CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN OVERSIGHT Y 4. H 53: 103-46 J Chehalis River Basin Oversight, Ser. . . SUBCOMMITTEES ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON MEASURES TO RESTORE PRODUCTION OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD IN CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN JULY 14, 1993 Serial No. 103-46 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries *C1? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041752-X 72-813 - 93 - 1 CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN OVERSIGHT ^ Y 4. II 53: 103-46 ==^=^^ J Chehalis River Basin Oversight, Ser. . . SUBCOMMITTEES ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON MEASURES TO RESTORE PRODUCTION OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD IN CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN JULY 14, 1993 Serial No. 103-46 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries t? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 72-813 s=i WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041752-X 72-813 - 93 - 1 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts, Chairman WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey EARL HUTTO, Florida W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas THOMAS J. MANTON, New York OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JACK REED, Rhode Island H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina THOMAS H. ANDREWS, Maine ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon LYNN SCHENK, California GENE GREEN, Texas ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida DAN HAMBURG, California BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas ANNA G ESHOO, California THOMAS J. BARLOW, III, Kentucky BART STUPAK, Michigan BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington PETER DEUTSCH, Florida GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York JACK FIELDS, Texas DON YOUNG, Alaska HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia JIM SAXTON, New Jersey HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., South Carolina WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California JACK KINGSTON, Georgia TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware PETER T. KING, New York LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida RICHARD W. POMBO, California HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts Jeffrey R. Pike, Staff Director William W. Stelle, Jv..,Chief Counsel Mary J. Fusco Kitsos, Chief Clerk Harry F. Burroughs, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Fisheries Management THOMAS J. MANTON, New York, Chairman WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina DAN HAMBURG, California MARIA CANTWELL, Washington EARL HUTTO, Florida GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts (Ex Officio) DON YOUNG, Alaska HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., South Carolina JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JACK FIELDS, Texas (Ex Officio) Jim Mathews, Staff Director Gregory Lambert, Counsel Rod Moore, Minority Professional Staff (II) Ill Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts, Chairman GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington JACK REED, Rhode Island ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon DAN HAMBURG, California BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas ANNA G. ESHOO, California EARL HUTTO, Florida W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi Daniel Ashe, Professional Staff Karen Steuer, Professional Staff Gina DeFerrari, Professional Staff Laurel Bryant, Minority Professional Staff JIM SAXTON, New Jersey DON YOUNG, Alaska CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., South Carolina WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JACK FIELDS, Texas (Ex Officio) CONTENTS Page Hearing held July 14, 1993 1 Statement of: Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Representative from Washington 7 Dicks, Hon. Norman D. a U.S. Representative from Washington — Pre- pared statement 22 Ellison, Diane, Chairman, Chehalis River Fisheries Task Force 9 Prepared statement 187 Fields, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Representative from Texas, and Ranking Minor- ity Member, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6 Furse, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Representative from Oregon 3 Manton, Hon. Thomas J., a U. S. Representative from New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Management Moyer, Steve, Director of Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited 11 Smith, Dick, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4 Prepared statement 31 Unsoeld, Hon. Jolene, a U.S. Representative from Washington Youckton, David, Vice Chairman, Chehalis Tribe 7 Prepared statement 184 Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska 7 Additional material supplied: Smith, Dick (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service): Summary of Chehalis River Fishery Restoration Funding 36 Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources: Status, Trends, and Restora- tion Goals 42 Youckton, David (Chehalis Tribe): Answers to questions submitted by Subcommittee 186 Pavletich, Jerry (Northwest Steelhead & Salmon Council): Testimony of Trout Unlimited 191 Ellison, Diane (Chehalis River Fisheries Task Force): Testimony of Wash- ington Trollers Association, prepared by Geoff Lebon 192 Washington, State of, Testimony regarding the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Restoration Act 195 (V) CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN OVERSIGHT WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1993 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries Management, and Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, DC. The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 1:40 p.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas J. Manton [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Present, Subcommittee on Fisheries Management: Representa- tives Manton, Unsoeld, Taylor, Hamburg, Cantwell, Kingston, and Torkildsen. Present, Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources: Representatives Hochbrueckner, Pallone, Unsoeld, Furse, and Hamburg. Staff present, Subcommittee on Fisheries Management: Jim Mat- thews, Staff Director; Greg Lambert, Counsel; Lori Rosa, Legisla- tive Clerk; and Mike Stemple, Professional Staff. Staff present, Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Re- sources: Leigh Clayton, Legislative Clerk; Laurel Bryant, Minority Professional Staff; and Frank Lockhart, Sea Grant Fellow. Staff Present, Full Committee: Suzanne Waldron, Press Secre- tary; Linda Livingston, Assistant to Staff Director; Harry F. Bur- roughs, Minority Staff Director; Rodney H. Moore, Jr., Minority Professional Staff; Jill Brady, Minority Professional Staff; Julie Roberts, Minority Sea Grant Fellow; Margherita Woods, Minority Staff Assistant; and JayneAnne Rex, Minority Professional Staff. Staff present, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Gulf of Mexico, and the Outer Continental Shelf; Edward Lee, Professional Staff. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. MANTON, A U.S. REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Mr. Manton. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think it is appropriate that we get started. We are on a roll call vote but the Members should be trickling in, so in the interest of time, we will get started. Today, we examine the causes of the precipitous decline in salmon and steelhead production in the Chehalis River Basin in the State of Washington. We will also consider measures to restore these significant fish stocks. Over the last six months, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Man- agement has held three hearings on the reauthorization of the (l) Magnuson Act. I have also attended innumerable meetings in recent months relating to managing the Nation's valuable fishery resources. One message that has consistently resounded loud and clear is that we can no longer maintain the existence of our fisher- ies by simply managing harvest; we must dramatically improve our efforts to conserve and restore fish habitat. This hearing gives us an opportunity to look at a specific case where habitat loss has adversely affected important commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries. The plight of salmon stocks in the Chehalis River Basin, where logging, farming, dams, and excessive fishing pressures have de- pleted fish populations, is a textbook example of sacrificing the en- vironment for short-term profit. For at least the past 50 years, local, State, and Federal Governments have encouraged economic growth based on the consumption of the abundant natural re- sources of the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, the economic gains in the timber, agriculture, hydroelectric energy, and other sectors of the region's economy have often been at the expense of the environment. These changes have especially harmed fish habi- tat and the salmon stocks. The Department of the Interior has recently prepared its draft report to Congress on the specific causes of the decline of the Che- halis fisheries and has recommended a series of steps to reverse these declines. The challenge is to rebuild the Chehalis fish stocks in a manner that balances the need to conserve the environment and the need to maintain economic viability. A fisheries rebirth in the Chehalis River Basin would produce socioeconomic benefits throughout the region. More importantly, it would serve as a fish- eries restoration model that could be applied throughout the Pacif- ic Northwest and other areas of the Nation. I especially look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses on fishery restoration needs for the Chehalis Basin specifically, and other river basins in general. I am also interested in their views on the Federal and non-Federal roles in this restoration, and on the overall costs and benefits of salmon restoration. I want to thank Chairman Studds of our full Committee for his assistance and efforts in organizing and cochairing this hearing. I also thank my distinguished colleagues from the State of Washing- ton, Congresswoman Unsoeld and Congressman Dicks, for their continued leadership in restoring West Coast salmon stocks, par- ticularly those of the Chehalis River Basin. Without their diligent efforts leading to passage and implementation of the Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and Restoration Act of 1990, we could not be here today considering specific measures to restore Chehalis salmon stocks. I don't note the presence of our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, so I will turn the floor over to Mrs. Unsoeld for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. JOLENE UNSOELD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON Mrs. Unsoeld. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman, and my additional thanks to you for picking up on this issue, which, as you indicated, we began in 1990 with the cooperation of this Subcom- mittee and full Committee. I want to welcome our witnesses today and particularly my Washington State colleague, who will be over [from the Floor], Rep- resentative Norm Dicks, because he has been a strong supporter of the Chehalis River Fishery Restoration Act and, as a senior member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, he has taken an active interest in its implementation. The Act exists and is important to us for two reasons: First, whether through the pursuit of salmon, trout, halibut, crab or shellfish by recreational, commercial or tribal fishermen, fish and fishing help define the way we live in the Pacific Northwest. Second, these fisheries are essential to our economic way of life and have been mainstays of our coastal and harbor communities. The cultural and economic importance of our fisheries make it im- perative that we not only maintain but enhance these resources. Instead, we have seen our fish runs strained to the point of be- coming threatened and endangered. Trying to reverse this dismal trend is what prompts a number of my initiatives in this Commit- tee, including the Chehalis River Fishery Restoration Act. The act's stated goal is simple and straightforward: Restore the once abundant salmon runs of the Chehalis River. This is an ambitious goal and one that is no doubt shared with other Federal fisheries restoration programs. The important differ- ence, however, and the reason I believe the Chehalis River Fishery Restoration Act can succeed when others have failed, is that we in- volve the people and the communities within the Chehalis Basin in the management decisions affecting their environment and their communities. Mr. Chairman, a number of witnesses here today have traveled clear across the country at their own expense to talk about the Chehalis River Fishery Restoration Act. This personal commitment is a testament to the local support for this program and to the dedication these people have to restoring the Chehalis River fisher- ies. These are true champions of the act and I again want to wel- come them here this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manton. The Chair would recognize Ms. Furse for an open- ing statement. STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH FURSE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON Ms. Furse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to congratulate you and Mrs. Unsoeld for this won- derful piece of legislation. It looks to me as though it is one of the proper ways to restore fisheries, particularly that community in- volvement. I certainly see it as a way we in Oregon can work to restore our very depleted runs and hope that this can be used as a guidance. I want to congratulate the tribes of Washington State for the great work that they have done in trying to restore fisheries. Cer- tainly the Oregon tribes work together to try and make sure that the beloved salmon do return and, once again, feed us and give us that great resource in the Northwest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. Mr. Manton. Mr. Hamburg. Mr. Hamburg. No opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manton. There seem to be no other members here willing to make an opening statement, so we will start with panel two. Con- gressman Dicks who was to be our first witness, has not yet ar- rived. So if I could call up Dick Smith, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accompanied by Bill Shake, Assistant Regional Di- rector of Fisheries; David Youckton, Vice Chairman of the Chehalis Tribe, Diane Ellison, Chairman, Chehalis River Fisheries Tasks Force; and Steve Moyer, Director of Government Affairs, Trout Un- limited. Perhaps Mr. Smith can lead off. STATEMENTS OF DICK SMITH, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY BILL SHAKE, ASSIST- ANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES; DAVID YOUCKTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, CHEHALIS TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY C.S. SODHI, PH.D., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE- SOURCES, OAKVILLE, WASHINGTON, AND CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION; DIANE ELLISON, CHAIRMAN, CHEHALIS RIVER FISHERIES TASK FORCE; STEVE MOYER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, TROUT UNLIM- ITED STATEMENT OF DICK SMITH, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Richard Smith, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, and I appreciate this op- portunity to present our views on restoring the once abundant salmon and steelhead trout runs of the Chehalis River and other streams that enter into Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. The Fish and Wildlife Service is directly involved in this restora- tion effort. We believe that the approach used for the Chehalis Basin can be used successfully to restore river basins where other West Coast anadromous fish populations have been depleted. The Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and Restora- tion Act of 1990 encompasses the entire Grays Harbor Washington drainage. The Act requires that the Director of the Fish and Wild- life Service prepare a comprehensive study of the fishery resources of the basin, and a report will soon be submitted to the Congress identifying goals and recommending actions for restoring these fish stocks. I think you may have a copy of the draft before you right now. A steering committee was organized in 1991 to plan and coordi- nate