2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Queets – Chehalis Basins

Home , Capitol State Forest, Queets River, Quinault people, Quinault River, Sams River

he evidence is abundantly clear. We know how Tto manage our fish. We understand sustain- ability. The problems fish are facing are not of our making. But we are definitely a big part of the solution, with the work we do in habitat restoration and protection, good management and education.

– Fawn Sharp, President Quinault Indian Nation

Quinault Indian Nation The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) consists of the Quinault and Queets tribes and descendants of five other coastal tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Che- halis, Chinook and Cowlitz. Quinault ancestors lived on a major physical and cultural dividing line. Beaches to the south are wide and sandy, while to the north, they are rugged and cliff- lined. Quinault people shared in the cultures of the people to the south as well as those to the Seattle north. Living in family groups in longhouses up and down the river, they were sustained by the land and by trade with neighboring tribes. Salmon runs, abundant sea mammals, wildlife and forests provided substantial material and spiritual wealth. A great store of knowledge about plants and their uses helped provide for the people. The western red-cedar, the “tree of life,” provided logs for canoes, bark for clothing, split boards for houses and more. The Quinault are the Canoe People, the people of the cedar tree. Tribal headquarters are located in Taholah, Washington.

190 Quinault Indian Nation Queets – Quinault – Chehalis Basins

The Quinault Indian Nation’s Area of Interest for this report covers three Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) including the Queets-Quinault basin (WRIA 21) and Chehalis basin (WRIAs 22 and 23). WRIA 21 contains the tributaries to the Pacif- ic Ocean from Kalaloch Creek in the north to near Grays Harbor in the south. Major watersheds include the Queets and Quinault, which originate from the Olympic Mountain range, as well as the Raft, Moclips and Copalis rivers and other independent drainages that head at the foothills of this range. All these streams provide suitable spawning and rearing habitat for salmon.1 The Lower Chehalis (WRIA 22) comprises mainly the lower portion of the Chehalis River drainage, with major tributaries like the Wishkah, Wynoochee and Satsop rivers, as well as a number of independent streams like the Humptulips, Hoquiam and Johns rivers which drain into Grays Harbor. The Upper Chehalis (WRIA 23) includes the upper reaches of the Chehalis river drainage and a number of major tributaries such as the South Fork Chehalis, Newaukum, Black and Skookumchuck rivers. The three WRIAs in this report support Chinook, chum and coho salmon, as well as steelhead and

Debbie Preston, NWIFC Debbie Preston, cutthroat trout, and char. WRIA 21 also supports sockeye salmon. A tree planting crew seeds Sitka spruce as part of the Quinault The Queets, Quinault and Chehalis basins have known bull trout Indian Nation's work to restore native vegetation to the upper use but in the Chehalis, the documented use is limited to foraging. Quinault river valley floodplain to help improve production of Bull trout were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered blueback (sockeye) salmon. Crews planted 12,000 spruce seed- Species Act in 1999. The salmon and steelhead runs in the Che- lings at about 170 trees per acre, similar to the densities in natu- halis basin are significantly degraded from their historic levels. rally developing forests of the Hoh and Queets river bottoms. Modeling of salmon populations by the Governor’s Chehalis Ba- sin Workgroup shows spring-run Chinook populations reduced by 78%, Fall-run Chinook by 45%, coho by 69%, and steelhead by 44%.2 The majority of the area is forestland owned by corporations and government and includes the Capitol State Forest and Quinault In- dian Reservation, as well as portions of Olympic National For- est, Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Olympic National Park. Although salmonids in this area have fared better than in Puget Sound,3 several habitat factors limit salmonid production in the basin. These include channel incision, sedimentation, riparian loss or conversion, loss of large woody material, reduced channel complexity, water quality problems and reduction in streamflow.4,5 Most of these problems are caused and or exacerbated by human activity. Recovery Efforts Lagging A review of key environmental indicators for the Queets to Che- (e.g., federal, state, tribal, county) needed to address the issues and halis basins area shows that priority concerns continue to be deg- implement actions to restore and protect habitat and to monitor and radation of water quantity and quality, degradation of floodplain enforce compliance of existing regulations. In addition, funding and riparian processes, loss of forest cover conditions and habitat shortfalls for large-scale projects contribute to the slow pace of blocked to fish access. Improvement has been observed in forest progress. roads (RMAPs). In general, there is a shortage of staff at all levels

Quinault Indian Nation 191 Review of the trend for these key environmental indicators since the 2012 State of Our Watersheds report shows an improvement for one indicator and a steady loss for others in habitat status:

