2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Skokomish-Dosewallips Basin

he Skokomish Tribe is wholly devoted to restoring the TSkokomish watershed and its resources – not just for the next five years, not just for another 40 years, but forever. We must continue healing the environment that we depend upon for survival. The health and well-being of the Skokomish watershed is vital to the Skokomish tribal culture, tradition, subsistence and economy.

– Joseph Pavel Skokomish Tribe

Skokomish Tribe The Twana (ancestors of the Skokomish people) were the first human inhabitants of the south Hood Canal region, with villages and fishing camps located near streams where they could take advantage of plen- tiful fish and shellfish resources. At the signing of the Point No Point Treaty of 1855, the Skokomish Tribe ceded their traditional lands to the U.S. government, and Washington’s Gov. Isaac I. Stevens assured the Tribe that they could continue Seattle to gather food at the accustomed locations. However, during this period, Euro-Americans began farming the floodplains, cutting the forests, and shellfish and fish resources began to be harvested by settlers. Today, the region is largely rural and forested, communities still rely on logging, fishing, shellfish and recreation. Unfortunately, there have been major land-use impacts on Treaty-protected resources includ- ing salmon habitat. Dam construction, floodplain and shoreline development, and roads and logging have had their impacts.

Skokomish Tribe 221 The Hood Canal Watershed: Home of the Skokomish Tribe Hood Canal is a natural, glacier-carved fjord separating the Olympic and Kitsap peninsulas. It stretches 68 miles from the northern tip of the Kitsap peninsula to Lynch Cove, forming an L-shape that remains narrow, ranging from 1.5 to 2 miles across. The canal includes portions of Mason, Jefferson and Kitsap coun- ties. The Skokomish Reservation is located near the Big Bend of southern Hood Canal at the mouth of the Skokomish River. Major rivers entering Hood Canal from the steep eastern slopes of the Olympic Mountains include the Skokomish, Dosewallips and Big Quilcene rivers. Historically, the economy of the Hood Canal region relied largely on shellfish harvesting, commercial fisheries, commercial forestry, tourism and agriculture. Unfortunately, habitat quality, which sustains the economic activities of Hood Canal, has dimin- ished due to multiple causes including: roads and land develop- ment, stream modifications, shoreline development, and water pollution from sediment, nutrients and pathogens. Roughly 48% of the Hood Canal watershed land area is under Flickr user Lana_aka_BADGRL federal jurisdiction in Olympic National Park, Olympic National Hood Canal, looking toward the Olympic Mountains. Forest or designated wilderness areas. This has led to the concen- tration of land use, and development pressure on a remaining 50% The plan’s technical analysis has identified the following habitat of non-federal land, which is in either a forest or rural land-use limiting factors: classification, making it a potential target for future development pressures. • Estuarine habitat loss and degradation; Even without future development, the region has concerns re- • Loss of channel complexity from large woody debris; garding viable fisheries populations, which are the lifeblood of the • Scouring from high water flows; Skokomish Tribal economy. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery • Floodplain modifications and loss of wetlands; and Plan identified significant habitat limiting factors for the decline of • Sediment aggradation.1 the region’s salmonid populations. Implementing a Conservation & Recovery Plan There is a plan to protect habitat placement of logjams, invasive plant and a restoration strategy pursued species removal and road decommis- for Hood Canal, approved by the Na- sioning. Several projects have been tional Marine Fisheries Service and implemented throughout Hood Canal supported by the watershed-based to initiate habitat restoration in estua- Council of Governments with the rine and nearshore areas surrounding Hood Canal Coordinating Council the rivers and other major streams. as lead entity. The plan focuses on A major project under way is the habitat stewardship and restoration restoration of the Skokomish River projects. Restoration actions were estuary. The Skokomish Tribe insti- organized by limiting factors within gated this project in 2007, working each watershed. The existing regula- with federal, state and county collab- tory protection tools were viewed as orators as well as Tacoma Power to adequate for recovery, “if watershed remove dikes and culverts from the development occurs as expected and Skokomish estuary. This project has Tiffany Royal, NWIFC Royal, Tiffany current regulations are maintained or been an important success in restor- Dirt is moved and land is surveyed for the proper improved and adequately implement- ing habitat in the estuary. In addition, placement of a box culvert in the Skokomish estuary. ed.”2 However, growth has contin- large woody debris was placed in the ued. estuary for habitat enhancement and Still, restoration within the drain- areas have been revegetated with na- ages of Hood Canal has proceeded tive plants. As of the printing of this under the recovery plans for each report, the Skokomish Tribe and its watershed. Work has focused on partners have restored 1,000 acres of restoring stream connectivity, bed habitat for salmon and wildlife. stabilization, riparian replanting,

222 Skokomish Tribe Recovery Efforts Lagging At the 10-year mark of the Puget Sound dation of floodplain and riparian processes, implement actions to restore and protect Salmon Recovery Plan, a review of key degradation of marine shoreline habitat habitat and to monitor and enforce com- environmental indicators for the Skokom- conditions, and an increase in impervious pliance of existing regulations. In addition, ish-Dosewallips Basin area shows that surface. In general, there is a shortage of funding shortfalls for large-scale projects priority concerns continue to be degrada- staff at all levels (e.g., federal, state, tribal, contribute to the slow pace of progress. tion of water quantity and quality, degra- county) needed to address the issues and

Review of the trend for these key environmental indicators since the 2012 State of Our Watersheds Report shows an improvement in restoration efforts but a steady loss in habitat status:

