). Although 44% of the riparian forest greater than 132 feet in width and 71% of the riparian buffer forested, the small size of most of the trees and lack of conifer in the riparian forest combine for a moderate impact. The habitat is in recovery, however development of this watershed is expected to rapidly increase over the coming decades. Habitat surveys ( between RM 4.0 and 9.0) of the Tahuya mainstem shows low numbers of LWD at 0.15 pcs/ m of channel length ( Appendix Report 3.8). Levels of LWD will continue to decline for the next 25 to 50 years until the existing riparian forest to matures and contributes large diameter LWD to the stream channel.

° Channel complexity Spawning and incubation life history stages, rated moderate impact. Road building, diking, channelization, floodplain agriculture and residences, and bank armoring have constricted the floodplain and limited channel movement and the creation of new habitat. Agriculture landuse found on the floodplain at RM 0.5 to 0.8 and RM 1.1 to 1.3 has eliminated or limited riparian forest development. From RM 1.6 to 2.0, a farm is located on a floodplain island bounded by the mainstem and a side channel of the river. A roughly 800 foot long dike protects this site. Residential development at RM 2.5 to 2.7 is located in the floodplain on the west side of the river. Residential development at RM 4.5 to 6.0 is located in the floodplain on the north side of the river. Agriculture and residential developments also occur from RM 6.0 to 6.2. From RM 6.3 to 6.9 homes are placed directly on the river bank, and agricultural developments is cutting off old river meanders. Fill is used to protect residential development at RM 7.3 to 7.6. The residential and agricultural development in the floodplain and riparian forest of the river has resulted in the removal of riparian vegetation and bank armoring from river mile 7.5 downstream.

From 1955 to 1970, the Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Improvement Division removed what was considered at that time as blockages to upstream salmon migration. Logjams, debris, and beaver dams were removed and many miles of mainstem and tributaries were channelized ( Amato 1996). The result was a loss of channel complexity and bed stability. From habitat survey data, the Tahuya River has 72% pools, 0.15 pieces of LWD/ meter, and an average of 2.4 channel widths between each pool ( Appendix Report 3.8). This is a low impact for percent pool, a high impact for LWD and a moderate impact for pool spacing. The low density of LWD has not translated into a low percent pools, since LWD is not the only pool forming factor in low gradient, wetland dominated, channels such as the Tahuya. The combined ratings for channel complexity are rated as moderate, however conditions may decline for the next 50 to 100 years until the existing riparian forest matures and contributes increased LWD to the stream channel.

° High flow Incubation life history stage, rated unknown impact. Continuous Tahuya River discharge data exists from 1945 1956 ( PSCRBT 1991). The Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory ( SASSI) ( WDF et al. 1993) identified past logging and road building as contributing to increased peak winter flow events. It is impossible to quantify the extent of this problem without new stream gauge data. However, we know from studies of other watersheds that an increase of impervious surfaces translates into higher peak flows. Since winter flows are rain dominated, the numerous wetlands within the watershed Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.207 moderate peak winter flow. Development adjacent to lakes and wetlands increases the level of impervious surface translating into a reduction in available storage capacity at peak flow.

° Subestuary habitat loss and degradation   Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated low to moderate impact. Two areas of the delta, totaling > 0.01 km (~ 1 ac; 1.4% of historical delta area), appear 2 to have been filled, primarily for residential development. Three areas of roads or causeways have impacted the delta over 0.27 km ( 0.17 mi) and, in addition to the habitat directly lost in the footprint of the causeways, the effect of this has been to constrict estuarine exchange in the middle of the delta. For example, a bridge at RM 0.0 with a fill causeway, constricts the migration, development, and flushing of estuarine sloughs. The extent of change in tidal flooding circulation and the effect on migrating and rearing salmon is unknown.

Factors for Recovery A full discussion of protection options and restoration strategies by habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Nearshore habitat loss Limit near shore development including, bulkheads, filling of near shore areas, erosion onto beaches, installation of docks, and loss of shoreline vegetation. Prohibit development that impacts or eliminates eelgrass beds, salt marsh and shoreline vegetation.

° Riparian condition, species composition With adequate regulation and protection, the recruitment of LWD to the stream channels within the watershed should be expected to improve over the next 50 to 100 years as riparian forests mature. Only riparian forests of adequate width, age, and species composition will be capable of providing a full range of riparian functions. All forests within the channel migration zone ( or 100 year floodplain) plus a riparian buffer of 250 feet should be protected.

° Water quality, temperature Development of fully functional riparian forest will buffer stream temperatures.

° Channel complexity The stream channel should be allowed to migrate naturally within the 100 year floodplain. This requires the elimination of bank hardening, stream channelization or other interruptions of channel and floodplain processes.

° Peak flow Manage all activities within the watershed ( logging and road construction, development, clearing, pavement, home construction, road building, placement of fill in and adjacent to lakes and wetlands) to eliminate increases in peak flow ( see Peak Flow toolkit, Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>). Implement storm water planning for existing and future development, including forest practice road construction. Size all drainage structures within the basin to allow for 100 year or larger storm events.

° Subestuary habitat restoration   The long term refitting of the highway bridge across the subestuary would likely contribute to restoration of more natural tidal circulation and distributary channel structure in the middle of the delta. Education of the problems with dense hardening of the shoreline may be Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.208 necessary. Shoreline landowners can be offered incentives to retrofit bulkheads and rip rap with " softer" technologies that are more habitat friendly.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Our understanding of the habitat conditions and sources of impact within the Tahuya River are based on instream habitat surveys, assessment of the riparian zone, and on the field knowledge of habitat by fisheries resource biologists. We are moderately confident that the above evaluation depicts the sources of impact and the likely effects on summer chum.

1. Presently the Tahuya River is not gauged. There is no available information for the extent that peak winter flows may be affecting chum survival on the Tahuya River. 2. The present data for stream temperature does not extend late enough into September to determine how long into fall elevated stream temperature effect adult migration and spawning. 3. A gravel scour monitoring program is needed. No information specific to the Tahuya River exists for bed stability and depth of gravel scour. In conjunction with gravel stability and scour, information on the level of fine sediment < 0.85mm should be collected. The 1994 ( Point No Point 1994) level of 10.5% is at the threshold where negative impacts to egg survival are expected. 4. Public education of the problems with bank hardening ( bulkheads, riprap) of shorelines and the floodplain are needed, along with the importance of maintaining these edge habitats in forest.

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.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council). 1994, 95, 96, 97. 1994 97 Ambient monitoring data ( Unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

PSCRBT ( Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team). 1991. Lower Hood Canal Watershed, Mason and Kitsap Counties report. Skokomish Tribe Dept. Nat. Res., Potlatch, WA.

WDF ( Washington Department of Fisheries), Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, WA. 212 p. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.209 Dewatto Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0420 Watershed Description The Dewatto River is located in the southwestern portion of Kitsap Peninsula, approximately 5.5 miles north of the Great Bend of Hood Canal, west of the Tahuya River, and south of Stavis and Big Beef creeks. Originating on the plateau of the Kitsap peninsula, the Dewatto follows a glacial outwash channel as it flows southwesterly and parallel to Hood Canal for approximately 8 miles to saltwater. The headwaters originate in till and outwash sands and gravels. The till is moderately erodible and the outwash is highly erodible. The narrowest portion of the valley is near the river mouth, but the confinement is not extreme. The watershed area is approximately 23 square miles and there are approximately 30 miles of tributary streams.

The Dewatto River gradient is low to moderate throughout its length flowing between gently rolling hills. The Dewatto enters Hood Canal through a mostly undisturbed estuary. Several large wetlands are directly associated with the mainstem, with numerous other tributary wetlands to the mainstem. The moderate terrain and low elevation of the watershed results in a rain dominated system where many small tributaries go dry early in the summer, or during winter dry periods. The numerous wetlands within the watershed are critical in moderating peak winter flow, and augmenting summer low flow. To provide instream flows during the summer low flow period, the Department of Ecology has closed the Dewatto River to additional consumptive appropriations during the time period June 15 to October 15, per WAC 173 515 040( 2).

Historically, the prevailing land use in this sparsely developed watershed has been timber harvest, with a large portion of the watershed still managed for timber. Several Christmas tree farms are the only agricultural developments. Rural residences are scattered throughout the drainage. The riparian zone is 87% forested, the highest percentage of all 20 watersheds ( Appendix Report 3.7). Rural homes account for 4% and agriculture 2% of riparian landuse Summer Chum Distribution The majority of summer chum spawn in the lower 2 miles of the Dewatto River. Stream flow and gradient characteristics would allow access to summer chum to approximately river mile ( RM) 4.0.

Population Status The summer chum population in the Dewatto River has been detected only in very low numbers since 1988, and is assumed to no longer be a self sustaining population. A severe decline in the number of spawners has been recorded since the 1970s. In the 1970s escapement ranged between the hundreds and thousands, in the 1980s it was generally well below 100, and in the 1990s was zero or very few fish ( Appendix Table 1.1). Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.210 Factors for Decline Overall habitat quality in the Dewatto River was rated fairly high and in a state of recovery from historic logging practices, especially in comparison with adjoining watersheds. The estuary is an example of a high quality system that provides abundant transitional areas for adults and rearing habitat for juveniles. The lower river channel, where historically most of the summer chum spawned, remains today relatively undeveloped. Two factors of concern within the lower river are the elevated levels of fine sediment, and stream temperatures. Between 1915 and 1930 all the old growth timber in the Dewatto River watershed was harvested. Logging and road building has had direct and indirect impacts on the stream channel by decreasing volumes of in channel large woody debris ( LWD), and species diversity within the riparian forest. In the 1960s, the Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Improvement Division removed what was considered at that time as blockages to upstream salmon migration ( Amato 1996). In the lower Dewatto River the summer chum habitat is degraded due to ( in order of importance): elevated stream temperature, fine sediment within the spawning gravel, reduced channel complexity, loss of LWD, and the loss of species diversity within the riparian forest. 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.

° Water quality, temperature Adult spawning life history stage, rated high impact. Elevated water temperatures into late September can negatively affect summer chum by preventing the entry of adults into the river exposing them to predation. Water temperatures at or above 12 degrees Celsius extend through the first half of September for several years ( PNPTC 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997). Reductions in the size of trees within the riparian forest will increase stream temperatures through a loss of shade and transpiration ° Fine sediment  Spawning and incubation life history stages, rated moderate impact. Spawning gravel composition sampling below RM 4.0 shows the percent of fines < 0.85mm to be above the level where there are impacts to survival of incubating eggs. Levels were 15.1% in 1994 and 20.5% in 1995 ( PNPTC 1995). Logging and road building may be the major factors contributing to elevated levels of fine sediment, however in channel wetlands may also contribute. Elevated levels of fine sediment result in a loss of inter gravel flow and entombment of alevins and fry.