Trend Since Tribal Indicator Status SOW 2012 Report Between 2011 and 2013, there were widespread water temperature impairments in the Queets River watershed that exceeded Washington State numeric water quality standards. These violations, likely Water Quality caused by forest practices activities and glacier loss, will have an impact on salmonid production in the Declining watershed. Water Quantity - Peak Flows Peak flows have shown an increasing trend for both the Queets River and Chehalis River. Declining Low flows on the Chehalis River have experienced an increasing trend. Concerns Water Quantity - Low Flows Low flows on the Queets River have experienced a decreasing trend. Declining About 61% of the RMAP culverts have been repaired and 39% are scheduled to be completed by 2021. Forest Roads Improving Approximately 90% of the Quinault Area of Interest had road densities of greater than three miles/square mile, the level at which streams cease to function properly. Road crossings were highest in the East Fork Road Densities & Crossings Satsop River and Black River watersheds with values of greater than one per mile of stream. The Chehalis Declining Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy (2010 Update) calls for a reduction of sediment loading by reducing road densities in the basin. Between 2006 and 2011, there was an overall negative trend (1- 14%) in forest cover conditions in Forestland Cover watersheds on State and Private forestlands. Declining Between 1980-2009, 9,991 wells were completed at a rate of about 344 new wells per year. Between 2009- Water Wells 2014, 580 wells have been added at a lower rate of about 116 wells per year. Declining From 2006 to 2011 watersheds in the Chehalis River basin showed deteriorating impervious surface conditions with increases ranging from 1% to over 5%. Areas near the cities of Aberdeen, Centralia, and Impervious Surface Chehalis have impervious surface conditions that were impacting (7-12%) or degrading (12-40%). Rest of Declining area have impervious surface area 0-4%.

The Quinault Indian Nation continues to work toward the protection and restoration of healthy and functional nearshore, estua- rine and river habitat, restoring those areas that are degraded, and conducting research to understand the organisms and the habitats they occupy.

Looking Ahead Pressure from population growth, agricultural practices and Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for timberland use within the Chehalis River basin will continue to WRIA 22 and 23 relies almost exclusively on restoration to ad- present challenges to salmon conservation and recovery efforts. dress limiting factors within the basin. Land-use management and forest practice regulations continue However, we are still witnessing the continued loss and frag- to allow the further degradation of floodplain and riparian habitat mentation of habitat through barrier culverts, high road densities throughout the watershed. and crossing, forest cover removal and wells. The lack of progress Current trends indicate that land-use regulation reform is re- on the protection of existing habitat remains the biggest impedi- quired and continued funding of habitat restoration activities is ment to salmon recovery. necessary in order to achieve salmon recovery goals. The Chehalis

192 Quinault Indian Nation er Riv ets Que

er Riv ets Que iver ult R ina ¤£101 Quinault Indian Nation Qu

iver n

ts R The Queets, Quinault, and Chehalis Watershedse a Que

ver e t Ri

aul ¤£101 c uin r

Q e

r O v

e i v i R

c e n s

e i p i h

a c f u

t o

i p o r e ve n

Ri m y t c u

ul ¤£1c 01 a W

uin r H a

Q e

r O v

e i v P i iver R R R

ets c e n s

ue e Q i p i h

l >1% Aberd3%een a c 9%

Land f u 10%Grays

t o ¤£12 i p o

e n Harbor

m y Jurisdictionc u

c W C

H r

h a

e 8%

r e O v

e i h v P i a R l

R i c e s s

e R i p i h l Aberdeen 5

c iv r f e u ¨¦§ v t Grays e

Ri o ¤£12 r t i p ul ¤£101 o na Harbn or 14%

ui m y Q er c u iv C R H W

ts h ee a Qu ´e

P a n 0 10 Miles l

is r a ive R ts R Aberdeen 5

uee e iv ¨¦§ Q Grays e

¤£12 r c

r Harbor 56% e

r C O v

e i Chehalis h v

R e ´ S

R h c e

r a F ve s 0 10 Miles

i e l i R p

lt i h i C

u l ¤£101 s a c n f i u R h Qu t o e

i p o iv 5 n ¨¦§ h m e

r y a e c r iv u R l lt W i

au £101 H s

n ¤ a ui n Q Chehalis R

v a P

e ´ S

r e

0 10 Miles F n

c Aberdeen a r Grays h

e ¤£12 r e

O e v He arbor i h v i a R

c C l R r i

s c e h

s e

r e

O e R

v i p e i i h h Chehalis v l i

i v

R c f u a

t e

R o l S

c e

i p o i r s s F

e n i p i m Jurisdiction h R

l y

c u c C f u i 5 t H o W v

§ h

i ¨¦ p e a o n r e

m y

c u h P Tribal Reservation Other Federal Wilderness a H W

l a i s

R P ´ Aberdeen City/UGA/Municipal County National Park Service i v Grays 0 1¤£012Miles e Harbor r Grays JSutaritsediction Military U.S. Forest Service C

Harbor h

e C h h Tribal Reservation Other Federal Wilderness a e l h is Chehalis a l R

S City/UGA/Municipal County National Park Service is i 5

v F § R ¨¦ e r

5 C iv ¨¦§ e r h StateJurisdiction Military U.S. Forest Service

h ´ a l i ´ s Tribal Reservation Other Federal Wilderness 0 10 Miles 0 10 Miles R i v e City/UGA/Municipal County National Park Service

r State Military U.S. Forest Service

Chehalis

F F

e e h Jurisdiction h a a l l i i s s

R The Quinault Indian Nation’s Area of Interest for this reportR is basin supports Chinook, chum, and coho salmon, as well as steel-

