Central Puget Sound Low Flow Survey

CENTRAL PUGET SOUND LOW FLOW SURVEY

Prepared for The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

John Lombard Steward and Associates

and

Dave Somers Dave Somers Consulting

FINAL REPORT November 30, 2004

Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, Washington 98290 Tel (360) 862-1255 Fax (360) 563-0393 www.stewardandassociates.com

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1 Definition of Low Flow Problem ...... 2 Adopted Regulatory Instream Flows ...... 6 Climate Change...... 7 Quantification of Instream Flow Needs ...... 7 Recommendations...... 10 Summary Reports by WRIA...... 12 STILLAGUAMISH (WRIA 5)...... 12 Environmental Setting ...... 12 Draft Stillaguamish – WRIA 5 Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan ...... 13 Regulatory Setting ...... 14 List of Flow Problems for Fish ...... 14 SNOHOMISH (WRIA 7) ...... 17 Environmental Setting ...... 17 Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan ...... 18 Regulatory Setting ...... 18 List of Flow Problems for Fish ...... 19 CEDAR-SAMMAMISH (WRIA 8) ...... 23 Environmental Setting ...... 23 Priority Areas in Draft WRIA Plan...... 23 Regulatory Setting ...... 24 List of Flow Problems for Fish ...... 24 GREEN/DUWAMISH (WRIA 9) ...... 27 Environmental Setting ...... 27 Technical Guidance for Salmon Recovery ...... 27 Regulatory Setting ...... 28 List of Low Flow Problems for Fish...... 29 PUYALLUP-WHITE (WRIA 10)...... 31 Environmental Setting ...... 31 Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy...... 32 Regulatory Setting ...... 32 List of Low Flow Problems for Fish...... 33 CHAMBERS/CLOVER CREEK (WRIA 12)...... 36 Environmental Setting ...... 36 Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy...... 36 Regulatory Setting ...... 36 List of Low Flow Problems for Fish...... 36 References...... 39 Appendices: Data Sheets for Listed Streams...... 45 Introduction Washington State Water Resource Inventory Areas 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 (in Skagit, Snohomish, King and Pierce counties), make up the Central Puget Sound region, as defined for this report. This is the most densely populated area of Washington State and one of the most rapidly growing areas in the country. It is home to 5 species of Pacific salmon as well as steelhead, cutthroat, and dolly varden/bull trout and includes thousands of miles of salmon and steelhead habitat. As human population increases, residential, municipal, and industrial demands for water increase. Water for out of stream uses has historically come from either direct withdrawal of surface water from streams, rivers, or lakes, or from groundwater. Not uncommonly, these withdrawals have diminished the quantity and quality of stream habitat, or exacerbated natural low flow problems. As the human population increases, the potential for further degradation and conflicts between instream and out-of-stream needs will also increase. The purpose of this report is to: • Summarize existing information regarding problems for salmonids caused by human- reduced stream flows in the Central Puget Sound region; • Identify specific streams and stream segments that have been identified as having low flow related habitat limitations; • Identify the suspected causes of these low flow problems and their likely effects on salmonids; and • Discuss some potential next steps for evaluating the significance of these problems and actions that could be taken to address them. The information in this report has been gleaned from numerous ecological assessments and reports generated over the past several decades for the watersheds of the Central Puget Sound Region. Most of these assessments have been broadly focused on salmonid habitat conditions and impacts, and have not focused on water quantity and instream flow issues. As a result, the information regarding the extent and nature of stream flow issues is in most cases general in nature. This information has been supplemented with further detail from interviews with natural resource professionals in the region. We hope that this report can serve as a basis for developing strategies to address regional stream flow issues. This report does not attempt to provide detailed background information about general environmental conditions within a watershed, or other factors influencing anadromous fish habitat. Each basin in the study area has been the subject of extensive prior assessment and documentation such as recent Limiting Factor Analyses (LFA’s) conducted by the Washington State Conservation Commission, and various WRIA assessments conducted for a variety of purposes including Endangered Species Act planning, water resources planning, water resource characterization, and environmental assessment. Where appropriate, this report summarizes key information from these studies, but readers interested in more detailed information on environmental conditions within each watershed are encouraged to consult the references listed. In addition, readers are specifically referred to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) website, Salmonscape, at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape. This site provides for interactive mapping of

current information on salmonid stock distribution and status as well as a variety of habitat parameters by WRIA, county, or user-defined boundaries.

Definition of Low Flow Problem For the purposes of this report, we use the following definitions of “stream flow” and “instream flow”:

Seasonal fluctuations are common, often with more water, higher levels and faster flows in the winter or spring months, and less water, lower levels and slower flows in the summer and fall months. Flows also vary from place to place along the stream: at narrow points of the channel the water may be fast moving, whereas at a wide point in the stream the same amount of water may move quite slowly. In this document, the amount of water found in a stream at any given time is referred to as “stream flow.”

The term “instream flow” is used to identify a specific stream flow (typically measured in cubic feet per second, or cfs) at a specific location for a defined time, typically following seasonal variations. An instream flow is a state water right; it has a priority date and must be satisfied before junior rights can legally be exercised. Instream flows are usually based on estimates of the stream flow needed to protect and preserve instream resources and values, such as fish, wildlife and recreation. Instream flows are typically adopted through a state rule. Once defined, an “instream flow” is used for water management decisions, including regulatory decisions regarding whether additional water can be appropriated for future uses.

(WDFW, 2003) Many of the individuals interviewed for this report raised concerns about the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a “low flow problem”. Review of the problems identified in the region, and the scientific and legal literature, suggest there are a number of possible conditions that could be considered “low flow problems”: • Instream flows have been adopted, but are thought to be inadequate for optimizing or maintaining biological and physical stream processes; • Instream flows have been adopted, but are not being met due to water withdrawals, or land use impacts to stream hydrology; • No instream flows have been established, but the productivity of salmonids in the stream has been reduced because of human-induced flow modifications.

The Independent Science Panel for the State of Washington has identified three important functions that should be considered when establishing instream flows, and presumably for identifying low flow problems:

“Stream flows provide three important functions: (1) They are the medium where fish and other aquatic organisms live and propagate; (2) they provide the forces to create and maintain stream channels and off-channel habitats, riparian communities, instream habitat through distribution of large wood that creates pools, riffles, and spawning areas; and (3) they rejuvenate riparian vegetation on floodplains and recharge water tables, which are important to fish and humans, through flows over banks. Stream flows also help regulate stream temperatures – a critical characteristic of the stream environment that affects how much oxygen fish have, how well they grow, how well they survive environmental challenges, availability of food, and the kinds of other organisms in the stream. All these are critical for survival of fish and maintaining productive habitat.”….

“We recommend that technical analyses and studies be conducted to quantify the amounts of water necessary to recover and sustain viable populations of salmon and other fishes. Analyses should be done from a watershed perspective and must consider flows that provide for both the spatial requirements of different life history stages, as well as flows that promote and maintain ecological and hydrological functions and connectivity to important in-channel habitats and adjoining features. Further studies should strive to not only define the relationships of flow to habitat, but also how the habitat affects the abundance and health of fish, something that has typically been overlooked in most instream flow investigations.” (ISP, 2002)

Most streams in the Central Puget Sound region experience low flow problems during years of low rainfall, in the sense that their flows are lower than normal and this leads to higher rates of mortality for fish. The mechanism for this reduced survival depends on the life history stage of the fish at the time of the reduced flows. Low flows can reduce the amount of habitat available for spawning and rearing; they can eliminate access to valuable habitats; they can dewater incubating eggs; they can affect the timing and success of both juvenile and adult migrations; they can reduce food sources by reducing invertebrate populations; and they can increase stressors by degrading water quality (e.g., elevating concentrations of pollutants, increasing temperatures and reducing dissolved oxygen). Separate from their effects on fish, low flows can also harm non-consumptive beneficial uses of water, by reducing or degrading opportunities for primary and secondary recreation as well as wildlife habitat in streams, adjacent wetlands and off-channel areas. In thc Central Puget Sound region, natural problems with low flows tend to occur in the summer and early fall, after extended periods with little to no precipitation, when groundwater inflows are at their lowest and snowpacks have already melted. Streams with the most significant natural low flow problems are generally in lowland areas with no snowpack, especially where glacial till minimizes groundwater inflows or where surface geology is permeable but the groundwater table is below the streambed.

These natural low flow problems can be aggravated, sometimes dramatically, by human impacts. Water withdrawals for out-of-stream use tend to be greatest in the summer, when demand for irrigation peaks. This roughly coincides with the period of natural low flows (groundwater withdrawals can extend the effects of summer withdrawals into the fall and beyond, since they generally have a delayed effect on surface flows). Human land uses also create stream flow problems. Forest cover, native soils and wetlands naturally act to balance the hydrologic cycle, moderating peak flows and helping recharge groundwater. When they are removed or degraded, especially when they are replaced by impervious surfaces such as roads or buildings, groundwater to support baseflows decreases while peak flows increase. Grading of hill slopes, for forest roads as well as development, can tap into seeps and shallow aquifers, redirecting groundwater to surface ditches or stormwater facilities, which similarly decreases base flows and increases peak flows. Higher peak flows alter stream channels, increasing erosion and changing channel structure in ways that can aggravate low flow problems for fish (e.g., pools may fill with fine sediment, eliminating them both as refuges for fish from low flows and as water sources to support flows downstream). Increased peak flows, in conjunction with decreased structural integrity of riparian zones, often result in wider but simpler channels; these modified channels often need more water to produce good habitat than was necessary under natural conditions. Other human causes of channel simplification, such as removal of riparian vegetation and in-stream wood, can have similar effects. Bank hardening cuts streams off from their floodplains, reducing their ability to recharge groundwater during floods and receive it during periods of low flows. Even without development, clearcuts and logging roads can destabilize hillsides, dramatically increasing the size and frequency of mass wasting events that discharge enormous quantities of sediment into streams. This can create what appear to be low flow problems, which actually are due to a radical change in channel structure. When water is stored behind dams, the hydrologic cycle is disrupted in other ways. While dams may be operated to augment low flows during the summer and early fall, summer reserves are created by holding back spring flows. This can reduce the ability of juvenile fish to migrate rapidly and safely to downstream areas, increasing mortality from predation, physiological stress from high temperatures, mis-timed smoltification, and other factors. If storage is low in the early fall, dams may also be operated to hold back flows from fall freshets, which generally serve as migration cues for migrating adult salmon. There are, therefore, many types of low flow problems, with different causes and timing. Low flows in the summer and early fall affect rearing coho, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat, some runs of chinook, summer chum and all resident species, including bull trout. Low flows in the summer can also affect incubating eggs for steelhead, bull trout and summer chum. Low flows in the spring affect migrating juvenile chinook, coho, chum, pink and sockeye salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat and bull trout. Reduced fall freshets affect returning adult chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon and bull trout. Native populations of these species adapted to the natural flow regimes of their streams, including low flows in the summer and early fall. The general effects of low flows on the different life history stages of these species are widely accepted, but quantifying them in terms of the number of fish harmed is very difficult, especially when comparing the incremental increase in mortality due to altering a flow regime that may have contributed to some mortality

naturally. If it is possible to quantify the amount flows have been reduced through human influences—which can be total in the case of some streams—it is possible to quantify the amount of habitat lost, but this is only one aspect of the effects on fish. In any case, lost habitat also relates to changes in channel structure independent of flow. As the Independent Science Panel said at the end of the quote above, further studies are needed “to not only define the relationships of flow to habitat, but also how the habitat affects the abundance and health of fish, something that has typically been overlooked in most instream flow investigations.” (ISP, 2002) In interviews and meetings for this report, technical staff working in Central Puget Sound watersheds suggested a general approach for targeting where such studies might provide the most useful information for salmon recovery efforts. As a general orientation to where low flows are likely to be the greatest problem for fish, staff suggested mapping sub-basins within a WRIA based on the following key factors that affect flow:

• Impervious surface, as a percentage of the basin; • Forest and wetland cover (though these are distinct categories, they can be combined for this initial orientation, since both contribute to preservation of baseflows), as a percentage of the basin; and • Water withdrawals (to the extent possible, using actual withdrawals, but for purposes of this orientation, water right volumes could be used where that is the only information available, adding some estimate for exempt groundwater withdrawals), as a percentage of annual recharge (which can be estimated based on annual precipitation and surficial geology).

Since the depth of groundwater withdrawals will determine which surface water bodies they affect, any assumption that they affect only the streams within the sub-basin of their surface location should be refined wherever more information is available. After sub-basins have been sorted for the likely general degree of human impacts on flow, they can be sorted by the distribution and relative abundance of target fish species. Sub- basins with relatively high predicted human impacts and relatively abundant fish populations (or that are believed to have the potential for abundant populations with improved habitat, including flows) could be targeted for further study. This could focus on clarifying: • The relationship of groundwater withdrawals to surface flows in the sub-basin; • How surface flows affect the quality and quantity of habitat; • How fish respond to increased flows (e.g., during years with higher precipitation); and • What actions would likely be most effective in addressing identified problems (e.g., in some cases, channel improvements may be as or more important than available opportunities to increase flows).

Limiting factors reports were not consistent across or even within WRIAs in identifying low flows as a problem for fish. When supplemented by other reports and interviews with knowledgeable technical staff, they can provide an initial list of specific streams and reaches

where low flows are believed to cause problems for fish. This is the method used in the individual WRIA reports included in this study. It can generally be relied on to identify the most obvious and serious low flow problems in a WRIA, but it is virtually certain to be incomplete. Streams not mentioned in a report may have greater low flow problems for fish than some of the streams that are mentioned. A more comprehensive and consistent analysis would follow the steps above. However, such an analysis has not been completed within any WRIA, and information for even this initial orientation is not consistently available across the six WRIAs in this study.

Adopted Regulatory Instream Flows Five of the six WRIAs in this study have had regulatory instream flows established in rule in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC):

WRIA Name WAC Citation Date Filed WRIA 7 Snohomish River Ch. 173–507 WAC 9/6/79 basin WRIA 8 Cedar– Ch. 173–508 WAC 9/6/79 Sammamish basin WRIA 9 Green–Duwamish Ch. 173–509 WAC 6/6/80 River basin WRIA 10 Puyallup River Ch. 173–510 WAC 3/21/80 basin WRIA 12 Chambers–Clover Ch. 173–512 WAC 12/12/79 Creek basin

Though the Stillaguamish River basin (WRIA 5) does not have an adopted instream flow rule, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is currently developing a proposal for one. In addition to instream flows adopted in WAC, several streams also have required flows under Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license agreements, including the Sultan and South Fork Tolt rivers (FERC Licenses 2157 and 2959, respectively), and the Cedar River and Green River HCPs. Despite the regulatory protections in WRIA’s 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, all are listed by WDOE as “over appropriated” (WSJNRC, 1999), based on growth pressures and the volume of water rights whose priority date is earlier than the adoption of basin instream flow rules. Under state law, these earlier priority dates have “senior” water rights over instream flows and thus legally cannot be required to withdraw less than their rights to meet instream flow standards. Though WRIA 5 is not listed as over-appropriated, this is more likely due to lack of a regulatory instream flow program in the watershed by which to determine its status rather than whether it is over-appropriated or not.