activities of the Service with the other cooperators in the area. Initially, the steering committee consisted of two members of the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Task Force representing the public, and one representative each from the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, Quinault Indian Nation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, and Wildlife. Earlier this year, the steering committee membership was ex- panded by five to include representatives of Grays Harbor, Lewis and Thurston Counties, agricultural interests and local timber in- dustries. It is truly a cooperative effort. With guidance from the steering committee, a review of existing information was completed which determined the status and trends of the Chehalis Basin fishery resources and the activities necessary to develop the restoration. The review involved compiling informa- tion related to the history of the fisheries, status of existing runs, and habitat problems within the basin. The review revealed that poor water quality in upper Grays Harbor likely contributed to poor coho smolt survival, at least until 1989; two, that wild coho and chum salmon populations have fallen well below levels that once supported large harvests; three, chinook salmon and steelhead trout do not consistently use all the available habitat in the basin; and, lastly, dams and other actions such as logging, road building, agriculture and urbanization have degraded water quality and de- graded salmon and steelhead trout habitat. The Service has surveyed approximately 1,800 miles of streams in the basin and found over 40,000 habitat conditions that are harmful to salmon and steelhead trout. Based on these efforts, the goal for the restoration of the salmon and the steelhead in the area is to optimize natural production while maintaining the existing genetic adaptation of wild fish and allowing a compatible level of stocking of hatchery fish. To meet this goal and objectives, many associated tasks have been identified in the report. The report recommends that the goal and objectives be accomplished through a cooperative 20-year resto- ration program that would cost about $1 million per year. The tasks identified span a wide range of restoration approaches, which include opening inaccessible habitat, creating new spawning and rearing habitats, improving water quality, using small-scale hatch- ery programs to enhance depleted wild runs, improve fishery re- source population and habitat management techniques, and I think, above all, public education. Last year, a cooperative fishery resource restoration program was established that could, if implemented, rebuild the basin's en- vironmental infrastructure by restoring fisheries habitat and revi- talizing fish runs, and while doing that, provide meaningful short- and long-term employment opportunities. Public and interagency involvement and cooperation have been vital to the success of the program and, consequently, the public has been invited to participate in many basin activities. We have begun the implementation of the program, and consistent with the Act, 20 percent of the funding appropriated under the authority of the Act has been transferred to the Confederated Tribes of the Che- halis and the Quinault Indian Nations to support their participa- tion. Other cooper ators have contributed funds or in-kind assistance. For instance, the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Task Force is heavily involved in the restoration program thereby helping to stretch Federal dollars with volunteers and other in-kind contribu- 6 tions. Any land owner, private citizen, or interested group may submit proposals for restoration. In fiscal year 1993, 18 habitat res- toration projects are being conducted. Every effort is being made to implement the restoration program in a manner that creates new jobs in the region. I think short-term employment uses the skills of displaced timber workers to rehabili- tate degraded fisheries habitat, and long-term employment can occur if the runs are restored. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Service and its cooperators have de- veloped a careful, scientifically-based and biologically-sound Fish- ery Resource Restoration Program for the basin. We are ready to begin work on the recovery of fishery resources of the basin. Our rate of progress will depend to a great extent on the cooperation of all the people involved. Following recent visits to the Pacific Northwest by Secretary Babbitt, and in light of the announcement of the President's forest plan, there is renewed interest in restoring Northwest watersheds. This program is an example of a cooperative approach to fishery resources restoration that can address these problems. I believe an initiative to apply this approach throughout the West Coast could help to provide meaningful long-term recovery for the Pacific sal- monids of the Northwest. I thank you for the opportunity to present the Service's views, and Mr. Shake and I can answer any questions you may have later. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Smith. [The statement of Mr. Smith can be found at the end of the hear- ing-] , . . Mr. Manton. Before going to the next witness, without objection, the Chair will submit for the record opening statements of Mr. Fields, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Young and recognize the presence of our newest member, Mr. Torkildsen, of Massachusetts. [The statement of Mr. Fields follows:] Statement of Hon. Jack Fields, a U.S. Representative from Texas, and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Mr. Chairman, in 1990, this Committee was instrumental in developing the Che- halis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and Restoration Act, which required the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to examine the fishery resources and habi- tats of the Chehalis River Basin in Washington State. The legislation also required the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish goals for the conservation and restoration of the Basin's resources and habitats and report back to Congress. This legislation was necessary because of the importance of the Chehalis River Basin, which consists of nearly 1,400 separate rivers and streams. Historically, the River Basin has produced large runs of anadromous fish, particularly salmon and steelhead trout, which support commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries within the Basin and off the coasts of Washington, Alaska, and Canada. Tragically, salmon and steelhead harvest have declined recently. The foresters attribute fish declines to the power authorities and to fishermen. The fishermen blame the declines on the dams and the degradation of habitat from forestry and farming practices. However, scientists concur that there is no single cause of the decline in fishery resources, but generally acknowledge that habitat degradation and overharvesting contribute to the problem. This oversight hearing today will allow us to determine the current condition of the Chehalis River Basin fisheries and perhaps understand a little better what has contributed to the decline in fisheries production and harvesting. I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Ms. Cantwell follows:] Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, a U.S. Representative from Washington Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today to follow up on the recently completed comprehensive study of the Chehalis River Basin. My Washing- ton State colleague, Jolene Unsoeld, whose 1990 legislation is responsible for this effort, has once again demonstrated her outstanding dedication and commitment to some of the most critical resource issues facing the Northwest. The Chehalis River Basin is the second largest basin in Washington State. Its im- portance as a contributor to the health of Northwest fish stocks— and its corollary relationship to the economic health of the region— is great. The fact that salmon and steelhead production and harvest has significantly declined in recent years has sent up flare signals that action must be taken to restore critical habitat areas and improve their productivity. There are many factors at play on this area: water pollution; land-use practices, including agriculture and timber harvest; urban development; and dams. The Che- halis in many ways exemplifies the challenges we will continue to face as we look at ways to balance competing uses of our resources. Mr. Chairman, the testimony we will hear today will give us additional informa- tion on the steps that must be undertaken in our efforts to improve the health of our valuable resources in the Northwest. Congressman Norm Dicks, another one of my outstanding colleagues from Washington State, who, with 14 years of experience with these challenging resource issues, is here to offer his insight and expertise. I greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's and Committee's willingness to step up to these challenges. I am committed to working with my colleagues towards responsi- ble solutions. [The statement of Mr. Young follows:] Statement of Hon. Don Young, a U.S. Representative from Alaska Mr. Chairman, we are here today to listen to the findings from the research and report required under Public Law 101-452 concerning the restoration of the Cheha- lis River Basin and its fisheries. I will be interested to hear the results of the scien- tific surveys to determine how best to resolve the problems faced by the Pacific Northwest in the management of its salmon and steelhead stocks. As we all know, fish resources are an extremely important asset responsible for employment, income, tourism, and industry. The success of the stocks often reflects on the well-being of the community. Yet, as we see with the current problems in the Chehalis River Basin, Washington must reconsider its priorities and determine the fate of its fisheries. The State faces difficult choices. Development such as agricul- ture, water management, and industry in areas where the fish once freely roamed, is thought to be largely responsible for the declines. The failure to learn from the past and to take remedial action may ultimately mean the demise of the salmon and steelhead. Proper management of resources and industry may allow the restoration of habi- tat and fisheries. However, I believe that these decisions must be made by the State officials rather than forced by Federal involvement. Localized control of the State resources typically leads to better solutions. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and hope that they will have the answers to restore these fish stocks to the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Torkildsen, would you care to be recognized for an opening statement? Mr. Torkildsen. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manton. In that event, we will move ahead to Mr. Youck- ton, Vice Chairman of the Chehalis Tribe. STATEMENT OF DAVID YOUCKTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, CHEHALIS TRIBE Mr. Youckton. Thank you Honorable Mr. Chairman and mem- bers of the Committee. My name is David Youckton and I am a member of the Chehalis Indian Tribe. I am also a tribal fisherman. I am pleased to be here with Dr. C.S. Sodhi, Tribal Director of Natural Resources, to present views on restoring salmon and steelhead runs to the Che- halis River Basin. I have been fishing for salmon in the Chehalis River for almost 30 years, the river where my ancestors have fished in the past. I started fishing with my grandfather in 1964. At that time, we could fish 365 days a year and there were plenty of fish for everyone. Now we are permitted to fish an average of 40 days a year and we are lucky if there are few fish. The Chehalis Tribe has been building partnerships among local, State, Federal, industry, community groups, and other stakeholders to develop and manage the Chehalis River Basin. Under the Cheha- lis River Basin Fishery Resource Study and Restoration Act of 1990, the Chehalis Tribe got involved in a joint project with U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service and the Quinault Indian Nation. The Chehalis Tribe has been on the steering committee for the project and has participated in two studies entitled the "Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resources: Status, Trends and Restoration Goals" and the "Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resources: Salmon, Steel- head and Habitat Degradation." Mr. Chairman, these studies have revealed there are many fac- tors involved in the decline of salmon runs over the years. Let's be assured there are no quick methods to restoration, but we simply cannot afford to let the Chehalis River Basin deteriorate further. Now is the time we should get on with the monumental task of res- toration of the Chehalis River Basin to support healthy salmon runs. Presently, on my reservation there is approximately 65 percent unemployment, whereas the neighboring non-Indian logging com- munity there is a 25 percent unemployment rate. The restoration project will provide short- as well as long-term employment to both tribal and non-Indian communities. Mr. Chairman, the Chehalis Tribe believes the Chehalis River Restoration Project is a well thought out and comprehensive pro- gram. We have come here to ask that the Federal Government commit to the continued adequate funding of the project so the Chehalis River Basin can be restored. The Chehalis River Restora- tion Project is a win-win outcome for Federal, State, tribal and pri- vate entities. Mr. Chairman, the Chehalis River Basin has our tribal name and we have lived there for thousands of years. We are committed to restore and manage the resources of the Chehalis River Basin and will take responsibility for our fair share of the work. Salmon fish- ing is a way of life for our people. I do not think that I have put in my years yet and I want to continue to fish for at least 30 more years. I want future generations to enjoy the river and the salmon. If tomorrow I am told there are no salmon in the river, I will still be out there in the cold winter nights with my nets in the water because that is where I want to be and that is what it means to me to be a tribal fisherman. I want to thank you for allowing me to present the views of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis reservation. Thank you. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Youckton. 9 [The statement of Mr. Youckton can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Manton. The next witness will be Diane Ellison, Chairper- son of the Chehalis River Fisheries Task Force. STATEMENT OF DIANE ELLISON, CHAIRMAN, CHEHALIS RIVER FISHERIES TASK FORCE Ms. Ellison. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Diane Ellison, President of the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force and also owner of Ellison Timber and Properties. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the implementation of the Chehalis Fisheries Resource Restoration Program. I especially want to thank Congresswoman Jolene Un- soeld and Congressman Norm Dicks and their staff for their sensi- tivity to the needs of our fisheries resources, their thoughtful over- sight as this program has developed, and their constant support. I am the fifth generation of a timber family. Since 1884, my family members have been employed in the timber industry. For the past 110 years, we have been tree farmers in the Kamilchee, Wynoochee and Wishkah Valley's in Grays Harbor and Mason Counties of Washington State. In the 10 years that I have managed my family's tree farm, I have managed five separate harvests and replanted over 130,000 trees. During this time of logging, replanting and managing my forest lands, I have experienced intense change, and sometimes very painful, change. Change so dramatic that I look at the entire forest in a different manner now. A few years ago, I got involved with an organization saving wild salmon called "Long Live the Kings." As I sat on the river bank at night with my childhood fishing buddies — broodstocking— I became enmeshed in an effort to save our wild salmon from extinction. I started a small fisheries project on my family farm and in that process, my focus shifted from trees as timber to the larger more inclusive perspective of total basin management, involving the interrelationships of salmon habitat, water quality, viability of for- ests, sustainability of fisheries and my deep commitment to the human drama of the folks living in the Wishkah Valley. When a private landowner begins to manage both for fisheries and timber objectives, change does occur. Their visionary manage- ment goals expand and become more inclusive as they begin to rec- ognize the interdependencies of the total ecosystem approach. The organization that I chair, the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, brings all the user groups to the table in a cooperative effort for the benefit of the resource, and has been doing so for the past 13 years. In October of 1992 the Fish and Wildlife Service put on a two-day conference, at which both Norm Dicks and Jolene Unsoeld came to speak. I would like to read the cosponsors of that conference to give you an idea of the number of people that were involved: Columbia Pacific Resource Conservation and Development organization, the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Grays Harbor College, Grays Harbor Conservation District, Grays Harbor Trout 10 Unlimited, Long Live the Kings, The Quinault Indian Nation, Washington Sea Grant and Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Our membership includes all of these folks mentioned plus envi- ronmental organizations, economic development interests and orga- nized labor, and we have had a great deal of help this year from the IWA folks. This coalition has met the challenge of the consensual decision- making and interdisciplinary team building and we have been lead- ing the way in developing new methods of managing our natural resources to meet the changing values of the public. Our need to address fisheries is urgent. I do not need to belabor this. I am speaking to people who are well aware of that. In compli- ance with this act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has conducted a com- prehensive habitat survey documenting all existing and correctable degradations. The data is collected, the survey has been assimilated and available to those planning restoration efforts and we are ready to go to work. Initial implementation funding provided for the 1993 fiscal year has been allocated to 14 restoration efforts throughout the water- shed. These range from artificial spawning channels for coho and chum salmon to be built by a local sportsmen's club to a major stream blockage removal effort conducted by the Washington De- partment of Fisheries; to the creation of overwintering ponds on private properties that will provide warmer water, better feed and cover, while protecting young salmon from rapid mainstream flows. The majority of these projects will be conducted by private citi- zens, grass roots citizens, who have committed their land and their time to benefit the resource. Over half of Washington's land, in- cluding much of the most valuable fish and wildlife habitat, is pri- vately owned land. How these lands are managed has profound ef- fects on the species that live there, making landowner support and cooperation critical to fish and wildlife management enhancement efforts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done a tremendous job during the study portion of the restoration act and now it is time to begin these efforts, but we must develop partnerships between all the stakeholders in the river basin. Through mutual trust, these local landowners, grass root citizens can team together to share funding, knowledge and expertise for common goals. The value of these restoration efforts can be measured by the number of salmon that will be protected and produced, by the nu- merous jobs that will be provided for displaced timber workers and others who are severely impacted in timber communities, by the quality of our environment they will perpetuate, and by many other tangible and significant factors; but I ask you to consider the greatest factor — the sense of stewardship that is born in the citi- zens in the communities who will undertake this priceless work through their own initiative, sweat and reshaping of their reality and their priorities as they plot their own destinies. I would also like to comment the Washington Trollers Associa- tion, in the statement prepared by Geoff Lebon of the Washington Trollers Association, brings up many of the projects that I have mentioned and the extensive work of the Washington Trollers As- sociation and their concentrated efforts for native coho in the wa- 11 tershed of the Wishkah Valley and also the point they make about poaching. As it seems to be at this point now, the Department of Fisheries cannot keep up with the poachers and the Washington Trollers As- sociation wants to remind you that this is one of the most critical times in the life cycle of the salmon, when they are trying to spawn, and they are most vulnerable. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Ms. Ellison. [The statement of Ms. Ellison can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Manton. Our last panelist, Steve Moyer, Director of Govern- ment Affairs, Trout Unlimited. STATEMENT OF STEVE MOYER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, TROUT UNLIMITED Mr. Moyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having us here today to testify on this very important issue. I am here representing our 70,000 members nationwide as well as our State council in Wash- ington and the three chapters of Trout Unlimited that are active in the Chehalis River Basin. Trout Unlimited is supportive of this legislation and is very happy to see the outcome that we have before us. We commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, the Committee for support- ing the bill, Representative Unsoeld for being deeply involved and concerned about this issue, and certainly the work that Represent- ative Dicks has done in helping to get funding to make it a reality. We have reviewed the draft study and we support the study and its conclusions and, importantly, I think we stand ready to imple- ment the study and make sure these restoration efforts get under way in a more vigorous fashion. Why do we support what has been done so far? I will go through a couple of things we find to be very good about what has hap- pened to date. As the other witnesses have mentioned, this process that has been set up to involve many different parties, many differ- ent interests in the region, and that is a critical part of any resto- ration plan's success, I think. It is a good model watershed restoration plan. I can't testify, as the other two witnesses have done, to a deep personal involvement with the Chehalis River Basin. I can testify as a person who is a resource advocate that struggles daily with what a watershed resto- ration plan is and what ecosystem management is — I am sure the Subcommittee members do as well — that I think this is a good ex- ample of that. If you want to look around for an example of a watershed resto- ration plan and what it really means, I would say take a look at this study and its conclusions because it is an excellent example. It gives strong emphasis to wild fish, it is appropriately cautious about the role of hatcheries, it is scientifically based, and it places a strong emphasis on habitat protection and restoration and on water quality. The bottom line is that the plan is a good restora- tion plan for Chehalis salmonids. 12 But it is only a study and the beginning of a restoration effort. The true test of this plan and its effectiveness will be in actually restoring salmonid populations. That is the next step. Therefore, the first thing that I would urge this Subcommittee to consider is a way to make sure that the restoration conclusions in the study get implemented. As the Fish and Wildlife Service has said, this will require considerable money, but I don't think it is big money in comparison to some of the other restoration projects that this Subcommittee will look at. Either through authorizing legislation or through getting a commitment from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the other parties involved, the restoration plan should go forward as soon as possible and with the funding that the Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that it gets. Some other points from a Trout Unlimited "macro" perspective: One is that we believe the Fish and Wildlife Service has the ability to, and should do more of, these restoration projects and plans throughout the West Coast. There are many other river basins on the West Coast that need this kind of attention and study, and we urge the Subcommittee and this Committee to look at this example as a model that could be used elsewhere. We have similar examples in California with the Klamath River and Trinity Rivers. So we have a handful of these projects under way but we need more and we need them soon. Further, we would like to see the Fish and Wildlife Service be in charge of coordinating Federal salmon recovery efforts throughout the West Coast. We think it is important that the efforts of all the Federal agencies involved, and as you know, there are many in- volved on the West Coast with salmonid recovery, would be better coordinated through the Fish and Wildlife Service and through the Department of the Interior: Somebody who can keep track of all the funding needed to do restoration efforts, somebody who can keep track and provide quality control of all the hatcheries that are putting fish into the system, somebody who can keep count of the wild fish and fish populations in each basin. These are coordinating steps which I think would be well carried out by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Interi- or. One criticism that we would have of the Chehalis plan and the study, as I have read it, is that it does not call attention enough to the problems with the U.S.-Canada salmon treaty. We were very disappointed at the recent agreement that was signed by the United States and Canada. This agreement is very critical to making sure that fish actually get back to the Chehalis River Basin. Watershed restoration is essential and is critical but if there are not adequate fish returning to the basin, the plan won't work. And this U.S.-Canada treaty is a problem because it does not do a good enough job of conserving fish and making sure fish get back to the Chehalis Basin. Finally, I would mention the role of the Clean Water Act. This Committee will look at the Clean Water Act reauthorization. As you read through this study, you will see water quality references throughout, and it is very clear to me that a strengthened Clean 13 Water Act will also have a very critical role in making sure that this plan and the study gets carried out to its successful conclusion. I will conclude there and, again, thanks for the opportunity to speak today. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. [The statement of the Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. Manton. That concludes the testimony of our panelists. I would just like to note for the record that we will insert the state- ment of Representative Dicks, who unavoidably cannot be with us today to testify. [The statement of Mr. Dicks can be found at the end of the hear- ing.] Mr. Manton. I note the presence of Mr. Taylor from Mississippi and ask if he has any opening statement, and if not, perhaps we will start with some questions. Mr. Smith, Mr. Moyer made reference to the Klamath and Trini- ty River restoration programs. Have we learned a lot from those programs and, if so, what have we learned? Mr. Smith. I would say we have learned from all three of these activities, and I would characterize what we have learned in this way: That to be successful we need the cooperation of all the par- ties that are involved with, or interested in the river basins or the watersheds, meaning the users as well as the protection groups; we need someone to take the leadership role in getting the groups to- gether; we need to have the technology to do the restoration, and I think we have the technology to do most of the kinds of things we are talking about. We need to evaluate our efforts and we need the resources and the will to take action to carry out what we think needs to be done. Mr. Manton. You mentioned someone taking the lead role. What is the appropriate Federal role in these matters? Mr. Smith. In my opinion it is a coordination role. We, being the Federal Government, probably are in a position to see the input from all sides and can coordinate the groups so that they get to a common ground. I think the Federal role, in this case the Fish and Wildlife Service, in a technical assistance role, giving advice on how to and what kind of technology do you use, along with the States. I don't think it is the Federal role to go out and do the actual work to essentially change the environment or correct the errors that have been made. I think the Federal Government has a regu- latory role in terms of water quality and probably some role in fish harvest. The Federal Government probably has a role in the hatch- ery program, along with the States, and lastly, I would say provide some of the resources to get the job done. Mr. Manton. Now, have you estimated what it would cost to re- store the Chehalis Basin, and, the second part of this, who should fund it? Mr. Smith. Well the report says $1 million per year for 20 years. I have been in this business long enough to know that probably un- derestimates the cost, but that is a good start. I think it is the responsibility of all the parties. Some of the par- ties can contribute like services, while the Federal Government 14 and probably the State governments are the ones that should con- tribute the dollar resources. So my best estimate right now is in the neighborhood of a million dollars per year. Mr. Manton. Mr. Youckton, what do you see as the tribal role in the restoration? Mr. Youckton. If I may allow Dr. Sodhi to sit with me and help answer some of these questions, if that is all right with the panel? Mr. Manton. Do you want to come forward, Doctor? Mr. Sodhi. Mr. Chairman, I am the Director for the Department of Natural Resources. The tribe already has a program with the State on which we work on the escapement and allocation of the fish we catch on the Chehalis River. So we are taking care of that part. It is twofold. We are looking at two ways. We are looking at res- toration on the basis of habitat restoration and also the fish resto- ration on the basis of hatchery, on the basis of having more escape- ment, having more fish to go so that it can spawn. The tribe presently has no hatchery. The tribe, Chehalis Tribe, is at the end of the line so we are left with the responsibility of esca- pement. And this year, in 1993, we just got an allocation of only 150 spring chinook. We have 50 fishermen on the reservation. We caught only 127 fish because we started seeing depletion in the runs and, therefore, let the other fish escape. The tribe can work and is working with the State and would like to work also with the U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife on this project. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Dr. Sodhi. Well, I think we have a few more minutes before we have to go to the Floor to vote. Mrs. Unsoeld, do you have any questions you would like to ask at this time? Mrs. Unsoeld. Appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Smith — but I do want to thank the folks that have come out from the West Coast and for the kind of coop- eration and community support that you have been able to demon- strate, the working together has really been rewarding for me to observe. But, Mr. Smith, the act seeks a basin or ecosystem-wide approach to addressing the causes of the fisheries' decline in the Chehalis River Basin. It attempts to bring everybody to the same table, three State agencies, two tribal governments, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as local community representatives. Now, given the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service under the ESA for salmon, shouldn't they be included in the task force? Mr. Smith. I didn't arrange the task force. My initial reaction would be yes. Mrs. Unsoeld. And the report identifies and, Mr. Moyer has pointed to the problem, but the report identifies the Canadian Coastal Salmon Sport and Patrol Fisheries as intercepting, "large numbers of chinook and coho bound for the Chehalis Basin," and that this remains a major influence on terminal run size. And citing from pages 26 and 30 of the report, "British Columbia fisher- ies caught 68.9 percent of the Chehalis Fall chinook and 82.7 per- cent of the Chehalis coho." 15 How can Fish and Wildlife Service fulfill its obligation under the act to restore Chehalis River fisheries given this level of intercep- tion; and is this why you have concluded it is going to take 20 years to restore the fisheries? Mr. Smith. The answer to your last question first, no. That is an estimate on what it would take to improve the habitat, and do the stocking program and evaluation. I don't question the figures you gave me. I think this is one river system, one of many, that deals with the Canadian and the U.S. treaty issue. The Fish and Wildlife Service had input into that de- cision. We have debated the issue with the Canadians. We support the State Department. That is about all I can say about that. I think we still need to negotiate with the Canadians. I don't think we are at the point where we have resolved those issues and I think this kind of thing, along with other kinds of restoration, puts us in a better position to negotiate. Mrs. Unsoeld. Has the Service taken a position with respect to the ongoing U.S.