draft

NISQUALLY RIVER STEELHEAD RECOVERY PLAN DRAFT—Do Not Distribute Without Authors’ Consent

D R A F T P R E P A R E D B Y : Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team Contact: Sayre Hodgson, Nisqually Indian Tribe

July 2014

Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team. 2014. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan. Draft. July. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Olympia, WA.

Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... viii Page Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1

Recovery Plan Development ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.1

Need for Recovery ........................................................................................................... 1-3

1.1.2

Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 1-4

1.1.3

Analytical Framework ...................................................................................................... 1-5

1.1.4

Implementation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring ............................................. 1-6

1.1.5

Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 1-6

1.1.6

Document Contents ......................................................................................................... 1-7

Chapter 2 Recovery Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................2-1 2.1

Long-Term Watershed Goals ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1

Conservation Goals .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2

Harvest Goals ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2

Short-Term Recovery Goals ............................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.1

Conservation Goals .......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2

Harvest Goals ................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3

Recovery Strategic Objectives ......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1

Habitat Objectives............................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2

Fish Management Objectives .......................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.3

Monitoring and Adaptive-Management Objectives ........................................................ 2-4

Chapter 3 Nisqually River Overview ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1

Nisqually River Watershed............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1

Subbasins and Ecoregions................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2

Land Use........................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.1.3

Hydroelectric Development ............................................................................................. 3-8

3.2

Nisqually River Estuary .................................................................................................. 3-10

3.3

Nisqually River Mainstem .............................................................................................. 3-12

3.4

Tributary Subbasins ....................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.1

McAllister Creek ............................................................................................................. 3-13

3.4.2

Muck Creek .................................................................................................................... 3-15

Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

i

July 2014

ICF 00153.13

Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team

Contents

3.4.3

Prairie Tributaries .......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.4

Ohop Creek .................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.4.5

Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks......................................................................... 3-17

3.4.6

Mashel River .................................................................................................................. 3-17

3.5

Historical and Current Habitat Conditions ..................................................................... 3-20 3.5.1

Flow Regime................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.5.2

Water Quality................................................................................................................. 3-25

3.5.3

Channel Morphology and Degree of Confinement........................................................ 3-27

3.5.4

Channel and Substrate Characteristics .......................................................................... 3-30

3.5.5

Sediment Budget ........................................................................................................... 3-31

Chapter 4 Nisqually River Steelhead ................................................................................................4-1 4.1

Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Juvenile and Adult Life History .................................. 4-1

4.2

Adult Abundance ............................................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.1

Harvest ........................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.2

Annual Run Size ............................................................................................................. 4-13

4.3

Smolt Outmigration Monitoring .................................................................................... 4-13 4.3.1

Smolt Abundance ........................................................................................................... 4-14

4.3.2

Migration Timing............................................................................................................ 4-14

4.3.3

Smolt Age and Size ......................................................................................................... 4-16

4.4

Steelhead Marine Survival and Recruitment ................................................................. 4-17 4.4.1

Marine Survival Estimates ............................................................................................. 4-17

4.4.2

Freshwater Productivity (Smolt Recruits per Spawner) ................................................ 4-22

4.4.3

Estimates Adult per Spawner Recruitment ................................................................... 4-23

4.4.4

Anadromy and Resident Life-History Forms .................................................................. 4-25

4.4.5

Incidence of Iteroparity in Nisqually Winter Steelhead................................................. 4-26

4.5

Nisqually River Hatchery Releases ................................................................................. 4-26 4.5.1

Steelhead Hatchery Programs ....................................................................................... 4-26

4.5.2

Other Hatchery Programs in the Nisqually Watershed ................................................. 4-30

4.6

Nisqually River Steelhead Genetic Analyses .................................................................. 4-32

Chapter 5 Restoration and Protection Needs....................................................................................5-1 5.1

Analytical Methods .......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2

Analysis of Current and Historical Habitat Potential ....................................................... 5-4

5.3

Factors Affecting Steelhead in the Watershed ................................................................ 5-9

5.4

5.3.1

Comparison of Life Cycle Segment Survival and Abundance........................................... 5-9

5.3.2

Watershed Geographic Restoration and Protection Priorities ...................................... 5-11

5.3.3

Watershed Habitat-Limiting Factor Priorities ................................................................ 5-12 Parameter Uncertainty and Stochastic Variation .......................................................... 5-14


ii

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Chapter 6 Habitat Recovery Strategies .............................................................................................6-1 6.1

Analysis of Recovery Plan Habitat Potential .................................................................... 6-6

6.2

Factors Affecting Steelhead in the Watershed ................................................................ 6-9 6.2.1

Watershed Geographic Improvements ........................................................................... 6-9

6.2.2

Watershed Habitat-Limiting Factors Addressed by the Recovery Plan ......................... 6-10

6.3

Conclusions and Guidance ............................................................................................. 6-12

Chapter 7 Nisqually River Steelhead Management ...........................................................................7-1 7.1

Hatchery Options ............................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2

Harvest Management ...................................................................................................... 7-4

7.3

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 7-9

Chapter 8 Implementation ..............................................................................................................8-1 8.1

Strategic Objectives for Recovery .................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.1

Habitat Objectives............................................................................................................ 8-2

8.1.2

Fish-Management Objectives .......................................................................................... 8-2

8.1.3

Monitoring and Adaptive-Management Objectives ........................................................ 8-3

8.2

Winter Steelhead Action Plan .......................................................................................... 8-3 8.2.1

Application of Steelhead Common Framework ............................................................... 8-5

8.2.2

Implementation Strategy Framework.............................................................................. 8-6

8.2.3

Priority Recovery Actions for Steelhead Recovery .......................................................... 8-7

8.3

Adaptive Management during Recovery ....................................................................... 8-10 8.3.1

Data Gaps ....................................................................................................................... 8-11

8.3.2

Assessment Needs ......................................................................................................... 8-12

8.3.3

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Needs ............................................................... 8-13

8.3.4

Annual Project Review ................................................................................................... 8-14

8.4

Climate Change Considerations ..................................................................................... 8-16 8.4.1

Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest .................................... 8-16

8.4.2

Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the Nisqually River Watershed ...................... 8-17

8.4.3

Restoration Actions to Ameliorate Climate Change Effects .......................................... 8-18

Chapter 9 References ......................................................................................................................9-1 Appendix A Reach Structure for Assessment of Winter Steelhead Performance in the Nisqually River ........................................................................................................9-1 Appendix B Nisqually Steelhead Tracking Study................................................................................9-1 Appendix C Nisqually Winter Steelhead Action Plan .........................................................................9-1 Appendix D Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation ........................................................... 9-1


iii

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Appendix A

Reach Structure for Assessment of Winter Steelhead Performance in the Nisqually River

Appendix B

Nisqually Steelhead Tracking Study

Appendix C

Nisqually Winter Steelhead Action Plan

Appendix D

Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation


iv

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Tables Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Table 4-1. Table 4-2. Table 4-3. Table 4-4. Table 4-5. Table 4-6. Table 4-7. Table 4-8. Table 4-9. Table 4-10. Table 4-11. Table 4-12. Table 4-13. Table 4-14. Table 4-15. Table 4-16. Table 4-17. Table 4-18. Table 4-19. Table 5-1. Table 5-2. Table 6-1. Table 6-2. Table 6-3. Table 7-1. Table 7-2. Table 7-3.

Characteristics of EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Nisqually Basin............................. 3-5 Amount of Channel Area (hectares) by Channel Type and Estuarine Zone ....................... 3-12 Nisqually Watershed Streams, Reaches, and Springs by Subbasin .................................... 3-14 USGS Stream Gages used to Characterize Streamflow in Nisqually Basin ......................... 3-23 Fine Sediment and Spawning Gravel Sampling Results for Ohop Creek and Mashel River Watersheds (1990–1994) ............................................................................. 3-33 Nisqually River Wild Winter Steelhead Age Composition (freshwater/saltwater years and total age).......................................................................... 4-5 Locations of Aerial and Ground-Based Survey Reaches in the Nisqually Rivera ................... 4-8 Recent Steelhead Survey Effort (2004–2013) on the Nisqually River and Mashel River ..... 4-9 Nisqually River Wild Winter Steelhead Run Reconstruction (1979/1980–2011/2012) ..... 4-12 Trap Operations Dates and Percent Time Fishing during Years of Operation.................... 4-14 Steelhead Smolt Abundance Estimates and Percent Coefficient of Variation for Years of Trap Operation...................................................................................................... 4-14 Dates for Quantiles of Run Timing for Years of Trap Operation ........................................ 4-16 Percent of Steelhead Smolt Age Structure for Years of Trap Operation ............................ 4-16 Steelhead Smolt Fork Lengths in Millimeters for Years of Trap Operation ........................ 4-16 Mean Steelhead Smolt Fork Length in Millimeters and Standard Deviation at Age for Years of Trap Operation ....................................................................................... 4-17 River Smolt-to-Adult Survival Rates for Nisqually River Steelhead (2009–2010) ............ 4-20 Estimated Smolts per Spawner for the Smolt Outmigrant Brood Years Collected to Date .............................................................................................................. 4-22 Estimated Adult Recruits per Spawner for Nisqually River Steelhead ............................. 4-24 Historical Releases of Unknown or Winter Run Hatchery Steelhead to Nisqually River . 4-27 Historical Summer-Run Steelhead Hatchery Releases in the Nisqually River .................. 4-28 Incidence of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in the Nisqually River Treaty Net Catch ........... 4-29 Hatchery Salmonids Released in the Nisqually Watershed.............................................. 4-31 Hatchery Rainbow Trout Captured at the Nisqually River Smolt Trap ............................. 4-32 Nisqually River Steelhead/Resident Rainbow Trout Genetic Samples ............................. 4-33 EDT Predicted Adult to Adult Productivity, Capacity, Abundance, and Diversity Index (1% Marine Survival)........................................................................................................... 5-4 EDT-Predicted Spawner-to-Smolt Productivity, Capacity, and Abundance ....................... 5-5 Recovery Plan Action Items ................................................................................................ 6-2 EDT Predicted Adult to Adult Productivity, Capacity, Abundance, and Diversity Index (1% Marine Survival).................................................................................. 6-6 EDT-Predicted Spawner to Smolt Productivity, Capacity, and Abundance ........................ 6-7 Assessment of Hatchery Options for Nisqually River Steelhead ........................................ 7-3 Fish Management Thresholds for Two Scenarios Used to Explore Harvest Opportunities for Nisqually River Steelhead ............................................................................................. 7-6 Results for Low and High Conservation Scenario Simulations ........................................... 7-7


v

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Figures Figure 1-1. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8. Figure 3-9. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Figure 4-8. Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10. Figure 4-11. Figure 4-12. Figure 4-13. Figure 4-14. Figure 4-15. Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2.

Nisqually River Watershed .................................................................................................. 1-2 Anadromous Portion of the Nisqually River Basin (WRIA 11) ............................................. 3-2 EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Nisqually Basin ........................................................ 3-4 Land Cover Classification for Nisqually River Watershed Subbasins .................................. 3-9 Nisqually Estuary Restoration of Channels (1990 Condition and 2012 Extent) ................ 3-11 Ohop Creek Channel Restoration Completed and Planned .............................................. 3-18 Location of Engineered Log Jams in the Lower Mashel River ........................................... 3-19 Daily Mean Flow for the Upper Nisqually River near National, Lower Nisqually River at La Grande, and Lower Nisqually River near McKenna .................................................. 3-21 Annual Peak Flows for the Upper Nisqually River near National, Lower Nisqually River at La Grande, and Lower Nisqually River near McKenna .................................................. 3-22 Daily Mean Flows in Four Tributary Streams in the Lower Nisqually Basin ...................... 3-24 Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Generalized Life History ................................................ 4-1 Winter Steelhead Spawning Timing in the Nisqually River and Mashel River (2009–2013); data provided by James Losee, WDFW. ....................................................... 4-2 Distribution of Fyke Net Catches of Three Size Classes of Rainbow Trout and Steelhead in Muck Creek (1980) ......................................................................................... 4-3 Temporal Distribution of Size Classes of Juvenile Rainbow Trout and Steelhead (1980) ... 4-4 Nisqually River Wild Winter Steelhead Distribution of Years in Freshwater and Saltwater and Total Age at Return ...................................................................................... 4-6 Age Structure (Freshwater/Saltwater age) of Adult Returning Nisqually River Wild Winter Steelhead ........................................................................................................ 4-7 Steelhead Spawning Escapement to the Nisqually River and Major Tributaries (1980–2013) ........................................................................................................................ 4-7 Steelhead Spawning Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-10 Recent Year Estimated Adult Winter Steelhead from Tributary Surveys (Muck Creek was not surveyed 2004 to 2009) ................................................................. 4-11 Nisqually River Wild Winter Steelhead Run Reconstruction (1979/1980–2012/2013) .... 4-13 Steelhead Smolt Run Timing by Week for Years of Trap Operation ................................. 4-15 Weekly Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Fork Lengths in Millimeters of Steelhead Smolts for Years of Trap Operation.................................................................. 4-18 Length Density Histograms for the Observed Age Classes for Years of Available Age Data ............................................................................................................................ 4-19 Survivorship Curves for Steelhead Smolts in Puget Sound and Hood Canal.................... 4-22 Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Adult Brood Spawner Abundance versus Adult Recruits (dashed line is 1.0 recruit per spawner) .................................................... 4-25 Relationship between Spawner Abundance and Adult Progeny (Recruits) ........................ 5-2 Hypothetical Example of the Multistage Beverton-Holt Function for Capacity in EDT ...... 5-3


vi

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Figure 5-3. Figure 5-4. Figure 5-5. Figure 5-6. Figure 5-7. Figure 5-8. Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2. Figure 6-3. Figure 7-1. Figure 8-1.

Contents

EDT-Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-to-Adult S-R Functions for Current and Historical Conditions (1% Marine Survival) ......................................................................... 5-5 EDT-Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-to-Smolt S-R Functions for Current and Historical Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5-6 Predicted Habitat Utilization (Adult Distribution) of Nisqually Steelhead (1% Marine Survival) ........................................................................................................... 5-6 Pattern of Habitat Degradation in the Nisqually River Watershed by Life Stage ............. 5-13 Pattern of Habitat Degradation in the Nisqually River Watershed by Subbasin .............. 5-14 Current Condition Results with Alternative Marine Survival ............................................ 5-15 EDT-Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-to-Adult S-R Functions for the Recovery Plan, Current, and Historical Conditions (1% Marine Survival) ........................... 6-6 EDT-Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-to-Smolt S-R Functions for the Recovery Plan, Current, and Historical Conditions ............................................................. 6-7 Predicted Habitat Utilization (Adult Distribution) of Nisqually Steelhead (1% Marine Survival) ........................................................................................................... 6-8 Results Low and High Conservation Scenarios for Run to River and Catch (top) and Spawning Escapement (bottom) ......................................................................................... 7-8 Process for Reviewing and Updating Information during Annual Project Review ........... 8-15


vii

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations °C ADM AM APR BNSF cfs Common Framework DIP DP DPS EDT EPA FERC HCB I-5 JDF M&AM NAR NOAA NSRT Open Standards PIT Prairie Tributaries RAD RCO recovery plan RITT RK RM SR TMDL USGS VSP WDFW WDNR WRIA 11

degrees Celsius Admiralty Inlet aerial mapping annual project review Burlington Northern Santa Fe cubic feet per second Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery: A Framework for the Development of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans Demographically Independent Population Deception Pass Distinct Population Segment Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Hood Canal Bridge Interstate 5 Strait of Juan de Fuca Monitoring and Adaptive Management Tacoma Narrows National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation passive integrated transponder prairie-type tributaries redd accumulation and deterioration Recreation and Conservation Office Nisqually Winter Steelhead Recovery Plan Recovery Implementation Technical Team’s river kilometer river mile State Route Total Maximum Daily Load U.S. Geological Survey viable salmonid population Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources lands Water Resource Inventory Area 11


viii

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


Contents

Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team Participants The individuals listed below attended one or more of the NSRT workshops and contributed information for this plan. This report was drafted principally by the Nisqually Indian Tribe fisheries staff and their consultants, with contributions by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The smolt monitoring section in Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead, was prepared by Matt Klungle of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Name

Agency/Company/Tribe

Calahan, Amy Cutler, Jennifer Ellings, Christopher Hodgson, Sayre Moore, Jed Sampselle, Cathy Smith, Craig Troutt, David Walter, George Hughes, Kirt Klungle, Matt Loosee, James Marshall, Anne Phillips, Larry Leischner, Florian Richardson, John Blair, Greg (Consultant) Luiting, Torrey (Consultant)

Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Indian Tribe Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Tacoma Power Joint Base Lewis-McChord ICF International ICF International


ix

July 2014

ICF 00153.13

Chapter 1

Introduction Salmon are important to the economic, social, cultural, and aesthetic values of the people in the Nisqually River watershed. Winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were at one time abundant in the Nisqually River; the species was a significant component of the Nisqually ecosystem and provided an important winter fishery for tribal and sport fishers. Run size estimates dropped substantially in the early 1990s and remain low. In May 2007, the Puget Sound steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Since implementation of the original Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001), several major habitat restoration initiatives have resulted in habitat improvements in the Nisqually River watershed. These have included the restoration of tidal hydrology to 1,878 acres (760 hectares) of the Nisqually River estuary (2009), the first phase of restoration of Ohop Creek (2009), and several in-‐stream wood placement projects on the Mashel River. Future large-‐scale restoration projects include the second and third phases of the Ohop Creek restoration and continued habitat protection efforts. However, despite this focus on habitat restoration and the elimination of sport harvest and directed tribal harvest the Nisqually winter steelhead population remains at a depressed level. The Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Team (NSRT) was formed to develop a Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan (recovery plan). The NSRT is composed of technical representatives of the Nisqually Indian Tribe and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The NSRT also collaborated with other watershed stakeholders such as Pierce County, Thurston County, Joint Base Lewis-‐McChord, the Nisqually River Council, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, Tacoma Power, and the Nisqually Land Trust. Together with WDFW, these stakeholders will have a critical role during cooperative implementation of the strategies, actions, and next steps recommended in this recovery plan. This effort was funded by a grant from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and Nisqually Indian Tribe. This draft report is the first step toward developing a comprehensive habitat and fish management plan for recovering Nisqually winter steelhead. Additional discussions will occur between the tribe and state co-‐managers in the watershed community to refine goals, objectives, and plan elements. The recovery plan includes a habitat action plan with specific habitat protection and restoration strategies and will eventually serve as an inclusive steelhead stock monitoring and adaptive management plan. The recovery plan incorporates the needs and threats faced by winter steelhead into the existing salmon management framework for the Nisqually River watershed that is currently focused on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) recovery (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2011). Figure 1-‐1 shows the complete Nisqually River watershed and the anadromous portion available to winter steelhead.


1-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Figure 1-1 Nisqually River Watershed

Graphics/00153.13 Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Planning (12-13) SS


1.1

Introduction

Recovery Plan Development

The recovery plan is a broad and comprehensive approach to recovering steelhead in the Nisqually River watershed; it is based on available historical information on habitat conditions in the watershed and current habitat information. The plan relies heavily on stock assessment data and steelhead research findings derived from the Nisqually Indian Tribe and WDFW. The plan includes an analysis of current and historical population abundance data and an assessment of freshwater habitat potential for the current and reconstructed historical Nisqually River watershed. From these analyses, the NSRT identified freshwater habitat restoration and protection priorities and completed an analysis of the potential benefits of specific habitat actions. Together these represent a Nisqually River watershed habitat plan that addresses the factors specifically identified as limiting winter steelhead in the Nisqually River watershed and priority areas to protect high-‐quality habitat in the watershed. Although marine survival is an important factor affecting Nisqually steelhead recovery, an in-‐depth analysis of complex, interrelated, and far-‐reaching factors affecting marine survival is beyond the scope of this recovery plan. The NSRT plans to work closely with Salish Sea Marine Survival Project team to better understand factors affecting Nisqually steelhead in the marine environment and implement their recommendations to address those factors where possible (Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup 2014).

1.1.1

Need for Recovery

Steelhead have one of the most complex suites of life history strategies of any anadromous Pacific salmonid species. Nisqually winter steelhead usually spend 1 to 3 years in freshwater, with the greatest proportion typically spending 2 years there. Consequently, steelhead rely heavily on freshwater habitat and are present in streams year-‐round. Nisqually River winter steelhead share habitat with resident O. mykiss and likely interact as a single population (Section 4.4.1.6, Anadromy and Resident Life-‐History Forms). Juvenile steelhead also interact with other salmonids in the watershed, including feeding on pink and chum salmon fry when abundant. These complexities necessitate a recovery plan that has a strong focus on understanding steelhead freshwater life history and habitat use. Steelhead are in decline throughout Puget Sound. Recent abundance of Puget Sound steelhead has been estimated at only 1% to 4% of historical levels, with abundance estimates for the period of 1980 to 2004 of 22,000 fish, compared to historical (1895) abundance of 485,000 to 930,000 fish (Gayeski et al. 2011). Despite the generally less-‐developed character of the Nisqually River watershed relative to other Puget Sound basins, annual winter steelhead abundance in the Nisqually River watershed has declined substantially since the 1980s and has consistently remained at less than 1,000 fish since the early 1990s (Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead). During the 1980s, the number of wild steelhead returning to the Nisqually River was estimated to be between approximately 4,000 and 7,000 fish. This is likely a low estimate because escapement numbers were based on Nisqually River mainstem redd surveys and did not account for fish returning to spawn in numerous tributaries in the watershed. Hiss et al. (1982) provides partial records of winter steelhead escapement to Muck Creek, reporting 134 females returning to this stream to spawn in 1980. The number of steelhead returning to the Nisqually River has plummeted to 300 or less in the last 4 of 10 years. Again, spawning abundance estimates are for the mainstem, and in recent years, include the Mashel River. Therefore, the total run size to the river is likely slightly larger to account for fish spawning in other tributaries. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

1-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Introduction

The Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team conducted a viability analysis of Puget Sound steelhead populations (Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team 2013a). Their analysis of abundance and recruitment data for Nisqually River steelhead found that the population is at “a very high risk of quasi-‐extinction over the next 100 years.” Wild fish management of winter steelhead has been the primary management focus in the Nisqually River for the last 25 years. The fishery focus has historically been on wild fish and ensuring adequate escapement of wild fish. Tribal and sport harvest on Nisqually steelhead was eliminated in the early 1990s. Since then, a few winter steelhead have been caught during the tribal winter chum fishery each year. Historically, there have been hatchery releases of both winter and summer non-‐native steelhead smolts in the watershed (Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead). The last hatchery release of winter steelhead was in 1981. The program was never large; the average number of winter steelhead smolts released between 1975 and 1981 was approximately 20,000 fish. Summer steelhead smolts were released up until 1994, averaging about 23,000 smolts per year. Winter and summer steelhead released into the Nisqually River watershed were fish reared in hatcheries outside of the watershed. Fish were transported from the donor hatcheries and released directly into the Nisqually River mainstem. In years with hatchery adults in the return the contribution of hatchery fish to harvest was accounted for through scale analysis of fish in the fishery. Run size to the river during the period that included hatchery returns was adjusted to remove hatchery origin adults. Land-‐use practices in the Nisqually River watershed, including commercial timber harvest and development, have increased sediment loads, reduced large woody material input and recruitment potential, and altered precipitation runoff patterns. The conversion of valley bottomlands and wetlands to agricultural and rural residential and hobby farms has altered the habitat support functions provided by these floodplain habitats. Prior to its recent restoration, the Nisqually River estuary had lost approximately 30% of its historical intertidal and subtidal habitat and 54% of its intertidal emergent marsh habitats. The Nisqually River mainstem is constrained by revetments and levees in the lower 5.2 miles, remnant flood control dikes in areas near McKenna and maintained dikes that protect the Yelm Diversion Canal between river mile (RM) 21.8 and RM 26.4 (Kerwin 1999). Two hydroelectric projects have been constructed in the watershed on the Nisqually River mainstem. The Centralia Diversion Dam (operated by the City of Centralia as part of its Yelm Hydro project) constructed at RM 26.2 in 1929 has affected, and continues to affect, adult and juvenile fish passage. The dam diverts water to a 9-‐mile canal running parallel to the river before returning to the river. The La Grande Hydroelectric Project at RM 40.8, operated by Tacoma Power, was constructed in 1910, and Alder Dam was added just upstream of this dam in 1944. This project affects the hydrologic regime of the Nisqually River mainstem through flood storage and flow regulation.

1.1.2

Goals and Objectives

The specific Nisqually Indian Tribe and WDFW (co-‐managers) goals and objectives detailed in Chapter 2, Recovery Goals and Objectives, were developed collaboratively through a series of NSRT meetings held in 2012 and early 2013.


1-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Introduction

Development of the goals and objectives included both short-‐ and long-‐term escapement and harvest goals, formulated to reflect several considerations. 

The economic, cultural, and social importance of Nisqually winter steelhead to the Nisqually Indian Tribe.



The risk of run extinction reflected by the 2007 listing of Puget Sound steelhead as a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.



The obligation of the NSRT member agencies and organizations as influential regional stakeholders to guide recovery efforts.



The desire for a wild winter steelhead population that is self-‐sustaining, capable of supporting both species recovery and harvest opportunities, and resilient in the face of a changing landscape and climate.

1.1.3

Analytical Framework

In developing this recovery plan, the NSRT employed a science-‐based analysis that focused on gathering and synthesizing the most current habitat information available for all subbasins and tributary streams. The NSRT also compiled co-‐manager-‐derived stock assessment data and the most current steelhead research findings to provide the best possible and comprehensive characterization of winter steelhead population characteristics and freshwater habitat use. The recovery plan used the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model (Mobrand et al 1997; Blair et al. 2007) to organize habitat conditions and analyze the current and historical production potential of Nisqually winter steelhead. The EDT model results were used to identify and rank threats to population productivity, abundance, and diversity based on the relationships between environmental conditions and steelhead life stage survival across a range of spatial and temporal scales. The results were also used to evaluate factors affecting current habitat potential, compare current to historical habitat potential, and compare benefits of possible actions to restore habitat potential. This analysis informed the compilation of data gaps and habitat protection and land-‐use strategies developed as part of the recovery plan. The analytical framework of the recovery plan acknowledges the consequence of data uncertainty on the assessment of threats to Nisqually winter steelhead (Section 6.5, Uncertainty). This analysis focused on the development of a working hypothesis to guide understanding of the major habitat influences in predicting past, present, and future population productivity, abundance, and diversity. These predictions were analyzed in terms of the rules that translate environmental conditions to survival. The effect of variability and uncertainty in the knowledge of environmental conditions, and the effect of uncertainty in fish spatial and temporal distribution patterns need to be recognized when reviewing model results presented in this plan. The analytical framework of the recovery plan also included the identification of data gaps (Section 7.4, Data Gaps) drawn from analyzing habitat, steelhead population, and habitat use data and considering research and monitoring needs (Section 7.5, Research and Monitoring Needs) and the potential effects of climate change on Nisqually winter steelhead recovery planning and actions (Section 7.6, Climate Change Considerations).


1-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


1.1.4

Introduction

Implementation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring

The keys to achieving recovery goals over time are to assemble the most recent and relevant information and use this information to report on population status, patterns of fish use and survival, watershed habitat conditions, and fish management consistent with the established guidelines. To this end, steelhead will be included in the ongoing adaptive management framework established for Nisqually Chinook recovery (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2011). A central component of the framework is an annual project review (APR) in which a four-‐step process is defined to establish Nisqually recovery plan actions and objectives annually for the upcoming management season. 1. Update key assumptions. 2. Update status and trends information. 3. Review and apply the decision rules used to set activities for the upcoming season. 4. Update models to predict expected future conditions and population response, and review for consistency with goals. This recovery plan also incorporates adaptive management and monitoring plans that are consistent with the framework developed by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT) as part of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration– (NOAA-‐) approved Chinook recovery plans. The RITT has developed the Common Framework concept for the development of monitoring and adaptive management plans. The Common Framework and its supporting database program Miradi™ are expected to become the standard conceptual structure, format, and method for reporting and tracking salmon recovery in Puget Sound. The steelhead recovery plan is expected to result in products that are both consistent with and translated into Common Framework terminology and data management tools.

1.1.5

Next Steps

A comprehensive steelhead recovery plan is an ongoing process. Not included in this draft of the recovery plan is an analysis of management options for more active intervention if run size continues to decline or remains at critically low levels. Also not included in this draft of the plan, but needed, is an analysis of recovery levels necessary to achieve community harvest goals for the population. Actions, strategies, and priorities to improve steelhead survival and health during their transit through the Puget Sound will also be developed as data and analyses from Salish Sea Marine Survival research efforts become available. The draft recovery plan presented in this document is based on information presently available from which the NSRT was able to develop an understanding of the current population potential relative to its historical potential and likely factors that caused the decline. The result is a guide to early actions for steelhead recovery. Throughout this document the NSRT identifies uncertainty resulting from data gaps, an incomplete analysis of existing data, or a general lack of knowledge requiring future research/analysis to guide recovery activities.


1-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Introduction

Next steps in the process of steelhead recovery planning also include the following two items.

1. Develop and implement monitoring plans to improve the understanding of steelhead stock health parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, genetic diversity, and life history diversity. 2. Monitor habitat improvement plans and track habitat health using Common Framework data management tools.

1.1.6

Document Contents

In addition to this introductory chapter, the recovery plan is organized as follows. 



 









Chapter 2, Recovery Goals and Objectives, presents the long-term vision and short-term goals for Nisqually steelhead.

Chapter 3, Nisqually River Overview, describes the current status of the environment and historical conditions.

Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead, describes what is known about Nisqually steelhead.

Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs, details the diagnosis and identification of habitat protection and restoration needs and priorities for Nisqually steelhead.

Chapter 6, Habitat Recovery Strategies, presents an analysis of the freshwater habitat recovery strategy.

Chapter 7, Nisqually River Steelhead Management, provides an overview of options for hatchery intervention and scenarios for future fish management.

Chapter 8, Implementation, discusses implementation including monitoring and adaptive management. Chapter 9, References, includes full references cited in this recovery plan.


1-7

July 2014

ICF 00153.13

 

Chapter 2

Recovery Goals and Objectives The NSRT identified broad long-‐term goals and more specific shorter-‐term goals for winter steelhead in the Nisqually River watershed. These goals represent the Nisqually River watershed community vision for the watershed and the future of its salmon and steelhead populations. Long-‐ term and short-‐term goals include both conservation and harvest components, consistent with the NSRT’s interest in restoring the winter steelhead population to a point where a sustainable level of tribal and recreational harvest is again possible. To meet these goals the NSRT identified strategic objectives and priorities specific to habitat, fish management, and plan implementation including monitoring and adaptive management.

2.1

Long-‐Term Watershed Goals

The successful recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead depends on addressing all of the factors contributing to population declines through a comprehensive strategy that includes consideration of all sources of mortality from both an ecosystem perspective and a harvest perspective, protection of intact functional habitat, and restoration of degraded conditions including provisions to mitigate the effects of hydropower facilities where possible. The following long-‐term goals for steelhead in the Nisqually River watershed are intended to be accomplished within a 50-‐to-‐100-‐year timeframe, but they serve to guide short-‐term efforts as well.

2.1.1

Conservation Goals

Long-‐term conservation goals are intended to ensure the existence and genetic diversity of Nisqually winter steelhead, as well as the economic, cultural, social, and aesthetic benefits that the Nisqually Tribe and all residents of the watershed derive from a healthy Nisqually River ecosystem. The NSRT identified the following three long-‐term conservation goals. 

Ensure a thriving and harvestable natural production of winter steelhead in perpetuity by providing high quality, functioning habitat across a range of habitats historically used by Nisqually steelhead.



Ensure the long-‐term protection of the genetically unique, locally adapted Nisqually winter steelhead population.



Ensure that the economic, cultural, social, and aesthetic benefits derived from the Nisqually ecosystem will be sustained in perpetuity.

2.1.2

Harvest Goals

Long-‐term harvest goals are intended to ultimately ensure a harvestable population of Nisqually winter steelhead for tribal and sport fishers that is consistent with and supported by achievement of the long-‐term conservation goals and maintenance of a healthy Nisqually River ecosystem.


2-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Recovery Goals and Objectives

The NSRT identified the following three long-‐term harvest goals. 

Ensure sustainable harvest of natural-‐origin winter steelhead.



Provide for a winter steelhead–directed treaty fishery of approximately 2,500 fish in the Nisqually River to achieve cultural and economic significance for the Nisqually Indian Tribe.



Provide for a full season of winter steelhead sport fishery in the Nisqually River.

2.2

Short-‐Term Recovery Goals

The following short-‐term goals for steelhead in the Nisqually River watershed are intended to be accomplished within a 5-‐to-‐10-‐year timeframe to slow the decline of the population, preserve its genetic identity, and improve habitat conditions as quickly as possible in the watershed. The goals are intended to be consistent with the long-‐term conservation goals and ultimately work to create conditions under which the long-‐term harvest goals can also be accomplished.

2.2.1

Conservation Goals

Short-‐term conservation goals are intended to immediately support the protection and recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead productivity, abundance, spatial distribution, and diversity. The NSRT identified the following four short-‐term conservation goals. 

Restore population productivity, abundance, distribution, and diversity to levels sufficient to ensure short-‐term and long-‐term viability of Nisqually winter steelhead.



Protect, restore, and enhance important habitat values and functions important to winter steelhead throughout the Nisqually River watershed and Puget Sound.



Protect the existing genetic and life history diversity of steelhead (including sympatric resident rainbow trout) in the watershed, and promote the ability of steelhead to adapt to changing habitat conditions.



Ensure that local and regional hatchery programs for all salmonids are managed to reduce impacts on wild steelhead (including genetic, competition, predation, and disease risks).

2.2.2

Harvest Goals

Short-‐term harvest goals are intended to immediately support the recovery and preservation of the genetic diversity of Nisqually winter steelhead, while simultaneously supporting Nisqually tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest of winter steelhead. The NSRT identified the following two short-‐term harvest goals. 

Restore population productivity and abundance levels adequate to provide sufficient steelhead to eliminate incidental harvest conflicts (these recovery threshold numbers have not yet been estimated) during the Nisqually treaty winter chum fishery.



Provide for a predictable Nisqually tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest (these recovery threshold numbers have not yet been estimated).


2-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


2.3


Recovery Strategic Objectives

Recovery objectives are measurable outcomes of strategies and actions necessary to achieve the long-term and short-term recovery goals for winter steelhead. These objectives were carefully evaluated to determine their relationships to overall goals. The NSRT assumes that achieving recovery objectives will be a significant step toward recovery of Nisqually steelhead.

Recovery objectives were divided into habitat objectives, fish management objectives, and monitoring and adaptive-management objectives to reflect the essential components and varying scales across which recovery would need to occur.

2.3.1

Habitat Objectives

Habitat objectives are intended to support both long-and short-term conservation goals. These objectives will be achieved through the implementation of priority freshwater restoration and protection strategies. This includes continuing to promote habitat restoration and protection activities identified for Chinook that also benefit steelhead. Habitat objectives will be defined in detail within the action plan. Habitat objectives are also expected to encompass activities intended to better understand critical data gaps regarding factors affecting marine survival and eventually a plan to improve smolt-to-adult survival of Nisqually steelhead. Specific activities toward these objectives are as follows. 









2.3.2

Identify habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement actions from the fall Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan that are relevant to the new actions specific to steelhead. Use this new list of overlapping actions to prioritize and implement actions to achieve recovery goals for both species and secure recovery funding. Identify habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement actions unique to steelhead, and develop a method for incorporating habitat restoration actions with a focus on steelhead into the Nisqually-wide salmon recovery portfolio of actions. Identify how findings of marine survival research are relevant to recovery of Nisqually steelhead.

Support the incorporation of marine survival research findings into a Puget Sound-wide steelhead recovery plan, and implement strategies with the greatest likelihood to improve smolt-to-adult survival, including indirect benefits through an ecosystem approach to recovery.

Support the development and implementation of actions to improve marine survival at scales relevant to the Nisqually Demographically Independent Population (DIP) specifically, and the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) as a whole.

Fish Management Objectives

Fish management objectives are intended to support both the long- and short-term harvest goals and ensure fishery-related mortality does not impede recovery. This is best achieved by having clearly defined management plans guiding steelhead harvest levels and resident rainbow population management. Fish management objectives also include the need to ensure short- and long-term population genetic diversity and viability. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

2-3

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Specific strategies to achieve these objectives are as follows. 

Develop and implement a winter steelhead management plan to guide future sustainable harvest, including escapement targets, and thresholds for indirect and targeted harvest.



Develop and implement a resident rainbow trout management plan to guide resident fish harvest and incidental mortality of juvenile steelhead encountered in the fishery.



Develop and implement a hatchery rainbow trout stocking plan in lakes to reduce potential genetic and ecological impacts on steelhead and resident rainbow trout.