Climate Change An emerging concern in the Pacific Northwest is the potential impacts of climate change on water availability for both instream and out of stream water needs. Although there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the nature and magnitude of these changes, a very significant amount of research has identified existing climate change trends and the likely future impacts to water supplies. In general, research indicates the Northwest likely will experience future reductions in winter snowpack in the Cascade Mountains, increases in the frequency of rain or rain on snow events in the Cascades, increased winter peak flows, and decreased summer low flows (UW, 2003). The timing and magnitude of these changes will vary by watershed and by the geographic location of streams within each watershed. A recent report (Mazza, 1999) identified the following likely changes:

• Winters with substantially more rainfall, and summers with a larger number of extremely hot days; • More frequent and destructive flooding and mudslides; • A disrupted annual water cycle in which snowpack—on which the Columbia and other Northwest rivers depend during summer—shrinks by half; • Droughts coming twice as frequently by 2020 and three times more often—three years out of every 10—by 2050; • Salmon runs diminished or lost to an even greater degree than at present; • Water shortages which choke hydroelectric power production and irrigated farms; • Ski seasons and runs shortened as snowline retreats to higher elevations; • Forest cover in Oregon and Washington sharply reduced, with forests retreating from the eastern slopes of the Cascades; • More numerous and intense forest fires and pest infestations, bringing major shifts in tree species distribution across the Northwest; • Human health impacts from worsened air pollution, increased heat waves and growth of disease-carrying insect populations; • Rising seas, which undermine coastal bluffs, cause landslides, drown highways and waterfronts, bring higher storm surges, and cover tidal marshes vital to fish and birds.

Changes of this nature will need to be considered in any instream resource protection or restoration strategy. Existing regulatory programs and water law do not have clear mechanisms or ways to deal with environmental changes of this nature or magnitude. It appears likely that these changes will further increase the competition between instream and out of stream water needs.

Quantification of Instream Flow Needs Instream flows in Washington have been quantified by a number of methods, ranging widely in levels of sophistication, scope of issues considered, data requirements, and biological and physical relevance (WDOE, 2003). Within the region, the methods most widely applied have been:

• Hydrologic exceedance curve method; used extensively by WDOE in the Instream Resources Protection Program (IRPP) during the 1970’s and 1980’s. This method is documented in the programmatic environmental impact statement done for the program. • Toe-width method and studies for the development of the toe-width method; • IFIM (Instream Flow Incremental Methodology) and its component models, PHABSIM (Physical Habitat Simulation System).

The hydrologic exceedance curve method was used widely during the 1970’s and 80’s in the Washington Department of Ecology’s Instream Resource Protection Program (IRPP). The method recommended instream minimum flows based on historic streamflow data in conjunction with biological information. Flow recommendations based on hydrology and biology were compared and negotiated to determine a flow proposal for rule making. Generally, minimum flows were established at relatively low flows, typically 50 to 60 % exceedence with somewhat higher instream flows set in rivers and streams with high biologic, recreational, or aesthetic qualities. Fifty per-cent (50%) exceedance flows are flows that would be met or exceeded 50% of the time as estimated from the hydrologic data. This method is easy to apply, based on existing hydrologic data from gauged streams rather than new field information, and easy to understand. Its disadvantages include the lack of any documented relationship to biologic or physical requirements for salmonids or habitat forming processes, and it cannot be applied to streams with little or no historic flow data. The method does not consider or supply recommendations for flows for maintenance of physical channel forming processes. The method has several other potential problems. Flow exceedance curves are based on statistical probabilities computed from the data available. The computed probabilities may be inaccurate if the period of record is too short, or if the period of record is not representative of the actual long-term conditions. There also is more inherent uncertainty when flows are set near the tails of the exceedance curve as there are, by definition, fewer observations at both the high and low probability ends of the curve. The Toe-width method is a tool developed for western Washington streams by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Department of Wildlife in the early 1970’s. This method is based upon an empirical relationship between spawning and rearing in a stream, and a measurement of a geomorphic channel feature called the “toe –width” (Swift 1979). The method is fairly easy to apply with some limited field measurements required. It also yields a single flow recommendation making interpretation and application of the results straightforward. The disadvantages of the method are that it is only applicable in streams of the size and type of those originally measured to determine the empirical relationship. This excludes large and small streams. It should also not be applied in non-alluvial stream channels. Finally, the method does not consider or supply recommendations for flows for maintenance of physical channel forming processes or water quality. The Toe-width method is being used in the Stillaguamish basin to recommend regulatory flows on mid-sized tributaries. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) is a method developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The method is considered “incremental” in that it can provide information of the quantity and quality of habitat over a wide range of flows. The

method includes a number of tools including several channel flow models; models that link fish habitat quantity and quality to depth, velocity, and substrate measurements and estimates; two stream temperature models; and a framework for developing complex flow recommendations. Advantages of the IFIM are its ability to provide information on the effects of a number of different flow scenarios, making it particularly useful for developing complex flow recommendations. The method recommends including consideration of channel forming processes (although no method for such analysis is included in IFIM), water quality, and even political considerations. However, the portion of the IFIM that uses hydrologic models to estimate aquatic habitat under varying flow scenarios (PHABSIM) is often applied as a stand alone method. Disadvantages of the IFIM include the relatively high field data requirements, the high level of training required to use the method and interpret the results, the high expense of applying the method, the complexity of the output from the models, and the lack of a simple flow recommendation (which can change based on the species and life stage being considered). Arriving at a flow recommendation using the IFIM often requires complex negotiations, complex tradeoffs between species and biologic requirements, and use of often untested assumptions. The IFIM has also been used in a number of streams and rivers in central Puget Sound, including the Tolt River, the Cedar River, the Green River (after flows were established in WAC) and the Stillaguamish River. Applications of the IFIM have tended to be limited to large water storage projects and hydroelectric projects, although a IFIM is being used in the Stillaguamish basin for establishing instream flows on the mainstem Stillaguamish and larger tributaries, which have no dams for water storage or hydroelectricity. A comprehensive discussion of instream flow methods with merits and shortcomings of each was recently published by the Instream Flow Council (Annear et al., 2002). That discussion emphasizes the need to consider multiple aspects of instream flows using a suite of methods selected for each situation. The current direction in defining Best Available Science as it relates to quantification of instream flows is to use analytical methods that consider both biological and physical stream processes at a watershed scale. Of the methods in current use, the IFIM is the only method that can theoretically be applied in a manner that meets these criteria. As previously mentioned however, the IFIM is seldom applied in this way, is expensive and time consuming to use, and arguably does not actually provide well defined models or methods to address some aspects of watershed habitat processes. New models and methods that consider both biological and physical stream processes at a watershed scale are being developed and applied in the U.S. and region. King County’s “Normative Flow Project” is an example of this type of effort. It can be anticipated that instream flows that have been quantified using less sophisticated approaches will increasingly become viewed by fisheries professionals as suspect and potentially inadequate to ensure the long-term health and viability of fish populations in the region. There is considerable political and legal interest in the region for establishing permanent instream flows for streams and rivers where no instream flow has been established, or where instream flows have been set using methods of questionable efficacy. Several mechanisms have been created to allow watershed based planning to address this issue, including planning under HB 2514 (Chapter 90.82 Revised Code of Washington, “Watershed Management Act”). The status of instream flow review or setting is discussed in this report in the individual sections for each WRIA, under “Regulatory Setting”.

Recommendations The list of problem areas identified in this report should be considered incomplete. We have attempted to review as many relevant documents as possible and to contact knowledgeable technical staff in each WRIA, with the goal of accurately summarizing existing known problem areas. We have reviewed our findings with those same technical staff, incorporating their comments in this final draft, though we take ultimate responsibility for any errors. However, our review is incomplete not just because of the many potentially relevant documents in each WRIA we were unable to review and the many knowledgeable people we were unable to contact, but also because of how much important information in every WRIA is simply unknown at this time. Relatively few streams have flow gages; far fewer have good records for both current and historical flows. Even if this information were widely available, more analysis would be needed to estimate the relative contribution of different factors to changes in flows, the relative contribution of flow changes to changes in fish populations, and the likely benefits of different forms of flow restoration for fish.

There are, of course, cases (such as the diversion reaches on the White and Puyallup Rivers) where the factors controlling stream flow, the general magnitude of their effects on fish, and the types of flow changes that would most benefit fish are obvious. It is also true that incrementally adding more water in the streams listed in this report during the periods when they are identified as having low flow problems should provide benefits for fish and aquatic life, since that should move stream flows in the direction of the natural flow regime to which these species originally adapted. But the channels of these streams have generally changed significantly from those original conditions. Moreover, flow “problems” involve not just the amount of flows but their timing, duration, frequency and rate of change. All of these factors have often been affected profoundly by changes in land use in stream basins in the Central Puget Sound region. Surface withdrawals directly affect these factors in ways that may be easy to observe and understand, but that is rarely the case with groundwater withdrawals, whose effects on surface flows depend on a variety of factors (e.g., the depth of the withdrawal, the depth of the groundwater table, the distance of the withdrawal to the surface water, the geology of the area, etc.). So evaluating and correcting a low flow problem is typically no simple matter.

As discussed under “Definition of Low Flow Problem” above, technical staff interviewed for this report suggested a general approach toward these issues that would use land cover and an estimate of withdrawals relative to recharge (calculated from precipitation and geology) to sort WRIA sub-basins by the likely general degree of human impacts on stream flow (see above for more details). Sub-basins can also be sorted by the distribution and relative abundance of target fish species. Where there are relatively high human impacts and relatively abundant fish populations (or the potential for that), more detailed studies can clarify how flows have likely changed, the likely effects on fish, and what actions would likely benefit fish the most. This approach can be used both within and across WRIAs.

The current report identifies where human impacts on low flows are believed to have significant effects on fish in the Central Puget Sound region. To the extent it compares the significance of those effects in different stream basins, it does so based on the professional

judgment of the technical staff interviewed and the technical documents reviewed. This provides a useful initial survey, especially when used in combination with fish distribution and other information from sources such as the “SalmonScape” website, http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/. But inclusion of the more detailed and quantitative steps discussed above may be necessary if the region is to take a truly strategic approach to addressing low flow problems for fish.

Summary Reports by WRIA

STILLAGUAMISH (WRIA 5)

Environmental Setting The Stillaguamish River is the fifth largest tributary to Puget Sound. Its watershed drains an area of approximately 700 square miles and includes more than 3,112 miles of river, stream and marine shore habitat. Elevations range from sea level to about 6,854 feet on Three Fingers Mountain. The river enters Puget Sound at Stanwood, 16 miles north of Everett in northwestern Snohomish County. The watershed drains into both Port Susan and Skagit Bay. It is also part of the Whidbey Basin, which includes Skagit Bay, Saratoga Passage, Port Susan and Deception Pass. The Stillaguamish watershed can be divided into three general regions: the North Fork, South Fork and Lower Mainstem. The two forks join in Arlington, 18 river miles from the mouth. Pilchuck, Deer, Boulder and Canyon Creeks are the four largest tributaries to the Stillaguamish River system. The watershed includes land governed by Snohomish County and Skagit County, the cities of Arlington, Stanwood and Granite Falls, and the Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribess. Land use is 76% forestry, 17% rural, 5% agriculture and 2 % urban. Rainfall is highly variable throughout the watershed, with average annual rainfall ranging from 30 inches per year in the western lowlands to 150 inches at higher elevations in the eastern watershed. Approximately 75% of the precipitation falls between October and March. Precipitation and streamflows are highest in late autumn and winter as a result of rain-on-snow events. The lowest flows usually occur during the summer dry period from July through October. (SIRC 2004) The Stillaguamish supports five species of Pacific salmon: chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), and a small population of sockeye (O. nerka). The basin also supports two species of anadromous trout, steelhead (O. mykiss) and searun cutthroat (O. clarki clarki), two species of native char, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma). The salmon species are managed for natural production, although the Stillaguamish Tribe and the WDFW operate several relatively small artificial enhancement facilities in the basin. (WCC 1999) There are no major hydroelectric or water storage facilities in the watershed. In 1990, the USGS estimated total annual consumptive water use in the watershed to be 3.28 mgd (see http://water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/wuhuc?huc=17110008). Land use changes, particularly the loss of 78.5% of historical wetland areas from draining or filling (including draining or filling of areas that recharge wetlands) have had a substantial effect on the flow regime, despite the relatively low level of urbanization in the watershed. (Blake 2004) The Limiting Factors Analysis for WRIA 5 rated the relative impact of low flows on six species of salmon and steelhead in the watershed (Table 1, next page). Species with extended freshwater rearing periods all received a high ranking for impacts of low flows on rearing.

Table 1. Relative Impacts of Low Flows on Selected Species in the Stillaguamish River basin (WCC, 1999)

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Winter Summer Steelhead Steelhead S/I R/M AM S/I R/M AM S/I R/M AM S/I R/M AM S/I R/M AM S/I R/M AM M H H M H H H L H M L M L H L L H H

S/I = Spawning/Incubation R/M = Rearing/Migration AM = Adult Migration H = High impact M = Medium impact L = Low impact

Draft Stillaguamish – WRIA 5 Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan The Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC) has issued a draft Salmon Recovery Plan for WRIA 5, which places primary emphasis on chinook salmon within a broader ecosystem restoration context designed to enhance the watershed for all native freshwater and marine aquatic fisheries. There are two independent populations of chinook in the WRIA, which spawn in the North Fork and South Fork basins, respectively. The SIRC is focusing on implementation of a 10-year strategy aimed at moving toward recovery of chinook salmon, with an ultimate goal of restoring viable populations of chinook that can support recreational and commercial fisheries. The first objective of the habitat component of the strategy is to prevent further fragmentation of aquatic habitat. The second objective is to improve the connectivity between isolated habitat patches. The third objective is to protect and restore existing refugia, including preferred spawning areas, off-channel floodplain habitat, estuary and marine shoreline habitat, complex sloughs and undisturbed tidal channels. The draft plan includes the following proposed actions to improve hydrologic conditions in the watershed: • Restoration of floodplains, including wetlands, to increase infiltration, slow runoff and reduce downstream peak flow impacts; • Development of strategies that protect large blocks of mature forest in sub-basins with significant immature forest; • Development of plans in forested regions that target the reduction of road density and de-commissioning of under-used forest roads; and • Identification of optimum instream flow levels and actions to reduce water consumption throughout the watershed.

Regulatory Setting The Stillaguamish is the only WRIA in the Central Puget Sound region that does not currently have an adopted instream flow. The Washington Department of Ecology is developing a proposal to establish instream flows for nine control points in the basin, based on updating an IFIM study done for the watershed in 1987. The update reaffirmed the calibration of the flow model and used new curves for fish preferences (Hirschey 2004). Watershed planning under HB 2514 has not been initiated and is not expected in WRIA 5.