Trend Since Tribal Indicator Status SOW 2012 Report From 2006-2011, there was a < 1% increase in impervious surface. 39% of the impervious surface occurs within 1 mile of Hood Impervious Surface Canal. Declining From 2005 to 2014, Mason County had 202 hydraulic project approvals issued, resulting in an additional 1.6 miles of armored Shoreline Modifications / Forage Fish shoreline. This was the greatest amount in any Puget Sound County, while 714 feet of armoring were removed, resulting in a net Declining increase of about 1.5 miles of armored shoreline. From 2010-2014, water wells were increased by 4%. Of these 256 new wells, 112 (44%) were within 1 mile of Hood Canal Water Wells shoreline. Declining From 2006 to 2011 the Hood Canal Watershed experienced a 3.4% decrease in forest cover. In addition, from 2008 to present 37 Timber Harvest square miles have been or have the potential of being harvested within the Skokomish Tribe’s Area of Focus. Declining Twenty-six (17 active & 9 completed) riparian planting projects have be implemented on agricultural buffers in the Hood Canal watershed. In Skokomish watershed, 300 riparian acres have been planted in the last 5 yrs by the Mason Conservation District. Restoration Improving The tribe has built the Potlatch Waste Water Treatment Plant which is owned and operates. The plant will help alleviate the many problems of on-site septic systems in the Hood Canal Watershed.

The Tribe continues to work toward the protection and restoration of healthy and functional nearshore, estuarine and river habitat, restoring those areas that are degraded, and conducting research to understand the organisms and the habitats they occupy.

Looking Ahead Examples of issues and opportunities that may affect the future of watershed health in Hood Canal include management of the following:

• Water quantity and quality monitoring; • Water conservation; • Water supply and use; • Septic system; • Animal manure and pet waste; • Stormwater; • Habitat; • Funding; • Education, communication, and outreach; and • Enforcement.3

The four pressures that carried a “very high” rating as priorities in the Hood Canal Integrated Watershed Plan are the following:

• Commercial and residential development; • Transportation and service corridors; • Climate change and ocean acidification; and • Wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.4

Skokomish Tribe 223 Skokomish Indian Tribe Hood Canal Watershed Land Hood Canal is a natural, glacier-carved Jurisdiction fjord separating the Olympic and Kitsap peninsulas. It stretches 68 miles from the northern tip of the Kitsap peninsula to Quilcene Quilcene R Lynch Cove, forming an L-shape that re- ig iv B e r

mains narrow, ranging from 1.5 to 2 miles D o WRIA 17 across. The Canal includes portions of s e w al Mason, Jefferson and Kitsap counties as lips Ri well as the Skokomish and Port Gamble ve r S’Klallam Tribal reservations. Major rivers ush Rive kab r entering Hood Canal from the steep eastern Duc slopes of the Olympic Mountains on the al n west side include the Skokomish, Dosewal- a C ¹ lips and Big Quilcene. Precipitation is vari- amm a H a R amm iv able – Quilcene receives only 16 inches H er d 0 5 Miles o per year, while 90 inches fall annually at o Skokomish.1 H WRIA 16 WRIA 15 The average depth of Hood Canal is 177 S Belfair o r u e feet, with a maximum depth of 600 feet, t iv h R F o ya and the circulation is poor, especially in the r u k h Sk a southern portion. Water from the Strait of ok T om is ¤£101 Juan de Fuca mixes poorly due to an under- h R iv water sill south of the Hood Canal Bridge, e Land Jurisdiction r ¤£106 and fresh water entering the canal often Tribal Reservation forms a layer at the surface. Algal blooms Military reduce dissolved oxygen, providing a poor Skokomish WRIA 14 habitat for marine species. However, fish- Tribe Wilderness eries and aquaculture are economically National Park Service important to the region, and the canal is U.S. Forest Service famous for its oysters and other shellfish. City/UGA/Municipal The principal watersheds – Skokomish, State Hamma Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewal- County lips – currently support listed Hood Canal summer chum, steelhead, and Puget Sound Chinook. Sizable portions of these major 1% watersheds are contained within Olympic 1% National Park or U.S. Forest Service own- ership. The U.S. Forest Service lands were fish runs returned to the Skokomish River 7% subject to excess resource extraction which during almost every month of the year. The caused extreme habitat damage and alter- estuarine and nearshore habitats of Hood ations. Since 1994, these lands have been Canal provide a critical migration corridor 35% 17% managed under the U.S. Northwest Forest for juvenile salmon of all species. Plan and are now protected for the long- Today the region is largely rural and term health of forests, wildlife and water- forested, with communities relying on log- ways. ging, fishing, shellfish and recreation. Ma- At Treaty time, the Skokomish River jor land-use impacts on salmon habitat in- 24% supported large fish runs including all spe- clude such activities as: dam construction, 14% cies of Pacific salmon and steelhead. This floodplain and shoreline development, broad range of species (Chinook, coho, roads and logging, especially in steep for- chum, sockeye, pink and steelhead) and ested terrain. 1%

Data Sources: SSHIAP 2004,2 USFWS 2014,3 WADNR 2014a,4 WADNR 2014b,5 WADNR 2014c,6 WADOT 2013,7 WAECY 1994,8 WAECY 2000,9 WAECY 2011a,10 WAECY 201311