Develop a steelhead hatchery conservation plan and criteria as necessary to protect population genetic diversity and viability.

2.3.3

Monitoring and Adaptive-‐Management Objectives

Monitoring and adaptive-‐management objectives are intended to integrate steelhead recovery efforts with other salmon recovery efforts in the watershed, to track the effectiveness of steelhead recovery efforts and address data gaps identified in the plan. Specific strategies to achieve these objectives are as follows. 1. Develop a monitoring program that will describe the population sufficiently to ensure progress toward goals, or lack thereof, is detected. The program would include such elements as: a.

Estimates of adult steelhead run size, escapement, and total brood year adult recruits.

b. Estimates of juvenile outmigrants and annual smolt-‐to-‐adult survival estimates. c.

Monitoring habitat status and trends

2. Incorporate steelhead into the existing Nisqually River adaptive-‐management framework developed for fall Chinook, including the APR workshops 3. Incorporate steelhead threat analysis and recovery strategies into the Puget Sound Partnership’s Monitoring and Adaptive Management (M&AM) project data structure that is based on the RITT’s Common Framework. 4. Complete and implement recommendations of an assessment of the resident and anadromous genetic resource in the Nisqually River watershed, including O. mykiss upstream of the Tacoma Power dams. 5. Complete a review of hatchery rainbow trout stocking programs in the watershed (origin, life history, reproductive cycle, risk of hybridization, etc.) and evaluate their potential impact on wild winter steelhead. 6. Assess nanophyetus1 impacts on steelhead survival upon marine entry. 7. Identify landscape-‐scale pressures that are causing habitat degradation and incorporate strategies to reduce or mitigate these pressures into habitat actions.

1 Nanophyetus salmincola is a trematode common in the Pacific Northwest that uses salmonids as one of three

hosts. The Salish Sea Survival Project has identified it as a possible explanation of the observed low marine survival of Puget Sound steelhead. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

2-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Chapter 3

Nisqually River Overview This chapter describes current and historical conditions in the Nisqually River, its delta and particular subbasins integral to steelhead production. Specific habitat characteristics important to the EDT model are also summarized. In addition, factors that affect steelhead habitat, such as land use and hydromodification of the Nisqually River, are described.

3.1

Nisqually River Watershed

The ancestral home of the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Nisqually River watershed (Figure 3-‐1), Water Resource Inventory Area 11 (WRIA 11) was one of the earliest areas settled by European-‐American immigrants in Puget Sound. The watershed was prized for its deep-‐water access to salt water, large tracts of pristine old growth forests, native prairies, fertile river valleys, and numerous species of wildlife and abundant runs of salmon (Kerwin 1999). The Hudson’s Bay Company established Fort Nisqually as a fur trading post in 1833 near the mouth of the Nisqually River. Homesteads and settlements began appearing in the 1840s. The new arrivals initiated a series of actions to modify the landscape to fit their needs, including diking the estuary (1904 through the late 1920s), construction of the Yelm Hydroelectric Project (1929), and the La Grande Hydroelectric Project, now called by Tacoma Power the Nisqually River Project (1910) (Kerwin 1999).

3.1.1

Subbasins and Ecoregions

The Nisqually River originates from the Nisqually Glacier on the southern slope of Mount Rainier and flows west-‐northwest for approximately 78 miles until it enters south Puget Sound 8 miles northeast of Olympia, Washington. The Nisqually River is fed by rainfall, snowmelt, and to a lesser extent by glacial melt. Its watershed encompasses an area of approximately 761 square miles. The geographic extent of the Nisqually River watershed follows the State of Washington’s WRIA 11 (Figure 3-‐1). Two streams that discharge directly into the Nisqually estuary are typically considered part of the Nisqually River watershed for planning purposes: McAllister Creek, which discharges into the western portion of the estuary and Red Salmon Creek, which discharges into the eastern portion of the estuary. The watershed contains 332 streams that total a linear distance of 714 miles (Williams et al. 1975). The La Grande Canyon, at RM 42, divides the watershed into two distinct physiographic areas. Downstream of the canyon, the watershed consists of low hills and plains of glacial outwash. Upstream of the canyon, volcanic rocks and steeper mountainous terrain dominate the area. The canyon itself contains sheer cliffs extending upward of 200 feet. Upper Nisqually River watershed refers to the portion of the watershed that is upstream of La Grande Canyon and lower Nisqually Basin refers to the portion of the watershed below La Grande Canyon.


3-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Figure 3-1 Anadromous Portion of the Nisqually River Watershed (WRIA 11)


Nisqually River Overview

La Grande Dam, located at RM 42.5 on the Nisqually River, is the current upstream boundary of anadromous salmonids in the watershed and is also the likely upper extent of the historical distribution of anadromous salmonids in the watershed (Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead). Consequently, only 615 of 1,149 possible linear kilometers of streams in the watershed have the potential for anadromous fish use. However, much of this potential habitat comprises streams with insufficient flow to accommodate steelhead utilization or is above natural migration barriers. This assessment evaluated steelhead potential across 321 linear kilometers of streams. In addition to historical accounts, the description of pre-‐European settlement conditions in the lower Nisqually River watershed uses characteristics of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) level IV ecoregions described for the area by Pater et al. (1998). Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components (Pater et al. 1998). Ecological regions are identified through analysis of the patterns and composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena (e.g., geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils) that reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity. For the Nisqually River watershed, the description of these ecoregions is of sufficient detail to help formulate a hypothesis of the watershed’s aquatic environment. The lower Nisqually River watershed falls within three level IV ecoregions (Figure 3-‐2). All of the EDT analysis streams fall within the Southern Puget Prairies level IV ecoregion,2 with the exception of tributaries of Ohop Creek (Lynch and Twenty-‐Five Mile Creeks) and the Mashel River watershed. As summarized in Table 3-‐1, the Southern Puget Prairies ecoregion comprises nearly level to rolling glacial outwash plains and ground moraines (Pater et al. 1998). Well-‐drained soils promote a land cover mosaic of Douglas fir/western hemlock forests, prairies, and oak woodlands. The majority of Lynch and Twenty-‐Five Mile Creeks and the Mashel River flow through the Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys ecoregion. Streams in this ecoregion are medium gradient, with headwaters in western hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas fir forests and lower reaches in valleys near confluences with the Nisqually River. The Nisqually watershed falls within the jurisdiction of three counties. The entire watershed north of the Nisqually River is within the jurisdiction of Pierce County and forms its southern boundary. The upper watershed south of the Nisqually River is in Lewis County, and the lower watershed south of the Nisqually falls within the jurisdiction of Thurston County.

2 The level IV ecoregions depicted in Figure 3-‐2 were compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and are, therefore, subject to

errors of scale. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Figure 3-2 EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Nisqually River Watershed


Table 3-‐1.


Characteristics of EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Lower Nisqually Basin

Level IV Ecoregion

Geology

Physiography

2g. Southern Puget Prairies Description

Elevation/Local Relief (feet)

Soil

0–900 200–500

4b. Western Cascades Montane Highlands

Westerly trending ridges and valleys Steep, glaciated, dissected mountains and ridges with high to medium gradient streams with reservoirs and medium and glacial rock-‐basin lakes. gradient rivers and streams. U-‐ shaped, glaciated valleys in the east. 800–4,000 2,800–5,900 400–3,000 2,000–3,100

Surficial material and bedrock

Pleistocene Vashon Glacial outwash Oligocene-‐Eocene andesitic, basaltic, Oligocene-‐Miocene andesitic and basaltic and till deposits and rhyolitic lava flows and breccia. lava flows and breccia.

Order (Great Groups)

Inceptisols (Durochrepts, Xerumbrepts), Andisols (Melanoxerands)

Common Soil Series

Alderwood, Everett, Spanaway, Nisqually. Deep, moderately well drained to somewhat excessively well-‐drained, gravelly loam, gravelly sandy loam, very gravelly sandy loam, loamy fine sand. Temperature/Moisture Mesic/ Regimes Xeric


Nearly level to rolling glacial outwash and till plains with low gradient streams and lakes

4a. Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys

Inceptisols (Haplumbrepts), Ultisols (Haplohumults, Palehumults), Andisols (Haploxerands)

Inceptisols (Haplumbrepts), Andisols (Hapludands, Fulvicryands, Haplocryands)

Klickitat, Kinney, McCully, Peavine, Honeygrove, Orford, Olympic, Cinebar. Very deep to deep, clay loam, silty clay loam, silt loam, gravelly clay loam, gravelly silt loam, cobbly loam. Mesic/ Udic

Keel, Hummington, Aschoff, Bull Run, Illahee, Mellowmoon. Very deep to moderately deep, silt loam, gravelly silt loam, gravelly loam, cobbly loam.

3-‐5

Frigid, Cryic/ Udic

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Level IV Ecoregion

Climate

2g. Southern Puget Prairies

4a. Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys

4b. Western Cascades Montane Highlands

60–90

70–120

120–180

80–120

31/41; 47/78

26/37; 44/75

Precipitation Mean 40–55 annual (inches) Frost Free Mean annual 150–210 (days) Mean Temperature 34/46; January min/max; 52/77 July min/max, (°F) Potential Natural Douglas-‐fir, prairies; some oak woodland, western hemlock, red Vegetation cedar

Western hemlock, western red cedar, Pacific silver fir, western hemlock, mountain hemlock, Douglas-‐fir; some Douglas-‐fir. noble fir. Ecoregion 4b is higher in elevation than ecoregion 4a and is snow influenced. Land Use and Land Cover Douglas-‐fir/western hemlock Douglas-‐fir/western Extensive Pacific silver fir/western forests, prairies, oak woodlands. hemlock/western red cedar/vine hemlock/Douglas-‐fir/mountain Forestry, hay farming, pastureland. maple/red alder forests are wide-‐ hemlock/noble fir/sub-‐alpine fir/grand Mix of military and private land spread. Forestry and recreation are fir/white fir forests. Common land uses important land uses and include forestry and recreation. Eco-‐ ownership pastureland occurs in lower valleys. region 4b is an important regional water source. Source: Pater et al. 1998


3-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


3.1.2


Land Use

The headwaters of the Nisqually River are protected by Mount Rainier National Park, and its estuary resides in the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Nisqually River Task Force 1987). Between the federally protected headwaters and estuary, the Nisqually River watershed is a mixture of private and public lands. The Nisqually River watershed is relatively undeveloped compared to other south Puget Sound rivers. The land use percentages in the upper Nisqually River watershed as estimated in 2000 (David Evans & Associates 2000) were as follows. 

Agricultural and Vacant Land

2%



Forestry and Recreation

78%



National Park

18%



Urban/Residential/Commercial

2%

Pierce County recently estimated the percentage of land use for tributary subbasins in its jurisdiction (Pierce County 2012). The area west of Eatonville encompassing the Murray Creek, Brighton Creek, Horn Creek, Harts Lake, Tanwax Creek, Kreger Creek and lower Ohop Creek subbasins is approximately 50% rural-‐residential, 12% to 30% open space, and 5% to 10% agricultural. The portion of the watershed east of Eatonville that includes the Mashel River subbasin consists of 25% rural residential and 75% forested land (Pierce County 2012). Land use within the Muck Creek subbasin, the largest tributary by area to the lower Nisqually River, was estimated to be 32% residential and 37% open space, with 25% of the basin within Fort Lewis (Pierce County 2005). Major public landholdings in the watershed include the Mount Baker-‐Snoqualmie National Forest, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mount Rainier National Park, Washington Department of Natural Resources lands (WDNR), and the City of Tacoma (Nisqually River Project). Large timber holdings include real estate investment companies (Hancock, West Fork, ORM Timber Fund, WACF TA, and TWR Timberlands), Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and Manke Timber Company. Due to the significant land ownership by natural resource agencies and timber companies, only a small portion of the upper watershed has undergone urban or residential development (2%). Large sections of land adjacent to the Nisqually River in the lower watershed lie within Joint Base Lewis-‐McChord (JBLM – Department of Defense) or the Nisqually Indian Reservation and are protected from typical development. As it flows west, the Nisqually River bisects Fort Lewis. Fort Lewis is north (Pierce County) of the river from RM 19 to RM 2.3; the military base is south of the river (Thurston County) from RM 17.6 to RM 14 and RM 12.3 to RM 11. The Nisqually Indian Reservation bounds the river in Thurston County from RM 11 to RM 5.4. Additional conservation easements and outright purchases by the Nisqually Land Trust have expanded protection of shoreline and floodplain habitats on the Nisqually River mainstem and estuary, Ohop Creek, and lower Mashel River. As of 2013 and across all entities, 72% of the Nisqually River shoreline below Alder Dam is in protected status (Nisqually Indian Tribe n.d.). However, the Whitewater, McKenna, and Wilcox reaches of the Nisqually River mainstem are only 67%, 21%, and 49% protected, respectively. In Ohop Creek, downstream of the lake, 39% of the shoreline is protected and the lower 7 miles of the Mashel River 69% is protected. Land uses in the Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Mashel River and upper Ohop Creek are mostly managed for forest products. The NSRT is concerned that, in the future, portions of these watersheds may convert to a higher percentage of urban or rural-‐residential use. Figure 3-‐3 presents land cover classifications for the Nisqually River watershed subbasins, as derived from aerial photo interpretation completed by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The percent of forested land cover varies across subbasins with the least amount in the Muck Creek subbasin and the highest amount in the Mashel River subbasin. The percent of land cover in developed classifications (developed open space and development) is the highest in the Muck Creek subbasin and, excluding the upper basin, lowest in the Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell subbasin).

3.1.3

Hydroelectric Development

Three hydroelectric dams are located on the mainstem of the Nisqually River (Pierce County 2012). Alder Dam and La Grande Dam, owned by Tacoma Power, comprise the Nisqually River Project and are located in the La Grande Canyon reach of the Nisqually River. Alder Dam, located at RM 44.2, creates a large storage reservoir about seven miles in length. Its powerhouse is located at the base of the dam. La Grande Dam is located approximately two miles downstream of Alder Dam. La Grande Dam impounds a small reservoir from which water is diverted to the powerhouse, located approximately 1.7 miles downstream. The diverted water re-‐enters the Nisqually River at the powerhouse near RM 40.8. Water is also released from the dam to the LaGrande Canyon portion of the Nisqually River to maintain a small (35cfs) continuous flow between La Grande Dam and its powerhouse (Pierce County 2012). During flood conditions or generation shutdown, much larger flows are discharged into LaGrande Canyon. In 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reissued the license that governs operations of the Nisqually Project for 40 years (Pierce County 2012). FERC license number 1862 includes conditions that ensure project operations enhance fish habitat downstream of the dams. Enhancements include summer and fall minimum-‐flow releases that provide higher-‐than-‐natural flows in the Nisqually River. The increased flow generates more salmonid rearing and spawning habitat in the mainstem. Minimum instream flow requirements throughout the year are provided for the Nisqually River downstream of the La Grande Powerhouse and in the section of mainstem between La Grande Dam and its powerhouse. FERC license 1862 also includes downramping restrictions, or rates at which discharges from the dams and powerhouses can be reduced (Pierce County 2012). These day-‐ and nighttime ramping restrictions are designed to protect juvenile salmonids from stranding or trapping when water levels drop. The Centralia Diversion Dam is located 16 miles downstream of La Grande Dam (Pierce County 2012). The dam is owned and operated by the City of Centralia Light Department and is part of the Yelm Hydroelectric Project. The Yelm Hydroelectric Project is a run-‐of-‐the-‐river project; there is no associated water impoundment on the mainstem. The project consists of a seven-‐foot-‐high low-‐head diversion dam at RM 26.2, a 9.1-‐mile diversion canal, and a powerhouse (located at RM 12.6). The dam diverts Nisqually River flow and the canal transports the water to the powerhouse; flow is returned to the Nisqually River at the powerhouse tailrace (Pierce County 2012). The Yelm Hydroelectric Project operates under FERC license 10703-‐001 that was issued in 1997 (Pierce County 2012); the license has a 40-‐year term. Its license requires it to meet the same minimum instream flow regime established in Tacoma’s license. There are also license requirements regarding maintenance of a fish ladder at the diversion dam and screening to prevent juvenile fish from entering the diversion canal. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Nisqually Mainstem Subbasin Landcover Palustrine wetland, 5.1%

Development, 8.0%

McAllister Creek Subbasin Landcover

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.2% Water, 0.1%

Developed Open Space, 2.4%

Bare Land, 0.4% Cultivated/Pasture/ Hay, 0.4%

Estuarine wetland, 0.6%

Palustrine wetland, 10.7%

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.5%

Water, 0.8% Bare Land, 1.1%


Cultivated/ Pasture/Hay, 9.1% Grassland, 3.7% Scrub/Shrub, 6.0%

Development, 9.7%

Grassland, 26.9%

Muck Creek Subbasin Landcover Palustrine wetland, 6.6% Developed Open Space, 4.8%

Water, 0.1% Unconsolidated Shore, 0.02%

Bare Land, 0.3%

Cultivated/ Pasture/Hay, 18.6%

Development, 9.7%

Estuarine wetland, 0.7%

Grassland, 9.5%

Forested, 51.9%

Forested, 44.0%

Forested, 54.1% Scrub/Shrub, 3.9%

Prairie Tributaries Subbasin Landcover Developed Open Space, 2.7%

Palustrine wetland, 7.4%

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.2% Snow/Ice

Water, 1.0%

Bare Land, 0.1% Cultivated/Pasture/ Hay, 16.8%

Development, 5.6% Grassland, 6.8%

Scrub/Shrub, 6.4%

Toboton/Powell/Lackamas Subbasin Landcover Unconsolidated Shore, Palustrine wetland, 0.3% 5.6% Developed Open Space, 0.2%

Cultivated/Pasture/Hay, 1.7%

Water, 1.4% Bare Land, 0.2%

Ohop Creek Subbasin Landcover Palustrine wetland, 1.6%

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.01%


Grassland, 6.0% Development, 2.9%

Development, 1.5%

Scrub/Shrub, 13.3%

Scrub/Shrub, 20.6%


Forested, 62.9%

Mashel River Subbasin Landcover Bare Land, 0.2% Water, 0.02%

Scrub/Shrub, 18.0%

Development, 1.8%

Forested, 74.2%

Cultivated/Pasture/ Hay, 0.5% Grassland, 4.1%

Cultivated/Pasture/ Hay, 5.9% Grassland, 9.5%

Scrub/Shrub, 20.2%

Forested, 46.0%

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.01% Palustrine wetland, 1.0% Developed Open Space, 0.2%

Water, 1.3%

Bare Land, 0.3%

Forested, 57.6%

Legend

Upper Basin Landcover Palustrine wetland, 2.2% Development, 0.8%

Unconsolidated Shore, 0.2% Snow/Ice, 2.9%

Bare Land, 2.1% Cultivated/Pasture/Hay, 0.2%

Water, 1.8%

Grassland, 1.8% Scrub/Shrub, 16.6%


Forested, 71.2%

Bare Land

Developed Open Space

Cultivated/Pasture/Hay

Palustrine wetland

Grassland

Snow/Ice

Scrub/Shrub

Unconsolidated Shore

Forested

Water

Development

Figure 3-3 Land Cover Classification for Nisqually River Watershed Subbasins


3.2


Nisqually River Estuary

The historical Nisqually River estuary contained a total area of approximately 15 square kilometers (Bortleson et al. 1980). Although modified compared to historical conditions, nonetheless it is easily the largest estuary in southern Puget Sound, but only a mid-‐size estuary compared with others in Puget Sound. The total size of the estuary is constrained by steep bluffs along both sides of the delta area and a steep drop off at the outer edge of the delta. The historical estuary included four habitat zones and amount of channels by zone was estimated for each zone: estuarine emergent marsh (147.9 hectares), emergent/forested transitional (9.0 hectares), forested riverine/tidal (13.5 hectares), and freshwater (10.3 hectares). The estimated historical amount channel habitat by zone is based on analysis by Nisqually Indian Tribe and map provided in Bortleson et al. (1980). Habitat of the Nisqually River estuary has changed substantially compared to historical conditions, primarily by the dikes installed in the early 1900s to convert saltmarsh into pasture. The fill associated with the Interstate 5 (I-‐5) crossing of the estuary has also resulted in the loss of historical estuarine habitat. In November 2009, 5 miles of dike surrounding portions of the Nisqually River estuary were removed, restoring 760 acres of historical tidelands to tidal influence (Figure 3-‐4). Together, the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge and its partners (Nisqually Indian Tribe and Ducks Unlimited) have restored over 35 kilometers of historical tidal slough systems. These efforts are expected to substantially increase the ecological health of the Nisqually River estuary and the south Puget Sound. The Nisqually Indian Tribe and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are documenting the progress of the restoration and have implemented an intensive study of channel development in the restored tidelands. A preliminary assessment has noted a “transition from a diked freshwater marsh with vegetation-‐choked channels to more estuarine conditions as the relic plants decompose in the now tidally influenced restoration” (Woo et al. 2011). The long-‐term ecological benefits of the restoration for the estuary and adjacent nearshore areas will require further monitoring and scientific studies. Table 3-‐2 illustrates the changes in habitat type area in the Nisqually River estuary from historical conditions, to baseline (1999) conditions prior to the dike breaching, and current conditions as of 2010 following dike breaching.


3-‐10

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Figure 3-4 Nisqually Estuary Restoration of Channels—1990 Condition and 2012 Extent



Table 3-‐2. Amount of Channel Area (hectares) by Channel Type and Estuarine Zone Zone/Channel Type

Historical

Baseline ~1999

Current 2010

Mainstem channel

6.4

4.2

4.2

Distributary slough a

0.0

0.0

0.0

Side channel sloughs b

0.0

0.0

0.0

Freshwater blind channel c

3.9

3.5

3.5

Mainstem channel

12.5

8.8

8.8


0.0

0.0

0.0

Blind channels

1.0

3.0

3.8

Mainstem channel

8.9

9.3

9.3


0.0

0.0

0.0

Blind channels

0.1

0.1

0.1

Mainstem channel

69.3

76.8

76.8


5.9

4.2

4.2

Blind channels

72.8

55.3

57.7

Total Area all zones

180.7

165.2

168.3

Channel Area (% of historical)

91%

93%

Freshwater

Forested Riverine/Tidal

Emergent/Forested Transitional

Estuarine Emergent Marsh

a

Estuary channels which branch from mainstem and flow directly into bay or reconnect with mainstem (Haas and Collins 2001). b Perennially flooded former paths of the mainstem river that are predominately deep-‐water habitat (Haas and Collins 2001). c Freshwater tidal wetlands/blind channels.

Nearshore marine habitat in the Pierce County side of the Nisqually River estuary was substantially affected by railroad construction beginning in 1912. The railroad enters the delta and continues north along the Puget Sound shoreline. Most of the shoreline is armored to prevent erosion of the railroad bed. The armoring and the bed itself have severely limited sediment contribution to the nearshore. Nearshore marine habitat in the Thurston County portion of the Nisqually reach is in better condition, with substantial areas remaining undeveloped. However, bulkhead construction and other armoring associated with home development is permitted in this county, resulting in continued degradation of nearshore habitat.

3.3

Nisqually River Mainstem

The Nisqually River mainstem that is accessible to steelhead is approximately 42.5 miles long, extending from La Grande Dam to its mouth. Except for the canyon that contains La Grande Dam, the accessible reach of the mainstem flows through low hills and prairie plains formed of glacial outwash. Between La Grande Dam and the delta, the Nisqually River passes a diversion dam (Centralia Diversion Dam at RM 26.2) and receives return flows from two powerhouses (RMs 40.8 Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐12

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



and 12.7). Between the two dams, adjacent land is used for timber production; immediately upstream and downstream of the diversion dam, riparian areas become more developed at the communities of McKenna and Whitewater Estates. Downstream of the Centralia Powerhouse at RM 12.7, the Nisqually River flows through the Nisqually Indian Reservation, JBLM, and then the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge before entering the Nisqually Delta. Except for bank armoring and flood-‐control measures to ensure function of the diversion dam and protect the community of McKenna, the river is largely unconfined and free to migrate over its floodplain in sections accessible to steelhead. The Nisqually River mainstem was divided into seven reaches to characterize broad-‐scale differences in riparian condition and channel form (Table 3-‐3). Several tributaries enter the Nisqually River downstream of La Grande Dam. These tributaries supply over 156 miles of potential steelhead stream habitat. Subbasins important to current or historical steelhead production are described in detail in Section 3.4, Tributary Subbasins, and include McAllister Creek (an independent tributary to the Nisqually Delta); Muck Creek (confluence at RM 11.0); Murray Creek (RM 19.1); Horn Creek (RM 23.8); Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks (RM 28.8-‐31.9); Ohop Creek (RM 37.3); and the Mashel River (RM 39.6).

3.4

Tributary Subbasins

The six tributary subbasins described below represent different geologic areas, hydrology, and land forms and have related patterns of flow, land use, and in-‐stream habitat (Table 3.3, Figure 3-‐1). McAllister Creek represents low elevation, independent, spring-‐fed streams that drain directly into the Nisqually Estuary. Muck Creek is a “prairie-‐type” stream and the largest lower river tributary. The prairie-‐type tributaries (Prairie Tributaries) drain gravelly soils with little relief and some reaches consequently experience low or no summer flow. The relatively flat lands of the Prairie Tributaries are typically used for agriculture. The Mashel River and Ohop Creek are large upper river tributaries that drain low mountain areas that produce timber. Channel gradients in these low mountains are steep and summer flow is maintained by snowmelt.

3.4.1

McAllister Creek

McAllister Creek flows directly into south Puget Sound at the Nisqually River estuary. The subbasin is approximately 11 square miles and elevation is low. McAllister Springs, one of three large springs that feeds the creek, is only 6.7 feet above sea level. Its tributaries originate from hillside springs as high as 180 feet in elevation and traverse through moderately timbered slopes immediately above the valley floor (Kerwin 1999). Upon entering the valley, it flows through agricultural land and enters the western edge of the Nisqually River estuary. The largest spring in the headwaters of McAllister Creek has been used by the City of Olympia to provide municipal drinking water to Olympia and neighboring communities. The City of Olympia is closing that facility and developing a wellfield upstream of the springs to provide municipal water. The closure of the McAllister Springs facility is expected to improve flow in McAllister Creek (City of Olympia 2013). The McAllister Creek stream channel is heavily armored and altered in the vicinity of I-‐5 (RM 2.6) and localized armoring occurs where county and state roads cross the creek. Dikes exist in several local areas to afford property protection. These serve to limit lateral channel migration and off-‐channel rearing opportunities. Given its origins in low-‐elevation springs and a low-‐gradient channel, the entire length of the mainstem (approximately 6 miles) and valley tributaries is subject to tidal influence (Kerwin 1999). Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐13

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Table 3-‐3. Nisqually Watershed Streams, Reaches, and Springs by Subbasin Nisqually Subbasin


McAllister Creek

Muck Creek

Prairie Tributaries

Lackamas, Toboton, Powell Creeks

Ohop Creek

Mashel River


Streams/Reaches/Springs Lower Reach Reservation Reach Whitewater Reach McKenna Reach Wilcox Reach Middle Reach Upper Reach McAllister Creek Little McAllister Creek Muck Creek Exeter Spring Preacher Creek Halverson Creek Lacamas Creek Nixon Spring Johnson Creek North Fork Muck Creek South Fork Muck Creek Thompson Creek Yelm Creek Murray Creek McKenna Creek Brighton Creek Horn Creek Harts Creek Tanwax Creek Kreger Creek Lackamas Creek Toboton Creek Powell Creek Ohop Creek Lynch Creek Tributary 0094 25 Mile Creek Mashel River Little Mashel River Beaver Creek Busywild Creek

3-‐14

County County line County line County line County line County line County line County line Thurston County Thurston County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Thurston County Thurston County Pierce County Thurston County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Thurston County Thurston County Thurston County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County Pierce County

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


3.4.2


Muck Creek

Located in southwest Pierce County, the Muck Creek subbasin is the largest tributary system by area in the Nisqually River watershed, with a total drainage of 93 square miles (Pierce County 2005). The subbasin includes Muck Creek and three large tributaries, Lacamas Creek, the North Fork of Muck Creek, and the South Fork of Muck Creek (also known as South Creek). Muck Creek elevations range from 140 to 960 feet. The topography of the subbasin is generally flat to moderately rolling hill terrain. A steeper gradient channel drains the canyon formed by the lower stretch of the mainstem where it enters the Nisqually River. The creek flows across broad natural prairies with native grasses and oaks and contains riparian habitat of second-‐growth coniferous and hardwood forests (Pierce County 2005). Muck Creek and its tributaries together comprise over 43 miles of potential steelhead stream habitat. Muck Creek originates from a series of springs and seeps in the eastern portion of the basin, the largest of which is Patterson Springs. Muck Creek is characterized by intermittent flow. Groundwater discharge to the creek is generally greatest in the lower sections. Loss of streamflow due to seepage is common in midsections of Muck Creek. The stream gradient is generally flat downstream of the forks, excepting a few moderate reaches as it cuts through a canyon in its lower reaches. The creek flows through several marshes in the flat prairie areas. The lower 14 miles of Muck Creek (with the exception of a 1.1-‐mile stretch in the vicinity of the City of Roy) flows through JBLM. Within JBLM’s boundaries, the creek travels through training areas and along the edge of the artillery impact area. Many creek segments within Fort Lewis have natural functioning riparian habitats, but others need riparian enhancement or restoration (Pierce County 2005).

3.4.3

Prairie Tributaries

This subbasin comprises multiple streams (Table 3.3) and a variety of land use types. Brighton Creek and Horn Creek are right-‐bank tributaries within McKenna reach of the Nisqually River at RM 23.6 and 25.8, respectively (Pierce County 2012). These streams are low elevation, ranging from 320 feet at the mouth of Brighton Creek to 720 feet at the headwaters of Horn Creek. Both streams have a varied land use, including mixed-‐use agriculture, rural residential, and timber production. The Harts Creek drainage, a tributary of Horn Creek, incorporates Wilcox Farms, a large, industrial agricultural operation (Pierce County 2012). The Brighton Creek drainage is a 6.5-‐square-‐mile area southeast of Murray Creek (Pierce County 2012). The drainage is largely rural, but does have some areas of low-‐density residential development along State Route (SR) 702, Kinsman Road, and Allen Road. The upper portion of the drainage is relatively flat with poorly drained, Type D soils (Pierce County 2012). Horn Creek drains approximately 11 square miles (Pierce County 2012). The headwaters are in the relatively flat areas around the intersection of SR 702 and SR 7, which has some low-‐density residential development. As water drains west, the stream becomes more defined at Kinsman Road. The stream continues through a gentle sloping valley with wide floodplains containing wetlands. This valley has some scattered, low-‐density residential areas with a number of small farms with livestock. As it approaches the Nisqually River, the gradient of Horn Creek increases and the channel is more confined. The mouth of Horn Creek is approximately 2,000 feet downstream from the Centralia Diversion Dam (Pierce County 2012).


3-‐15

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Horn and Brighton Creeks have rather extensive wetlands near their mouths, some of which provide good off-‐channel habitat for over-‐wintering juvenile salmonids (Pierce County 2012). Upstream of the wetlands, the creeks split the canyon walls of the Nisqually valley, where channel gradients are fairly steep (less than 8% gradient). Horn Creek has a waterfall at RM 1.0 that is a serious barrier to fish passage, and emanated from a dam that was built in the creek for an old mill operation. Upstream of the high gradient sections, low gradient channels alternate with a pool-‐riffle channel morphology type and some wetlands. Both creeks are perennial, with mean winter month flow between 5 to 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) and mean summer month flow between 3 and 5 cfs. The creeks are fed by several wetlands and by springs in the headwater areas. Harts Creek is fed by Harts Lake (109 acres) (Pierce County 2012). Murray Creek is a right-‐bank tributary in the diversion reach of the Nisqually River and empties into the river at RM 19.1. The drainage covers approximately 16 square miles between the cities of Roy and McKenna (Pierce County 2012). The elevation range in the drainage is small, ranging from 240 to 440 feet. Land use is a mixture of low-‐density residential, agricultural, and open space lands with one large industrial gravel mine operated by Miles Sand and Gravel. Murray Creek drains from prairies defined by their unique vegetation (not dominated by coniferous trees, unlike most areas in western Washington) and by their very porous soils. Creeks flowing over these porous, glacial outwash soils are highly connected to groundwater and therefore often have long intermittent stream reaches (Pierce County 2012). Murray Creek is a low-‐gradient creek throughout its course (Pierce County 2012). The hydrology of Murray Creek typifies prairie streams. In general, prairie streams (such as Murray and Muck creeks) are less dynamic than typical western Washington creek channels. Lateral channel movement happens extremely slowly, and any manipulations of the channel are slow to naturally recover. Streamflow is highly reflective of groundwater interchange and recharge. Only the lower mile of the creek near the mouth has perennial flow, due to the presence of springs in that area. Most upstream drainages, except where channels were created in otherwise stagnant wetlands, go dry by summer, and do not start flowing until late fall or early winter after significant groundwater recharge has occurred (Pierce County 2012).

3.4.4

Ohop Creek

Ohop Creek is the third-‐largest tributary to the Nisqually River with a total drainage area of 40 square miles (Pierce County 2012). Elevations vary from 480 to 3,720 feet in the Ohop subbasin. It is an area of historical agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. There is dense residential and recreational development surrounding Ohop Lake and the lower portion of Lynch Creek. Mountainous areas above anadromous fish use in its two major tributaries, Lynch and Twenty-‐Five Mile Creeks, are mostly used for timber production. Historically, the Ohop Creek watershed included an additional area north of the current watershed boundary. However, in 1889, the upper portion of Ohop Creek was diverted north into the Puyallup Basin, which reportedly reduced the flow in Ohop Creek by about 30% (Watershed Professionals Network 2002). Consequently, at its confluence with Twenty-‐Five Mile Creek (approximately 4 miles north of Eatonville), Ohop Creek is the smaller of the two streams. Ohop Creek has fairly stable flows that are hydrologically moderated by Ohop Lake and by the extensive wetlands in the Twenty-‐Five Mile and Lynch Creek subbasins (Pierce County 2012). At the mouth of the creek, the average winter flow is about 150 cfs, and summer flow averages approximately 20 cfs. The mouth of Ohop Creek is located within the channel migration zone of the Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐16

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Nisqually River, and its morphology is determined by mainstem river processes. Gravel deposits are present and the stream alternates between pool and riffle habitat types. A large portion of the lower channel between RM 0.2 and RM 4.5 was severely incised, disconnected from its floodplain, and dominated by sandy substrate and very long glides. Riffles were only present at artificial constrictions such as bridges. Restoration of lower Ohop Creek has been priority for fall Chinook recovery. Phase 1 and 2 were completed by 2011; Phase 3 has been funded and is planned for 2014 and 2015 (Figure 3-‐5). Phase 4 is upstream of the completed project and is still in the planning stages. The channel above Ohop Lake (RM 9 and RM10) is likely influenced by the backwater effect of the lake as the bed is also dominated by sandy substrate with long glides and few pools or riffles. It is moderately incised but still has some connection to its floodplain (Pierce County 2012). Although Ohop Lake is a natural lake, its actual elevation is determined by a log stop gate with an elevation set by judicial order (Walter 1986).

3.4.5

Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks

Lackamas and Toboton Creeks, which drain small basins in Thurston County, are short drainages with similar characteristics. The creeks drain broad, flat prairies of the Bald Hills area, which was once heavily forested. Their channels are low-‐gradient, spring-‐fed channels with low or intermittent summer flows. Powell Creek is similar but drains an area of higher elevation (up to 2,035 feet). This area of the Bald Hills is largely in current forest management and was once heavily forested. Powell Creek has year-‐round flow. The three watersheds are associated with wetlands and/or lakes and contain numerous beaver dams or cascades that may limit fish access. The cumulative basin area for the three stream systems is 27.8 square miles. Basin elevations range from 340 to 2,035 feet (Walter 1986; Kerwin 1999).

3.4.6

Mashel River

The Mashel River is the second-‐largest tributary to the Nisqually River by area; the entire drainage covers over 84 square miles (Pierce County 2012) and is the largest lower watershed tributary by flow. The topography of the basin is more varied than other basins; basin elevations range from 460 to 4845 feet. From its headwaters near the foothills of Mount Rainier, the Mashel River flows west toward the town of Eatonville. The river passes south of Eatonville and then flows southwest to the confluence with the Nisqually River at RM 39.6 (Pierce County 2012). The upper Mashel River subbasin covers approximately 34 square miles and is all mountainous, forested terrain (Pierce County 2012). A majority of the terrain is new growth forest; the land was intensely harvested by commercial foresters throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Harvesting operations may have contributed to mass wasting that has occurred along the slopes and banks of the upper river (Pierce County 2012). The middle Mashel River is a 20-‐square-‐mile area beginning at Boxcar Canyon approximately 1 mile east of the town of Eatonville and ending upstream near the confluence with Busy Wild Creek. Like the upper basin, the middle Mashel River is mostly forested except for rural development near Eatonville (Pierce County 2012). The lower Mashel River is 6.2 square miles, extending from Box Car Canyon to its confluence with the Nisqually River. The northwestern portion has some development in and around the town of Eatonville. Eatonville draws its drinking water from the Mashel River, and secondary-‐treated wastewater is discharged to the river downstream from the town (Pierce County 2012). The lower Mashel River was identified as a priority area in the Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan for improving habitat complexity. Several in-‐stream engineered log jam projects have been completed in the section of the river adjacent to the City of Eatonville (Figure 3-‐6). Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐17

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


3.5


Historical and Current Habitat Conditions

The following sections provide an overview of the Nisqually River watershed for relevant environmental attributes used to characterize the current condition and to reconstruct the historical condition of the watershed.