° Channel complexity, large woody debris Spawning and incubation life history stages, rated low to moderate impact. From RM 3.0 3.5, there are 37% pools ( high impact), 4.1 pool frequency ( high impact) and 0.28 pcs/ m of LWD ( moderate impact). The survey is limited, and sandwiched between two large in channel wetlands, which would increase percent pools and pool frequency. In the late 1960s, the Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Improvement Division removed logjams, debris, beaver dams and the channelized several miles of the Dewatto River. This effort degraded channel complexity and stability ( Amato 1996).

° Riparian condition, species composition Spawning and incubation life history stages, rated low to moderate impact By 1930 most of the old growth in the watershed had been harvested ( Amato 1996). Historical riparian forests were dominated by a mixture of old growth cedar, western hemlock, Douglasfir and areas of younger red alder, which now contain mixed stands of deciduous and coniferous species. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.211 Stumps remaining in the riparian forest adjacent to the stream channel network show that in most areas all the large conifer trees available for recruitment into the stream channel were removed with timber harvest. Presently 32% of the riparian forest is less than 12 inches diameter breast height (< 12 in dbh) and 68% is 12 to 20 inches dbh. Species composition of riparian forest is 96% mixed conifer and deciduous. Sixty nine percent of the riparian zone is greater than 132 feet in width, 16% 66 to 132 feet in width, and 15% less than 66 feet in width and/ or sparsely vegetated. The riparian forest is in a state of recovery, and will continue to recover if not harvested in the future. Levels of LWD may decline for the next 25 50 years until the existing riparian forest matures and contributes increased LWD to the stream channel.

Factors for Recovery A full discussion of protection options and restoration strategies by habitat factor is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Sediment fines Upgrade roads to route drainage away from stream channels. Re vegetate or stabilize road sidecast, re vegetate or armor ditch lines, and harden road surfaces to reduce the creation of fine sediment. Upgrade all stream crossing to pass 100 year events. Decommission roads, remove culverts, de compact roads, outslope and waterbar road surfaces, and remove unstable fill and sidecast.

° Channel complexity The stream channel should be allowed to function naturally within the 100 year floodplain. Natural function of the stream channel requires the elimination of bank hardening, stream channelization or other interruptions of channel and floodplain processes.

° Riparian condition, species composition With adequate regulation and protection, the recruitment of LWD to the stream channels within the watershed should be expected to start to improve over the next 25 50 years as the present riparian forests mature . Only riparian forests of adequate width, age, and species composition will be capable of providing a full range of riparian functions. Stream segments with poor riparian condition and the inability of the channel to transport LWD of the size required from upstream areas, will require the riparian forest to be improved. The extent of the riparian forest must include the channel migration zone of the river to be capable of providing a full range of riparian functions.

° Water quality, temperature  As the riparian forests matures, stream temperatures will moderate.

° Subestuary protection   The subestuary is one of the remaining relatively undisturbed systems in Hood Canal and should be specifically sought for dedicated preservation or regulatory protection.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Our understanding of the habitat conditions and sources of impact within the Dewatto River are based on instream habitat surveys ( channel, temperature, and fine sediment), analysis of riparian condition, and the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.212 field knowledge of habitat by fisheries resource biologists. We are moderately confident that the above evaluation depicts the sources of impact and the likely effects on summer chum.

1. Presently the Dewatto River is not gauged. There is no available information on the relative magnitude and duration of peak flows. 2. The stream temperature data does not extend late enough into September to determine how long elevated stream temperature impacts adult migration. 3. A gravel scour monitoring program is needed. No information specific to the Dewatto River exists for bed stability and depth of gravel scour. In conjunction with gravel stability and scour, information on the level of fine sediment < 0.85mm should be collected. Previous monitoring has shown fine sediment to be above levels considered safe for incubating eggs. This factor should be closely monitored.

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.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council). 1993, 94, 95, 96, 97. 1993 97 Ambient monitoring data ( Unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.213 Big Anderson Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0412 Watershed Description Big Anderson Creek is located in southwestern Kitsap County. The stream enters Hood Canal approximately one half mile north of the small community of Holly. The Big Anderson Creek watershed is approximately 5 square miles in area, with 4 miles of mainstem and 13 miles of tributaries ( verified stream types 1 4). Similar to other streams in the West Kitsap WAU, Big Anderson Creek originates in headwater wetlands and flows through a confined ravine before opening into a broad floodplain in the lower one half mile. The small estuary includes a large intertidal delta.

Land use in the watershed is primarily industrial forestry operations conducted by several large landowners and the Department of Natural Resources. Logging in the Big Anderson most likely began in 1920s, with the establishment of Camp Union logging camp. Between the 1920s and 1944, the headwaters were entirely denuded with erosion observed in steep tributaries; and most of the remaining basin logged ( MacLeod 1995). As the habitat recovered in the following decades, logging was again observed in 1984 aerial photos and continues to the present. Three private residences and a small farm are located in the lower mile of stream. A road bisects the floodplain near the mouth, and another road is adjacent to the river, and within the 100 year floodplain, from RM 0.5 to the mouth. Forty five percent of the riparian zone is occupied by landuse, with 36% as roads and 9% agriculture ( Appendix Report 3.8).

Summer Chum Distribution Summer chum were recorded to spawn between river mile 0.0 and 1.1. Potential habitat is estimated to extend to at least river mile 1.8, which includes the lowest gradient reaches of the system.

Population Status No summer chum salmon have been observed in standard surveys conducted by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife since 1982 ( one was observed in 1984). The population is assumed to be extinct. WDFW escapement estimates show the population ranging up to 234 in 1976 ( Appendix Table 1.1).

Factors for Decline Spawning and incubation habitat is moderately to highly degraded in the lower river from past logging and associated road building throughout the watershed. The habitat factors for decline, in order of priority, are: 1) increased sediment deposition in the lower mile from roads and landslides in the upper watershed, 2) increased magnitude and frequency of peak flows from road runoff, 3) loss of large woody debris ( LWD) due to past logging of riparian zones and channel clearing activities, and 4) a county road built across the estuary and mouth of the stream that constrains the floodplain and may reduce sediment removal by tidal Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.214 action. 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.

° Sediment  spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Summer chum habitat is highly aggraded from logging roads, bank erosion and landslides. Effects are redd burial and suffocation, and channel instability. The spawning gravel includes a high percentage of fine sediment that can reduce survival during the incubation stage. Some of the high levels of fine sediment are attributed to extensive beaver pond construction in the lower half mile.

° Riparian condition  spawning and incubation life stage, rated high impact. Seventy seven percent of the riparian zone is deciduous dominated and 44% of it contains small diameter trees. Fifty nine percent of the riparian zone contains forested buffers < 66 ft in width ( Appendix Report 3.7). Future LWD recruitment potential is limited due to narrow forested buffers with low levels of conifer.

° Channel complexity  spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. Below RM 1.8, the channel contains 0.3 LWD pieces/ m ( moderate impact), 51% of the habitat area is in pools ( moderate impact), and a pool frequency of 1.7 per channel width ( low impact Tabor 1994) ( Appendix Report 3.8). Beaver activity has increased the percentage of pools. Eighty seven percent of LWD pieces are smaller than 20 in. diameter ( Appendix Report 3.7). Minimum " key piece" diameter for LWD is 22 in for a channel of this size ( Washington Forest Practices Board 1995). Compared to historical levels, the channel is degraded, but is in comparatively better condition than many other watersheds we examined. However, the channel is also unstable and braided, with high sediment loading and peak flow problems. It is expected that channel condition will deteriorate for at least the next several decades due to the poor riparian condition and mass wasting in the upper watershed.

° Peak flow  incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. Increased frequency, magnitude and duration of peak winter flows caused by extensive road building is thought to contribute to the bank erosion, channel aggradation and channel instability observed in the lower reaches of the stream. High flows coupled with an unstable channel will increase the depth of scour and redd mortality.

° Sub estuary habitat loss and degradation   Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated moderate impact. One road crosses the delta, and another road follows the northern subestuary margin, totaling 0.24 km ( 0.15 mi) in length. The roads were identified as one of two primary factors for degradation of the sub estuary, however the amount of change in tidal flooding circulation due to the roads is unknown. The second factor is old railroad fill, which is downstream of the two roads described above and located directly within the subestuary. While all of the estimated historic delta area of approximately 0.12 km ( 28.9 ac; 1.78 km [ 1.1 mi] perimeter) appears to be inundated by tidal flow, the 2 old roadbed in the subestuary constricts tidal circulation to the main channel. An oyster farm covers about 0.01 km ( 0.8 ac; 2.74% of original delta area) in the outer edge of the delta. This feature does not 2 appear to impact summer chum rearing or migration. Dredging, excavation, docks, and log storage are not evident in the subestuary. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.215 Factors for Recovery The following recommendations are provided to allow recovery of Summer Chum habitat in the lower river. A full discussion of protection options and restoration strategies is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

° Riparian forests/ channel complexity   Protect and restore the riparian floodplain forests along the entire 1.8 river miles of documented summer chum habitat. Below RM 1.0, plant conifers throughout the floodplain. Recruitable LWD of sufficient diameter will be available from newly planted seedlings in 50 to 100 years. In the interim, the amount and size of LWD will decline. Increase riparian buffer protection throughout the watershed. The WDNR ( 1995) prescriptions may not provide for adequate long term recruitment of LWD to the stream system.

° Floodplain Relocate roads outside of the floodplain, or replace road fill with causeways that allow channel movement and passage of floodwater ( includes two roads described in the sub estuary section plus another road located on the south side of the floodplain). Modification ( e. g., setback, rerouting) of roadways would enhance summer chum migration, spawning, and incubation habitat. The floodplain is mostly owned by one timber company. The Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary continues to work with the landowner on obtaining riparian easements or purchase of this property.

° Sedimentation Prevent logging on potentially unstable slopes, and remove or repair roads with surface erosion or landslide hazard problems. The WDNR ( 1995) prescriptions provide some protection from unstable slopes problems, but this level of protection may need to be re evaluated.

° Peak flow Decommission roads, increase the number of water bars and cross drains on forest roads, identify and re direct road ditches that contribute rainwater directly to stream channels, and limit new road construction in the watershed.

° Sub estuary Remove the abandoned railroad fill to improve tidal circulation. This will enhance summer chum rearing and migration habitat.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs The Department of Natural Resources sponsored the WDNR ( 1995) that provides an in depth assessment of habitat conditions in Big Anderson Creek and other streams. This coupled with the riparian and landuse assessment provides sufficient data to assess the factors for decline. However, the relative importance of LWD, sediment, or peak flows in causing channel degradation is not well understood. Further research in these areas is needed. Confidence in the assessment is high.