224 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe Shoreline Modifications Threaten Nearshore Habitat From 2005-2014 in Mason County, 202 Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPAs) were issued resulting in an addition- al 1.6 miles of armored shoreline, the greatest amount in any Puget Sound county, while 714 feet of armoring were removed, resulting in a net increase of about 1.5 miles of armored shoreline.1 The nearshore habitat, which provides critical rearing and foraging for salmonids continues to be directly and negatively im- pacted. Shoreline development such as bulk- heads, fill, roads, highways, docks and piers can affect habitat that salmon rely upon for Quilcene migration, rearing and refuge. Estuarine, salt marsh, eelgrass and shallow water nearshore habitats are critical to all species of juvenile salmonids as they enter the marine environ- ment. The Hood Canal Coordinating Council Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy has iden- tified habitat in the nearshore marine waters Jefferson County as a high priority.2 The intent is to protect and restore what is presently documented as the Chinook and chum habitat, and the wa- tershed processes that support and maintain that habitat. The Mid-Hood Canal Chinook Recovery Planning Chapter identified the Kitsap County key to recovery of productive, sustainable natural Chinook is the habitat in the water- Belfair sheds and estuaries.3

l One of the objectives of the Skokomish a Hoodsport n a Chinook Recovery Plan is to “protect from C

d further degradation the structural elements o Modified o that contribute to nearshore habitat form- H Not Modified 4 ing processes and associated key habitats.” Tribal Reservation A recovery plan framework objective is “to Military Federal Lands restore nearshore habitat, the estuary, and City/UGA/Municipal associated floodplain habitat and function.”5 Needless to say, with over 35% of the shore- Union line being in a modified condition, contin- ued, focused efforts will be necessary to ¹ reach these objectives. Mason County 0 5 Miles

Mason County HPA Summary 2005 - 2014 No. of Shoreline Projects 202 New Armoring (ft) 8,545 Replacement Armoring (ft) 11,875 Removal Armoring (ft) 714 WA Dept. Ecology Coastal Atlas Coastal Ecology Dept. WA Example of shoreline armoring in the Hood Canal Watershed.

Data Sources: Carman et al. 2015,6 PSNERP 2010,7 USFWS 2014,8 WADNR,9 WADNR 2014c,10 WADOT 2013,11 WAECY 2011a,12 WAECY 201313

Skokomish Tribe 225 Skokomish Tribe Agricultural Land Riparian Management Making Progress The Habitat Work Schedule currently shows 17 active and 9 completed riparian planting projects on agricultural buffers in the Hood Canal Watershed through 2013. In the Skokomish Watershed, 300 riparian acres have been planted in the last five years by the Mason Conservation District. ood Cana

! S ! !! ko ! k ! om is ! ! h Ri ! ! ve ! r !! ! ¹ Skokomish Watershed 0 1 Miles

Habitat Work Schedule AAgrgicriuclutultruarla Ll aLnadnsds Riparian Plantings RReseesrevravtaiotinon ! Active UU.S..S F. oFroersets St eSrevricveice ! Completed CComommmerecriacila Fl oFroersetlsatnLdasnds

The Skokomish River is a good example sediment impacts, wetland loss and fecal because of their ability to reduce agricul- where agriculture activities, such as dike contamination from cattle being allowed to ture-related nonpoint pollution. The per- construction, channelization, erosional enter streams. One of the limiting factors formance and effectiveness of buffers is degradation and large wood removal have for Chinook recovery is the modifications highly variable and site specific. Studies contributed to habitat problems. Many of to the floodplain and loss of freshwater indicate that buffers of 15-30 meters (50- these practices have caused excessive sed- wetlands. 100 feet) provide adequate protection to iment loads and unstable streambeds and Even though buffers on agricultural aquatic resources under most circumstanc- streambanks that have had significant im- lands can help mitigate a number of im- es, but disproportionately wider buffers are pacts on the fate of salmon.1 pacts, managing floodplain riparian areas needed to obtain greater function.3 Ninety-five percent of the agricultur- where agriculture is practiced in the Pacific The Mason Conservation District contin- al lands of WRIA 16 are located in the Northwest is a continuing issue.2 Large ri- ues to make progress in riparian restoration Skokomish watershed. The Skokomish parian setbacks are seen as an intrusion into throughout Mason County. In the past five watershed has a long history of negative private property owners’ rights and mitiga- years, the Mason Conservation District has impacts caused by the lack of proper man- tions for impacts are problematic. implemented over 300 acres of riparian agement of these agricultural lands, in- Riparian buffers are widely considered planting in the Skokomish Valley alone.4 cluding lack of stream buffers, erosional to be a good land stewardship practice (Continued on next page)

Data Sources: HWS 2015,7 Mason Co. 2015,8 NAIP 2013,9 SSHIAPNA I2014,P (2100 1USFWS3) 2014,11 USGS 2014,12 WADNR 2006,13 WADNR 2014c14

226 Skokomish Tribe Agricultural Land Riparian Management Making Progress

(Continued from previous page) Skokomish Farms has partnered with the Mason Conservation District and others to Skokomish River / Weaver Creek Watershed plant almost 90 acres of riparian and flood- plain habitats, install more than 2.5 miles Vegetated of livestock exclusion fencing, and provide Non-Vegetated off-stream watering facilities to livestock.5 Zoned Agriculture Mason County bought out nine acres of flooded pasturelands and partnered with the Mason Conservation District. The prop- erty, located north of Shelton along High- way 101, includes two tracts along Weaver Creek and one tract along the Skokomish River. The acreage was planted with a mix- ture of native evergreen trees and bushes. Riparian buffers were installed as part of a Washington State Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program (CREP) contract. 0 1 Mile The 180-foot-wide riparian buffers have NAIP (2013) already begun to provide wildlife habitat. Example of agricultural riparian buffer conditions on the Lower Skokomish Nests have been found and the fast-grow- River and tributaries. ing alder trees are beginning to shade the water.6

A Skokomish WRIA 16 Agricultural Land Riparian Buffer Analysis pilot project by NWIFC SSHIAP was completed in the summer of 2014. The purpose of the project was to evaluate the vegetated condition of the riparian buffers found on the agricultural lands within the floodplains of the Skokomish, Dosewallips and Ham- ma Hamma watersheds. The analysis assessed the current condi- tions using NHD hydrography, 2013 NAIP imagery, and the NMFS/ Ecology 319 Option 2 Buffer limits. See the chart below and map above for the results. Miles of Vegetated Riparian Buffer:

A newly planted CREP riparian buffer established to reduce the impacts of flooding, provides wildlife habitat and enhances salm- on habitat along the Skokomish River.