3.5.1

Flow Regime

Poff et al. (1997) described flow regime as the “master variable,” affecting many characteristics of rivers and streams. Flow regimes vary considerably across the watershed. The hydrologic condition in the upper Nisqually River mainstem is dominated by precipitation, snowmelt, and glacial runoff from Mount Rainier and the Nisqually and other glaciers. Under certain weather conditions (the so-‐ called Pineapple Express), the upper Nisqually receives abundant warm winter rains that result in rain on snow flood events. This is the primary cause of major flooding in the Nisqually watershed (Walter n.d.). The Mashel subbasin, parts of the Ohop subbasin and, to a lesser extent, Powell Creek are in the rain-‐on-‐snow zone for Western Washington and include a slight snowmelt influence. Many of the lowland tributaries originate from highly porous soils within the Southern Puget Prairies ecoregion. These Prairie Tributaries are strongly influenced by groundwater and respond slowly to fall and winter rains. The extreme pattern is McAllister Creek, with most flow originating from headwater springs. Another extreme pattern for the Prairie Tributaries is Muck Creek with no summer flow at the gage in many years. Mainstem and tributary streamflow patterns described in the next sections are from a set of gaging stations operated at times within the Nisqually watershed (Table 3-‐4).

3.5.1.1


Historically, the Nisqually River mainstem typified glacial-‐type hydrology for Puget Sound streams. During the summer and early fall, flows were augmented by glacial melt. The lowest daily flow may have occurred in September through October when glacial melt stopped and fall rains had not yet started. Spring snowmelt from the upper basin and Mount Rainier (measured upstream of Alder Dam and Lake near National) resulted in a spring period of increasing flows, which peaked in May and June (Figure 3-‐7). Fine sediment (rock flour) in glacial melt caused the Nisqually River to run milky green during the summer and early fall months. Summer flash-‐flooding events can occur in the upper basin as a result of Jokulhlaups. A Jokulhlaups is a flash flood caused by the release of glacial meltwater stored behind an ice dam that suddenly collapses. In the Nisqually River, these flood events occur infrequently (typically every 3 to 10 years). Each event results in large deposits of sediment and debris in the mainstem. Before the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project, these flood events would have affected the entire river to a greater extent than they do today, adding significantly to the amount of fine sediment throughout the mainstem. Since construction of the Alder reservoir in 1944, glacial flour is not as evident in the lower river because the reservoir stores the majority of the fine sediment. Consequently, water clarity in the lower river is much higher during the summer months than it was historically. Some glacial flour settles out in the reservoir; the portion that remains suspended works through the reservoir, enters Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐20

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Figure 3-5 Ohop Creek Restoration


Figure 3-6 Mashel Logjams




the lower river by September, and is present throughout the fall and winter. Therefore, the reservoir alters water clarity in the lower river, improving it from late winter until September and lowering it in the fall and early winter.

Figure 3-‐7. Daily Mean Flow for the Upper Nisqually River near National, Lower Nisqually River at La Grande, and Lower Nisqually River near McKenna

Historical flows in the lower river showed a similar pattern of snowmelt for the upper river (Figure 3-‐7 – National Gage). Flows are higher in the lower river from tributary contributions. The historical pattern for the lower river had a more pronounced spring snowmelt than currently seen in the lower river. However, flow in the lower river is strongly influenced by runoff from upper basin tributaries downstream of the upper gage and tributaries in the lower basin. The patterns of historical peak and monthly average flows are similar to current patterns with the highest flows occurring from November through February from rain-‐on-‐snow events and rainfall. Currently, daily mean flow at La Grande and McKenna are similar during the fall and winter, with flows at McKenna tending to be slightly higher. Beginning late April, the pattern changes and daily mean flow at McKenna is less than flow at La Grande because a higher percentage of flow is diverted into the Centralia Diversion Canal upstream of the gage. Summer flows (August 1 through September 30) below the La Grande Powerhouse are managed for a minimum flow of 575 cfs (measured at the Centralia Diversion Dam) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1994).


3-‐21

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 3-‐8 shows annual peak flow in the mainstem for the three gages. Solid lines in the figure show the trend over the period of record shared by all gages (1948 to 2012), excluding the very large flow event in 1996. The 1996 peak flow was twice the next highest event at McKenna and 1.5 times the next highest event at La Grande. The 1996 flow at National was not the highest peak on record, since the 2007 peak flow was slightly higher. Reasons for why the 2007 peak was not observed in the lower river were not explored, but this is likely due to flood control in the reservoir and precipitation patterns across the basin. The Nisqually Hydroelectric Project appears to have an effect on peak flows in the lower river, as can be seen from the data presented in Figure 3-‐8. Annual peak flow in the upper basin have increased in recent years, while peak flow measured at the lower basin gages has declined, presumably due to partial storage of peak flow originating from the upper basin.

Figure 3-‐8. Annual Peak Flows for the Upper Nisqually River near National, Lower Nisqually River at La Grande, and Lower Nisqually River near McKenna

3.5.1.2

Tributaries

The primary source of water in the tributary streams in the lower Nisqually Basin is rainfall; snowmelt is a significant contributor in only the upper portions of the Mashel River, Ohop Creek, and to a lesser extent the Powell Creek watershed. Aquifer (spring) flows are a significant contributor to the lower portions of most tributary streams (i.e., where streams downcut through deposits to reach the level of the Nisqually River), and are the main source of streamflows in Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐22

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



McAllister Creek, where springs comprise approximately 40% of the discharge at the mouth (AGI Technologies 1999). The four USGS gaging stations used to characterize streamflows in the tributary streams of the lower Nisqually Basin are given in Table 3-‐4.

Table 3-‐4. USGS Stream Gages used to Characterize Streamflow in Nisqually Basin Drainage Areaa Upstream Stream Gage

Location (stream, river mile)

Years of Data

USGS #

Gage Name

12082500

Nisqually River near National

133

Nisqually River RM 57.8

1943–2012

12086500

Nisqually River at La Grande

292


1907–2012

12089500

Nisqually River near McKenna

517


1948–2012

12081500

McAllister Unknown Springs near Olympia Mashel River near 80.7 La Grande Ohop Creek near 34.5 Eatonville

McAllister Creek RM 5.5

1951–1958 1961–1964

Mashel River RM 3.2 Ohop Creek RM 6.2

Muck Creek at Roy

Muck Creek RM 6.4

1941–1957 1992–2013 1927–1932 1941–1971 1993–2013 1956–1971

12087000 12088000

12090200

a

86.8

Represents Nisqually River upstream of hydro projects Nisqually River immediately downstream of hydro projects Nisqually River Centralia Diversion reach McAllister Creek and other spring-‐ fed tributaries Mashel River and its tributaries Ohop Creek

Muck Creek and other Prairie Tributaries

Measured in square miles.

The flow pattern in the Mashel River subbasins is noticeably variable, closely following rainfall and rain-‐on-‐snow events. The overall historical seasonal flow patterns were probably similar to those observed today (Figure 3-‐7). However, commercial timber harvest and the associated road network would suggest a more variable and higher fall and winter peak flows compared to historical flows. Highest average daily flows occur during November through February. Beginning in April, the hydrograph descends into the summer baseflow period, which extends into October. Flows in this catchment respond quickly to fall rains due to the relatively limited groundwater storage in the subbasin. A second flow pattern observed is for the Prairie Tributaries (e.g., Muck, Murray, Horn, Yelm, and Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks), as typified by Muck Creek (Figure 3-‐9). The Prairie Tributaries are located within the Southern Puget Prairies ecoregion, which is characterized by well-‐ drained soils. Therefore, streams are strongly influenced by groundwater. Streamflow is slow to respond to fall rains and do not increase until November or December when groundwater levels recharge. Flows during the winter are stable, with moderate peaks from rainfall and a prolonged Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐23

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



descending limb. Despite decreasing precipitation, spring flows remain high from groundwater discharge. Note that McAllister Creek is a special example of this type of flow pattern. Little month-‐ to-‐month variation in discharge occurs due to a very high and continuous contribution of groundwater to streamflow.

Figure 3-‐9. Daily Mean Flows in Four Tributary Streams in the Lower Nisqually Basin

The Mashel River has the highest overall flows of any of the Nisqually tributaries below the La Grande Dam (Pierce County 2012). The river’s winter flow is also “flashy,” responding rapidly to precipitation. The Mashel River’s mean daily discharge in the winter months ranges between 300 and 450 cfs; its daily mean flow in the summer months averages between 20 and 50 cfs. Peak flows occur during the fall and winter with a mean annual peak flow of 3,316 cfs (annual peak flow ranging from 772 cfs in WY 2001 to 7,980 cfs in WY 1947). Late summer minimum 7-‐day average flows range from approximately 7 to 40 cfs from 1940 to 1957 and 5 to 15 cfs from 1990 to present, which shows a decrease in summer low flow in the subbasin compared to the earlier period.

In comparison, the Muck Creek gage shows much less month-‐to-‐month variation in streamflow. Discharge rises slowly in the fall months, due to recharge of depleted groundwater levels and are at their highest in February (Figure 3-‐8). Baseflows are significantly lower at the Muck Creek gage than the other three tributary gages. Muck Creek flows over two soil associations: Kapowsin and Spanaway (Pierce County 2005). The Spanaway association formed in glacial outwash and is highly permeable. And about half of the Muck Creek stream system flows across these deposits, resulting in Muck Creek losing large amounts of flow to groundwater. Significant portions of Muck Creek are dry Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐24

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



during summer and fall low flow periods, and some dry sections may not have flowing water until mid-‐December or later (Sinclair 2001; Pierce County 2005). This pattern of sections going dry during the summer and fall is not new and historical accounts report sections of the stream were dry during low flow periods (Pierce County 2005). However, anecdotal information suggests that in recent years more of Muck Creek is dry and stream recharge in the fall and early winter is taking much longer. The section of Muck Creek upstream of Johnson Creek may only flow for brief periods (days) during the winter, effectively blocking adult fish access to the upper watershed. USGS operated a stream gage at Roy from 1956 to 1971. During that period, there were 5 years of continuous flow during the summer and fall. The number of days with no flow recorded at the gage averaged 47 days for the other years. More recent continuous monitoring data for Muck Creek are not available, and long-‐term flow monitoring in Muck Creek is not available. Sinclair (2001) concluded that seasonal intermittent flow is a common condition for portions of Muck Creek because of natural processes and geology. However, past channel modifications may have exacerbated this condition. More importantly, Sinclair concluded the following regarding future hydrology in Muck Creek: The perennial reaches of Muck, South, and Lacamas creeks are maintained predominately by groundwater discharge during the summer and fall. Development within the watershed has the potential to impact streamflows by altering natural groundwater recharge and discharge patterns. Continued monitoring of area streamflows, groundwater levels, and spring discharges is recommended to provide a basis for judging the effectiveness of future instream habitat restoration efforts and the effects of future land use changes.

Historical flows in Ohop Creek were larger than currently observed. In the 1800s, a quarter of the Ohop Creek catchment was rerouted into the Puyallup River system to reduce flooding along the creek (Pierce County 2012). The stream gage in Ohop Creek is downstream of Ohop Lake, which buffers variability and magnitude of peaks flow in the lower creek. Ohop Creek mean daily discharge in the winter ranges between 100 and 150 cfs; its daily mean flow in the summer months averages between 10 and 20 cfs. Peak flows typically occur during the fall and winter with a mean annual peak flow of 762 cfs (annual peak flow ranging from 253 cfs in WY 2001 to 2,620 cfs in WY 1996). Late summer, minimum 7-‐day, average flows range from approximately 3 to 15 cfs, averaging 6 cfs. Flows are higher (and cooler) at the lowest Ohop reach because it receives significant spring flow downstream of the streamflow gage.

3.5.2

Water Quality

Water quality is generally good across the basin. Glacial snowmelt and groundwater from lower basin tributaries likely contribute to relatively cool summer temperatures in the mainstem. Groundwater contributions to tributaries keep many of these cool during the summer, few streams exceed 15 degrees Celsius (°C). Specific water quality concerns are discussed in the following sections.

3.5.2.1


The Nisqually River above the Alder-‐La Grande Hydroelectric Project (RM 44.2) is designated by Washington State as char spawning and rearing waters (formerly rated as Class AA waters) due to its ability to provide habitat for cold-‐water-‐dependent species. Downstream of RM 44.2, the Nisqually River is designated as core summer salmonid habitat (formerly Class A waters) based on water quality supportive of summer rearing by salmonids, among other beneficial uses. Most of the major tributaries to the Nisqually River in the lower basin are designated as core summer salmonid Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐25

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



habitat. The Mashel River is classified as char spawning and rearing waters. A water quality study conducted by the Nisqually Indian Tribe (Whiley and Walter 2000) reports that water quality in the river typically meets the Class AA and Class A standards. More recently, the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) water quality assessment for state waters completed in 2012 by the Washington State Department of Ecology similarly found the Nisqually River mainstem complied with state water quality standards. Elevated water temperatures were detected in the Centralia Diversion bypass reach of the mainstem although they did not chronically exceed the Washington State water quality standards. The study recommends further monitoring of temperature in areas of concern as well as expanded research on nutrient concentrations and their relationship to land use activities (Pierce County 2012). Data from the Nisqually Indian Tribe as reported in Pierce County (2012) reports a mean summer temperature of 14.0 °C and mean winter temperature of 6.2°C at RM 39.7 (La Grande area); a mean summer temperature of 15.3°C and a mean winter temperature of 6.0°C at RM 21.8 (McKenna area); and a mean summer temperature of 15.8°C and a mean winter temperature of 6.8°C at RM 3.7 (refuge area). The Nisqually Indian Tribe data (1991 through 1999) show water temperatures increase as the river flows downstream and drops in elevation. The state water temperature standard for this stretch of the Nisqually River is 16°C, measured as the 7-‐day average of the daily maximum temperature (7-‐DADmax). The peak temperature (18.2°C) at the lowest station (RM 3.7) during the 1990s exceeded this value by 14% (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001).

3.5.2.2

Tributaries

Whiley and Walter (2000) summarized water temperature conditions for the tributary streams in the lower Nisqually River watershed, including the Mashel River, Ohop Creek, Tanwax Creek, Toboton Creek, Yelm Creek, Murray Creek, and Muck Creek. They found that water temperatures were determined primarily by geological setting. The Prairie Tributaries that have groundwater discharge as their primary source of flow (Toboton, Yelm, and Muck Creek) have summertime (July through September) water temperatures of approximately 12° C with little daily variation. Tanwax and Ohop Creeks were found to have high water temperatures. Maximum recorded temperature in Tanwax and Ohop Creeks exceed 20 °C in several recent years (Nisqually Indian Tribe unpublished data). High water temperatures in Tanwax Creek are likely attributed to low discharge levels, high travel times, and little groundwater contribution to flow. High water temperatures in Ohop Creek are the result of the heating of Ohop Lake, which provides approximately 50% of the flow to the lower reach of the creek. Maximum temperatures in Ohop Creek immediately downstream of the lake exceed 25°C in most years. High water temperatures in Ohop Creek may also be contributing to low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Ohop Creek is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list for Washington State for dissolved oxygen values that failed to exceed the water quality standard for core summer salmonid habitat. The Mashel River had water temperatures higher than the state water quality standard. High water temperatures were attributed to increased exposure to solar radiation due to the clearing of riparian areas and low summer base flows due to local geology and channel form (Whiley and Walter 2000). Spring water temperatures during steelhead spawning are cool with maximum temperatures in May not exceeding 15 °C in most years. Temperatures increase rapidly from mid to late June and by late June temperatures exceeding 15 °C are common.


3-‐26

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



The Mashel River is listed on the state’s 2012 303(d) list as failing to comply with the state standard for temperature. Although not listed for temperature, Ohop and Muck Creeks have historically had high fecal coliform bacteria levels and fecal loadings from these systems have been regulated by the Nisqually Watershed Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) since 2005. McAllister Creek is also part of this TMDL.

3.5.3

Channel Morphology and Degree of Confinement

To aid the description of channel morphology and confinement, the Nisqually River mainstem was divided into reaches, based on a qualitative review of in-stream and adjacent landscape features. Channel morphology in each reach is described in Section 3.5.3.1, Nisqually River Mainstem. Every attempt was made to identify upper and lower reach boundaries based on observable stream features (such as a bridge crossing, stream confluence, major change in channel confinement, or gradient). Reach lengths were calculated by the Nisqually Indian Tribe from the most recent National Hydrologic Data stream layer for the Nisqually River watershed. However, river mile reference points were not updated for the latest stream layer to retain these common reference points in the fish assessment datasets. Possible differences in reach length between the current and historical conditions were ignored in the analysis. Summary of reach length, maximum and minimum width, gradient, and confinement classifications are reported in Table A-1 of Appendix A, Reach Structure for Assessment of Winter Steelhead Performance in the Nisqually River.

Channel width is described for low flow (August through September) and high flow (December through February) periods. Channel widths were based on data collected to support watershed analyses, site investigations, and personal observations by the members of the NSRT.

3.5.3.1


Protection and restoration of the Nisqually River estuary and mainstem has been a priority in the watershed for many years. This effort has been successful with the protection and restoration of the estuary downstream of I-5, the commitments by large land managers to protect shoreline habitats, and the acquisition of key properties elsewhere. Together, 70% of the mainstem and 100% of the estuary downstream of I-5 is in protected status (Nisqually Indian Tribe unpublished data). Channel morphology and confinement is described separately for the seven mainstem reaches and the estuary.

Estuary (River Mouth to Interstate 5)

The Nisqually Estuary is made up of two parts, the delta downstream of I-5 and the upper estuary upstream of I-5. Historically, the delta and upper estuary were joined by distributary channels and freshwater marshes. Much of the assessment work and restoration focus has been in the delta to improve rearing habitat for salmonids. Prior to restoration projects implemented for Chinook recovery, only near the mouth was the river able to freely meander over the delta fan (Pierce County 2012). The estuary from the mouth to I-5 was confined by various bank hardening, flood-control dikes, the I-5 bridge, and highway fill. The flood-control dikes were part of an extensive system used for the reclamation of land for agriculture. The dikes on the right bank are now owned by the Nisqually Indian Tribe and many have been removed as part of the Nisqually Delta Restoration. Dikes remain on the left bank that are part of the Wildlife Refuge.


3-27

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



The channel increases in width substantially in the downstream portion of this reach, due to tidal effects (Pierce County 2012). A limited number of side and distributary channels increase stream length and network complexity. Much of the sediment and woody debris that reaches this tidally influenced reach is deposited here. Substrate is dominated by small gravel near the upstream end of the reach and decreases in size to fine silts at the mouth and mudflats. Most woody debris settles between the lower half of the reach and the mudflats, and does not influence channel development substantially (Pierce County 2012).

Lower Reach (Interstate 5 to BNSF Railroad Grade) Between the I-‐5 bridge and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad bridge, the river meanders through an open valley though the channel is constrained along much of its right bank by bluffs (Pierce County 2012). The tide still has some influence on the river in this reach, and the gradient is low (approximately 0.1%), although saltwater does not extend much upstream of I-‐5. The Thurston County side (left bank) of the river is constrained by riprap armoring to protect properties, bridge crossings, and the BNSF railroad bed. Except for collections along the right bank, large woody material is fairly absent in this reach due to the bank hardening and riparian forest removal. These factors prevent any wood recruitment and retention of wood from upstream sources (Pierce County 2012). Historically, this portion of the river was likely a complex network of distributary channels, floodplain ponds, and seasonal wetlands, with all of these channels feeding into the estuary at multiple locations. The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is 46%.

Reservation Reaches (BNSF Railroad Grade to Centralia Powerhouse) Upstream of the BNSF Railroad bridge, the river is almost allowed to freely meander and occupy the entire valley (Pierce County 2012). This reach of the river is one of the last best examples of a free flowing unaltered lowland Puget Sound river (Collins et al. 2003) and 92% of the shoreline is in protected status. The valley is consistently between 0.6 and 0.8 mile wide and its floodplain includes many side-‐channels, backwater sloughs, oxbows, and riverine wetlands. The river is allowed to meander during large floods. This migration of the channel has helped maintain valuable side channels and off-‐channel wetland habitats. The river bed is gravel dominated and spawning areas are plentiful throughout this reach. Pool riffle is the most common channel type in this low gradient reach (between 0.1% and 0.3%). Large woody material is common and primarily found in log jams. In fact, large woody material and log jams are so numerous that wood abundance may mimic historical conditions. The frequent jams highly influence the location and shape of the river channel (Collins et al. 2003; Pierce County 2012).

Whitewater Reaches (Centralia Powerhouse to Highway 507) Most of this reach is confined in a canyon, with the valley width only double or less than double the width of the channel (Pierce County 2012). High bluffs define the active channel in many areas. The gradient is higher (between 0.4% and 0.6%) than anywhere else along the Nisqually River mainstem downstream of the Mashel River. Therefore, the riverbed is coarser than most mainstem reaches, comprised of boulders and less of the smaller material that is suitable for spawning salmonids. Most substantial spawning areas are in the lower part of this section of the river. In the past, large wood jams were found in this reach, but currently large woody material is less common and only present in smaller accumulations. This has resulted in a significant decrease in habitat diversity in the reach. The lack of wood accumulation in this mostly undeveloped area may be a function of poor Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐28

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



recruitment from more heavily developed reaches upstream. Other factors that may contribute are a combination of long lag time after past disturbance and riparian vegetation composition (Pierce County 2012). The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is 67%.

McKenna Reaches (Highway 507 to Centralia Diversion Dam) The broad valley in this section of the river historically facilitated extensive channel migration (Pierce County 2012) and likely included a much higher composition of side channels than presently seen in the reach. In the lower half of this reach where the valley is over 2,000 feet wide on average, several remnant historical channels are still visible. Currently, however, the channel is confined on the left bank due to armoring, which limits migration. These modifications consist of bank protection and flood control dikes that have been installed by various private landowners. The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is only 21%. The historical pool-‐riffle morphology is still present in some areas, but the channel lacks gravel bars in this low gradient channel (between 0.1% and 0.2%). In-‐channel boulders are common and create the channel roughness; large woody material is relatively absent in this reach. Bank development and riparian forest removal along the left bank prevents large woody material recruitment from these areas and retention of large woody material from upstream sources. The Centralia Diversion Dam may also prevent wood from entering this reach (Pierce County 2012).

Wilcox Reaches (Centralia Diversion Dam to Tanwax Creek) The channel in these reaches still exhibits pool-‐riffle morphology throughout its length, although some channel constrictions limit channel migration (Pierce County 2012). The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is 49%. The valley in this section of the river is broad, but similar to the McKenna Reach. The channel has been confined on both sides of the river by riprap bank protection and flood control dikes. These modifications are not only intended to control flooding of private lands, but also prevent the river from bypassing the Centralia Diversion Dam. The modifications effectively keep much of the channel in the lower half of these reaches confined to only a portion of the valley. Side channels, sloughs, connected oxbows, remnant channels and spawning areas are present but processes that create and maintain such habitat have been compromised by the bank and channel modifications. The gradient in this reach is between 0.1 and 0.2%. Large woody material is moderately abundant in this reach, plays an active role in channel maintenance, and provides essential roughness to the channel. Large woody material recruitment is somewhat limited where the channel is confined in the lower half of the reach (Pierce County 2012).

Middle Reaches (Tanwax Creek to Ohop Creek) The river freely meanders through the entire width of the valley in this section of the river. There are few artificial restrictions to channel migration (Pierce County 2012). The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is 93%. The alluvial valley (valley formed by and consistent of extensive cobble, gravel, sand and silt deposits transported by the river) is similar in width to the valley in the Wilcox reaches (i.e., between 0.25 and 0.75 mile) but it is allowed to create and maintain more oxbows and side channels than the downstream reaches. The stream mainly exhibits pool-‐riffle morphology with extensive gravel bars and plentiful spawning habitat. The gradient in this reach is between 0.2% and 0.3%. The channel is responsive to large woody material, especially in larger wood jams, although wood is fairly scarce in most of these reaches. Wood is more common near the downstream end of this section, where it plays a larger role in channel and habitat Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐29

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



maintenance. The reason for the lack of wood in the mostly undeveloped upper part of the reach is probably a combination of slow recovery after past disturbances (such as wood clearings, the large “Ohop slide” in 1990, and streamside logging), a naturally low wood recruitment rate, and the lack of recruitment from upstream of the Alder/La Grande Dam complex. The complex is located 3 miles upstream and prevents any downstream passage of wood, which also might affect the retention of wood originating from below the dams (Pierce County 2012).

Upper Reaches (Ohop Creek to La Grande Powerhouse) Between the La Grande Powerhouse (RM 40.8) and the confluence with Ohop Creek (RM 37.8) the Nisqually River flows through a valley confined by steep canyon walls (Pierce County 2012). The one exception is near the mouth of the Mashel River where the valley opens up and side channels, wood formed pools and gravel bars occur. The amount of shoreline in protected status for this reach is 87%. Throughout most of this reach, pools are formed by the channel bedform and canyon walls and wood does not play a significant role in pool formation. The gradient is 1.5%, which promotes the transport of most material that enters the reach from upstream. Hence the substrate in this reach is larger than in the rest of the system. Gravel bars are very rare and spawning areas are limited to the channel margins and some pool tail-‐outs. In-‐stream large woody material is fairly absent in this reach. Limited wood retention is most likely a natural occurrence because the steep canyon and stream confinement promote material transport (Pierce County 2012).

3.5.3.2

Tributaries

Tributary channel morphology and confinement is strongly affected by watershed processes and land use that differs widely across the watershed. The Prairie Tributaries in the Nisqually River watershed are much less dynamic than other streams. They are low gradient over much of their length and flows are slow to respond to rainfall. In addition, many of these streams flow across a landscape with vegetation not dominated by larger coniferous trees. The Mashel River is the other extreme. Flow, sediment, and instream wood are important components affecting in-‐channel habitat. The riparian forest is dominated by conifers and flow responds quickly to rainfall. Land use has affected all three of these components to varying degree in the Mashel subbasin resulting in changes to sediment, pool-‐riffle composition, and channel stability.

3.5.4 3.5.4.1

Channel and Substrate Characteristics Nisqually River Mainstem

The Nisqually River mainstem wetted channel width was based on aerial photos, topographic maps, and direct field measurement. Historical summer low flows in the Nisqually River were presumed to be less than those of current times, due to the minimum flow regulations that are in place today (Walter pers. comm.). We assumed that the historical minimum wetted channel width was 70% of current conditions for reaches not modified by levees or flow diversions. We assumed no difference between current and historical minimum channel width for reaches affected by the Yelm Project Diversion; managed minimum flows are less in these reaches than nondiversion reaches (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1994). For modified mainstem channels (lower Nisqually, McKenna, and Wilcox reaches), we assumed a greater maximum channel width in the historical reconstruction than in current conditions. For other reaches, assumptions for historical maximum channel width were unchanged between historical and current conditions. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐30

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


3.5.4.2


Tributaries

The historical proportion of the various habitat types (e.g., primary pools, small cobble/gravel riffles, large cobble riffles) was estimated by reach using confinement and gradient information to guide the reconstruction (Montgomery and Buffington 1993). Historical conditions were inferred from current observations based on anthropogenic changes to channel confinement, wood, and sediment supplies. Reaches in the Mashel River watershed currently experience greater sediment supply and lower recruitment of wood than they did historically, due to forest management activities. For the same reason, it was assumed that pools were more frequent historically than they are currently, and small cobble/gravel riffles made up a higher percentage of the riffle habitat. Channel gradients in the middle and upper reaches of the Mashel River are greater than those in downstream reaches; consequently, wood and sediment supply in those higher reaches have less influence on habitat than they do in downstream reaches. It was hypothesized that historical conditions in these higher-‐ gradient reaches were similar to conditions observed today. One exception is that these higher-‐ gradient reaches were believed to contain a slightly greater percentage of small cobble/gravel riffles (upstream of large woody material accumulations) historically than they do currently (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001) Reaches in the Ohop Creek watershed are divided into three categories: 1) moderate gradient tributaries in forested areas (Lynch and Twenty-‐Five Mile Creeks), 2) Ohop Lake, and 3) low gradient reaches (Ohop Creek below Ohop Lake). The tributaries were surmised to have historically contained more wood and less sediment than today. It was concluded that pools made up a larger percentage of habitat area and that riffles were made of small and large cobble substrate. Conditions in Ohop Lake are hypothesized to have been similar historically to what they are under current conditions. Habitats in Ohop Creek downstream of Ohop Lake are hypothesized to have been predominately pools and small cobble riffles. The Prairie Tributaries are low gradient and are believed to have had a large percentage of beaver ponds and complex off-‐channel habitats historically. The substrate was presumed to be mostly small cobble/gravel, which is similar to current conditions. Habitat stability is supported by the fact that these streams were, and some still are, used extensively by spawning chum salmon. It was hypothesized that the percent primary pools (excluding beaver ponds and backwater pools) was historically 40% to 50% of the total wetted channel. Peterson et al. (1992) reported a range of 39% to 67% pools in unmanaged streams (a review of various studies in forested streams). From this, a target condition of 50% pools in streams is suggested with less than 3% gradient. This target was slightly higher than, although generally consistent with, data presented in May et al. (1997) for Puget Sound Lowland streams. Absent of information to suggest otherwise, the Prairie Tributaries were assumed to historically contain 40% to 50% pools. In several streams, beaver ponds may have been a substantial stream feature (10% to 20%).

3.5.5

Sediment Budget

The lower Nisqually River delivers on average about 100,000 metric tons per year of suspended sediment to Puget Sound (Nelson 1974; Curran et al. 2014 in review). Since 1945, flow to the lower river has been controlled by regulation from the Alder/La Grande Dam complex, which effectively traps approximately 90% of the fluvial sediment generated upstream. Most of this sediment is from Mount Rainier, the principal sediment source in the Nisqually River basin (Czuba et al. 2012a). If not Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐31

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



for the reservoir trapping sediment, some 42,000,000 m3 of fluvial sediment that make up the river delta in Alder Lake (Czuba et al. 2012b) would otherwise serve a variety of downstream hydrologic and biologic functions with both benefits and threats as described in Czuba et al. (2011). In 2011, sediment monitoring by the USGS in the lower Nisqually River near Yelm found that 103, 000 metric tons of suspended sediment, about 50% sand and 50% silt and clay, were delivered to Puget Sound and that almost 40 % of this load occurred during a single winter storm event (Curran et al. 2014 in review). The hydrologic record at USGS streamflow gaging stations above and below the Alder/La Grande Dam complex show flood storage can affect peak-‐flow hydrology (Section 3.5.1, Flow Regime). In the 2011 water year (October through September), regulation of winter storm peaks by the Alder/La Grande Dam complex was minimal, but other seasonal peaks, such as from a spring freshet, were absent (Curran et al. 2014 in review). Although reach-‐scale studies documenting channel morphology on the lower Nisqually River are limited, studies on other large, regulated rivers in western Washington (Warrick et al. 2011) indicate that, with respect to sediment, the lower Nisqually River is likely supply-‐limited, and during high flows, new sediment is recruited predominantly from lateral bank erosion and channel migration processes.

3.5.5.1


As described previously, much of the sediment delivered to the mainstem is now trapped upstream of the Alder/La Grande Dam, suggesting that levels of fine sediment in the historical Nisqually River mainstem were higher than those currently observed. The amount of fine sediment (i.e., sediment less than 0.85 millimeter) in riffle and glide substrate may have been much higher in the Nisqually River mainstem compared with the current condition. However, the influence of wood and an intact floodplain may suggest that the effects of historic levels of fine sediment were not a great, based strictly on an analysis of sediment delivery to the mainstem. Our analysis of historic habitat potential for steelhead in the Nisqually River mainstem was sensitive to assumptions of fine sediment because sediment is assumed to affect both egg incubation survival and substrate interstitial habitat for overwinter juvenile steelhead. For the purposes of the steelhead analysis, historic sediment levels in mainstem riffles and glides were assumed to be no higher than current levels. Water turbidity for the historical reconstruction was considered important only for the mainstem reaches of the Nisqually. Glacial melt during the summer contributed to moderate levels of turbidity. Historically, the Nisqually River was likely much clearer during the winter months than it is during winters today because of the storage and release of suspended fine sediment material from Alder Lake during and following winter storms.

3.5.5.2

Tributaries

As with many of the attributes used to describe habitat conditions in the watershed, fine sediment (i.e., sediment less than 0.85 millimeter in riffle and glide substrate) assumptions for the historical Nisqually River watershed were based on extrapolation of empirical data and qualitative observations from the current condition. To reconstruct the historical condition, the following questions were asked: What are the sources of sediment observed today, and has the supply of sediment increased or decreased in the stream. Empirical fine sediment data are available for the Mashel River and Ohop Creek watersheds (Table 3-‐5). These data reveal that percent fines are variable in these watersheds. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

3-‐32

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Table 3-‐5. Fine Sediment and Spawning Gravel Sampling Results for Ohop Creek and Mashel River Watersheds (1990–1994) Stream and River Mile

Number of Sample Year Samples Mean % Fines

CV (%)

5.35

30 10 22 21

15

17.8

1993 1993 1994

3 21 18

32.6b 16.6a

3.30 4.52 3.42

1993 1994 1990

16 18 7

18.5a 18.3a 14.8

8.17 6.06 5.42

44 33 37

1991 1993

20 18

11.7 14.9a

3.79 5.82

32 39

1994 1991 1993

18 12 5

11.5 13.3 11.9

2.81 4.40 3.44

24 33 29

Mashel RM 7.4–7.5

1993 1994 1994

18 8 9

19.0a 15.4a 13.8

9.14 3.74 3.53

48 24 26

Beaver RM 0.6–0.9 Mashel RM 14.5–15.2

1993 1993

18 18

26.4b 18.8a

7.19 6.64

27 35

Ohop RM 0.0–0.2 Ohop RM 3.3 Ohop RM 5.0–5.2 25-‐mile RM 0.2–0.3 Mashel RM 0.2–0.8

Mashel RM 2.0–3.0 Mashel RM 6.2–6.9

1993

a

Standard Deviation

20.9b

a Sample significantly (alpha < or = 0.05) higher than 12% fine sediments (one-‐sample t-‐test). b

Sample significantly higher than 17% fine sediments.

Levels of fine sediment in the Mashel River tend to be consistent with observations from managed forest streams of the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska (summarized in Peterson et al. 1992). Potential sources of sediment are roads, slope failures, and stream bank erosion. Levels of fine sediment in salmon spawning areas of unmanaged, pristine streams in these regions have been reported to generally range between 6% and 11%. It was concluded that historical levels of fine sediment tended to exceed this range slightly in the Mashel River. The operating assumption was that, historically, fine sediment levels were slightly less than 14%. Percent fines from Ohop Creek below the lake are high (Table 3-‐5), which is consistent with known agricultural activities and channel modifications in the reach. Furthermore, Ohop Creek is naturally rich in fine sediment, as the Ohop valley is a glacial outwash channel. The channel also was likely subject to “hydraulic damming” by the paleo-‐Nisqually River. It was concluded that Ohop Creek historically had approximately 18% fine sediment, and historic levels of fine sediment in the Ohop tributaries were less than 14% for the same reasons identified above for the Mashel River.


3-‐33

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

 

Chapter 4

Nisqually River Steelhead This chapter presents biological data specific to Nisqually winter steelhead. The NSRT used this information to help inform its understanding of winter steelhead life history diversity, tributary and mainstem habitat use in the Nisqually River, and current and historical status of the population. During the 1980s it was estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 steelhead returned to the river annually. Monitoring at that time mostly focused on catch and estimates of escapement for the mainstem Nisqually River. There were other activities that collected data on juvenile life history and habitat use in the mainstem and Muck Creek. However, these studies were mostly focused on other species or were related to juvenile salmonid habitat use and effects of hydroelectric operations affecting flow. Recently, there have been several new monitoring efforts that are providing information on smolt life history and abundance (outmigrant trap at RK 20.6 (RM 12.8) since 2009), information on marine migration and mortality of steelhead smolts originating from the Nisqually Basin (an acoustic tagging study), information on adult use in the Nisqually River (annual mapping of steelhead redds in the mainstem and Mashel River), and finally expanded survey effort that includes several major tributaries in the adult escapement estimate.