1. Gauge the stream. It is impossible to monitor the effects of peak flow on incubating eggs without gauge information. 2. Scour chain surveys to monitor bed instability throughout the summer chum reach. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.216 3. McNeil sediment surveys to determine the level of fine sediments throughout the summer chum reach. 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.

MacLeod, A. 1995. Land use history: West Kitsap County watershed, from 1850. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Tabor, R. 1994. Ambient monitoring data. Unpublished. USFWS Lacey Field Office, U. S. Dept. of the Inter., Lacey, WA.

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1995. Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis ( Version 3). Wash. Forest Pract. Bd., Olympia, WA.

WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1995. West Kitsap Watershed Analysis. Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., South Puget Sound region office, Enumclaw, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.217 Stavis Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0404 Watershed Description The Stavis Creek watershed is located in the northeastern portion of the Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula, 3 miles southwest of the town of Seabeck. The watershed area is about 7 square miles, with 5 miles of mainstem, and 11 miles of tributary habitat.

The Stavis Creek watershed is typical of stream systems on the Kitsap Peninsula ( see description under Seabeck Creek). Stavis Creek originates in a series of beaver ponds, forested and emergent wetlands located on a flat glacial till plain. Several watershed reports have listed Morgan Marsh as the headwaters of Stavis, Big Beef, and Tahuya River. Field investigations have shown Stavis Creek is not directly connected with Morgan Marsh although groundwater interchange is likely. The mainstem then flows in a northeasterly direction in steep, tightly confined ravines for approximately 3.5 miles. Below the junction with tributary 15 0405 the channel gradient moderates and is unconfined, eventually emerging into a relatively broad floodplain, high quality estuary and Stavis Bay. The estuary and delta are not impacted to any substantial degree, and represents one of the better undisturbed examples of estuarine lagoon and spit features in Hood Canal.

The majority of base flow to area streams is provided through hydrologic continuity with a shallow perched aquifer with a smaller contribution via indirect hydrologic continuity with a deeper aquifer known as the Seabeck Aquifer ( Becker, 1998). The Seabeck Aquifer contributes baseflow near the mouth of several streams including Little Anderson, Seabeck, and Big Beef creeks. The western boundary of the Seabeck Aquifer is indistinct, but given similarities in landform and geology, is assumed to include Stavis Creek. Stream flow data specific to Stavis Creek is not consistently available, although instaneous readings include minimum flows of 1 cfs ( May et al. 1995).

Historically, land use in this area was dominated by timber extraction activities with two major cycles of timber harvest ( see history under Seabeck Creek). The area of Stavis Creek headwaters, similar to Seabeck Creek, was connected to a network of timber railroads by 1927, but appeared to be spared the heavy logging seen in other watersheds. Aerial photographs in 1944 show large areas of large trees, and intact marshland in the lower basin ( MacLeod, 1995).

Current land use in the watershed is a mixture of rural residential scattered along the shorelines, lower half mile of the stream and upper basin. Forestry is a major land use, with Department of Natural Resources managing a large block of land for timber production, the Kitsap Forest Natural Area Preserve, and limited private forest lands. Conservation easements to protect the primary summer chum range are currently being negotiated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife through the Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary. The watershed has undergone less development that adjoining Seabeck Creek, but has been actively managed for timber production in the last 30 years. Shoreline development and associated impacts Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.218 ( bankhardening, bulkhead construction, and loss of shoreline vegetation) is focused primarily on the shoreline to the east of Stavis Creek, but at lower concentration than the shoreline near Seabeck.

Summer Chum Distribution Stavis Creek is included in this plan based on the potential for historical summer chum utilization given available suitable habitat, stable late summer flows, and similarities to nearby Big Beef Creek that is known to support summer chum. Based on habitat features, distribution is assumed to have occurred from RM 0.0 to RM 0.6.

Population Status Summer chum salmon have not consistently been surveyed or reported in spawning surveys conducted by WDFW or the Tribes. The tribes reported 6 live and 3 dead summer chum in three September surveys conducted in 1983, and one summer chum was found in a 1981 survey. A survey by a University of Washington scientist found no chum in one survey in 1968, and 75 chum in an October survey in 1972.

Factors for Decline Overall, habitat quality within Stavis Creek was rated fairly high and in a state of recovery from historic logging practices, especially in comparison with adjoining watersheds in the Hood Canal sub region. This can be attributed to the relatively low density of residences, roads and other intrusive landuses. The total impervious surface area for the basin is 1.5%, with the majority of those surface not connected to the stream network ( May et al 1997). The estuary is an example of a high quality system that provides abundant transitional areas for adults and rearing habitat for juveniles. The lower 0.6 miles provides high quality spawning and rearing habitats, with only minor impacts from several residences and one bridge crossing of the stream near the mouth of the creek. No fish passage problems were noted. 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.

Habitat factors rated as contributing to the decline of summer chum ( in order of importance) include:

° Sediment ( aggradation and degradation) Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Limited scour chain monitoring in the lower reaches indicate areas of moderate scour and fill associated with peak winter flows with potential impacts to egg incubation ( May et al, 1997). Sources include logging that has contributed to mass wasting events and historic removal of LWD.

° Riparian forest ( species composition) Spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate impact. Riparian zones which were historically dominated by a mixture of old growth cedar, douglas fir, and areas of younger alder are now more dominated by mixed stands of deciduous and coniferous species ( 58%) and deciduous dominated ( 42%), generally 50 to 70 years old ( WDNR, 1995, Appendix Report 3.7). While these stands are on a trajectory of recovery, it will take approximately 50 to 100 years more to achieve old growth conditions that provided the most stable and complex habitat. Riparian forest composition has an impact on the quality of wood recruited to the channel, which in turn effects the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.219 stability of the channel during the egg incubation stage. Eighty three percent of the total riparian area evaluated in Stavis Creek is forested, indicating a fairly sizable and intact riparian forest within the presumed distribution of summer chum.

° Flow ( winter peak flow) Incubation life stage, rated potential but unknown impact. Historic and current logging practices and associated roads are responsible for altering hydrologic patterns and increasing the rate of mass wasting events, although the relative magnitude of changes in the hydrologic regime is unknown.

Factors for Recovery Protect existing high quality habitat ° Continue and expand the acquisitions efforts underway by the Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary. Priority areas should include estuary, adjoining shoreline areas, lower mainstem and floodplain, and upstream wetland hydrologic source areas. The estuary and associated bordering uplands should be explicitly protected or regulated to prevent any further development.

Protect and restore riparian forest quality ° For properties acquired in lower watershed that are lacking riparian forest, reforest riparian areas with appropriate native species and abandon any associated roads. ° Provide upstream recruitment sources by reforesting narrow riparian zones on upstream DNR lands. ° Consider limited silvilcultural treatments on alder dominated zones to encourage conifer regeneration within summer chum range on WDFW properties. ° Work with Kitsap County to establish appropriate riparian zone widths for upstream areas to provide long term LWD recruitment sources. ° Evaluate the effectiveness of West Kitsap Watershed Analysis prescriptions for logging operations to reduce mass wasting events and modify prescriptions if necessary.

Establish hydrologic maturity targets for basin ° Establish rate of harvest targets for forestry activities to ensure hydrologic maturity. ° Work with Kitsap County to maintain low densities within basin. ° Develop mitigation standards for development activities that create impervious surface greater than 10% of lot size.

Monitoring/ reference site ° Utilize the Stavis Creek estuary as a critical habitat template for eastern Hood Canal, establish long term monitoring programs to track estuarine quality including macroinvertebrate populations, water quality, channel structure and complexity.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence for fish distribution is rated low based on the extremely limited spawning data for Stavis Creek. Considerably more data is available on habitat conditions, including temperature, limited instream flow, Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.220 scour chain, TFW ambient monitoring and an assessment of channel, riparian, and instream habitat conditions conducted through the West Kitsap Watershed Analysis. Confidence for habitat data is rated as high. Overall confidence for the assessment is moderate.

Additional information needed to better quantify the relationship between current conditions and summer chum distribution includes: 1. Instream flow monitoring of both summer flow periods and peak winter flows; 2. Channel assessments to determine the relationship between peak flows and channel forming events.

References Becker, J. 1998. Aquifer modeling and mitigation options for the Seabeck aquifer system. Pub. Util. Dist. 1, Kitsap County, Bremerton, WA.

MacLeod, A. 1995. Land use history: West Kitsap County watershed, from 1850. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

May, C. W., E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, and B. W. Mar. 1997. Quality indices for urbanization effects in Puget Sound lowland streams. WDOE water resources tech. rep. 154. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1995. West Kitsap Watershed Analysis. Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., South Puget Sound region office, Enumclaw, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.221 Seabeck Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0400 Watershed Description The Seabeck Creek watershed is located in the northeastern portion of the Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula near the town of Seabeck. The watershed area is about 6 square miles, with 5 miles of mainstem, and 16 miles of tributary habitat.

The Seabeck Creek watershed is typical of streams on the Kitsap Peninsula. These systems are raindominated watersheds with low elevation flat and rolling terrain dissected by deeply incised stream ravines, small to moderate sized estuaries, and extensive nearshore habitat. The geology of the area is dominated by glacial materials, which are prone to erosion and moderate to high sediment production rates within the confined stream ravine reaches.

The majority of base flow to area streams is provided through hydrologic continuity with a shallow perched aquifer with a smaller contribution via indirect hydrologic continuity with a deeper aquifer known as the Seabeck Aquifer ( Becker 1998). The Seabeck Aquifer contributes baseflow near the mouth of several streams including Little Anderson, Seabeck, and Big Beef creeks. The western boundary of the Seabeck Aquifer is indistinct, but given similarities in landform and geology, is assumed to include Seabeck Creek. The stream is currently closed to further surface water appropriations.

Seabeck Creek originates in headwater wetlands located on a flat glacial till plain. The mainstem then flows in a northerly direction in steep tightly confined ravines for approximately two miles. Below the junction with tributary 15 0401 the channel gradient moderates and is unconfined, eventually emerging into a relatively broad floodplain, small estuary and Seabeck Bay. A small tributary to the east of the mainstem also feeds into the estuary. The estuary has a comparatively narrow delta that is heavily encroached upon by residential development on the east side.