List of Flow Problems for Fish The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish in WRIA 5 was developed from technical documents (primarily the Limiting Factors Report, WCC 1999; and Final Environmental Assessment: Stillaguamish River Ecosystem, USACE 2000) and meetings, phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Pat Stevenson, Environmental Program Manager, Stillaguamish Tribe; Jody Brown, Fish Biologist, Stillaguamish Tribe; Kurt Nelson, Fish and Water Resources Scientist, Tulalip Indian Tribes; Mike Chamblin, WDFW Watershed Steward; and Michael Purser, Senior Habitat Specialist for Snohomish County. Data sheets in Appendix A provide further details on each stream listed in the table.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 5 Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem Reference Causes Types Lower Stillaguamish 5.0001 1a,1b,1c, 3a S/F WCC 1999 River Old Channel 5.0005 4 S/F WDOE 2001, Nelson 2004 Church Creek 5.0018 1a,1b,1c,3a,4 S/F WCC 1999, CPSWSF 2001, Nelson 2004 Freedom Creek 5.0021 1b,1c,3a,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004, CPSWSF 2001, Nelson 2004 Jackson Creek 5.0027 1b,3a,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004 Tributary 30 5.0030 1b,1c,3a S/F WCC 1999, USACE 2000, Brown 2004 Unnamed 5.0031 NA S/F WCC 1999 Portage Creek 5.0036 1a,1b,1c,3a S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004, Nelson 2004

Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem Reference Causes Types Pilchuck Creek 5.0062 1b,1c,3a,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004, Brown 2004 Unnamed 5.0078 NA S/F WCC 1999 Armstrong Creek 5.0126 1b,3a S/F WCC 1999, USACE 2000 Harvey Creek 5.0131 1b,1c,3a S/F WCC 1999, USACE 2000, Blake 2004 N. Fork, Stilly 5.0135 1b,2,3a,3b,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004 Unnamed 5.0149 NA S/F WCC 1999 Unnamed 5.0150 NA S/F WCC 1999 Unnamed 5.0151 NA S/F WCC 1999 Grant Creek 5.0156 4 S/F Stevenson 2004 Unnamed 5.0172 NA S/F WCC 1999 Deer Creek 5.0173 4 S/F Stevenson 2004 Fry Creek 5.0213 3b,3c,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004 Boulder River 5.0229 1b,1c S/F Stevenson 2004 French Creek 5.0246 4 S/F Stevenson 2004 Placid Creek 5.0251 NA S/F WCC 1999 Little French Creek 5.0253 3b,4 S/F CPSWSF 2001 Segelson Creek 5.0255 4 S/F Stevenson 2004 Moose Creek 5.0257 3b,4 S/F WCC 1999 Unnamed 5.0258 NA S/F WCC 1999 Black Creek 5.0259? 4 S/F Stevenson 2004 Squire Creek 5.0260? 3b,4 S/F Chamblin 2004, CPSWSF 2001, Stevenson 2004 Furland Creek 5.0261 3b,4 S/F WCC 1999, CPSWSF 2001 Ashton Creek 5.0262 3b,4 S/F WCC 1999, CPSWSF 2001

Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem Reference Causes Types Snow Gulch Creek 5.0263 3b S/F WCC 1999, Brown 2004 Unnamed 5.0334 NA S/F WCC 1999 S. Fork, Stilly 5.0001? 1b,2,3b,4 S/F WCC 1999, Purser 2004 Jim Creek 5.0322 1b,4 S/F Chamblin 2004 Jordan Creek 5.0350 1b S/F Chamblin 2004 Canyon Creek 5.0359 1b,3b,4 S/F WCC 1999 Tiger Creek 5.0364 1b,3a S/F WCC 1999, Chamblin 2004, Brown 2004 Cranberry Creek 5.0390 3b S/F WCC 1999 Fish Crew Creek 5.0433A 3b S/F Barkdull 2004 Tiny Creek 5.0433B 3b S/F Barkdull 2004 Beaver Creek 5.0434 3b S/F Barkdull 2004 Jarsk Creek 5.0434A 3b S/F Barkdull 2004 Big Four Creek 5.0434B 3b S/F Barkdull 2004 Palmer Creek 5.0444 3b S/F WCC 1999, Brown 2004 Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

SNOHOMISH (WRIA 7)

Environmental Setting The Snohomish River basin has a drainage area of approximately 2,000 square miles (5,128 sq. km). The basin supports five species of Pacific salmon: chinook, coho, pink, chum, and a small population of sockeye. It produces more coho spawners than any other watershed on the West Coast. The basin also supports steelhead, rainbow, both resident and sea-run cutthroat and bull trout, as well as mountain whitefish (SBSRF 2004). The salmon species are managed for natural production. The Tulalip Tribes operate a hatchery facility at Tulalip Bay that is managed to minimize impacts to the Snohomish and Stillaguamish native runs, and to provide a fishery directly to the Tulalip Indian Reservation. A state salmon hatchery is also located on the Wallace River, a tributary to the Skykomish River. A state steelhead hatchery facility is located on Tokul Creek , a tributary to the Snoqualmie River. As with the Stillaguamish River hatcheries, all facilities are managed to minimize conflicts with the natural production in the basin. The Stillaguamish and Snohomish are unique in the Puget Sound region as they are the only watersheds where all species of salmon and steelhead are managed for natural production. Other watersheds in the region have one or more stocks or species managed for hatchery production. Approximately 75% of the basin is in forestry, with approximately 50% in federal ownership. Agriculture is a major land use along the mainstem rivers, the estuary and some of the lowland tributaries. Rural residential makes up a large percentage of the basin’s land base. The City of Everett is located at the mouth of the river; the marine nearshore is mostly dominated by urban areas, especially from Everett south to Mukilteo; the basin also includes numerous smaller cities, including Marysville, Snohomish, Lake Stevens, part of Granite Falls, Monroe, Duvall, Carnation, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Sultan, Gold Bar, Startup and Skykomish. Two of the largest municipal withdrawals in the central Puget Sound region occur in WRIA 7, operated by the City of Seattle on the South Fork Tolt River, a major tributary to the Snoqualmie, and the City of Everett and Snohomish PUD on the Sultan River, a major tributary to the Skykomish River. These withdrawals primarily reduce spring flows in both rivers, to fill the reservoirs, but also reduce or eliminate fall freshets when reservoir levels are low. Mitigation associated with these withdrawals has resulted in reduced peak flows and increased low summer flows downstream of the dams. The City of Snohomish operates a run-of-the-river dam on the Pilchuck River that withdraws a relatively small percentage of its flow (ranging from 1-2% or less to 5-10% during times of maximum withdrawals and minimum flows), but this will likely become a more significant concern if the city exercises more of its water rights from the river as its population grows. (Steward and Associates 2004) Long-term studies indicate that stream flows in the Snohomish, Snoqualmie and Skykomish Rivers have declined in recent decades (normalized to precipitation). Gersib (2003) evaluated baseflows at three stations in the basin for the period 1963-1997. This study found that baseflows appear to have declined at all three gauges, with a 15-20% decline in mean baseflows at the Snohomish gauge. The magnitude of declines in the Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers add to about the same magnitude as the decline in the Snohomish. The

baseflow reductions did not appear to be readily explained by analysis of effects of weather, upstream water withdrawals, dams/reservoirs/water exports, or changes in snowpack or melt timing (Haring 2002).

Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan The Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum has issued a draft Salmon Conservation Plan for the basin (SBSRF 2004). It takes a multi-species approach, using chinook, bull trout and coho as proxy species to represent all anadromous salmonids in the basin. The Forum assumes that a strategy that addresses these species will adequately address the needs of all anadromous salmonids. Additional protections may be warranted to protect resident trout living upstream of natural barriers. The draft plan categorizes the 62 sub-basins in the WRIA into 12 strategy groups based on their location, habitat conditions, and current and potential salmonid use. Recovery hypotheses were developed to outline the role each of the strategy groups will play in recovering the quantity and quality of habitat needed for recover. Highest priority areas for the next 10 years are the nearshore, estuary and mainstem rivers, including the Lower Sultan River, Lower Tolt River, Middle Pilchuck River and the Raging River. All areas in the WRIA have a role in salmon recovery, however; goals in other areas were to minimize losses and restore habitat where possible. Flow issues are particularly important for the small, low gradient coastal and tributary streams coho use for spawning and rearing, as well as for the Sultan, Tolt and Pilchuck Rivers.

Regulatory Setting Sultan River Water stored behind Culmback Dam, at RM 16.5 on the Sultan River, forms Spada Lake. Water from Spada Lake is transported by pipeline and tunnel to a powerhouse at RM 4.5 on the Sultan River. After passing through Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric generators, water is released directly to the Sultan River and a portion is transported by pipeline to Lake Chaplain. From Lake Chaplain, water can be diverted into the Everett water system, which also supplies a number of independent water utilities, or can be released back into the Sultan River at the City's old diversion facility at RM 9.7. Operations of Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric facility are governed by FERC license agreement 2157, which stipulates minimum instream flows and allowable flow fluctuation rates. There is an instream flow requirement of 20 cfs plus tributary inflow in the reach from Culmback Dam (RM 16.5) downstream to the diversion dam at RM 9.7. The instream flow schedule ranges from 95 cfs up to 175 cfs at the diversion dam (RM 9.7) and a minimum flow range of 165 to 200 cfs downstream from the powerhouse (RM 5.5) (FERC 1981, 1982, 1983, as cited in SBSRTC 2002). Tolt River The South Fork Tolt Dam, constructed in 1964, serves as a water storage and hydroelectric facility for the City of Seattle. It is located at RM , upstream of a natural barrier waterfall. Like Everett, Seattle also delivers water to a number of independent water utilities. Minimum instream flows below the dam are governed by a settlement agreement with resource agencies associated with the federal license for FERC Project 2959 (SBSRTC

2002). Measured at USGS gage 12148000, located on the South Fork Tolt about one mile downstream of the dam, required "normal" minimum flows range from 45 cfs in the winter to 69 cfs in May. A "critical" minimum flow regime (30-36 cfs) may be implemented when specific drought criteria are met. Regulatory instream flows were established for WRIA 7 in 1979 (Ch. 173-507 WAC). Minimum or “base” flows were established using a stream segment rating system and flow duration curves. Stream segments with higher ratings were given somewhat higher flow exceedance levels as their minimum flow (WDOE, 1979) There are no current plans or discussions to develop a watershed plan for WRIA 7 under HB 2514.

List of Flow Problems for Fish The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish in WRIA 7 was developed from technical documents (primarily the Snohomish River Basin Salmonid Habitat Conditions Review, SBSRTC 2002; the Washington Conservation Commission’s Limiting Factors Report, Haring 2002; the Snohomish River Basin Characterization, Gersib 2003; and the Snohomish River Basin Conditions and Issues Report, Pentec 1999) and meetings, phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Mike Chamblin, WDFW Watershed Steward; Michael Purser, Senior Habitat Specialist for Snohomish County; Kurt Nelson, Fish and Water Resources Scientist, Tulalip Indian Tribe; Anne Savery, Hydrologist, Tulalip Indian Tribe; and Keith Binkley, Environmental Coordinator, Snohomish PUD. Gersib (2003) essentially never went beyond a draft completed in 1999, which analyzed land cover and other information to evaluate the status of basic ecological processes (e.g., baseflows, peak flows, the delivery of sediment, large wood and pollutants) in sub-basins across the WRIA. Given lack of actual flow information, the study used surrogates for reductions in baseflow: the annual amount of ground water rights and claims compared to estimated annual recharge (accounting for both precipitation and geology); the annual amount of surface water rights and claims compared to estimated annual runoff; and reductions in annual recharge from land uses (reducing recharge 30% in urban areas and 100% for roads, assigned an effective width of 100 feet, in other areas). The table and data sheets in this report list sub-basins as having “low flow problems” based on Gersib’s report only if they were among the top 25% basins identified for reduced baseflows. Better information is now available for land cover and many other issues than was available at the time of the Gersib report. Data sheets in Appendix B provide further details on each stream listed in the table.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 7 Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Reference Types Tulalip 7.0001-0011 1a,1b,3a S/F Gersib 2003, drainages Nelson 2004 Quilceda Creek 7.0044 1b,3a,4 S/F Nelson 2003 Purser 2004 Allen Creek 7.0068 1b,3a,4 S/F Nelson 2003 Purser 2004 Sunnyside 7.0082-0090 3a,4 S/F SCR 2002 drainages Purser 2004 Everett coastal 7.1722-1730 3a S/F SCR 2002 drainages Marshland 7.0120-0122 1c,3a,4 S/F Pentec 1999 drainages Haring 2002 Purser 2004 Fobes Hill 7.0117-0119, 1a,1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 drainages 7.0123-0124 Pilchuck River 7.0125 1a,1b,1c,3a,4 S/F Pentec 1999 SCR 2002 Purser 2004 S&A 2004 Savery 2004 Dubuque Creek 7.0139 1b S/F Pentec 1999 Little Pilchuck 7.0146 1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 Creek Lake Stevens 7.0147-0150 1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 tributaries Bosworth Creek 7.0163 1b,3a S/F Pentec 1999 Haring 2002 French Creek 7.0184 1b,1c,3a,4 S/F Pentec 1999 Haring 2002 Cathcart 7.0206-0208, 1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 drainages 7.0210-0218

Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Reference Types Mid and Upper 7.0219 1a,1b,1c,3a S/F SCR 2002 mainstem, Gersib 2003 Snoqualmie River (below forks) Cherry Creek 7.0240 1b,2 S/F Pentec 1999 Tuck Creek 7.0268 1b,3a S/F Chamblin 2004 Ames Creek 7.0278 1a,1b,3a S/F Chamblin 2004, Gersib 2003 Harris Creek 7.0283 1b,2 S/F Pentec 1999 Lower Tolt 7.0291 1a*,1b,3a,4 Sp,S/F,F SCR 2002 River Purser 2004, Nelson 2004 Langlois Creek 7.0292 1b,3a S/F Chamblin 2004 S.F. Tolt River 7.0302 1a* Sp,F SCR 2002, Powell 2004 Griffin Creek 7.0364 1b,3a S/F Chamblin 2004, Gersib 2003 EF 7.0371 1a,1b S/F Pentec 1999 Griffin Creek Patterson Creek 7.0376 1a,1b,3a S/F Pentec 1999, Nelson 2004 Raging River 7.0384 1a,1b,1c,3a,4 S/F Pentec 1999, Lucchetti 2004 Coal Creek 7.0456 1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 Lower S.F. 7.0467 1a,1b,3a S/F SCR 2002, Snoqualmie Gersib 2003 River Riley Slough 7.0818 3c,4 S/F,Sp,F Chamblin 2004 Purser 2004 Haskel Slough 7.0825 1b,4 S/F,Sp,F Chamblin 2004 Purser 2004

Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Reference Types Lower Woods 7.0826 1a,1b,3a S/F SCR 2002 Creek West Fork 7.0831 1b,3a S/F Chamblin 2004 Woods Creek Gersib 2003 Elwell Creek 7.0865 1b S/F Pentec 1999 Nelson 2003 Purser 2004 Sultan River, 7.0881 1a*,2*,4 Sp,F Binkley 2004 below RM 9.7 Sultan River, 7.0881 1a*,2* Sp,S/F,F Binkley 2004 RM 9.7 – RM 16.5 Wallace River 7.0940 2 Sp, summer Pentec 1999 May Creek 7.0943 1a,1b,2,3a,4 S/F Pentec 1999 Purser 2004 Olney Creek 7.0946 1a S/F Pentec 1999 Proctor Creek 7.0970 1b,4 S/F Nelson 2004 Lewis Creek 7.0983? 1b,4 S/F Nelson 2004 Purser 2004 Star Creek 7.0992 1b,3a S/F Pentec 1999 Maloney Creek 7.1407 4 S/F Chamblin 2004 Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

CEDAR-SAMMAMISH (WRIA 8)

Environmental Setting WRIA 8 is approximately 692 square mile in area and consists of the basins of the Cedar River, the Sammamish River, and Lakes Sammamish, Washington and Union, as well as a portion of the Puget Sound shoreline and independent streams that drain to it. The watershed includes large areas of heavily urbanized lands including all or part of 28 cities, including Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, Renton, Bothell, Woodinville, Lynnwood and Kenmore. WRIA 8 has the largest population in the state, with approximately 1.4 million people, more than twice the total of any other WRIA despite being geographically smaller than most. Based on projections by the Puget Sound Regional Council, this population is expected to increase more than 10 percent in each of the next two decades, bringing it to more than 1.7 million in 2020. While most of WRIA 8 lies within the Urban Growth Area boundaries, nearly all of its most productive salmon spawning habitats are in rural areas. Beside the lower Cedar River and Bear and Issaquah creeks, only Little Bear and May creeks have upper basins that are largely outside of the urban area. The City of Seattle operates a reservoir on the upper Cedar River, which supplies the majority of drinking water for the City as well as many suburban cities and water districts. On average, the City withdraws approximately 22% of the river’s annual flow. NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington Department of Ecology have approved a Habitat Conservation Plan for the City’s Cedar River Watershed, which includes in-stream flow requirements that now supersede those established by Ecology through an earlier Instream Resources Protection Program. This is discussed in more detail below. Historically, Lake Washington drained to the south through the Black River, which was joined by the Cedar River and emptied into the Green River, to form the Duwamish River. The system was re-engineered from 1914 to 1917 to flow out what is now the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The lake was lowered approximately nine feet, and the Cedar River was re-directed to flow into it. The Cedar now contributes about half of the total inflow to the lake. Despite the heavy modification of the watershed, it still supports coho, chinook and sockeye salmon as well as steelhead. However, hydrologic changes from urbanization and their impact to habitat is considered a major limiting factor within WRIA 8 (Kerwin 2001).