4.1

Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Juvenile and Adult Life History

Figure 4-‐1 presents a broad overview of adult and juvenile life history for Nisqually steelhead. Adult winter steelhead enter the Nisqually River between early December and early May. Once adults enter fresh water they are assumed to move quickly upstream to holding areas near suitable spawning habitat. Prespawn holding in deep pools can be as long as two months before spawning from mid-‐April to early June.

Figure 4-‐1. Life Stage Adults

Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Generalized Life History

Jan E M L

Feb E M L

Mar E M L

May E M L

Jun E M L

Jul E M L

Aug E M L

Sep E M L

Oct E M L

Nov E M L

Dec E M L

Adults Arriving Prespawn Holding FW Adult Migration Spawning Post-‐Spawn Kelts

Incubation & Fry Emergence Juvenile Rearing Smolt Out-‐ Migration


Apr E M L

Arriving

Egg Incubation Emergence

Age 0 Juveniles (summer active rearing and winter inactive) Age 1 Juveniles (summer active rearing and winter inactive) Smolts (1, 2 and 3 age)

4-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Nisqually River Steelhead

Figure 4-‐2 presents spawn timing from observations of new redds for 2009 to 2013 for the Nisqually River and Mashel River. Spawn timing is based on regularly surveyed index reaches in each location. Spawn timing tends to be similar in both locations – earliest spawning occurring late March, median timing between late April to early May, and the latest observation of new redds the first week of June.

Figure 4-‐2. Winter Steelhead Spawning Timing in the Nisqually River and Mashel River (2009– 2013); data provided by James Losee, WDFW.

Scott (1981) reported emergent-‐sized rainbow/steelhead ( 1.0) by subbasin is shown in Figure 5-‐6. The same life history trajectories were applied to both scenarios. The number of trajectories by subbasin is entirely a function of the linear length of habitat assumed to be available to steelhead. Migration barriers and habitat quality are the primary factors that affect diversity. The values shown in the pie chart labels are the percentages for the life histories that are viable by subbasin. The size of the pie slice by subbasin is the contribution of that subbasin to total life history diversity of the population. Historically, Muck Creek and the Prairie Tributary subbasins had a much greater proportion of total potential pathways for the population (i.e., a more diverse spatial distribution of fish use). Loss of life history diversity has been greatest in those subbasins, followed by the Mashel River. However, as seen in Figure 5-‐5, pathways originating from Much Creek and the Prairie Tributaries did not historically have a high capacity and thus were not a large portion of the population’s abundance. The Nisqually River mainstem represents nearly half the viable life history pathways in the population. Finally, across all subbasins, the life history diversity index is 94% for the historic condition and 34% for the current condition.

Figure 5-‐6. Life History Diversity Indices by Subbasin

The analysis roughly compared model predictions to observed values (Figure 5-‐7) and concluded results were reasonable and consistent with the available empirical data for the population for the recent period. However, further monitoring and evaluation of the population is a high priority to improve understanding of the dynamics of the population.


5-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Restoration and Protection Needs

Figure 5-‐7. EDT-‐Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-‐to-‐Adult and Spawner-‐to-‐Smolt with Empirical Data

The following summarizes the conclusions regarding numeric performance. 

Current average abundance is 62% of historical level with an assumed 1% marine survival in both scenarios and nearly all current production occurs in the Nisqually River mainstem and Mashel River (based on analysis at subpopulation level).



Current and historical productivities are low assuming a 1% marine survival, reflecting freshwater and marine life history tradeoffs with steelhead.



Further degradation of freshwater habitat in the Nisqually River mainstem and Mashel River would have a serious consequence on population viability when marine survival is low.


5-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13





Freshwater productivity (smolts per spawner) is high for the population.



Smolt capacity is high and density-‐dependent factors are relatively weak at predicted current spawner abundances (135 smolts per spawner at 425 spawners and 130 smolts per spawner at 688 spawners for current and historical, respectively).

5.3

Factors Affecting Steelhead in the Watershed

The EDT model was used to help diagnose habitat-‐limiting factors for steelhead performance and to identify restoration priorities. The diagnosis was made in three parts: 1) a comparison of life-‐cycle-‐ segment-‐specific survivals, 2) a splice analysis to evaluate maximum restoration potential for a subbasin, and 3) an analysis of limiting factors using the standard outputs produced by the EDT model. This last item is a consumer-‐report style format to identify highest-‐priority habitat factors.

5.3.1

Comparison of Life Cycle Segment Survival and Abundance

EDT-‐predicted survival and abundance were examined at three points in the freshwater life history: 1) spawners to end of first summer fry, 2) summer fry to age 1 smolts, and 3) end winter age 1 parr to age 2 smolts. These results were used to better understand the effects of density-‐independent and density-‐dependent constraints on segment survival. Density-‐independent factors would affect the slope of the curve and, consequently, survival across the entire range of abundances, whereas, density-‐dependent factors (i.e., habitat quantity) would have a much stronger effect at higher abundances. The analysis shows two hypothetical freshwater life histories. The first is from spawning to age 1 smolt, whereas, the second life history is from spawning to age 2 smolt. Results presented in the previous sections for the population are based on a composition of age 1 and 2 smolts developed from the long-‐term catch monitoring dataset. The top graph in Figure 5-‐8 shows the spawner-‐recruit function for the segment from spawning to the end of the first summer. A spawning abundance of 1,000 adults is represented by the dashed vertical lines for both scenarios to compare across the freshwater life cycle. The horizontal line shows the resulting number of fry alive at the end of the summer. At 1,000 spawners, both scenarios show a weak density-‐dependent effect as predicted abundance is slightly less than half of capacity. Capacity is predicted to be much stronger at spawner abundances over 2,000 fish. The middle graph shows predicted abundance of age 1 smolts for the two scenarios. The vertical lines are abundance from the top graph and horizontal lines are predicted age 1 smolts. The model is predicting a high overwinter capacity to age 1 smolts. The primary drivers affecting abundance of age 1 smolts are number of fry at the end of the summer and density-‐independent factors affecting over winter survival. The bottom graph is predicted abundance of age 2 smolts. The vertical lines are the predicted abundance of yearling parr entering the summer. There is a much stronger capacity effect on survival to age 2 smolt. These results are a glimpse into freshwater dynamics and the watershed’s potential and, therefore, should be taken lightly. However, it appears that the effect of freshwater age on smolt potential is large and should be closely monitored. Smolt age composition estimated by WDFW at the outmigrant trap suggests a variable freshwater-‐age structure. These results suggest that strategies to increase capacity in habitats used by juvenile steelhead in their second summer in freshwater should be investigated. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

5-‐9

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 5-‐8. EDT-‐Predicted Life Cycle Segment Productivity and Capacity


5-‐10

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


5.3.2


Watershed Geographic Restoration and Protection Priorities

Model results showed a small decline from historical to current conditions in productivity and abundance across all population components. However, some components declined more than others. Two questions must be asked before suggesting freshwater restoration would result in a small benefit for Nisqually steelhead: What restorative changes to the current environment would benefit steelhead and where would these changes be most beneficial? The second question, answered in some of the previous sections, is which habitats should be protected to avoid decline in production potential? Priority rankings for restoration and protection of steelhead are presented in this section. The splice analysis technique in EDT is used to assess the relative importance of each stream segment to restoration and protection. For the restoration splice analysis, a sequence of scenarios was created by successively replacing each current-‐condition stream reach with its historical-‐ condition counterpart. Using this technique, an estimate was obtained of the relative benefit to overall population performance achieved by restoring each stream reach to historical conditions. Similarly, for the protection splice analysis, a sequence of scenarios was created by successively replacing each current condition stream reach with a hypothetical degraded reach condition. From the protection splice, an estimate was obtained of the relative contributions to loss in overall population performance made by each reach as it is degraded from current conditions. The splice analysis can be done on several scales. Figure 5-‐9 presents the restoration and protection priorities at the subbasin scale described in Chapter 3, Nisqually River Overview. Not surprisingly, the Nisqually River mainstem and Mashel River stand out as high priorities for protection. These geographic areas rank high because of the strong dependence of the population on these habitat types. The degree of degradation assumed in the splice analysis is hypothetical and beyond what members of the NSRT consider a likely future scenario for the watershed absent protection measures identified in the recovery plan. However, any degradation could have serious consequences to the population.

Figure 5-‐9. Relative Importance of Subbasins for Restoration and Protection (Degradation Scenario)

Conversely, the Mashel River ranked highest for restoration followed by the Nisqually River mainstem when considering abundance and productivity. Muck Creek and the Prairie Tributaries ranked high in priority for their importance to life history diversity of Nisqually winter steelhead. Restoration of these areas can contribute to overall population productivity and abundance, but are more important to population diversity.


5-‐11

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



The analysis by subbasin area included multiple reaches and fish-‐passage barriers. Fish-‐passage barriers warrant an analysis of restoration benefit by tributary stream (Figure 5-‐10). Fish barriers in upper Muck Creek including the flow barrier upstream of Johnson Creek, ranked highest for diversity and abundance. The benefits of removing fish-‐passage barriers were mostly to population diversity.

Figure 5-‐10.

Relative Importance of Fish-‐Passage Barriers for Restoration

5.3.3

Watershed Habitat-‐Limiting Factor Priorities

The EDT model links environmental attributes to survival factors via the habitat-‐life stage survival relationships to compute a survival landscape (i.e., a pattern of relative survival by reach, month, and life stage for steelhead). Based on the general life history of steelhead, performance parameters are then computed for the Nisqually steelhead population. Thus the different habitat scenarios (e.g., current and historical) expressed in terms of environmental attributes are linked to population performance potential. The diagnosis described here identifies the changes in survival factors from the historical to the current scenario that account for most of the loss in performance. Each stream reach in the Nisqually River was analyzed, using the EDT model, to assess how specific survival factors have contributed to the loss of steelhead performance from historical to current status. The results of these analyses are summarized in Figure 5-‐11 by life stage across all reaches.


5-‐12

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 5-11. Pattern of Habitat Degradation in the Nisqually River Watershed by Life Stage

Mar-Jul

-10.7%

7

Fry colonization

May-Jul

-11.6%

6

0-age active rearing

May-Oct

-24.1%

1

0,1-age inactive

Oct-Mar

-15.9%

3

1-age migrant

Mar-Jun

Temperature

Sediment load

Predation

Pathogens

Oxygen

Obstructions

Harassment/poaching

Habitat diversity

Food

Flow

Competition (other sp)

Key habitat quantity

Mar-Jun

Withdrawals

Spawning Egg incubation

Competition (w/ hatch)

Productivity change (%)

Chemicals

Relevant months

Channel stability

Life stage

Life Stage Rank

Change in attribute impact on survival

Loss

Gain

-1.0% 14

-1.1% 12

1-age active rearing

Mar-Oct

2+-age active rearing

Mar-Oct

-11.9%

-3.0% 10

5

2+-age migrant

Mar-Jun

-1.1% 13

2+-age transient rearing

Jan-Dec

-0.3% 15

Prespawning migrant

Nov-Apr

-1.6% 11

Prespawning holding

Dec-May

-3.6%

9

KEY

None Small Moderate High Extreme

As shown in Figure 5-11, typically only a few habitat attributes are involved in a given life stage, and these vary by life stage. Conclusions from Figure 5-11 are as follows. 





Restoration actions to address sediment load and temperature have potential to improve incubation survival.

Restoration actions to restore summer base flow and reduce winter peak flow and flow flashiness to normative conditions would result in broad benefits across multiple juvenile life stages.

Restoration actions that restore channel complexity would address habitat diversity and likely other related factors, such as channel stability, sediment, and possibly temperature.

Figure 5-12 shows the pattern of habitat loss in the major subbasin of the Nisqually identified in Chapter 3, Nisqually River Overview. Habitat diversity ranks high across all subbasins. Sediment load is only a factor in the tributaries. Obstructions to fish passage rank high in Muck Creek; the Prairie Tributaries; and Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks. Obstructions show up in the Nisqually River mainstem, representing the working hypothesis that the Centralia Diversion Dam is affecting survival of summer fry through impingement and entrainment into the diversion canal. Steelhead fry are thought to be especially vulnerable because emergence occurs during the months with declining flow and greater percent diversion.


5-13

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Figure 5-12. Pattern of Habitat Degradation in the Nisqually River Watershed by Subbasin

The results of Figure 5-12 show that Muck Creek; the Prairie Tributaries; and Mashel River have the most opportunities to improve steelhead survival affecting overall population performance.

5.4

Parameter Uncertainty and Stochastic Variation

EDT is typically applied as a deterministic model, setting aside parameter uncertainty (variable inputs) in the predictions and ignoring stochastic variation affecting observed population productivity and abundance. Both are important to consider for developing the recovery plan. However, they have different consequences on how model results are interpreted.

Parameter uncertainty represents limitations in the knowledge of environmental conditions affecting steelhead and inputs that describe the relationships between the environment and steelhead survival. Parameter uncertainty affects the planning process by suggesting alternative spawner-recruit functions for the population. Choosing the wrong function could lead to setting inappropriate restoration priorities. Specifically, parameter uncertainty would suggest a family of functions for the population—each curve a plausible representation of the underlying deterministic spawner-recruit function. An example of parameter uncertainty is the family of curves generated for the range of marine survival rates shown in Figure 5-13. The necessary information is lacking to describe and model factors affecting marine survival or monitoring data to estimate marine survival across the time series of data for the population. The best we can work from at this stage is the limited information collected recently from the smolt monitoring program and escapement estimates. These studies suggest a very low average marine survival (less than 1%). Data from other watersheds in Puget Sound and Nisqually River returns from the 1980s would suggest the potential for much higher marine survival. Together, it can be concluded that marine survival is a major factor affecting steelhead abundance in the watershed.


5-14

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Figure 5-13. Current Condition Results with Alternative Marine Survival

At this stage in recovery planning, the NSRT concluded the best path forward is to put forth the working hypothesis based on the available data. The NSRT concluded addressing parameter uncertainty in a systematic fashion will be a key component of the recovery plan. Data uncertainty is addressed further in Chapter 8, Implementation.

Data presented in Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead, highlights variable spawner-recruit rates for the population. The wide range in recruitment observed in the time series is because of a variety of sources such as observation error, variation in spawner abundance, year-to-year environmental variation, and finally, random variation in survival. More specifically, the range in estimated smolt and adult recruits at a given spawner abundance is a result of random interannual variation in environmental conditions. Another source of random variation in population productivity and abundance is what is sometimes referred to as demographic stochasticity, which represents unknown variation in survival among individuals of the population (Kendall 1998). Both sources of random variation are important when considering long-term sustainability of the population, especially at low abundance. EDT, as it is used for the Nisqually River Watershed, is not well suited to evaluate the effects of interannual stochastic variation on population performance. EDT is intended to represent long-term average outcomes. Stochastic variation is less important in models, like EDT, that are constructed to evaluate long-term average outcomes. Model parameters tend toward the mean and parameter uncertainty becomes more important. As the recovery plan is implemented, the NSRT intends to address effects of stochastic variation on annual juvenile and adult abundances by reviewing past-year performance (status and trends), and assessing future expectations through forecasting and population simulation models. This analysis and future modeling are intended to support the fish-management objectives of the recovery plan, as introduced in Chapter 7, Nisqually River Steelhead Management, and identified in Chapter 8, Implementation. Chapter 7, Nisqually River Steelhead Management, includes a preliminary assessment of the effects of stochastic variation in survival on run size and fish management options. Mean survival conditions used in the simulations are based on the analysis in this chapter and Chapter 6, Habitat Recovery Strategies.


5-15

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead, also presents S-R data for Nisqually winter steelhead for the last 28 years. The data clearly show a significant shift in recruitment over the period. Prior to about brood year 1990, average return to the Nisqually River was over 4,800 fish. Since then, return to the river has been less than 1,000 fish in nearly every year. The NSRT discussed the option of modeling habitat conditions in the 1980s to better understand freshwater conditions during this period in hopes of gaining some insight to conditions in the watershed at that time. However, the consensus of the NSRT was that freshwater habitat conditions in the 1980s were likely not better than current conditions. The working hypothesis is this shift in recruitment was because of a shift in marine survival that occurred around 1990. The NSRT was not able to determine the cause of this shift in survival and intends to work closely with the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project in the future.


5-16

July 2014

ICF 00153.13

Chapter 6

Habitat Recovery Strategies The action plan, which is the centerpiece of the recovery plan, was designed to meet the short-‐ and long-‐term goals and objectives described in Chapter 2, Recovery Goals and Objectives. It was developed through discussions among the NSRT, a review and inclusion of actions identified in the Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan that were appropriate to steelhead, and a review of actions identified in other planning activities in the watershed (Nisqually River Land Trust, Nisqually River Council, Pierce and Thurston Counties, and the Department of Defense Joint Base Lewis-‐McChord). The list includes general strategies that will need additional refinement before implementing and some specific actions that are ready to be implemented or are in progress (Table 6-‐1). The action plan is divided into five broad objectives. 1. Protect and secure habitats that support the existing core population. 2. Restore high-‐priority, degraded habitat to improve population productivity, abundance, and diversity. This objective is addressed in two ways: first, restore watershed processes by addressing sediment supply, flow, and organic matter inputs. Second, implement habitat-‐enhancement actions necessary to address specific issues in locations that are impaired to the extent that watershed process restoration is not reasonable. 3. Provide broad-‐scale protection and restoration by addressing regulatory barriers, securing policy support, and educating the community on how it can contribute to recovery. 4. Develop assessment plans to guide the development of restoration actions. 5. Implement a research, monitoring, and evaluation plan to improve the understanding of steelhead habitat requirements and limiting factors in freshwater and marine areas, to monitor progress, and to evaluate effectiveness and refine strategies and objectives. The last two categories are to support the adaptive-‐management process in the Nisqually watershed and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, Implementation. Protection strategies are not modeled explicitly in this analysis. In other words, no attempt was made to set a hypothetical future-‐ degraded condition to evaluate the consequence if these strategies are not successful. Instead, the reader is directed to Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs, which describes habitat potential to support steelhead and core habitat areas for the population. However, several of the protection actions listed in Table 6-‐1 also include an element of restoration that was modeled and outcomes are reported in the next sections. The action plan is detailed in Appendix C, Nisqually Winter Steelhead Action Plan. The analysis of the action plan, presented in the next sections, assumes these objectives are met.


6-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Habitat Recovery Strategies

Table 6-‐1. Recovery Plan Action Items Action Number

Name

Description

Objectives

Action 1.1.1

Nisqually River Mainstem Protection

Identify high priority habitats and acquire property or development rights along the Nisqually River mainstem. Identify and protect additional shoreline and floodplain in some key areas of the mainstem. Percent of shoreline in protected status reported by mainstem reach is generally high; 70% is protected across all reaches. However protection is not as high in portions of Whitewater, McKenna and Wilcox reaches.

Ensure long-‐term protection of high quality habitats in mainstem. Combine protection with restoration opportunities where possible to enhance benefits.

Action 1.1.2

Nisqually Tributary Protection

Identify high priority habitats and acquire property or development rights along tributary streams. Protection of tributary habitat is spotty and not well documented. Portions of lower Ohop Creek and lower Mashel River are in protected status as these areas were identified for Chinook recovery.

Ensure long-‐term protection of high quality habitats in tributaries. Combine with restoration opportunities where possible to enhance benefits.

Action 1.1.3

Nisqually Wetland Protection

Acquire and protect (either through direct purchase or purchase of development rights) wetlands that have a significant influence on stream conditions. This action is intended to expand protection of key wetlands by increasing the buffer around wetlands. Identify wetlands that are significant to stream hydrology and water quality.

Protect and enhance hydrology and water quality in tributary streams.

Action 1.1.4

McAllister Headwaters Coordinate with City of Olympia Public Works Department to Protection/Restoration develop a succession plan to protect and restore the headwater springs and wetlands of McAllister Creek.

Protect and enhance hydrology and water quality in McAllister Creek.

Action 1.2.1

Nisqually-‐Mashel State Park Management Plan

Develop park infrastructure (trails, campsites, and buildings) outside of floodplain or in ways compatible with natural area. Develop actions to restore degraded riparian and floodplain habitats Develop restoration actions to improve egg incubation and juvenile rearing habitats.


Work with planners working on the Nisqually-‐Mashel State Park Management plan to ensure protection and to find opportunities for restoration of riparian, in-‐channel, and floodplain condition.

6-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Action Number

Name

Description

Objectives

Action 2.1.1

Shoreline Stewardship Workshops

Conduct shoreline stewardship workshops – inform residents on native planting techniques, riparian invasive plant management, sources of native plants, natural lawn care, technical and financial resources available.

Restoration of riparian native plant communities, improve composition and quantity wood recruitment to streams, provide for stream shading, and reduce sediment transport to streams.

Action 2.1.2

Riparian Management for Improved Growth

Improve degraded riparian areas through management and passive restoration such as manage small stands of suitable species to promote survival and growth), develop strategies for stand improvement at sites with marginal recruitment potential, continue underplanting of shade-‐tolerant conifers, or conversion of unsuitable sites (e.g., hardwood-‐dominated sites) to more suitable stands.


Action 2.1.3

Invasive Plant Control

Implement a watershed-‐wide riparian invasive plant control program through the Nisqually River Cooperative Weed Management Area working group. Complete Regular riparian and aquatic invasive plant surveys, early action invasive plant control, regular maintenance weed control and replanting following control of larger infestations.


Action 2.1.4

Joint Base Lewis-‐ McChord Mock City Riparian Restoration

Revegetate former Mock City site on Joint Base Lewis-‐ McChord/Whitewater reach.


Action 2.1.5

Community Forest Initiative

Develop Nisqually/Mashel Community Forestry initiative to address riparian buffers, road networks, and upland timber harvest.

Protect high-‐quality habitats through conservation set asides, passive restoration instream habitat resulting from past and current forest management-‐related activities. Manage road network and timber harvest to reduce sediment sources and delivery.



6-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Action Number

Name

Description

Objectives

Action 2.1.6

Voluntary Forest Road Remediation and Abandonment

Encourage and implement voluntary restoration opportunities for sedimentation problems from existing roads identified in the Mashel Watershed Analysis (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1996) and the Ohop/Tanwax/ Powell Watershed Analysis.

Restore hydrology by disconnecting road network and drainage system from stream network. Reduce sediment sources and delivery from roads.

Action 2.1.7

Nisqually Farm Plans

Develop and implement farm plans to address loss or degradation of aquatic habitats. Includes conservation district approved farm plans (commercial and hobby farms) along the Nisqually River, Mashel River, Ohop Creek, and McAllister Creek. The intent is to eventually have plans implemented for 95% of farms in these areas.

Reduce sediment input from agriculture lands. Reduce inputs pesticides to streams Promote riparian revegetation. Promote the reestablishment of natural channel form.

Action 2.1.8

Floodplain Restoration

Restore lost off-‐channel habitat (floodplain channels and ponds) and enhance existing habitats along Nisqually River mainstem. Specific projects based on recommendations of the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group off-‐channel habitat assessment (Ellings 2004).

Establish or promote the development and engagement of floodplain channels.

Action 2.1.9

Channel Migration Zone Restoration

Restore active channel river meander belt and natural channel configuration along the Nisqually River mainstem. Conduct geomorphic assessment to evaluate channel dynamics and recommendations, remove bank hardening, and apply strategies to promote new side channels and reestablish connections with existing side channels.

Establish or promote the development and engagement of side channel habitats and unconstrained channel migration.

Action 2.2.1

Fish Passage Barrier Removal

Replace fish passage barriers in the anadromous portion of the watershed with structures that pass juvenile and adult fish and in-‐ stream sediment and wood.

Prioritize and address remaining barriers to fish passage in watershed. Update inventory to identify any additional barriers.

Action 2.3.1

Upper Mainstem Instream Wood Enhancement

Work with Tacoma Power to find ways to transport logs from above the Alder/La Grande Dams to the mainstem to supplement large woody material recruitment to mainstem reaches immediately downstream of the dams.

Increase the quantity pools and pool complexity, promote riverine processes.

Action 2.3.2

Nisqually Mainstem In-‐ stream Wood Enhancement

Placement of in-‐stream large wood (either individual pieces or aggregations) in the mainstem Nisqually River and side channels. Coordinate these projects with floodplain acquisition.




6-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Action Number

Name

Description

Objectives

Action 2.3.4

Fish Carcass Placement

Continue program to distribute hatchery salmon carcasses as food source, with an emphasis on headwater tributaries and upper mainstem reaches.

Increase the contribution of marine derived nutrients stream productivity.

Action 2.4.1

Ohop Creek Phase III Restoration

Implement final phases of Lower Ohop Creek Restoration Plan. The total project will re-‐elevate the 4.4 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain recreating a 6 mile long stream with its original meander pattern and restoring its hydrologic connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas. Off-‐channel habitat will be created and the riparian areas will be planted with native vegetation. The project will also revegetate 400 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands.

Restoration channel form, riparian and habitat complexity.

Action 2.4.2

Mashel River Restoration

Continue and expand Mashel River Restoration Plan.


Action 2.4.3

Lower Nisqually Reach Restoration Plan

Advance and implement the lower Nisqually Reach (Nisqually 2a) Restoration Plan. Plan is intended to address degraded habitat in the lower Nisqually River mainstem upstream of I-‐5. This action may be combined with actions to remove fill associated with I-‐5 and other roads within and upstream of the reach, and placing roads on piers.

Establish or promote the development and engagement of floodplain channels by removing bank hardening, increasing amount of in-‐stream wood, pools, and off-‐ channel habitat. Address loss of high flow refuge areas, reduction of or refuge from higher scour events, and loss of streamside vegetation.

Action 2.4.4

Muck Creek Restoration Plan

Develop and implement a Muck Creek Restoration plan, including adequate flow for fish passage above Johnson Creek. This would be a comprehensive restoration plan to remove or reduce impacts of invasive reed canary grass, restoration of Muck Creek wetlands (e.g., Chambers Lake), stream hydrology, and in-‐stream habitat complexity.

Improve hydrology to allow fish passage into upper watershed and reduce impacts during low flow periods. Increase the quantity pools and pool complexity.

Action 2.4.5

Eatonville Stormwater Comprehensive Plan

Implement 2014 Eatonville Stormwater Comprehensive Management Plan projects. Monitor results on Lynch Creek and Mashel River flows.

Protect and restore peak and low flow in Lynch Creek and Mashel River.



6-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


6.1


Analysis of Recovery Plan Habitat Potential

Figure 6-‐1 and Table 6-‐2 summarize the results for spawner-‐to-‐adult recruits from modeling the recovery plan’s predicted habitat conditions. These results assumed a smolt to adult marine survival of 1% to approximate recent year rates (Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead).

Figure 6-‐1. EDT-‐Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-‐to-‐Adult S-‐R Functions for the Recovery Plan, Current, and Historical Conditions (1% Marine Survival)

Model results predict the recovery plan provides the greatest benefit to improving population life history and spatial diversity increasing diversity from 34% to 56%. Productivity (adult recruits per spawner) improved slightly over the current condition and abundance improved by about 17%. The recovery plan increased population abundance to about 72% of historical abundance or 30% of the difference between current and historical abundance.

Table 6-‐2. EDT Predicted Adult to Adult Productivity, Capacity, Abundance, and Diversity Index (1% Marine Survival) Habitat Scenario

Adult Productivity

Adult Capacity

Adult Abundance Diversity Index

Current

2.85

654

424

34%

Recovery Plan Historical

2.94 3.50

781 964

515 688

56% 94%


6-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 6-‐2 and Table 6-‐3 summarize results for adult-‐to-‐smolt recruits from recovery plan compared to the current and historical habitat conditions. The vertical and horizontal dashed lines show the number of spawners (x-‐axis) based on the 1% marine survival and predicted smolt abundance (y-‐axis). Productivity with recovery plan habitat conditions increased from 347 smolts per spawner to 351 smolts per spawner. Model results predict a recovery plan smolt abundance of 65,319 fish or an increase of 14% over the current condition. The recovery plan increases smolt abundance to about 73% of the historical potential or 24% of the difference between the current and historical potential. Smolt capacity (maximum smolt potential) is predicted to be 104,076 smolts for the recovery plan versus 94,410 and 131,733 for the current and historical conditions, respectively.

Figure 6-‐2. EDT-‐Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-‐to-‐Smolt S-‐R Functions for the Recovery Plan, Current, and Historical Conditions

Table 6-‐3. EDT-‐Predicted Spawner to Smolt Productivity, Capacity, and Abundance Habitat Scenario

Smolt Productivity

Smolt Capacity

Smolt Abundance

Current Recovery Plan

347 351

94,410 106,945

57,536 67,174

Historical

411

131,710

89,861

Results for freshwater productivity and capacity with recovery plan habitat condition suggest a slight rise in freshwater potential following successful complementation of the plan components. There was a slight shift in habitat potential in the watershed, with more of the habitat potential in the Prairie Tributaries (Figure 6-‐3). These results are consistent for the diversity index, there was a slightly greater spatial distribution of the population with the recovery plan. The primary habitats available to steelhead remain the Nisqually River mainstem and Mashel River.


6-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 6-‐3. Predicted Habitat Utilization (Adult Distribution) of Nisqually Steelhead (1% Marine Survival)

A presentation of viable pathways (productivity > 1.0) by subbasin is shown in Figure 6-‐4. The effect of removing migration barriers is a primary factor for the doubling of life history diversity in the Prairie Tributaries and Muck Creek between scenarios (Prairie Tributaries 21% versus 48% and Muck Creek 15% versus 36% for the current and recovery plan, respectively). The improvement in life history diversity in the Mashel River was entirely due to improved habitat quality (improved condition for factors egg incubation and juvenile survival). Also, we see with the recovery plan a more diverse distribution of viable pathways compared with the current condition. The Nisqually River mainstem does not represent as much of the viable pathways, as seen in the current condition. The Mashel River, Prairie Tributaries, and Muck Creek are bigger portions of the pie.

Figure 6-‐4. Life History Diversity Indices by Subbasin

Across the range of marine survival assumptions the recovery plan predicted an increase in adult abundance ranging from 75 fish to nearly 1,600 fish (Figure 6-‐5). However, percentage-‐wise, the increase did not vary; abundance increased by 17% across all marine survival assumptions.


6-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 6-‐5. EDT-‐Predicted Nisqually Steelhead Spawner-‐to-‐Adult for the Recovery Plan (dashed lines) and Current Conditions (solid lines) across the Modeled Range of Marine Survivals

The following conclusions concern numeric performance. 

Abundance is predicted to increase by 17% over the current condition with an assumed 1% marine survival.



Productivity and abundance remain critically low under the recovery plan with a low 1% marine survival.



The recovery plan addresses some but not all of the loss in freshwater life history and spatial diversity, there remains many miles of small streams that are unable to support steelhead to the same extent as the historical habitat condition.

6.2

Factors Affecting Steelhead in the Watershed

Predicted improvements in habitat potential were evaluated in two ways: 1) by modeling effects of the recovery plan by geographic areas and 2) by comparing differences in habitat-‐survival factors between the current condition and recovery plan scenario. The first item is similar to the analysis completed in Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs, for subbasins, but instead of replacing the current condition in a geographic area with the historical condition, the analysis is based on the potential improvement in population performance using recovery plan habitat assumptions. The second analysis is a consumer-‐report style format that identifies improvements in habitat factors with the recovery plan.

6.2.1

Watershed Geographic Improvements

Model results showed an effect on abundance between 5% and 10% by subbasin, excepting McAllister Creek. The largest response was in the Mashel River with a 10% increase over the current condition. Improving habitat condition in the core population areas (Nisqually River and Mashel Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

6-‐9

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



River) benefits population productivity. The largest improvement in life-history diversity was in Muck Creek followed by the Prairie Tributaries (Figure 6-6). This improvement was largely due to restoring fish passage in these streams.

Figure 6-6. Relative Improvement in Habitat Potential of Subbasins with the Recovery Plan

6.2.2

Watershed Habitat-Limiting Factors Addressed by the Recovery Plan

This section identifies the changes in survival factors from the current condition to the recovery plan scenario that account for most of the improvement in performance measures. The results of these analyses are summarized in Figure 6-7 by life stage across all reaches.

Figure 6-7. Pattern of Habitat Improvements in the Nisqually Watershed by Life Stage


6-10

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Conclusions from Figure 6-7 are as follows.  





Benefits to habitat diversity were small to moderate across multiple life stages.

Reduced sediment load effects were small, improving egg incubation and 0, 1 age inactive (overwintering) life stages.

Eliminating fish-passage barriers benefited migrant juvenile life stages and adult upstream passage. The quantity of key habitat increased across all life stages, with the 0, 1 age inactive (overwinter) showing the greatest benefit.

As shown in Figure 6-7, typically only a few habitat factors were improved by life stage and generally the effect was small. Figure 6-8 shows the pattern of habitat improvement in the major subbasin of the Nisqually River identified in Chapter 3, Nisqually River Overview. The pattern of response varies considerably by subbasin and closely matches assumptions specific to recovery actions identified in the plan. •

•

•

•

•

Sediment and temperature improvement were limited to the Mashel River and Ohop Creek. Habitat diversity effects were in most subbasins, except McAllister Creek.

Reduced sediment load effects were small with a slight improvement in Ohop and Mashel subbasins. These improvements would affect egg incubation and 0, 1 age inactive (overwintering) life stages. Eliminating fish-passage barriers benefited migrant life stages in Muck Creek, the Prairie Tributaries and Toboton/Powell/Lackamas subbasins. Obstructions in Muck Creek were removed of culvert barriers and better flow reducing obstructions to migration in the mainstem Muck Creek. The hypothesized effect of the Centralia Diversion Dam on juvenile survival was not modified in the recovery plan; hence, no effect was seen for the Nisqually River mainstem. For the Nisqually River mainstem, although the only factor affected by the recovery plan was habitat diversity, the relative gain of this improvement was large for the population. The quantity of key habitat increased across all life stages, with Muck Creek showing the greatest benefit as a result of flow restoration.


6-11

July 2014

ICF 00153.13



Figure 6-8. Pattern of Habitat Improvement in the Nisqually Watershed by Subbasin

6.3

Conclusions and Guidance

These results will be used to help refine strategies and actions in future iterations of the action plan and to set expectations once the recovery plan is implemented. Overall, these results show a smallto-moderate improvement in habitat potential with the recovery plan as modeled in this iteration. Model results are consistent with expected benefits of fish passage. However, some results, in particular for the Mashel River, suggest the recovery plan is not realizing all of the habitat potential of the subbasin. Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs, reports a potential improvement in steelhead abundance of about 20% if habitat is restored to the historical condition (Figure 5-9), whereas improvement with recovery plan assumptions was less than 10% (Figure 6-6). The NSRT will be conducting an additional review of assumptions and will possibly consider additional strategies to realize more of this potential.

Results are affected by the same parameter uncertainty (variable inputs) described in Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs. Analysis of the recovery plan includes additional uncertainty regarding effectiveness of actions. Action effectiveness applied in the analysis is a combination of judgments as to the effectiveness of an action on environmental attributes affecting steelhead, and the intensity of an action. Intensity relates to the strength of the action as applied to a particular location. Many of the actions modeled are assumed to occur over a large portion of the watershed, and thus, intensity at a particular location is low. Better results may be possible and need to be explored by assuming that actions are focused on a particular location. Finally, another component affecting model outcomes is the time horizon for predicting benefits of restoration actions (e.g., full benefit of riparian restoration occurs over long time scales). This analysis assumed enough time for full effectiveness of an action. Riparian restoration and resulting benefits will take many years to realize. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

6-12

July 2014

ICF 00153.13

Chapter 7

Nisqually River Steelhead Management Based on the results presented in Chapters 4 – 6 and the goals in Chapter 2, a recovery strategy was developed for Nisqually River steelhead. This strategy emphasizes the following objectives: 1. Protect important habitat values and functions in the Nisqually River mainstem and Mashel River to ensure the long-‐term high productivity and capacity of the freshwater environment. 2. Restore habitat values and functions in the Mashel River to achieve productivity, capacity, and life history diversity goals for this population component and improve the overall long-‐term sustainability of the population through greater spatial diversity. 3. Restore habitat values and functions in Muck Creek and Prairie Tributaries to improve life history diversity of the population. However, a major conclusion from this analysis is steelhead recovery cannot occur without a significant improvement in marine survival. The current estimate of smolt to adult return rate of 0.5% return rate is cause for concern for the long-‐term sustainability of the population. We concluded that low marine survival, resulting in adult abundance back to the river of less than 500 adults and observed freshwater variability in spawner to adult productivity are significant risks to the anadromous portion of the population. This conclusion is consistent with the Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team conclusions for the population (Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team 2013a). The genetic preservation of the population may not be as much at risk because of the presence of wild resident rainbow trout in the watershed, suggesting a much larger effective population. However, we were concerned about the lack of information for this portion of the population and more significantly the potential to lose the anadromous portion of the population. The NSRT concluded that a steelhead conservation hatchery intervention plan should be considered to prepare for the worse-‐case scenario that adult steelhead abundance continues to decline. As well, we describe a steelhead management plan that considers future harvest opportunities as steelhead abundance recovers. Harvest goals are an important component of the recovery plan and this chapter considers strategies to support that goal. This chapter is organized into three sections. The first, Section 7.1 Hatchery Options, discusses considerations to preserve steelhead in the basin by implementing a small conservation hatchery program and other possible hatchery options. The second, Section 7.2 Harvest Management describes potential strategies and thresholds for achieving harvest goals with improvements in population abundance. Finally, Section 7.3, Conclusions, discusses long-‐term fish management strategies to achieve harvest goals without jeopardizing recovery. The material presented in this chapter is a preliminary assessment of strategies and associated benefits and risks. Development of a comprehensive fish management component to the recovery plan and implementation is an important element of the Nisqually Action plan described in Chapter 8 Implementation.