Historically, land use in this area was dominated by timber extraction activities. Seabeck was the site of a major timber mill that began operations in 1857 and continued until the mill burned in 1886. The Seabeck mill concentrated on harvesting old growth timber along easily assessable waterways such as shorelines and streams. Another major period of timber extraction continued from 1920 to 1936 with the establishment of Camp Union in the upper Big Beef watershed. At the peak of operations, over 1.5 million board feet of timber per day was cut in the watersheds surrounding Camp Union, and railroad spurs were constructed in the valley bottom of Seabeck Creek to facilitate transport of timber. By 1944, most of the Seabeck Creek watershed ( except for the headwaters near Hite Center) had been completely harvested ( MacLeod 1995)

Current land use in the watershed is a mixture of rural residential, forest lands, small scale hobby farms, limited aquaculture, the nearby town of Seabeck, and a marina. The watershed has undergone a dramatic increase in rural development over the last ten years as evidenced by increases in application for land use and hydraulic permits. In particular, applications to convert forest land to rural development have Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.222 accelerated since the late 1970s. Shoreline development and associated impacts ( bank hardening, bulkhead construction, and loss of shoreline vegetation) is especially heavy on the shoreline to the east of Seabeck Creek.

Summer Chum Distribution Summer chum salmon have not been reported in spawning surveys conducted by WDFW or the Tribes. Surveys conducted in late September and October for 1981 and 1983 found no summer chum in the watershed. Seabeck Creek is included in this plan based on the historical potential for summer chum utilization given available suitable habitat, stable late summer flows, and proximity to adjacent watersheds ( Big Beef Creek) which have supported summer chum. Based on the presence of suitable habitat, we expect summer chum could have occurred up to RM 0.9 on the mainstem, RM 0.5 on Tributary 15 0401, and to RM 0.3 on an unnamed tributary flowing from the east to the mainstem.

Population Status Limited survey data for summer chum indicate that a summer chum population does not exist at this time. However, habitat and flow conditions appear conducive to summer chum and it is possible that prior to spawning surveys summer chum did historically occupy the watershed.

Factors for Decline Impacts to habitat quality include: 1) Coarse sediment aggradation and high levels of fine sediment in spawning gravel; 2) loss of channel complexity; 3) altered hydrologic patterns; 4) degraded riparian conditions and 5) floodplain connectivity. Sources of impacts are historic and current logging and rural development patterns in the Seabeck Creek 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. More details are provided below:

° Sediment ( aggradation, degradation, and fine sediments) Spawning, incubation, migration life stages, rated high and moderate impact. The lower two miles of Seabeck Creek show evidence of increased sediment bedload, to the extent that the some sections of the stream go subsurface in early summer in many years ( WDNR 1995). Sediment aggradation has also caused a decrease in channel complexity with the end result of increased flooding frequency with relatively minor precipitation events. While the glacial geology of the area is prone to high sediment production rates, the effects of historic logging practices coupled with minimal protection of riparian areas in rural development and current logging has accelerated the rate and magnitude of slope failures and overwhelmed the capacity of stream channels to process these sediments. Areas of localized scour were also noted during the West Kitsap Watershed Analysis, especially in the reach just above the lower bridge crossing on Stavis Creek Road. The end result of channel aggradation and instability on summer chum includes: 1) upstream passage of adults is hindered due to insufficient stream flow and lack of deep holding pools; 2) reduction in egg survival due to scour of egg pockets during increased winter peak flows; 3) downstream migrating juveniles are subjected to increased predation due to loss of stream depth and cover. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.223 TFW Ambient Monitoring data ( 1989) indicates high rates of embeddedness in spawning gravels related to increased levels of fine sediment. Increased fines are primarily linked to surface water runoff from roads in the watershed, many of which are private and have minimal maintenance and inadequate surfacing. Fine sediment is also linked to improper logging, and runoff from impervious surfaces associated with rural development. Inadequate treatment of runoff from recent rural development such as Seabeck Heights, especially when construction occurs during wet weather conditions, have contributed significant amounts of fine sediment episodically to the channel. Seabeck is located within a rapidly growing rural area, with a total effective impervious rate of 2.7% ( May et al 1997) which is expected to increase over time. Diminished chum populations in the watersheds of the eastern Hood Canal may also impact gravel quality. The effectiveness of chum salmon in cleaning gravels associated with redd building activities has been noted by several researchers ( Montgomery et al. 1996; Peterson and Quinn 1994b).

° Channel complexity ( LWD, channel condition, loss of side channel habitat, and channel instability) Spawning, incubation, and migration life history stages, moderate and high impact. The amount of LWD in Seabeck Creek has been diminished from historic levels through actions such as stream cleanout, logging without leaving streamside buffers, and rural development. Channel complexity is closely linked with large woody debris as log jams form hard points, deflecting flow and causing the formation of side channel habitat, a limited habitat type within the Seabeck Creek watershed. Reduced channel capacity has also altered the hydrologic regime of the channel, causing lower summer flows and increased winter peak flows.

° Flow ( winter peak and summer low flows) Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Related to increased sediment load and modifications in channel capacity, winter peak flows have increased and summer flows frequently are substantially diminished within the upper portion of the historic summer chum range, although the relative magnitude of the problem is unknown due to a lack of stream flow data specific to Seabeck Creek. The end result has been displacement of incubating eggs and suboptimal conditions for spawning adults.

° Floodplain connectivity Rearing and migration life history stages, rated high impact. Rural development, channel alteration, and altered flow patterns due to the bridge crossing have affected the quality of the Seabeck floodplain. Illegal clearing of streamside areas and attempts to fix the channel in place are common problems within the lower 0.5 miles of the stream.

° Riparian condition ( species composition, age, and width)  Spawning and incubation life stage, rated moderate to high impact. Riparian zones which were historically dominated by a mixture of old growth cedar, douglas fir, and areas of younger alder are now more dominated by mixed stands of small (< 12 inch dbh) to medium sized ( 12 20 inch dbh) trees within the distribution of summer chum. Mixed deciduous and coniferous stands comprise ( 59%) and deciduous dominated stands ( 41%) of the riparian forest. Below RM 0.9, the riparian forest is significantly impaired, 100% of the area having a sparse buffer less than 66 feet, due to residential development, roads and dikes ( Appendix Report 3.7). The Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.224 generally degraded condition of riparian forest suggests that critical functions such as LWD recruitment, will remain limited for the foreseeable future, unless active restoration steps are taken.

° Estuarine habitat loss and degradation   Juvenile rearing and migration life stage, rated moderate to high impact. Fills for recreational, and some commercial use including shoreline dependent marina activities, include two areas totaling 0.01 km ( 3.6 ac; ~ 8.9% of historical delta area). The residential 2 development appears to have extracted a significant portion of the mid to lower delta summer chum rearing area. Associated bulkheads and armoring have also impacted shoreline migration. Although the Seabeck marina is located on the outer margins of the delta, the associated docks do not appear to directly impact the delta because of their position over deeper water, receiving a low impact rating.

Factors for Recovery A discussion of protection options and restoration strategies in terms of these habitat factors is found in Part Three  section <IP_ADDRESS>, toolkit.

Control coarse and fine sediment sources ° Evaluate the effectiveness of existing slope stability standards ( West Kitsap Watershed Analysis, Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance) and modify if necessary. ° Improve road maintenance and surfacing on existing private roads, paying particular attention to the routing of stormwater runoff onto vegetative surfaces prior to entering the stream system. ° Enact timing restrictions for clearing and grading activities in areas adjacent to Seabeck Creek.

Restore channel complexity ° Evaluate the feasibility of restoring large woody debris jams in the lower river.

Protect low flow conditions and prevent increases in peak discharge ° Prohibit additional withdrawals of surface water or ground water in hydraulic continuity with Seabeck Creek until an instream flow has been established. ° Establish impervious surface target rates for basin and condition landuse permit consistent with this standard. ° Retrofit existing developments to control stormwater runoff. ° Maintain 60% of the watershed in forest cover through low densities and site design to maximize retention of native plant cover.

Protect and restore riparian forests ° Acquire remaining high quality riparian forest habitat and replant riparian buffers using native species. ° Review and adjust the Kitsap Critical Area Ordinance standards consistent with the recommendations given for functional riparian buffers.

Protect remaining estuarine features ° Given the extent of development already imposed on the delta, further modifications to the estuary should be prevented by land acquisition or regulation. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.225 Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence for fish distribution is rated low, and based upon professional judgement of where summer chum would likely spawn. A considerable amount of data is available on habitat conditions, including temperature data, limited instream flow, and an assessment of channel, riparian, and instream habitat conditions conducted through the West Kitsap Watershed Analysis and confidence is rated as moderate.

Information needs for Seabeck Creek include continuous monitoring of instream flows, sediment source surveys, and an assessment of channel capacity.

References Becker, J. 1998. Aquifer modeling and mitigation options for the Seabeck aquifer system. Pub. Util. Dist. 1, Kitsap County, Bremerton, WA.

MacLeod, A. 1995. Land use history: West Kitsap County watershed, from 1850. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

May, C. W., E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, and B. W. Mar. 1997. Quality indices for urbanization effects in Puget Sound lowland streams. WDOE water resources tech. rep. 154. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, D. Schuett Hames, and T. P. Quinn. 1996. Stream bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1061 1070.

Peterson, N. P., and T. P. Quinn. 1994. Persistence of egg pocket architecture in chum salmon redds. Pp. 9 25 in Quinn, T. P., and N. P. Peterson ( eds.) The effects of forest practices on fish populations. WDNR report no. TFW F4 94 001. Forest Pract. Div., Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., Olympia, WA.

WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1995. West Kitsap Watershed Analysis. Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., South Puget Sound region office, Enumclaw, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.226 Big Beef Watershed Narrative WRIA 15.0389 Watershed Description Big Beef Creek is located in the northeast portion of Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula, 2 miles northeast of the town of Seabeck. The watershed area is about 14 square miles, with 11 miles of mainstem, and 24 miles of tributary habitat ( source: SSHIAP database, PNPTC 1988).

The geomorphology of Big Beef Creek watershed is typical of stream systems on the Kitsap Peninsula where glacial action deposited loose, unsorted coarse gravel and sand ( see more detailed description under Seabeck Creek). Big Beef Creek has the largest drainage area and most extensive stream network for watersheds supporting summer chum in northeastern Hood Canal. Upper Big Beef Creek consists of low gradient reaches originating from a series of wetlands, including Morgan Marsh on tributary 15.0398. An artificial lake ( Lake Symington) at RM 5.3 was constructed in the 1964 to accommodate lakeshore residential development. Lower Big Beef Creek ( RM 2.0 to 5.3) is contained within a steep, moderately confined ravine. The valley walls widen below RM 2.0 and channel gradient moderates to less than 1%. In this area the river includes a fairly well developed floodplain and complex side channel habitat. The Big Beef estuary is 47.7 acres in a semi enclosed lagoon.

The majority of base flow in Big Beef Creek is provided through hydrologic continuity with a shallow perched aquifer with indirect hydrologic continuity from a deeper aquifer known as the Seabeck Aquifer ( Becker 1998). The Seabeck Aquifer contributes baseflow predominantly at the mouth of Big Beef Creek. Minimum streamflow averages 3.1 cfs and maximum flows average around 200 cfs, with a maximum discharge of 1,500 cfs recorded in 1967 ( Lestelle et al. 1992, Cederholm 1972).