i v i Tribal Reservation Other Federal v Wilderness e 2 e

r the Queets-Quinault basin (WRIA 21) and Chehalis basin (WRIAsr head and cutthroat trout. The salmon and steelhead runs are sig- 22 and 23), but most of theCit ydata/UGA analysis/Municip awilll focusCoun tony the QueetsNa tionificantlynal Park Se rvdegradedice from their historic levels. Modeling of salmon and Chehalis watersheds.S WRIAtate 21 contains theM iltributariesitary to theU. S. Fpopulationsorest Servic eby the Governor’s Chehalis Basin Workgroup shows Pacific Ocean from Kalaloch Creek in the north to near Grays spring-run Chinook populations reduced by 78%, Fall-run Chi- Jurisdiction 3 Harbor in the south. Major watersheds includeJurisd ithectio nQueets and nook by 45%, coho by 69%, and steelhead by 44%. Quinault,Trib awhichl Rese rvoriginateation fromOther theFed eOlympicral Wi ldMountainerness range, as The majority of the area is forestland owned by corporations and Tribal Reservation Other Federal Wilderness well asC theity/U Raft,GA/M uMoclips,nicipal andCou nCopalisty rivers,Nat ioandnal Potherark S eindepenrvice - government, and includes the Capitol State Forest and Quinault In- City/UGA/Municipal County National Park Service dent drainagesState that start atM theilita ryfoothills ofU .thisS. F orange.rest Ser vAllice these dian Reservation, as well as portions of Olympic National Forest, streams provide suitableSta spawningte and rearingMi lihabitattary for salmon.U.S. 1ForeGiffordst Servi cPinchote National Forest, and Olympic National Park. The Lower Chehalis (WRIA 22) comprises mainly the lower Although salmonids in this area have fared better than in Puget portion of the Chehalis River drainage, major tributaries like the Sound,4 several habitat factors limit salmonid production in the Wishkah, Wynoochee and Satsop rivers, as well as a number of basin. These include channel incision, sedimentation, riparian independent streams like the Humptulips, Hoquiam and Johns riv- loss or conversion, loss of large woody material, reduced channel ers, which drain into Grays Harbor. The Upper Chehalis (WRIA complexity, water quality problems and reduction in streamflow.5,6 23) includes the upper reaches of the Chehalis River drainage and Most of these problems are caused and/or exacerbated by human a number of major tributaries such as the South Fork Chehalis, activity. Newaukum, Black and Skookumchuck rivers. The Chehalis River

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,7 USFWS 2014,8 WADNR 2014a,9 WADNR 2014b,10 WADOT 2012,11 WADOT 2013,12 WAECY 1994,13 WAECY 2011a,14 WAECY 201315

Quinault Indian Nation 193 Quinault Indian Nation Forest Cover Conditions A total of 47 watersheds (representing 42% of the land area) within the Quinault Tribe’s Area of Interest are in healthy and good forest conditions with over 65% forest cover. Other areas which are predominantly private forestlands are in moderate (<65%) to poor (<50%) forest cover conditions. Between 2006 and 2011, there was an overall negative trend in forest cover in watersheds outside the Tribal Reservation, Park and Forest Service lands, with a forest cover loss of up to 14.3%.

Forest cover conditions impact the ecological processes that create and maintain fish habitat. Large sections of the Quinault Area of Interest remain in healthy and good forest conditions. These include parts of Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park  ( ( and Capitol State Forest. Other areas that are predominantly pri- ( ( vate forestlands have generally moderate to poor forest cover con- (  ( ( ditions.  ( ( (  ( Between 2006 and 2011, watersheds within the Quinault Indian ( ( ( Reservation, the Olympic National Park, and the Olympic Nation-  (   ( al Forest had little or no change in forest cover conditions. Outside   of these areas, the overall trend in forest cover is negative with (   ( most areas, including the Capitol State Forest, showing a reduc- (  Quinault tion. The highest reduction was 14.3% in the Upper Skookum- Indian Reservation chuck River watershed. Since the Capitol Forest is managed as a £101  ¤    long-term forest, the reduction of forest cover there may reflect the    age cohort where much of the forest is merchantable age as a result   of the narrow window of the first harvest. On the other hand, the      changes outside of the Capitol Forest most likely reflect develop-  ment pressures and timber harvesting. A decrease in forest cover  negatively alters salmon habitat by increasing peak flow and wa-       ter yield from a watershed, increasing sediment supply, reducing   wood recruitment, decreasing     water quality and raising water Aberdeen  Capitol  ( State Forest 1,2 ¤£12    temperatures.  ( The overall negative trend (  (   in forest cover makes it crit- (    ical to protect and preserve  (    those watersheds with good or better forest conditions.      The extensive loss of riparian     ´  vegetation (coupled with the 0 10 Miles   conversion of conifer to hard- Chehalis      woods), mainly from agricul-    ture and urbanization, has been    identified as a factor limiting Olympic National Park  Olympic National Forest  the production of salmonids in  3  the basin. The Chehalis Basin  Habitat Restoration and Pres- ervation Strategy adopted the Percent Forest Cover 2011 restoration and preservation of Forest Cover Change: 2006-2011 properly functioning riparian Healthy Forest Conditions (>75%) areas as an important strate- Good Forest Conditions (65-75%)  High Loss (> -5%) gy for addressing this limiting Moderate Forest Conditions (50-65%)  Low Loss (-1% to -5%) factor.4 Poor Forest Conditions (30-50%) ( No Change (1% to -1%) Severely Damaged Conditions (<30%)