Skokomish Tribe 227 Skokomish Tribe Impervious Surface Unchanged Impervious surface in the Hood Canal watershed increased by less than 1% between 2006 and 2011, with most occurring in the Bangor area.1 Thirty-nine percent of the impervious surface in the watershed occurs within one mile of the Hood Canal shoreline. The Hood Canal watershed’s rivers, streams and nearshore environment provide important habitat Little Qu ilcen for Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon, steel- e R i v e head and cutthroat trout, and associated aquatic r l ig Qui cene R B iv species. Habitat quality has diminished due to e r multiple causes including roads and land devel- Quilcene

opment, stream modifications, shoreline develop- D os ewa r ment and water pollution from sediment, nutrients llips Rive 2 and pathogens. _ Bangor ush River ckab _ Percent of impervious surface has been recog- Du nized as a key indicator of impacts to watersheds Duckabush due to urbanization.3 The frequency and intensity mm l of peak flows and the volume of stormwater runoff Ha a R a mma iv n Ha er a all increase when natural cover is removed from C d o developing areas and then converted to impervious o H surfaces, such as pavement, homes, buildings and

L non-native landscapes like lawns that reduce sur- ake 4 C us face perviousness relative to natural forest cover. S h ou m th F a Development is a direct result of population o n rk Belfair S ko growth, which in turn leads to increased imper- k o m is vious surfaces. Although the cities/towns in the h R i v Hood Canal watershed are small compared to e r more urbanized areas, they all showed an increase Union ¹ in population from 2010-2014. Belfair’s popula- 0 5 Miles Skokomish tion increased by 3.5%, Quilcene by 16.6%, and Reservation Union by 0.8%.5 2006 - 2011 Rate of One of the four goals of the Skokomish Chinook 2011 Percent Impervious Surface Percent Impervious Surface Increase Recovery Plan identifies the need to protect the Little to no Impact (0-4%) Bangor was the only area that had an increase. ecological processes, functions and forms of the Beginning to Impact (4-7%) All others had no to little change. Skokomish watershed from ongoing land and wa- Impacting (7-12%) _ Faster (>1%) ter uses, specifically the protection of water quality Degrading (12-40%) South Hood from further degradation from nonpoint and point Skokomish 6 Canal pollution sources. How the state and local govern- The Skokomish Tribe is working to reduce developmentBasin that causes impervious ments manage urban/rural sprawl as more people surfaces and has implemented non-impervious surface walkways along move into the area will have a direct impact on the Reservation Road. quality of salmon and steelhead habitat. New Skokomish Housing Development and Wastewater Treatment Plant planning and development has worked to reduce impervious surfaces.

2006 2011 Data Sources: NAIP 2006,7 NAIP 2011,8 NLCD 2006,9 NLCD 2011,10 WADOT 2013,11 WADNR 2014c,12 WAECY 2011a,13 WAECY 201314

228 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe Cumulative Impacts of Timber Harvest Operations From 2006 to 2011, the Hood Canal watershed experienced a 3.4% decrease in forest cover.1,2 In addition, from 2008 to present, 37 square miles have been or have the potential of being harvested within the Skokomish Tribe’s Area of Focus.

Timber harvest on non-feder-

A ë

al land is present in all water- ë _

_

A ë

sheds, with a significant amount A A

A ë ë A

_ ë occurring in the Skokomish ë

_ ë ë

and Toandos peninsulas. Large A _ A

A A _

ë A A _ A clear-cuts, inadequate buffers, A ë

A A

A A

mass wasting, and poorly con- A A A ë

A ë _

A _

A _ A

_ structed or maintained forest A A ë Timber Harvest

A _

A _ A A

A A ë

ë

ë ë

A A Forest Cover 2011 A

_

ë Activities Impact roads and culverts have all led ë

A _

ë ë ë

A _

A A A to the degradation of salmon A A A _ SeWatershedsverely Damaged Conditions (<30%)

ë A A _

A ë A A ë

habitat in the Hood Canal wa- A A A A A

_ A Poor Forest Conditions (30-50%)

A A A A A A

_

A A _ A

tershed. Riparian degradation A A A A

_ _

AA _ A

A _ Moderate Forest Conditions (50-65%)

ë

ë A Forest Cover 2011

A A

in the lower Dosewallips, Mc- A A ë

A A A

A A A A ë

A SeveGreloyo Dda mFaogreeds Ct oCndoitniodnist i(o

Donald Creek, lower Lilliwaup _ A A

A A A

A A _ Poor Forest Conditions (30-50%) A A A A _

A ë

River, Skokomish River and A A A Healthy Forest Conditions (>75%)

_

AA ë _ Moderate Forest Conditions (50-65%)

A _

A A _ A lower Duckabush River has A A ë A A

A ë

A A A Good Forest Conditions (65-75%)

_ A

A A

been attributed to forest prac- _ Federal Land Boundary

A _

A A _ A

A ë

_ Healthy Forest Conditions (>75%)