Priority Areas in Draft WRIA Plan A draft “Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan” has been developed for review by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, which is overseeing salmon recovery planning in the WRIA, as well as by the Puget Sound Shared Strategy. The plan identifies three chinook populations in the WRIA—Cedar River, North Lake Washington and Issaquah Creek. It also identifies “Tier 1”, “Tier 2” and “Migration/Rearing” areas as priorities for habitat protection and restoration. Tier 1 areas include the Cedar River below the City of Seattle’s Landsburg diversion dam, Bear and Cottage Lake Creeks, and the entire Issaquah Creek basin. Tier 2 areas include the Upper Cedar River, the Cedar tributaries of Rock, Taylor and Walsh Creeks, and Evans,

North, Little Bear and Kelsey Creeks. Priority migration/rearing areas include Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River, the Lake Washington Ship Canal (including Lake Union) and nearshore areas along Puget Sound (WRIA 8 2004).

Regulatory Setting The Cedar - Sammamish Basin was closed in 1979 to additional water withdrawals (WAC 173-508). Instream flows set for the Cedar River were junior to Seattle’s water claim. As noted above, the City has since adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for its watershed, for which NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have issued a 50-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act. The HCP includes commitments to guaranteed flows in the Cedar River that the City will meet or exceed at any given time. It also provides for supplemental flows in spring and fall to aid juvenile and adult migration, limits on future diversions to provide water for adaptive management and created the Cedar River Instream Flow Commission, comprised of agencies signatory to the Instream Flow Agreement, which assists the City in managing the Cedar River. Watershed planning under HB 2514 is not currently being conducted in WRIA 8.

List of Flow Problems for Fish The WRIA 8 Limiting Factors Report included a “Screening Level Analysis of 3rd Order and Higher WRIA 8 Streams for Change in Hydrologic Regime”, which estimated changes in peak flows, overall stormwater volumes, and baseflows based on estimates of water withdrawals and an analysis of available land cover data for each sub-basin. Though the analysis has been superseded by better information in some basins, it remains the best available overall review of hydrologic change in the WRIA. The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish used this study as its primary technical document, supplemented by meetings, phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Kirk Lakey, WDFW Watershed Steward; Julie Hall, Fisheries Ecologist, Green/Duwamish and Greater Lake Washington Basins, Seattle Public Utilities; Carla Carlson, Hydrologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Kit Paulsen, Environmental Scientist, Bellevue Public Utilities; Geoff Clayton, Geohydrologist, RH2 Engineering; and Alan Olson, Fisheries Scientist, R2 Resource Consultant. Data sheets in Appendix C provide further details on each stream listed in the table.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 8 Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem References Causes Types Lake Washington 8.0028? 1*,3,4 S/F Kerwin 2001 Ship Canal Thornton Creek 8.0031 1c,3a S/F Kerwin 2001, TCWMC 2000 Unnamed 8.0056 3a S/F Kerwin 2001 Upper Sammamish 8.0057? 1a,1c,3a,4 S/F Kerwin 2001, River USACE 2002 North Creek 8.0070 3a,4 S/F Meehan 2004 Little Bear Creek 8.0080 3a,4 S/F Meehan 2004 Upper Sammamish 8.0092- 3a,4 S/F Kerwin 2001, sidewall tributaries 8.0104 USACE 2002 Bear Creek 8.0105 1a,1b,1c,3a S/F Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002 Evans Creek 8.0106 1a,1c,3a S/F Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002 East Lake 8.0144- 1a,3a S/F Kerwin 2001 Sammamish Tribs 8.0166 North Fork Issaquah 8.0181 1a,3a,4 S/F Kerwin 2001 Creek East Fork Issaquah 8.0183 1a,3a,4 S/F Carlson 2004 Creek Northeast Lake 8.0224- 3a S/F Kerwin 2001 Washington tribs 8.0229 East Lake 8.0244- 3a S/F Kerwin 2001 Washington tribs 8.0258 Coal Creek 8.0268? 3a,4 S/F Kerwin 2001 Cedar River 8.0299 1a*,1d,3a,4 S/F,Sp,F Kerwin 2001 Rock Creek 8.0338 1a,1b,3a S/F Kerwin 2001, Olson 2004, Carlson 2004 Southwest Lake 8.0465- 3a S/F Kerwin 2001 Washington tribs 8.0470

Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem References Causes Types Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

GREEN/DUWAMISH (WRIA 9)

Environmental Setting The Green/Duwamish River is a sixth-order, 93-mile-long river system that originates in the Cascade Mountains about 30 miles northeast of Mount Rainier and flows into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay in Seattle. The Green River basin comprises 566 square miles and is bounded on the north by the Cedar-Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8) and to the south by the Puyallup watershed (WRIA 10). The mainstem Green/Duwamish River is perhaps the most altered large river system in the Puget Sound ecosystem, in terms of both its hydrology and its habitat. Approximately 97 percent of the historic estuary has been filled or deepened, 70 percent of the historic watershed has been diverted out of the basin, and over 90 percent of the historic floodplain is no longer connected due to the construction of flood protection structures (including Howard Hanson Dam). The White River was diverted out of the Green River basin and into the Puyallup in 1906, the City of Tacoma water diversion dam was finished in 1913, Lake Washington and the Cedar River (which historically drained into the Black River before it entered the Green) were diverted to the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916, most of the Duwamish estuary was filled by 1940 and Howard Hanson Dam was completed in 1962 for flood control and augmentation of summer/fall low flows. The human population in WRIA 9, estimated to be 564,000 in the 2000 census, is mostly concentrated within the lower (west) end of the watershed, but the fastest rate of population increase is in the suburban cities and nearby unincorporated areas east of Seattle (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Many of the tributaries to the Green/Duwamish River are also among the most heavily altered streams in the region. The tributaries of the lower river are in heavily urbanized basins with generally high levels of impervious surfaces, altered hydrologic regimes, loss of floodplain connectivity, poor riparian conditions and water quality problems. In the middle reaches of the watershed, where basins are a mix of residential, agricultural and forestry uses, tributary habitat is better but still generally not properly functioning. Forestry is the dominant use above Tacoma’s Headworks Dam at RM 61.

Technical Guidance for Salmon Recovery WRIA 9 has not issued a draft salmon conservation plan under the Puget Sound Shared Strategy, but in April 2003 the WRIA 9 Technical Committee issued “Technical Guidance for Salmonid Conservation and Recovery” in the WRIA as a working draft (WRIA 9 TC 2003). The Guidance identified three high-priority watershed goals to address habitat issues in support of salmon conservation and recovery: • Protect currently functioning habit and habitat forming processes from degradation, which focuses especially on the Middle Green River Subwatershed; • Connect the Upper Green River Subwatershed by restoring access for salmonids (fish passage facilities are currently under construction as elements of the Tacoma water supplies HCP and the Howard Hanson Dam additional water storage project); and • Restore/enhance habitat that contributes to adequate juvenile salmonid survival, which focuses on the Lower Green River, Duwamish River and Nearshore subwatersheds.

There are two major spawning aggregations of chinook salmon in WRIA 9, one that spawns from RM 25 to RM 61 in the mainstem and another that spawns in Neuwaukum Creek, primarily in the lower four miles. The Neuwaukum population is genetically similar to chinook from WDFW’s Green River hatchery, located on Soos Creek. Juvenile chinook rear in the mainstem Green River and Big Soos, Newaukum, Burns, Mill, Springbrook and Crisp Creeks. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe operates a hatchery for coho and chum salmon on Crisp Creek. The goal of protecting habitat-forming processes in the Middle Green Subwatershed includes managing flows to maximize salmonid habitat in the mainstem and managing landscape and watershed-wide land use changes to minimize adverse impacts on aquatic habitat, including alteration of the hydrologic regime. Restoration of the Lower Green and Duwamish Subwatersheds includes rehabilitation of shallow water habitat for juvenile rearing and re- establishing connections with off-channel habitats. The success of these actions depends in part on improving flow regimes. As part of a Strategic Assessment that the WRIA 9 Technical Committee is performing to support development of the WRIA 9 salmon conservation plan, the Committee is currently overseeing a Water Quantity Assessment. The Assessment is analyzing current stream flows at six points on the mainstem Green River and at points near the mouths of Mill, Soos, Covington, Jenkins and Newaukum Creek. (Covington and Jenkins are tributaries of Soos Creek.) It is also analyzing current water withdrawals and land use and whether current low flows are limiting to fish at the analysis points.

Regulatory Setting In 1980, the Washington Department of Ecology closed the Green River and its tributaries to further appropriations and established instream flows on the mainstem Green River at USGS gage stations near Auburn (12113000) and Palmer (12106700). (WAC 173-509) Instream flows were developed based on a study conducted by the USGS that identified correlations between low summer flows and adult salmon and steelhead returns (Swift 1979). Instream flows at Auburn range from 300 cfs during the late summer to 650 cfs from December 1 through June 14. Instream flows at Palmer range from 150 cfs to 300 cfs. Tacoma’s First Diversion Water Right Claim of 113 cfs is senior to these instream flows and is therefore not constrained by them. However, in 2001 Tacoma adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for its Green River Watershed in return for Incidental Take Permits issued by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. The HCP limits Tacoma’s withdrawals under both its First Diversion Claim as well as its Second Diversion Water Right, which is for up to 100 cfs. Working cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers, Tacoma must insure minimum flows at the Auburn gage, which vary from 350 cfs during wet years to 225 cfs during an extreme drought. From July 15 to September 15, the City cannot exercise its Second Water Right unless flows are at least 400 cfs at the Auburn gage. Tacoma also agreed not to withdraw groundwater from its well field in the North Fork Green River valley unless turbidity of Green River surface water exceeds 5 NTUs, except under emergency conditions. (R2 Resource Consultants 2001).

There is no watershed planning under HB 2514 at this time.

List of Low Flow Problems for Fish The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish used the limiting factors report for WRIA 9 (Kerwin/Nelson 2000) as its primary initial source, supplemented by phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Kirk Lakey, WDFW Watershed Steward; Tom Nelson, Environmental Scientist, King County Water and Land Resources Division; Lorin Reinelt, Senior Water Quality Specialist, King County Water and Land Resources Division; Tom Cropp, District 12 Fish Biologist, WDFW; Carla Carlson, Hydrologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; and Paul Hickey, Water Resource Planning Coordinator, Tacoma Public Utilities. Data sheets in Appendix D provide further details on each stream listed in the table.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 9 Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem References Causes Types Lower and Middle 9.0001 1a*,1b,2,3a,4 S/F,Sp,F Kerwin/Nelson Green River, below 2000, Carlson RM 61 2004, R2 RC 2001 Hamm Creek 9.0002- 1c,3a,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson 9.0003 2000 Pal Creek 9.0004 3a,4 S/F King County 2000 Springbrook Creek/ 9.0005- 3a,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson Black River 9.0025 2000 Unnamed Drainage 9.0041 3a,4 S/F Cropp 2004 Ditch Midway Creek 9.0043 3a,4 S/F King County 2000 Unnamed system 9.0045- 3a,4 S/F Cropp 2004 9.0049 Mill Creek system 9.0051- 3a,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson 9.0055 2000 Unnamed Drainage 9.0069 3a,4 S/F Cropp 2004 Ditch Big Soos Creek 9.0072- 1a,1b,1c,3a S/F Kerwin/Nelson system 9.0097 2000, Cropp 2004, Carlson

Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem References Causes Types 1994 Unnamed 9.0098 1b,3a S/F Cropp 2004 Burns Creek 9.0105 1b,3a S/F Cropp 2004 O’Grady Creek 9.0107 1b,3a,4 Kerwin/Nelson 2000 Crisp Creek 9.0113 1a,1b,1c,3a,4 Kerwin/Nelson 2000, Carlson 2004 Newaukum Creek 9.0114- 1a,1b,1c,3a,3c,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson system 9.0123? 2000, Carlson 2004 North Fork Green 9.0183 1a,3b,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson River 2000, Hickey 2004, R2 RC 2001 Longfellow Creek 9.0359 2,3a,4 S/F Kerwin/Nelson 2000 Puget Sound 9.0361- 3a S/F Kerwin/Nelson drainages 9.0387 2000 Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Reservoir storage is managed for flood control, 3 – Land use low-flow augmentation and water supply; City of 3a – Development Tacoma diversion reduces low flows below historic 3b – Forestry level, even with augmentation. 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

PUYALLUP-WHITE (WRIA 10)

Environmental Setting The Puyallup-White River Basin, Water Resource Inventory Area 10, drains an area of approximately 1,065 square miles. Included in the watershed are more than a dozen cities and towns, including the state’s third largest city, Tacoma. Annual average rainfall in the basin ranges from 40 inches at the city of Puyallup to 70 inches at Electron Dam. Mountain snowpack has been recorded at up to 150 inches. Eighty percent of this precipitation occurs in the fall and winter months. Sixty percent of the Puyallup basin lies at an elevation between 1,000 and 4,000 feet, an area where neither rain nor snow predominates. This topographical feature often leads to moisture conditions that are capable of generating tremendous amounts of runoff. These flood events normally occur in the winter months and are followed by less severe spring runoffs generated by snowmelt. The Puyallup River basin was one of the first watersheds in Puget Sound to experience the full impacts of industrial, urban and agricultural development. This development has had negative impact on natural spawning salmonid populations in the Puyallup River basin. The Puyallup River basin has been substantially altered from its historic condition. In particular, the lower river bears little resemblance to its historic past. Extensive urban growth, heavy industry, a large modern marine port, an extended revetment and levee system and agriculture have combined to significantly alter the natural landscape. Two impassable dams on the White River prevent natural access by salmon to their natal spawning areas, prohibit the passage of large woody debris and disrupt the natural sediment transport process. Puget Sound Energy operates the White River Diversion Dam at RM 24.3, which diverts water into Lake Tapps, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates a flood control dam (Mud Mountain Dam) at RM 29.6. Water from the Lake Tapps Diversion Dam is returned to the White River at RM 3.6. Returning adult salmon are trapped at the diversion dam (RM 24.3) and trucked upstream of Mud Mountain Dam impoundment where they are released back into the White River at RM 29.6. The operation of these two projects essentially eliminates 5.3 miles of mainstem spawning and rearing habitat, though some fish do fall back below Mud Mountain Dam. The diverted reach, between RM 3.5 and 24.3, has historically suffered from lack of even minimal low flow protection. In spite of widespread habitat degradation within WRIA 10, there still exist functioning and productive areas. The South Prairie Creek subbasin continues to be the backbone of natural salmonid production for WRIA 10. Steelhead trout, chinook, pink, coho and chum salmon all successfully reproduce within this subbasin. The middle and upper reaches of the White River and associated tributaries have the potential to be highly productive if significant passage problems associated with the Lake Tapps Diversion Dam in the lower reaches can be successfully addressed and riparian areas are allowed to recover. The upper Puyallup River subbasin has the potential to naturally produce significant numbers of coho, steelhead and potentially a reintroduced spring chinook run if passage problems at the Electron Dam can be successfully addressed. Both the upper Puyallup and White rivers are predominantly within US Forest Service and private commercial timberlands and they have been afforded a certain amount of protection from the impacts of urbanization and development compared to urban areas in Puget Sound lowlands. However, both the upper Puyallup and upper White River

watersheds suffer from present and past timber harvest practices that reduce the ability for riparian areas to provide wood and shade to the river and stream channels and continue to contribute fine sediments from road construction and landslides. All of these continue to adversely impact natural salmonid production. (Kerwin 1999).

Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy Priority stocks for salmon recovery planning in WRIA 10 are Puyallup River fall chinook and White River spring chinook. The loss of off-channel habitat in the lower Puyallup River and estuary and the disconnection of floodplain habitat across much of the river are the primary factors limiting Puyallup River fall chinook. Poor screening on the Electron Dam diversion also causes large losses of migrating juveniles. Alteration of natural flow regimes in the White River and loss of off-channel habitat are the primary factors limiting White River spring chinook. Flow modifications at Mud Mountain Dam and the restoration of normal flows in the river reach affected by Puget Sound Energy’s diversion to Lake Tapps produced by far the greatest projected benefits of all restoration actions evaluated in the WRIA 10 salmon recovery planning process. (Pierce County 2004) Of all the fish stocks in the Puyallup River basin, steelhead have the greatest need for regulatory protection and conservation. Despite drastic harvest restrictions, their numbers continue to dwindle. (Ladley 2004)

Regulatory Setting Watershed planning under HB 2514 has not been initiated in WRIA 10. Minimum instream flows were established for WRIA 10 in 1980 (WAC 173-510). They are 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the lower Puyallup River gauge and 500 cfs at the upper Puyallup River gauge. The 1980 regulation prohibited all new surface water withdrawals from the White River, Hylebos and Wapato Creeks and many tributaries to the Puyallup River. Nevertheless, flows in the Puyallup River have continued a long decline, probably due to groundwater withdrawals through exempt wells and increases in impervious surface that lead to a decline in groundwater and base surface water flows. For the 14 year time period from 1980 to 1993 inclusive, instream flows were not met at the lower Puyallup River gauge an average of 35 days annually. However, these flow violations were generally in late fall and are not believed to be a significant limiting factor to the production of salmonids Historically, the most significant low flow problems in WRIA 10 were caused by withdrawals for Puget Sound Energy’s Lake Tapps Hydroelectric Project at RM 24.3, which diverted water from the White River year-round, including the majority of baseflows in summer and early fall; diversions were returned to the mainstem at RM 3.5. However, PSE ceased operation of this project in January 2004. As of August 2004, about 180-200 cfs is being diverted to maintain the level of Lake Tapps to benefit lakeside homeowners and to support recreational uses of the lake, as well as to operate a fish screen on the diversion. This is down from an annual average of about 1,000 cfs and peak rates of 1,800 – 2,000 cfs. The Cascade Water Alliance has sought to withdraw 100 cfs from Lake Tapps, but the Puyallup Indian Tribe has opposed this action and as of August 2004 was successfully blocking its

implementation. Negotiations continue regarding future flow diversions. (Nauer 2004, Renstrom 2004) Electron Dam, at RM 42 on the Puyallup River, removes up to 350 cfs, which is returned to the mainstem after passing through PSE’s hydroelectric facility at RM 31. A large percentage of migrating juvenile fish from above the dam have been killed at this diversion. A smolt trap was installed in 1998 but is ineffective, recovering less than 10% smolts in the diversion, with the rest lost in the turbines. Electron Dam is not a storage facility and so affects river flows only through the diversions for hydroelectricity and the smolt trap. PSE must leave a minimum of 60 cfs year-round and 80 cfs between July 15 and Nov 15 in the mainstem bypass reach, per agreement with the Puyallup Tribe. (Ladley 2004)

List of Low Flow Problems for Fish The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish in WRIA 10 was developed from technical documents (primarily the Washington Conservation Commission’s Limiting Factors Report, Kerwin 1999) and meetings, phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Russ Ladley, Fisheries Biologist for the Puyallup Tribe; David Renstrom, Fisheries Biologist for Pierce County; Don Nauer, Forest and Fish Biologist, WDFW. Data sheets in Appendix E provide further details on each stream listed in the table.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 10 Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Types Reference Puyallup River, 10.0021 2 Sp,S/F,F Nauer 2004, RM 42 to RM 31 Ladley 2004 Puyallup River, 10.0021 1,2*,3,4 Sp,S/F,F Kerwin 1999, RM 10.4 to mouth Ladley 2004, Renstrom 2004 USGS 2004 Clear Creek 10.0022 2 S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Swan Creek 10.0023 NA S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Squally Creek 10.0024 3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Canyon Creek 10.0026 3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Diru Creek 10.0029 1a,3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004

Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Types Reference Deer Creek 10.0030 3a S/F Nauer 2004 Meeker Ditch none 4 S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Fennel Creek 10.0406 1a,3c S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 White River, RM 10.0031 1a,2* S/F,Sp,F Kerwin 1999, 24.3 to RM 3.6 Ladley 2004, Renstrom 2004, Carlson 2004 White River, RM 10.031 1,2*,3,4 S/F,Sp,F Nauer 2004, 3.6 to mouth USGS 2004 Jovita Creek 10.0033 3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Strawberry Creek 10.0035 3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Bowman Creek 10.0042 2,3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Boise Creek 10.0057 1a,3c,4 S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004, Carlson 2004 Independent Tributaries Joes Creek 10.0001 3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Tang 2004 Lakota Creek 10.0002 3a S/F Kerwin 1999 Dash Creek 10.0003 3a S/F Kerwin 1999 MF Hylebos Ck 10.0013 3a S/F Kerwin 1999 WF Hylebos Ck 10.0014 1a,3a S/F Kerwin 1999, Renstrom 2004, Bowman 2004 EF Hylebos Ck 10.0015 3a S/F Kerwin 1999 Wapato Creek 10.0017 1c,2,3a,3c,4 S/F Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004 Simmons Creek 10.0020 3a S/F Kerwin 1999

Stream WRIA # Suspected Causes Problem Types Reference Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Lake Tapps withdrawals for 3 – Land use hydroelectric power) historically dominated the flow 3a – Development regime. 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

CHAMBERS/CLOVER CREEK (WRIA 12)

Environmental Setting WRIA 12 is approximately 180 square miles in area and includes the western half of the City of Tacoma, the cities of Lakewood, University Place and McChord Air Force Base. A large part of Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base is also in WRIA 12. WRIA 12 supports populations of coho and chum salmon, as well as steelhead, cutthroat, and rainbow trout. The watershed is believed to have historically supported chinook salmon, but no chinook currently use the system for natural production. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife operates a dam, fish ladder, and fish collection facility near the mouth of Chambers Creek. All chinook are collected at the dam and used for broodstock at the Lakewood hatchery or other facilities. Other species are enumerated and allowed to pass upstream into the Chambers Creek watershed. The chinook returning to Chambers Creek are managed as a hatchery stock and are not covered under the Puget Sound Chinook ESA listing. (TPCHD 2003) Development in the WRIA has led to higher peak flows, excessive erosion and gravel scouring. Removal of large woody debris and channelization has reduced habitat diversity, including pools and backwaters. Numerous obstructions block fish passage, in some cases to high quality habitat. Loss of flow in the central section of the mainstem of Clover Creek creates a passage barrier as well as lost habitat area. (Pierce County 2004). This is the highest priority flow problem for fish in the WRIA. It is believed to have multiple causes, which fundamentally relate to reductions in the groundwater table and potentially to increased permeability of the stream channel. The latter was brought about by historic channelization dredging and movement of the channel out of wetland marshes into more porous channels, causing the creek to lose surface water to groundwater. (WRIA 12 2004, Marcantonio 2004)

Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy The priority stock for salmon recovery planning in WRIA 12 is Chambers Creek coho. High priority actions include adding LWD to restore habitat diversity and complexity. Flow restoration is key to Clover Creek, but must be accompanied by LWD, riparian restoration and removal of barriers.

Regulatory Setting No regulatory minimum flows have been established but WRIA 12 was closed to further surface water appropriations and to groundwater in connection with surface waters in 1979 (WAC 173-512-030).

List of Low Flow Problems for Fish The following list of streams with low flow problems for fish in WRIA 12 was developed from technical documents (primarily the Chambers-Clover Technical Assessment Final Report, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, 2003) and meetings, phone interviews and e-mail exchanges with technical staff active in the watershed. Key individual sources include Ray Hanowell, Environmental Health Specialist, Tacoma-Pierce County Health

Department; Tom Kantz, Environmental Biologist, Pierce County Special Programs; David Renstrom, Fisheries Biologist for Pierce County; Marc Marcantonio, General Manager, Mt. View-Edgewood Water Company (formerly Fisheries Biologist, Pierce Conservation District); and Frank Crown, Water Program Lead, Fort Lewis.

Low Flow Problems for Fish in WRIA 12 Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem Reference Causes Types Puget Creek NA 3a S/F Hanowell 2004 Mason Creek NA 3a S/F Hanowell 2004 Day Island Creek NA 3a S/F Hanowell 2004 Chambers Creek 12.0007 1a,1b,2,3a S/F TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004 Leach Creek 12.0008 3a S/F TPCHD 2003, WRIA 12 2004 Flett Creek 12.0009 3a S/F WRIA 12 2004 Clover Creek 12.0007 1a,1b,1c,3a,4 S/F,Sp TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004, Marcantonio 2004 Morey Creek 12.0011 1a,1b,3a S/F TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004 Spanaway Creek 12.0012 1a,1b,3a S/F TPCHD 2003, WRIA 12 2004 North Fork Clover 12.0014 3a S/F TPCHD 2003, Creek Marcantonio 2004. Sequalitchew 12.0019 1c,2,3a,4 S/F TPCHD 2003, Crown Creek 2004, Marcantonio 2004 Murray Creek 12.0019 1c,3a,3c,4 S/F TPCHD 2004, Crown 2004

Stream WRIA # Suspected Problem Reference Causes Types Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

References

Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, P. Aarrestad, N. Burkardt, C. Coomer, C. Estes, J. Hunt, R. Jacobson, G. Jobsis, J. Kauffman, J. Marshall, K. Mayes, C. Stalnaker, and R. Wentworth. 2002. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship. Published by the Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY. Barkdull. 2004. Personal communication from Brett Barkdull, TITLE, U.S. Forest Service, communicated to John Lombard by Karen Chang, Fish Habitat Biologist, U.S. Forest Service. Binkley. 2004. Personal communication between Keith Binkley, Environmental Coordinator, Snohomish PUD, and John Lombard. Blake. 2004. Personal communication between Bill Blake, Natural Resource Manager, City of Arlington, and Dave Somers. Bowman. 2004. Personal communication between John Bowman, Water Manager, Lakehaven Utility District, and John Lombard. Brown. 2004. Personal communication between Jody Brown, Fish Biologist, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and John Lombard. Carlson. 1994. Big Soos Creek low flow trend and water right analysis. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department, Auburn, WA. Cited in Kerwin/Nelson 2000. Carlson. 2004. Personal communication between Carla Carlson, Water Resources Analyst, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and John Lombard. Central Puget Sound Water Suppliers’ Forum. 2001. Central Puget Sound Regional Water Supply Outlook. Chamblin. 2004. Personal communication between Mike Chamblin, WDFW Watershed Steward, and John Lombard, July 13, 2004. Cropp. 2004. Personal communication between Tom Cropp, District 12 Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and John Lombard. Crown. 2004. Personal communication between Frank Crown, Water Program Lead, Fort Lewis, U.S. Army, and John Lombard. Culhane. 1995. Watershed Assessment: Water Resource Inventory Area 9. Green- Duwamins Watershed. Washington Department of Ecology Open File Report 95-01, Bellevue, Washington. 52 pp. Cited in Kerwin/Nelson 2000. Engman. 2004. Personal communication between Gary Engman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and John Lombard, based on resource inventory work Mr. Engman conducted with James Fenton for the Washington Department of Game in the 1970s.

Engman and Stendal. 1976. Fish and Wildlife Assessment of Marshland Watershed Project Area, by R. Gary Engman and Arthur G. Stendal, Applied research Bulletin No. 9, Washington Department of Game. Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands. 2001. State of the Hylebos 2001 – A Progress Report from the Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands on Efforts to Protect and Restore Wild Salmon in Hylebos Creek. Gersib. 2003. Snohomish River Basin Characterization. Draft Summary. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/Snohomish.htm Hall. 2004. Personal Communication between Julie Hall, Fisheries Ecologist, Green/Duwamish and Greater Lake Washington Basins, Seattle Public Utilities, and John Lombard. Hanowell. 2004. Personal communication between Ray Hanowell, Environmental Health Specialist, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, and John Lombard. Hickey. 2004. Personal communication between Paul Hickey, Water Resource Planning Coordinator, Tacoma Public Utilities, and John Lombard. Hirschey. 2004. Personal communication between Steve Hirschey, Washington Department of Ecology, and John Lombard. Mr. Hirschey is Ecology’s project lead for proposing instream flows in WRIA 5. Independent Science Panel (ISP). 2002. Instream Flows for Salmon. Independent Science Panel Technical Memorandum 2002-1. February 15, 2002. Olympia, WA. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar – Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Kerwin, J. 1999. Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Puyallup River Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 10). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, Washington. Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. December 2000. King County. 2000. Coho Distribution in WRIA 9. Figures FD-6, FD-7 and FD-8. King County Department of Natural Resources and Washington State Conservation Commission. On web at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/FishDist.htm. Ladley. 2004. Personal communication between Russ Ladley, Fisheries Biologist, Puyallup Indian Tribe, and John Lombard. Lucchetti. 2004. Personal communication between Gino Lucchetti, Senior Ecologist, King County Water and Land Resources Division, and John Lombard. Marcantonio. 2004. Personal communication between Marc Marcantonio, General Manager, Mt. View-Edgewood Water Company (formerly Fisheries Biologist, Pierce Conservation District), and John Lombard.

Mazza, Patrick. 1999. In Hot Water -A Snapshot of the Northwest’s Changing Climate. Climate Solutions. Meehan. 2004. Personal communication between Maureen Meehan, Storm and Surface Water Coordinator, City of Bothell, and John Lombard. Nauer. 2004. Personal communication between Donald Nauer, Forest and Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and John Lombard. Nelson. 2003. Personal communication between Kurt Nelson, Fish and Water Resources Scientist, Tulalip Indian Tribes, and Dave Somers. Nelson. 2004. Personal communication between Kurt Nelson, Fish and Water Resources Scientist, Tulalip Indian Tribes, and John Lombard. NRDC. 2002. Effects of Global Warming on Trout and Salmon in U.S. Streams. Natural Resource Defense Council. Olson. 2004. Personal communication between Alan Olson, Fisheries Scientist, R2 Resource Consultants (assisting City of Kent with its HCP), and John Lombard. Pierce County. 1997. Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Characterization: report prepared by Pierce County Public Works and Utilities for Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Management Committee. Pierce County. 2004. Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy: WRIA-10 Puyallup Watershed, WRIA-12 Chambers/Clover Creek Watershed. Pierce County, February 25, 2004. Powell. 2004. Personal communication between Scott Powell, ESA Watershed Coordinator, Seattle Public Utilities, and John Lombard. Purser. 2004. Personal communication between Michael Purser, Senior Habitat Specialist, Snohomish County Surface Water Management, and John Lombard. R2 Resource Consultants. 2001. Tacoma Water Habitat Conservation Plan. Final – July 2001. Renstrom. 2004. Personal communication between David Renstrom, Fisheries Biologist, Pierce County, and John Lombard. Savery. 2004. Personal communication from Anne Savery, Hydrologist, Tulalip Indian Tribes, with John Lombard. Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum (SBSRF). 2004. Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan. July 2004. Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. Snohomish County Department of Public Works. 1999. Historic and Current Factors that Limit Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington State: Implications for Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration. Stevenson. 2004. Personal communication between Pat Stevenson, Environmental Program Manager, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and John Lombard.