7-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


7.1

Nisqually River Steelhead Management

Hatchery Options

Hatcheries can be an important tool to preserve the genetic integrity of a population and avoid the extinction of localized populations of salmonids – i.e., Nisqually River steelhead. Conservation hatcheries bring a portion of the population into the hatchery and rear fish to juvenile or adult stage before releasing back into the environment or, in a severe case, holding fish to spawning in the hatchery (captive brood). The objectives are to preserve the genetic integrity of the population, increase natural spawning abundance, and minimize ecological interactions with wild counterparts. Hatchery intervention was shown to be a viable strategy to protect genetic integrity and benefit the wild steelhead population in Hamma Hamma River in Hood Canal (Van Doornik et al. 2010; Berejikian et al. 2008). Hatcheries, in conjunction habitat restoration, can also be an effective tool to achieve short and long-‐ term harvest goals for the Nisqually River. However, returning hatchery fish would create multiple management issues and the mixing of hatchery spawners with the wild population would likely impact long-‐term fitness of the population as is hypothesized for Nisqually Chinook (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2011). Hatchery options for Nisqually steelhead is predicated by three principles (Mobrand et al. 2005, 2014): 1. well defined goals, 2. scientific defensibility, and 3. informed decision making. These principles are central to our evaluation of hatchery options for the Nisqually River. Hatcheries are most effective to circumvent life stages with low survival. Conventional salmon and steelhead hatcheries collect adult broodstock either from hatchery returns (segregated type program) or a combination or hatchery returns and natural-‐origin adults (integrated program) and typically rear offspring in the hatchery to the beginning of ocean phase of the life cycle (smolt life stage for steelhead). This circumvents low survival in the freshwater portion of the life cycle due to habitat quality and capacity constraints and assumes post-‐release marine survival is high enough to return adults to the river at a rate that has a net benefit to the population. However, Nisqually River steelhead may be a unique case in that the freshwater phase appears to be generally very productive and the survival bottleneck is in the marine environment. This suggests a conventional hatchery approach with a smolt release would not be successful if marine survival continues to be the primary bottleneck. Furthermore, post-‐release survival of hatchery fish is typically lower than wild fish, which further compounds the impact of marine survival and success of a hatchery program. The NSRT was also concerned that variable freshwater survival could be a contributing factor to population extinction. The highly variable freshwater productivity reported in Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead could be cause for concern (however, recall freshwater productivity has only been measured for three complete brood years – see Table 4-‐12). A small conservation hatchery program would help protect the population from variable freshwater survival, again assuming marine survival is sufficient to return adults back to the river or, if not, a captive brood program that held fish to maturity.


7-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



The NSRT made a preliminary assessment of three scenarios for hatchery propagation as they relate to conservation and harvest goals for the population. A segregated type program was considered to achieve harvest goals. A captive brood or rearing to adult stage conservation program was considered to achieve conservation goals. An integrated program based on smolt release might contribute towards conservation and harvest goals. There are risks and benefits with all types of hatchery programs that need to be evaluated (Mobrand et al. 2005, 2014). The NSRT made a qualitative assessment of possible outcomes for three options for hatchery propagation: 1) a captive brood conservation program, 2) a segregated harvest program, and 3) an integrated program that could contribute to conservation and harvest goals (Table 7-‐1). We evaluated risks based on a concern for potential unintended negative consequences from excessive hatchery adults spawning with wild steelhead, prolonged hatchery influence on the population, and the removal of wild steelhead for hatchery broodstock.

Table 7-‐1. Assessment of Hatchery Options for Nisqually River Steelhead

Captive Brood

Segregated

Integrated

Purpose:

Conservation

Harvest

Conservation/Harvest

Approach:

Eggs or juveniles collected from nature; hatchery rearing to adult, release adults back to river with option to release juveniles propagated from captive brood back to river Return to nature to spawn with wild population

Develop a distinct hatchery broodstock based on hatchery returns; release at smolt stage

Initiate program using adults from wild population and over time spawn portion with returning hatchery adults; release at smolt stage

Harvest or collect nearly all hatchery return to avoid introgression with wild population pHOS (percent hatchery spawners) < 5.0%3

Harvest or collect hatchery return to achieve a PNI (proportionate natural influence) greater than 0.67

Collect eggs, juveniles, or adults from wild population in a manner that ensures representation of the wild population gene pool with low demographic risk to population.

Harvest or collection of returning adults such that very few fish escape or stray to spawn in nature

Harvest or collection of returning adults such that few spawn in nature, collection of wild adults for integrated broodstock, culture and release strategies to achieve high post-‐release survival

Disposition of Adult Return:

Program Challenges:

3 The HSRG recently evaluated the 5% pHOS criteria for segregated programs and noted this criteria may results in

unacceptable impacts to wild population fitness and even lower pHOS criteria might be established (HSRG 2014). Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

7-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Captive Brood

Segregated

Integrated

Purpose: Program Risks:

Conservation Long hatchery residence and domestication pressure, fish culture challenges with captive brood and rearing fish to adult stage

Harvest Loss of fitness of wild population with excessive introgression of segregated hatchery adults, low marine survival

Program Benefits:

Preserve genetic integrity of population and demographic boost to wild population

Contribute to harvest goals

Conservation/Harvest Loss of fitness of wild population from not meeting high PNI objective, demographic risks to population with removal of wild steelhead for broodstock, low marine survival Contribute to harvest goals and provide demographic boost to wild population

The costs, facility requirements and culture challenges of a captive brood or rearing from egg to adult type program suggest this option should only be considered if there is imminent threat of extinction of steelhead in the Nisqually River. Such a program would need to be based on tightly controlled conservation protocols to protect genetic integrity of fish collected and held in captivity, and any production to support harvest goals would need to be set aside. The strategy that would likely be most successful would be collecting eggs from natural redds and rearing fish to adult before releasing back the river (Berejikian et al 2008, Van Doornik 2010). More conventional strategies using domesticated hatchery broodstock (segregated program) or a Nisqually River integrated program would need to overcome low marine survival and broodstock management challenges (escapement composition and wild broodstock collection). Both of these strategies have significant risks to the genetic integrity of the population by reducing genetic variability or effective population size (Ryman and Laikre 1991). Selection in the hatchery would potentially affect fitness of the wild population with excessive and prolonged introgression of hatchery adults in the spawning escapement (Ford 2002; HSRG 2009). The current low abundance of wild adults increases these risks. The HSRG (2009) found in their review of hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin that hatcheries were more successful at meeting harvest goals and better able to coexist with conservation goals when wild populations were productive and abundant. Thus, an integrated program may be a future option to support harvest goals after increases in productivity and abundance following successful results from strategies to improve marine survival and protection/restoration of freshwater habitat. However, harvest would likely need to be selective on marked hatchery adults to fully realize harvest benefits and not jeopardize conservation goals.

7.2

Harvest Management

There has not been a directed tribal fishery on steelhead since winter of 1993/94. During the 1980s annual tribal steelhead harvest averaged 1,868 fish. During the same period another 1,734 fish were harvested annually by non-‐tribal fishers. Total average number of fish harvest annually was 3,600 steelhead. This harvest was on an average annual return to the river of 5,815 steelhead. The goal for the population is to restore wild population abundance back to the levels observed in the 1980s.


7-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



The Nisqually Tribe has a short-‐term goal to provide a ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) harvest (exact number of fish undetermined) and a long-‐term goal of an annual average harvest of 2,500 fish. The development of a comprehensive harvest management component to the recovery plan and implementation is an action described in Chapter 8 Implementation. This component of the plan would take into account conservation goals, run forecasting, and trends in steelhead abundance. Future steelhead management will need to consider status of population abundance, progress towards rebuilding goals, and management decisions for implementing conservation and harvest strategies. There are many possible decision rules and future conditions that need to be explored in detail. Decisions will need to be made with respect population abundance and trends. One option for future management is to use a tiered population status approach as outlined below: 

Status 0 – extreme conservation priority, run size below critical threshold causing significant concern for the long-‐term viability of steelhead in watershed



Status 1 – conservation priority, harvest is incidental during winter chum fishery and by management agreement not to exceed 10% of run (current fishery management is less than 5%)



Status 2 – conservation remains a priority but run size is sufficient to allow a directed C&S fishery. Annual harvest sufficient to meet C&S goal has not been determined, for purpose of this analysis assumed to range between 200 and 500 fish.



Status 3 – directed commercial harvest at a level that does not impede recovery and long-‐term sustainability of population. Nisqually Indian Tribe identified a 2,500 fish annual harvest as a goal for a combined C&S and commercial fishery.

We developed two sets of decision rules for these status levels to evaluate effects on population abundance and trends. The first set of rules assumes a higher abundance threshold for implementation of a conservation hatchery and lower thresholds for beginning a tribal C&S or commercial fishery. The second set of rules assumes a lower abundance threshold for implementation of a conservation hatchery and higher thresholds for beginning a tribal C&S or commercial fishery. These two sets of rules approximate scenarios with a low and high conservation emphasis for fish management, respectively. Adult abundance thresholds for the two scenarios are shown in Table 7-‐2. Rules were developed for when to move to a higher status levels and when to shift down a status level for conservation. An upward shift can occur based on the 5 year running geometric mean abundance. In order to be more responsive to declines in population abundance, we decided that two consecutive years of abundance at a lower status will move the population into that lower status, regardless of the 5 year running geometric mean. Shifting to Status Level 0 and implementing a conservation hatchery may require a different, more conservative rule before taking that step. We emphasize that run size thresholds and harvest rates for the low and high conservation scenarios in Table 7-‐2 were developed to explore possible management strategies with changing run size. Other decision rules and scenarios would need be developed and evaluated as the fish management plan is developed and recovery plan is implemented.

Status 1 is the current condition and Status 0 represents a condition of high extinction risk. Status 2 and 3 are expected outcomes of a successful Nisqually watershed recovery plan and Puget Sound-‐ wide steelhead recovery plan to improve marine survival.


7-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Table 7-‐2. Fish Management Thresholds for Two Scenarios Used to Explore Harvest Opportunities for Nisqually River Steelhead Run Size Population Status Status 0 – Run size below critical level Status 1 – Low run size Status 2 – Building run Status 3 – Abundant stable run

Low Conservation

High Conservation

3,000

Management Strategy Implement conservation hatchery to preserve population genetic integrity No directed harvest on steelhead, harvest rate of 5% during winter chum fishery C&S tribal fish, 200 – 500 annual catch (10% harvest rate) Directed tribal commercial and C&S fishery with annual goal of 2,500 fish harvest (45% harvest rate)

The conservation scenarios were explored using a simple three stage, age structured, population simulation model with a 100-‐year simulation period. Model results were evaluated for effect on run size, harvest, and escapement. The three stages used in the simulation are: 1) spawner to smolt, 2) smolt to adult back to river, and 3) adult in-‐river migration back to spawning. Assumptions are entered for the Beverton-‐Holt productivity and capacity parameters for spawner to smolt and adult in-‐river migration. Smolt to adult marine survival was entered as a single density-‐independent survival rate. Random stochastic variation in spawner to smolt and smolt to adult survival was simulated with independent random variables and a log-‐normal distribution. Cyclic variations in marine survival to mimic periods of low and high marine survival were not included in the simulation. It is unclear how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Nino-‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) might affect Nisqually steelhead marine survival. These patterns of Pacific climate variability affect ocean food webs related to the marine survival of salmon (Mantua et al. 1997; Mantua and Mote 2001) and may affect run size forecasting and steelhead management in the Nisqually River. Finally, results for the two conservation scenarios evaluated assumed the same pattern of random variation for freshwater and marine survival. The simulations started with current condition assumptions (see Chapter 5) for freshwater recruitment, a 1% marine survival, and assumed a steady progression (25 years) towards improved freshwater productivity and capacity predictions reported in Chapter 6 (Recovery Strategies) and a 5% marine survival. We did not evaluate a scenario representing declining freshwater or marine survival and hatchery intervention. We first need to detail hatchery methods, in-‐hatchery survival, and post-‐release survival before we can evaluate a meaningful intervention scenario. Results for the Low and High Conservation scenarios are presented in Table 7-‐3 and Figure 7-‐1. The effect of different thresholds assumed for the two scenarios were evaluated for run size, catch, and escapement. Both scenarios have the same random variation in freshwater and marine survival. The only differences between these scenarios are the thresholds for transitions between status levels. The assumption of improving freshwater and marine survival is obvious in Figure 7-‐1 as run increased steadily to year 25. This may represent an optimistic prediction of future conditions and has a significant effect on model projections. There was a quicker shift to Status 3 (commercial fishery) with Low Conservation rules compared to the High Conservation simulation, consistent with the lower threshold (>3,000 run versus 4,500 run, respectively). The run was in Status 3 81% Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

7-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



of the time with Low Conservation rules versus 52% of the time with High Conservation rules (Table 7-‐3). The High Conservation rules forced the run back to Status 2 at several points during the 100 year simulation as evidenced by catch (Figure 7-‐1). Mean catch for Status 3 ranged from 1,197 to 3,195 steelhead with a mean catch of 2,153 steelhead. The more conservative rules resulted in higher catch in Status 3, range 1,715 to 3,377 and mean catch of 2,342 steelhead. However, overall catch across years was less with the more conservative rules because the run was in Status 3 less often.

Table 7-‐3. Results for Low and High Conservation Scenario Simulations Management Phase

Status 0

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

# Years

0

8

12

81

Run to River Mean

704

2,318

4,784

Minimum Maximum

559 992

1,228 3,660

2,660 7,099

Mean Minimum

35 28

232 123

2,153 1,197

Maximum

50

366

3,195

Spawning Escapement a Mean

514

1,579

2,041

Minimum Maximum

395 729

851 2,453

1,159 2,947

# Years

0

13

36

52

Run to River

Mean Minimum Maximum

1,063 559 2,013

4,088 1,918 5,818

5,203 3,810 7,505

Catch

Mean

53

409

2,342

Minimum Maximum

28 101

192 582

1,715 3,377

Spawning Escapement a

Mean Minimum Maximum

771 395 1,431

2,763 1,325 3,833

2,210 1,651 3,099

Low Conservation Scenario

Catch

High Conservation Scenario

a Spawning escapement = Run to River minus Harvest minus migration/prespawn natural mortality


7-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Figure 7-‐1. Results Low and High Conservation Scenarios for Run to River and Catch (top) and Spawning Escapement (bottom)


7-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



The Low Conservation rules resulted in lower mean spawning escapement across all status levels (Table 7-‐3). The range in spawning escapement when the population was in Status 3 was less with the more conservative rules (1,448 versus 1,788). This was because of the more conservative rules moved the population to Status 2 more often. There was a greater range in spawning escapement when the population was in Status 2 with the more conservative rules. This was a response to scaling back harvest to protect escapement when the previous 2 years were below the Status 3 threshold. Population productivity was high with marine survival averaging 5%, such that the population recovered quickly from low escapements in both scenarios. The diverse freshwater and marine age structure of the population also helped to stabilize population abundance as freshwater and marine survival varied. Although these fishery scenarios are very speculative and should only be used to explore two hypothetical management regimes, results from these simulations are encouraging and suggest an approach to steelhead management in response to changing productivity and abundance.

7.3

Conclusions

The NSRT concluded the preferred option for the short-‐term is to focus planning and resources towards understanding and improving marine survival and protection and restoration of freshwater habitat. More evaluation is needed to develop a robust fish management plan for Nisqually steelhead. Material presented in this chapter is a preliminary assessment of challenges and risks/benefits of some hatchery options. Chapter 8 Implementation discusses in more detail components of the recovery plan intended to improve upon this analysis and develop a fish management component to the recovery plan.


7-‐9

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

 

Chapter 8

Implementation The successful recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead depends on addressing all of the factors contributing to population declines through a comprehensive strategy that considers all sources of mortality, protection of intact functional habitat, and restoration of degraded conditions. The NSRT will implement the recovery plan by focusing on a recovery strategy that emphasizes protection and process-based habitat restoration as the highest priorities and uses the information developed herein to focus efforts on the habitat attributes and ecological concerns, life-history stages, and geographic locations with the greatest potential for benefiting Nisqually winter steelhead. Implementation of the recovery plan will focus on the following items.  







The goals and objectives developed by the NSRT (Chapter 2, Recovery Goals and Objectives).

The principal threats to winter steelhead productivity, abundance, and life-history diversity (Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs).

The consequent suite of process-based habitat protection and recovery strategies (Chapter 6, Habitat Recovery Strategies) and the prioritization of those habitat protection and recovery strategies.

Strategies for ensuring population stability in the face of low abundance and consequent extinction risk and strategies for providing harvest, while supporting abundance consistent with population recovery (Chapter 7, Fish Management).

Implementation of an adaptive-management framework to address data gaps, manage uncertainty, and incorporate new information, while simultaneously proceeding with recovery implementation.

Analysis of adult and juvenile abundance and recruitment presented in Chapter 4, Nisqually River Steelhead, strongly indicates marine survival is a significant factor in the decline of Nisqually River steelhead. Although most of this plan is focused on freshwater habitat conditions, restoration and protection priorities, and monitoring in the Nisqually watershed, the NSRT has a strong interest in findings and recommendations from the research plan developed by the Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup (Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup 2014).

8.1

Strategic Objectives for Recovery

Implementation of the recovery plan focuses on achieving the strategic recovery objectives articulated in Chapter 2, Recovery Goals and Objectives, which in turn help achieve the long- and short-term conservation and harvest goals for winter steelhead. Implementation of the recovery plan focuses on three main categories of recovery objectives that reflect the essential components and overlapping scales at which recovery needs to occur.   

Habitat objectives

Fish-management objectives

Monitoring and adaptive-management objectives


8-1

July 2014

ICF 00153.13


8.1.1

Implementation

Habitat Objectives

Habitat objectives are intended to support both the long-‐ and short-‐term conservation goals. These objectives will be achieved through an improved understanding of marine survival issues and implementing priority freshwater restoration and protection strategies. Such activities include continuing to promote the habitat restoration and protection activities identified for Chinook salmon that also benefit steelhead, in addition to activities intended to better understand critical data gaps regarding factors affecting marine survival and to improve smolt-‐to-‐adult survival of Nisqually steelhead. Implementation of the recovery plan focuses on the following specific activities: 

Identify habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement actions from the fall Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan that are also relevant to steelhead. Use this new list of overlapping actions to prioritize and implement actions to achieve recovery goals for both species and secure recovery funding.



Identify habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement actions unique to steelhead, and develop a method for incorporating habitat restoration actions with a focus on steelhead into the Nisqually-‐wide salmon recovery portfolio of actions.



Identify how findings of regional marine survival research are relevant to the recovery of Nisqually steelhead.



Support the incorporation of findings of marine survival research into a Puget Sound-‐wide steelhead recovery plan. Implement strategies with the greatest likelihood to improve smolt-‐to-‐ adult survival, including indirect benefits through an ecosystem approach to recovery.



Support the development and implementation of actions to improve marine survival at scales relevant to the Nisqually Demographically Independent Population (DIP) specifically, and the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) as a whole.

8.1.2

Fish-‐Management Objectives

Fish-‐management objectives are intended to support both the long-‐ and short-‐term harvest goals and ensure fishery-‐related mortality does not impede recovery. Fish-‐management objectives also include the need to ensure short-‐ and long-‐term population genetic diversity and viability. Implementation of the recovery plan will work to achieve clearly defined management plans guiding steelhead harvest levels and resident rainbow population management. Implementation of the recovery plan focuses on the following specific activities: 

Develop and implement a winter steelhead management plan to guide future sustainable harvest, including escapement targets, and thresholds for indirect and targeted harvest.



Develop and implement a resident rainbow trout management plan to guide resident fish harvest and incidental mortality of juvenile steelhead encountered in the fishery.



Develop and implement a hatchery rainbow trout stocking plan in lakes to reduce potential genetic and ecological impacts on steelhead and resident rainbow trout.



Develop a steelhead hatchery conservation plan and criteria necessary to protect population genetic diversity and viability.


8-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


8.1.3

Implementation

Monitoring and Adaptive-‐Management Objectives

Monitoring and adaptive-‐management objectives are intended to integrate steelhead recovery efforts with other salmonid recovery efforts in the watershed, to track the effectiveness of steelhead recovery efforts, and to address the data gaps identified in the recovery plan. Implementation of the recovery plan focuses on the following specific activities: 1. Develop a monitoring program that will describe the population sufficiently to ensure progress toward goals, or lack thereof, if detected. The program will include such elements as: a.

Estimates of adult steelhead run size, escapement, and total brood year adult recruits.

b. Estimates of juvenile outmigrants and annual smolt-‐to-‐adult survival estimates. c.

Monitoring habitat status and trends.

2. Incorporate winter steelhead into the existing Nisqually River adaptive-‐management framework developed for fall Chinook, including APR workshops. 3. Incorporate winter steelhead threat analysis and recovery strategies into the Puget Sound Partnership’s M&AM project data structure that is based on the Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team’s (PSRITT) Common Framework. 4. Complete and implement recommendations of an assessment of the resident and anadromous genetic resource in the Nisqually River watershed, including O. mykiss upstream of the dams. 5. Complete a hatchery rainbow trout stocking program review and evaluation of their potential impact on wild winter steelhead. 6. Assess nanophyetus impacts on steelhead survival upon marine entry. 7. Identify landscape-‐scale pressures that are causing habitat degradation and include strategies to reduce or mitigate these pressures in the implementation of habitat actions.

8.2

Winter Steelhead Action Plan

The winter steelhead action plan has been developed to address the key threats to winter steelhead recovery in the Nisqually watershed, and to implement the components identified herein to meet the habitat, fish management, and monitoring and adaptive-‐management objectives identified by the NSRT. A key conclusion by the NSRT is that core freshwater areas supporting Nisqually wild steelhead are highly functional and need to remain that way if steelhead are to persist in the watershed. That is not to say habitat condition is good in all of these core areas. The NSRT was concerned that historical floodplain encroachment has altered the mainstem Nisqually River in portion of the Whitewater, Wilcox, and McKenna reaches. The NSRT did not find evidence to suggest additional encroachment has occurred since the Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan was developed, the concern was the amount of protected shoreline in these reaches is low and future development in the watershed may put key areas at risk. The Mashel watershed is the second largest supporter of steelhead in the watershed and the NSRT was concerned of several threats to habitat in this watershed. The NSRT saw an opportunity to work with stakeholders to ensure the Nisqually-‐Mashel State Park Management Plan is developed in a Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

way to protect high quality habitat and promote restoration. Much of the Mashel watershed is in commercial forest lands. The NSRT recognized the importance to keep these areas for timber harvest, but was concerned that as new stands of timber reach marketable size that future harvest may reverse some of the recovery that has occurred in the watershed following the last period of intensive harvest. The NSRT saw an opportunity to work with stakeholders developing a community forest initiative for the upper Mashel River watershed. This initiative would include protection (identify areas in the watershed to manage for conservation), restoration (repair damage from past timber practices), and sustainable low-‐impact timber harvest. The Prairie Tributaries generally originate from rural and more urban areas of the watershed. Our analysis suggests these streams individually are not large producers of steelhead. However, these streams can help support a more diverse population than at present. Portions of many of these streams have been ditched and riparian vegetation removed over many years. These streams are at risk of additional loss of flow from change in land cover and groundwater extraction. Long-‐term it may be difficult to restore many of these streams. The NSRT concluded more work is needed to better understand their potential and to identify some priority streams for protection and restoration. The NSRT knew less about Lackamas, Toboton, and Powell Creeks than most other streams in the basin. These streams may have more potential to support steelhead recovery than other tributaries in the watershed because of their more rural location, which suggests a higher likelihood for restoration. Alternatively, increased development in these drainages would put these streams at risk. The long-‐term outlook for Muck Creek suggests a worsening of low flow issues in the basin if land use patterns continue to move toward a more developed urban landscape. At present there is some information suggesting low flow conditions have worsened in the last 10 to 20 years. The lack of long-‐term monitoring in this basin is a hindrance to better understanding land use and climate impacts on flow. The positives are that Joint Base Lewis-‐McChord will be developing an ESA species management plan that will include actions to protect and support recovery of steelhead in Muck Creek. Historical channel alterations, invasive reed-‐canary grass, and low flow are significant challenges to improving habitat in Muck Creek upstream of the Canyon reaches. Harvest threats to Nisqually steelhead are low. Terminal-‐area-‐directed fisheries on steelhead have been eliminated. Low numbers of steelhead have, in the past, curtailed fisheries on other species resulting in lost harvest opportunities. The NSRT discussed the potential impact of the resident native trout sport fishery (sport fishing for rainbow trout and cutthroat trout allowed in anadromous waters); the concern was the incidental harvest of juvenile steelhead at this popular fishery. The fishery for hatchery rainbow trout is isolated to two lakes in the watershed. The NSRT concluded that a review was warranted to ensure the trout plants and fisheries were not impeding recovery and develop a management plan to maintain the native trout and hatchery trout fisheries. There are two hydroelectric developments located on the Nisqually River: the Nisqually Project and the Yelm Project. The Nisqually Project is upstream of the presumed historical winter steelhead range (although summer steelhead may have been present, the NSRT chose to not evaluate that potential). Effects of the Nisqually Project are the retention of coarse and fine sediment and wood upstream of the dams. The reservoirs are operated to reduce flooding in the lower basin. The NSRT did not have information to ascertain the potential impact of reduced peak flows along with retention of sediment and wood on mainstem habitat downstream of the project. The Yelm Project includes a flow diversion structure, a bypass canal leading to the powerhouse, and a bypass reach on the mainstem Nisqually River. The NSRT was concerned that at the dam steelhead juveniles may be Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

entrained in the flow diversion structure and enter the canal or may be subject to greater predation in the fish bypass structure at the dam. Concern was also expressed that reduced flows in the bypass reach may have an impact on egg incubation or juvenile survival at certain times of the year.

8.2.1

Application of Steelhead Common Framework

The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery: A Framework for the Development of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans (Common Framework) was developed by the Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team in 2013 to provide a formal monitoring and adaptive-‐management framework for assessing Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery. The Common Framework is intended to help salmon recovery managers formalize their local-‐scale monitoring and adaptive-‐ management plans using a common approach. The Common Framework was developed using concepts taken from the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Open Standards) (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013). Open Standards is a scalable, adaptable system that is widely used to design, manage, and monitor conservation projects using several interrelated categories of information or “elements.” 

Ecosystem components: Species, habitats, or ecological processes that are chosen to represent and encompass the full suite of biodiversity in the project area for place-‐based conservation.



Key ecological attributes: Patterns of biological structure and composition, ecological processes, environmental regimes, and other environmental constraints necessary for an ecosystem component to persist.



Pressures: Factors or actions that deliver direct stresses to ecosystem components.



Stresses: Altered or degraded key ecological attributes.



Strategies: A group of actions with a common focus designed to achieve specific objectives and goals. Strategies are focused on reducing pressures and stresses.

These elements function as building blocks of conceptual models that describe the relationships between strategies, pressures on ecosystem components, and recovery goals and objectives to determine what restoration or conservation actions are likely to be most effective. Open Standards (and therefore, the Common Framework) uses the companion software program Miradi™ to create graphical depictions of these conceptual models. The Common Framework was initially developed to support Chinook salmon recovery, but Chinook and steelhead and their habitat share many of the same ecosystem components, key ecological attributes, pressures, and stresses. The adaptation of the Common Framework for steelhead involves identifying the differences between the life histories of Chinook and steelhead and their differing use of certain habitat types. A steelhead adaptation of the Common Framework was developed through collaboration between the Hood Canal Steelhead Recovery Panning effort and the Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Plan development effort. Adaptation of the Common Framework for steelhead consisted of two main steps. 1. Dividing or consolidating ecosystem components to more accurately and efficiently describe steelhead habitat needs. 2. Revising the life stages and their respective key ecological attributes to reflect steelhead’s longer freshwater residence and more diverse suite of life histories. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

The salmon and salmon habitat information entered into the Common Framework yields several types of data products. Conceptual models describe the relationships between pressures, stresses, the components’ key ecological attributes, and the components themselves. Results chains are constructed using the relationships developed for conceptual models and they show how broad strategies and their constituent actions are intended to reduce pressures, and consequently, improve the health of one or more components. The conceptual model’s indicators of the pressures’ impacts and a key ecological attribute’s health allow conceptual models to display and track a component’s general health and a pressure’s degree of impact over time. The various Common Framework data products will be useful in implementing the recovery plan’s adaptive-‐management framework and the Nisqually Indian Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources’ APR process. The Common Framework and Open Standards are also planned to become critical elements of the Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery 3-‐Year Work Plan review and project selection and funding decision-‐making process. The Common Framework is currently being applied to Nisqually Chinook recovery as part of the Puget Sound Partnership’s M&AM project structure. Most of the work underway for the M&AM Project applies to steelhead. A portfolio of elements (i.e., a conceptual model minus the relationships) is being finalized by the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Hood Canal Steelhead Recovery Planning project staff. Once the portfolio of elements is finalized, connections between pressures and stresses and the steelhead components according to the findings of the Nisqually steelhead EDT analysis conducted will be developed, as part of this recovery plan. Once the connections are made the recovery actions outlined in this plan can be grouped into strategies and used to develop results chains that lay out the overarching steps necessary to implement the recovery plan’s recommendations. Finally, indicators will be developed for pressure impacts and key ecological attribute health. Please see Appendix D, Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, for the most current version of the Common Framework and Nisqually steelhead data products that are currently available.

8.2.2

Implementation Strategy Framework

The overarching hierarchical framework used in this recovery plan for organizing recommended projects and actions emphasizes protection and process-‐based restoration as the highest priority, followed by habitat enhancement including instream wood and engineered channels, as necessary, to achieve recovery objectives. This process-‐based hierarchical framework follows that originally presented by Roni et al. (2002) and is based on three elements: 1) using the principles of watershed processes, 2) protecting and maintaining functional habitat to slow or stop further degradation, and 3) using current knowledge of the effectiveness of specific restoration techniques. Once the details of board actions identified in the recovery plan are more fully developed, the NSRT will evaluate these specific projects using a prioritization process that asks the following questions: 1) is the project well matched with geographic area priorities for protection or restoration, 2) does the project address priority watershed processes and features, 3) is the project consistent with overall sequencing and matched with other projects, and 4) how much community support is there for this project or will the project lead to greater community support? The framework is consistent with the approach to prioritization outlined in Beechie et al. (2008). This combines a simple scoring system that incorporates a variety of common evaluation criteria with the multiparameter evaluation of the Nisqually winter steelhead population in EDT (Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs). This approach integrates the criteria that are typically considered Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

when evaluating the relative merits of possible restoration projects and actions with the relative degree of potential benefit to the particular winter steelhead life-‐history stages using the mainstem and various tributary habitats in the Nisqually watershed. This type of scoring system allows projects to be compared based on total score and/or component scores (e.g., geographic priority, project type, or community support). The NSRT uses this system to provide 1) transparency because the criteria and scores used to rank the projects are clearly presented, and 2) flexibility because the criteria can be modified to address changes in restoration goals, species needs or population status, socioeconomic conditions, or societal priorities. The disadvantages of this type of scoring system are that there is subjectivity and professional judgment in choosing the criteria, developing equivalency across multiple criteria, determining if any criteria should be weighted and by how much, and assigning component scores to projects and actions. To counter these disadvantages, the NSRT intends to vet the EDT effects analysis (including uncertainty) and the criteria, scores, and project ranks to ensure the scores are logical and reflect a general consensus among the team. A key component to success and the project prioritization process will be assessments across a variety of scales. The NSRT will use these assessments to identify landscape-‐scale pressures and appropriate restoration strategies to best achieve habitat objectives identified from the EDT analysis. The NSRT anticipates that these assessments will provide information on how well a particular project addresses priority watershed processes and features and project sequencing. Assessments and how they will be used are described in more detail in Section 7.3.2.

8.2.3

Priority Recovery Actions for Steelhead Recovery

Based on the EDT results presented in Chapter 5, Restoration and Protection Needs, and Chapter 6, Habitat Recovery Strategies, the NSRT developed a series of priority actions for the recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead. Once the NSRT has completed a review and updated prioritization criteria such as those described above, the next step in implementing the recovery plan is to prioritize candidate actions within each category and across all categories in a prioritization matrix. Appendix C, Tables C-‐1 through C-‐9 present the protection, restoration, societal (i.e., regulatory barriers, policy support, and community behavior), assessment, and monitoring/evaluation components that will be implemented under the action plan. The nature and objectives of these actions are presented below, organized based on the framework of protection, process-‐based restoration, and habitat enhancement. Appendix C also presents the specific objectives and geographic areas identified for each of these recovery implementation components.

Protection Priorities for Acquisition Appendix C, Table C-‐1 outlines priorities identified for property acquisition to ensure long-‐term protection of high-‐quality habitats in the mainstem and tributaries and to protect and enhance hydrology and water quality for the benefit of winter steelhead. The following priorities for protection through property acquisition will be pursued under the recovery plan: 1. Currently unprotected riparian and floodplain along the mainstem of the river. 2. Currently unprotected, high-‐priority tributary riparian and floodplain (e.g., Mashel River) and unprotected areas of tributaries to support existing protection acquisitions (e.g., lower Ohop Creek). Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

3. Wetlands that have a significant influence on stream conditions important to steelhead that are at risk of development. 4. Headwater springs and wetlands of McAllister Creek.

Protection Priorities to Maintain and Enhance Existing Commitments Appendix C, Table C-‐2 outlines the priorities identified to maintain and enhance existing commitments to habitat protection. Maintaining and enhancing these commitments will protect opportunities for restoration of riparian, instream, and floodplain conditions; promote awareness of the paramount importance of protection of functioning habitat; and facilitate the potential for increased protection of steelhead habitat in the mainstem and tributaries. Protection priorities were identified based on the identification of core steelhead population areas and areas that currently exhibit features and resources indicative of functional riverine processes, including extensive acres of riparian forest and floodplain engagement. The following existing commitments will be maintained and enhanced under the recovery plan. 1. Nisqually-‐Mashel State Park 2. U.S. Department of Defense/Joint Base Lewis-‐McCord 3. Tacoma Public Utilities and City of Centralia 4. County and city government protections of publically owned shorelines 5. Nisqually Indian Tribe permanent protections on reservation lands along the mainstem of the river

Restoration Priorities to Restore Watershed Processes and Restore Fish Passage Appendix C, Tables C-‐3 and C-‐4 outline priorities identified for restoration of watershed processes, including removal of barriers to fish passage, sediment transport, and transport of large woody material to ensure long-‐term restoration of riverine functions. These priorities center on restoring native riparian plant communities, improved composition and quantity of large woody material recruitment to streams, improved stream shading, reduced sediment delivery to streams, and increased development and engagement of side channel habitats and floodplain channels. The following watershed restoration priority actions will be pursued under the recovery plan. 1. Shoreline stewardship workshops for local residents to promote healthy floodplain and riparian habitats. 2. Improve degraded riparian areas along the mainstem in the Lower Reach, Whitewater, and McKenna reaches. 3. Implement a watershed-‐wide riparian invasive plant control program through the Nisqually River Cooperative Weed Management Area working group. 4. Revegetate the former Mock City site on Joint Base Lewis-‐McCord along the Whitewater reach. 5. Develop Nisqually/Mashel Community Forestry initiative to address riparian buffers, road networks, and upland timber harvest, especially in areas with potential downstream impacts (such as altered sediment and flow).


8-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

6. Encourage and implement voluntary restoration opportunities to address sedimentation problems from existing roads as identified in the Mashel Watershed Analysis (Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996) and the Ohop/Tanwax/Powell Watershed Analysis (Nisqually Indian Tribe 1998). 7. Develop and implement farm plans to address loss or degradation of aquatic habitats. 8. Restore lost off-‐channel habitat (e.g., floodplain channels and ponds) and enhance existing habitats along Nisqually mainstem. 9. Restore active channel river meanders belt and natural channel configuration. 10. Prioritize and replace fish-‐passage barriers in the anadromous portion of the watershed with structures that pass juvenile and adult fish and instream wood.