In the past, the prevailing land use in the upper watershed has been timber harvest; some lands are still managed for harvest of timber resources including several large blocks of land managed by the Department of Natural Resources. Historic logging activities began in earnest with the establishment of Camp Union in 1920, with the entire watershed above RM 5.0 to the headwaters logged by 1950 ( Amato 1996). Agricultural developments exist at several locations along the upper stream reaches. Since 1970, residential development has proliferated, especially concentrated around and just downstream of Lake Symington. Lake Symington has had a primary impact on the lower system; lake levels and downstream flows were for many years managed to meet the needs of the lakeshore residents, with little regard for effects on downstream flows. WDFW has recently incorporated provisions in the lake's rules of operation to protect downstream flow requirements of fisheries resources. Below Lake Symington, there is limited residential development along the stream with the majority occurring on the flat till plain above the river. The University of Washington's 320 acre fisheries research facility is located between RM 0.0 to 0.8. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife operates a weir at RM 0.1 to count upstream and downstream coho salmon migrants. The Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary program has actively been purchasing key riparian habitat upstream of the U. W. research facility. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.227 Summer Chum Distribution Before the disappearance of summer chum from Big Beef Creek, the majority of the spawning population is believed to have occurred in the lower reaches of Big Beef Creek up to RM 2.0. However, summer chum may have historically occurred as far upstream as RM 6.0 ( inlet of Lake Symington) or perhaps even further upstream. A significant portion of summer chum spawning may have also occurred intertidally in the protected subestuary.

Population Status Escapement estimates for 1975 and 1976 exceed 1,000 spawners, although most surrounding years are in the low hundreds. No summer chum have been reported since 1982, with the exception of 22 in 1984. The population is assumed to be extinct. In 1996, an experimental program to reintroduce summer chum to Big Beef Creek was begun by the co managers at the U. W. research facility.

Factors for Decline A general discussion of protection and restoration strategies for each habitat factor is found in Section IV, toolkit. Impacts to habitat quality ( in order of priority) include: 1) Coarse sediment aggradation and high levels of fine sediment in spawning gravels; 2) loss of channel complexity; 3) alteration of estuarine habitats; 4) altered hydrologic patterns; 5) degraded riparian conditions; and 6) potential elevated temperatures. Sources of impacts are historic and current logging, rural development patterns, and construction and operation of scientific research facilities in the Big Beef 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. More details are provided below:

° Sediment ( aggradation, fines) Spawning, egg incubation, and migration life history stages, rated high impact. The lower river channel, where historically most of the summer chum production occurred, has been severely impacted by upstream landuse practices, with concurrent reductions in survival in all life history stages. Past logging and road building on steep unstable slopes in the lower Big Beef watershed have caused mass wasting, channel widening and bank instability, causing a 800% increase in sediment bedload over natural, undisturbed conditions ( Madej 1978, 1982). The majority of this coarse sediment has been deposited within the lower stream reaches, reducing available pool habitat and causing the channel to widen and become more shallow ( WDNR, 1995). Channelization, along with the construction of the WDFW fish weir, has also increased aggradation by constricting the channel and forcing the bedload to be deposited upstream from the weir. The bridge causeway on the Seabeck Road has also restricted the freshwater saltwater interface and reduced the potential flushing action of sediment associated with tidal action.

During summer low flow periods, the aggraded and widened channel has been reported to impede upstream passage and reduce spawning success for adult summer chum due to increased predation associated with loss of stream cover ( Cederholm, 1972). In 1969 and 1971, the entire summer chum run was moved into the UW Research Station spawning channel because of unstable conditions in the main Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.228 channel and in anticipation of channelization activities ( see description below). Cederholm ( 1972) documented a 58% loss of summer chum redds due to scour, fill, and channel displacement, with an average survival to emergence rate of 9.4%. In the same study, he noted 16.3% fine sediment ( less than 0.8 mm in diameter) in spawning gravel, a rate at which permeability and intergravel survival would be substantially diminished.

° Channel complexity ( LWD, channel condition, loss of side channel, channel instability, floodplain connectivity) Spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and migration life history stage, rated high to moderate impact. Channel alterations, in combination with sediment aggradation described above, have reduced channel complexity in lower Big Beef Creek, affecting all major life history stages. Monitoring data collected in 1993 and 1994 indicated 0.17 pieces of LWD per meter, rated as a high impact ( Appendix Report 3.8). Pool habitat is rated as moderate impact ( 46% percent pools, pool spacing of 2.4) with the majority of pools being formed by the roots of standing trees or old growth stumps, and log jams anchored by remnant old growth LWD ( PNPTC 1993,1994). In a recent field review of Big Beef Creek, Cederholm noted the loss of stable, deep pools present in the 1960s associated with the loss of LWD and sediment deposition in the lower river.

Reduced LWD levels have been attributed to illegal cedar salvage, stream cleanout of log jams, channelization activities ( S. Neuhaueser, pers. comm.; Amato 1996). At least three separate incidents of channel dredging, dike construction, wood removal, and channel relocation by private landowners have been documented in the lower river from the 1950s ( Amato 1996). In response to extreme channel aggradation and braiding in the lower river, and concerns for stranding and reduced survival of summer chum, the University of Washington channelized 1,968 feet of the lower river in 1969 ( Cederholm 1972). At the same time, the U. W. constructed dikes consisting of excavated gravel on the southwest side of the river, further constricting the floodplain and creating a new sediment source for downstream areas. Channelization attempts were largely unsuccessful in dealing with sediment aggradation and channel instability in lower Big Beef Creek.

Routine spot dredging upstream of the weir has occurred since the 1970s, with deposition of dredge spoils along the bridge causeway and a floodplain service road. Diking, construction of a road within the floodplain to service an artesian well for the Big Beef rearing facility operated by NMFS, and filling and alteration of side channel habitat associated with the construction and operation of the Big Beef Research Station, have also contributed to reduced channel complexity in the lower 2 miles of the river.

° Subestuarine habitat loss and degradation  Juvenile rearing and migration life stages, rated high impact. The research facility, road, bridge construction and sediment aggradation near the mouth of the stream have decreased the quality and amount of the subestuarine habitat that is most immediately available to emigrating summer chum fry. Three areas, totaling 0.64 ac or 1.4% of historic delta area have been filled; this filling, as with evacuation of one pond covering < 0.72 acres or 1.5% of the historic delta area, is associated with the fish research and culture facilities of the Big Beef Research Station. A fish counting weir operated by WDFW, tends to act as a channel constriction and sediment trap, affecting upstream channel conditions and sediment transport processes into the estuary. Historically, timber from Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.229 logging operations in the area was dumped from trucks into Big Beef Harbor upstream from the sandspit at the harbor's mouth where they were rafted to adjacent mills ( Amato 1996).

The Seabeck Road bridge and its associated causeway crosses 0.03 mile of the middle reach of the delta, essentially narrowing the opening previously associated with a sandspit originating on the east side of the estuary. Aerial photographs from 1947, 1961, and 1997 show that extension and reinforcement of the bridge causeway has significantly constrained tidal interaction with the estuary, causing the estuary to infill with sediment, and reducing channel complexity. This observation is reinforced by historic accounts that at one time, small boats were able to navigate into the estuary and lower channel ( S. Neuhaueser, personal communication). Adult intertidal spawning may also have also been impacted by these changes.

° Flow ( summer low flow and peak winter) Spawning, egg incubation, and migration life history stages, rated moderate and high impact respectively. Summer low flows that occur during late August through the end of September, especially during natural drought cycles, have impacted adult migration and spawning success. Reports of adult stranding were recorded in the late 1960s and 1970s, mostly as a result of channel aggradation ( Cedarholm 1972). Future withdrawals of water for domestic water supply, both from the shallow perched and deeper aquifer, have the potential to further compound the problem. The contribution from the Seabeck Aquifer to baseflows at the mouth of Big Beef Creek, is considered important, since the zone of influence overlap almost perfectly with the area of summer chum distribution.

Winter flood flows have increased as a result of upstream urbanization effects, logging, road building and manipulation of flows at Lake Symington. As of 1993, 3.1% of the watershed was covered by impervious surfaces, approaching a rate at which changes to habitat quality are first noted ( May et al. 1977). Changes in the duration and magnitude of peak flows with relatively minor precipitation have been observed since the late 1980s ( WDNR 1995). This causes channel instability, including greater scouring and filling of sediments in the channel. May et al. ( 1997) noted several incidences of scour in excess of 22 cm, the typical depth for egg deposition.

° Riparian forest ( species composition, age) Spawning and incubation life stages, rated moderate impact. Riparian zones which were historically a mixed forest of old growth cedar with limited areas of deciduous species associated with disturbance regimes ( primarily windthrow and channel migration) are now predominantly composed of mixed conifer and deciduous ( 47%), deciduous species ( 48%) and 36% less than 12 inches in diameter ( Appendix Report 3.7, WDNR 1995). In comparison to adjoining watersheds, the riparian forest of lower Big Beef Creek is relatively intact ( 76% of the total riparian length having a buffer greater than 132 feet, low impact rating), with only minor areas of narrow riparian zone related to logging and limited residential developments ( at RM 3.5 and below Lake Symington). Other land use impacts to the buffer include roads, dikes, and the UW Research facility in the lower river.

° Water quality ( temperature) Migration and spawning life stages, rated moderate impact. Temperature monitoring conducted in 1996 and 1997 indicated temperatures above the optimal target of 7 12 degrees Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.230 Celcius in the lower basin, with increasing temperatures at sites within 2 miles of Lake Symington. Lake Symington is a shallow artificial lake prone to heating. Other factors compounding the effects of Lake Symington include channel widening and associated loss of riparian cover, and potential impacts from groundwater extraction. The extent of impairment on migration and spawning is unknown. Factors for Recovery Reduce sources of sediment aggradation ° Reduce the rate and magnitude of mass wasting within the lower five miles by prohibiting logging and development on steep, unstable slopes. ° Monitor the effectiveness of current prescriptions adopted for logging ( West Kitsap Watershed Analysis) and rural development ( Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance). ° Address sediment contribution from existing abandoned or active roads, and correct known problems. Of special concern, is the Kidhaven Road at RM 3.2. ° Prohibit construction of new roads on steep ravine slopes below Lake Symington.

Increase channel complexity ° Remove the service road located within the floodplain ( RM 0.5) and evaluate the feasibility of restoring several side channels and wetlands adjoining the U. W. research facility. ° Evaluate the role of the WDFW fish weir in changing sediment routing patterns and investigate options for reducing its impact. ° Evaluate the need for placing LWD jams in the lower river through a feasibility study.