Steward and Associates (S&A). 2004. City of Snohomish: Endangered Species Act Response Planning. Steward and Associates, May 2004 Draft. Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC). 2004. Draft Stillaguamish – WRIA 5 Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. Snohomish County Surface Water Management and Stillaguamish Tribe. June 30, 2004. Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group. 2000. Technical Assessment and Recommendations for Chinook Salmon Recovery in the Stillaguamish Watershed. Swift, C.H. 1979. Preferred stream discharges for salmon spawning and rearing in Washington. Open-File Report 77-942. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD). 2003. Chambers-Clover Technical Assessment Final Report. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD). 2004. Chambers-Clover Watershed Management Plan. August 2004. Thornton Creek Watershed Management Committee (TCWMC). 2000. Thornton Creek Watershed Characterization Report. November 2000. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Final Environmental Assessment: Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Authority. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Snohomish County. November 2000. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King County. September 2002. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Trends in Streamflow and Comparisons with Instream Flows in the Lower Puyallup River Basin, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5016. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. A Guide to Instream Flow Setting in Washington State. Publication No. 03-11-007 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. An Outline for Salmon Recovery Plans. Washington Department of Fisheries. 1981. Puget Sound River Mile Index. Washington Department of Fisheries. 1979. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Washington State Conservation Commission. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resources Inventory Area 5, Stillaguamish Watershed. Washington State Conservation Commission. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resources Inventory Area 10, Puyallup Watershed. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2001. Stillaguamish River Basin and Port Susan Washington State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet (WSJNRC). 1999. Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon: Extinction is Not an Option.

Water Storage Taskforce. 2001. Water Storage Task Force Report to the Legislature. Washington Department of Ecology. WRIA 8. 2004. WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: June 30, 2004, Draft Work Product. WRIA 8 Service Provider Team. WRIA 9. 2003. Protect, Connect and Unlock the Natural Potential: Technical Guidance for Salmonid Conservation and Recovery in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon/Maury Islands). WRIA 9 Technical Committee. April 2003 Working Draft. WRIA 12 2004. Meeting of John Lombard and technical staff from WRIAs 10 and 12, June 29, 2004.

Appendices: Data Sheets for Listed Streams

Appendix A: Data Sheets, WRIA 5 Streams

Stream Name: Lower Stillaguamish River

WRIA #: 5.0001

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Suspected Causes: la,1b,1c,3a

Other: Reductions in flows from upstream change the ecological regime of the estuary, especially with respect to primary production and prey species at the bottom of the food chain, thus likely affecting prey availability for juvenile salmon. (Savery 2004)

Source: WCC 1999, Savery 2004

A-1

Stream Name: Old Channel

WRIA #: 5.0005

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel changes at the junction of Hatt Slough and the Old Channel are believed to have slowly reduced freshwater flow to the Old Channel over time. A new tide gate has been installed to increase flow to the Old Channel to provide a greater flushing effect, so the problem is being addressed (Nelson 2004).

Sources: WCC 1999, Nelson 2004

A-2

Stream Name: Church Creek

WRIA #: 5.0018

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Cutthroat, coho, chum, steelhead?

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a,4

Other: Church Creek is “Upper” Jorgenson Slough. Affected by exempt wells, Stanwood municipal withdrawal, rural development after forest clearing, I-5 development (Purser 2004). Nelson (2004) has observed unauthorized surface withdrawals. Church Creek has been called the “best cutthroat stream in the Stillaguamish watershed”. Low coho smolt/adult ratio has raised concerns about limits on rearing habitat from low flows. (CPSWSF 2001)

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004, CPSWSF 2001, Nelson 2004

A-3

Stream Name: Freedom Creek

WRIA #: 5.0021

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a,4

Other: Affected by exempt wells, rural development after forest clearing, I-5 development (Purser 2004). Nelson (2004) has also observed unauthorized surface withdrawals. Low flows may be most limiting factor for salmon production (CPSWSF 2001).

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004, CPSWSF 2001, Nelson 2004

A-4

Stream Name: Jackson Creek

WRIA #: 5.0027

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a,4

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004

A-5

Stream Name: Tributary 30

WRIA #: 5.0030

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, USACE 2000, Brown 2004

A-6

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0031

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-7

Stream Name: Portage Creek

WRIA #: 5.0036

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a

Other: Significant water quality problems also are a key limiting factor, though low flows may exacerbate them. Nelson (2004) has observed unauthorized surface withdrawals.

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004, Nelson 2004

A-8

Stream Name: Pilchuck Creek

WRIA #: 5.0062

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Chinook, coho, steelhead, chum, pink

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a,4

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004, Brown 2004

A-9

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0078

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-10

Stream Name: Armstrong Creek

WRIA #: 5.0126

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, USACE 2000

A-11

Stream Name: Harvey Creek

WRIA #: 5.0131

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Chinook, coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a

Other: “Other” withdrawal is for agricultural use.

Sources: WCC 1999, USACE 2000, Blake 2004

A-12

Stream Name: North Fork Stillaguamish River

WRIA #: 5.0135

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,2,3a,3b,4

Other: Extensive logging-related sediment has changed the North Fork and some of its tributaries significantly. WDFW hatchery diverts water.

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004.

A-13

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0149

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-14

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0150

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-15

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0151

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-16

Stream Name: Grant Creek

WRIA #: 5.0156

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 1d – Municipal 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

A-17

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0172

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-18

Stream Name: Deer Creek

WRIA #: 5.0173

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

A-19

Stream Name: Fry Creek

WRIA #: 5.0213

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,3c,4

Other: Purser (2004) speculates that forestry and agriculture may have eliminated springs and accelerated delivery of sediment to the channel.

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004

A-20

Stream Name: Boulder River

WRIA #: 5.0229

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c

Other: Preliminary data indicate that ice and snow levels in the upper Boulder River watershed have decreased from the 1930s to the present, reducing the contribution of glacial runoff to summer/fall baseflows. Most of the river is in wilderness, but rural wells in the lower river may aggravate low flows during drought years.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

A-21

Stream Name: French Creek

WRIA #: 5.0246

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Preliminary data indicate that ice and snow levels in the upper French Creek watershed have decreased from the 1930s to the present, reducing the contribution of glacial runoff to summer/fall baseflows.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

A-22

Stream Name: Placid Creek

WRIA #: 5.0251

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999.

A-23

Stream Name: Little French Creek

WRIA #: 5.0253

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,4

Other: Extensive logging-related sedimentation.

Sources: CPSWSF 2001

A-24

Stream Name: Segelson Creek

WRIA #: 5.0255

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

A-25

Stream Name: Moose Creek

WRIA #: 5.0257

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,4

Other: Logging-related sedimentation

Sources: WCC 1999

A-26

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0258

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-27

Stream Name: Black Creek

WRIA #: 5.0259

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Sources: Stevenson 2004

A-28

Stream Name: Squire Creek

WRIA #: 5.0260?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,4

Other: Channel has changed due to landslides induced by past forestry.

Sources: Chamblin 2004, CPSWSF 2001, Stevenson 2004

A-29

Stream Name: Furland Creek

WRIA #: 5.0261

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,4

Other: Extensive logging-related sedimentation.

Sources: WCC 1999, CPSWSF 2001

A-30

Stream Name: Ashton Creek

WRIA #: 5.0262

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b,4

Other: Extensive logging-related sedimentation.

Sources: WCC 1999, CPSWSF 2001

A-31

Stream Name: Snow Gulch Creek

WRIA #: 5.0263

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, Brown 2004

A-32

Stream Name: South Fork, Stillaguamish River

WRIA #: 5.0001?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Chinook, coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,2,3b,4

Other: “Other Diversion” is for a fish ladder that is in such disrepair that it now is a barrier, with two little flow to provide fish passage.

Sources: WCC 1999, Purser 2004

A-33

Stream Name: Jim Creek

WRIA #: 5.0322

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,4

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004

A-34

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 5.0334

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-35

Stream Name: Jordan Creek

WRIA #: 5.0350

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004

A-36

Stream Name: Canyon Creek

WRIA #: 5.0359

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Chinook, coho, steelhead, bull trout

Suspected Causes: 1b,3b,4

Other: Extensive logging in watershed. Some rural residential development along lower reaches with probable exempt and community well withdrawals of shallow groundwater.

Sources: WCC 1999.

A-37

Stream Name: Tiger Creek

WRIA #: 5.0364

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, Chamblin 2004, Brown 2004

A-38

Stream Name: Cranberry Creek

WRIA #: 5.0390

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999

A-39

Stream Name: Fish Crew Creek

WRIA #: 5.0433A

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: coho, rb/ct

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: Barkdull 2004

A-40

Stream Name: Tiny Creek

WRIA #: 5.0433B

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: coho, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: Barkdull 2004

A-41

Stream Name: Beaver Creek

WRIA #: 5.0434

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: coho, cutthroat, bull trout?

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: Barkdull 2004

A-42

Stream Name: Jarsk Creek

WRIA #: 5.0434A

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: coho, rainbow/cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: Barkdull 2004

A-43

Stream Name: Big Four Creek

WRIA #: 5.0434B

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: coho, rainbow/cutthroat, possibly bull trout

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: Barkdull 2004

A-44

Stream Name: Palmer Creek

WRIA #: 5.0444

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, bull trout

Suspected Causes: 3b

Other:

Sources: WCC 1999, Brown 2004

A-45

Appendix B: Data Sheets, WRIA 7 Streams

Stream Name: Tulalip drainages

WRIA #: 7.0001-0011

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead?

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other: Listing is based on the draft Snohomish River Basin Characterization report by the Washington Department of Ecology (Gersib 2003), which used landscape-level factors to identify probably flow problems. Kurt Nelson of the Tulalip Tribes does not believe the drainages have obvious low flow problems today, but certainly could based on trends for future land and water use (Nelson 2004).

Sources: Gersib 2003, Nelson 2004

B-1

Stream Name: Quilceda Creek

WRIA #: 7.0044

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, chum, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a,4

Other:

Sources: Nelson 2003, Purser 2004

B-2

Stream Name: Allen Creek

WRIA #: 7.0068

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, chum, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a,4

Other:

Sources: Nelson 2003, Purser 2004

B-3

B-4

Stream Name: Sunnyside drainages

WRIA #: 7.0082-0090

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002, Purser 2004

B-5

B-6

Stream Name: Everett coastal drainages

WRIA #: 7.1722-1730

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-7

Stream Name: Marshland drainages

WRIA #: 7.0120-122

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Resident cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 1c,3a,4

Other: Coho, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat have not been present since mid-1960s, when access was blocked by a barrier dam and pump plant. Presently, resident cutthroat are only found in limited upper tributary reaches, due to downstream habitat alterations and degraded water quality. (Engman and Stendal, 1976)

Sources: Pentec 1999, Haring 2002, Purser 2004, Engman and Stendal 1976

B-8

B-9

Stream Name: Fobes Hill drainages

WRIA #: 7.0117-0119, 7.0123-00124

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-10

B-11

Stream Name: Pilchuck River

WRIA #: 7.0125

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a,4

Other: City of Snohomish maximum withdrawal is probably no more than 5% of low flows at site of dam, RM 26.4, based on peak withdrawals in 2002 and 2003 and USGS-gauged flows near Granite Falls from 1943 to 1957, a period of relatively low regional precipitation (Steward and Associates 2004).

Irrigation is the largest use with surface water rights in the basin (about 43%), while small domestic systems collectively are the largest use with groundwater rights (also about 43%). (Savery 2004)

Sources: Pentec 1999, SCR 2002, Purser 2004, Steward and Associates 2004, Savery 2004

B-12

B-13

Stream Name: Dubuque Creek

WRIA #: 7.0139

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999

B-14

Stream Name: Little Pilchuck Creek

WRIA #: 7.0146

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-15

Stream Name: Lake Stevens tributaries

WRIA #: 7.0147-0150

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-16

Stream Name: Bosworth Creek

WRIA #: 7.0163

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999, Haring 2002

B-17

Stream Name: French Creek

WRIA #: 7.0184

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a,4

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999, Haring 2002

B-18

Stream Name: Cathcart drainages

WRIA #: 7.0206-0208, 7.0210-0218

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-19

Stream Name: Mid- and Upper Mainstem, Snoqualmie River (below forks)

WRIA #: 7.0219

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002, Gersib 2003

B-20

Stream Name: Cherry Creek

WRIA #: 7.0240

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1b,2

Other: “Other Diversion” is to maintain level of Lake Margaret

Sources: Pentec 1999, Engman 2004

B-21

Stream Name: Tuck Creek

WRIA #: 7.0268

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004

B-22

Stream Name: Ames Creek

WRIA #: 7.0278

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004, Gersib 2003

B-23

Stream Name: Harris Creek

WRIA #: 7.0283

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1b,2

Other: “Other Diversion” is to maintain levels of Lakes Joy and Mitchell.

Sources: Pentec 1999, Engman 2004

B-24

Stream Name: Lower Tolt River

WRIA #: 7.0291

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1a*,1b,3a,4

Other: Lower Tolt is affected by City of Seattle dam on South Fork of Tolt River for water supply and hydroelectric power production, as well as development and channelization. It is unlikely that augmentation of summer flows by releases from the reservoir is observable in the lower Tolt near Carnation (Nelson 2004).

Sources: SCR 2002, Purser 2004, Nelson 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Seattle’s reservoir on the South Fork of the Tolt River) 3 – Land use dominates municipal use. Summer/fall 3a – Development baseflow reductions, however, are 3b – Forestry from other causes, since the reservoir is used to augment summer/fall 3c – Other baseflows. 4 – Changes to channel

B-25

B-26

Stream Name: Langlois Creek

WRIA #: 7.0292

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004

B-27

Stream Name: South Fork Tolt River

WRIA #: 7.0302

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1a*

Other: City of Seattle operates a dam at RM 8.4 on the South Fork of the Tolt River for water supply and hydroelectric power production (FERC Project 2959), which is also used by agreement with resource agencies to augment summer flows below the dam. Measured at USGS gauge 12-1480, “normal” flows per the agreement range from 45 cfs in mid-winter to 60 cfs in summer. A “critical” flows regime (30-36 cfs) is implemented when specific drought criteria are met.

Sources: SCR 2002, Powell 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Seattle’s 3 – Land use reservoir) dominates municipal use. 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

B-28

Stream Name: Griffin Creek

WRIA #: 7.0364

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, steelhead, cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004, Gersib 2003, Engman 2004

B-29

Stream Name: East Fork Griffin Creek

WRIA #: 7.0371

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999

B-30

Stream Name: Patterson Creek

WRIA #: 7.0376

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999, Nelson 2004

B-31

Stream Name: Raging River

WRIA #: 7.0384

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a,4

Other: “Other” withdrawal is for Talking Rain bottled water; “Changes to channel” are from loss of pools and LWD, partly due to extensive past forestry. Sedimentation at the mouth of the creek causes it to spread out shallowly before joining the Snoqualmie River. (Lucchetti 2004)

Sources: Pentec 1999, Lucchetti 2004

B-32

Stream Name: Coal Creek

WRIA #: 7.0456

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002

B-33

Stream Name: Lower South Fork, Snoqualmie River

WRIA #: 7.0467

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Resident

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002, Gersib 2003

B-34

Stream Name: Riley Slough

WRIA #: 7.0818

Types of Flow Problems: S/F,Sp,F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3c,4

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004, Purser 2004

B-35

Stream Name: Haskel Slough

WRIA #: 7.0825

Types of Flow Problems: S/F,Sp,F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,4

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004, Purser 2004

B-36

Stream Name: Lower Woods Creek

WRIA #: 7.0826

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, chinook, cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: SCR 2002, Engman 2004

B-37

Stream Name: West Fork Woods Creek

WRIA #: 7.0831

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Chamblin 2004, Gersib 2003, Engman 2004

B-38

Stream Name: Elwell Creek

WRIA #: 7.0865

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999, Nelson 2003, Purser 2004.