Restoration Priorities for Habitat Enhancement Appendix C, Table C-‐5 outlines restoration priorities identified to support habitat enhancement to increase the quantity of pools and pool complexity and to increase the contribution of marine-‐ derived nutrients to stream productivity. The following restoration priorities for habitat enhancement will be pursued under the recovery plan. 1. Transport logs from above the Alder/La Grande dams downstream to the Nisqually mainstem to supplement large wood material recruitment to mainstem reaches. 2. Placement of instream large wood (either individual pieces or aggregations) in the mainstem Nisqually River and side channels. 3. Placement of instream wood (either individual pieces or aggregations) in the tributaries. 4. Continue program to distribute hatchery carcasses as nutrient source in headwater tributaries and upper mainstem reaches.

Priorities for Development and Implementation of Area Restoration Plans Appendix C, Table C-‐6 outlines priorities for development and implementation of area restoration plans to restore channel form, streamflow, riparian condition, and channel complexity. The following priorities for development and implementation of area restoration plans will be pursued under the recovery plan. 1. Implement the final phases of Lower Ohop Creek Restoration Plan to re-‐elevate 4.4 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain with its original meander pattern and to revegetate 400 acres of surrounding floodplain and wetlands. 2. Continue and expand Mashel River Restoration Plan. 3. Advance and implement the Nisqually Lower Reach (Nisqually 2a) Restoration Plan to address degraded habitat in the lower mainstem upstream of I-‐5. 4. Develop and implement a Muck Creek Restoration plan to remove or reduce impacts of reed canary grass, restore hydrology in Muck Creek, and to restore Muck Creek wetlands. 5. Implement 2014 Eatonville Stormwater Comprehensive Management Plan project and monitor the results on Lynch Creek and Mashel River peak flows and low flows. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐9

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

Priorities to Address Regulatory Barriers, Policy Support, and Community Behavior Appendix C, Table C-‐7 outlines priorities identified to address regulations, policies, and practices that impede or adversely affect steelhead recovery in the watershed. These priorities will focus on communicating and coordinating objectives and activities, ensuring activities are consistent with steelhead recovery goals, protecting tributary, floodplain, and wetland habitats, and fostering community stewardship and a sense of community responsibility for steelhead recovery and environmental protection of the Nisqually River watershed. The following priorities to address regulations, policies, and practices that impede or adversely affect steelhead recovery will be pursued under the recovery plan. 1. Identify and address local government (i.e., Pierce County, Thurston County, Eatonville, Roy, and Yelm) regulations, policies, and practices to protect and restore ecological functions in stream corridor and upland areas. 2. Maintain long-‐term forest zone designation for all current commercial forest lands. 3. Provide incentives to small forest landowners in and above the anadromous zone to maintain land in timber use and the sustainable harvest rotation on timber lands timber. 4. Develop a basin-‐wide management policy on beaver-‐dam removal; develop a policy that weighs fish-‐passage benefits of removal versus loss of key rearing and wetland habitat associated with removal of beaver dams. 5. Encourage community support for shoreline habitat protection and restoration by private landowners on their properties. 6. Encourage land use practices that are “friendly” to stream habitats by private landowners in the watershed. 7. Foster a Nisqually River watershed community that is sustainable and supportive of salmon and steelhead recovery. 8. Support implementation of and updates to the Nisqually River Council's Nisqually Watershed Stewardship plan. 9. Support funding of Puget Sound Marine Survival Research Plan and encourage regional collaboration, policy and technical coordination, and information sharing to benefit steelhead recovery efforts.

8.3

Adaptive Management during Recovery

Successful recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead requires that the knowledge and data gathered—as the various recovery plan priority actions are implemented—be incorporated back into the recovery process to refine restoration, protection, and harvest actions and priorities. This process is commonly termed adaptive management and involves conducting assessments to close key data gaps, cycling the knowledge thus gained back into actions and priorities in the watershed and using monitoring and evaluation to steer implementation of the recovery plan toward the most successful actions. Our understanding of ecosystems and their response to interventions is inevitably incomplete, and our ability to measure progress toward goals, in an accurate and timely fashion, is limited. Adaptive management provides the means to proceed with implementation of recovery plans and actions, Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐10

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

while managing and containing risks due to uncertainties and data gaps. Adaptive management provides the flexibility necessary to address uncertainty and risk by using well-‐designed monitoring and evaluation programs to inform the replacement of unsuccessful strategies and unobtainable goals and objectives with those consistent with data, experience, and project performance. By carefully constructing and documenting the initial working hypotheses, the NSRT will work to continually check the hypotheses against new data and to distinguish stochastic variation and interannual environmental fluctuations from underlying actual changes in population metrics. Climate change will likely complicate this interpretation, but the continuous process of adaptive management provides a mechanism to continually reassess and adjust the recovery plan as warranted to maintain progress toward Nisqually winter steelhead recovery.

8.3.1

Data Gaps

At multiple steps through the process to develop this recovery plan the NSRT found incomplete information or no information to base their decisions. These gaps in our knowledge were identified and most were listed in the action plan under the Assessment section and the Research, Monitoring and Evaluation section of the plan (Appendix C, Tables C-‐8 and C-‐9). These assessments and RM&E priorities are listed in the following sections. Data gaps are organized into four categories and the following highlights some of the more significant gaps under each category.

8.3.1.1

Habitat

Habitat data collected for the Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan has focused on key Chinook habitats (e.g., Nisqually River estuary). Our review of available information for tributaries and some portions of the mainstem discovered gaps that a more comprehensive monitoring program should address. Monitoring data from Muck Creek is lacking, and long-‐term monitoring of flow in Muck Creek has not occurred. There were habitat surveys and inventories conducted for Joint Base Lewis-‐McChord (May 2002) and Pierce County (Pierce County 2005) that described habitat as it existed at the time of these assessments. Some observational data regarding recent trends in flow and habitat suggested that conditions might be worsening in the subbasin. In the Mashel River, long-‐term monitoring of water temperature has occurred and some new information was available specific to restoration projects in lower Mashel. Habitat assessment work occurred in the upper Mashel in the 1990s as part of a watershed analysis, which informed the upper basin’s description of channel stability, sediment, and wood. The NSRT recommends more monitoring in that portion of the basin to better understand the basin’s potential for steelhead and to evaluate trends in these attributes as they relate to recent logging activities. Finally, knowledge of marine habitats and factors affecting marine survival are large gaps in our knowledge. Fortunately, work is currently underway to address this gap and the Nisqually is a key component of those study plans. The NSRT stresses the need to continue this work and remain involved as new information is produced that can lead to recovery actions to improve survival.

8.3.1.2

Biological Data

The outmigrant trap operated by WDFW and resulting estimates of smolt abundance, size and age composition greatly helped in development of our recovery plan. This information will be extremely valuable in the future as we monitor freshwater productivity and abundance. The 1 year of low Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐11

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

abundance and low smolts per spawner raised multiple questions within the NSRT as to the validity of the estimate and adult escapement estimates. The possibility that smolt recruitment could vary to the extent observed prompted the NSRT to consider other data that may help better understand variation in freshwater recruitment. Juvenile monitoring data during freshwater residence may help explore these questions. A data gap that may be related is the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss. The NSRT hypothesized based, in part on some observations, that resident trout are abundant in the Nisqually River mainstem. The NSRT wanted more information on their relationship to anadromous fish. Adult age composition in the return is a significant data gap affecting our ability to evaluate brood year recruitment back to adult and smolt to adult survival rates. WDFW and NIT updated the escapement methods in 2004 for the mainstem Nisqually. In recent years, all mainstem and lower Mashel River redds are mapped to better evaluate escapement in the mainstem. These revisions greatly improved our understanding of escapement abundance and distribution. The NSRT recommended additional review of methods and expansion of survey efforts to improve escapement estimates for the watershed.

8.3.1.3

Hydropower

The Nisqually River Project affects peak flows and routing of sediment and wood from the upper watershed. The NSRT was not able to evaluate potential impacts of this project on mainstem habitats because of a lack of data. The NSRT recommends a geomorphic assessment of the mainstem to better understand the potential for long-‐term impacts of reduced peak flow and storage of sediment upstream of the La Grande/Alder Dam complex on mainstem channel function and form. The N SRT did not have information on risk of impingement and entrainment into the diversion canal of juvenile steelhead at the Yelm Project. The analysis assumed a loss of small fish at the project, but information to support this hypothesis w as lacking. Furthermore, w ithin the Nisqually R iver bypass reach there w as some concern by the N SRT that low flow and flow management m ay affect juvenile steelhead and steelhead redds. Information w as not available to better evaluate these potential impacts. In this case, the analysis used to support the recovery plan does not assume an impact in the m ainstem bypass reach. Information w as also not available to assess impacts on adults at the Yelm Project. The N SRT concluded there could be a slight impact on upstream m igration related to adult steelhead’s ability to navigate up the fish ladder or jump over the dam itself.

8.3.2

Assessment Needs

By better identifying the restoration actions that will best restore habitat capacity, quality, and diversity and which of those actions will most improve the productivity, abundance, and diversity of Nisqually winter steelhead, watershed assessments can improve the recovery plan’s effectiveness. Watershed assessments targeting key data gaps can help link land use and habitat quality and habitat quality and biological responses in such a way that restoration actions can be identified and transparently prioritized (Beechie et al. 2008). Successful implementation of the recovery plan requires assessments across a variety of scales to fill the data gaps identified in Section 7.3.1, Data Gaps. Assessments also serve to increase information regarding the impacts of human activities at a watershed scale and the magnitude of restoration Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐12

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

actions necessary to correct or at least reduce those impacts (Beechie et al. 2008). Field assessments also serve to help refine information regarding which habitat changes are having the most significant effects on Nisqually winter steelhead. A series of assessments has been identified to address threats and data gaps related to summer base flow, winter peak flow, hydrology, water quality, aquifer recharge, and restoration of natural channel processes. Appendix C, Table C-‐8 presents the following assessments that have been identified to address data gaps and support adaptive implementation of the recovery plan. 1. Assess alternative water sources for Eatonville to potentially increase summer base flow in the Mashel River. 2. Assess the effects of future growth on hydrology and water quality in the watershed, including potential impacts of well withdrawals from aquifer on summer base flows. 3. Assess the shifting water source for Yelm from the Yelm aquifer to the deep Nisqually aquifer to potentially improve base flows in Yelm Creek. 4. Complete a study of Muck Creek hydrology to potentially enhance streamflow in Muck Creek during periods when steelhead would access and spawn. 5. Assess impacts of forest roads and vegetation changes on streamflow using updated techniques to better evaluate the past practices and guide future forestry practices in the forested lands of the basin. 6. Assess potential for former clay mining operations along Twenty-‐Five Mile Creek and Ohop Creeks to cause downstream sedimentation issues in Ohop Lake and Ohop Creek. 7. Complete an assessment for the lower Nisqually River to identify potential restoration actions for improving instream habitat and reconnect floodplain habitats in lower Nisqually River upstream of I-‐5. 8. Assess the benefits and feasibility of removing I-‐5 fill from the lower Nisqually River and estuary. 9. Complete a geomorphic assessment of hydrology, sediment dynamics, and channel processes in the Nisqually River mainstem. 10. Complete a geomorphic assessment of sediment load/channel stability in Busywild Creek to identify restoration actions.

8.3.3

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Needs

Successful implementation of the recovery plan also requires research, monitoring, and evaluation across a variety of scales to track population and habitat recovery progress and to feed the adaptive-‐ management process of refining decision rules and biological targets. A series of research, monitoring, and evaluation needs has been identified to address threats and data gaps and to meet the monitoring and adaptive-‐management objectives identified by the NSRT. These needs center on increasing regional knowledge related to abundance, escapement, marine survival, predation, nanophyetus, intraspecific interactions, use of forested tidal areas, and the importance of habitat enhancements to winter steelhead abundance and productivity.


8-‐13

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

Appendix C, Table C-‐9 presents the following research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that have been identified to address data gaps and support adaptive implementation of the recovery plan. 1. Improve adult escapement estimates and the understanding of Nisqually winter steelhead life history through expanded surveys and counts at the Centralia Diversion Dam and in the Muck Creek subbasin. 2. Maintain and expand activities at the WDFW smolt trap to better evaluate abundance and survival of Nisqually winter steelhead through expanding operations to include a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag component and detector array downstream of the trap. 3. Continue the steelhead marine survival acoustic study with a refined design as part of a Puget Sound-‐wide study. 4. Evaluate the effectiveness of screens at Centralia Diversion Dam to determine if steelhead juveniles experience impingement or entrainment into the diversion canal during summer and survival of fish encountering the screen bypass system. 5. Develop a research study to assess nanophyetus impacts on steelhead upon marine entry. 6. Continue to develop and participate in regional studies of predation upon steelhead smolts in the Nisqually River estuary and Puget Sound. 7. Develop a research study to improve the understanding of the links between anadromous and resident O. mykiss in the Nisqually River watershed. 8. Research methods and the efficiency of long-‐term control of reed canary grass in the Muck Creek channel. Investigate methods to increase shade of the channel without removing too much groundwater. 9. Research the feasibility of using large wood and rootwads from commercial forestry operations for instream habitat restoration. 10. Research steelhead use in the forested tidal area of the upper estuary.

8.3.4

Annual Project Review

An integral part of achieving Nisqually winter steelhead recovery goals is to assemble the most recent and relevant information, and to use this information to evaluate the status of the population, the effectiveness of habitat recovery, and new information related to marine survival. The assessment, research, monitoring, and evaluation information gained through the actions described previously and in Appendix C will be consolidated and used during an APR process, similar to the Chinook APR process, which is implemented annually as part of the Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan. The APR is a science-‐driven process that informs the workshop participants and will result in an action plan for the coming season. This action plan will be presented as a recommendation to decision makers. The APR participants will include all participants involved in the recovery plan. The workshop and subsequently adopted action plan will constitute the All-‐H coordinated implementation component of the recovery plan. The APR for steelhead will follow what is described for Chinook and outlined in Figure 7-‐1 (NCRP 2010). Elements of the APR of particular significance to steelhead recovery are described in the following sections.


8-‐14

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

Figure 8-‐1. Process for Reviewing and Updating Information during Annual Project Review

Annual Implementation Steps Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Update Key Assumptions (EDT & Forecasting Tools)

Update Status and Trends Information

Review Decision Rules

Set Upcoming Restoration, Monitoring & Research Activities

Annual Project Review

Results from Research and M&E, External to Program

In-‐Season Updates Post-‐Season Performance Review

Post-‐Season Analysis Population Status and Trends

M&E Results

8.3.4.1

Review and Update Key Assumptions

Updating key assumptions is a critical component of adaptive management. Key assumptions will be updated based on data collected from the monitoring and evaluation activities. This ensures that the best available information is applied to the decision-‐making process. Updates would be provided to key assumptions about the following parameters. 

Quality and quantity of Nisqually basin habitat.



Steelhead life history and habitat use in freshwater



Adult to smolt productivity, age composition, and abundance



Marine survival



Escapement trends, abundance, and distribution

8.3.4.2

Review Research and Monitoring Results

The monitoring and evaluation program will be designed to collect data that support the implementation of the action plan. Although these data may vary from year to year, they should be monitored precisely enough to ensure performance parameters are being achieved.


8-‐15

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

The monitoring and evaluation elements provide information to support the evolution and refinement of the following. 

Key assumptions used in planning tools



Status and trends analysis



Decision rules for potential harvest or direct intervention to avoid loss of population diversity and viability

8.3.4.3

Review and Update Steelhead Recovery Action Plan

The action plan will be updated annually as part of the adaptive management cycle by incorporating updates to the habitat status and trends, action prioritization matrix, decision rules, and recovery objectives. The assessment, research, monitoring, and evaluation information gained through the actions described in Section 7.3.2, Assessment Needs, Section 7.3.3, Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation, and Appendix C will also be used to update the action plan and to refine the actions taken in support of Nisqually winter steelhead recovery.

8.4

Climate Change Considerations

Sustainable recovery of Nisqually winter steelhead is contingent upon recovering sufficient numbers of fish with the genetic diversity and life-‐history plasticity to adapt to the effects of climate change. Recovery is also contingent on maintaining and restoring a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats with the capacity to moderate climate change effects. Climate change is projected to affect several of the watershed-‐scale processes that control riverine ecosystem dynamics (Beechie et al. 2010), and hence, affect the expression of life-‐history diversity in steelhead. Watershed-‐scale processes projected to be affected by climate changes anticipated in the Pacific Northwest include hydrology (e.g., changes in the timing and distribution of precipitation, and thus changes in timing, duration and volume of river flow), sediment (e.g., changes in air temperature and the distribution and nature of upper watershed forests habitats), organic matter (e.g., changes in forest habitats and fire regime and thus recruitment of large woody material), as well as stream and air temperatures and possibly the delivery of nonpoint source pollution via predicted changes in precipitation patterns and landscape runoff (Snover et al. 2013; Beechie et al. 2012; Battin et al. 2007).

8.4.1

Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest

The Pacific Northwest is experiencing long-‐term increases in temperature of approximately 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit per decade (1895 to 2011), lengthening of the frost-‐free season by approximately 3 days per decade (1895 to 2011), and a statistically significant increase in the frequency of nighttime heat events west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (1901 to 2009) (Snover et al. 2013). Decreases in glacial area (including a 14% decline in the volume of glaciers on Mount Rainier) and a 25% decrease in spring snowpack in the Washington Cascades, earlier peak streamflow in many rivers as a result of decreased snow accumulation and earlier spring melt, and rising sea levels in some areas are also now documented climate trends in the Pacific Northwest (Snover et al. 2013). Ocean acidification due to absorption of carbon dioxide (in the range of 10% to 40% more acidic) and an average 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade warming Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

8-‐16

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

of the top 330 feet of water in the Strait of Georgia and off the west coast of Vancouver Island have also been detected (Snover et al. 2013). These climate trends are projected to continue regardless of the trend in greenhouse gas emissions, albeit with smaller increases projected for low-‐emissions scenarios.

8.4.2

Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the Nisqually River Watershed

In the Nisqually River watershed, the mainstem of the river is key habitat for steelhead. Habitat conditions are strongly affected by temperature and precipitation patterns in the upper watershed above the Alder Dam, as well as temperature and snowpack conditions in the Mashel River subbasin and precipitation patterns in the Muck Creek subbasin. Washington State is projected to experience decreasing snowpack, increasing rain (rather than snow), increasing stream temperatures, and changes in streamflow timing, flooding and summer minimum flows, although there is less confidence in the degree and location of changes in precipitation patterns than there is in the trend of increased temperatures. The Nisqually River upper basin and higher to mid-‐elevation subbasins such as the Mashel River will likely see shifts from a snowmelt-‐dominated precipitation regime (i.e., the highest monthly streamflows occur during the spring snowmelt) to a rainfall-‐dominated regime in which the highest streamflows occur during the fall-‐winter floods (Beechie et al. 2012), with perhaps 10% to 40% of winter precipitation falling as mixed rain and snow by the 2040s (compared to more than 40% of winter precipitation falling as snow under historical conditions (1916 to 2006) (Snover et al. 2013). The loss of a spring snowmelt peak flow is likely to result in a concomitant decline in late summer flows, which could physically limit tributary and mainstem habitat for steelhead through increased temperatures and loss of wetted instream habitat. Management of the reservoirs may moderate fall and winter peak flows to some degree, which could maintain streamflow and viable habitat conditions in the mainstem. However, water supply management needs will undoubtedly compete with habitat needs as this shift in precipitation patterns takes hold and the implications of the loss of spring snowmelt begin to significantly affect water storage and release patterns. Changes in the intensity and duration of precipitation will also affect timber practices in the upper Mashel River subbasin, including increasing the potential for slope failure in clearcuts, more road washouts, and increased undermining of culverts. This could alter the delivery of sediment to the lower basin and fill pools, cause channel aggradation, and increase water temperatures across shallow broad riffles. Rain-‐dominated subbasins such as Muck Creek will likely experience changes in the timing, duration, and volume of rainfall, but the extent and nature of those changes remains uncertain. Hydrologic conditions in Muck Creek are also strongly connected to groundwater and are affected by channel modifications and groundwater extraction. Summer low flow is a constraint to steelhead in Muck Creek, and so changes in precipitation and a change in the timing of peak flows could further constrain steelhead recovery in this subbasin. Similarly, factors that create or maintain incised channels and a disconnected floodplain (such as changes in sediment or in the transport of large wood) could negatively affect groundwater recharge during the winter and thus summer low flow conditions in the Muck Creek subbasin.


8-‐17

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


Implementation

Sea-‐level rise will affect the Nisqually River estuary, progressively pushing tidal mudflat, marsh, and forested habitats farther inland and to higher elevations (where the topography allows for such a shift). The effects of sea-‐level rise on estuarine habitats can be partially mitigated by protecting lands adjacent to the estuary, farther upstream from the tidal extent, and at higher elevations to create additional protected habitat areas as sea-‐level rise progresses and precipitation patterns change.

8.4.3

Restoration Actions to Ameliorate Climate Change Effects

Beechie et al. (2012) classified actions that improve longitudinal and lateral connectivity between streams and their floodplains (e.g., dam removal, levee breaching, barrier removal, and reconnection of floodplain features) as being the most likely to ameliorate the increases in temperature, decreases in base flow, and increases in peak flows projected to result from climate change. These same types of restoration actions are also classified as actions most likely to confer resiliency to a population through increases in habitat diversity (e.g., by creating a variety of physical and thermal conditions) and thus increased potential for the expression of alternative life history strategies within a species (Beechie et al. 2012). The recovery plan’s objectives are focused on protecting the highest quality habitat and restoring natural processes in the primary habitat areas (i.e., the mainstem and Mashel River) to preserve and potentially increase diversity of life-‐history expressions in Nisqually winter steelhead. Climate change implications will be incorporated into the recovery plan, particularly focusing on maintaining and creating resiliency to anticipated changes in flow and temperature through the protection and restoration of habitat diversity. This recovery plan includes a variety of such priority actions (Appendix C, Tables C-‐3 and C-‐4) for restoring watershed processes, including the removal of barriers to fish passage, sediment transport, and transport of large woody material to restore floodplain connectivity and ensure long-‐term restoration of riverine functions. The NSRT will work to prioritize these actions to occur in the most highly used subbasins and those most likely to see the greatest changes in precipitation patterns. The NSRT will also carefully evaluate habitat restoration and passage barrier projects in Muck Creek and Ohop Creek subbasins for their utility and capacity to help improve the potential resiliency of Nisqually winter steelhead to climate change.


8-‐18

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Chapter 9

References AGI Technologies. 1999. Conceptual model of the McAllister Springs area. Technical Memorandum #3, December 13, 1999. Prepared for the Cities of Olympia and Lacey Public Works Departments. Prepared for AGI Technologies, in cooperation with Jones and Stokes Associates, Evans-‐Hamilton, Inc. and, Hydrology Northwest. 66 pages plus appendices. Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Roni, and G. Giannico. 2008. Setting River Restoration Priorities: A Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:891–905. Berejikian, B. A., T. Johnson, R.S. Endicott, and J. Lee-‐Waltermire. 2008. Increases in Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Redd Abundance Resulting from Two Conservation Hatchery Strategies in the Hamma Hamma River, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65, 4, 754-‐764. Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Investigation Service 2(19):553 p. Blair, G.R., L.C. Lestelle, and L.E. Mobrand. 2009. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model: A tool for assessing salmonid performance potential based on habitat conditions. Pages 289–309. Pacific Salmon Environment and Life History Models. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Bortleson, M.J., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical Changes of Shoreline and Wetland at Nisqually River and Nisqually Reach, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-‐617 (Sheet 9). Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. City of Olympia. 2013. McAllister Wellfield website. Available: . Accessed: December 2013. Christie, M.R., ML. Marine, and M.S. Blouin. 2011. Who are the missing parents? Grandparentage analysis identifies multiple sources of gene flow into a wild population. Molecular Ecology 20:1263–1276. Collins, B.D., D.R. Montgomery, and A.J. Sheikh. 2003. Reconstructing the historical riverine landscape of the Puget Lowland. Pages 79-‐128. In: D.R. Montgomery, S.M. Bolton, D.B. Booth, and L. Wall (eds.). Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Version 3.0. Available: . Accessed: February 2014. Courter, I.I., D.B. Child, J.A. Hobbs, T.M. Garrison, J.J.G. Glessner, and S. Duery. 2013. Resident rainbow trout produce anadromous offspring in a large interior watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:701–710. Curran, C.A., E.E. Grossman, and C.S. Magir. 2014 in review. Suspended Sediment Delivery to Puget Sound in the Lower Nisqually River, Washington, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-‐File Report. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

9-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


References

Czuba, J.A., C.S. Magirl, C.R. Czuba, E.E. Grossman, C.A. Curran, A.S. Gendaszek, and R.S. Dinicola. 2011. Sediment load from major rivers into Puget Sound and its adjacent waters: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, 2011–3083. 4 pp. Available: . Accessed: March 2014. Czuba, J.A., T.D. Olsen, C.R. Czuba, C.S. Magirl, and C.C. Gish. 2012a. Changes in Sediment Volume in Alder lake, Nisqually River Basin, Washington, 1945-‐2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-‐File Report 2012-‐1068, 30 p. Available:. Accessed: March 2014. Czuba, J.A., C.S. Magirl, C.R. Czuba, C.A. Curran, K.H. Johnson, T.D. Olsen, H.K. Kimball, and C.C. Gish. 2012b, Geomorphic analysis of the river response to sedimentation downstream of Mount Rainier, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-‐File Report 2012-‐1242. 134 pp. Available: . Accessed: March 2014. David Evans and Associates. 2000. Upper Nisqually Level 1 Technical Assessment. Prepared for Nisqually River Watershed Planning Unit. December. Ford, M. J. 2002. Selection in Captivity during Supportive Breeding May Reduce Fitness in the Wild. Conservation Biology 16(3):815-‐825. Garza, J.C., E.A. Gilbert-‐Horvath, B.C. Spence, T.H. Williams, H. Fish, S.A. Gough, J.H. Anderson, D. Hamm and E.C. Anderson. 2014. Population Structure of Steelhead in Coastal California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143(1):134–152. Gayeski, N., B. McMillan, and P. Trotter. 2011. Historical abundance of Puget Sound Steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, estimated from catch record data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:498–510. Gross, M.R. 1991. Salmon breeding behavior and life history evolution in changing environments. Ecology 72:1180–1186. Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2009. Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-‐wide Report. 272 pp. Available: . Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). 2014. On the Science of Hatcheries: An Updated Perspective on the Role of Hatcheries in Salmon and Steelhead Management in the Pacific Northwest. A. Appleby, H.L. Blankenship, D. Campton, K. Currens, T. Evelyn, D. Fast, T. Flagg, J. Gislason, P. Kline, C. Mahnken, B. Missildine, L. Mobrand, G. Nandor, P. Paquet, S. Patterson, L. Seeb, S. Smith, and K. Warheit (eds.). 160 pp. Available: . Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fish Stock Assessment. Chapman and Hall, London. Hiss, J.M., W. Harrington-‐Tweit, and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Downstream Migration of Juvenile Rainbow/Steelhead Trout in the Nisqually River and Muck Creek, 1980–1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, WA. Final Report NMFS Contract No. 80-‐ ABG-‐0007. Kendall, Bruce E. 1998. Estimating the magnitude of environmental stochasticity in survivorship data. Ecological Applications 8(1):184–193. Kerwin, John. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors WRIA 11. Washington State Conservation Commission. Final Report. January 21, 1999. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

9-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


References

Kostow, K. 2003. Factors that influence evolutionarily significant unit boundaries and status assessment in a highly polymorphic species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin. Information Report #2003-‐04. Oregon Department of Fish and Game and NOAA Fisheries. Kostow, K. 2008. Factors that Contribute to the Ecological Risks of Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Programs and Some Mitigating Strategies. Rev. Fish Biol Fisheries. 19:9–31. Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied ecosystem analysis -‐ a primer, EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method. Project number 9404600. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Vashon, WA. Lestelle, L. C. 2004. Guidelines for Rating Level 2 Environmental Attributes in Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment: Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Vashon, WA. Lestelle, L., L. Mobrand, and W. McConnaha. 2004. Information structure of Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and habitat rating rules for Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead trout: Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Vashon, WA. Lichatowich, J.A., and L.E. Mobrand. 1995. Analysis of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River from an ecosystem perspective. U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration, Environment Fish and Wildlife. DOE/BP-‐25105-‐2. Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific decadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78: 1069-‐ 1079. Mantua, N.J., and P.W. Mote. 2001. The Underlying Rhythms: Patterns of Pacific Northwest Climate Variability. In Miles, E., and A. Snover (eds.) Rhythms of Change: An Integrated Assessment of Climate Impacts on the Pacific Northwest. MIT Press. May, C.W. 2002. Measures of Ecological Integrity for Salmonid Streams on Department of Defense Facilities in the Pacific Northwest: Current Watershed Conditions and Management Recommendations, Technical Report APL-‐UW TR 0104, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. May, C.W., E.B. Welch, R.R. Horner, J.R Karr, and B.W. Mar. 1997. Quality indices for urbanization effects of Puget Sound lowland streams. Water Resources Series Technical Report no. 154. Final report prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant units: U.S. Department of Commerce. Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-‐NWFSC-‐42. McMillan, J.R., S.L. Katz, and G.R. Pess. 2007. Observational evidence of spatial and temporal structure in a sympatric anadromous (winter steelhead) and resident Oncorhynchus mykiss mating system on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:736–748. McPhee, M.V., F. Utter, J.A. Stanford, K.V. Kuzishchin, K.A. Savvaitova, D.S. Pavlov, and F.W. Allendorf. 2007. Population structure and partial anadromy in Oncorhynchus mykiss from Kamchatka: relevance for conservation strategies around the Pacific Rim. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16:539– 547.


9-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


References

Melnychuk, M.C. 2009. Estimation of survival and detection probabilities for multiple tagged salmon stocks with nested migration routes, using a large-‐scale telemetry array. Marine and Freshwater Research 60:1231–1243. Mobrand, L.E., J.A. Lichatowich, L.C. Lestelle, and T.S. Vogel. 1997. An approach to describing ecosystem performance "through the eyes of salmon". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2964–2973. Mobrand, L., J. Barr, L. Blankenship, D. Campton, T. Evelyn, T. Flagg, C. Mahnken, L. Seeb, P. Seidel, and W. Smoker. 2005. Hatchery Reform in Washington State: Principles and Emerging Issues. Fisheries 30(6):11-‐23. Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel conditions. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement. Report TFW-‐SH10-‐93-‐002. 84 p. Moore, Megan. Research Fisheries Biologist. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. January 2014—personal communication with Sayre Hodgson. Nisqually Indian Tribe. Moussalli, E. and R. Hilborn. 1986. Optimal stock size and harvest rate in multistage life history models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(1):135–141. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making ESA determinations for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. Portland, OR. Nelson, L.M. 1974. Sediment transport by streams in the Deschutes and Nisqually River basins, Washington. November 1971-‐June 1973: U.S. Geological Survey Open-‐File Report 74-‐1078, 33 p. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2001. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan. Prepared by Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., Vashon, WA. August. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2011. Nisqually Chinook Stock Management Plan. Prepared by Nisqually Chinook Working Group with ICF International, Yelm, WA. April. Omernik, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management. In: Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon (eds.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. p. 49–62. Pater, D.E., S.A. Bryce, T.D. Thorson, J. Kagan, C. Chappell, J.M. Omernik, S.H. Azevedo, and A.J. Woods. 1998. Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon (two-‐sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Scale 1:1,350,000. Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat: some suggested parameters and threshold values. Center for Streamside Studies. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Phelps, S.R., S. A. Leider, P.L. Hulett, B.M. Baker, and T. Johnson. 1997. Genetic Analyses of Washington Steelhead: Preliminary Results Incorporating 36 New Collections from 1995 and 1996. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 29 pp. plus appendices.


9-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


References

Pierce County. 2005. Muck Creek Basin Plan. Prepared for Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Water Programs Division. Tacoma, WA. ———. 2012. Nisqually River Basin Plan. Prepared for Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Water Programs Division. Tacoma, WA. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784. Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team (PSSTRT). 2013a. Viability Criteria for Puget Sound Steelhead. Final Review Draft. 373 pp. Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team (PSSTRT). 2013b. Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment. Final Review Draft. 149 p. Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team. 2013. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery: A Framework for the Development of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans. Final Review Draft Available: < http://www.eopugetsound.org/sites/default/files/features/ resources/RITTMAMP_FINALDraft_3_29_2013.pdf>. Accessed: February 2014. Roni, P., T. Beechie, R. Bilby, F. Leonetti, M. Pollock, and G. Press. 2002. A review of river restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–20. Rundio, D.E., T.H. Williams, D.E. Pearse, and S.T. Lindley. 2012. Male-‐biased sex ratio of nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in a partially migratory population in California. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 21:293–299. Ryman, N., and L. Laikre. 1991. Effects of Supportive Breeding on the Genetically Effective Population Size. Conservation Biology 5:325-‐3329. Savvaitova, K.A., K.V. Kuzishchin, M.A. Gruzdeva, D.S. Pavlov, J.A. Stanford, and B.K. Ellis. 2003. Long-‐ term and short-‐term variation in the population structure of Kamchatka steelhead Parasalmo mykiss from rivers of western Kamchatka. Journal of Ichthyology 43: 757–768. Scott, J.B. 1981. The Distribution and Abundance of Juvenile Salomonids in the Nisqually River from Spring to Midsummer. Univ. Washington, Fish. Res. Inst. Final Rep. FRI—UW—8102. 63 pp. Seamons, T.R., P. Bentzen, and T.P. Quinn. 2004. The mating system of steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, inferred by molecular analysis of parents and progeny. Environmental Biology of Fishes 69:333–344. Shapovalov, L., and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmogairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 98:375. Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup. 2014. Research Work Plan: Marine Survival of Puget Sound Steelhead. February 2014 Long Live the Kings, Seattle, WA. Available: . Accessed: March 2014. Nisqually River Steelhead Recovery Plan

9-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13


References

Stober, Q.J. and M.C. Bell. 1986. The feasibility of Anadromous Fish Production above the Alder/La Grande Hydroelectric Projects on the Nisqually River. Univ. Washington, Fish. Res. Inst. Final Rep. FRI—UW—8609. 66 pp. Svoboda, P., and B. Harrington-‐Tweit. 1981. Nisqually River 1981 Winter Steelhead Redd Aerial Survey. Nisqually Indian Tribe Technical Report No. 3. Thompson, B.E., L.C. Lestelle, G.R. Blair, L.E. Mobrand, and J.B. Scott. 2009. EDT application in salmon recovery planning: diagnosing habitat limitations and modeling restoration action effectiveness. Pages 311-‐335. Pacific Salmon Environment and Life History Models. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Tyler, R.W. 1980. Nisqually River Juvenile Salmonid Study. Univ. Washington, Fish. Res. Inst. Final Rep. FRI—UW—8009. 39 pp. Van Doornik, D., Berejikian, B., Campbell, L., and E. Volk. 2010. The Effect of a Supplementation Program on the Genetic and Life History Characteristics of an Oncorhynchus mykiss Population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67, 1449-‐1458. Walter, G.F. 1986. Nisqually River Drainage Basin. In-‐stream Habitat Assessment and Policy Recommendations. Technical Report No. 15. Nisqually Indian Tribe. Olympia, WA. Warrick, J.A., Draut, A.E., McHenry, M.L., Miller, I.M., Magirl, C.S., Beirne, M.M., Stevens, A.W., and J.B. Logan. 2011. Geomorphology of the Elwha River and its Delta, chap. 3 of Duda, J.J., Warrick, J.A., and Magirl, C.S., eds., Coastal habitats of the Elwha River, Washington—Biological and physical patterns and processes prior to dam removal: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-‐5120-‐2, p. 48-‐73. Available: . Accessed: March 2014. Watershed Professionals Network, LLC. 2002. Nisqually River Level I watershed assessment (WRIA 11). Prepared for the Nisqually Watershed Planning Group. Whiley, A.J. and G.F. Walter. 2000. Review and analysis of water quality for the Nisqually River and the major lakes of the Nisqually Basin. Nisqually Natural Resources, Water Quality Program. Technical Report #6. Nisqually Indian Tribe. 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. Washington Department of Fisheries (now Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Olympia, WA. Woo, I., K. Turner, A. Smith, P. Markos, and J. Y. Takekawa. 2011. Assessing habitat development in response to large scale restoration at the Nisqually River Delta. Unpublished data summary report to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Puget Sound Marine Conservation Fund #2006-‐0180-‐017. USGS Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station, Vallejo, CA. 21 pp.