A A _ _ ë

3 A ë

A

A _ tices. A _ A _ ë A

A ë Forest Practice Applications 2007-2014

A A A A ë

A _

In the lower watershed, a sig- _ Federal Land Boundary

_

A

_ _ A _ _

ë

A _

A A A A ë _ A

nificant amount of the anadro- A ë Forest Practice Applications 2007-2014

A ë

_

A A _

_ mous fish habitat is on private A A A A _ A Forest Cover Change: 2006-2011 ë

A _

ë _

A A A A A ë

lands. The lower river and es- _ A A A A Forest Cover Change: 2006-2011 _

A _ High Decreased Forest Cover (>-5%) ë

A ë A

A ë ë

_ A A A _

tuaries are the most impacted A ë A High Decreased Forest Cover (>-5%) ë

ë

A A A _

A

ë A

_ A

A A

_

ë Low Decreased Forest Cover (-1% to -5%) A

_

by development and past log- A _ A

A ë Low Decreased Forest Cover (-1% to -5%)

A _ _

A

ë _

ë

ë

ë _

ging practices in each of the _ A NAo CNhaon gCe h(1a%n tgoe -1 (%1)% to -1%) _ _ _

A A_ ¹¹ A A A

ë three watersheds included in ë ë

ë A

_ 0 5 Miles

A ë

_ 0 5 Miles ë the Mid-Hood Canal Chinook _ A

A _

4 _ A Recovery Plan. A A_ In the Skokomish watershed, A an additional 2,428 acres (3.8 square miles) of non-federal commercial forestlands were, or had the potential to be, har- vested from 2008 to 2014. This, in combination with the USFS harvest of about 58,000 acres prior to 1995 in the upper wa- tershed, places this watershed in need of aggressive resto- ration. These high rates of har- vest are one of the main causes of aggradation and flooding seen in the lower river. Significant habitat limiting factors which have prevented increased productivity of Chi- nook include the following: the estuarine habitat loss, channel complexity and overall channel conditions, high water flows in the winter months, floodplain wetlands, and logging roads in Three FPAs near the Skokomish River are depicted above, two of which show the upper watersheds.5 continued forest loss.

Data Sources: NAIP 2013,6 USFWS 2014,7 WADNR 2006,8 WADNR 2011,9 WADNR 2014c,10 WAECY 2006,11 WAECY 2011b12

Skokomish Tribe 229 Skokomish Tribe Water Wells Potentially Impact Surface Flows The Hood Canal watershed has seen a 4% growth in the number of water wells from 2010-2014. Of these 256 new wells, 112 (44%) were within one mile of the Hood Canal shoreline. Hood Canal has experienced substantial population growth, es- by scour or desiccation; risk of stranding fish in low flows; and the pecially along the shoreline, over the past several decades,1 bring- biophysical factors that form and maintain stream channels.5 ing an increased demand for water. Currently there are over 7,200 The cumulative withdrawal of groundwater associated with the water wells in the Hood Canal Watershed.2 Of the approximately recent proliferation of water wells has led to concerns of instream 256 new wells (from 2010-2014), 112 are found within one mile flow, salmon habitat, public health and senior water right impact.6 of the Hood Canal shoreline. Recent tests have indicated that in- The Action Agenda in Hood Canal identifies the pressures from creased pumping from aquifers in this area would likely lead to water withdrawals as ranking “high”.7 saltwater intrusion from Hood Canal into those aquifers.3 Wells 2010-2014 Late summer streamflow in most of Washington’s rivers and 7350 Existing Wells 7300 streams is dependent on groundwater draining into the streambed. New Wells 39 19 During the drier summer months when flows are typically the low- 7250 55 est of the year, groundwater flowing into the stream is frequently 7200 59 7150 84

providing almost all of the streamflow. Groundwater also provides 7100 a source of cooler water which is critical to fish reproduction and 7050 survival. Use and consumption of groundwater typically results in 7000 decreases in streamflow.4 Streamflow affects fish habitat in many 6950 ways, including: the amount and distribution of spawning and 6900 6850 rearing habitat; the risk of damaging incubating eggs or larval fish Pre-2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Quilcene 2010-2014 new wells near the Big and Little Quilcene rivers

Quilcene

101

Belfair

Hoodsport 106 Union

0 5 Miles

Number of Wells Pre-2010 2010-2014 1-5 1-4 6-15 16-31

Data Sources: NAIP 2013,8 SSHIAP 2004,9 USFWS 2014,10 WADNR 2014b,11 WADNR 2014d,12 WAECY 2011a,13 WAECY 201514

230 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe Taking Action on Water Quality in the Hood Canal Watershed The Skokomish Indian Tribe is working with multiple agencies to classify a one-mile stretch of beach near Hood- sport as open to shellfish harvesting. The Tribe has built the Potlatch Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is owned and operated 100% by the Skokomish Indian Tribe. This plant will help alleviate the many prob- lems of on-site septic systems in the Hood Canal watershed. The Skokomish Tribe wants ural resources for all. The Tribe more shellfish harvesting areas and the County and state health opened for everyone in Hood departments are collecting and Canal and is working with lo- analyzing water samples from l a cal agencies to make sure that the area during a three-year pe- n a happens. There are areas near riod, starting in fall 2014, which C d o Hoodsport that the Tribe would is a regulatory requirement for o like to see open for harvest an area to be considered as safe Hoodsport H because the resource is plen- for harvest. Once the area is Shellfish Growing Areas 1 tiful. It’s a multi-agency and opened, the Tribe will seed it Approved Conditional multi-year effort between the with shellfish so more of the re- 101 Prohibited Tribe, Mason County Health source is available in the future. Restricted Department, the state Depart- In addition, WSU will be con- Potlatch Waste Water Treatment Plant Unclassified ment of Health (DOH), Hood ducting surveys of landowners (WWTP) Canal Coordinating Council to better understand how to and Washington State Uni- work with them to address wa- Union 106 versity (WSU) to classify a ter quality problems. The DOH one-mile stretch of beach near also is conducting a survey of Skokomish Hoodsport as safe for harvest. all the potential sources of pol- Reservation Working together, these part- lution in the area and the Tribe Data Sources: ners will achieve the goal of will continue its pollution mon- SSHIAP 2004,3 improving the water quality of itoring and control work into USGS 2014,4 Hood Canal and improving nat- the future.2 WADNR 2014b,5 101 0 1 Miles WADOH 2014,6 WADOT 20137

