Urban/Suburban Creeks (WRIA 8)

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 1 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 2 Urban/Suburban Urbanization of Seattle Creeks (WRIA 8) • Population more than tripled 1900–1910 • Lake Washington Ship Canal – 81,000 to 237,000 • Sammamish “River” (Slough) – Alaska Gold Rush 1897-1903 • **Issaquah Creek (Lake Sammamish) • WRIA 8 highest population in state • Cedar River (**lower & middle) – Total population of Seattle/Tacoma/Everett • Thornton, Taylor (Lake Washington) • Today 3 million – Projected 24% increase 2002-2022 • Longfellow, Pipers (Puget Sound) • 90% inside Urban Growth Boundary • **Bear, Cottage Creeks (Sammamish R.) – 55% of land inside Urban Growth Boundary • Greatest spawning & rearing abundance

www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Creek_Restoration/index.asp

EVERETT

S d no n h o u mish o S SNOHOMISH t e g u EVERETT P The

Swamp Silver Creek Lake MUKILTEO R

North Sammamish Lake Creek Stickney

S w

C r

e 5 e

k MILL CREEK Watershed MONROE Urban/Suburban Martha Salmon in Urban/ Lake R h iv is er m 527 k o Sk y LYNNWOOD N

o r t (WRIA 8) h Creeks Scriber Suburban Creeks Lake

C Little

r e

e Bear

405 k Creek 9 S L n i EDMONDS t o t l Sc e q ri ber Creek u B e a a North r C l re m Creek e 522 BRIER k MOUNTLAKE i • Lake e • Chinook TERRACE

BOTHELL Cottage Lake Creek R Swamp Crystal i v Creek Lake e Washington r S N O H O M I S H C O U N T Y – Less than 500 spawners to L. Washington & LAKE KENMORE FOREST K I N G C O U N T Y PARK WOODINVILLE

NE W ll Wy oo he din Cedar R. in recent years t o vi B lle • Sammamish SHORELINE E - Duvall R N Cottage d Lake k e e Sim Cr o n Sammamish d s River R ar Cedar & L. Washington separate stocks d • e Bear B N Creek “River” E

k DUVALL

e e

l e

522 r a C

d S n W e o k a a o v L

m Reduction in spawning & rearing habitat o – A e g d Welcome

a m t

i t (Slough) n Lake o

C a

l m l

5 e i

s - 28th St h 1

R NE

e d

m REDMOND o

n – Productivity 0.993–0.966 REDMOND d

• Bear, d R i v 405 e r • Less than replacement value (1.0) = decline KIRKLAND Cottage SEATTLE 202

R ed mo n nd W Evans o y – Diversity greatly reduced by hatcheries t Creek Creeks g 520 n i Re h YARROW dm Evan on s POINT s d HUNTS C a re - • 50% WRIA-wide, up to 75% in some streams e k Fa POINT ll W City R (Sammamish d N E 520 S CARNATION a 202 h a l ee e West Wy N • L.W. hatchery chinook straying to Cedar a hazard k Lake E SEATTLE a CLYDE Sammamish R.) L HILL MEDINA • Introduced sockeye hatchery on middle Cedar h D dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/watersheds/samm.htm s e a rg i Geo vis BELLEVUE y Creek w

m E k a P S h m e is v m m a A P a m in e S m h t a l a

8 S k

e 2

C 2 e ree Beaver k 90 e k Watershed Boundary

Phantom a Lake L

BEAUX Lake k a

ARTS E East

L Pine Lake Lake Sammamish Basin Boundary

MERCER Stream ISLAND

5 North Fork BELLEVUE Issaquah Major Road Creek Urban Growth Boundary D u w 900 a m is SEATTLE Agriculture Production District h Issaquah Tibbetts rk C o re F ek W Creek East NEWCASTLE Tradition 99 a Lake 90 k e Lake & River t e e r C r s w tt e b East Fork a ib ISSAQUAH T y Issaquah Creek