9-‐6

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Appendix A Reach Structure for Assessment of Winter Steelhead Performance in the Nisqually River

 

Table A-‐1. Subbasin

Nisqually Watershed Steelhead Reach Structure Sub-‐Watershed Nisqually Lower Reach 2A

Nisqually Reservation Reaches


Nisqually Whitewater Reach

Nisqually McKenna Reach

Centralia Diversion Dam

Nisqually Wilcox Reach

Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Plan

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

This reach extends from the I-‐5 bridge to the upper end of railroad grade (RM 2.5 to 4.0)

1.50

0.10%

Unconfined

Nisqually2B.1-‐ LowerReach

Upper end of railroad grade to Clear Creek (RM 4.0 to 6.1)

1.70

0.10%

Unconfined

Nisqually River


Clear Creek Hatchery to Kalama Creek Hatchery outlet (RM 6.1 to 9.5)

3.16

0.25%

Unconfined

Nisqually River


Kalama Creek Hatchery outlet to Muck Creek (RM 9.5 to 10.6)

1.95

0.25%

Unconfined

Nisqually River


Muck Creek to Centralia Powerhouse (RM 10.6 to 12.7)

1.73

0.20%

Unconfined

Nisqually River

Nisqually3.1-‐Whitewater

Centralia Powerhouse to Yelm Creek (RM 12.7 to 13.1)

0.45

0.57%

Confined

Nisqually River


Yelm Creek to Murray Creek (RM 13.1 to 19.0)

6.11

0.38%

Confined

Nisqually River


Murray Creek to highway bridge at McKenna (RM 19.0 to 21.0)

2.68

0.52%

Confined

Nisqually River

Nisqually4.1-‐Mckenna

Highway bridge in McKenna to Horn Creek (RM 21.0 to 25.8)

3.95

0.13%

Moderately Confined

Nisqually River

Nisqually4.2-‐Mckenna

Horn Creek to Centralia Diversion Dam (RM 25.8 to 26.2)

0.45

0.15%

Moderately Confined

Nisqually River

Centralia Diversion Dam

Nisqually Mainstem Diversion Dam including screens and spill (RM 26.2)

0.00

0.00%

Nisqually River

Nisqually5.1-‐Wilcox

Centralia diversion dam to mouth of Lacamas Creek (RM 26.2 to 28.8)

2.56

0.15%

Moderately Unconfined

Nisqually River


Mouth of Lacamas Creek to mouth of Toboton Creek (RM 28.8 to 29.0)

0.43

0.15%


Nisqually River


Mouth of Toboton Creek to mouth of Tanwax Creek (RM

1.50

0.10%


Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Nisqually River

Nisqually2a-‐LowerReach

Nisqually River

A-‐1

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Appendix A. Reach Structure for Assessment of Winter Steelhead Performance in the Nisqually River


Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

29.0 to 30.8)

Nisqually Middle Reach

Nisqually Upper Reach

Prairie Tributaries

McAllister Creek

Red Salmon Creek

McAllister Creek


Nisqually River

Nisqually6.1-‐MiddleReach

Mouth of Tanwax Creek to the mouth of Powell Creek (RM 30.8 to 31.9)

0.93

0.22%


Nisqually River


Mouth of Powell Creek to the mouth of Kreger Creek (RM 31.9 to 34.0)

1.75

0.30%


Nisqually River


Mouth of Kreger Creek to the mouth of Ohop Creek (RM 34.0 to 37.3)

2.62

0.20%


Nisqually River

Nisqually7A-‐UpperReach

Mouth of Ohop Creek to the mouth of Mashel River (RM 37.3 to 39.6)

2.39

0.29%

Confined

Nisqually River

Nisqually7B-‐UpperReach

Mouth of the Mashel River to Tacoma's Grande powerhouse (RM 39.6 to 40.8)

1.23

0.95%

Confined

Nisqually River

Nisqually7C-‐UpperReach

Tacoma's La Grande powerhouse to barrier upstream of powerhouse (RM 40.8 to 41.3)

0.54

0.95%

Confined

Red Salmon Creek

Red_Salmon_RR_Culvert

Railroad culvert near mouth of Red Salmon Creek (top of estuary)

0.00

Red Salmon Creek

Red Salmon Creek

Right bank tributary of Nisqually Estuary. Mouth to coho and chum upper extent.

0.70

1.90%

Moderately Confined

McAllister Creek

McAllister-‐1

McAllister Creek Relocated Reach (top of Estuary to 0.3 miles upstream of Martin Way)

1.18

0.11%

Unconfined

McAllister Creek

McAllister-‐2

McAllister Creek Middle Reach (0.3 miles upstream of Martin Way to Steilacoom Rd)

0.68

0.11%

Unconfined

McAllister Creek

McAllister-‐3A

McAllister Creek Upper Reach (Steilacoom Rd-‐RM 4.6 to confluence with Little McAllister-‐RM 5.3)

0.69

0.11%

Unconfined

A-‐2

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

McAllister Creek Upper Reach (confluence with Little McAllister-‐RM 5.3 to McAllister Springs-‐RM 6.3)

0.93

0.11%

Unconfined

Little McAllister-‐1

Little McAllister Creek (mouth to extent of anadromous use-‐ RM 0.3)

0.75

0.30%

Moderately Confined

Clear Creek

Clear Cr-‐1

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 5. Mouth to barrier at hatchery.

0.24

2.30%

Unconfined

Clear Creek

Clear Cr Hatchery Rack

Hatchery Weir in Clear Creek; blocks assess to upper Clear Creek

0.00

0.00%

Clear Creek

Clear Cr-‐2

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 5. Barrier at hatchery to original upper extent.

0.95

0.90%


Kalama Creek

Kalama Cr-‐1

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 9.5. Mouth to barrier at hatchery.

0.55

1.50%

Unconfined

Kalama Creek

Kalama Hatchery Weir

Kalama Hatchery Weir; blocks access to upper Kalama Creek

0.00

0.00%

Kalama Creek

Kalama Cr-‐2

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 9.5. Barrier at hatchery to original upper extent.

0.64

0.30%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck flow obstruction mouth

Flow obstruction at mouth used to model lack of flows during certain months

0.00

Muck Creek

Muck-‐1A_a Canyon

Muck Creek -‐ Mouth to RM 1.0 (top of canyon)

1.00

1.30%

Confined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐1A_b Canyon

Muck Creek -‐ RM 1.0 (top of canyon) to RM 2.4 (Exeter Springs)

0.95

1.30%

Confined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐1B_a Canyon

Muck Creek -‐ Exter Springs (RM 2.4) to top of moderate gradient (RM 3.0)

1.05

0.41%

Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

McAllister Creek

McAllister-‐3B

Little McAllister Creek

Clear Creek

Prairie Tributaries

Kalama Creek

Muck Creek

Muck Creek Canyon


A-‐3

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Muck Creek Prairie

Muck Creek Lakes

Muck Creek Upper Reaches


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Muck Creek -‐ Top of moderate gradient (RM 3.0) to Preacher Spring (RM ~4.7)

1.57

0.41%

Confined

Muck-‐2A Prairie

Muck Creek -‐ Preacher Spring to Halverson Springs (Rm 5.6)

0.62

0.50%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐2B Prairie

Muck Creek -‐ Halverson Springs to Lacamas Cr (RM 6.4); top section of reach within Roy city limits

0.89

0.50%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐3AA Lakes

Muck Creek -‐ Lacamas Creek (RM 6.4) to Inlet of Muck Lake (RM 6.7)

0.31

0.10%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐3AB Lakes

Muck Creek -‐ Muck Lake to Chambers Lake (RM 6.9)

0.28

0.10%


Muck Creek

Muck-‐Chamber Outlet

Muck Creek -‐Outlet of Chambers Lake (RM 6.9). Upstream fish ladder.

0.00

0.00%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐3BA Lakes

Muck Creek -‐ Chambers Lake (upstream end RM 8.5)

1.49

0.10%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck-‐3BB Lakes

Muck Creek -‐ Inlet of Chambers Lake to Johnson Creek (RM 9.3)

0.92

0.10%

Unconfined

Muck Creek

Muck flow obstr abv johnson

Muck Creek Above Johnson Creek Intermittent flow obstruction

0.00

Muck Creek

Muck-‐4A Upper Reach

Muck Creek -‐ Johnson Creek (RM 9.3) to confluence with SF Muck Creek (RM 13.4)

4.19

0.28%


Muck Creek South Fork

Muck-‐4SFA_aa Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ Confluence Muck Creek (@ RM 13.4) to 28th Ave E (intermittent flow section of S.F. Muck Creek)

3.00

0.36%



Muck-‐4SFA_ab Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ 28th Ave E to approximately 294th St E (perennial flow section of S.F. Muck Creek)

1.45

0.36%


Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Muck Creek

Muck-‐1B_b Canyon

Muck Creek

A-‐4

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

SF Muck Creek -‐ Approximately 294th St E (top of perennial flow section of S.F. Muck Creek) to 304th St Culvert (intermittent flow section of S.F. Muck)

8.95

0.36%


Muck-‐4SFA Upper Reach 304th St E culvert

SF Muck Creek -‐ 304th St E culvert (RM 10.7); partial barrier (PCD database)

0.00


Muck-‐4SFA_b Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ 304th St E culvert (RM 10.7) to upper extent of chum (RM 12.8)

0.77

0.36%



Muck-‐4SFB_a Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ Upper extent chum (RM 12.8) to 126th Ave E culvert (RM 13.5)

1.61

0.32%



Muck-‐4SFB Upper Reach 126th Ave E Culvert

SF Muck Creek -‐ 126th Ave E culvert (RM 13.5); partial barrier (PCD database)

0.00


Muck-‐4SFB_b Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ 126th Ave E culvert (RM 13.5) to culvert at 274th St. E., RM 14

0.38

0.32%



Muck 274th St. E. culvert

274th St. E. culvert on SF Muck, at RM 14

0.00


Muck-‐4SFB_c Upper Reach

SF Muck Creek -‐ culvert at 274th St. E., RM 14 to headwaters (RM 17.8)

1.59

0.32%


Muck Creek

Muck-‐4C_a Upper Reach

Muck Creek -‐ Confluence with SF Muck Creek (RM 13.4) to unauthorized dam @ RM 17.5, approximately 4.2 mile long reach

4.22

0.30%


Muck Creek

Muck-‐4C Upper Reach Unauthorized Dam

Muck Creek -‐ Unauthorized dam @ RM 17.5

0.00

Muck Creek

Muck-‐4C_b Upper Reach

Muck Creek -‐ Unauthorized Dam (RM 17.5) to headwaters (RM 19.9)

2.28

0.30%


Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description


Muck-‐4SFA_ac Upper Reach


A-‐5

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Muck Creek Tributaries


Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Culvert at 252nd Street at upper 0.00 extent of north fork Muck Creek (RM 20)

Exeter Spring

Exeter Springs -‐ Muck Cr to head of springs

0.30

0.19%

Unconfined

Preacher

Preacher Creek

Preach Creek -‐ Muck Cr to springs

0.27

0.40%

Unconfined

Halverson

Halverson Creek

Halverson Creek -‐ Muck to springs above lake

0.89

0.40%

Unconfined

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_a

Lacamas Creek -‐ Mouth to 16th Ave Culvert (RM 5.5)

5.85

0.36%


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_16th Ave S Culvert

Lacamas Creek -‐ 16th Ave Culvert; partial barrier at RM 5.5 (PCD database)

0.00

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_b

Lacamas Creek -‐ 16th Ave Culvert (RM 5.5) to 17th Ave Culvert (RM 5.75)

0.43

0.36%


Lacamas Creek


Lacamas Creek -‐ 17th Ave Culvert; partial barrier at RM 5.75(PCD database)

0.00

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_c

Lacamas Creek -‐ 17th Ave Culvert (RM 5.75) to 318th St Culvert (RM 6.0)

0.20

0.36%


Lacamas Creek


Lacamas Creek -‐ 318th St Culvert; partial barrier at RM 6.0 (PCD database)

0.00

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_d

Lacamas Creek -‐ 318th St S Culvert (RM 6.0) to private driveway culvert (RM 7.0)

0.91

0.36%


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_Private Driveway Culvert

Lacamas Creek -‐ Private driveway culvert; partial barrier at RM 7.0 (PCD database)

0.00

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr_e

Lacamas Creek -‐ Private driveway culvert (RM 7.0) to headwaters (RM 7.7)

0.96

0.36%


Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Muck Creek

Muck 252nd St E culvert

Exter

A-‐6

Length (mi)

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Nixon Springs -‐ short reach to head of springs

0.31

0.50%

Unconfined

Johnson Creek

Johnson Creek -‐ Muck Creek to outlet of Johnson marsh (fish ladder)

0.60

0.10%

Unconfined

Johnson

Johnson Ladder

Johnson Creek -‐ Fish Ladder below marsh

0.00

0.00%

Johnson

Johnson Marsh

Johnson Creek -‐ Johnson outlet (fish ladder) to upstream end of marsh

0.76

0.10%

Unconfined

Thompson Creek

Thompson Cr

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 12.4. Mouth to incised barrier at Centralia Diversion overflow. Routing is approximate (need to review).

0.71

4.00%

Moderately Confined

Yelm Creek

Yelm Cr-‐1_a

Left bank tributary to the Nisqually River at RM 13.1. Yelm Creek from mouth to CM 0.49, portion of creek in Nisqually floodplain (Chinook, chum, and pink spawning extent)

0.49

2.30%

Moderately Confined

Yelm Creek

Yelm Cr-‐1_b

Yelm Creek upstream of Chinook distribution CM 0.49 to 1.8 High gradient portion of creek, steelhead and coho extent. Upper end is Centralia Canal crossing.

1.29

2.30%

Moderately Confined

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐1

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ mouth to railroad crossing (RM 0.4), chinook upper extent.

0.40

0.79%


Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐2_a

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ railroad crossing (RM 0.4) to barrier at RM 2.3 Chehalis RR Crossing

1.97

0.30%

Moderately Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Nixon

Nixon Spring

Johnson

Thompson Creek

Yelm Creek Prairie Tributaries

Murray Creek


A-‐7

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ Chehalis RR Crossing at RM 2.3; partial barrier ( 67% passable PCD database)

0.00

Murray Cr-‐2_ba

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ Chehalis RR crossing (RM 2.3) to culvert at Hinkleman Rd., RM 4.7

2.47

0.30%

Moderately Confined

Murray Creek

Murray Cr_culvert_hinkleman

culvert at Hinkleman Rd., RM 4.7

0.00

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐2_bb

Culvert at Hinkleman Rd., RM 4.7 to barrier at RM 6.2; complete barrier (PCD database)

1.48

0.30%

Moderately Confined

Murray Creek

Murray Culvert Barrier

Murray Creek -‐ Barrier at RM 6.2; 48th Ave S. barrier -‐ complete (PCD database)

0.00

0.00%

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐3_a

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ barrier at RM 6.2 to RM 7.2 pipeline crossing; partial barrier (PCD database).

1.18

0.20%

Moderately Confined

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐3 Pipeline crossing

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ barrier at RM 6.2 to pipeline crossing at RM 7.2

0.00

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐3_b

Right Bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 19.1. Murray Cr-‐ pipeline crossing barrier at RM 7.2 to RM 9 upper extent for coho, chum steelhead.

1.85

0.20%

Moderately Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Murray Creek

Murray Cr-‐2 Chehalis RR Crossing

Murray Creek

A-‐8

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at river mile 21.7. Mouth to top of pond, current upper extent of McKenna Creek; ends at pasture ditch. Reach includes a culvert that was replaced in 2009 to be 100% passable.

1.19

0.10%


McKenna Cr-‐2

Upper McKenna from top of Pond/ditch through field, presumed historic upper section of McKenna Creek

0.43

0.10%


Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr-‐1_a

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 23.6. Mouth to impassable culvert at Harts Lake Loop Rd. Routing is approximate (need to review).

0.32

4.70%


Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr Culvert

Impassable culvert at Harts Lake Loop Rd.

0.00

0.00%

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr-‐1_b

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 23.6. Impassable culvert at Harts Lake Loop Rd. to partially passible driveway culvert RM 0.7

0.20

0.40%

Confined

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr Private Driveway Culvert

Partially passable driveway culvert at RM 0.7 on Brighton Creek (PCD data)

0.00

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr-‐1_c

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 23.6. Driveway Culvert (RM 0.7) to 62nd Ave So Culvert (RM 0.9); partial barrier culvert

0.25

0.40%

Confined

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr 62nd Ave So Culvert

Partially passable driveway culvert 62nd Ave So at RM 0.9 on Brighton Creek (PCD data)

0.00

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr-‐1_d

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 23.6. 62nd Ave So Culvert (RM 0.9) to

3.49

0.40%

Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

McKenna Creek

McKenna Cr-‐1

McKenna Creek

McKenna Creek

Brighton Creek


A-‐9

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Highway 702 barrier (RM 4.2)

Horn Creek


Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr Highway 702 Culvert

Complete barrier under Highway 702 (PCD) at RM 4.2 on Brighton Creek (PCD data)

0.00

Brighton Creek

Brighton Cr-‐1_e

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 23.6. Highway 702 (RM 4.2) to upper extent potential for coho, chum, steelhead (RM 4.4)

0.16

0.40%

Confined

Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐1_A

Right bank tributary at RM 25.8 of the Nisqually River. Horn Creek from mouth to Harts Creek confluence (RM 0.4), pink distribution extends into the next reach ~0.25 mi.

0.39

1.80%


Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐1_B

Horn Creek from confluence 0.82 Harts Cr at RM 0.4 to end of chinook distribution at RM 1.22; pink salmon found in the lower 0.25 mi of this reach.

1.80%


Horn Creek

Horn Cr Falls

Horn Creek Falls (unnatural -‐ did not exist in template); partial ladder (includes nearby bridge)

0.00

0.00%

Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐2_a

Upper extent of chinook (RM 1.22) to 368th St Culvert; this is a complete barrier.

1.58

0.31%

Moderately Confined

Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐2 368th St Culvert

Horn Creek -‐ 368th St Culvert; this is a complete barrier.

0.00

Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐2_b

Horn Creek -‐ from 368th St Culvert to private culvert at RM 3.9.

1.72

0.31%

Moderately Confined

A-‐10

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Lacamas, Toboton, Powell

Sub-‐Watershed

Lacamas Creek


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Private culvert at RM 3.9, 0% passable, Location: 100m N of 364th St So on private road, just over 0.5 mi E of 8th Ave So.

0.00

Horn Cr-‐2_c

Horn Creek -‐ from private culvert at RM 3.9 to upper extent of steelhead potential in Horn Creek (updated length mile 4.9)

0.39

0.31%

Moderately Confined

Harts Creek

Harts Creek-‐1_a

Left bank tributary of Horn Creek at RM 0.4. Confluence with Horn Creek Up to private culvert at RM 0.2 (river rd. on Wilcox farm)

0.23

0.20%


Harts Creek

Harts Creek_private_culvert_riv er_rd

Harts Creek Private culvert at RM 0.2, spur of River Rd on Wilcox farm

0.00

Harts Creek

Harts Creek-‐1_b

Private culvert at RM 0.2 (river rd. on Wilcox farm) up to Harts Lk Valley Rd culvert, RM 1.2

1.29

0.20%


Harts Creek

HartsCr_Harts_Lk_Valley_ Rd_Culvert

Harts Lk Valley Rd culvert, RM 1.2

0.00

Harts Creek

Harts Creek-‐1_c

Harts Lk Valley Rd culvert, RM 1.2 up to private driveway culvert (RM 1.3); PCD database partial barrier.

0.27

0.20%


Harts Creek

Harts Creek Private Driveway Culvert

Right bank tributary of Horn Creek at RM 0.2. Harts Cr-‐ Private driveway culvert; partial barrier (PCD database)

0.00

Harts Creek

Harts Creek-‐1_d

Right bank tributary of Horn Creek at RM 0.2. Harts Cr-‐ Private driveway culvert (RM 1.3) to Harts Lake.

0.47

0.20%


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr-‐1a

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 28.8. Mouth to present culvert barrier at RM

0.78

0.57%

Moderately Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Horn Creek

Horn Cr-‐ private_culvert_upper

Horn Creek

A-‐11

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

0.4.

Toboton Creek


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Culvert Barrier

Private driveway barrier at RM 0.4; Hensen Ln. Partial barrier -‐ 33% (PCD database)

0.00

0.00%

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr-‐1b

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 28.8. Culvert barrier at RM 0.4 to Bald Hills Rd Culvert (also upper extent of chinook spawning) (RM 1)

0.66

0.57%

Moderately Confined

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Bald Hills Rd Culvert Barrier

Barrier at RM 1.4 Bald Hills Rd; partial barrier -‐ 33% (PCD database)

0.00

0.00%

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr-‐2a

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 28.8. Bald Hills Rd culvert (RM 1.0) to Pasture culvert barrier at RM 2.

1.46

0.66%


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Pasture Barrier

Pasture Culvert Barrier at RM 2; partial barrier to fish passage -‐ 67% (PCD database)

0.00

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr-‐2b

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 28.8. Pasture culvert barrier (RM 2.0) to complete barrier at RM 2.8.

0.79

0.66%


Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Upper Culvert Barrier

Culvert Barrier at RM 2.8; complete barrier to fish passage (PCD database)

0.00

0.00%

Lacamas Creek

Lacamas Cr-‐2c

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 28.8. Culvert barrier at RM 2.8 to upper extent of potential coho, chum and steelhead (RM 3.0)

0.31

0.66%


Toboton Creek

Toboton Cr-‐1

Left bank tributary to the 1.21 Nisqually River at RM 29. Mouth to upper extent of chinook (RM 1)

0.76%


A-‐12

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Right bank tributary of Toboton Creek at RM 1.

0.16

1.00%


Toboton Cr-‐2aa

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 29. Chinook upper extent (RM 1.0) to partial barrier at Private culvert (RM 1.25)

0.18

0.72%


Toboton Creek

Toboton Private Pasture Culvert

Partial barrier at private pasture culvert (RM 1.25); assume 66% passability (best guess)

0.00

Toboton Creek

Toboton Cr-‐2ab

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 29. Private pasture culvert (RM 1.25) to partial barrier at Piessner Rd.

0.17

0.72%


Toboton Creek

Toboton Piessner Rd Culvert

Partial culvert barrier at Piessner Rd (RM 1.4) -‐ Toboton Creek; 33% passability (PCD database)

0.00

0.00%

Toboton Creek

Toboton Cr-‐2ba

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 29. Partial barrier at Piessner Rd (RM 1.4) to complete barrier at Bald Hill Rd (RM 2.1)

0.74

0.72%


Toboton Creek

Toboton Bald Hill Rd Culvert

Complete culvert barrier at Bald Hill Rd (RM 2.1) -‐ Toboton Creek; 0% passability (PCD database)

0.00

Toboton Creek

Toboton Cr-‐2bb

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 29. Partial barrier at Bald Hill Rd (RM 2.1) to 173 Ave SE culvert (RM 2.5)

0.56

0.72%


Toboton Creek

Toboton 173 Ave SE Culvert

Complete culvert barrier at 173 Ave SE (RM 2.5) -‐ Toboton Creek; 0% passability (PCD database)

0.00

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Spring Trib to Toboton

Toboton spring tributary

Toboton Creek

A-‐13

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 29. Complete barrier at 173 Ave SE(RM 2.5) to potential chum, coho, steelhead upper extent (RM 4.4)

1.68

0.72%


Powell Cr-‐1a

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 31.9. Mouth to Elbow Creek confluence at RM 0.5 (also approximate Piessner Rd culvert)

0.51

1.56%


Powell Creek

Powell Cr-‐1 Piessner Rd Culvert

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 31.9. Partial barrier for Piessner Rd; culvert barrier in main channel, side channel passage (PCD database)

0.00

Powell Creek

Powell Cr-‐1b

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 31.9. Elbow Creek confluence (also approximate Piessner Rd culvert) at RM 0.5 to chum upper extent at RM 1.3

0.77

1.56%


Powell Creek

Powell Cr-‐2

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 31.9. Chum upper extent at RM 1.3 to springs at RM 2.3

1.04

3.00%

Confined

Powell Creek

Powell Cr-‐3

Left bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 31.9. Springs at RM 2.3 to coho and steelhead upper extent at RM 4.8 (upper extent not well known)

2.46

0.80%

Moderately Confined

Elbow Creek

Elbow Cr

Left bank tributary to Powell Creek at RM 0.4.

1.00

1.10%

Confined

Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Cr-‐1

RB trib Nisqually River (RM 30.8); Mouth to RM 3.2 (changes from large tributary to small tributary)

3.36

0.51%


Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Cr-‐2

RB trib Nisqually River (RM 30.8); RM 3.5 to Rapjohn Lake outlet confluence.

3.42

0.75%


Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Toboton Creek

Toboton Cr-‐2bc

Powell Creek

Powell Creek

Prairie Tributaries

Tanwax Creek


A-‐14

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

RB trib Nisqually River (RM 30.8); Rapjohn Lake outlet confluence to Eatonville Cutoff Rd culvert (RM 7.8)

0.98

0.23%


Tanwax Cr-‐3 Eatonville Cutoff Rd Culvert

RB trib Nisqually River (RM 30.8); Culvert barrier at RM 7.8 (Eatonville Cutoff Rd); partial barrier (modified PCD database)

0.00

Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Cr-‐3_b

RB trib Nisqually River (RM 30.8); Eatonville Cutoff Rd (RM 7.8) to Tanwax Lake screen.

3.30

0.23%


Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Lake

Tanwax Lake

1.49

0.00%

Unconfined

Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Upper Tributaries

Inlet of Tanwax Lake up outlet tributaries to Twin Lake, Byron Lake, and Lake Whitman

1.06

0.70%

Moderately Confined

Cranberry

Cranberry

Left bank tributary to Tanwax Creek at RM 5.1. Cranberry Lake outlet creek from confluence with Tanwax Creek to Cranberry Lake.

0.55

5.00%

Confined

Rapjohn Lake Outlet

Rapjohn

Left bank tributary of Tanwax Creek at RM 6.8. Rapjohn-‐ confluence with Tanwax Creek up to Rapjohn Lake.

1.13

1.50%

Moderately Confined

Mud Lake Outlet

Mud

Left bank tributary of Tanwax Creek at RM 7.2. Mud Lake outlet Creek from confluence with Tanwax Creek to Mud Lake.

1.89

0.70%

Moderately Confined

Trout Creek

Trout Creek

Right bank tributary to Tanwax Creek at RM 9.2. Trout Lake outlet creek from confluence with Tanwax Creek to impassable cascades at RM 0.2.

0.15

5.70%

Moderately Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Tanwax Creek

Tanwax Cr-‐3_a

Tanwax Creek

A-‐15

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Kreger Creek

Ohop Creek Lower

Ohop Creek

Ohop Lake

Ohop Creek Tributaries


Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 34.05. Mouth to top of steep lower reach (RM 0.6)

0.62

3.60%

Confined

Kreger Cr-‐2

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 34.05. Top of steep lower reach (RM 0.6) to Kreger Lake outlet.

0.96

0.10%


Kreger Creek

Kreger Lake

Kreger Lake

0.65

0.00%

Unconfined

Kreger Creek

Kreger Cr-‐3

Right bank tributary to Nisqually River at RM 34.05. Kreger Lake inlet to Silver Lake outlet.

1.42

1.30%

Moderately Confined

Kreger Creek

Silver Lake

Silver Lake (coho and steelhead upper extent)

0.49

0.00%

Unconfined

Ohop Creek

Ohop Cr-‐1_a

Ohop Creek; Mouth to RM 4.2 (where a break in gradient and gravel transport occurs)

1.77

0.10%

Unconfined

Ohop Creek

Ohop Cr-‐1_b

Ohop Creek; RM 4.2 (where a break in gradient and gravel transport occurs) to Lynch Creek confluence at RM 6.25

4.74

0.47%

Unconfined

Ohop Creek

Ohop Cr-‐2

Ohop Creek; Lynch Creek confluence to Ohop Lake Outlet

0.21

0.37%

Unconfined

Ohop Creek

Ohop Lake

Low log dam to upper end of lake (RM 6.3 to 8.4)

2.27

0.05%

Unconfined

Lynch Creek

Lynch Cr

Tributary to Ohop Creek at RM 6.2 (below Ohop Lake); Mouth to impassible falls.

1.09

3.41%

Confined

Trib0094

Trib0094

Left bank tributary to Ohop Creek at RM 9.2. Mouth to coho upper extent.

0.22

1.00%

Moderately Confined

Twentyfive Mile Creek

Twentyfive Mile Cr

Tributary to Ohop Creek at RM 8.4, above Ohop Lake to impassible falls.

2.87

0.74%

Moderately Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Kreger Creek

Kreger Cr-‐1

Kreger Creek

A-‐16

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Subbasin

Sub-‐Watershed

Mashel River Lower

Mashel River Middle

Mashel River Upper Mashel River

Mashel River Tributaries

Length (mi)

Gradient (%)

Confinement Class

Mashel River, mouth to river mile 3.5, passable cascades, upper extent for chum

3.81

1.16%

Confined

Lower Mashel-‐ab

Mashel River from RM 3.5 (passable cascades) to Little Mashel River (RM 4.4)

0.94

1.16%

Confined

Mashel River

Lower Mashel-‐b

Little Mashel River (RM 4.4) to Boxcar Canyon (RM 6.6)

2.34

0.96%

Confined

Mashel River

Middle Mashel R-‐1

Box Car Canyon (RM 6.6) to Beaver Creek (RM 10.5), upper extent pink salmon.

4.07

1.92%

Confined

Mashel River

Middle Mashel R-‐2

Beaver Creek (RM 10.5 to Busy Wild Cr (RM 14.6)

4.41

1.85%

Confined

Mashel River

Upper Mashel R

Mashel River from BusyWild Creek to impassable falls (RM 14.6 to 15.4)

0.76

0.95%

Confined

Little Mashel River

Little Mashel R

Tributary to the Mashel River at RM 4.4.

0.81

4.50%

Confined

Beaver Creek

Beaver Cr-‐1

Tributary to the Mashel River at RM 10.4. Upper extent chinook (falls) RM 0.3

0.39

6.94%

Confined

Beaver Creek

Beaver Creek Falls

Partial barrier to coho and steelhead. Upper extent of chinook.

0.00

0.00%

Beaver Creek

Beaver Cr-‐2

Tributary to the Mashel River at RM 10.4. -‐ Falls to upper extent of Steelhead spawning (RM 8.3)

7.15

1.73%

Unconfined

Busy Wild Creek

Busy Wild Cr-‐1

Tributary to the Mashel River at RM 14.4. Mouth to Upper extent of chinook spawning (RM 5)

4.33

0.76%

Moderately Confined

Busy Wild Creek

Busy Wild Cr-‐2

Tributary to the Mashel River at RM 14.4. Upper extent of chinook (RM 5) to Upper extend of steelhead (RM 7.8)

3.01

5.68%

Confined

Stream

EDT Reach Name

Reach Description

Mashel River

Lower Mashel-‐aa

Mashel River


A-‐17

July 2014 ICF 00153.13



Table A-‐2.

Identified Fish Passage Barriers in the Nisqually Watershed Steelhead Reach Structure

Juvenile Upstream Passage1

Adult Upstream Passage

Stream Length (m) accessible to Steelhead downstream of PI Score2 barrier3

Stream Length (m) upstream of barrier4

Subbasin

Stream

Type

Description

Prairie Tributaries

Clear Creek

Fish Weir

Hatchery Weir in Clear Creek; blocks assess to upper Clear Creek

0

0

390

1,521

Prairie Tributaries

Kalama Creek

Fish Weir

Kalama Hatchery Weir; blocks access to upper Kalama Creek

0

0

881

1,033

Muck Creek

Muck Creek

Flow Obstruct-‐ ion

Muck Cr. Above Johnson Cr. Intermittent flow obstruction

0

0

14,625

35,078

Muck Creek

S.F. Muck Creek

Culvert

304th St E culvert (RM 10.7); 0 partial barrier (PCD database)

0.33

0

3,827

Muck Creek

S.F. Muck Creek

Culvert

126th Ave E culvert (RM 13.5); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

605

Muck Creek

S.F. Muck Creek

Culvert

274th St. E. culvert (RM 14); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

2,559

1 Fish passage values: 0 – complete barrier and 0.33 and 0.66 partial barriers. 2 PI Score (Priority Index): WDFW fish passage assessment method, score consolidates several factors that affect a fish passage project's feasibility (expected

passage improvement, production potential of the blocked stream, fish stock health, etc.) for developing prioritized lists of projects. The numeric indicator provides a relative priority. High scores are higher priority and blank cells indicate a PI score was not calculated for the barrier. 3 Tributary stream length downstream of barrier accessible to steelhead calculated from the EDT steelhead reach structure. 4 Tributary stream length upstream of barrier to next passage barrier calculated from the EDT steelhead reach structure. 4 Source: Lacamas Creek Priority Index Survey, Pierce Conservation District, 2002. 5 Source: Toboton Creek Priority Index Survey, Pierce Conservation District, 2002. Nisqually Steelhead Recovery Plan

A-‐18

July 2014 ICF 00153.13





Subbasin

Stream

Type

Description

Muck Creek

N.F. Muck Creek

Dam

Unauthorized dam @ RM 17.5

0

0

0

3,676

Muck Creek

N.F. Muck Creek

Culvert

252nd St culvert (RM 20); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

0

Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Culvert

16th Ave Culvert (RM 5.5); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

9,416

685

Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Culvert

17th Ave Culvert (RM 5.75); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

323

Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Culvert

318th St Culvert (RM 6.0); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

1,472

Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Culvert

Private driveway culvert (RM 7.0); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

1,540

Prairie Tributaries

Murray Creek

Railroad Crossing

Chehalis RR Crossing (RM 2.3); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.66

3,821

3,979

Prairie Tributaries

Murray Creek

Culvert

Hinkleman Rd culvert (RM 4.7); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.66

0

2,376

Prairie Tributaries

Murray Creek

Culvert

48th Ave S. culvert (RM 6.2); complete barrier (PCD database)

0

0

0

1,893

Prairie Tributaries

Murray Creek

Pipeline Crossing

Pipeline crossing (RM 7.2): partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

2,974




A-‐19

July 2014 ICF 00153.13





Subbasin

Stream

Type

Description

Prairie Tributaries

Brighton Creek

Culvert

Harts Lake Loop Rd.; complete barrier (PCD database)

0

0

522

325

Prairie Tributaries

Brighton Creek

Culvert

Driveway culvert (RM 0.7); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.33

0

404

Prairie Tributaries

Brighton Creek

Culvert

Driveway culvert 62nd Ave S. (RM 0.9); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.66

0

5,619

Prairie Tributaries

Brighton Creek

Culvert

Highway 702 (RM 4.2); complete barrier (PCD database)

0

0

0

255

Prairie Tributaries

Horn Creek

Falls

Horn Creek Falls (unnatural barrier, did not exist in historic); partial barrier

0

0.33

1,957

2,544

Prairie Tributaries

Horn Creek

Culvert

368th St Culvert; complete barrier

0

0

0

2,763

Prairie Tributaries

Horn Creek

Culvert

Private culvert 100m N of 364th St S on private road, just over 0.5 mi E of 8th Ave S (RM 3.9); complete barrier

0

0.50

0

621

Prairie Tributaries

Harts Creek

Culvert

Harts Cr. private culvert, spur road on Wilcox Farm (RM 0.2): partial barrier

0

0.66

366

2,069

Prairie Tributaries

Harts Creek

Culvert

Harts Lk Valley Rd culvert (RM 1.2); partial barrier

0

0.66

0

437




A-‐20

July 2014 ICF 00153.13





Subbasin

Stream

Type

Description

Prairie Tributaries

Harts Creek

Culvert

Private driveway culvert (RM 0.2); partial barrier (PCD database).