Shellfish Growing Areas

Hoodsport

Shellfish

Growing Areas Skokomish Indian Tribe The Skokomish Tribe has been monitoring geoduck and intertidal Approved species of shellfish for biotoxins throughout the canal. Prohibited

0 0.25 Miles (Continued next page)

Skokomish Tribe 231 Skokomish Tribe

(Continued from previous page) Completed Potlatch Wastewater Treatment Plant Skokomish Natural Resources 2015 Natural Skokomish T.iffany Royal, NWIFC Royal, T.iffany Seth Book, Skokomish Tribe water quality biologist, uses a refractometer to measure the salinity of a water sample from Hood Canal.

During FY14, the Tribe completed the construction of the Potlatch Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) a membrane bioreactor (MBR) plant for the Potlatch area of Hood Canal. This system hooked up the t3ba’das housing development, Potlatch State Park facilities, and residen- tial and commercial sites along U.S. Hwy 101, including the Tacoma Power House facilities, residences, Saltwater Park and the Waterfront at Potlatch Resort. Residences and businesses on both sides of U.S. 101 are eligible to be connected to this system. Wastewater from these homes and businesses are collected and pumped (through a force main) that follows U.S. Highway 101 to the WWTP plant.

In FY 15-16, the WWTP MBR facility will expand Resources 2015 Natural Skokomish from the Potlach area to the Lucky Dog Casino, hook- ing up additional homes, the casino, and Twin Totem gas station. Existing septic tanks will be properly abandoned. A primary objective of this project is to avoid any un- derground flow of untreated sewage pollutants into Hood Canal. An MBR uses membranes to filter out suspended solids, including harmful microorganisms such as virus- es and bacteria. The resulting effluent can be safely re- turned to groundwater or recycled. The system capacity is 55,000 gallons per day. (Continued next page)

232 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe (Continued from previous page) The Skokomish Water Quality Monitoring pro- gram surveys continued to give the Tribe the abil- ity to gather baseline water quality data, as well as alert state and federal agencies to exceedances in water quality standards. The Skokomish water quality staff is working with the Washington State Department of Ecology on the Skokomish River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance for Weaver and Hunter creeks. Skokomish staff is continuing to communicate Skokomish Tribe’s water quality concerns to Ecol- ogy for action regarding cattle access to streams in the Skokomish system. As shown, agricultural land in the mid-Skokomish Valley, which is associated with cattle grazing, consistently have high fecal contamination, which jeopardizes shellfish grow- ing areas in Hood Canal. The Skokomish Tribe reached a milestone in 2013 with the certification of its water quality lab for total phosphorus by the Washington State De- partment of Ecology. Since then, the Skokomish Natural Resources Department has continued to improve the lab, including receiving conditional certification for nitrate and ammonia. The lab facil- ities were expanded in 2015 to another 180 square feet to accommodate a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) and a high pressure liquid bicides contamination, as well as toxic algal moni- gas chromatograph (HPLC) purchased in 2013. To toring of Hood Canal waters as an indicator of the enhance the lab capacity further, the Natural Re- effects of climate change. In the future, fish tissue sources Department advertised for a lab chemist to may be analyzed in support of Fish Consumption run the specialized sampling equipment. In 2015 the Rate water quality standards. The Tribe will continue Tribe hired Ph.D. scientist Sang Seon Yun to do so- analyze for nutrients in its Skokomish water quality phisticated analysis for hydrocarbons, pesticide, her- monitoring program. Skokomish Natural Resources Natural Skokomish The Skokomish Tribe’s water quality lab.

Skokomish Tribe 233 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Estuary Restoration Nearly Finished The Skokomish River has the largest estuary Top: Aerial view and intertidal delta in the Hood Canal basin. The of Annas Bay. Skokomish Estuary project in southern Hood Ca- Middle: Skokomish nal is sponsored by the Skokomish Tribe with the habitat program goal to restore historic and natural estuarine form manager Alex and function, as well as improve water quality is- Gouley observes sues and habitat for fish, shellfish and shore birds. a historic tidal Phase 1, completed in 2007, was the main channel functioning shore, and included removal of dikes and cul- again. Bottom left: verts and the installation of large woody debris. Habitat staff survey A boardwalk was constructed for access to the Ta- vegetation in the coma powerlines and Tribal shellfish harvesting. estuary. Bottom Recolonization of salt marsh vegetation has taken right: Fisheries well to the restored area in the last five years. staff use a seine to Phase 2, completed in 2010, included restoring collect and count Nalley Island to its historic state as a natural es- salmon and other tuary. Work included building a temporary bridge fish in the estuary. for construction crews to remove interior dikes and soils. Currently in the third and final phase, the Tribe is reconnecting historic tidal channels that were blocked or filled in over time, allowing the tide- lands to flow properly. The latest phase of the Skokomish Estuary restoration effort is the larg- est to date: 600 acres of forested wetlands are go- ing to be reconnected to 400 acres of Skokomish tidelands. Doing that will re-establish the forest- ed wetland-to-salt marsh connection that’s been missing for 70 years. In addition, fish-blocking culverts and tide gates are being removed or re- placed with larger culverts and bridges.1 With just a few more earth-moving projects left, the Skokomish Tribe will be nearing the end of the restoration of its 1,000-acre estuary. In 2016, small fish-blocking culverts will be replaced with bridges on Skokomish Flats Road, the primary ac- cess road to the estuary. “After this phase, the estuary will be pretty much restored to nearly like it was before it was diked,” said Alex Gouley, the Tribe’s habitat pro- gram manager. “Then it will just be letting nature take over fully.”2 As soon as the habitat returns, so do the fish. The Skokomish Tribe has solid data showing how salmon are using the Skokomish tidelands after a year of monitoring the 400-acre restored estuary. While the tribe monitors the estuary year-round, the first full year of sampling (December 2011 to November 2012) showed 20 fish species, includ- ing Chinook, chum and coho salmon, using both the large and small tidal channels in the restored areas of the estuary.3 Every August, since 2011,