509

RENTON S 405 E M ay 900 M V cD all on ey a Rd ld Fifte BURIEN C en r eek mile Creek Lake I I s McDonald s s s TUKWILA a a q q u u a a 169 h h - Ho Issaquah ba Creek rt Creek C Rd e d SEATAC a r

k i e re v C e r lde r 18 Ho f Natur

r t o al e KENT n R N e e s

v m o t i r u

Ca a r

Lake rey k c

167 ee p

R Cr e e

Youngs s 99 D K Y I N G T 515 C O U N n ee r DES MOINES G 0 1 2 Miles Map produced by: Visual Communication & GIS Unit September 1998 Public Outreach Section 9903sammBASEmap Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 5 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 6 Urban/Suburban Urban Streams Habitat Factors • 2nd verse, same as the 1st • Pollutants released into surface water – Accidentally, incidentally, intentionally – Sediments & fluids from roads & parking lots • Copper, cadmium, zinc, lead from tire & drive train wear • Gasoline, motor oil, transmission & brake fluid, antifreeze – Chemicals from lawns & gardens • Fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides

Urban Streams Impervious Surfaces

• Impervious surfaces – Pavement & buildings – Prevent water from soaking into soil – Increases volume & speed of surface runoff • “Flashier”—increased flood risk – Scours out gravel & eggs in streams – Salmon (spawn in fall when flows are high) replaced by cutthroat trout (spawn in spring when flows are lower)

&IGUREINDICATESTHEAMOUNTANDLOCATIONOFIMPERVIOUSSURFACEINTHE0UGET3OUNDREGION -APCOURTESYTHE0UGET3OUND!CTION4EAM

Impervious Surfaces Urban RUnoff

• Structures block flow • Flood control & land drainage structures concentrate runoff – Increased bank erosion – Widening & deepening channel – Threat of property loss – Response is to armor banks

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 11 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 12 One Solution: Urban Runoff Detention Ponds • Avoid! • Capture surface runoff – Paving driveways before it gets into creeks – Clearing & armoring stream banks – Or are part of a creek – Building levees course where the flow

&IGUREINDICATESTHEAMOUNTANDLOCATIONOFIMPERVIOUSSURFACEINTHE0UGET3OUNDREGION slows down -APCOUR– FillingTESYTHE0UGET3OUND!CTION4 or degradingEAM wetlands • Mitigative measures – Fill during heavy rain 3(!2%$342!4%'9&/205'%43/5.$ #(!04%2 0!'% – Prevent flooding & erosion – Porous concrete surfaces – Contaminants settle & – Flood detention ponds acted on by bacteria – Moving levees back – May support some wildlife www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Creek_Restoration/WEBSTERST_200312031204386.asp Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 13 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 14 Salmon-Friendly Surface Water Runoff Gardens • Rain from roofs, streets & parking lots • Bad: – Some goes directly into streams – Storm water running off impervious surfaces • Contamination, sedimentation, flooding, erosion – Residues of fertilizers & pesticides – Most goes into storm sewers – Overwatering – Low-rain conditions: flows into sanitary sewers • Good: • Then to sewage treatment plants – Use gravel instead of pavement • Treated before discharged to Sound – Choose the right plants – High-rain conditions: flow may exceed capacity • Discharged directly to fresh or salt water – Water at right times & use right amounts • “Combined Sewer Overflows” (CSO’s) – Use minimal & intelligent pest controls www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Residential_Stormwater_Control/index.asp www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Yard/Natural_Lawn_&_Garden_Care/Salmon_Friendly_Gardening/index.asp

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 15 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 16 Residential Storm Residential Storm Water Control Water Control • Most residential houses: • Cistern & detention – Water goes from gutter into storm sewers system – Some goes into sewage treatment – But some goes into Combined Sewer Overflows – And some directly into streams • City is exploring alternatives – Capturing water on-site in cisterns & gardens – Release slowly and/or store until summer www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Residential_Stormwater_Control/index.asp www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Residential_Stormwater_Control/index.asp Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 17 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 18 Combined Sewer Surface Water Runoff Overflows • “Stencil a Storm • Carry contaminants & Drain!” project sediments directly from – Raise awareness streets, etc., to water that drains go to bodies water courses – Oil, rubber, pesticides, – Deter dumping of mud, etc. hazardous wastes – Can cause serious contamination of both sediments & water body

www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Drainage_&_Sewer/Get_Involved/STENCILA_200312020907333.asp www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Residential_Stormwater_Control/index.asp

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 19 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 20 Combined Sewer Combined Sewer Overflows Overflows • Early (pre-1950’s) system: no treatment • Post-1950’s: treatment, no separation – Overflows carry both storm & “sanitary” waste

http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/cso/index.htm http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/cso/index.htm Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 21 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 22 Combined Sewer Combined Sewer Overflows Overflows • Modern system: treatment and separation • CSO Cleanup – Overflows carry only storm water – Outlets being diverted underwater or closed & diverted to sewage treatment plants – Building increased stormwater storage – Reducing volume of stormwater in system – Stormwater treatment dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/dennyway/project/outfall.htm http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/cso/index.htm plants dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/cso/page01.htm