B-39

Stream Name: Sultan River, below RM 9.7

WRIA #: 7.0881

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a*,2*,4

Other: Water stored behind Culmback Dam, at RM 16.5 on the Sultan River, forms Spada Lake. Water from Spada Lake is transported by pipeline and tunnel to a powerhouse at RM 4.5 on the Sultan River. After passing through Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric generators, water is released directly to the Sultan River and a portion is transported by pipeline to Lake Chaplain. From Lake Chaplain, water can be diverted into the Everett water system, which also supplies a number of independent water utilities, or can be released back into the Sultan River at the City's old diversion facility at RM 9.7. Operations of Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric facility are governed by FERC license agreement 2157, which stipulates minimum instream flows and allowable flow fluctuation rates. The instream flow schedule ranges from 95 cfs up to 175 cfs at the diversion dam (RM 9.7) and a minimum flow range of 165 to 200 cfs downstream from the powerhouse (RM 5.5) (FERC 1981, 1982, 1983, as cited in SBSRTC 2002).

Sources: Binkley 2004.

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Spada Lake and 3 – Land use Lake Chaplain reservoirs) dominates municipal use and “Other diversion” 3a – Development (for Snohomish PUD hydroelectric 3b – Forestry facility). 3c – Other

B-40

4 – Changes to channel

B-41

Stream Name: Sultan River, RM 16.5 – RM 9.7

WRIA #: 7.0881

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a*,2*

Other: Water stored behind Culmback Dam, at RM 16.5 on the Sultan River, forms Spada Lake. Water from Spada Lake is transported by pipeline and tunnel to a powerhouse at RM 4.5 on the Sultan River. After passing through Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric generators, water is released directly to the Sultan River and a portion is transported by pipeline to Lake Chaplain. From Lake Chaplain, water can be diverted into the Everett water system, which also supplies a number of independent water utilities, or can be released back into the Sultan River at the City's old diversion facility at RM 9.7. Operations of Snohomish PUD’s hydroelectric facility are governed by FERC license agreement 2157, which stipulates minimum instream flows and allowable flow fluctuation rates. There is an instream flow requirement of 20 cfs plus tributary inflow in the reach from Culmback Dam (RM 16.5) downstream to the diversion dam at RM 9.7.

Sources: Binkley 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Spada Lake and 3 – Land use Lake Chaplain reservoirs) dominates municipal use and “Other diversion” 3a – Development (for Snohomish PUD hydroelectric 3b – Forestry facility). 3c – Other

B-42

4 – Changes to channel

B-43

Stream Name: Wallace River

WRIA #: 7.0940

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 2

Other: Hatchery diverts 10-25 cfs with maximum diversion March-May, minimum diversion late May-August

Sources: Pentec 1999

B-44

Stream Name: May Creek

WRIA #: 7.0943

Types of Flow Problems: S/F,Sp

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,2,3a,4

Other: Municipal withdrawal is for Snohomish PUD; “Other Diversion” is for hatchery, which diverts 3-9 cfs from late spring through mid-late summer.

Sources: Pentec 1999, Purser 2004

B-45

Stream Name: Olney Creek

WRIA #: 7.0946

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, cutthroat (probably sea-run) (Engman 2004)

Suspected Causes: 1a

Other: Municipal withdrawals supply cities of Gold Bar and Startup.

Sources: Pentec 1999, Engman 2004

B-46

Stream Name: Proctor Creek

WRIA #: 7.0970

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead, chinook (?)

Suspected Causes: 1b,4

Other: Channel changes are probably more responsible for flow problems than exempt wells (Nelson 2004).

Sources: Nelson 2003

B-47

Stream Name: Lewis Creek

WRIA #: 7.0983?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho and steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,4

Other: Channel changes are probably more responsible for flow problems than exempt wells (Nelson 2004).

Sources: Nelson 2004, Purser 2004

B-48

Stream Name: Star Creek

WRIA #: 7.0992

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Pentec 1999

B-49

Stream Name: Maloney Creek

WRIA #: 7.1407

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other: Sedimentation in channel is primary problem

Sources: Chamblin 2004

B-50 Appendix C: Data Sheets, WRIA 8 Streams

Stream Name: Lake Washington Ship Canal

WRIA #: 8.0028?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1*,3,4

Other: The “Screening Analysis…for Change in Hydrologic Regime” contained in the Limiting Factors Report estimated that approximately 31% of the July-October natural flow of the Lake Washington watershed is “lost to consumptive use and diversion to Puget Sound via the wastewater system.” It estimated that “groundwater recharge reductions account for another 10% loss to stream base flow within the watershed, but probably do not reduce summer-fall discharge to the Sound because stream runoff is collected in Lake Washington and outflow is controlled at the Locks.”

The primary concern raised by reductions in July-October flow is that it constrains operations of the Hiram Chittenden Locks, both for fish migration and salinity control. Reduced outflows in June and July increase the likelihood there will not be enough water to operate the fish-friendly “smolt slides” for juvenile passage; mortality is much higher for fish that pass through the filling tunnels for the Locks. Reduced outflows also can increase salinity levels in the Ship Canal, by constraining use of the saltwater drain upstream of the Locks (saltwater enters the Ship Canal during lockages), which may be necessary to conserve water for other Lock operations and to maintain the level of Lake Washington. Locks are operated to raise lake levels in summer (storing water for lock operations) and lower lake levels in winter (providing storage capacity for floods).

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-1

3 – Land use River Watershed) dominates municipal 3a – Development use. Ship Canal flows are also regulated by operation of Hiram 3b – Forestry Chittenden Locks. 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

C-2

Stream Name: Thornton Creek

WRIA #: 8.0031

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat, chinook, steelhead, sockeye

Suspected Causes: 1c,3a

Other: Jackson Park Golf Course has water right to withdraw up to 1.3 cfs. Aside from the potential effects of this withdrawal, Seattle technical staff do not believe that low flows are one of the most important problems for salmon in Thornton Creek, in part because imported water used for irrigation and leakage from pipes compensates to some degree for lost baseflows due to impervious surfaces. (Hall 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, TCWMC 2000, Hall 2004

C-3

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 8.0056

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-4

Stream Name: Upper Sammamish River

WRIA #: 8.0057?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Chinook, sockeye, coho, steelhead, kokanee

Suspected Causes: 1a,1c,3a,4

Other: Affected by all withdrawals in the Lake Sammamish basin, as well as by others near the river itself—including major withdrawals by the City of Redmond, as well as others for agriculture in the Sammamish Valley—and by withdrawals from Bear Creek, the major source of cool water for the upper river. The Sammamish River has been channelized and lowered significantly in elevation, lowering the groundwater table in the Sammamish Valley and reducing cool groundwater inflows. High temperatures can be a significant problem in the creek for early returning chinook salmon; they also are a barrier to juvenile use of the river throughout the summer and early fall, and may impact late outmigrating juveniles. (USACE 2002)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002

C-5

Stream Name: North Creek

WRIA #: 8.0070

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: Meehan 2004

C-6

Stream Name: Little Bear Creek

WRIA #: 8.0080

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: Meehan 2004

C-7

Stream Name: Upper Sammamish Sidewall Tributaries

WRIA #: 8.0092-8.104

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other: Tributaries affected by upland development, channelization through agriculture district, lowered groundwater table from channelization of Sammamish River (USACE 2002)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002

C-8

Stream Name: Bear Creek

WRIA #: 8.0105

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chinook, steelhead, cutthroat, kokanee

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a

Other: Largest withdrawals by City of Redmond, the water districts of Olympic View, Northeast Sammamish and Union Hill, and the Sahalee and Bear Creek golf courses (USACE 2002)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002

C-9

Stream Name: Evans Creek

WRIA #: 8.0106

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat, sockeye, kokanee

Suspected Causes: 1a,1c,3a

Other: Largest withdrawals by Northeast Sammamish and Union Hill water districts and Sahalee Golf Course (USACE 2002)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, USACE 2002

C-10

Stream Name: East Lake Sammamish tributaries

WRIA #: 8.0144-0166

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat, kokanee, sockeye?

Suspected Causes: 1a,3a

Other: Withdrawals by Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District affect tributaries differently, depending on the depth of groundwater withdrawals and how closely they are connected to surface flows.

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-11

Stream Name: North Fork Issaquah Creek

WRIA #: 8.0181

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat, kokanee, other?

Suspected Causes: 1a,3a,4

Other: Largest withdrawals by Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District.

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-12

Stream Name: East Fork Issaquah Creek

WRIA #: 8.0183

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, sockeye, cutthroat, kokanee

Suspected Causes: 1a,3a,4

Other: City of Issaquah has two major wells within 300 feet of the East Fork of Issaquah Creek, which has also been impacted by development in its lower reaches and the construction of I-5 through the basin.

Sources: Carlson 2004

C-13

Stream Name: Northeast Lake Washington tributaries

WRIA #: 8.0224-0229

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-14

Stream Name: East Lake Washington tributaries

WRIA #: 8.0244-8.0258

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-15

Stream Name: Coal Creek

WRIA #: 8.0268?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat, sockeye

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other: Extensive sedimentation, in part from old mine tailings, aggravates low flow problems.

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-16

Stream Name: Cedar River

WRIA #: 8.0299

Types of Flow Problems: S/F,Sp,F

Species Affected: Chinook, coho, steelhead, sockeye, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 1a*,3a,4

Other: Minimum flows from the Cedar River watershed are regulated by the City of Seattle’s Habitat Conservation Plan. The HCP provides for blocks of water that can be used to enhance spring flows for juvenile migration and fall flows for adult migration. A multi- jurisdiction Instream Flow Committee advises the City on these and other flow decisions as well as on adaptive management for the flow regime over time.

Extensive channelization in the lower watershed has dramatically reduced connection with floodplain, reducing opportunities for groundwater inflow.

Sources: Kerwin 2001, Hall 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Seattle’s Cedar 3 – Land use River Watershed) dominates municipal use. 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

C-17

Stream Name: Rock Creek

WRIA #: 8.0338

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Sockeye, coho, steelhead, cutthroat, chinook

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other: The City of Kent withdraws water from Rock Creek through an infiltration gallery (buried perforated pipes) and three wells. The water right for the infiltration gallery has no associated instream flow requirement; the wells are seldom used, but are required to leave 2 cfs in the stream from July 1 to October 31 and 15 cfs through the remainder of the year. The City has voluntarily set a 3 cfs minimum flow program during the late summer and fall, which appears to be adequate for spawning sockeye, coho and cutthroat. The City is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan for its withdrawals, which will likely include minimum baseflows. The HCP also may address issues related to access for spawning chinook, though the City believes this may be naturally limited by the size of the steam and its morphology. (Olson 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 2001, Olson 2004, Carlson 2004

C-18

Stream Name: Southwest Lake Washington tributaries

WRIA #: 8.0465-0470

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other: Seattle technical staff do not believe that low flows are generally one of the most important problems for salmon in city creeks, in part because imported water used for irrigation and leakage from pipes compensates to some degree for lost baseflows due to impervious surfaces. (Hall 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 2001

C-19

Appendix D: Data Sheets, WRIA 9 Streams

Stream Name: Lower and Middle Green River, below RM 61

WRIA #: 9.0001

Types of Flow Problems: S/F,Sp,F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 1a*,1b,2,3a,4

Other: The Howard Hanson Dam was built for flood control and low-flow augmentation, which began in 1964 but still has not increased summer flows to their before Tacoma water withdrawals began in 1913, at its dam at RM 61. Low flows in late summer have met IRPP flows only 9 out of the last 30 years.

Tacoma’s First Diversion Water Right Claim of 113 cfs is senior to the IRPP flows and is therefore not constrained by them. However, in 2001 Tacoma adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for its Green River Watershed in return for Incidental Take Permits issued by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. The HCP limits Tacoma’s withdrawals under both its First Diversion Claim as well as its Second Diversion Water Right, which is for up to 100 cfs. Working cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers, Tacoma must insure minimum flows at the Auburn gage, which vary from 350 cfs during wet years to 225 cfs during an extreme drought. From July 15 to September 15, the City cannot exercise its Second Water Right unless flows are at least 400 cfs at the Auburn gage. (R2 Resource Consultants 2001)

Even more fundamentally, the White River was permanently diverted from the Green River in the early 1900s, and the Black River was cut off from the large majority of its drainage area (which had included the Lake Washington and Cedar River basins) when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was opened in 1916. These changes dramatically reduced flows into the lower Green and Duwamish Rivers.

The City of Auburn has water rights for wells that are hydraulically connected to both the Green and White Rivers. The City of Black Diamond withdraws water from springs that are an important source of cold water to the mainstem river. (Carlson 2004)

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000, R2 Resource Consultants 2001, Carlson 2004

D-1

D-2

Stream Name: Hamm Creek

WRIA #: 9.0002-0003

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1c,3a,4

Other: “Other” withdrawal is for Rainier Golf and Country Club, which diverts water from the South Fork of Hamm Creek out of a ditch into two ornamental ponds. A pump house located adjacent to the lower of these two ponds then supplies water to an ornamental concrete-lined pond on a golf course fairway.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-3

Stream Name: Pal Creek

WRIA #: 9.0004

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: King County 2000

D-4

Stream Name: Springbrook Creek/Black River system

WRIA #: 9.0005-9.0025

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other: Historically, Lake Washington and the Cedar River drained into the Black River.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-5

Stream Name: Unnamed Drainage Ditch

WRIA #: 9.0041

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: Cropp 2004

D-6

Stream Name: Midway Creek

WRIA #: 9.0043

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: King County 2000

D-7

Stream Name: Unnamed system

WRIA #: 9.0045-9.0049

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: Cropp 2004

D-8

Stream Name: Mill Creek system

WRIA #: 9.0051-9.0055

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a,4

Other:

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-9

Stream Name: Unnamed Drainage Ditch

WRIA #: 9.0069

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Cropp 2004

D-10

Stream Name: Big Soos Creek system

WRIA #: 9.0072-9.0097

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a

Other: The City of Kent, the Covington Water District and King County Water District #111 are the largest consumers of water in the subbasin. The amount of water actually used has not been compared against allocated water rights and claims in the basin. However, Carlson (1994) concluded that the hypothetical ground water yield of the basin is less than the quantity of water already allocated through exempt well withdrawals and water rights. Though tributaries to the Green River have been closed to additional surface withdrawals since 1980 (WAC 173-509), average 7-day low flows in Soos Creek declined steadily between 1968 to 1993 (Culhane 1995). Likely causes include decreased precipitation, increases in impervious surface and increased groundwater withdrawals. The low mean monthly flow decreased about 33 percent from 1967 to 1992. Culhane (1995) concluded that additional groundwater removal from the basin’s upper three or four aquifers would likely contribute to an additional reduction of surface flows. Cropp (2004) has observed widespread illegal withdrawals for lawn and garden watering, many of which he believes are illegal.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000, Culhane 1995, Carlson 1994, Cropp 2004

D-11

3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

D-12

Stream Name: Unnamed

WRIA #: 9.0098

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Cropp 2004

D-13

Stream Name: Burns Creek

WRIA #: 9.0105

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a

Other:

Sources: Cropp 2004

D-14

Stream Name: O’Grady Creek

WRIA #: 9.0107

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,3a,4

Other: Lower channel has received large amount of sediment due to upstream urbanization, forest clearing and removal of LWD.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-15

Stream Name: Crisp Creek (also locally known as Keta Creek)

WRIA #: 9.0113

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1b,1c,3a,4

Other: Keta Creek Hatchery and two adjacent former WDFW rearing ponds are located at RM 1.05. From 1995 to 2000, mean annual one-day minima flow was about 2.5 cfs. If too much water is withdrawan or groundwater recharge were to be interrupted, the stream would likely go dry during seasonal low flow periods.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000, Carlson 2004

D-16

Stream Name: Newaukum Creek system

WRIA #: 9.0114-9.0123?