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,5 USGS 2014,6 WADOT 2012,7 WAECY 2006,8 WAECY 2011a,9 WAECY 2011b10

194 Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation Impervious Surface A total of 103 watersheds (representing 92% of the land area) in the Quinault Area of Interest currently have impervious surface levels of 0-4%, showing little to no impact from those conditions. However, areas near Ab- erdeen, Chehalis and Centralia had impervious surface conditions that were impacting (7-12%) or degrading (12-40%). Between 2006 and 2011, watersheds in the southern half of the area showed deteriorating impervious surface conditions with increases from 1% to 11.4%. ( (  ( ( ( ( ( (  (  ( (   ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ver (  ( ( Ri lt (  au  ( in u Q ( Scammon Crk- Chehalis ( ( ( (  (  ( ¤£101  Centralia ( ( ( Prairie Crk- ( (  ¦¨§5 ( Chehalis     (  (  ( Chehalis  ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( ( (  ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ( lis River G R A Y S Cheha ( Aberdeen   H A R B O R  ¤£12 ( ( ( (  ( ( ( ( (    (     (     ¨¦§5     Centralia  ´    (  ( Chehalis  0 10 Miles   ( ( (  (     (

Impervious Surface 2011 Little to no impact (0-4%) Impervious Cover Change: 2006 - 2011 Beginning to Impact (4-7%) ( No Change (0 - 1%) Impacting (7-12%)  Low Increased Impervious Cover (1% to 5%) Degrading (12-40%)  High Increased Impervious Cover (> 5%) Severely Damaged (>40%) Imperviousness, an indicator of urban- ous surface conditions. This is an indica- sheds near Chehalis and Centralia in the In- ization, negatively impacts fish habitat by tion that urbanization is not a major lim- terstate 5 corridor had the highest increase increased erosion, stream channel desta- iting factor in this area. Exceptions to this (over 5%) in impervious surface levels. bilization, loss of pool habitat, excessive are a few watersheds near Aberdeen as well This is particularly significant because sedimentation and scour, and large woody as Chehalis and Centralia where impervi- these watersheds already had impervious debris reduction. A high percentage of im- ous surface conditions were impacting (7- surface values that were impacting fish pervious surface also leads to higher peak 12%) or degrading (12-40%). habitat. These conditions are likely caused streamflows, increased sediment and pol- Between 2006 and 2011, there was little by population changes and urbanization in lutant delivery, and decreases in stream or no change in impervious conditions in the Chehalis/Centralia area. biodiversity.1 watersheds in the upper half of this Area While the current status of the impervi- Based on 2011 data, most of the water- of Interest. In the lower half of the area, ous surface indicator is good in most watershed units in the Quinault Area of Interest there is a general negative trend in many sheds, the general direction in the southern have impervious surface levels of 0-4%, watersheds. The Scammon Creek-Chehalis half of the Area of Interest is negative. showing little to no impact from impervi- River and Prairie Creek-Chehalis water- Data Sources: NLCD 2006,2 NLCD 2011,3 SSHIAP 2004,4 USGS 2014,5 WAECY 2011a6

Quinault Indian Nation 195 Quinault Indian Nation Impact of Culverts on Habitat Under the Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP), about 61% of the identified 2,439 culverts in the Quinault Area of Interest have been fixed, but another 39% were yet to be repaired, and create barriers to fish passage. Overall, the RMAP program appears to be working.

Roads are an important component of the human use of forested Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP), a schedule systems. If not properly constructed or maintained, forests roads for any repair work needed to upgrade road systems at stream can be a source of sediments to streams that degrade fish habi- crossings, and address aquatic habitat and fish passage issues. tat and water quality.1 Furniss et al. concluded that the sediment RMAP’s are only required in forestlands and there is no process in contribution per unit area from roads is often much greater than place to consistently inventory or repair blocking culverts outside all other forest activities combined.2 Also, many culverts at for- of forestlands. Also, since the law exempts small forest landown- est road crossings may constitute fish barriers. The Chehalis Basin ers, the RMAP culvert numbers here are likely understated. Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy identified The RMAP data shows that about 61% of the identified 2,439 the replacing of dysfunctional culverts as a very high priority be- culverts in the Quinault Area of Interest have been fixed, but an- cause they eliminate access by wild salmonids to upstream habi- other 39% were yet to be repaired and create barriers to fish pas- tat.3 sage. Overall, the RMAP program appears to be working. This In order to reduce the adverse effects of roads, Washington State should have a positive impact on fish habitat and water quality in Forests and Fish Law requires most forest landowners to have a the Quinault Area of Interest.

ver Queets Ri

er iv t R ul na ¤£101 ui Q r ive R 61% 39% e e h c o o yn W

iver Aberdeen ehalis R G R A Y S ¤£12 Ch RMAP Culvert H A R B O R Repair Status

´ ¦¨§5 0 10 Miles Chehalis

RMAP Status

.! Not Fixed

.! Fixed

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,4 WADNR 2014c,5 WADOT 2012,6 WAECY 2011a7