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 23 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 24 Combined Sewer “Natural Drainage” Overflow Locations Alternatives • Still many • “Street-Edge direct Alternatives” (SEA) discharges – Pilot project by city in to natural N. Seattle waters – Near Pipers Creek salmon stream – Goal to reduce runoff

www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/index.asp http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/cso/index.htm Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 25 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 26 Street Edge Street Edge Alternatives Alternatives • Before & after: 98% decrease in winter runoff • No curbs – Flat paved area w/ rough surface – Water runs into grassy area – “Swales” = low areas, wetland soils & native plants – Water absorbed slowly & cleansed in soil www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/index.asp www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/index.asp

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 27 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 28 Suburban Habitat Suburban Habitat Alteration (King Co.) Alteration (Industry) • Regulations on construction erosion • Water quality protection – No clearing or grading 10/1 - 3/31 in certain – Gravel, crushed rock, open/porous pavers areas unless specific conditions are met – Rainwater plumbing & cistern system • e.g. Bear Creek – Low impact development – Example regulations • “mimic a site's predevelopment hydrology by using • Avoid sensitive areas design techniques that infiltrate, filter, evaporate, • Minimize ground disturbance & vegetation removal store, & detain rainwater runoff close to its source” • Cover/mulch all ground left exposed >2 days • “open space, vegetated rooftops, reduced street widths and curbs, streetscapes... and other buffer • No water leaves the site (100% infiltration) zones using more vegetation... instead of disposing • Protect perimeter with silt fence, catch basins and treating stormwater in large, costly end-of-pipe • Minimize & clean up vehicle traffic areas facilities located at the bottom of drainage areas” www.metrokc.gov/ddes/lusd/erosion.htm http://www.builtgreen.net/features.html Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 29 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 30 Suburban Developers Suburban Developers (Industry) (Industry) • Issaquah Highlands example practices • Clustered – Homes clustered to keep open space dwellings – Native drought- • Open tolerant plantings space – <10% impervious • Ponds surface, porous pavings • Vegetation – Filter strips, infiltration basins, detention ponds

http://www.builtgreen.net/studies/1051.html http://www.builtgreen.net/studies/1051.html

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 31 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 32 Thornton Creek Urban Streams (Williams) • Loss of complexity • Contamination • Loss of riparian vegetation – Fecal coliform bacteria • Thornton Creek, Seattle • Indicate human and/or animal waste – 100% wetland loss – Sediment contain – 60% reduction in channel complexity pesticides, heavy – Banks heavily armored metals, PCB’s, – Extensive culverts & pipes hydrocarbons – Loss of native riparian vegetation • Undergrounding – Low salmon survival despite planted fry – 10% of length is in pipes www.scn.org/earth/tca/tcatour.htm Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 33 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 34 Thornton Creek (Williams) • • Watershed human population >75,000 – 700 backyards – >50% impervious surface Thornton • City spent $25 million to restore Creek • Headwaters in N. Seattle Comm. College – Detention pond – Travels under I-5 & Northgate in a pipe – Site of a former 30–100-acre wetland www.scn.org/earth/tca/tcatour.htm – Final pocket wetland filled & paved 1971

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 35 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 36 “Daylighting” Thornton “Daylighting” Thornton Creek (Williams) Creek (Williams) • Northgate • Neighbors formed “Thornton Creek • “Park 6” Alliance” • NSCC – To demand Simon “daylight” creek as part of its development • 1998 – Include detention pond to reduce creek Northgate flooding owner • Replace function of destroyed wetland proposed • Capture & decontaminate runoff from parking lots “urban village” • Salmon once thrived in creek on south – Fished in 1960s, some still observed parking lot Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 37 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 38 “Daylighting” Thornton Proposed Northgate Creek (Williams) Drainage Project • Would it help salmon? • Part of a new – Daylighting alone would not really redevelopment – Few fish would reach so high in watershed plan – Other factors more important for mortality • 2.7 acres open • Flooding & contaminants space • Lower Creek habitat conditions • Swales, soils, • More for raising awareness of water & fish plants – Very expensive, $ could be spent on other • Clean, infiltrate, restoration with more effect on fish & slow • Water detention the critical function stormwater www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/COS_002477.asp