-Canada treaty negotiations? Mr. Smith. Our position is the same as the State Department. Mrs. Unsoeld. All right. You are probably aware that the agree- ment for the 1993 fishing season provided only minimum reduc- tions of coho interceptions and did not even address chinook inter- ceptions. Did the Service have any say in the outcome of these ne- gotiations? Mr. Smith. We were involved in the negotiations. Mrs. Unsoeld. What was your recommendation internally? Mr. Smith. Having pinned me down now I will turn to Mr. Shake. Mrs. Unsoeld. I found the key? Mr. Smith. Not really. I was not involved in the negotiations. He was. Mr. Shake. Well, one of my colleagues back in Portland was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Unsoeld. I can't give you a spe- cific answer in terms of what our position was. From the beginning of the U.S.-Canada negotiations, our position has been let's try to get a solid United States position, including the lower 48 and Canada, and Alaska to negotiate from a very strong point with the Canadians. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Following the breakdown of negotiations internally, we partici- pated, as Mr. Smith said. Our position has been to, and recommen- dation to the State Department, has been to try to minimize im- pacts on lower 48 stocks, particularly those of concern that have already been listed under the Endangered Species Act and those which may be petitioned in the near future. So certainly our input went into that process. Mrs. Unsoeld. One of my concerns is that money appropriated for the act gets to the region for on-the-ground restoration work. And, for the record, would you please provide a detailed accounting on a year-to-year basis of the money appropriated to date? I am specifically interested in where the money has been spent, what percentage has gone into preparing the study on the restoration ef- forts, and what percentage is being used for overhead and expenses such as staff salaries or new staff hirings. 16 Mr. Smith. We will provide that. I can tell you about 8 percent is used for overhead. Mrs. Unsoeld. About what? Mr. Smith. 8 percent. It is between 6 and 8 percent. [The summary of Chehalis River fishery restoration funding can be found at the end of the hearing.] Mr. M anton. May I break in for a moment. I think we have probably about seven minutes left on the vote. Mrs. Unsoeld. That is the last of my questions. Mr. Manton. Oh. Well, why don't we adjourn for about 10 min- utes to go and vote and we will come back and some other mem- bers may join us. I have a couple more questions, so don't go away. We will be right back. Mrs. Unsoeld. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [Brief Recess.] Mr. Manton. Well, I guess we can start again. I have a few addi- tional questions which shouldn't take too long. Ms. Ellison, are you aware of any opposition to the restoration of the Chehalis River Basin? Are there any opponents out there? Ms. Ellison. Not that I know of. What we were discussing while you were out is an issue I would like to discuss for a few minutes, though, is you have a lot of people that don't understand the necessity for restoration. I go into meetings and people say I just want to put fish in the river; I want to enhance the fish. They don't understand the need for habitat restoration. They don't understand what is involved. There is a tremendous educational opportunity and challenge out there over the next 20 years, and in the process of that, and in the process of building new coalitions and different coalitions of folks who have always looked at each other as traditional adversaries, within that human resource management part of it is another whole component that has a great benefit for the people as well as restoring the resource of the fisheries itself. And in terms of the educational part, we envision that, of course, with teacher education and more conferences like we put on last year with U.S. Fish and Wildlife so that the young people can become aware of the interrelationships of managing well. Also, I see changing perceptions through two other directions. One on employment. The ability to put loggers back to work, dis- placed loggers who now do not have hope, do not see a future for themselves and in many ways have some of the same feelings that our Native American folks have in terms of this is generations as far back as they can remember; that they have been three, four, five generations, like mine, this has been a way of life which they see is being superimposed as an end to them, and there is great pain out there. I think at the point where people go back to work doing habitat restoration, loggers who like to work in the woods, loggers who have great skills on some of the big equipment and some of the other skills that are necessary for habitat restoration, doing the work that they like at full-family wages and benefits, then you begin to see this is a time of transition rather than as the end for the logging communities. And I think that the first time there is a 17 headline in the paper that says, loggers going back to work doing habitat restoration, it is going to be a beginning of restored hope. Plus the fact that for many years it has been looked upon as tra- ditional adversaries, the fish folks and the timber folks. And to manage for total ecosystem management, it will break down some of those stereotypes, too. One other part of this jobs bill that was proposed in our State through the legislature this year, the people from Puget Sound came with a jobs bill and we, at the last minute, putting together our Pacific Coastal Economic Recovery Plan came with a proposed jobs bill for habitat restoration. The two bills were looked at as ad- versarial bills that would self-cancel each other in a year when there was very little money to fund anything. We put together a coalition that has never been put together and we have some fund- ing and habitat restoration that is going to be done as a result of it. And if I may take a minute to read that coalition, I just want to show how unusual people can come together if they are willing to negotiate their realities and if they are willing to put the resource number one. Of this coalition we are looking at the Washington Association of Churches, looking at Central Labor Council for Grays Harbor, Washington Audubon Society, People for Puget Sound, Washington State Labor Council, Catholic Archdiocese, Archbishop Murphy, Washington Environmental Council, Catholic Archdiocese, Don Hopps, and the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, and all the folks that are user groups and the tribes that are under that um- brella. This is the way of the future for fisheries, for the future of our natural resources, and this is part of this whole package that I find so very exciting at this time and also so very challenging. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Ms. Ellison. Mr. Moyer, according to the American Fisheries Society, 214 stocks of Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead are at risk of ex- tinction. Are there any of these at risk stocks in the Chehalis River Basin? This may not be the right question to address to you. Any- body who wants to tackle it. Mr. Moyer. I may defer to the Fish and Wildlife Service. I was trying to think back through the report to recall. I suppose there is at least one stock of chinook, the Wynoochee chinook, that is nearly extinct. So at least one stock on that list is found, or used to be found, in the basin. Just to add on to that, I think that one of the positive parts about this restoration plan is that this basin, although it has suf- fered some damage, is not as bad off as other basins and water- sheds in the region. So it is more restorable, I think, than other watersheds, and that is a positive distinction. Mr. Manton. What are the key factors that must be initially ad- dressed in the Chehalis Basin? Mr. Moyer. I think I can just about read to you the recommenda- tions of the report to give you that answer. Restoring and improv- ing natural spawning and rearing habitat, especially the spawning areas in the upper reaches of the basin need to be dramatically im- proved in many cases. 18 Problems with water quality standards. There are several places throughout the basin where temperature is a major problem, for example. Salmon and trout have very specific temperature require- ments. In some parts of the basin, water temperatures are far too high for Mr. Manton. Why is that? Mr. Moyer. One reason certainly is that the riparian areas, the streamside areas of the streams, have been damaged in the basin where timber harvest has occurred and taken away the shade. These are trees that provide the shade to keep temperatures down in the region. That is a big problem that needs to be fixed. So that is one example of a water quality problem that needs to be fixed. Again, I would say these problems are fixable and we are not too far along in terms of degradation in the basin, that I know of, to be able to restore the systems. Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. I'll turn the remainder of the time over to Mr. Hamburg. Mr. Hamburg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to repeat, as several of my colleagues have, how much I appreciate people coming from afar to speak with us, and as a Rep- resentative from northern California, north coastal California, a lot of the concerns that have been brought forth today are certainly shared in my district. What I would like to spend my few minutes getting some under- standing of is hatcheries and the situation where we try to restore salmon runs, using hatcheries, problems that occur or do not occur, according to your opinion, with respect to the proportion of hatch- ery fish to native fish in a situation where you are trying to restore runs of salmon. Mr. Smith, maybe we could start with you, and I will ask other panelists to jump in. If you could just talk about what — maybe as a way to jump into it — what risks hatcheries present to wild salmon stocks, as you see that. Mr. Smith. Well, I know there is a debate on the genetic varia- tion of fish that are stocked from hatcheries versus wild stock and what that means to the wild populations. The debate has not been resolved. I believe that since we have been stocking fish in those streams for 50 to 70 years that every stream has been stocked one way or another with a variety of fish that may not have been native to the area. That is one concern. The second concern is I don't think you can get the levels or meet the expectations of everybody without some kind of artificial stocking program. I do think we should be cautious in carrying out such a program. And as we go along, I think we will learn more about the effects of stocking programs, but I would not dismiss stocking as a way to restore these runs. On the other hand, I don't think you can solely depend upon stocking. You must deal with the harvest as well as the habitat part of the equation. Right now, I think we are getting a fairly good handle on the harvest, although I know when you go to the ocean, the ocean is large and you have difficulty doing so. We do know how to restore, and given the resources, I think we could move into that and still deal with our hatchery program and use hatchery as a supplement to wild stocks. 19 The Fish and Wildlife Service is going to review its hatchery pro- gram over the next few years. I am not going to sit here and say we are going to dismiss that at all. A roundabout way to getting to your question is we need the hatchery program. I am not in a posi- tion to say it is good, bad or indifferent at the moment. Until I know, I think we should continue the way we are. Mr. Hamburg. Other panelists like to comment? Mr. Moyer. I would like to address that. I think there is general- ly ample scientific evidence that says that wild fish are more com- petitive, that they are better able to survive environmental condi- tions and return and spawn than are hatchery fish. So the funda- mental problem is that, when hatchery fish are mixed with wild fish, that they interbreed and the whole genetic integrity of the species or the stock is lowered or made less survivable because of that interbreeding. That is the fundamental issue, I think. I would agree there is a good deal more research that needs to be done to find out how big that risk really is, but I think from our organization's point of view, we would rather see those studies done and that risk determined before we enter into broader-scale hatchery programs and be much more cautious about how we use hatchery programs. One of the strong points of the study that I mentioned earlier, I think before you came, was that there are several points through- out the study where it emphasizes caution on using hatchery fish and we would support that. Mr. Hamburg. Anyone else? Yes? Ms. Ellison. I would like to mention one thing. John Sayer, who is the Executive Director of Long Live the Kings, was to come today and it wasn't possible. He has been here before and testified. His statements about wild salmon would have been very, very ben- eficial at this point with the boot stocking and the plans of wild salmon. Mr. Hamburg. Thanks. Mr. Hamburg. Anybody else? Mr. Sodhi. As I mentioned earlier on, the Chehalis Indian Tribe, we don't have a hatchery. We are very much keeping the wild fish runs going, and as the gentlemen mentioned, it is a very good thing what we talk about in this report, is to augment the natural runs. So what we need to do is initially have the hatcheries fish going in, but basically, over the years, you have to take them off, taper them off and have the wild runs going. They will not be real wild runs because, as Mr. Moyer mentioned, there will be a lot of inter- breeding of those fishes. One of the things which we are doing this year on the Chehalis Indian Reservation is we are trying to get a million fish with the money, which we got part of it from this U.S. Fisheries and Wild- life, this restoration, as well as we are trying to get some money assistance from BIA, and we are going to tag 500,000 fishes and let them release to the river system and we will see how much we get back, what kind of conditions they are in. But we very much take the approach which U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife has mentioned to augment the runs, to have both going at the same time initially with the hatchery and then going back to the wild runs. 20 Mr. Hamburg. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one more question? Mr. Manton. Sure. Mr. Hamburg. I want to ask what experience the panelists have with hatchery marking programs and the benefits and problems that those programs create for the fishery. I know that is a big question. Mr. Smith. On the West Coast? Mr. Hamburg. Well, specifically problems on the Klamath River. Mr. JSmith. We have done a lot of marking. We know how to mark fish. Depends on why you want to do this. I know there is interest on marking all the hatchery fish that we release, so that there can be more flexibility in terms of harvest. I think the real issue gets down to what is the objective of this program and what the cost is and what you forego doing that you could do elsewhere. I do know that there are some researchers and some scientists and biologists that do advocate marking all the fish that we re- lease. That will be an increased cost in the neighborhood of a mil- lion dollars or so. I would have to ask why we are doing this before I would say that is a good idea or not. Now, I think Mr. Shake disagrees with me. Mr. Hamburg. I would like to hear a dissenting opinion on that. Mr. Shake. An interesting position to be in when your director is sitting next to you, but certainly Mr. Smith. I gave you the opportunity. Mr. Shake [continuing], it is a healthy organization where you can disagree over issues, and we in the region, along with a couple of State fisheries directors, have been advocating marking all hatchery fish. And the reason that we have been advocating that is that it provides you a lot more management flexibility, in our opin- ion. Now, as Dick said, not everybody agrees with us. But in terms of harvest, it gives you options for recreational and commercial fish- ermen in the ocean to release unmarked fish. In terms of actual management of fish in the river, you could put up weirs and block out marked fish from an area. You could deal with the issues that Mr. Moyer has mentioned in terms of if we are going to define areas that we are really concerned about maintaining wild stocks, we can keep them out of there with artificial barriers and only allow in the wild or unmarked fish to return to those areas. So I think it just simply gives you more options. The thing is that with chinook salmon, for example, to allow you to have those options, it is a five-year program because there are going to be five age classes of fish either in the freshwater or out in the ocean envi- ronment before they come back. So if you start down the road, you have to understand that you are committed in the case of chinook for a five-year program. In the case of coho, it would be a three-year program. If we are going to deal in the endangered species arena and have any kind of harvest at all, I think we are going to have to be able to tell hatch- ery fish from natural fish. You might not be able to tell a naturally spawned fish that is or is not listed in the ocean environment, but nonetheless, you would know that at least a marked fish came from the hatchery. 21 And just very quickly, the opponents of this marking are gener- ally coming from the protection of the data base that we use to es- timate harvest, first, and in the negotiations between the United States and Canada; and then how you share the harvests up and down the coast between the various management areas in the ocean. Mr. Hamburg. So as you see it, is the major impediment to a program of marking all hatchery fish economic? Mr. Smith. His explanation has some validity, I would say. I am not going to sit here and say it is what I would endorse. But I think really it is economic. The economic, initial cost of carrying it over five years, and if you do that, what don't you do in restoration. Now, if you do both, it is not an issue. So it is economic. Mr. Hamburg. If you have the money to do both, then you could support going ahead with the program, marking all hatchery fish? Mr. Smith. I am better willing to support it, but I still want to know why better than I have heard today. That is my position. Mr. Hamburg. I think one of the major reasons is to make the — is to create a harvestable number of fish where you are trying to protect the native stock such as in the Klamath. Mr. Smith. Based on what I heard today, it gives more flexibility and that is good. So, the answer to your question is yes, but I would rather put money in restoration. Mr. Hamburg. Thank you. Mr. Manton. If you have more questions, you can have more time. Mr. Hamburg. If any other panelists wanted to talk about mark- ing issues, it is one that we are really working on in my office right now, because two straight years of shutdown of the north coast salmon fisheries — so I am very interested in this issue. If anyone else wants to comment. Mr. Moyer. I would just briefly say we would strongly support as much marking as possible for the reasons that Mr. Shake gave. I think it really gives you more flexibility and, in this case, flexibil- ity is useful because it will better enable you to selectively harvest hatchery fish and stay off the wild ones. As you know, especially in the Pacific coast and off the Oregon coast, the wild fish and hatchery fish mix and some of the harvest regimes off the Pacific coast are not adequately selective, from our point of view, to protect wild fish. So there is a strong need to mark fish for those situations. Mr. Hamburg. Anyone else want to comment? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manton. Well, that looks like we have come to the end of the hearing. I want to thank everybody for coming, some of you some long distances, and the meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned, and the following was submitted for the record:] 22 Remarks of Congressman Norm Dicks Before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Regarding Chehalis River Restoration 7/14/93 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before you today to express my strong support for the current efforts taking place in the State of Washington to carry out a comprehensive restoration initiative on the Chehalis River. I would like to thank the Chairman of this Committee and its Members for the leadership that you have shown on these important matters relating to the ecology. Once again I believe that you are demonstrating tremendous foresight by focusing on watershed restoration. I would also like to recognize the hard work of my 23 colleague on this Committee from the State of Washington, Jolene Unsoeld, who works tirelessly on these important issues. I was pleased that she and l# working with working with this Committee, were able to secure passage last year of significant legislation authorizing the Olympic Experimental Forest. I would also like to acknowledge the presence today of a very key constituent of mine, Ms. Diane Ellison, who will also be presenting testimony this afternoon on the Chehalis River Restoration issue - and who has really been the catalyst and mover in the State in getting this initiative moving forward. I urge the Committee to give careful consideration to her testimony, which I believe will prove to be thoughtful and insightful. The Chehalis River Restoration Program is a 24 key link to moving towards an overall ecosystems management strategy on the Olympic Peninsula. This program began through the passage of Public Law 101-452, the Chehalls River Basin Fisheries Resources Study and Restoration Act, which required the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake a comprehensive study of the fisheries resource and habitat of the Chehalis River Basin, develop goals, including recommending actions to maximize the restoration and conservation of the fisheries resource, and to report the various findings to Congress. I am pleased that the Chehalis River study is complete, and now it is time to move forward with on the ground restoration efforts. For FY1994, $775,000 is provided through the House version of the Interior Appropriations bill to carry out restoration activities on the Chehalis 25 River. It is my hope that in the coming year we will be able to see measureable progress in actual restoration efforts. However, it is also my hope that this can be done In as cooperative a manner as possible involving local communities and authorities. The Chehalis River Restoration Program is a firm step in the direction of progress in salmon protection, river habitat restoration, and progress on the environment. This program is a model for what we are trying to achieve in the Region as a whole. As I'm sure this Committee is aware, we are facing a very significant period of transition and adjustment in the Northwest Region, as we seek to better manage human activities and its impact on sensitive ecosystems. One key area where we can clearly get ahead of the curve is by 26 investing in watershed restoration initiatives. Although the recent experience of the Region is that a great deal of attention has been aimed at the northern Spotted Owl and its primary habitat, the Old Growth forests, it Is the wild salmon species, and their habitat - the rivers and tributaries -- that are increasingly becoming the focus of the Region. In addressing watershed restoration in the Region, I share the view of many of my colleagues and the Administration, that we must address the issue from the Canadian border down through northern California - a geographic area that serves as habitat for the most magnificent runs of wild salmon stocks in the world. This is why during Subcommittee 27 6 consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill, I took the lead on an amendment to provide $30 million in FY 1994 for watershed restoration activities in Wahsington, Oregon, and northern California. A major benefit to initiating a comprehensive, regionwide watershed restoration program is to allow us to get ahead of the curve in species protection. The implementation of a watershed restoration program will aide in listing prevention because the focus will be on preventing further degradation to existing healthy habitat, and where feasible will allow for slope stabilization and the rehabilitation of streambeds. One of the goals that I seek through funding a Regionwide program, is that by working with the Administration and the federal natural resource agencies, the State lands commissioners and state wildlife and fisheries departments, and the local communities, an 72-813 - 93 - 2 28 overall strategy will emerge in which the key Issues of watershed analysis, restoration, and monitoring will all be adequately addressed. It is clear that appropriate watershed analysis is needed to select the most critical areas to carry out the work. The restoration work itself is the key to reversing the problem on the ground. Finally, there has to be a significant degree of monitoring of the health of the watershed ecosystem to ensure that the progress of actions taken is maintained. In addition to the clear ecological benefits of habitat restoration and ensuring the viability of salmon populations, I am pleased that the Initiation of a comprehensive watershed restoration strategy will create over 7,000 family wage jobs in the Region, and in rural timber- dependent communities where they are needed most. 29 8 Watershed restoration work in the Northwest Region will serve as an important building block towards comprehensive ecosystems management. All of the best known science looking at what is required through on-the- ground management responses to multiple species protection in a preventive way focuses significantly on riparian protection and watershed restoration. I am pleased that the Administration recognizes the importance of watershed restoration, and has chosen to include a regionwide watershed initiative as a key element in the President's recently announced Forest Plan for addressing the conflict in the Northwest over timber harvesting versus Old Growth protection. Again, I appreciate the Committee's support 30 9 for the Chehalis River Restoration program. Thank You. 31 STATEMENT OF RICHARD N. SMITH, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FTSHERDZS, CONCERNING CHEHALIS BASIN, WASHINGTON, FISHERY RESOURCE RESTORATION July 14, 1993 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on restoring the once-abundant salmon and steelhead trout runs of the Chehalis River and other streams draining into Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. The Fish and Wildlife Service is directly involved in this restoration effort. We believe the approach used for the Chehalis Basin could be applicable to the successful restoration of many other depleted West Coast anadromous fish populations. The Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and Restoration Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-452) encompasses the entire Grays Harbor drainage. The Act required the Director of the Service to prepare a comprehensive study of the fishery resources of the Chehalis Basin. A report was to be submitted to the Congress identifying goals and recommending actions for restoring those fish stocks. I am pleased to announce that the report was recently approved and shortly will be submitted to the Congress in fulfillment of the Act. A Steering Committee was organized in 1991 to plan and coordinate activities of the Service and other cooperators. Initially it consisted of two members of the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Task Force representing the public and one representative each from the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, Quinault Indian Nation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington 32 Departments of Ecology, Fisheries and Wildlife. Earlier this year, Steering Committee membership was expanded by five to include representatives from Grays Harbor, Lewis and Thurston Counties, agricultural interests in the Basin, and the local timber industry. With guidance from the Steering Committee, a comprehensive review of existing information was completed to determine the status and trends of Chehalis Basin fishery resources and the development of restoration goals. The review involved compilation and evaluation of available information related to the history of fishery resources, status of existing runs, and habitat problems in the Basin. That review revealed: poor water quality in upper Grays Harbor likely contributed to poor coho smolt survival, at least until 1989; wild coho and chum salmon populations have fallen well below levels that once supported large harvests; chinook salmon and steelhead do not consistently use all the available habitat; and dams and other actions including logging, road building, agriculture and urbanization have degraded water quality and eliminated or degraded salmon and steelhead trout habitat. Additionally, the Service recently surveyed approximately 1,800 miles of streams in the Chehalis Basin. Over 40,000 incidents of habitat conditions harmful to salmon and steelhead were identified. This information has been incorporated into a computer-based geographic information system to facilitate habitat restoration activities. Based on these two studies, the goal for restoration of Chehalis Basin salmon and steelhead trout is: 33 "...to optimize natural production while maintaining the existing genetic adaptation of wild spawners and allowing the highest compatible level of hatchery production." To meet this goal, eight objectives and many associated tasks were identified. The report recommends that the goal and these objectives be accomplished through a cooperative 20-year restoration program at a cost of about $1,000,000 per year. The tasks identified span a wide range of restoration approaches, including opening inaccessible habitat, creating new spawning and rearing habitats, improving water quality, using small-scale hatchery programs to enhance depleted wild runs, improving fishery resource population and habitat management techniques, and public education. Last year a cooperative Chehalis Fishery Resource Restoration Program was established to rebuild the Basin's environmental and economic infrastructure by: 1. restoring fisheries habitat; 2. revitalizing fish runs; and 3. creating meaningful short- and long-term employment. Public and interagency involvement and cooperation are vital to the success of the Chehalis Fishery Resource Restoration Program. The public was invited to participate in a basin-wide fisheries conference last fall where study findings were presented and suggestions for restoration priorities were sought. 34 With the Service funding appropriated for the Chehalis and related purposes, we have begun the monumental task of implementing this Restoration Program and rebuilding Chehalis Basin salmon and steelhead trout runs. Consistent with the Act, 20 percent of funding appropriated under authority of the Chehalis Act has been transferred to the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis and the Quinault Indian Nation to support their participation in this fishery resource restoration effort. Other cooperators have contributed funds or in-kind assistance. For instance, the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Task Force is heavily involved in the Restoration Program thereby helping to stretch Federal dollars with volunteers and other in-kind contributions. Any landowner, private citizen, or interest group may submit proposals for Restoration Program funding. In Fiscal Year 1993, 18 habitat restoration and public awareness projects are being conducted under cooperative agreements. Every effort is being made to implement the Restoration Program in a manner that creates new jobs in this economically distressed region. Short- term employment uses the skills of displaced timber workers to rehabilitate degraded fisheries habitat. Long-term employment will be created as fish runs and commercial harvests increase and the Basin becomes a major destination for recreational fishing. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Service and its cooperators have developed a careful, scientifically-based, and biologically-sound Fishery Resource Restoration Program for the Chehalis Basin. We are ready to start down the road to recovery of the once prominent fishery resources of the Chehalis 35 Basin. Our rate of progress will depend to a great extent on the cooperation and participation of the people who live and work in the basin. Many other West Coast wild anadromous stocks are declining and in the absence of prompt and effective intervention may have to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Numerous Federal, State and Tribal programs to address these problems are under development or in some stage of implementation. For maximum effectiveness, however, those efforts must be coordinated coastwide and made compatible with statutory and other legal mandates. The Service, in concert with other Federal agencies, States, Tribes and private interests, has begun to facilitate cooperative efforts to halt declines and initiate restoration on an ecosystem basis. Following recent visits to the Pacific Northwest by Secretary Babbitt and in light of the announcement of the President's Forest Plan, there is renewed interest in restoring degraded Northwest watersheds. The Chehalis Fishery Resource Restoration Program is an example of a cooperative, ecosystem- based approach to fishery resource restoration that can be effective in addressing such problems in a timely fashion. We believe an initiative to apply this approach throughout the West Coast could provide meaningful long-term recovery for the Pacific salmonids and the economy of the Northwest. Thank you for allowing me to present the Service's views. I will be pleased to answer any questions. u 2 H Q 2 5 fa 36 u o w z w o fa o H W J fa Q O H «. » Q 3£ PS a o (0 fa „ . ■p 0) 0 u . 1) CO CI 3 4J c c — O OH£ ft C •H •rH M -H -p -H -H CD ■P -P >H (1) > ITIS >h 73 1 C 3 C d) w c rH C Eh C 10 O 0) X Q) 73 C Q) -r-t ~ (0 0) g g *+J -H G <4H 0 lfl£ Ifl C U U tr< trw o> +J S U 73 O fa 73 >1 g c a) •h c -h c eh ft 0) C -H tj> C -H rH -H c -rH -h ^ (0 +J -H fa (I) 73 £ H -P M C O > U O 00 -P •-E-t U M +J CD 0) 00 (0 W -H •H O ICO •rH HJ -H S - tO d) H C -H +J -H 00 2 <0 -P 4-> U O C -P 03 > d) ~4-> x en i-P • c -HO) rH G -H ft u ft -p > jj 00 <4H (0 (0 C X •H • O 00 •rH . O 0) (0 E 0) D> g •H (1) O £ -H -H 0) O 4-> <*H CD O -P 10 ^4J C£ • M +J >-l 0) 73 00 •HO > •H u CO (-1 00 (0 C 0) o awfi c nj'n 4-> < X -H •P < c U H fa O ^-^ rH rH +J rH O (_l <4-| > IM (0 -iH h c rH (0 Q) O O (0 0) -H 3 O O 73 -P CT >, 0) »4-> 00 fa ftx -p 4J tr^H fl c M 00 g >iH -H Eh c 4-> CD T-l -P 10 i RJ •-•H -H O M -P t?3H(K c rH g X! rH >H (H Q) H >H C -H 4-> in 11 ^ o id m o 10 rH 10 O (0 u o Q) > (0 0) -rH ft 00 •h x «3 rH c x in to XI 0) rH Xl 0) -P -P M U 73 00 g -H > g ft O -H CD r> H •H 73 <+H CD •rH 73 00 ■H 3 O 1 rH -P 73 O W 3 ft 0) 4-1 0) fa 00 fa a) 00 CT ai ■H C 4-> r-H -H 4-> (0 rH -H XI 0) g a) a) g x -p o u oo u c o •H 4-> (0 ■P 2 rH 3 C (0 iC C-rH ■H 73 3 C C H 73 X 0) -P C 4-) 0 (0 MH •rH rH O 00 V Q) -H 10 73 00 r-t > dJ Q) (0 Sh <4H XI X QJ C -rH 0) 00 O rH X QJ U Eh U fa 37 c c 0 0 •H -H p p IT) 10 Q) CO > -H -H p ■H T3 C p P P U 3 o en *-"* to o o g a c H V-i (0 O g a-H (1) 0) P 0 0 3 p c a-p u w w c 0 c - •H o O 0 c > P X Ifl o u o m 0) 0) p -H Q) > 0) Tf ~P -H •H M-l a 0) 10 (0 -P PS 0 £4J M-H p % w c p > in w c o •H 0) 0) -H z ■H E-" a) H H g -H p o H h c EH .Q 0) C O H (0 ro < (0 0) -H (0 H £ o e H p P. g < d) • u Pi U) tP'O M-l H X! H 01 PU W (0 (0 0 o* o a (X U *-* a O OS li Cm < a c o 0 OS OS -H H X! 0) M-l o rt! H •H -rH p 0) w p. « frl rH c 0 u p 73 a) c OS g w CO P X O P. c iJ ■H 2 cr> w OS 2 QVH £ > (0 ■H H H 0 g P T3 B [fl S3 a P TS w 0) C n) to CO z A < w (d s < H D 38 14-1 o o (fl 4-1 Q) f-H fjj •H rH g xi -rl O U] o w in o) - o rH o (0 73 Q) (fl >i e > a) u u 3 -p w 0) Q) C c o w rH 0) rH a 0) • c -p c c c ■OOOdl 0) -H 05 C 4J +J M (0 G rfl Q) g 0) 73 a U g « 0) 3 vh >i a u t?M 0 Q 73 M C O -H 73 a-p • c e w 01 (0 < H -P H (0 >i > -P (D H •H > H XI u O fO 3 < K w N a) ■H 4-1 a rH O Ifl -p C W c ■H H ai t|H fc, c 73 O e C M rd rH m * — a -a cu c p • c g c 3 o o •rH O -P Q ro a -H • O -P ■H O -P < r4 fO 0) (IX! -P rH (0 ^ 43 a) •H 73 >H C Eh 3 0) ~ 0) CD >i U . O -H C rH 4-1 o a«H •h g o -P 0) iS rfl U In >H (0 tj> U O 0) f3 •H >-| X! -H 73 ro ac c £ — ' rO c 0 c ■H 0 4-> •H 4-1 (0 4-> U 4-1 Z ro < rH U -P 3 C O >1 M (0 (0 4J 73 O C -rH 111 3 a •H 73 CD 4-> 0) 3 C tt w « Q> M CP c •H c •H >i ro CD g > 0) in U 3 U] SH •H 4-1 CD ro xs x: 4-i U -P -H 0) O X! 73 4-> Xl rfl P u < ai a} jd >h 4J 4-> £ 0) -H use 0 > M ■H H CD 73 4-1 0) 0) CD rfl W >i73 a 03 ■r^ Q) r-i ^ u £ a u •H 4J g C 4-1 1 I • u — W rfl O tT CD ^ O C 3 O en -H cr a -t3 0) g CO c Pi 0) fM 3 0) 73 £ Q) 4J 4-> O 1/1 rd U CD T3 10 rH > 0) Q) rfl U h XI CD uehub; 73 c ro 0) 4-1 U U C O d) a U 0) 0) Sh <4H >1 O M U rfl • g 0) C g C •H 3 O W U) -H rfl 4J CQ rfl (0 73 U> 73 C •H d) 0) rH U g rfl 3 g £T3 O H O CP o • rO C - O 0) C -H > O 4-1 •H -H 4-1 4J rfl (0 r4 r( d) 4-> a (fl O -H o c O -H g 73 73 - (1) rfl tfi XI 0) W 4-> -H -H U 4J rH rfl -H X! U > rfl 4-> -H 4J C 4J Bl O O W U rfl ro 4-1 g Ul (0 -H ^ C tJ!-H O g M 73 CU < 39 +J c 0) c id e u • Q) ■p a u 0 0> a c ft'H 3 -P w w •rH ^ X 0) •^ H C u w T3 0) c OS 0) H g 10 •H w H (h- T5 C CO S3 a 01 C (0 a CO z W«2< H D fo ft 40 Cn 73 >£ C C -P C -H id 1 Id -H (0 tT Q) -P W C >1 C >rH O -H ; c 3 -P (0 M tfl 0) C OtShl 73 0 -H 0) 0 U) iH CU -P T5 c a x 3 w a> q,h > o C - Id g CU ^ cu a g a) -h g 3 w cu > O CK 0) i O +j .p +J cm a •h rH u c a cu H 0 U ija £ lo o) c (0 U O S5 O -h w *-- 3 o g •HO C O £ O a +J C 0 > (A H g MM > o a h u -h •H • id 0 u U U) O (0 vo m CU H -P H a 3 -i c i a co 3 to cu o -P < -P rH C o o • -p o en O -P >i 3 -H M [fl 10 o H 73 (0 0) W-Hi-H-p c 73 +J +J C H O H (0 cu 0) 0) 73 -H H 0) 73 -P CU C -H cu c c m o iJ a ax: in •H CU -P Pu 4Jcn-iHiwrac(i)-P ^^ +j -h cu -P -p a -p p 4J Id H ojgco'cccw to Ifl EH C D ffl .h 73 ■H CU Sh K .H id O (0 O (0 -H £ Q) U CU 3 CU £ (0 u C > rH O U aa>gu)Hiogx +J 3 cu cu in > -P jr. J2 CU 3 •H a-p w 6 hHatf^h « c tr-p >-i c c -p -H 73 O P g W w o -p id O H MH -H H C Sh U O CU Q o in w g ts a a-n g & cu re) o = 03 Eh 3 tJi (0 U H Eh ■P M (0 >( > ■p CU H •H > En J3 u U (0 3 < X CO c o •rH -P cd -P 2 rH 3 C (0 (0 C -H •H 73 3 C O m c O T3 •H C co +J i id c -h id to id O 3 > >i > - CU +J<4hCUh(0h-P^ T3 £ tPOJQIriUUM CU JJ C cu c w o en -h id ■P 0 >w-h+j -c ChEh Id <4H •H •H+JX3C05O -O-P H O 10 -P jjccncucuu-puwtn CU -H Id id cu id g -h u -h ■•-* 73 10 -H > u g S -P U >i-h m Q H cu cu id iH cucu ^cu-PhO id QJ H££ (1) acu£ id£ c-pja c£ U C -H Q) to o>H-patn3cn>HOa) Sh O h £. -H ■H p a, ■H T5 c p -P P P. 3 o tr (0 0 0 a c P id 0 £ ft-H 0) u u 0 3 P a-P 0 W W o c - ■H o o c «. P X 0 0 0 in a) a) -H a) > T3 --P ■H •h m • QJ UJ (0 -P « o -. x: p p •H iH a w c p > UJ W QJ o •h m m ■H z ■H Eh C H h e -h +J o Hfc C H Xl 0) G U H tfl iw o (D H •H -H 4-> 0) CO P Pi (JM rH C u « P T3 0) c fa g w to Q) rH g ia (0 -H H U -H QJ +J X a p c PI •hS |y oi Pi z o g ss > (0 P TS C •H (fl a P T> H QJ C (0 to (0 z cu < « W (0 S < H D u fa fa 42 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN FISHERY RESOURCES: STATUS, TRENDS, AND RESTORATION GOALS WESTERN WASHINGTON FISHERY RESOURCE OFFICE OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON JULY 1993 43 IK3hehalis1River^asin1FisheryIResources*Study %r ^s^|SteeriN(^;o\imittee1VIembership * ^ Ralph Boomer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bruce Crawford Washington Department of Wildlife Diane Ellison Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Jim Harp Quinault Indian Nation Rich Lincoln Washington Department of Fisheries Dick Wallace Washington Department of Ecology Jim Walls Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Percy Youckton Chehalis Tribe 44 CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN FISHERY RESOURCES: STATUS, TRENDS, AND RESTORATION Joseph M. Hiss and E. Eric Knudsen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fishery Resource Office Olympia, Washington July, 1993 45 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and Restoration Act (Public Law 101-452) requires the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to "undertake a comprehensive study of the fishery resources and habitats of the Chehalis River Basin of Washington State, develop goals, recommend long- and short-term actions to maximize the restoration and conservation of those fishery resources, and report his findings to Congress." The present report reviews existing information, sets goals, and presents a number of restoration recommendations. A second report, based on an ongoing survey of fishery habitat and scheduled for completion in 1993, will describe actual habitat conditions and further guide restoration. This report focuses on anadromous salmonids since they are clearly the most important fishery resources of the Chehalis Basin. To guide activities under the Act, a steering committee composed of representatives of all relevant state agen~i.es, Indian Tribes, and the public was formed in 1990. The committee recognized that a large amount of information about Chehalis Basin fishery resuur-ss already existed but that it needed to be gathered together In one report- The present report is the result of that task. SOMHARY OF FINDINGS Reviews of existing information on resource history, run status, and current habitat problems reveal that: (1) Inner Grays Harbor water quality appears to have contributed to poor coho (and probably Chinook and steelhead) smolt survival at least until 1989. Significant efforts to improve water quality have been taken. Results of clean-up will become known in a few more years. Further study of pollution may be necessary but can be delayed pending the outcome of ongoing survival evaluation. (2) Wild coho and chum salmon populations have fallen well below levels that historically supported high catches (3) Chinook salmon and steelhead do not consistently use all potential habitat. (4) Upper Chehalis River water quality particularly threatens adult spring and fall Chinook, and reduces coho and steelhead rearing habitat. (5) Dams and other barriers, logging, road building, agriculture, and urbanization have degraded salmon and steelhead habitat. While natural salmon and steelhead production is apparently less than optimal in the Chehalis Basin, there is every indication that, with careful planning and implementation, production can be improved. The Basin contains several thousand miles of stream habitat, much of which is in relatively good 46 condition. The lack of large-scale, main stem dams, as found on the Columbia, also increases the prospects for successful restoration. Healthy fisheries are an important component of the Basin's economic infrastructure. Rebuilding salmon and steelhead habitat can help rebuild the Basin's economic vitality. When depressed runs are restored, harvest constraints can be eased, allowing harvest of not only the restored rune, but intermingled, healthy runs as well. Moreover, good recreational fishing opportunity can attract new industry to an area. The recommendations proposed in this report will create jobs for local workers both during restoration and after healthy fish populations are rebuilt. PROPOSED FISHERY RESTORATION GOAL The findings have led to formulating a general goal: "to optimize natural salmon and steelhead production while maintaining the existing genetic adaptation of wild spawners and allowing the highest compatible level of hatchery production". Natural production will be restored when the total estimated wild catches consistently lie within the range of historical estimates, and when wild escapement goals are consistently met. This means: (1) Expanding spring chinook salmon wild production to its full potential range. (2) Sustaining the recent increase in Chehalis River System fall chinook salmon by improving water quality throughout the Chehalis River System. (3) Doubling Chehalis River System coho salmon smolt-to-adult survival, compared to the 1989 level, so that Chehalis River System smolt survival equals Humptulips River System smolt survival. (4) Increasing chum salmon run sizes to historical levels, (5) Ensuring that wild winter steelhead fully and consistently use the spawning habitat in each available Chehalis River Basin sub-basin. (6) Evaluating existing wild summer steelhead populations in Chehalis Basin tributaries. RESTORATION CRITERIA Habitat Condition Habitat restoration projects in the Chehalis watershed may not produce results unless recent effluent treatment upgrades at the two inner Crays Harbor pulp mills result in significant improvement of survival. If survival has improved sufficiently, then habitat restoration throughout the basin should be successful, and projects using promising and cost-effective techniques should ii 47 be initiated to begin restoration. If survival has not improved, further efforts should be directed to solving the poor inner Harbor survival problems before extensive watershed habitat restoration proceeds. Since it will take at least two more years before results of tagging studies can confirm clean-up effectiveness, preliminary habitat restoration projects should be started and evaluated. Once the inner Harbor water quality allows reasonable smolt survival, proven habitat restoration projects can begin throughout the Basin on a larger scale. Selection of habitat restoration projects will be guided by the ongoing habitat survey. Hatchery Role Hatchery production supports a large share of the catch in several fisheries. However, once habitat problems have been corrected, the hatchery role in fishery restoration should be to augment, rather than replace, natural production. Hatcheries may produce fish poorly adapted for wild survival and can jeopardize the health and attainability of wild runs, so programs must be developed cautiously. Ongoing State and Tribal processes should continue to carefully evaluate all hatchery programs to help understand how they are contributing to fisheries and whether there is negative interaction with wild stocks. Artificial enhancement can and should be utilized wherever it will not harm the integrity of wild stocks. However, emphasizing hatchery production to the detriment of effortB to restore naturally reproducing populations is not an acceptable policy option. Public and Interagency Involvement Public and interagency cooperation is vital to the success of restoration. This requires the active participation of the tribes and agencies named in the Chehalis Act as the Restoration Plan is implemented. These key entities will identify and explore avenues of cooperation with all interested private organizations and agencies not already involved. The public was invited to a Basin-wide fisheries conference in the fall of 1992 where study findings were presented and suggestions for restoration priorities sought. The FWS recommends that the Chehalis Basin Steering Committee, formed under the Chehalis Basin Fishery Restoration Study Act, be continued to provide policy guidance to the restoration proposed in this report. They will guide restoration to ensure each project would restore fish, be cost-effective, meet cost-share requirements, and contain appropriate evaluation components. It is also critical that all existing programs designed to protect, restore, and enhance fisheries and their habitat continue to be fully supported and funded. RESTORATION OBJECTIVES The overall life-span of the restoration project is 20 years, assuming full funding is made available. Some tasks can be completed in one or several years while others will be accomplished gradually over the 20 years. Since all 48 restoration projects will at least initially be evaluated for fish restoration effectiveness, these recommendations will need to be revised over time. Projects found to be ineffective will not be further pursued. The costs of these evaluations has been included in the project costs estimated below. The following objectives are proposed: OBJECTIVE 1* Restore or improve natural spawning or rearing habitat. OBJECTIVE 2t Improve water quality to meet State standards year-round in the middle and upper ChehaliB River System. OBJECTIVE it" Ensure that environmental conditions causing poor smolt survival in inner Grays Harbor are remedied. OBJECTIVE 4 » Ensure that storage dam operation. ,fSS^i^J^!^SJ^*^L^.^^K^*^,':^i compatible with fish production. ^ OBJECTIVE S: Extend the range of Balmon and steelhead wi achieve optimum habitat nse.