196 Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation The Impact of Road Densities and Crossings Approximately 90% of the Quinault Area of Interest had road densities of greater than 3 miles/square mile, the level at which streams cease to function properly. Road crossings were highest in the East Fork Satsop River and Black River watersheds with values of greater than 1 per mile of stream. Roads can adversely affect stream ecosystems through multiple pathways. Due to increased imperviousness, roads indi- rectly bring about increased erosion rates Road Density in watersheds,1 leading to altered stream (Mi/Sq Mi) discharge patterns, mass wasting, and in- <1 Mi/Sq Mi creased sediment delivery to streams. El- evated fine sediment levels, identified as a 1.0 - 2.0 Mi/Sq Mi limiting factor by the Chehalis Basin Salm- 2.0 - 3.0 Mi/Sq Mi on Habitat Restoration and Preservation £101 >3.0 Mi/Sq Mi Strategy, decrease the quality of spawning ¤ gravels.2 Road density values were over 2 miles/ square mile in most watersheds outside Olympic National Park where the values Aberdeen were less than 1 mile/square mile. This is G R A Y S H A R B O R the direct result of the network of roads ¤£12 built notably for harvest of timber. Several studies have correlated road density or in- dices of roads to fish density and diversity.3 ¨¦§5 Cederholm et al. found increases in fine sediment in fish-spawning habitat when Chehalis road density exceeded 2.5% of the total basin area in the Clearwater watershed.4 The proper functioning of salmon-bearing streams may be at risk when road densi- Olympic National Park ties exceed 2 miles of road per square mile of area and cease to function properly at densities over 3 miles per square mile.5 A vast majority of watersheds in the Quinault Area of Interest had road densities that exceeded this value. Road Crossings At road crossings, roads can directly im- (#/Mi of Stream) pact stream ecosystems, for example by al- tering stream geomorphology. Road cross- < 0.5 ings were highest in the East Fork Satsop 0.5 - 1.0 ¤£101 River and Black River watersheds (near >1.0 the I-5 corridor) with values of over 1 per mile of stream. Crossings were lowest in watersheds within the National Park.

EF Satsop River

Aberdeen G R A Y S H A R B O R ¤£12 Black River

¨¦§5 ´ Chehalis Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,6 USGS 2014,7 WADNR 0 10 Miles 2014c,8 WADNR 2014d,9 WADOT 2012,10 WAECY 2011a11

Quinault Indian Nation 197 Quinault Indian Nation Streamflow Peak flows for the glacier-fed Queets River show an increasing trend over time, while mean low flows show a decreasing trend. In the rain-dominated Chehalis River, both peak flows and mean low flows are increasing. If these trends continue as a result of climate change, the altered streamflows may have a significant impact on salmon populations.

Streamflow data are important in determining Mean Low Flow the instream resources available for fish survival Queets River Near Clearwater Chehalis River at Porter and productivity. The variation and timing of aver- 800 age streamflows plotted for the Queets River near Clearwater and the Chehalis River at Porter show a 700 similar pattern of peak flows in the winter months

and low flows in the summer months. However, 600

while the winter peak flow values were similar ) s f c

for both rivers, the summer low flows were con- ( 500 w

sistently lower for the Chehalis. The lower sum- o l F

mer flows in the Chehalis were likely the result r

e 400 v of diversions for irrigation and domestic use, as i R well as groundwater withdrawals, which typically 300 increase in the drier and warmer summer months. Low streamflows have been identified as a factor 200 limiting salmonid production in the Chehalis.1 Peak flows for the glacier-fed Queets River 100 show an increasing trend over time while mean 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 low flows show a decreasing trend. This means Water Year that in the days of lowest flow, it was carrying less water than before. One major concern is the loss of glaciers and spring snow melt to refill the iver groundwater and replenish the surface flows. The R ter rwa iver system changing to a rain-dominated system may lea R C ts ee have a significant impact on the fisheries. In the Qu rain-dominated Chehalis River, both peak flows

and mean low flows show an increasing trend, .! River ult na ui meaning that in the days of lowest flows, it was Q carrying more water. If these trends continue as a result of climate change, the altered streamflows (as well as warming summertime stream tempera- ¤£101 tures) will likely reduce the reproductive success of salmon populations.2

Peak Flow Queets River near Clearwater Chehalis River at Porter Riv 140000 Aberdeen C hehalis e GRAYS r HARBOR .! 120000 ¤£12 100000 ) s f c (

80000

w .! o

l Stream Guage

F §5

¨¦ r

e 60000 v i

R Chehalis

40000 0 10 Miles 20000 ´

0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Year

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,3 USGS 2015a,4 USGS 2015b,5 WADOT 2012,6 WAECY 2011a7