when everything is in full bloom, Tribal staff visit NWIFC (3) Royal, Tiffany 14 sites throughout the estuary that are in phase 1 and 2, looking at sediment, plant types, sizes and growth. The tribe has found pickleweed, salt grass, sedges, rushes, sea arrow grass and Puget Sound gumweed.4

Data Sources: NAIP 20155

234 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe 3 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Citations Point No Point Treaty Council. 2005. Mid Hood Canal Chinook Recovery Planning Chapter. Submitted to: Shared Strategy for Chapter Summary Puget Sound. For: Salmon Recovery Plan. 1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Final 4 Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Supplement to the Shared Strategy’s Puget Sound Salmon 2010. Skokomish Indian Tribe and Washington Department of Recovery Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fish and Wildlife. Region. 5 Ibid. 2 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and 6 Carman et al. 2015. Trends in shoreline armoring. Point No Point Treaty Council. 2005. Mid-Hood Canal Chinook 7 PSNERP. 2008. Puget Sound Nearshore and Restoration Recovery Planning Chapter. Submitted to: Shared Strategy for Project Shoreline Alterations Polylines. Puget Sound Nearshore Puget Sound. For: Salmon Recovery Plan. Ecosystem Restoration Partnership. 3 The Future of Hood Canal Watersheds. Hood Canal 8 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. Watershed Planning (WRIA 16). Mason County Public Health. Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.co.mason.wa.us/health/environmental/WRIA/ 9 WADNR. Unknown date. County Boundaries. Olympia, watershed_future.php WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 4 Hood Canal Integrated Watershed Plan. Five-Year 10 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Non-DNR Major Strategic Priorities. 2014. Hood Canal Coordinating Council Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Integrated Watershed Plan Steering Committee. Department of Natural Resources. 11 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of Skokomish Indian Tribe: Hood Canal Watershed Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington 1 Hood Canal. Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. UW Tacoma Department of Transportation. Center for Urban Waters, Puget Sound Institute. https://www. 12 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and eopugetsound.org/topics/categories/8 Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in 2 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 13 WAECY. 2013. City Boundaries and Urban Growth Areas 3 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 WADNR. 2014a. Washington State DNR Managed Agricultural Land Riparian Management Making Land Parcels. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Progress Resources. 1 Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting 5 WADNR. 2014b. Washington DNR Transportation Factors: WRIA 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin. Washington Polylines. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural State Conservation Commission Final Report. Resources. 2 Kallestad, J. 2009. Clarks Creek Experimental Riparian 6 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Non-DNR Major Buffers: Monitoring, Function, and Implications for Agriculture. Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Agriculture Research Technologies. Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources. Puyallup Research and Extension Center. 7 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of 3 Ibid. Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington 4 Mason Conservation District. Watershed Wise. Winter Department of Transportation. 2014. 8 WAECY. 1994. Polygons of Washington State Shorelines 5 Ibid. and Boundary. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 6 Conservation Success Stories Conservation Programs 9 WAECY. 2000. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) CREP Buffers Flooding on the Skokomish River. U.S. Department Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Accessed February 2016. 10 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in 7 HWS. 2015. Habitat Work Schedule Project Export cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, Points and Tables. Olympia, WA: Governor’s Salmon Recovery WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Office. 11 WAECY. 2013. City Boundaries and Urban Growth Areas 8 Mason County. 2015. GIS Parcel Data Layer. Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 9 NAIP. 2013. USDA National Agricultural Imagery Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Shoreline Modifications Threaten Nearshore 10 SSHIAP. 2014. Skokomish WRIA 16 Agricultural Land Habitat Riparian Buffer Analysis pilot project polygons. Olympia, WA: 1 Carman, R., B. Benson, T. Quinn & D. Price. 2015. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Salmon and Steelhead Trends in shoreline armoring in Puget Sound 2005-2012 from Stock Inventory Assessment Program. Washington State Hydraulic Permit Application database. 11 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. Spreadsheet PSSA_2005-2012 Charts received 2015-01-29 Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. in email communication from Randy Carman. Olympia, WA: 12 USGS. 2014. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Flowline and Waterbody GIS datasets. Downloaded from 2 Hood Canal Coordinating Council. 2004. Salmon Habitat Washington Department of Ecology. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan Geological Survey, in cooperation with others. de Fuca. Version 09-2005. 13 WADNR. 2006. Watershed Administrative Units (WAUs)