Reduce road and causeway constriction of estuarine delta ° Long term planning for replacement or retrofitting of roadway should consider expanding the bridge span and reducing the foodprint of the roadway on the historic delta in order to maximize the opportunity for full creek tidal water exchange and circulation.

Reduce the impact of peak flows and ensure adequate summer low flows ° To reduce the deleterious impact of peak flows, institute impervious surface thresholds for the basin, retain 60% of the basin in forest cover, and encourage the use of innovative designs for permitted residential developments. ° Ensure road drainage is not routed into the stream network. ° Use the established minimum instream flow recommendation to condition future water applications. Prohibit additional surface water withdrawal or groundwater withdrawals that will diminish the recommended flow level. ° Institute water conservation programs, and investigate opportunities for reducing the number of shallow wells within the watershed. ° Require onsite infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces where soils are appropriate.

Protect and restore riparian forests ° Continue acquisition efforts underway throughout the watershed through the efforts of the Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary. ° Replant degraded riparian zones with appropriate native species. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.231 ° Review and adjust the Kitsap Critical Area Ordinance consistent with recommendations for riparian buffers.

Strength of Evaluation and Information Needs Confidence in the evaluation is rated as high based on the extensive amount of habitat monitoring conducted by PNPTC, research at the UW, and long term escapement returns collected for the Big Beef watershed.

Additional information needed to better quantify the relationship between current conditions and summer chum distribution includes:

1. Instream flow monitoring of both summer flow periods and peak winter flows. 2. Channel assessments to determine the relationship between peak flows and channel forming events. It would be helpful to establish permanent channel cross sections and resurvey Madej's original cross sections. 3. Temperature monitoring extended into mid October to determine if elevated temperatures are a concern. 4. Completion of a sediment budget, including identification of the amount of sediment being actively contributed by destabilized banks and failing roads. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.6 A3.232 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.

Becker, J. 1998. Aquifer modeling and mitigation options for the Seabeck aquifer system. Pub. Util. Dist. 1, Kitsap County, Bremerton, WA.

Cederholm, C. J. 1972. The short term physical and biological effects of stream channelization at Big Beef Cr., Kitsap County, WA. MS Thesis, Univ. of Wash., Seattle, WA.

Lestelle, L. C., M. L. Rowse, and C. Weller. 1992. Evaluation of natural stock improvement measures for Hood Canal coho salmon. PNPTC tech. rep. TR93 1. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

Madej, M. A. 1978. Response of a stream channel to an increase in sediment load. MS Thesis, Univ. of Wash., Seattle, WA.

Madej, M. A. 1982. Sediment transport and channel changes in an aggrading stream in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Pages?) in Swanson, F. J., R. J. Landa, T. Dunne, and D. N. Swanston ( eds.) Forest Serv. general tech. Rpt. PNW 141. USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station, U. S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Serv., Portland, OR.

May, C. W., E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, and B. W. Mar. 1997. Quality indices for urbanization effects in Puget Sound lowland streams. WDOE water resources tech. rep. 154. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia, WA.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council) 1998. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project ( SSHIAP) database. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council) 1993, 94. 1994 95 Ambient monitoring data ( Unpublished). Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA.

WDNR ( Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1995. West Kitsap Watershed Analysis. Wash. Dept. Nat. Res., South Puget Sound region office, Enumclaw, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.233 Appendix Report 3.7 Riparian Assessment Methodology and Summary of Results As part of the analysis of habitat limiting factors, aerial photo interpretation was employed to evaluate the condition of riparian forests along summer chum streams in Hood Canal and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Using 1997 Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1: 12,000 scale aerial photos viewed in stereo, two trained analysts assessed the impacts to riparian zones in relation to adjacent land use. On the Dungeness River 1998, 1: 6,000 scale photos were used. Segments with relatively homogenous riparian conditions and land use were delineated on each side of all stream channels within the current or known historic range of summer chum. For each segment the forested riparian buffer width, average stand diameter, species composition, and stand density were noted and the dominant, stream adjacent land use recorded. We modified the methodology outlined under the Washington State Watershed Analysis Riparian Module to consider both riparian conditions and dominant land use within 200 feet of stream channels. Due to time constraints, the data was not field verified, and we did not assess stream channels upstream of the range of summer chum though downstream transport of large woody debris ( LWD) is known to be an important recruitment source for in channel LWD.

Each riparian segment was categorized according to forested buffer width, species composition, average stand diameter, and stand density. We resolved six buffer width categories: none, < 33 ft, 33 66 ft, 66 99 ft, 99 132 ft, and 132 200 ft. Species composition categories included: coniferdominated (> 70% canopy coverage), deciduous dominated (> 70%), mixed conifer/ deciduous ( both < 70%), and none. Tree canopy size and structure was used as a surrogate for average stand diameter: < 12 in diameter at breast height ( dbh), 12 20 dbh, and > 20 dbh. Stand density was categorized as dense (< 33% ground exposure), sparse ( 33 80% ground exposure), and extensively cleared (> 80% ground exposure). It is important to note that our assessment of buffer width, species composition, average stand diameter, and stand density applied to only the stream adjacent, forested portion of the 200 ft. riparian zone. We also categorized dominant land use outside this forested buffer ( if any) and within the 200 ft. riparian zone. Land use categories included: forestry, agriculture, rural residential, urban/ industrial, road/ dike, and no land use ( wetlands, protected areas). The road/ dike land use class was used where stream adjacent parallel roads or dikes were present because, though they were rarely dominant land uses within a segment on a per area basis, their impact on riparian forests was interpreted to supersede in importance other land uses within the segment. The forestry category included clearcut and recently replanted areas without canopy closure. Older managed forest stands often could not be readily distinguished from adjacent forested buffers and were included in the calculation of forested buffer. As a result, our estimates of permanent forested buffer areas are likely high and the estimated area under active forestry use likely low.

Thresholds were used to determine generalized summer chum habitat impact ratings ( low= 1, moderate= 2, and high= 3) from riparian forest condition for each variable ( width, average stand Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.234 diameter, species composition, stand density; Appendix Table 3.7.1) by segment. Since no riparian forests within the range of summer chum exhibited old growth or undisturbed conditions, we did not utilize a no impact rating. These thresholds were determined after considering the relative ability of riparian forests to provide critical shade and LWD supply functions for stream channels used by summer chum. For example, the ability of a buffer to supply LWD over time is partly dependent upon buffer width. It has been calculated that a 50 ft no cut buffer will supply 32% of LWD at age 200, a 135 ft buffer 77% of LWD, and a 210 ft buffer 100% of LWD ( T. Beechie, personal communication). Thus, buffers greater than 132 ft in width were considered low impact, 66 132 ft a moderate impact, and < 66 ft in width high impact. The riparian forest buffer extent rating was computed as a composite of the scores for stand density and width; stand density scores were added to the buffer width scores, and if either or both scored as a high impact the riparian extent rating defaulted to high impact. Average stand diameter was used as a surrogate to rate riparian age in our overall matrix of habitat factors ( see section <IP_ADDRESS>, Table 3.17). Overall watershed level riparian assessment ratings were then computed for riparian species composition, ageaverage stand diameter), and extent ( Appendix Table 3.7.3) using all the riparian segments for a given stream weighted by their total length.

Table 3.7.1. Summary of riparian assessment impact categories. Low impact was rated a 1, moderate impact was rated 2, and high impact rated 3. The one exception was riparian buffer density, rated 0 for low impact, 1 for moderate impact, and 2 for high impact. Riparian buffer density was added to riparian buffer extent to calculate that rating. Riparian assessment category Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact Species composition Conifer dominated (> 70% Mixed conifer/ deciduous Deciduous dominated of the canopy) ( both < 70%) (> 70% of the canopy) or no tree cover Average stand diameter > 20 in dbh 12 20 in dbh < 12 in dbh 1 Density < 33% ground exposure 33 80% ground exposure > 80% ground exposure Width > 132 ft wide forested buffer 66 132 ft wide forested < 66 ft wide forested buffer buffer dbh, diameter at breast height 1 An example serves to illustrate how these impact ratings were calculated. In Snow Creek ( Appendix Table 3.7.2) there is 4,400 ft. of mixed conifer and deciduous stands, no conifer dominated stands, and 28,000 ft. of shrub/ grass or deciduous dominated forest. The weighted mean calculation for riparian species composition is thus: ( 4,400/ 32,400)* 2+( 28,000/ 32,400)* 3 = 2.86.

Table 3.7.2. Calculation of weighted average rating. For Snow Creek, the weighted mean calculation was ( 4,400/ 32,400)* 2+( 28,000/ 32,400)* 3 = 2.86.

Riparian species composition Stream Total Mixed Conifer Decid dom Shrub or No riparian Weighted Riparian conifer and dom (> 70%) grass vegetation mean rating Length decid (< 70%)

Snow 32,400 4,400 0 26,000 2,000 0 2.86 While the analysis of riparian buffer extent, age, and species composition was based on stream length, the analysis of riparian land use sought to quantify the area of the riparian zone occupied by various land uses. The " riparian zone" was defined as the area within 200 ft. of streams harboring Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.235 summer chum, from the mouth to the upper extent of their spawning distribution. We calculated the area under each land use and report percentages of the total riparian zone under each land use ( Appendix Table 3.7.3 D).

Table A3.7.3. Summary of results for the riparian forest assessment. For the riparian buffer condition analysis, a rating of 2.5 to 3.0 was considered a high impact, 2.0 2.49 a moderate impact, < 2.0 a low impact.