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a,3c,4

Other: “Other” withdrawals and land use are for agriculture; “Changes to channel” also includes ditching and channelization for agriculture, as well as sedimentation that aggravates low flow problems in lower Newaukum Creek.

Culhane (1995) found an estimated 20% decline in mean annual flows and a 24% decline in low flows from 1953 to 1992, which was not adequately explained by a decline in precipitation. Water withdrawals (particularly by the City of Enumclaw), conversion of forest to agricultural lands and the elimination of the historic wetland complex of the Enumclaw Plateau have likely contributed to the reduction. The reaches of Newaukum Creek and its North Fork upstream of the Enumclaw Plateau are predominantly in private commercial timberland. The impacts of this land use on flows are not known. The average 7-day low flow generally occurs during the period when chinook salmon are migrating upstream.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000, Culhane 1995, Carlson 2004

D-17

3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

D-18

Stream Name: North Fork Green River

WRIA #: 9.0183

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,3b,4

Other: The North Fork valley was subject to extensive glacial activity during the Pleistocene epoch; when Eagle Gorge dammed the Green River mainstem with ice, the river flowed through the North Fork valley. There is evidence of a large quantity of glacial till near the surface throughout the valley. Several streams in valley north of the North Fork itself go subsurface in the summer. Logging-related sedimentation and wellfields operated by Tacoma may aggravate this problem.

However, under Tacoma’s HCP for the Green River Watershed, it agreed not to withdraw groundwater from its well field in the North Fork Green River valley unless turbidity of Green River surface water exceeds 5 NTUs. This typically coincides with higher flows and so generally should have less effect on low flows..

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000, Hickey 2004, R2 Resource Consultants 2001

D-19

4 – Changes to channel

D-20

Stream Name: Longfellow Creek

WRIA #: 9.0359

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 2,3a,4

Other: Approximately 45 percent of the Longfellow sub-basin is served by combined sanitary and storm sewers. (Kerwin/Nelson 2000) Inflow/infiltration to this system can reduce baseflows.

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-21

Stream Name: Puget Sound drainages

WRIA #: 9.0361-0387

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin/Nelson 2000

D-22

Appendix E: Data Sheets, WRIA 10 Streams

E-1

Stream Name: Puyallup River, RM 42 – RM 31

WRIA #: 10.0021

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected: All

Suspected Causes: 2

Other: Electron Dam, at RM 42 on the Puyallup River, removes up to 350 cfs, which is returned to the mainstem after passing through PSE’s hydroelectric facility at RM 31. A large percentage of migrating juvenile fish from above the dam have been killed at this diversion. A smolt trap was installed in 1998 but is woefully ineffective and recovers less than 10% of the smolts delivered to the forebay. Electron Dam is not a storage facility and so affects river flows only through the diversions for hydroelectricity and the smolt trap. PSE must leave a minimum of 60 cfs year-round and 80 cfs between July 15 and Nov 15 in the mainstem bypass reach, per agreement with the Puyallup Tribe. (Ladley 2004)

Sources: Nauer 2004, Ladley 2004

E-2

Stream Name: Puyallup River, RM 10.4 to mouth

WRIA #: 10.0021

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1,2*,3,4

Other: Historically, flows in the lower Puyallup River have been greatly affected by flow modifications in the White River, which enters the Puyallup at RM 10.4. During operation of Puget Sound Energy’s Lake Tapps hydroelectric facility, flows in the lower Puyallup closely mimicked flows from PSE’s powerhouse (USGS 2004). Ceasing PSE’s operation in January 2004 (see data sheet for White River, RM 24.3 to RM 3.6 for more details) has essentially eliminated this effect, but negotiations continue over possible future diversions from Lake Tapps. (Renstrom 2004)

Baseflows on the Puyallup River have also been affected by water withdrawals, urbanization and other land use changes, and a levee system that essentially eliminates interaction with the floodplain. Land use changes and exempt wells likely contributed to continuous declines in low flows since at least 1980, despite closure of the river for new surface water withdrawals and the establishment of minimum flow requirements. (Kerwin, 1999)

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004, Renstrom 2004, USGS 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal, without storage Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 1d – Municipal, with storage * Regulated system (Lake Tapps 2 – Other Diversion withdrawals for hydroelectric power) historically dominated the flow regime 3 – Land use (see discussion above).

E-3

3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

E-4

Stream Name: Clear Creek

WRIA #: 10.0022

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 2

Other: “Other Diversion” is for hatchery, dramatically reducing flows in the bypass reach.

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004

E-5

Stream Name: Swan Creek

WRIA #: 10.0023

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: NA

Other:

Sources: Kerwin, 1999

E-6

Stream Name: Squally Creek:

WRIA #: 10.0024

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Source: Kerwin, 1999, Ladley 2004

E-7

Stream Name: Canyon Creek

WRIA #: 10.0026

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin, 1999; Ladley 2004

E-8

Stream Name: Diru Creek

WRIA #: 10.0029

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin, 1999; Ladley 2004

E-9

Stream Name: Deer Creek

WRIA #: 10.0030

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a, possibly 4

Other:

Sources: Nauer 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal, without storage Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 1d – Municipal, with storage 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

E-10

Stream Name: Meeker Ditch

WRIA #: none

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 4

Other:

Sources: Kerwin, 1999; Ladley 2004.

E-11

Stream Name: Fennel Creek

WRIA #: 10.0406

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,3c

Other: “Other” land use affecting flows is agriculture

Sources: Kerwin, 1999; Ladley 2004.

E-12

Stream Name: White River, RM 24.3 to RM 3.6

WRIA #: 10.0031

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,2*

Other: Historically, the most significant low flow problems in WRIA 10 were caused by withdrawals for Puget Sound Energy’s Lake Tapps Hydroelectric Project at RM 24.3, which diverted water from the White River year-round, including the majority of baseflows in summer and early fall; diversions were returned to the mainstem at RM 3.5. However, PSE ceased operation of this project on January 15, 2004. As of August 2004, about 180-200 cfs is being diverted to maintain the level of Lake Tapps to benefit lakeside homeowners and to support recreational uses of the lake, as well as to operate a fish screen on the diversion. This is down from an annual average of about 1,000 cfs and peak rates of 1,800 – 2,000 cfs. The Cascade Water Alliance has sought to withdraw 100 cfs from Lake Tapps, but the Puyallup Indian Tribe has opposed this action and as of August 2004 was successfully blocking its implementation. Negotiations continue regarding future flow diversions. (Nauer 2004, Renstrom 2004)

Fish cannot pass Mud Mountain Dam, a flood control facility operated by the Corps of Engineers at RM 29.6. Because discharge at the dam makes collection difficult, returning adult salmon are trapped at the diversion dam for Lake Tapps and trucked upstream of Mud Mountain, foregoing use of 5.3 miles of mainstem spawning and rearing habitat. Mud Mountain Dam eliminates peak flows and meters out stored flood waters; it does not affect summer/fall baseflows.

The City of Auburn holds water rights for seven wells in the Auburn Valley, between the Green and White Rivers, to which they are hydraulically connected. The total rights for these wells is 14.7 mgd or 22.7 cfs. The City also withdraws water from Coal Creek Springs and wells in the Lake Tapps Upland. The Cities of Pacific, Buckley, Bonney Lake, Sumner and the Edgewood Water District all also withdraw groundwater in the vicinity of the White River. (Carlson 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Renstrom 2004, Ladley 2004, Carlson 2004

E-13

* Regulated system (Lake Tapps withdrawals for hydroelectric power) historically dominated the flow regime (see discussion above).

E-14

Stream Name: White River, RM 3.6 to mouth

WRIA #: 10.0031

Types of Flow Problems: Sp,S/F,F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1,2*,3,4

Other: Historically, impoundments in Lake Tapps and ramping of flows for Puget Sound Energy’s hydroelectric facility altered the flow regime of the White River below the return of diverted waters at RM 3.6. (USGS 2004) The cease of hydroelectric operations in January 2004 has ended this effect, but negotiations continue concerning future flow diversions.

Water from the Lake Tapps diversion is returned to the main channel through a constructed trapezoidal channel, dug into valley sediments. From RM 3.6 to its mouth, the White River passes through a highly altered wetland complex between the West Valley Highway and the City of Sumner before emptying into the Puyallup River.

Sources: Nauer 2004, USGS 2004

Suspected Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion * Regulated system (Lake Tapps 3 – Land use withdrawals for hydroelectric power) historically dominated the flow regime 3a – Development (see discussion above). 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

E-15

E-16

Stream Name: Jovita Creek

WRIA #: 10.0033

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004

E-17

Stream Name: Strawberry Creek

WRIA #: 10.0035

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004

E-18

Stream Name: Bowman Creek

WRIA #: 10.0042

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 2,3a

Other: Creek is regulated by release from Lake Tapps.

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004.

E-19

Stream Name: Boise Creek

WRIA #: 10.0057

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,3c,4

Other: The City of Enumclaw has water rights for Boise Springs of 1.3 mgd or 2.0 cfs. Boise Creek is used by spring chinook salmon. Summer flows can be as low as 2 to 4 cfs. (Carlson 2004) “Other” land use affecting low flows is agriculture (Ladley 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004, Carlson 2004

E-20

Stream Name: Joes Creek

WRIA #: 10.0001

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Tang 2004

E-21

Stream Name: Lakota Creek

WRIA #: 10.0002

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999.

E-22

Stream Name: Dash Creek

WRIA #: 10.0003

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999.

E-23

Stream Name: Middle Fork Hylebos Creek

WRIA #: 10.0013

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999.

E-24

Stream Name: West Fork of Hylebos Creek

WRIA #: 10.0014

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1a,3a

Other: Lakehaven Utility District operates a series of shallow-aquifer wells in the vicinity of West Hylebos Creek. David Renstrom, Fisheries Biologist for Pierce County, suspects this contributes to low flow problems in the creek. (Renstrom 2004) John Bowman, Water Manager for Lakehaven, says that the utility has no evidence of this effect, but that it has never experimented by changing its withdrawals and monitoring flows in the creek. The utility has been withdrawing a similar amount of water from these wells for decades. (Bowman 2004)

Sources: Kerwin 1999, Renstrom 2004, Bowman 2004.

E-25

Stream Name: East Fork of Hylebos Creek

WRIA #: 10.0015

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999.

E-26

Stream Name: Wapato Creek

WRIA #: 10.0017

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 1c,2,3a,3c,4

Other: Presently, there are allocated surface water rights of approximately 12 cubic feet per second (cfs) in Wapato Creek. Primarily used for irrigation, the greatest demand for this water is during the irrigation season that typically extends from May through September. Recently observed low stream flows of approximately two cfs occurring in August and September are substantially less than the water allocation. The creek is in danger of being dewatered in some sections should enough users attempt to exercise their water withdrawal rights simultaneously.

A water diversion at RM 11.7 diverts Wapato Creek into a collection pipe that actively removes all flow from the upper Wapato Creek channel into a stormwater bypass system that flows into the Puyallup River. The project was conceived to prevent flooding along Wapato Creek by diverting peak flows into the stormwater bypass system. The project operates in reverse of its intention. Under normal flows, the project diverts all the water of upper Wapato Creek into the bypass and only flood flows into lower Wapato Creek. This diversion has significantly contributed to the critical low flows within the subbasin in the last 20 years. (Kerwin, 1999)

Source: Kerwin 1999, Ladley 2004.

E-27

3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

E-28

Stream Name: Simmons Creek

WRIA #: 10.0020

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Kerwin 1999.

E-29

Appendix F: Data Sheets, WRIA 12 Streams

Stream Name: Puget Creek

WRIA #: NA

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Hanowell 2004

F-1

Stream Name: Mason Creek

WRIA #: NA

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected:

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Hanowell 2004

F-2

Stream Name: Day Island Creek

WRIA #: NA

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, steelhead

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: Hanowell 2004

F-3

Stream Name: Chambers Creek

WRIA #: 12.0007

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chum, steelhead, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,2,3a

Other: WDFW operates a dam, fish ladder and collection facility near the mouth of Chambers Creek. Chinook are collected at the dam and used for broodstock at the Lakewood hatchery or other facilities. Other species are enumerated and allowed to pass upstream.

Lake Steilacoom water levels are managed by the Lake Steilacoom Improvement Club under court requirements, which include removal of boards to enhance flows in October.

Source: TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004.

Significant Causes: Types of Flow Problems: 1 –Withdrawals S/F – Summer/fall baseflows 1a – Municipal Sp – Reduced spring flows 1b – Exempt Wells F – Reduced fall freshets 1c – Other 2 – Other Diversion 3 – Land use 3a – Development 3b – Forestry 3c – Other 4 – Changes to channel

F-4

Stream Name: Leach Creek

WRIA #: 12.0008

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chum, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: TPCHD 2003, WRIA 12 2004

F-5

Stream Name: Flett Creek

WRIA #: 12.0009

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, chum

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: WRIA 12 2004

F-6

Stream Name: Clover Creek

WRIA #: 12.0007

Types of Flow Problems: S/F, Sp

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,1c,3a,4

Other: Generally considered the most significant low flow problem for fish in WRIA 12. It is believed to have multiple causes, which fundamentally relate to reductions in the groundwater table and potentially to increased permeability of the stream channel. The latter was brought about by channelization dredging in the 1930s and movement of the channel out of wetland marshes at Lakewood Mall and Pacific Lutheran University. Clover Creek is underlain by porous, glacial outwash soils. The creek was also diverted to irrigate hops fields and supply water to backyard ponds; the latter return flow to the creek, but in aggregate are likely a net loss. (Marcantonio 2004) Interviews and pictures indicate the stream had water and fish year-round in the 1930s.

Sources: TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004, Marcantonio 2004

F-7

Stream Name: Morey Creek

WRIA #: 12.0011

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Resident cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Sources: TPCHD 2003

F-8

Stream Name: Spanaway Creek

WRIA #: 12.0012

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Suspected Causes: 1a,1b,3a

Other:

Source: TPCHD 2003, WRIA 12 2004

F-9

Stream Name: North Fork Clover Creek

WRIA #: 12.0014

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat

Suspected Causes: 3a

Other:

Sources: TPCHD 2003, Marcantonio 2004

F-10

Stream Name: Sequalitchew Creek

WRIA #: 12.0019

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Coho, cutthroat?

Suspected Causes: 1c,2,3a,4

Other: Fort Lewis has drawn water from Sequalitchew Springs, located at the east end of Sequalitchew Lake, since 1918. In the early 1950s, a set of diversion structures was constructed below the lake to limit backwatering from Sequalitchew Marsh, which created water quality problems for the Fort’s supply. The diversions send water from the marsh down a separate channel to Puget Sound, reducing flows in the main channel downstream of the marsh. (Marcantonio 2004) The development of DuPont and other urbanization has also reduced groundwater recharge.

Sources: TPCHD 2003, Crown 2004, Marcantonio 2004.

F-11

Stream Name: Murray Creek

WRIA #: 12.0019

Types of Flow Problems: S/F

Species Affected: Cutthroat, kokanee

Suspected Causes: 1c,3a,3c,4

Other: There have been two primary causes proposed for low flows in Murray Creek: groundwater withdrawals for Madigan Hospital’s cooling system; and increased permeability of the stream channel near I-5 resulting from construction of a utility line several years ago (Hanowell 2004).

Sources: TPCHD 2003, Hanowell 2004, Crown 2004.

F-12