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 39 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 40 Proposed Northgate Thornton Creek Drainage Project Meadowbrook Pond • Artist’s conception • Detention at former – “Daylighted” Creek to be a residential amenity wetland & sewage plant

www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/Creek_Restoration/THORNTONC_200312031206023.asp www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/COS_002477.asp www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Projects/MEADOWBROO_200312031215033.asp Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 41 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 42 Thornton Creek Conservation Strategy Matthews Beach Pond • Salmon rearing pond off • Maintain, restore, enhance watershed main creek near mouth processes that create habitat – Habitat for all salmon life stages – Functional corridors linking these habitats • Maintain well-dispersed network of high- quality refuge habitats – Centers of population expansion – Connectivity between refuges – Allow expansion of increasing population into recovered habitat www.scn.org/earth/tca/matthewsbeach.htm

Conservation Strategy Conservation Strategy

• Maintain intact habitat values in upper • Restore Cedar mainstem suburban watersheds – Add rearing habitat – Cedar, Bear, Issaquah – Cedar chinook stock most threatened • Direct growth into existing urban areas • Improve habitat in Lake Washington & – & Minimize impacts there Ship Canal where possible • Manage rural development to avoid or – Improve nearshore habitat & tributaries reduce impacts – Try experiments – Critical Areas Ordinances – N. L. Washington stock 2nd most threatened – Flood control • Restore productivity in Sammamish R. – Property acquisition • 90% originate in Bear Creek Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 45 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 46 How to Restore Bear How to Restore Creek? Sammamish River? • Protect existing forested areas • Create flood benches & restore riparian • Riparian vegetation & LWD vegetation • Meanders & channel complexity – Replace non-native with native vegetation – 2 large-scale projects identified – 2 locations identified • Remove bank armor & restore flood plain • Meanders & channel complexity – 1 projects identified – Below L. Sammamish wier • Reduction in fine sediment input • Enhance & reconnect wetlands – 2 farms identified; restore riparian vegetation – 4 locations identified • Restore mouths of 10 small tributaries – Cool-water refuge sites for juveniles

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 47 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 48 Chinook Use of Lake Urbanization of Seattle Washington • Corridor for upstream spawner migration • Lake Washington Ship Canal (WRIA 8) – Little spawning in lake (seen elsewhere) – Built 1916 through existing minor drainage • Habitat for juveniles (fry/parr) path from Lake Washington to Puget Sound • 8.6 miles long – Shallows in undeveloped areas, creek mouths – Ballard locks constructed • Sand & fine gravel • Eliminated existing estuary • Derived from bank erosion & streams • LWD & vegetation support food chain – Lowered lake level ~9 feet – Feed on insects first, then zooplankton • Loss of wetlands, rerouting of tributaries Previous outlet was through Black River – Preyed on by bass & trout – (Renton) into Duwamish – Prefer LWD & vegetation (but so do predators) www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/blueprint.htm • Cedar River routed into Lake Washington Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 49 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 50

Urbanization of Seattle Urbanization of Seattle

• Lake Washington 1st connected to • Lake Washington 1st connected to Portage Bay 1861 Portage Bay 1861 – 1st a ditch for floating – 1st a ditch for floating logs logs – 1871 a train track for – 1871 a train track for transporting coal transporting coal – 1883 a 2nd “Montlake – 1883 a 2nd “Montlake Cut” Cut” – Drawing depicts 1894 • Again for logs – Photo depicts 1890 www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3404 www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3349

Urbanization of Seattle Urbanization of Seattle

• 2 canals dug www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=684 • Construction of ship connection from Lake 1911–1917 Washington to Puget Sound begun 1911 – Lake – Hiram Chittendon Locks completed 1917 Washington to Portage Bay – Lake Union to Salmon Bay – “L. Washington Ship Canal”

www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3425 www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=1444 www.historylink.org/Slide_show/index.cfm?file_id=7083&frame=18 SWAMP CREEK Figure 2-2 HISTORIC SHORELINE ALTERATIONS

S A M circa turn of the century M A M I S H R I V E Lake Washington, Ship Canal & the Duwamish River R

PIPERS CREEK

THORNTON CREEK Juanita Bay

Yarrow UNION Bay Portage BAY Bay Urbanization of SeattleLAKE Urbanization of Seattle UNION

www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2624 N

I SWAMP H Meydenbauer CREEK www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/blueprint.htmS • Loss of L. Bay • Loss of L. Figure 2-2 A ELLIOTT BAY W HISTORIC SHORELINE ALTERATIONS