A. Riparian Forest Average Stand Diameter ( Percent by Length)

Stream Total Small Medium Large No buffer Weighted Riparian (< 12 in ( 12 20 in (> 20 in present mean rating Length ( ft) dbh) dbh) dbh)

Big Anderson 16,000 48% 52% 0% 0% 2.5 Big Beef 60,200 36% 64% 0% 0% 2.4 Big Mission 20,400 36% 64% 0% 0% 2.4 Big Quilcene 49,600 44% 48% 0% 8% 2.5 Chimacum 29,600 42% 42% 0% 16% 2.6 Dewatto 40,800 32% 68% 0% 0% 2.3 Dosewallips 45,800 51% 45% 0% 4% 2.6 Duckabush 32,200 32% 66% 0% 2% 2.4 Dungeness 104,200 44% 52% 0% 4% 2.5 Hamma Hamma 35,000 48% 45% 3% 4% 2.5 Jimmycomelately 18,800 34% 66% 0% 0% 2.3 Lilliwaup 5,800 0% 79% 0% 21% 2.2 Little Quilcene 29,800 70% 27% 0% 3% 2.7 Salmon 21,600 15% 63% 0% 22% 2.4 Seabeck 11,600 41% 59% 0% 0% 2.4 Skokomish 323,200 33% 48% 4% 16% 2.4 Snow 32,400 50% 44% 0% 6% 2.6 Stavis 4,800 0% 100% 0% 0% 2.0 Tahuya 96,800 24% 69% 0% 7% 2.3 Union 53,800 67% 33% 0% 0% 2.7 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.236 B. Riparian Forest Buffer Species Composition ( Percent by Length)

Stream Total Mixed Conifer Decid Shrub No Weighted Riparian / grass riparian mean Length ( ft) veg rating Big Anderson 16,000 23% 0% 77% 0% 0% 2.8 Big Beef 60,200 47% 5% 48% 0% 0% 2.4 Big Mission 20,400 2% 0% 98% 0% 0% 3.0 Big Quilcene 49,600 11% 40% 41% 5% 3% 2.1 Chimacum 29,600 57% 0% 27% 16% 0% 2.4 Dewatto 40,800 96% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2.0 Dosewallips 45,800 52% 3% 41% 4% 0% 2.4 Duckabush 32,200 57% 18% 23% 0% 2% 2.1 Dungeness 104,200 66% 5% 25% 4% 0% 2.2 Hamma Hamma 35,000 22% 48% 26% 4% 0% 1.8 Jimmycomelately 18,800 15% 43% 42% 0% 0% 2.0 Lilliwaup 5,800 79% 0% 0% 21% 0% 2.2 Little Quilcene 29,800 42% 7% 48% 0% 3% 2.5 Salmon 21,600 63% 0% 15% 22% 0% 2.4 Seabeck 11,600 59% 0% 41% 0% 0% 2.4 Skokomish 323,200 25% 26% 33% 15% 2% 2.2 Snow 32,400 14% 0% 80% 6% 0% 2.9 Stavis 4,800 58% 0% 42% 0% 0% 2.4 Tahuya 96,800 37% 4% 52% 7% 0% 2.6 Union 53,800 4% 0% 96% 0% 0% 3.0 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.237 C. Riparian Forest Buffer Extent ( Percent by Length)

Stream Total Low Impact Medium High Impact Weighted Riparian ( buffer Impact ( buffer ( buffer sparse Mean Rating Length ( ft) > 132 ft wide) 66 132 ft wide) and/ or < 66 ft wide)

Big Anderson 16,000 41% 0% 59% 2.2 Big Beef 60,200 76% 6% 18% 1.4 Big Mission 20,400 31% 24% 45% 2.1 Big Quilcene 49,600 53% 2% 45% 1.9 Chimacum 29,600 33% 26% 41% 2.1 Dewatto 40,800 69% 16% 15% 1.5 Dosewallips 45,800 58% 21% 21% 1.6 Duckabush 32,200 59% 25% 16% 1.6 Dungeness 104,200 32% 18% 50% 2.2 Hamma Hamma 35,000 58% 0% 42% 1.8 Jimmycomelately 18,800 0% 31% 69% 2.7 Lilliwaup 5,800 52% 0% 48% 2.0 Little Quilcene 29,800 3% 38% 60% 2.6 Salmon 21,600 8% 22% 70% 2.6 Seabeck 11,600 0% 0% 100% 3.0 Skokomish 323,200 45% 25% 35% 1.9 Snow 32,400 17% 7% 76% 2.6 Stavis 4,800 79% 0% 21% 1.4 Tahuya 96,800 44% 27% 29% 1.9 Union 53,800 27% 11% 62% 2.4 D. Riparian Land Use ( Percent by Area)

Stream Total Forested No Forestry Agric Rur Urb/ Road Riparian buffer land resid Com / Area ( ft ) use 2 Big Anderson 3,200,000 55% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 36% Big Beef 12,040,000 85% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 7% Big Mission 4,080,000 70% 0% 0% 0% 17% 8% 5% Big Quilcene 9,920,000 62% 0% 1% 10% 3% 3% 21% Chimacum 5,920,000 51% 0% 0% 16% 17% 16% 0% Dewatto 8,160,000 87% 0% 5% 2% 4% 0% 2% Dosewallips 9,160,000 79% 2% 3% 3% 7% 6% 0% Duckabush 6,440,000 74% 2% 0% 0% 9% 12% 3% Dungeness 20,840,000 58% 0% 0% 9% 13% 0% 20% Hamma Hamma 7,000,000 65% 0% 23% 10% 2% 0% 0% Jimmycomelately 3,760,000 34% 0% 38% 12% 7% 0% 9% Lilliwaup 1,160,000 52% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 28% Little Quilcene 5,960,000 40% 2% 6% 33% 8% 0% 11% Salmon 4,320,000 32% 0% 25% 43% 0% 0% 0% Seabeck 2,320,000 33% 0% 0% 23% 21% 0% 23% Skokomish 64,640,000 64% 1% 1% 26% 2% 2% 4% Snow 6,480,000 42% 0% 7% 35% 5% 0% 11% Stavis 960000 83% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% Tahuya 19360000 71% 1% 6% 8% 12% 0% 2% Union 10760000 52% 0% 2% 13% 30% 0% 3% Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.7 A3.238 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.8 A3.239 Appendix Report 3.8 Freshwater Habitat Data Summary and Analysis Criteria Freshwater habitat data can be found for a number of streams in Hood Canal and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Below is a summary of the available habitat data ( Appendix Table 3.8.1), targets used to analyze the data ( Appendix Table 3.8.2), and the channel condition data ( Appendix Table 3.8.3). Temperature data was only used if it was a continuous thermograph ( i. e. no spot sampling). Temperature graph data was visually examined during the workshops to determine if it exceeded 12 E C. Fine sediment data was only considered if it was gathered with a McNeil core sampler; visual estimates of surface sediment are not accurate and were not considered.

Appendix Table 3.8.1. Watersheds with habitat data used in the assessment.

Watershed data Temperature Fine Sediment Channel condition Jimmycomelately X Salmon X X Snow X X Little Quilcene X Big Quilcene X Duckabush X Hamma Hamma X Skokomish x X 1 Union X Big Mission X Tahuya X X X Dewatto X X X Big Anderson X Stavis X X Big Beef X X Skokomish watershed channel condition data is for Vance Creek only. 1 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.8 A3.240 Appendix Table 3.8.2. Stream habitat targets for channel condition habitat factors. Large woody debris ( LWD) is number of pieces/ m of channel length , percent pools is the surface area occupied by pools , pool frequency is the 1 2,3 number of channel widths per pool , and fine sediment is the percentage of fine sediment with a diameter < 0.85mm 2 . 2 Habitat factor targets and gradient No Low impact Mod. impact High impact Channel width LWD < 15 m > 0.4 0.2 0.4 < 0.2 1 Percent pools < 15 m; 2% > 55% 40 55% < 40% 2 Percent pools > 15 m > 50% 35 50% < 35% 3 Pool frequency < 15 m; 2% < 2 2 4 > 4 2 Temperature all < 12 C  > 12 C 4 Fine sediment all < 12% 12 17% > 17% 2 o o Montgomery et al. 1995 1 WFPB1995 2 Pess et al. 1998 3 Bjorn and Reiser 1991 4 Appendix Table 3.8.3. Channel condition habitat data summary. USFS ( US Forest Service) was collected using Hankin and Reeves survey methodology. PNPTC ( Point No Point Treaty Council) and USFWS ( US Fish and Wildlife Service) were collected using TFW ambient monitoring methodology. Pool frequency is the number of channel widths per pool.

Stream Data source year RM ( rivermile) pieces/ m freq. pools Survey LWD Pool Percent 1 Jimmycomelately USFS 1990 0 1.9 0.09 9.0 30% Salmon PNPTC 1992 0 1.3 0.06, 0.15 4.8 39 Snow PNPTC 1993 0 3.6 0.07 5.7 47 Little Quilcene PNPTC 1992 0 3.8 0.03, 0.1 5.3 32 Big Quilcene PNPTC 1993 0.8 3.8 0.01, 0.16 5.1 31 Big Quilcene USFS 1992 0 4.0 0.06  20 Duckabush USFWS 1992 0.2 2.3 sparse  31 Hamma Hamma USFWS 1996 0.5 1.8 0.13  50 Johns Creek USFWS 1996 0 1.8 0.06   Union PNPTC 1993 0 6.7 0.22 5.9 63 Big Mission PNPTC 1993 0 1.5 0.07 6.5 33 Tahuya PNPTC 1994 4.0 9.0 0.04, 0.15 2.4 72 Dewatto PNPTC 1994 3.0 3.5 0.09, 0.28 4.1 37 Big Anderson USFWS 1993/ 4 0 1.8 0.30 1.7 51 Stavis USFWS 1993/ 4 0 0.6 0.26 1.8 53 Big Beef PNPTC 1993/ 4 0 6.3 0.17 2.4 46 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.8 A3.241 This is the surveyed portion of the channel that overlapped the summer chum range. 1 For PNPTC data, LWD volumes are calculated using only single piece data and calculated using single pieces plus 2 pieces in jams. For LWD jams, only the overall volume was measured and not the individual piece count. To convert volume to pieces, jam volume was divided by average single piece volume for each survey. Thus the incomplete packing of wood within jams was not accounted for and total LWD numbers are likely overestimated. It is presented as both single pieces, and the total of single pieces plus those in LWD jams. This number does not include pieces in LWD jams and should be considered a low estimate. Individual piece 3 volumes were not available to calculate pieces per jam. However given field observations, had total LWD pieces been counted, the channel would still fall within the highly degraded category. Could not be calculated from the data. Channel width was measured as summer low flow width. 4 Partial survey, did not collect this information. 5 References Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83 138.

Montgomery, D. R., G. E. Grant, and K, Sullivan. 1995. Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin 31: 369 385.

Pess, G. R., B. D. Collins, M. Pollock, T. J. Beechie, S. Grigsby, and A. Haas. 1998. Historic and current factors that limit coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Stillaguamish river basin, Washington state: implications for salmonid habitat protection and restoration. A report prepared for Snohomish County Department of Public Works   Surface Water Management Division and the Stillaguamish Tribe, Everett, WA. 40 p.

WFPB ( Washington Forest Practices Board). 1995. Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis ( Version 3). Wash. Forest Pract. Bd., Olympia, WA. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix Report 3.8 A3.242 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.243 Appendix Report 3.9 General Fishing Patterns, and Regulation Summary by Year, Fishery, and Fleet Introduction The Harvest Management section ( 3.5) of the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative provides a narrative description of all fisheries that potentially can have some impact on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca ( HC SJF) summer chum ( see Part Three, section 3.5.3). This appendix report provides additional information specifically on commercial fishing patterns and regulations.