Skokomish Tribe 235 Skokomish Tribe Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Salmon Recovery Plan Volume 1. National Marine Fisheries Resources. Service. 14 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Non-DNR Major 6 NAIP. 2013. USDA National Agricultural Imagery Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Department of Natural Resources. 7 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Impervious Surface Unchanged 8 WADNR. 2006. Watershed Administrative Units (WAUs) 1 NLCD. 2006 & 2011. National Land Cover Dataset Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Percent Developed Impervious. 2011 editions. Multi-Resolution Resources. Land Characteristics. 9 WADNR. 2011. Washington State Forest Practice 2 WRIA 16 Planning Unit. 2008. Detailed Implementation Application Polygons (active and all). Olympia, WA: Washington Plan – Skokomish-Dosewallips Watershed Resource Inventory Department of Natural Resources. Areas 16 & 14b. 10 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Non-DNR Major 3 Pagh, T., C. Murdock & B. King. Using Lidar to study Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington surface water run-off and impervious surface delineation. Sioux Department of Natural Resources. Falls, SD: Pecora 16 Symposium, Global Priorities in Land 11 WAECY. 2006. C-CAP Land Cover. Remote Sensing. 2005 October 23-27. 12 WAECY. 2011. C-CAP Land Cover. 4 Puget Sound Regional Council. Vision 2020 Update Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2012 May 6. Water Wells Potentially Impact Surface Flows 5 Washington HomeTownLocator. Washington Gazetter. 1 Draft Summary for PRISM Website, Hood Canal 2015. http://washington.hometownlocator.com/ Research. http://courses.washington.edu/ocean260/On%20 6 Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Line%20Resources/PRISM%20HCDOP%20Summary.pdf 2010. Skokomish Indian Tribe and Washington State Department 2 WAECY. 2015. Water Well Logs Points. Olympia, WA: of Fish and Wildlife. Washington Department of Ecology. 7 NAIP. 2006. USDA National Agricultural Imagery 3 Watershed Management Plan: Skokomish-Dosewallips Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. WRIA 16 Including the WRIA 14 South Shore Sub-basin. 2006. 8 NAIP. 2011. USDA National Agricultural Imagery WRIA 16 Planning Unit. Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 4 Groundwater and Surface Water, A Single Resource in 9 NLCD. 2006. National Land Cover Dataset Percent Washington. 2010 September 1. Washington State Department of Developed Impervious. 2011 edition. Multi-Resolution Land Ecology. Characteristics. 5 Seattle.gov. Seattle Public Utilities Managing River 10 NLCD. 2011. National Land Cover Dataset Percent Flows. City of Seattle. Developed Impervious. 2011 edition. Multi-Resolution Land 6 Ballhorn, S. 2008. Permit exempt wells in the Snohomish Characteristics. Basin (WRIA-7): Environmental Impacts and Policy Analysis 11 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of (Master’s Thesis). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Daniel Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington Evans School of Public Affairs. Department of Transportation. 7 Puget Sound Partnership. 2014. The 2014/2015 Action 12 WADNR. 2014c. Washington State Non-DNR Major Agenda for Puget Sound. Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington 8 NAIP. 2013. USDA National Agricultural Imagery Department of Natural Resources. Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 13 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and 9 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 10 USFWS. 2014. Polygons of FWS Approved Boundaries. 14 WAECY. 2013. City Boundaries and Urban Growth Areas Falls Church, VA: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 11 WADNR. 2014b. Washington DNR Transportation Polylines. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Cumulative Impacts of Timber Harvest Operations Resources. 1 WAECY. 2006. C-CAP Land Cover. Modified from 12 WADNR. 2014d. Washington State Non-DNR Major National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Public Lands (NDMPL) Polygons. Olympia, WA: Washington Coastal Services Center (CSC)/Coastal Change Analysis Program Department of Natural Resources. (C-CAP). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 13 WAECY. 2011a. NHD Major Areas, Streams, and 2 WAECY. 2011. C-CAP Land Cover. Modified from Waterbodies. 1:24000. From U.S. Geological Survey (in National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cooperation with others) National Hydrography Dataset. Olympia, Coastal Services Center (CSC)/Coastal Change Analysis Program WA: Washington Department of Ecology. (C-CAP). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. 14 WAECY. 2015. Water Well Logs Points. Olympia, WA: 3 Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Washington Department of Ecology. Factors. WRIA 16. Washington State Conservation Commission. 4 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Taking Action on Water Quality in the Hood Canal Point No Point Treaty Council. 2005. Mid-Hood Canal Chinook Watershed Recovery Planning Chapter. Submitted to: Shared Strategy for 1 Book, S. May 2015. Personal communication. Puget Sound. For: Salmon Recovery Plan. 2 Royal, T. Skokomish, Agencies Partner to Clean Hood 5 Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound Canal Waters. Spring 2015. NWIFC Magazine. Northwest Indian

236 Skokomish Tribe Skokomish Tribe Fisheries Commission. 3 SSHIAP. 2004. Hillshade derived from University of Washington Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Olympia, WA: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 4 USGS. 2014. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Flowline and Waterbody GIS datasets. Downloaded from Washington Department of Ecology. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with others. 5 WADNR. 2014b. Washington DNR Transportation Polylines. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 6 WADOH. 2014. Commercial Shellfish Growing Areas. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Health. 7 WADOT. 2013. Polygons depicting the boundaries of Tribal Lands in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Transportation. Skokomish Estuary Restoration Nearly Finished 1 Royal, T. 2012. Skokomish Tribe Starting Largest Phase of Estuary Restoration. Northwest Treaty Tribes. http:// nwtreatytribes.org/skokomish-tribe-starting-largest-phase-of- estuary-restoration 2 Royal, T. 2015. Skokomish Estuary Restoration Nears Completion. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Northwest Treaty Tribes, Fall 2015. p. 5. 3 Royal, T. 2013. Salmon Using Restored Tidal Channels in Skokomish Tidelands. Northwest Treaty Tribes. http:// nwtreatytribes.org/salmon-using-restored-tidal-channels-in- skokomish-tidelands 4 Royal, T. 2013. Native Vegetation Filling in Restored Skokomish Estuary. Northwest Treaty Tribes. http://nwtreatytribes. org/native-vegetation-filling-restored-skokomish-estuary. 5 NAIP. 2015. USDA National Agricultural Imagery Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Skokomish Tribe 237