0

0.66

0

750

Lacamas/ Toboton/ Powell

Lacamas Creek

Culvert

Pasture Culvert Barrier (RM 2); partial barrier (PCD database)

0

0.66

20.534

4,668

1,267


Lacamas Creek

Culvert

Culvert Barrier (RM 2.8); complete barrier (PCD database)

0

0

20.534

0

503


Toboton Creek

Culvert

Private pasture culvert (RM 1.25); partial barrier (best guess)

0

0.66

16.245

2,232

270


Toboton Creek

Culvert

Piessner Rd (RM 1.4); partial 0 barrier (PCD database)

0.33

25.715

0

1,187


Toboton Creek

Culvert

Bald Hill Rd (RM 2.1); complete barrier (PCD database)

0

25.315

0

894




0

A-‐21

July 2014 ICF 00153.13







Subbasin

Stream

Type

Description


Toboton Creek

Culvert

173 Ave SE (RM 2.5); complete barrier (PCD database)

0

0

21.25

0

2,697

Prairie Tributaries

Tanwax Creek

Culvert

Eatonville Cutoff Rd. (RM 7.8); partial barrier (modified PCD database)

0

0.50

12,488

12,687


A-‐22

July 2014 ICF 00153.13

Appendix B Nisqually Steelhead Tracking Study

 

Appendix B Nisqually Steelhead Tracking Study Draft March 2014

 

Nisqually River Winter Steelhead Tracking Study DRAFT March, 2014 Prepared by: Sayre Hodgson, Nisqually Indian Tribe 12501 Yelm Hwy. SE Olympia, Washington 98513 hodgson.sayre@nisqually-‐nsn.gov

 

Introduction A Nisqually steelhead tracking study was done from 2006-2009 to investigate movement and mortality patterns during the early marine portion of the steelhead life history. Interest in this life stage was based on the observation of similar patterns of interannual variability and decline across various Puget Sound steelhead stocks, indicating that there may be high mortality in the marine portion of the life history where different stocks experience similar environmental conditions. The objectives of the tracking study were to: 1) Gather steelhead trout life history information to improve identification of actions needed to restore Nisqually River steelhead; 2) Characterize steelhead smolt movement and residency patterns (timing, areas of holding, and migratory routes) from the Nisqually River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca; and 3) Estimate survival rates to points along the steelhead outmigration, and identify areas of suspected high mortality. The study was part of a larger regional study with comparison of tagged Puget Sound and Hood Canal steelhead movement patterns and a shared network of acoustic receivers in Puget Sound and the straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. Methods Receivers Acoustic receiver lines, each composed of two Vemco VR2 receivers, were placed in 4 locations in the Nisqually River (Figure 1) prior to fish tagging each year to detect migration upstream of tagging and into and out of the estuary. In addition, partners throughout the Puget Sound area and beyond maintained receiver networks and shared the data on detections of tagged steelhead from the Nisqually (Figure 2). This included the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking (POST) network receiver lines at the Strait of Juan de Fuca in all years (the last point of detection on the outmigration) and at Admiralty Inlet in 2009. Most of the other Puget Sound receivers were point receivers, which generally have lower detection efficiencies than receiver lines. Capture Fish were caught by barbless hook and line (2006-8), fyke trap in the Nisqually estuary (2006), and at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife outmigrant trap in 2009 (Table 1). Tagging occurred between late April and Early June each year. In the first year of the study, estuary receivers were left in place until September but since there were no detections after June 14th, some or all of the receivers were removed in subsequent years by the end of June to prevent damage. To be selected for tagging, captured steelhead had to exceed a weight limit (32g), and score a 2 or higher on a qualitative smoltification scale. A total of 187 steelhead trout were tagged, with an average fork length of 199 mm. This was 50 or more fish per year, except for 2008 when only 14 fish were tagged due to high flows. Smaller fish were tagged with Vemco V7-2L tags, and larger fish were tagged with Vemco V9-6L tags. Tags ranged from 0.8-5.0% of body weight, averaging 3.2% (Table 1). Surgery Fish were held near the locations where they were caught in totes with supplemental oxygen and Stresscoat. They were anesthetized in MS-222 (0.07 g/L) with baking soda buffer and supported upside down by a spongy foam block during surgery,

during which they were given maintenance anesthetic by gravity feed over the gills (0.02 g/L). After an incision was made in the abdomen forward of the pelvic girdle muscle, a tag was inserted, antibiotic was injected (25 mg/kg oxytetracycline), and the incision was sutured with 2-3 stitches (4-0 RB-1 Taper antibacterial Ethicon Vicryl Plus violet braided). The wound was dabbed with antibacterial ointment (Bacitracin), a small genetic sample (fin clip) was taken, and the fish were then held in a recovery tote for an average of 1.5 hours (7 minute - 3.5 hour range) before being released near the location they were caught. Stresscoat was added to all water that fish were be held in before, during, and after surgery. Tags and surgery tools were disinfected in Nolvasan (chlorhexidine diacetate) and rinsed in saline solution prior to use. Table 1. Tag types used, fish lengths, capture dates and methods, and tag percentage of body weight. Year 2006 2007 2009 V7-2L tags used (25-75s delay) 20 35 34 V9-6L tags used (25-75s delay) 36 15 35 Total number of steelhead tagged 56 50 69 Average fork length (mm) 196 183 208 Average smoltification index 2.7 2.5 2.8 Average tag % of body weight 3.6 3.4 2.8 Number captured by hook and line in river 40 50 0 Number captured by seine of fyke trap in estuary 16 0 0 Number captured at outmigrant trap 0 0 69 Tagging date range 5/1 – 6/5 4/25 – 6/1 5/4 – 5/28 Figure 1. Map of Nisqually acoustic receiver lines active in 2006-2009.

Figure 2. Receiver network of research partners in 2006, 2007 and 2009. Nisqually estuary and Strait of Juan de Fuca receivers were active in all years but some receivers were not active in all years. Data was shared directly by partners or through the Hydra database.

Results Timing Tagged steelhead were detected in the estuary throughout May and early June (Figure 3), with the first estuary detection ranging from 3-32 days after tagging, or on average 11 days after tagging in river. The minimum estuary residence time for each fish was calculated as the difference between first and last detections in the estuary. This time was short for the majority of tagged steelhead, ranging from 0-31 days, with a median of almost 6.5 hours. 79% of the tagged fish had minimum estuary residence times of less than one day (Figure 4). This time between first and last estuary detections is a minimum estuary residence time because the estuary continues beyond the location of our lowest receivers so some fish could have been in the lower estuary still without being detected there.

Figure 3. Dates of steelhead tagging in the river and estuary, along with the dates of first and last detection in the Nisqually estuary and first detection at the Stait of Juan de Fuca.

Figure 4. Minimum duration of estuary residence (based on duration of time between first and last estuary detections) for fish tagged in 2006-9. In 2006 some of the steelhead were tagged in the estuary, as noted.

The migration time from the Nisqually estuary to the Strait of Juan de Fuca receiver line (JDF) ranged from 7-21 days, averaging 12.8 days (Figure 5). All fish detected at JDF passed during a less than three week time period between May 25th and

June 12th (Figure 3). From Puget Sound to JDF, 53% of new detections (first detection at a new location) of the tagged steelhead occurred in daytime, 30% at night and 16% during twilight (based on Seattle astronomical twilight). Patterns for new detections in the Nisqually estuary were similar. Figure 5. Average timing of Nisqually steelhead outmigration, starting with estuary detection at day 0. All 2006, 2007 and 2009 tagged fish were included in the average as far as they were detected, with timing of fish past points where they weren’t detected interpolated based on distance if they were detected somewhere before and after the missing location. Line indicates simplified potential migration route, with thickness proportional to number of fish detected.

Survival The proportion of fish tagged in river that were detected in the estuary ranged from 78-90%. Detection efficiencies of the estuary and I-5 receiver lines combined were 100% and 82% respectively (based the proportion of fish detected past a receiver that were also detected at that receiver. Of the fish detected or tagged in the estuary, the proportion detected at points along the way gradually decreased down to only 5-18% detected at JDF. The proportion of fish detected at this last location, the Strait of Juan de Fuca receiver line, is assumed to be approximately 70-90% efficient, depending on tag type (Melnychuk 2009). None of the tagged steelhead were detected migrating east of Vancouver Island at the Strait of Georgia.

A regional analysis of 1393 hatchery and wild steelhead tagged in Puget Sound and Hood Canal between 2006 and 2009 used Cormac-Jolly-Seber mark-recapture models to account for receiver line inefficiency and estimate actual survival rates past lines of receivers along the outmigration. Modelled survival rates for Nisqually steelhead from the Nisqually river mouth, combined for 2006 and 2009 (the two years with good reception near Tacoma narrows) were 93%, 48%, 23%, and 13% to Tacoma Narrows, Central Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca respectively. When all years from 2006-2009 were included, the modelled survival rates from the river mouth to Central Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca were 60% and 6% respectively (Megan Moore, NOAA, unpublished data). Survival rates of tagged Nisqually steelhead were similar to but slightly lower than the other wild steelhead populations in the study (Figure 2), while Nisqually steelhead had the longest migration distance to travel. Figure 6. Survivorship curves for steelhead smolts in Puget Sound and Hood Canal starting with river mouth entry. Data combined from 2006, 2007, and 2009 though not all segments and populations had data for all years. Location of receiver lines is marked for Tacoma Narrows (NAR), Central Puget Sound (CPS), Hood Canal Bridge (HCB), Admiralty Inlet (ADM), Deception Pass (DP), and final measurement at Juan de Fuca Strait (JDF). Preliminary data from Megan Moore (NOAA).

Discussion The timing of estuary presence found in this study ranged from May through June, peaking in late May. This matches well with the catch history at the Animal Slough fyke trap near the mouth of the Nisqually where steelhead are occasionally caught between April and June, with large catches only occurring between mid-May and the beginning of June. The majority of tagged fish had documented estuary residence times of less than a day but 21% of tagged steelhead were detected over a more prolonged period (up to 31 days). In some cases this prolonged residence may represent detections of the tags in predators. More information on stomach evacuation times for predators is needed. The 78-90% detection of tagged fish at the river mouth lines indicates that 1022% of the tagged fish either died naturally, died due to tagging, or were not actually smolting and stayed in the river. Survival dropped gradually with migration through Puget Sound. Modelled survival rates of Nisqually and other steelhead in the region indicated that Central Puget Sound and Admiralty Inlet areas are areas of concern with steeper drops in survival than in South Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. For the steelhead detected at JDF, estimated travel speeds from river mouth to JDF ranged from 12-34 km/day and averaged 21 km/day, with an average of only 12.8 days in transit between the Nisqually estuary and JDF but a survival of only about 5-18% between these two locations. The acoustics study based steelhead survival rates through Puget Sound to JDF are shown in the context of information on other stages of the life history in Figure 7. Assuming a 1% total smolt to adult survival rate, mortality is quite heavy in Puget Sound compared to during the ocean portion of the migration. Setting the returning number to match the 5 year average escapement estimate (470 for 2008-2012), or double that estimate (because it may be conservative and does not cover some areas), places the number of outmigrants within range of the average outmigrant trap estimate (an underestimate of fish outmigrating due to location) for the last 4 years. Continued study of Nisqually and other regional steelhead survival patterns during outmigration is underway. Figure 7. Number of steelhead surviving from outmigration to return, assuming a 1% total smolt to adult return and setting the escapement at either the 5 year average or double the five year average.

Reference Melnychuk, M.C. 2009. Estimation of survival and detection probablilities for multiple tagged salmon stocks with nested migration routes, using a large-scale telemetry array. Marine and Freshwater Research 60: 1231-1243.

Appendix C Nisqually Winter Steelhead Action Plan

 

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

1.0 ‐ Protection

Wetland and Headwater Protection

Shoreline and Floodplain Acquisition/Protection

1.1 ‐ Acquisition of key areas

Action 1.1.1

Action 1.1.2

This action intended to identify and protect additional shoreline and floodplain in some key areas of the mainstem. Percent of shoreline in protected status reported by mainstem reach is generally high; across Nisqually River Protect High all mainstem reaches 70% of the mainstem shoreline is protected. Acquire property or development rights for certain shore Ensure long‐term protection of high quality habitats in mainstem. combine with Mainstem Quality lands along the Nisqually River mainstem. restoration opportunities where possible and will provide benefits Protection Habitats Percent of shoreline unprotected by mainstem reach: 1) Lower Reach/Upper Estuary ‐ 54%, 2) Reservation Reach ‐ 8%, 3) Whitewater Reach ‐ 33%, 4) McKenna Reach ‐ 79%, 5) Wilcox Reach ‐ 51%, 6) Middle Reach ‐ 7%, and 7) Upper Reach ‐ 13%.

Acquire property or development rights of certain properties along tributary streams.

Nisqually Tributary Protection

This action intended to identify and protect additional shoreline and floodplain in some key tributaries important for steelhead. Protection of tributary habitat is spotty and not well documented. Portions of Protect High lower Ohop Creek and lower Mashel River are in protected status as Quality these areas were idenfitied for Chinook recovery. Habitats

Ensure long‐term protection of high quality habitats in tributaries and combine with restoration opportunities where possible and will provide benefits

Percent of shoreline unprotected by tributary reach: 1) Lower Ohop (mouth to lake) ‐ 61 % and 2) Lower Mashel (mouth to Boxcar) ‐ 31% The altering and filling of wetlands is prohibited under existing state Protect High and federal environmental laws. This action is intended to expand that Protect and enhance hydrology and water quality. Quality protection by increasing the buffer around wetlands the acquiring Habitats development rights or properties that are significant to stream hydrology and water quality.

Action 1.1.3

Acquire and protect (either through direct purchase or purchase of development rights) wetlands that have a significant influence on stream conditions.

Action 1.1.4

McAllister Coordinate with City of Olympia Public Works to develop Protect High Headwaters a succession plan to protect and restore the headwater Quality Protect and enhance the hydrology of McAllister Creek Protection/Res springs and wetlands of McAllister Creek. Habitats toration

Nisqually Wetland Protection

Protect and enhance hydrology and water quality in McAllister Creek.

The primary reaches for this action are the Lower Reach/ Upper Estuary (Nisqually 2a), Whitewater Reach (Nisqually 3), McKenna Reach (Nisqually 4), and Wilcox Reach (Nisqually 5).

The focus of this effort should be the Mashel sub‐basin (within the Lower Mashel and the Little Mashel reaches), the Ohop Creek sub‐basin (Ohop Creek, Ohop Lake, and the downstream portions of the Lynch Creek and Twenty‐ five Mile reaches ‐ including the former Clay City mining operation), and the lower and mid portions of the “prairie” type creek reaches.

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

1.0 ‐ Protection

Maintain and Enhance Protection Commitments

1.2 ‐ Maintain and Enhance Existing Commitments

Action 1.2.1

Nisqually ‐ Mashel State Park management plan to provide protection and opportunities for restoration of riparian, in‐channel, and floodplain condition.

Nisqually‐ Mashel State Park Management Plan

Protection Agreements

Ensure management plan for the Nisqually ‐ Mashel State Park will provide protection and opportunities for restoration of riparian, in‐ channel, and floodplain condition.

USDOD/ JBLM protection commitments for aquatic habitats adjoining and within managed lands.

USDOD/JBLM Protection Protection Agreements

Action 1.2.3

Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) and City of Centralia protection commitments.

TPU and City of Central Protection

Action 1.2.4

Maintain and Enhance County and city governments protection commitments for Protection Protection City shoreline properties in public ownership. Agreements and County governments

Maintain and enhance county and city governments protection commitments for shoreline properties in public ownership. Review adequacy of existing laws and strengthen protection as related to steelhead habitat in the mainstem and tributaries.

Action 1.2.5

Nisqually Nisqually Indian Tribe permanent protection commitment Indian Tribe on reservation lands along mainstem. Protection

Maintain Nisqually Tribe commitments to protection.


Nisqually 7a Upper Reach, Ohop 1A and Lower Mashel A_A

Right‐bank areas in the Lower Reach (Nisqually 2A and 2B), for the Promote and maintain awareness of importance of protection and review adequacy of Maintain USDOD/JBLM protection commitments. Coordinate with JBLM Whitewater Reach (Nisqually 3), for existing policies. Seek out opportunities to strengthen protection as related to to be sure that ongoing management activities support recovery. reaches adjoining Muck Creek, and for steelhead habitat (mainstem and tributaries) its Puget Sound shoreline between the Nisqually River and Steilacoom. Wilcox Reach (Nisqually 5), Middle Maintain Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) and City of Centralia protection Promote and maintain awareness of importance of protection and review adequacy of Reach (Nisqually 6), Upper Reach commitments. Coordinate with utilities to be sure that ongoing existing policies. Seek out opportunities to strengthen protection as related to (Nisqually 7A), and Upper Reach management activities support recovery. steelhead habitat (mainstem and tributaries) (Nisqually 7B).

Action 1.2.2


‐‐ Develop park infrastructure (trails, campsites, and buildings) outside of floodplain or in ways compatible with natural area. ‐‐ Include in plan restoration of degraded riparian and floodplain habitats. ‐‐ Include in plan in‐channel restoration actions to improve egg incubation and juvenile rearing habitats.

Promote awareness of importance of protection and review adequacy of existing laws. All locations with a special emphasis in Seek out opportunities to strengthen protection as related to steelhead habitat the Mashel River (mainstem and tributaries)

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

2.0 ‐ Restoration 2.1 ‐ Restoration Watershed Processes

Mainstem Floodplan Habitats

Streamside buffers, riparian restoration, and upland management

Action 2.1.1

Conduct shoreline stewardship workshops – inform residents on native planting techniques, riparian invasive Shoreline plant management, sources of native plants, natural lawn Stewardship care, technical and financial resources available, would Workshops help us identify partners for future plantings. Riparian Management for Improved Growth

Riparian restoration

Restoration of riparian native plant communities, improve composition and quantity Conduct workshops that will lead to future restoration actions to LWD recruitment to streams, stream shading, and reduce sediment transport to improve native plant communities along the mainstem and tributaries. streams


Enhance riparian through management (i.e.,manage small stands of suitable species to promote survival and growth), stand improvement for sites with marginal recruitment potential, underplanting of shade‐ tolerant conifers, or conversion of unsuitable sites (e.g., hardwood‐ dominated sites) to more suitable stands.

Focus areas on mainstem are Lower Reach, Whitewater, and McKenna Restoration of riparian native plant communities, improve composition and quantity reaches (2a‐Lower Reach; 2B.1‐Lower LWD recruitment to streams, stream shading, and reduce sediment transport to Reach; 2B.3‐Lower Reach, 3.3‐ streams Whitewater, 4.1‐McKenna & 4.2‐ McKenna)

Regular riparian and aquatic invasive plant surveys, early action invasive plant control, regular maintenance weed control and replanting following control of larger infestations.

Restoration of riparian native plant communities, improve composition and quantity LWD recruitment to streams, stream shading, and reduce sediment transport to streams

Action 2.1.2

Improve degraded riparian areas through management and passive restoration

Action 2.1.3

Implement a watershed‐wide riparian invasive plant Invasive Plant Riparian control program through the Nisqually River Cooperative Control restoration Weed Management Area working group

Action 2.1.4

Revegetate former Mock City site on JBLM/Whitewater reach

Action 2.1.5

Develop a Nisqually/Mashel Community Forestry initiative

Action 2.1.6

Encourage and implement voluntary restoration Voluntary opportunities for sedimentation problems from existing Forest Road roads identified in the Mashel Watershed Analysis Remediation Forest plans (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1996) and and the Ohop/Tanwax/ Powell Watershed Analysis (Nisqually Abandonment Indian Tribe, 1998).

Action 2.1.7

Develop and implement farm plans to address loss or degradation of aquatic habitats

Action 2.1.8

Restore lost off‐channel habitat (floodplain channels and Floodplain ponds) and enhance existing habitats along Nisqually Restoration Mainstem

Action 2.1.9

Restore active channel river meander belt and natural channel configuration;

JBLM Mock City Riparian Restoration Community Forest Riparian Restoration


Began initial discussions with JBLM in 2014

Forest plans

Develop Nisqually/Mashel Community Forestry initiative to address riparian buffers, road networks, and upland timber harvest

Nisqually Farm Farm plans Plans

Floodplain Restoration

Channel CMZ Migration Zone Restoration Restoration

Restoration of riparian native plant communities, improve composition and quantity LWD recruitment to streams, stream shading, and reduce sediment transport to Nisqually River Whitewater reach streams ‐‐ Decrease forest management‐related mass wasting and subsequent sediment Initial focus will be in the Mashel delivery Watershed. ‐‐ Reduce sediment sources and delivery from roads and forest harvest ‐‐ Restore riparian vegetation and increase stream buffers ‐‐ Restore hydrology by disconnecting road network and drainage system from stream network ‐‐ Reduce sediment sources and delivery from roads

Includes conservation district approved farm plans (commercial and hobby farms) along the Nisqually River, Mashel River, Ohop Creek, and McAllister Creek. Intent is to eventually have plans implemented for 95% of farms in these areas.

‐‐ Reduce sediment input from agriculture lands ‐‐ Reduce inputs pesticides to streams ‐‐ Promote riparian revegetation ‐‐ Promote the reestablishment of natural channel form

Nisqually River, Mashel River, Ohop Creek, and McAllister Creek

Projects based on recommendations of the South Puget Sound Salmon Establish or promote the development and engagement of floodplain channels Enhancement Group off‐channel habitat assessment (Ellings 2004). Provide for channel forming flows, remove bank hardening, and promote in‐channel wood. Reestablish connections with existing side channels along the Nisqually mainstem and promote the creation of new side channels

Establish or promote the development and engagement of side channel habitats and unconstrained channel migration

Primarily Mckenna Reach (Nisqually 4) and Wilcox Reach (Nisqually 5), Lower Mashel River, and Ohop Creek.

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

2.0 ‐ Restoration Fish Passage Barriers

2.2 ‐ Restore Fish Passage Action 2.2.1

Replace fish passage barriers in the anadromous portion of the watershed with structures that pass juvenile and adult fish and instream wood.

Fish Passage Barrier Removal

Prioritize and address remaining barriers to fish passage in watershed. Restore fish passage and provide structures large enough to pass wood. Update inventory to identify any additional barriers

See separate list of barriers identified as of 2013. Not all potential barriers have been inventoried in watershed

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

2.0 ‐ Restoration

Biotic Communit y and Food

Instream wood placement

2.3 ‐ Habitat Enhancement Action 2.3.1

Transport logs from above the Alder/LaGrande dams to mainstem Nisqually downstream to supplement LWD recruitment to mainstem reaches.

Upper Mainstem Instream Wood Enhancement

Action 2.3.2

Placement of in‐stream large wood (either individual pieces or aggregations) in the mainstem Nisqually River and side channels

Nisqually Using latest methods place single pieces and aggregations of wood on Mainstem In‐ Habitat mainstem Nisqually. Ideally locations would be combined with stream Wood Enhancement floodplain accquistion and restoration opportunities. Enhancement

Increase the quantity pools and pool complexity

Action 2.3.3

Nisqually Using latest methods place single pieces and aggregations of wood on Placement of in‐stream wood (either individual pieces or Tributary In‐ Habitat tributaries. Ideally locations would be combined with floodplain aggregations) in the tributaries. stream Wood Enhancement accquistion and restoration opportunities. Enhancement


Action 2.3.4

Continue program to distribute hatchery carcasses as food Fish Carcass source in headwater tributaries and upper mainstem Placement reaches.

Increase the contribution of MDN to stream productivity

Work with Tacoma Power to find ways to transport logs from above Habitat the Alder/LaGrande dams to downstream areas, supplement LWD Enhancement recruitment to mainstem reaches.

Habitat Continue existing program, in recent years carcass placement has Enhancement focused on locations higher in the watershed.


Geographic Area

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

2.0 ‐ Restoration

Area‐specific restoration plans

2.4 ‐ Area Restoration Plans

Ohop Creek Phase III Restoration

Action 2.4.1

Implement final phases of Lower Ohop restoration plan.

Action 2.4.2

Continue and expand Mashel River Restoration Plan

Action 2.4.3

Advance and implement the Nisqually Lower Reach (Nisqually 2a) Restoration Plan

Action 2.4.4

Develop and implement a Muck Creek Restoration plan

Muck Creek Restoration Plan

Action 2.4.5

Implement 2014 Eatonville Stormwater Comprehensive Management Plan projects

Eatonville Stormwater Multiple Comprehensiv strategies e Plan

Mashel River Restoration Lower Nisqually Reach Restoration Plan

Multiple strategies

The total project will re‐elevate the 4.4 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain recreating a 6 mile long stream with its original meander pattern and restoring its hydrologic connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas. Off‐channel habitat will be created and the riparian areas will be planted with native vegetation. The project will also revegetate 400 acres of the surrounding valley floor which is dominated by wetlands.

Multiple strategies

Restoration channel form, riparian and habitat complexity

Lower Ohop Creek

Restoration channel form, riparian and complexity

Mashel River downstream of Boxcar

Multiple strategies

Restoration plan to address the degraded habitat in the lower Nisqually Address the following habitat issues: bank hardening, loss of in‐stream wood, loss of River mainstem upstream of I‐5. This action may be combined with pools, loss of backwater pools, loss of off‐channel habitat, condition and production of actions to remove of fill associated with I‐5 and other roads within and spawning gravel, loss of high flow refuge areas, reduction of or refuge from higher upstream of the reach, and placing roads on piers. scour events, loss of streamside vegetation.

Multiple strategies

Develop and implement a comprehensive restoration plan to remove or reduce impacts of invasive reed canary grass, restoration of Muck Creek wetlands (e.g., Chambers Lake), and stream hydrology.

Flow, channel form and habitat complexity

Implement projects identified in Eatonville Stormwater Protect and restore peak and low flow in Lynch Creek and Mashel River Comprehensive Plan. Monitor results on Lynch Cr. and Mashel R. flows

Muck Creek from Preacher Creek to lower portions of S.F. and N.F. Muck Creek Lynch Creek and Mashel River downstream of Boxcar

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

3.0 ‐ Regulatory Barriers, Policy Support, and Community Behavior

Community Behavior and Watershed Stewardship

Policies, Regulations, and Land Use Planning

3.1 ‐ Regulatory, Policy, and Community Action 3.1.1

Local government (Pierce County, Thurston County, Local Eatonville, Roy, Yelm) regulations, policies, and practices Government to protect and restore ecological functions in stream Regulations corridor and upland areas

Provide support for and assistance with development of local Policy and government (Pierce County, Thurston County, Eatonville, Roy, Yelm) Regulatory regulations, policies, and practices that protect ecological functions in Coordination stream corridor and upland areas that will affect aquatic conditions.

Identify and address regulations, policies, and practices that impede or adversely affect steelhead recovery in the watershed ‐‐ Coordinate objectives and activities ‐‐ Communicate objectives and activities ‐‐ Ensure activities are consistent with steelhead recovery goals

Action 3.1.2

Maintain long‐term forest zone designation for all current Forest Zone commercial forest lands. Designations

Policy and Maintain upland forests in commercial forest land. Evaluate and Regulatory monitor progress of forest management plans to protect aquatic Coordination resources.

‐‐ Coordinate objectives and activities ‐‐ Communicate objectives and activities ‐‐ Ensure activities are consistent with steelhead recovery goals

Middle Mashel, Upper Mashel, Busywild, Little Mashel River, Lynch Creek, Twenty‐five Mile Creek, Toboton, and Powell reaches.

Action 3.1.3

Provide incentives to small forest landowners (in and above the anadromous zone) to maintain timber.

Small Forest Landowners

Incentive Programs


Focus on middle Mashel, Little Mashel, Ohop, Lynch, 25 mile, prairie tributaries

Action 3.1.4

Basin‐wide management policy on beaver‐dam removal; develop policy that weighs fish passage benefits of removal versus loss of key habitat associated with removal of dams.

Beaver Impact Policy and Policy will be developed from information collected on the role of Management Regulatory beaver dams in providing key habitat in tributaries and side channels Plan Coordination of the Nisqually River and tributaries

Action 3.1.5

Community support of shoreline habitat protection and restoration by private property owners on their properties.

Action 3.1.6

Ecourage stream habitat friendly practices by private property owners in the watershed.

Action 3.1.7

Action 3.1.8

Action 3.1.9

Community Support and Involvement on Private Land Stream Friendly Practices on Private Land

Protection of tributary, floodplain and wetland habitats.

Community Support

Encourage and support community involvement in shoreline habitat protection and restoration by private property owners on their properties.


Community Support

Encourage use of best management practices by private property owners in the watershed.

‐‐ Coordinate objectives and activities ‐‐ Communicate objectives and activities ‐‐ Ensure activities are consistent with steelhead recovery goals Develop and support local sub‐watershed groups that build a sense of community for the watershed. Encourage and assist groups in involving the community in habitat protection and enhancement. Continue and expand the Nisqually Stream Stewards program to educate and involve local volunteers, communities, and businesses in salmon habitat protection and restoration projects.

Foster a Nisqually watershed community that is sustainable and supportive of salmon and steelhead recovery.

Nisqually Community Community Behavior and Support Watershed Stewardship

Foster a Nisqually watershed community that is sustainable and supportive of salmon recovery. Develop and support local sub‐ watershed groups and Stream Stewards program to build a sense of community for the watershed. Encourage and assist groups in involving the community in habitat protection and enhancement.

Support implementation of and updates to the Nisqually River Council's Nisqually Watershed Stewardship plan.

Nisqually Watershed Stewardship plan

Community Support

The plan provides for a "balanced stewardship of the area’s economic resources, natural resources, and cultural resources".

Policy and Technical Support

Findings and recommendations to address low steelhead marine survival is very important to Nisqually steelhead. This action is to ensure funding support for the Puget Sound Marine Survival Research Identify factors affecting Nisqually steelhead survival, develop a plan to address these Estuarine and marine habitats plan, the development and implementation of strategies and actions to factors, and ultimately improve survival to levels that achieve recovery goals. address low survival, and to encourage regional collaboration, policy and technical coordination, and information sharing.

Support funding of Puget Sound Marine Survival Research Marine plan and encourage regional collaboration, policy and Survival technical coordination, and information sharing. Support

Foster watershed stewardship through supporting the Nisqually River Education Project, the Nisqually Land Trust Stewardship Program, Pierce Conservation District and its Stream Team, Thurston Conservation District, and other education or outreach programs that foster stewardship in the Nisqually watershed. ‐‐ Coordinate objectives and activities ‐‐ Communicate objectives and activities ‐‐ Ensure activities are consistent with steelhead recovery goals

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

Geographic Area

4.0 ‐ Assessments to Support Restoration Actions Action 4.1 Assess alternative water sources for the City of Eatonville

City of Eatonville Water Source

Assessment

Assess effects of future growth on hydrology and water quality Effects of Assessment Action 4.2 in watershed, including potential impacts of well withdrawals Future Growth from aquifer on summertime stream flows

Assessment to Support Restoration

Assess potential positive benefits to improving base flow in City of Yelm Action 4.3 Yelm Creek from the City of Yelm shifting its water source from Water Source the current Yelm aquifer to the deep Nisqually aquifer.

Action 4.4

Assess Muck Creek hydrology to idenfity strategies to improve Muck Creek stream flow and water quality. Hydrology

Assess the impacts of forest roads and vegetation changes on stream flow using latest techniques (build on methods since Forest Action 4.5 Mashel and Ohop Watershed Analysis was done in the 1990s) to Hydrology evaluate the effects of past practices, and to help guide future practices, for the area. Assess whether exposed sediment sources associated with former clay mining operations (Twenty‐five Mile and Ohop Ohop Water Action 4.6 Creek reaches) are causing any excess sediment problems Quality downstream in Ohop Lake and creek. Continue to develop a lower Nisqually Restoration Feasability Action 4.7 Assessment

Action 4.8

Assess the feasibility and benefits of removing fill associated with I‐5 in the Nisqually lower reach and estuary.

Lower Niqually Restoration

Assessment

Assessment

Increase summer base flow in Mashel River

Using modeling tools to assess the potential for future impacts of population growth on hydrology and water quality.

Maintain summer base flows, winter peak flow hydrology, and water quality throughout year

Improve Yelm Creek summer stream flows by finding alternative water sources for the City of Yelm, replace existing shallow groundwater source with deep wells pulling from the Nisqually aquifer Build on the work by DOE (Sinclair 2001) and complete a study of Muck Creek hydrology with the intent to evaluate the effects of Chambers Dam removal, subsurface hydrology, localized land activities on surface flow, and report recommendations to improve streamflow in Muck Creek. Include an evaluation of the potential benefits (or detriments) of prairie restoration (with mimic of historic fire regime to alter vegetation suriving) and riprarian planting for shade to Muck Creek flow.

Increased stream flow in Yelm Creek during summer and fall and quicker recharge of aquifer in fall and early winter.

Enhance stream flow in Muck Creek during periods that winter steelhead would access and spawn

Assessment

Build on earlier work and update recommendations to include latest science and techniques to protect and restore hydrology from forested lands in the basin.

Assessment

Former clay mine site has been identified as a potential source of sediment to Ohop Creek. Investigate the contribution of this site and identify actions to remediate this effect as necessary.

Improve water quality, suspended sediment and fine sediment deposition in Ohop Creek.

Assessment

A preliminary assessment was made that identified potential restoration actions to improve in‐stream habitat and reconnect floodplain habitats in the lower Nisqually River upstream of the I‐5 corridor.

Channel process restoration and enhancement

Lower Niqually/Estua Assessment ry Restoration

Nisqually Geomorphic assessment of hydrology, sediment dynamics and River Action 4.9 channel processes Nisqually River mainstem Geomorphic Assessment Busywild Action Geomorphic assessment of sediment load/channel stability in Geomorphic 4.10 Busywild Cr. to identify restoration options Assessment

Improve Mashel summer stream flows by finding alternative water sources for the city of Eatonville, replace existing surface water withdrawal with an alternative that will not impact surface water.

Assessment

Assessment

Ohop Creek

Theme Action ID

Proposed Action

Action Name

Type

Description

Objectives

5.0 ‐ Research and Monitoring Activities to Identify and Support Protection/Restoration Priorities

Action 5.1

Action 5.2

Improve adult escapement estimate and understanding of Nisqually steelhead life history

Maintain and expand activities at WDFW smolt trap to better evaluate abundance and survival of Nisqually River Steelhead

RM&E activities: ‐‐ Install an adult counter at Centralia Diversion Dam ' ‐‐Set a mainstem survey schedule that is frequent enough to avoid missing redds, based on redd life estimate Abundance Evaluate run timing and improve escapement estimates to in basin Research/Mo ‐‐ Expand surveys in Muck Creek to February and intensify survey Estimates and Expand juvenile monitoring nitoring efforts in tributaries Life History ‐‐ Install an outmigrant trap on Muck Cr. at the mouth, and an adult trap or counter to evaluate Muck Creek steelhead production and compare to historic data RM&E activities: ‐‐ Maintain juvenile trap operations at RKM 20 Juvenile ‐‐ Expand operations to include a PIT tag component to steelhead smolt Research/Mo abundance monitoring, tag fish at trap and instal a detector array downstream of Freshwater production estimate, marine survival, and steelhead life history estimates and nitoring the trap, potential to use adult detections to estimate escapement and life history adult life history information

Research and Monitoring

Marine Continue steelhead marine survival acoustic study with refined Survival Action 5.3 Accoustic design as part of Puget Sound wide study Study

Evaluate effectiveness of fish screens at Centralia Diversion Dam (impingement and entrainment juvenile fish entering the diversion canal). Evaluate effectiveness of adult ladder for Centralia Action 5.4 steelhead and ability steelhead to bypass ladder. Evaluate flow Diversion Dam management in mainstem bypass reach for adults, redds, and juveniles. Marine Survival Action 5.5 Assess nanophyetus impact on steelhead upon marine entry Disease Factors Marine Continue to develop and participate in regional studies of Survival Action 5.6 predation upon steelhead smolts in Nisqually River estuary and Predation Puget Sound Factors

Research to improve our understanding of the links between Action 5.7 anadromous and resident O. mykiss in the Nisqually River watershed

Resident and Anadromous

Research methods and efficiency for long‐term control of reed Action 5.8 canary grass in Muck Creek channel. Investigate methods to increase shade without removing too much groundwater.

Reed Canary Grass Control

Action 5.9

Research feasibility of using wood from commercial forestry operations for in‐stream habitat restoration

Instream Wood Enhancement

Action 5.10

Research steelhead use in forested tidal area of upper estuary

Steelhead Use Estuarine Habitats

Research

NSRT observations suggest steelhead fry may be impinged or entrained Research/Mo into diversion canal during summer. Some concern within the team that flow management may affect steelhead spawning and juvenile survival nitoring in the mainstem bypass reach.

Research

Research Studies identifed as recovery plan was developed: ‐‐ Complete an asssement and implement recommendations for managing the resident and anadromous genetic resource in the Nisqually watershed, including O. mykiss upstream of the dams. ‐‐ Continue WDFW otolith studies investigating contribution of resident O. mykiss parents to anadromous offspring and vice versa (provide otoliths whenever lethal samples are taken eg. marine survival fish health study) ‐‐ Complete an assessment of resident rainbow trout stocking programs in the watershed (origin, life history, reproductive cycle, risk of hybridization, etc), evaluate their potential impact to wild winter steelhead and develop a management plan to maintain these fisheries without impeding steelhead recovery.

Field study of fish use and potential for improving steelhead survival through the Nisqually estuary

Geographic Area

 

Appendix D Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation

 

Figure D-‐1 Nisqually River Watershed Common Framework Based Steelhead Pressures Pressures represent the high level activities, structures, or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of steelhead and their habitat.

Figure D-‐2. Preliminary Nisqually River Watershed Identified Steelhead Stressors Stressors are generally more narrow in scope, and more directly responsible for degradation of steelhead and their habitat.

Figure D-‐3. General Results Chain for Nisqually River Subbasin Protection and Restoration

 