Appendix Figure 3.9.1 is a simple graphical depiction of the general pattern of commercial fishing in the major fishing areas impacting HC SJF summer chum. The solid bars indicate some consistency in fishing pattern from year to year, and the dotted bars indicate a fishery that has been severely curtailed or eliminated in recent years or one that occurs very sporadically and with low effort or impact. For example, sockeye and pink salmon fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca occur consistently every year ( solid bar) and it is only the extremes of the timing of the fishery that changes much from year to year ( dotted bar). The coho fishery in the Strait of Juan de Fuca used to occur with significant effort and catch, but has been severely constrained or eliminated in recent years ( dotted bar). Commercial net fisheries for chinook in the Strait of Juan de Fuca used to be much more extensive, involving drift gill net gear. Now this fishery is very constrained, restricted to set gill net gear in near shore areas with very little effort and catch ( dotted bar).

Detailed summaries of July through October net fishery openings in Hood Canal management units are provided in Appendix Tables 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 for treaty and non treaty fishermen, respectively. These tables summarize regulations for the period from 1980 to 1997 and provide weekly summaries of the specific areas, gear types and number of days open. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.244 Appendix Figure 3.9.1. General commercial fishing pattern by area, fleet and gear since the late 1970s ( see text for explanation of dotted lines).

Species July August September October Area 20 Strait of Juan de Fuca San Juans Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.245 Appendix Figure 3.9.1 ( continued)

Species July August September October Admiralty Inlet Area 10 Hood Canal Main stem Quilcene/ Dabob Area 12D Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.246 Appendix Table 3.9.1. 1980 97 non treaty openings for Hood Canal Mainstem Management Area ( July through October). Gear Types: PS= purse seine, BS= beach seine, and GN= gillnet.

Year Date( s) Days Marine Area Gear Type 1980 10/ 21  10/ 28 2 12 PS, GN 1981 10/ 19  10/ 19 1 12 PS, GN 1981 10/ 25  10/ 25 1 12 GN 1981 10/ 26  10/ 26 1 12 PS 1982 09/ 15  09/ 15 1 12 GN 1982 09/ 16  09/ 16 1 12 PS 1982 10/ 11  10/ 11 1 12 GN 1982 10/ 12  10/ 12 1 12 PS 1982 10/ 18  10/ 18 1 12 PS, GN 1982 10/ 25  10/ 26 1 12 GN 1982 10/ 26  10/ 26 1 12 PS 1983 07/ 26  07/ 26 1 12 GN 1983 08/ 01  08/ 01 1 12 GN 1983 08/ 09  08/ 09 1 12 GN 1983 08/ 15  08/ 17 3 12 GN 1983 08/ 22  08/ 24 3 12,12B GN 1983 08/ 28  09/ 01 S 12, 12B GN 1983 09/ 11  09/ 11 1 12 GN 1983 09/ 12  09/ 12 1 12 PS 1983 09/ 19  09/ 20 2 12 PS, GN 1983 09/ 25  09/ 29 5 12 GN 1983 09/ 26  09/ 30 5 12 PS 1983 10/ 03  10/ 06 4 12,12A, 12B PS, GN 1983 10/ 09  10/ 11 3 12,12A, 12B GN 1983 10/ 10  10/ 12 3 12,12A, 12B PS 1983 10/ 17  10/ 17 1 12 PS, GN 1983 10/ 23  10/ 23 1 12 GN 1983 10/ 24  10/ 24 1 12 PS 1983 10/ 31  10/ 31 1 12 PS, GN 1984 07/ 30  07/ 30 1 12,12B GN 1984 07/ 31  07/ 31 1 12,12B PS 1984 08/ 07  08/ 09 3 12,12B PS, GN Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.247 Appendix Table 3.9.1 ( continued). 1980 97 non treaty openings for Hood Canal Mainstem Management Area ( July through October). Gear Types: PS= purse seine, BS= beach seine, and GN= gillnet.

Year Date( s) Days Marine Area Gear Type 1984 08/ 13  08/ 15 3 12,12B PS, GN 1984 08/ 20  08/ 22 3 12,12B GN 1984 09/ 21  08/ 23 3 12,12B PS 1984 08/ 27  08/ 29 3 12,12B, 12C PS, GN 1984 09/ 10  09/ 11 2 12,12A GN 1984 09/ 11  09/ 12 2 12,12A PS 1984 09/ 17  09/ 19 3 12,12A, 12B PS, GN 1984 09/ 24  09/ 24 1 12A GN 1984 09/ 25  09/ 25 1 12A PS 1984 10/ 01  10/ 01 1 12A PS, GN 1984 10/ 08  10/ 08 1 12A GN 1984 10/ 09  10/ 09 1 12A PS 1984 10/ 15  10/ 15 1 12,12A, 12B PS, GN 1984 10/ 15  10/ 17 3 12A PS, GN 1984 10/ 21  10/ 21 1 12,12B GN 1984 10/ 22  10/ 22 1 12,12B PS 1985 07/ 30  07/ 30 1 12C GN 1985 07/ 31  07/ 31 1 12C PS 1985 08/ 05  08/ 07 3 12C PS, GN 1985 08/ 13  08/ 16 4 12C PS 1985 08/ 18  08/ 22 S 12B, L2C GN 1985 08/ 19  08/ 23 S 12C PS 1985 08/ 25  08/ 29 S 12B, L2C GN 1985 08/ 26  08/ 30 S 12C PS 1985 09/ 02  09/ 05 4 12B, 12C GN 1985 09/ 03  09/ 06 4 12B, 12C PS 1985 09/ 09  09/ 09 1 12,12A GN 1985 09/ 10  09/ 10 1 12,12A PS 1995 09/ 16  09/ 17 2 12,12A PS, GN 1985 09/ 23  09/ 25 3 12,12A GN 1985 09/ 24  09/ 26 3 12,12A PS 1985 09/ 30  10/ 03 4 12,12A PS, GN Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.248 Appendix Table 3.9.1 ( continued). 1980 97 non treaty openings for Hood Canal Mainstem Management Area ( July through October). Gear Types: PS= purse seine, BS= beach seine, and GN= gillnet.

Year Date( s) Days Marine Area Gear Type 1985 10/ 06  10/ 10 5 12,12A, 12B, 12C GN 1985 10/ 07  10/ 11 S 12,12A, 12B, 12C PS 1985 10/ 14 10/ 16 3 12,12A, 12B, 12C PS, GN 1985 10/ 21  10/ 21 1 12 GN 1985 10/ 22  10/ 22 1 12 PS 1985 10/ 21  10/ 23 3 12C GN 1985 10/ 22  10/ 24 3 12C PS 1985 10/ 28  10/ 28 1 12 PS, GN 1986 07/ 28  07/ 31 4 12B, 12C PS, GN 1986 08/ 04  08/ 07 4 12B, 12C GN 1986 08/ 05  08/ 08 4 12B, 12C PS 1986 08/ 11 08/ 14 4 12B, 12C PS, GN 1986 08/ 18  08/ 19 2 12B, 12C GN 1986 08/ 19  08/ 20 2 12B, 12C PS 1986 08/ 25  08/ 26 2 12,12B PS, GN 1986 09/ 01  09/ 03 3 12,12B GN 1986 09/ 02  09/ 04 3 12,12B PS 1986 09/ 08  09/ 09 2 12,12A, 12B PS, GN 1986 09/ 15  09/ 16 2 12,12A, 12B GN 1986 09/ 16  09/ 17 2 12,12A, 12B PS 1986 09/ 22  09/ 24 3 12,12A, 12B PS, GN 1986 09/ 28  09/ 30 3 12,12A, 12B GN 1986 09/ 29  10/ 01 3 12,12A, 12B PS 1986 10/ 20  10/ 20 1 12 GN 1986 10/ 21  10/ 21 1 12 PS 1986 10/ 27  10/ 27 1 12 PS, GN 1987 07/ 27  07/ 30 4 12B, 12C GN 1987 07/ 28  07/ 31 4 12C PS 1987 08/ 03  08/ 06 4 12B, 12C GN 1987 08/ 03  08/ 06 4 12C PS 1987 08/ 10  08/ 13 4 12B, 12C GN 1987 08/ 11  08/ 14 4 12C PS Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.249 Appendix Table 3.9.1 ( continued). 1980 97 non treaty openings for Hood Canal Mainstem Management Area ( July through October). Gear Types: PS= purse seine, BS= beach seine, and GN= gillnet.

Year Date( s) Days Marine Area Gear Type 1987 08/ 16  08/ 19 4 12B, 12C GN 1987 08/ 17  08/ 20 4 12C PS 1987 09/ 14  09/ 15 2 12,12A PS, GN 1987 09/ 20  09/ 22 3 12C GN 1987 09/ 21  09/ 23 3 12C PS 1987 09/ 21  09/ 22 2 12,12A GN 1987 09/ 22  09/ 23 2 12,12A PS 1987 09/ 28  09/ 29 2 12,12A, 12C PS, GN 1987 10/ 04  10/ 04 1 12,1 2A, 12B, 12C GN 1987 10/ 06  10/ 05 1 12,12A, 12B, 12C PS 1987 10/ 12  10/ 13 2 12,12A, 12B, 12C PS, GN 1987 10/ 19  10/ 19 1 12,12B GN 1987 10/ 20  10/ 20 1 12,12B PS 1987 10/ 19  10/ 22 4 12A GN 1987 10/ 20  10/ 23 4 12A PS 1987 10/ 26  10/ 26 1 12,12B PS, GN 1988 08/ 15  08/ 16 2 12B, 12C PS, GN 1988 08/ 22  08/ 23 2 12B, 12C GN 1988 08/ 23  08/ 24 2 12B, 12C PS 1988 09/ 06  09/ 07 2 12A PS, GN 1988 09/ 12  09/ 14 3 12A GN 1988 09/ 13  09/ 15 3 12A PS 1988 09/ 19  09/ 21 3 12A PS, GN 1988 09/ 26  09/ 27 2 12A GN 1988 09/ 27  09/ 28 2 12A PS 1988 10/ 24  10/ 25 2 12,12B PS, GN 1988 10/ 31  11/ 01 2 12,12B GN 1989 07/ 24  07/ 27 4 12B, 12C PS, GN 1989 07/ 31  08/ 03 4 12B, 12C GN 1989 08/ 01  08/ 04 4 12B, 12C PS 1989 08/ 07  08/ 10 4 12B, 12C PS, GN 1989 08/ 14  08/ 17 4 12B, 12C GN Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 Appendix to Part Three A3.250 Appendix Table 3.9.1 ( continued). 1980 97 non treaty openings for Hood Canal Mainstem Management Area ( July through October). Gear Types: PS= purse seine, BS= beach seine, and GN= gillnet.