198 Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation Queets River Watershed Water Temperature Between 2011 and 2013, there were widespread water temperature impairments in the Queets River watershed that exceeded Washington state numeric water quality standards. These violations, likely caused by forest practice activities and glacier loss, will have an impact on salmonid production in the watershed. Water temperature monitoring throughout the Queets River These potential violations are likely caused by forest practice watershed was carried out between 2011 and 2013 to determine activities and glacier loss. Insufficient accumulation of snow in the compliance with water quality standards for surface waters of the glacier during winter results in low spring flow of glacier water to State of Washington.1 The temperature values were used to deter- cool surface waters in warmer summer months. Salmonid fish in mine compliance for stream reaches with designated uses of “Char general and bull troutQuee tins R particulariver Watersh requireed cool and well-oxygen- Spawning and Rearing” (7-DADM or 7-day average of the daily ated water, and these widespread water temperature impairments maximum temperatures of 12oC) and “Core Summer Salmonid will have an impact on fish production in the Queets River water- Habitat” (7-DADM of 16oC). shed. Data analysis shows that 43 of 87 thermistors (49.4%) placed in this watershed in 2011 failed either the 12oC or 16oC criteria by at least 0.4oC. Another seven thermistors had 7-DADM values QuWeetRs RIAive r2 W1atershed within the units’ accuracy specifications (+/- 0.3oC), for a total of 50 potential violations. In 2012, 40 of 58 units (68.9%) exceeded the standards. Another six thermistors had values within the units’ accuracy specifications, for a total of 56 potential violations. In WRIA 21 2013, 60 of 87 thermistors (68.9%) failed the standards. Another three thermistors had values within the units’ accuracy specifications, for a total of 63 potential violations.

er r iv H e R e v r e H i te H R a e e k r e e ee w te r C H r a r a e e e k C l St e e e w e k r s C qu C e a al a eho r m Cr r e t eek e C l is e r Ste k s Ch q r C ua e a le v ho i Tsh m Cree R lets t k ts hy Cr is ee eek r u h rQ e C v i Tsh R le s tshy et Cree e Sams k E u River lk Q C r e e k er Riv M s ath et e ´ ue n Q y Cr eek 0 5 Miles alm E ork S on R Sams Riv l F iv er k th e or r C iver N r Salmon R e e k er Riv M s ath et e ´ ue n Q y Cr Land Use/Ownership eek Potential Water Quali0ty Violations 5 Miles alm 2011 - 2013 Olympic National Forest ork S on R F iv th e or r Olympice Nr ational PNark 303d 12 °C Salmon Riv State Forestland 303d 16 °C Private Forestland Intermediate 303d 12 °C Quinault Indian Reservation Intermediate 303d 16 °C Land Use/OwnersPhriivpate Land Potential Water Quality Violations 2011 - 2013 Olympic National Forest Olympic National Park 303d 12 °C State Forestland 303d 16 °C Private Forestland Intermediate 303d 12 °C Quinault Indian Reservation Intermediate 303d 16 °C Private Land Data Sources: Quinault 2013,2 SSHIAP 2004,3 WADNR 2014a,4 WADNR 2014b,5 WADOT 2013,6 WAECY 2000,6 WAECY 2011a7

Quinault Indian Nation 199 Quinault Indian Nation Water Wells Currently, there are 14,876 water wells that may affect groundwater supply and instream flows in the Quinault Area of Interest. Between 1980 and 2009, 9,991 wells were completed in this Area of Interest, at a rate of about 344 new wells per year. Since 2009, 580 wells have been added at a lower rate of about 116 new wells per year. ! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! Water wells are a source of ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y ! ! !! !!!! X water for many landowners. !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! Y

! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! X ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y

Although each well withdraws !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! X ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !!r !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!e! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! Y a relatively small amount of !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!X !!!! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! !! !!!!!v!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!i!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!! Y ! !! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!X !!! !!!! ! ! !! R!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !

! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! Y

water, their cumulative impact !!!!!! ! !!!k! !!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!c!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!la!!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! Y

!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!B ! ! !!!!X !!! ! !! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!! !!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can be significant and affect !!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! k ! ! ! !!!!! ! Y

! !!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!e ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sca!!t!!t!!e!!!r!!!C!!!!r!!e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! Y

! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !

water quality, salmonid habitat ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !! ! Y

! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!! ! !!! Sko! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! o!ku!m !

!! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! c!! ! Y

! ! !! !!!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!X ! ! !!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!h!u! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!! ! !!!! !!!!! ck River!

and instream flows. The Cheha- ! !!!! !! ! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! Y

! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!X !! !!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !

! !!! !!! !!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! ! !!!! Y

!!! !!! !! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!X !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! ! !

lis Basin Salmon Habitat Res- !!!! !!!!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! Y

! !! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!X !!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !

! !!! ! !! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!C!e!!ntral!ia ! Y

! !!! !!!!!X !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! !

toration and Preservation Strat- ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! Y

! !!!!!! !!!! !!X ! !!!! !! ! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !

!! ! !!!! !!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! Y !!! !! !! !!!! ! ! X !! ! !! ! egy identified low summertime ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !

! ! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! Y

!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !X !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !¨¦§5 !!!!! !! !! !

!!! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! Y

! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!C!!!!h!e!!!ha!!l!i!s!!!!!!! !! ! !

flows in some sub-basins as a ! ! 101 !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!N!!!!! !!!! !!! !! Y ¤£ !!!! ! !!!! !! X ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!e !! !!!!!!!! !! !!! !!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!w! !!!!! !!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! Y 1 ! !! ! !!! !! !!!!!!!!! X ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!a!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! !

! !! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!u!! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! Y problem. An earlier assessment ! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!X k !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!u!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!

! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! Y ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!X !!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!R! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! Y

found that in many streams and ! ! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !X !! !!iv! !!! ! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !

! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!r!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y ! !!! !! ! X !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! rivers, minimum streamflows ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! are not met on many days from !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !!! !! ! 2 !! !! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !!! !!! !!!! !!! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! July through October. Because !!! !!!!! !!!! !!!! ! !!!! ! !!! !!!!!! !!! !! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!! !!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! very little water is used for agri- !!!! ! ! !!! !! !!!! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! culture or urban purposes in the ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! !! Abe!rd!e!e!n! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! Queets-Quinault basin, water ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!! G R A Y S !! !!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y

! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X H A R B O R !!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!¤£!12!!!!!! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!

! ! !!! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y

withdrawal impacts there are !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Y !! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! Y

expected to be low. !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!! !!! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! Y

!!!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y

There are currently 14,876 !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!X !!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Y

!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!

! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! Y

wells in the Quinault Area of In- ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !! ! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! Y

! !!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!X !! ! !!!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !

terest. The majority of wells are ! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!

Y !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !

!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! Y

!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!! !!!C!!e!!n!tralia ! !

in the higher population areas !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! Y

!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!X !!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! Y

!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! X !!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!¨¦§!5 !!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !

of around Aberdeen, Centralia, !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !! C!!!!!h!!!e!!!h!!alis !!! ! Y

! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! ! !

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!! Y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!! !! X ! ! !!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !

! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!! Y Chehalis, and the I-5 corridor ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!

! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!! Pre-2010 Wells 2010 - 2014 Wells !!!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!

!!! !! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Y

as well as in the agriculture !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!! !!! !!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!!!! areas, particularly in the upper 1 - 15 1 - 3 ! !! !! ! !! ! Chehalis basin. Between 1980 ! ! 16 - 29 ! 4 - 6 ! and 2009, 9,991 wells were ! 0 10 Miles !! completed in the Quinault Area ! 30 - 43 ! 7 - 8 ! ´ of Interest at a rate of about 344 ! new wells per year. Between 2010 and 2014, an additional 580 wells were added at a rate of about 116 new wells per year. Although the total number of Existing Wells New Wells wells has increased since 2010, 14900 the rate of increase has slowed Many streams in the Chehalis 14800 compared to the pre-2010 peri- basin, including Scatter Creek, 14700 od. The reduced rate of increase as well as Black, Skookum- for wells may be the result of chuck and Newaukum rivers, 14600

a slower population growth, a are closed to further consump- 14500 lesser dependence on wells for tive appropriations in the sum- their water supply by landown- mer.4 The impact of wells is 14400 ers, the result of a slowdown in expected to be greater in those 14300 economic activities during that areas where streamflows al- 14200 time period, or a combination ready do not meet regulatory of these factors. minimums. 14100

14000

13900 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,5 WADOT 2012,6 WAECY 2011a,7 WAECY 20158

200 Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation and Boundary. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Citations 14 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in Chapter Summary cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, 1 Phinney, L. & P. Bucknell. 1975. A Catalog of Washington WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 2: Coastal Region. 15 WAECY. 2013. City Boundaries and Urban Growth Areas Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fisheries. Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 2 Chehalis Basin Strategy. 2014. Governor’s Chehalis Basin Workgroup Recommendation Report. Prepared by the Forest Cover Conditions William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a joint effort of the University of 1 Meehan, W., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland Washington and Washington State University. management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 3 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. Chehalis Basin Level 1 Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Assessment. Olympia, WA: Envirovision Corporation. 2 Booth, D., D. Hartley & C. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, 3 Smith, C. & J. Caldwell. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead impervious-surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. Habitat Limiting Factors in the Washington Coastal Streams Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3):835- of WRIA 21. Lacey, WA: Washington State Conservation 845. Commission. 3 Smith, C. & M. Wegner. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead 4 Smith, C. & M. Wegner. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23. Lacey, WA: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23. Lacey, WA: Washington State Conservation Commission. State Conservation Commission. 4 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA Quinault Indian Nation: The Queets, Quinault, and 22 and 23. The Chehalis Basin Partnership, Habitat Work Group. Chehalis Watersheds 5 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of 1 Phinney, L. & P. Bucknell. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 2: Coastal Region. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fisheries. 6 USGS. 2014. Watershed Boundary Dataset 12-Digit (Sixth 2 Smith, C. & M. Wegner. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Level) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Polygons. Downloaded Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, from Washington Department of Ecology. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23. Lacey, WA: Washington in cooperation with others. State Conservation Commission. 7 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington 3 Chehalis Basin Strategy. 2014. Governor’s Chehalis State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: Basin Workgroup Recommendation Report. Prepared by the Washington Department of Transportation. William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a joint effort of the University of 8 WAECY. 2006. C-CAP Land Cover. Modified from Washington and Washington State University. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 4 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. Chehalis Basin Level 1 Coastal Services Center (CSC)/Coastal Change Analysis Program Assessment. Olympia, WA: Envirovision Corporation. (C-CAP). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 5 Smith, C. & J. Caldwell. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead 9 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and Habitat Limiting Factors in the Washington Coastal Streams Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in of WRIA 21. Lacey, WA: Washington State Conservation cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, Commission. WA: Washington Department of Ecology 6 Smith, C. J. and M. Wegner. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead 10 WAECY. 2011b. C-CAP Land Cover. Modified from Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23. Washington State Coastal Services Center (CSC)/Coastal Change Analysis Program Conservation Commission, Lacey, WA. (C-CAP). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 7 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Impervious Surface Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1 Schueler, T. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic 8 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. systems. Watershed protection research monograph no. 1. Ellicott Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 9 WADNR. 2014a. Washington State DNR Managed 2 NLCD. 2006. National Land Cover Dataset Percent Land Parcels. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Developed Impervious. 2011 edition. Multi-Resolution Land Resources. Characteristics. 10 WADNR. 2014b. Washington State Non-DNR Major 3 NLCD. 2011. National Land Cover Dataset Percent Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Developed Impervious. 2011 edition. Multi-Resolution Land Department of Natural Resources. Characteristics. 11 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington 4 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Transportation. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 12 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of 5 USGS. 2014. Watershed Boundary Dataset 12-Digit (Sixth Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington Level) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Polygons. Downloaded Department of Transportation. from Washington Department of Ecology. U.S. Geological Survey, 13 WAECY. 1994. Polygons of Washington State Shorelines in cooperation with others.