E S A M M A M I S K circa turn of the century H R I Wash shore A Wash V E R L Lake Washington, Ship Canal & the Duwamish River wetlands shore

wetlands PIPERS • Cedar River Former course of the CREEK Duwamish River

THORNTON diverted to • Loss of CREEK Juanita Bay L. Wash intertidal SHILSHOLE BAY Green Lake Mud • Black River wetlands Lake HISTORIC SHORELINE

8 LAND FILL Portage BAY EXPOSED SHORELINE Sources: Blomberg et al. 1988, Bay LAKE Chrzastowski 1983, UNION LOST WETLANDS Hershman et al. 1981, DA dry C E R (Includes fresh water and salt Phelps (undated), D R U I VE W R water wetlands) A United States Coast Survey 1879, M

USGS 1900a, S

TIDAL INUNDATIONS H

USGS 1900b, N

I USGS 1918, V SEATTLE CITY LIMITS O E R USGS 1980. T

N A3330\BE\SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES\87163 HISTORIC SHORELINE ALTERATIONS MAP REVISED\REVISED MAP.CDR (10.0) rev. 11/25/02 www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/blueprint.htmI H Meydenbauer S Bay A

ELLIOTT BAY W

A L

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 55 Former course of the 56 Duwamish River Impacts on Lake Impacts on Lake Washington Washington HISTORIC SHORELINE

CURRENT SHORELINE 2002 City of Seattle All rights reserved. No warranties of any sort, TIDE FLATS including accuracy, fitness or merchantability accompany this product. • 82% of shoreline armored • Shore & creek8 L ANmouthD FILL restoration EXPOSED SHORELINE Sources: Blomberg et al. 1988, Chrzastowski 1983,

LOST WETLANDS Hershman et al. 1981, A C E D R (Includes fresh water and salt Phelps (undated), D R U I VE W R water wetlands) A United States Coast Survey 1879, M

Cuts off sediment supply, deepens water Restore shoreline vegetation I – – USGS 1900a, S

TIDAL INUNDATIONS H USGS 1900b,

I SEATTLE CITY LIMITS USGS 1918, V E – L. Sammamish similar • Milfoil a problem USGS 1980. R A3330\BE\SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES\87163 HISTORIC SHORELINE ALTERATIONS MAP REVISED\REVISED MAP.CDR (10.0) rev. 11/25/02 – 80–90% loss of LWD & natural vegetation – Limited opportunities due to lowered lake level • Shading by docks, piers, boats – Removing armoring alone may not help – 4% of lake area 100 ft from shore • Management of lake level for recreation – Affects food sources – Lower in winter to reduce storm damage to – Increases predation on juv. chinook by bass shore • Water quality – Higher in summer for boats through the locks – High temperatures & low dissolved oxygen Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 57 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 58 How to Restore Lake Urbanization of Seattle Washington? • Salmon-friendly docks & shorelines • Planned or completed freshwater – Regulations restoration projects – Incentives – Arboretum – Targeted educational programs • www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/salmonmaps/ map9.htm# • Remove armoring – Sand Point & Matthews Beach – Restore shoreline vegetation & nearshore • www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/salmonmaps/ habitat map6.htm • Especially south end of lake – Other projects • Mouths of 7 small tributaries • www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/salmonmaps/ Refuge areas for juvenile chinook project.htm – www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/blueprint.htm

Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 59 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 60 Social Techniques to Urban Streams Implement Restoration • Try to restore badly degraded urban • Regulations (“Stick”) rivers? – “Top-down” experts decide & enforce – e.g., Duwamish – Can provoke resentment & resistance • Or put resources into improving more • Incentives (“Carrot”) healthy rivers? – Offer voluntary tax breaks, etc. – e.g., Snoqualmie • Acquisitions – Buy the property or development rights • Education – No carrot or stick, just persuasion Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 61 Ocean/ENVIR 260 Winter 2006 Lecture 5 © 2006 University of Washington 62 Urban/Suburban Minimizing Urban/ “Buzzwords” Suburban Impacts • Comprehensive plan updates • Hold UGB firm • Critical areas ordinances • Low-impact development techniques • Best available science • Clustering of buildings • Shoreline master programs • Minimize new road crossings • NPDES municipal stormwater permits • Stormwater management • Urban Growth Boundary

Seattle City Actions

• Regulating development to protect habitat – Dept. Construction & Land Use • www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/cityactions.htm • www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dclu/ – Land-disturbing activities (e.g. grading) – Storm water management – Shoreline development