Quinault Indian Nation 201 Quinault Indian Nation 6 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and and Abandonment Planning (RMAPs) Points. Olympia, WA: Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in Washington Department of Natural Resources. cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, 9 WADNR. 2014d. Washington State DNR Transportation WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Polylines. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. Impact of Culverts on Habitat 10 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington 1 Cederholm C., L. Reid & E. Salo. 1981. Cumulative State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: effects of logging road sediment on Salmonid populations in Washington Department of Transportation. the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Salmon 11 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and Spawning Gravel: a Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in Proceedings, pp. 38–74. Pullman, WA: Washington State cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, University, State of Washington Water Research Center. WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 2 Furniss, M., T. Roelofs & C. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and Streamflow rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. 1 Smith, C. & M. Wegner. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, Special Publication Habitat Limiting Factors: Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, 19. pp. 297-324. Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23. Lacey, WA: Washington 3 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. The Chehalis Basin State Conservation Commission. Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA 2 Mantua, N., I. Tohver & A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of 22 and 23. The Chehalis Basin Partnership, Habitat Work Group. Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat 4 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of in Washington State. In: Climate Impacts Group. 2009. The Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. M. McGuire Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Elsner, J. Littell & L. Whitely Binder (eds). Seattle, WA: University 5 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Road Maintenance of Washington, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and and Abandonment Planning (RMAPs) Points. Olympia, WA: Oceans, Center for Science in the Earth System. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 3 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of 6 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Washington Department of Transportation. 4 USGS. 2015a. Online data from USGS gauge #12031000 7 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and at Chehalis River at Porter, WA. U.S. Geological Survey. Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in 5 USGS. 2015b. Online data from USGS gauge #12040500 cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, at Queets River near Clearwater, WA. U.S. Geological Survey. WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 6 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: The Impact of Road Densities and Crossings Washington Department of Transportation. 1 Beschta, R. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment 7 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14. pp 1011-1016. cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, 2 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. The Chehalis Basin WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA 22 and 23. The Chehalis Basin Partnership, Habitat Work Group. Queets River Watershed Water Temperature 3 Gucinski, M., M. Furniss, R. Ziemer & M. Brookes. 2001. 1 WAECY. 2012. Water Quality Standards for Surface Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. Gen. Tech. Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: United States Department of Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Program. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610091. 4 Cederholm, C., L. Reid & E. Salo. 1981. Cumulative html effects of logging road sediment on Salmonid populations in 2 Quinault Indian Nation. 2013. Queets River Watershed the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Salmon Water Temperature Dataset, 2011-2013. Quinault Indian Nation. Spawning Gravel: a Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest 3 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Proceedings. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, State of Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Washington Water Research Center. pp. 38–74. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 5 NMFS. 1996. Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working 4 WADNR. 2014a. Washington State DNR Managed Guidance for Comprehensive Salmon Restoration Initiatives on Land Parcels. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural the Pacific Coast. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Resources. Service. 5 WADNR. 2014b. Washington State Non-DNR Major 6 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Department of Natural Resources. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 6 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of 7 USGS. 2014. Watershed Boundary Dataset 12-Digit (Sixth Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington Level) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Polygons. Downloaded Department of Transportation. from Washington Department of Ecology. U.S. Geological Survey, 7 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and in cooperation with others. Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in 8 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Road Maintenance cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia,

202 Quinault Indian Nation Quinault Indian Nation WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Water Wells 1 Chehalis Basin Partnership. 2010. The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA 22 and 23. The Chehalis Basin Partnership, Habitat Work Group. 2 Ibid. 3 Smith, C. & J. Caldwell. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors in the Washington Coastal Streams of WRIA 21. Lacey, WA: Washington State Conservation Commission. 4 Washington Administrative Code 173-522-050 5 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 6 WADOT. 2012. Linear representation of Washington State Routes (GIS Feature Class SR500kLRSSPS). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Transportation. 7 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 8 WAECY. 2015. Water Well Logs Points. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.

Quinault Indian Nation 203