^ objective 6t ciptimize opportunities foe. artificial .enhancement without jeopardizing wild stocks. OBJECTIVE 7 J Use fisheries harvest sanageroent techniques and increased enforcement to increase run sizes. Objective 81 Increase public awareness of the values of fisheries to the Chehalis Basin. FUNDING NEEDS Some restoration has occurred and will continue under existing federal, state, local, and volunteer programs. The proposed habitat restoration projects complement existing programs but should not replace them. Since it is important that restoration techniques be demonstrated to be effective before they are fully implemented, it is recommended that restoration be funded gradually over 20 years. After careful review of the size and scope of all tasks necessary for full restoration, it is recommended that a total of SI million be committed to Chehalis restoration from interested agencies in each of the 20 years. This level of funding is expected to restore significant fish populations, ultimately stimulating the economic recovery of the Chehalis Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Service is not prepared at this time to request additional funds for its share of this work. However, funds may become available by reprogramming from lower priority activities or through other sources. iv 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi Chapter 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN i PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 1 HYDROGRAPBTC DESCRIPTION 4 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DESCRIPTION 5 Daaographi.es 5 Economic Base < ■ 6 Forest Products 6 Agriculture 7 Tourisa 7 Pianino and Related Activities 7 Valua of Salaon riaherioa 9 Trenda In Economic I apart 11 Bene fit a of Stock Recovery ................ 12 Valua of Sturgeon Fisheries 12 Social Value* Connected with Fishing 13 Chapter 2: HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE FISHERY RESOURCES AND HABITATS 14 HISTORY OF PISHING ON CHEHALIS BASIN SALMON AND 8TEELHEAD 14 Chehalis Rirar Baain Fisheries 14 Marine Interception 15 HABITAT HISTORY 16 Agriculture 16 Logging 17 Hiatorr of the Induatrr 17 Continuing Effecta of Old Logging Practices 18 Recent Forest Practicea Improvements 20 Gravel Mining 20 Urbanisation 21 Estuarina Dredging and Pilling .... 21 Dams and Diversions 22 Industrial Haste Disposal 22 Chapter 3: HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF FISH POPULATIONS 24 CHINOOK SALMON 24 Terminal Area Run Sise and Escapement Goals 24 Spring Chinook 24 Pall Chinook 25 Pall Chinook Marine Interception 26 Juvenile Chinook Production 26 Currant Pall Chinook Total Run Sise and Historical Levels ... 27 COHO SALMON 29 Terminal Area Run Sise and Eacapaaent Ooala 30 50 Combined Normal- and Late-timedSpawpers 30 Ut«-ti»ed Spivmen 30 Maria* Interception 30 Juvenile Production 30 Currant Coho Run Size and Eiatorical Levels 32 CHUM 8ALMOH 34 Terminal Xrti Run Sise and Escapement Goal 34 Currant Run Sisa and Eiatorical Laval* 35 STEELHEAD 36 Terminal Area Run Sisa and Escapeaent Ooala 36 Winter Run 36 "■'— r Run 37 Currant Total Run Size and Eiatorical Levels 37 STURGEON 38 White Sturgeon Population Status 39 Oreea Sturgeon Population Status 40 AMERICAN SHAD 40 FORAGE RESOURCES 41 Chapter 4: HATCHERY PRODUCTION OF SALMONIDS ... 42 HATCHERY HISTORY 42 HATCHERY STOCKS 44 Spring Chinook Salaon .. 45 Pall Chinook Salaon 45 Coho Salaon 45 Chua Salaon 46 Winter Run Steelhead 46 Suaaar Run Steelhead 46 Other Salaonids 46 HATCHERY FACILITIES AND PRACTICES 47 HATCHERY FISH PRODUCTION 4B Pall Chinook Salaon 49 Coho Salaon 49 Chua Salaon SO Winter Steelhead 50 HATCHERIES AS A TOOL FOR REBUILDING WILD STOCKS 51 Chapter 5: CAUSES OF DECLINE 52 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN GRAYS HARBOR AND THE LOWER CHEHALIS RIVER 52 Pulp Mill Effluents 52 Differential Adult Production 52 Differential Snolt Survival to Adult Catch 52 Poor Saolt Survival in the Estnarr 53 Toxic Chemicals in Mill Effluent 53 WPP's Conclusions and Recommendations 54 Relative Importance of Effluents to Pish Mortality .... 54 Recent Clean-up of Pulp Mill Effluent 54 Monitoring Pulp Mill Effluent 55 Sediments 55 Bioaccuaulation 55 Puture Outlook 55 vi 51 Currant Harbor Dredging and Fi*h Survival 56 Pirmti» in the Lower Cbahalia 56 CHEHALIS-CENTRALIA TEMPERATURE AND OXYGEN BLOCK 56 Taaperature 57 Oxygen 58 Effect* on Tiah 59 Total Maximum Daily Load Proeaaa 59 DAMS AND DIVERSIONS 60 Wynoochee Dam 60 Skookumchuck Daa 61 Hoouiam River System Dam* 62 Water Withdrawal 62 Worth Fork Hewaukum 63 Wrnoochee River 63 Agricultural Irrigation Withdrawal* 64 FOREST PRACTICES 65 Splaah Dam* 65 Logging-aasociated Land«lide* 65 Sedimentation . ......... 65 Stream Clearance 66 Forettry Chemical* 66 Currant Forast Practice* 66 AGRICULTURE 67 Oraxing Practice* 67 Sedimentation 67 Agricultural Pollution 67 Aquaculture 67 URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION 68 Stormwater Runoff 68 Bank Hardening 68 Municipal Sewage 69 Septic Syatem Leakage 69 Industrial Chemical Storage and Disposal 70 Log Storage Runoff 70 Land Application of Food Processing Haste 70 GRAVEL MINING • 70 SEDIMENTATION 71 EFFECTS OF FISHING 71 Bycatch 71 Interception 72 Terminal Area Fisheries 72 Poaching 73 LOCATION, QUANTITY, AND UTILIZATION OF EXISTING HABITAT 73 Adult Holding Habitat 74 Spawning Habitat 74 Juvenile Rearing Habitat 74 Freshwater Rearing 74 Bstuarine Rearing .... 75 ANTICIPATED HABITAT PROBLEMS 76 Central!* Area Flood Control 76 Satsop Knergv Development 76 vii 52 Urbanization 76 Industrial Expansion 77 Aquaculture 77 Bank Protection 77 Chapter 6: FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL n GOVERNMENT R6LES AND RELATIONSHD? TO PRIVATE FISHERY CONSERVATION ACTTVTnES 78 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 78 D.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service . . 78 Portland Regional Office 78 Seattle National Fishery Research Center 79 D.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 80 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Related Agencies 80 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 80 Regulatory rninrrt-.jnns 80 Streamwalk Program ..................... SI U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service . 81 U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers 81 Navigation 81 Flood Control and Floodplain Management 81 Water Supply 82 STATE OF WASHINGTON 82 Washington Department of Fisheries 62 Harvest Management 82 Habitat Management 83 Salmon Culture 83 Research and Planning 83 Washington Department of Wildlife 84 Fisheries Management Division 84 Steelhead Culture 84 Washington Department of Ecology 84 Office of Central Programs and Enforcement 85 Office of Water and Shorelands 85 Southwest Regional Office .. 86 Washington Department of Natural Resources 86 Forest Practices Board 87 Timber. Fish, and Wildlife Process 87 Agnatic Lands Program 87 Stewardship Incentive Program ........ 88 Fish Habitat Research ." 88 INDIAN TRIBES 88 Quinault Indian Nation 88 Chehalis Indian Tribe 89 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 90 Counties 90 Oravs Harbor Regional Planning Commission 90 Cities 90 Port of Orays Harbor 91 PRIVATE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES . 91 Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force 91 viii 53 Long Live th« King* Black Rivar Watch 91 91 Trout Unlimited 91 Weyerhaeuser Corporation 92 Oraya Harbor Conservation Diatrict 92 Lewis County Conaarration District 92 Tburaton Conaarration Diatrict 92 Columbia-Pacific Raaourca Conaarration £ Development Council . . 92 Oraya Harbor Poggie Club 93 Oraya Harbor Oillnattara 93 Waahington Troll a rs Aaaociation Elm* Oaaa Club 93 Cbabalia Baain Tachnical Adriaory Board 93 Chehalis River Council 93 Educational Activitiee 94 Chapter 7: ONGOING RESEARCH AND NEEDS FOR F ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 95 HABITAT MANAGEMENT 95 Hatar Quality 9S Tnn.r Oraya Harbor Water Quality 95 Doner Chahalia River System Water Quality 97 Water Quantity 97 Dams 97 Conaarration of Irrigation Water , . . . 98 Agricultural Practical 98 Poreat Practice* 98 T<«h«r, Piah. and Wildlife Ambient Monitoring 98 Porter Creek Habitat Reatoration 99 Urbanisation 99 Qravel Mining 100 Enhanced Rearing Habitat 10° Gravel Pit Rehabilitation 100 Side Channel Habitat Enhancement 100 Enhanced Spawning Habitat 100 WILD STOCK MANAGEMENT AND ROLE OP BATCHERIES 101 REGULATION OF FISHING 101 Escapement Ooals 101 Escapement Estimation Evaluations 101 Stock Status 102 Pall Chinook 1°2 Soring Chinook 102 Chum 1°2 Coho 102 Winter Steelhead 102 Summer Steelhead 102 Saolt Survival Studies 1°3 Interception 1°3 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS ... 103 Reatoration Monitoring and Evaluation 105 54 Chapter 8: RESTORATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ioe PROPOSED FISHERY RESTORATION GOAL 106 RESTORATION CRITERIA 1°6 Criteria for Habitat Improvements 106 Criteria for Hatchery Programs 1°7 Restoration Project Evaluation 107 Public and Interagency Involvement 108 RESTORATION OBJECTIVES 108 Objectives 109 PONDING NEEDS 112 LITERATURE CITED i" 55 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BPA Bonneville Power Administration BRW Black River Watch CBFTF Chehalia Basin Fishery Task Force CD Conservation District cfs Cubic Feet per Second CRC Chehalis River Council CRTAB* Chehalis River Technical Advisory Board CRPKP Coordinated Resource Production and Management Plan DO dissolved oxygen EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FRI Fishery Research Institute of University of Washington FWE Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office of FWS FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GHRPC Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission CHCD Grays Harbor Conservation District GIS Geographical Information System IFIH Instream Flow Incremental Method LCCD Lewis County Conservation District LCWQB* Lower Chehalis Water Quality Board LLTK Long Live the Kings •Note: Board' the official name now appears as "Chehalis River Technical Advisory in the Lower Chehalis River Basin Water Quality Management Study xi 56 List of acronyms and abbreviations, continued. mgd million gallons per day KLLW Mean Lower Low Water NKFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OFH Washington Office of Financial Management ONF Olympic National Forest OPIN Olympic Peninsula Information Network PCB Poly chlorinated Biphenyl PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council ppb parts per billion PPtL Pacific Power and Light ppa parts per million ppt parts per trillion PSC Pacific Salmon Commission PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission QFiD Quinault Fisheries Division of the Quinault Indian Nation RM River mile SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service tccd Thurston County Conservation District TCDD Tetrachloro Dibenrodioxin TCDF Tetrachloro Dibenrof uran TFW Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load (of permissible pollution) TSS Total suspended solids TO Trout Unlimited xii 57 List of acronyms and abbreviations, continued. US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CSFS U.S. Forest Service USCS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative -Code WDA Washington Department of Agriculture WDCD Washington Department of Community Development WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WDF Washington Department of Fisheries WDC Washington Department of Came, now WDW WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WDW Washington Department of Wildlife, formerly WDG WLA Waste Load Allocation WWFRO Western Washington Fishery Resource Office of the FWS WPPSS Washington Public Power Supply System xiii 58 Chapter 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN The Chehalis River Basin, as defined in the Act, includes ail the rivers and streams entering Grays Harbor and the land they drain (Figure 1), plus the waters of Grays Harbor itself. The Basin is the second largest in the State of Washington, the Columbia being the only one larger, and includes all of Grays Harbor County, most of Lewis County, parts of Mason and Thurston Counties, and small parts of Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties. The Chehalis Basin includes about 27,000 acres of saltwater in Grays Harbor itself (SCS 1975) and about 3,353 stream miles (Phinney et al. 1975). These waters provide a complex and diverse ecosystem with spawning and rearing areas that support several economically valuable species of anadromous fish (primarily salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout), whose restoration is the subject of this report. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The Chehalis River originates in the Willapa Hills in southwest Washington and flows into the Pacific Ocean via Grays Harbor. The main Willapa Hills tributaries of fishery interest are Elk Creek, which enters near the town of Doty, and the South Fork Chehalis, which enters near the town of Adna (Figure 2). The river then flows east from the Willapa Hills into the Puget Trough, the lowland separating the Willapa Hills from the southern Cascades. At that point, the river flows north and receives two very important fish-bearing tributaries from the Cascade foothills. The Newaukum River enters near the town of Chehalis, and the Skookumchuck River joinB the Chehalis River near Centralia (Figure 2). From that point, the Chehalis Valley widens and turns to the northwest, where the Black River drains the southern Puget Lowlands, joining the Chehalis east of the Black Hills on the Chehalis Indian Reservation. Cloguallum Creek enters west of the Black Hills, near the town of Elma. The river then turns to the west and drains the southern flank of the Olympic Range (Figure 2). The principal fish-producing streams of this region are the Satsop, Wynoochee, Wishkah, Hoguiam, and Humptulips Rivers. The Satsop enters the Chehalis River near the town of Satsop, and is the last major tributary upstream of tidal influence. The Wynoochee, Wishkah, and Hoguiam enter successively downstream at the towns of Hontesano, Aberdeen, and Hoguiam. Near the Wishkah, the Chehalis widens into Grays Harbor, which ia approximately 15 miles long and 13 miles wide. The Humptulips River also drains the southern Olympics but, unlike the Chehalis tributaries, the Humptulips independently enters the north side of Grays Harbor. On the southern side of Grays Harbor, two small rivers, the Elk and the Johns, drain from the northern Willapa Hills. Grays Harbor joins the Pacific Ocean through a narrow channel north of the fishing town of Westport. 59 feHECMIEHMUS PMERlBBSIIi **|p/VA,SH1NGTONlSTATE Figure 1. Location of Chehalia Basin in weatern Waahington. 72-813 - 93 - 3 60 Figure 2. Grays Harbor estuary. 61 For habitat management, it i6 convenient to divide the Basin into three parte: Grays Harbor, including all the tidal waters bearing that name, the Humptulips River System, and the Chehalis River System (Figure 1). The distinction of inner from outer Grays Harbor (Figure 2) is useful because the inner Harbor has suffered more water pollution than the outer Harbor, and because Chehalis System fish must migrate through the inner Harbor whereas Humptulips System fish pass only through the outer Harbor (Figure 2). HYDROGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION Area drained Streamflow (c :fs) River system (square miles) Maximum Mean annual Minimum Chehalis at Porter 1,294 34,600 4,262 164 Satsop • 299 46,600 1,968 166 Humptulips 130 33,000 1,320 32 Wynoocnee 179 24,500 1,275 23 Newaukum 1S5 7,400 506 12 Cloguallum Creek 65 3,650 375 63 Wishkah 58 7,400 A 33 Skookumchuck 62 6,710 247 16 Hoquiam A A A 6 Black 61 1,700 162 5 A Not available. Table I . Relative size and stream flows of major tributaries to tAe Chehalis Basin (Hahlum 1976). Annual rainfall varies from 40 inches in Centralia to 220 inches in the southern Olympics (Harper, in prep.); about 85 percent falling between October and April. Peak streamflows usually occur between November and March. After April, flow gradually subsides to late August or early September lows (Figure 3). Mean annual freshwater flow into Grays Harbor has not been directly measured but is estimated at 11,208 cfs (Mahlum 1976). Table 1 Illustrates the relative sizes of the Chehalis River near Porter and other significant tributaries based on streamflow data. 62 Rainfall, not snow melt, almost exclusively drives the annual rise and fall of streamflow throughout the Basin. CHEHAI.IS BASIN STREAMFLOWS J\ • KaUt WUlwi I ^ Lomi Oih Kia^cullp* L tut* AM MAY JtW JOT. ADO SKF Fijurt 3 . Mean monthly uuinlltwi in the ChciuUi Bash . ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DESCRIPTION The Chehalis Basin is generally rural. The primary industries are forest products, followed by agriculture, tourism, and fiBhing. The area has higher unemployment than the state as a whole due primarily to increasing automation in the wood products industry and declining timber production (GHRPC 1992). Its inhabitants urgently seek economic diversification in the face of recent declines in availability of old growth timber from federal lands, primarily to the north of the Basin; old growth timber had until recently provided significant economic value in the Basin. Fishery development is seen as part of general tourism promotion in Grays Harbor County (Larry Wilder, Grays Harbor Tourism Council, pers. comm. ) . Demographics The Basin's population of about 117,000 has remained steady over the last ten years (Table 2). The largest incorporated area is the Aberdeen-Cosmopolis- Hoquiam complex. This area lost about eight percent of its population probably due to timber industry declines and cessation of construction at the Satsop nuclear plants. Small timber-dependent towns close to Aberdeen, such as Montesano and Elma, have similarly declined (OFM 1991). The next largest concentration of population is in Centralis and Chehalis. This area has grown slightly, probably reflecting the residential sprawl from Olympia. The only other rapidly growing community is Ocean Shores, which is residential but depends largely on recreation. About half of the Basin residents live in unincorporated areas (Table 2), primarily in Lewis and Thurston Counties. This population has grown rapidly, due to suburban expansion south from Olympia, but the trend is slowing. For example, from 1970 to 1980 the Black River watershed population doubled, but from then to 1990 it grew only 37 percent (Palmer, in prep.). 63 1990 Percent Change Category population of total since 1980 Total Unincorporated Incorporated 116,970 56,488* 60,482 100.0 48.3 51.7 +1.1 +4.7 -2.1 Unincorporated* Lewie County Thurston County Grays Harbor County 29,027 24,603 25,858 51.4 43.6 5.0 +8.2 +14.6 -0.1 Incorporated Aberdeen-CoBmopolis-Hoquiam 27,615 45.7 -8.1 Central ia-Chehalxs 18,480 30.6 +4.7 Monte sano 3,270 5.4 -10.7 Elma 2,420 4.0 -11.0 Ocean Shores 2,262 .3-7 +27.3 Weetport 1,935 3.2 -1.0 HcCleary 1,515 2.S +6.8 Tenino 1,295 2.1 +1.2 Pe Ell 580 1.0 -6.0 oakville 580 1.0 +8.0 Bucoda 530 0.9 +2.1 * Populations of unincorporated treu not entirely in Gray* Hubor Betin were cnimiied from d*u in OFM 0991). Table 2. Chehalis Basin population (OFM 1991). Economic Bate Torest Products The Grays Harbor economy has always been cyclical, but has especially suffered froa a combination of increased automation (GHRPC 1992) and reduced old growth timber harvest. The two largest wood products plants in the Basin are the ITT-Rayonier pulp mill in Hoquiam and the Weyerhaeuser pulp mill in South Aberdeen. The Aberdeen area also supports many smaller plants making plywood, doors, veneer, and other wood products. The export of logs and lignin liquor through the Port of Grays Harbor is important to the local economy (GHRPC 1992). Log exports are mainly to Japan, China, and Korea. 64 Agriculture In 1987, agriculture in the Chehalis Basin generated an estimated $96 million per year from about 200,000 acres (WDA, unpublished 1987 data, WDA 1991). Lewie County has a greater amount of land in agriculture than other Basin counties. Farmland is about equally divided between pasture and crops. Farms average about 100 acres, and slightly over half the operators derive most of their income from non-farming sources. About 80 percent of farm income came from livestock and their products, such as beef, milk, and eggs. Of the remaining 20 percent, hay is the predominant crop while peas and corn axe also important. The GHRPC (19?2) lists other specialty crops such as cranberries, oysters, farm-raised trout, and Christmas trees. Touriii Grays Harbor County attracts more tourists than other coastal Washington counties. Tourism to Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties generated about $50 million in 1989, up $5 million from 1988 (ICF Technology Inc. 1988). Most visitors to these counties were Puget Sound residents, and less than 10 percent came from out of state (ICF Inc. 1988). Local government is promoting sport fishing as a basis for increased tourism to help compensate for some of the losses in the timber industry (Larry Wilder, Grays Harbor Tourism Council, pers. coram. ) . The goal is year-round sport fishing opportunity, supported by increased runs of spring and fall Chinook salmon and summer steelhead (Larry Wilder, Grays Harbor Tourism Council, pers. comm. ) . The result of fishery improvement is expected to be reflected in increased sport fishing-related purchases at restaurants, bars, motels, and sporting goods and grocery stores. Fishing and Related Activities The Basin has important commercial, charter, and private sport fisheries (Table 3) and related businesses. Marinas serve commercial and recreational boats at Ocean Shores, Aberdeen, Hoguiam, and West port. Grays Harbor also has boat construction and repair businesses, retail fishing supply houses, and associated accommodations (GHRPC 1992). Commercial fisheries Most commercial fishing boats based in Grays Harbor fish outside the Harbor on Chinook and eoho salmon, bottomfish, and crab. The two major commercial salmon fisheries based in Grays Harbor are the troll and gill net fisheries. The catch is processed at plants in Westport, Hoguiam, and Taholah. The amount of Washington salmon available to commercial fisheries and processors depends primarily on run sizes and harvest and escapement goals (ICF Technology, Inc. 1988), although allocation of catch to sport fisheries clearly constrains commercial opportunities in many years (Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) . Type 65 Fishing grounds Target species Sport Freshwater Saltwater Grays Harbor tributaries Local steel head, coho, Chinook, chum cutthroat trout, white sturgeon Mixed stock coho and Chinook Grays Harbor, north and south jetties, Westport and Ocean Shores marinas Local coho and chlnook and net pen stocks Commercial Non-Indian Gillnet Troll Grays Harbor Marine areas outside Grays Harbor Fall Chinook, coho, chum, sturgeon Mixed stock coho and Chinook Indian gillnet Quinault Nation Grays Harbor, Humptulips, and lower Chehalis Chehalis Tribe Middle Chehalis River Spring and fall chinook, coho, chum, steelhead, sturgeon Spring and fall Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead Indian -troll Quinault: Nation Washington coastal and marine areas Mixed stock Chinook and coho T&hle 3. Major fisheries of the Chehalis Basin and their target species (D. Stone and J. Devore, VDF, pers. comm.). Ocean Troll Fishery. The troll fishery operates off the coast and targets mixed stocks of coho and chinook in a heavily regulated fishery. Westport ia the primary troll fishing port in the Basin, and can be expected, along with Ilwaco and Neah Bay, to remain one of the major commercial ports on the Washington coast. 66 Terminal Area Fisheries. Grays Harbor itself supports local commercial fisheries, as well as sport fishing and oyster culture. Fish epecxea of economic importance within the Harbor include local runs of Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Sturgeon, largely originating from the Columbia River, support sport and commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor and the lower Chehalis (John Devore, WDF, pers. coram.). Both the non- Indian and Indian commercial gillnet fisheries operate inside Grays Harbor. Both harvest Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. In addition, the Indian fishery harvests steelhead. Sport Fisheries The two major recreational fisheries are the river sport fishery and the charterboat fishery. The Basin attracts anglers from outside Grays Harbor, principally from the Puget Sound metropolitan area but from neighboring states as well. Marine Sport Fishery. The charter 6almon fishery has traditionally fished only the mixed 6tocks of Chinook and coho salmon in the ocean, but some boats have begun fishing inside Grays Harbor for local coho. There is. also a sport fishery by private boats in the ocean. Westport is the primary charter fishing port in the Basin. The recreational coastal Washington salmon fishery provided about 160,000 annual trips during 1986-1988, of which slightly over half were by charter boat, and most of the rest by private boat (ICF 1988). As salmon stocks have declined many of the charter operators have increasingly turned to bottom fishing. River Sport Fishery. The river sport fishery targets primarily on steelhead, coho, Chinook, and chum salmon, and white sturgeon. The ICF (1988) analysis showed relatively little bank fishing, but may have underestimated the fishing effort along the lower Chehalis, Humptulips, Wynoochee, and Satsop Rivers. Value of Salmon Fisheries Pacific Northwest The economic value of salmonid fishing in the Pacific Northwest (northern California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) was studied by the Oregon Rivere Council (1992). They reported that recreational users valued the experience of fishing at about $50/day in 1990 dollars. However, Pacific northwest residents were also willing to pay for the expansion of Columbia River salmon runs by paying higher utility bills at the rate of about $70 per fish, if one includes the value placed on the mere existence of the resource and the continued option of fishing, as well as the value of fishing experience itself (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Combined commercial and recreational salmon, trout and steelhead fisheries produced $1.3 billion in annual personal income in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts, and supported 63,000 jobs in 1990 (Oregon Rivers 67 Council 1992). The commercial fishery generated S320 million in total personal income and 15,000 jobs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). The recreational fishery added $930 million and 48,000 jobs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Fish-related budgets for state and federal agencies contributed at least $200 million annually and generated indirect and induced income and jobs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Washington State Salmon fishing contributed $415 million to the state and provided about 21,000 jobs in 1988; commercial salmon fisheries contributed about $136 million annually in personal income and 6,800 jobs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). The recreational ealmonid fishery produced a personal income impact of $279 million and generated about 14,250 jobs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Coastal Washington Fishing generated $48 million in income and provided about 1,000 jobs in 1988; the non-Indian commercial fisheries in 1982-1985 in Pacific and Grays Harbor Counties generated total sales and employment income of $14 million and provided 350 full-time-equivalent jobs (Table 4) (ICF Technology, Inc. 1988). By gear type, the troll fishery between Cape Flattery and the Columbia River generated income of $11.8 million from 1980 to 1989, while the non-Indian gillnet fishery in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay produced $1.2 million (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Commercial fishery Recreational fishery Total annual sales Household income Employment Met economic value $8.5 million $6 million 300 FTEA -$250,000» $22 million $12 million 650 FTE $6 million A FuD-Unx equivalent!. B Some ulmon fishermen operate profitably fishing for other cpeciet. Table 4. 1985 Washington coastal salmon fisheries economic values (ICF 1988). The recreational fishery generated a total household income during 1982-1985 of $34 million annually and 650 full-time-equivalent jobs (Table 4) (ICF Technology, Inc. 1988). 10 68 Westport Commercial fishing. Commercial fishing and fish processing generated a total of $46.7 million in 1988, $33 million in sales and $13.7 million in income, and accounted for 758 jobs at the peak of the season, or 76% of all marina jobs (CH2M Hill-Northwest 1989). However, salmon was only 2.6 percent (0.9 million pounds) of the total seafood landed (28.7 million pounds), which consisted primarily of crab, shrimp, and rockfiah (CH2M-Hill Northwest 1989). The personal income impact of the j»en-Indian troll ocean salmon fishery for Westport was $770,000 in 1991 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1992). Recreational Activities. Charter boat and recreational fishing and other tourism generated $6.6 million, $4.7 million in sales and $1.9 in personal income, and provided 132 jobs in 1988 (Lattin 1992). Virtually all recreational income came from outside the Westport area; 90 percent of the visitors were non-local Washington residents and 10% were from out of state (CH2M-H111 Northwest. 1989). Salmon played a larger role in the sport fishery than in the Westport commercial fishery. In 1988 roughly 50% of the charter trips were for salmon fishing; 40% for bottom fishing, and 10% for whale- or bird-watching (CH2M-Hill Northwest 1989). The economic impact of an estimated 66 private, recreation boats in the Westport Marina was not documented (CH2M- Hill Northwest 1989). Trends in Economic Impact Washington State The combined ocean troll and recreational income in 1991 was 67% less than the 1976-1990 average (PFMC 1992). The estimated total state personal income generated in Washington by the non-Indian troll fleet was $2.5 million, an 84 percent decline from the 1976-1990 average, and the decrease was similar for the coastal areas, and spread evenly across Neah Bay, Westport, and Ilwaco (PFMC 1992). Washington Coast Non-Indian troll-caught coho landed in Grays Harbor have declined from an average of 207,500 fish for 1976-1980 to 19,300 fish for 1986-1991; Westport recreational ocean salmon fishing effort declined from 210,300 trips to 52,600 trips over the same period (PFMC 1992). Westport In 1980 there were 250 charter fishing vessels moored at the Westport Marina; over the next 11 years, it dropped to 65 (Stevens 1992). Estimates of personal income from the recreational ocean salmon fishery declined from the 1976-1990 average of $9.8 million (1991 dollars) to $4.1 million in 1991 (PFMC 1992). 11 69 Benefits of Stock Recovery The potential benefits of recovery extend beyond the direct economic benefits of each additional fish because restoring a depressed wild salmon stock removes harvest constraints and thus allows more efficient harvest of all intermingled healthy runs (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Moreover, good recreational fishing opportunity aids in attracting new industry to an area (Oregon Rivers Council 1992). Although it is difficult to accurately predict the economic benefits of salmon restoration, recovered salmon runs would obviously be positive for the region's economy. The ICF (1988) study predicted a 10 percent increase in fishing would result in $1.3 million more in household income for the recreational fishery. Benefits would go almost entirely to boat fisheries, with the charter fleet gaining about 75 percent and the private and rental boat fishery, 25 percent. They also predicted a 10 percent increase in fishing, with no change in daily catch rate and no offsetting decline in any other fishery, would result in $634,000 more household income for the commercial fishery of the two counties. Benefits would be split between the ocean troll and the gillnet fleets. Healthy fisheries are an important component of the Basin's economic infrastructure. Rebuilding the salmon and steelhead habitat is critical to the economic well-being of the Basin. The salmon restoration recommendations in this report will produce economic benefits by creating jobs for local workers . Value of Sturgeon Fisheries Commercial Fishery The 1982-85 ex-vessel value of all Washington commercial sturgeon landings averaged $350,000 annually (ICF 1988). About 15 percent of the statewide commercial sturgeon harvest originated in Grays Harbor, primarily from the gillnet fishery (ICF 1988). Recreational Fishery Less than 10 percent of the Washington sport harvest comes from Grays Harbor; the majority comes from the lower Columbia River (ICF 1988). Sport sturgeon fishing generated about $323,000 annually in Pacific and Grays Harbor Counties during the study period (ICF 1988). About 96 percent of the expenditures involved in-state dollar transfers rather than new money for the state. The recreational sturgeon fishery had a much different makeup than the salmon fishery. About two-thirds of the income was generated by bank fishing trips, and about one-third by private or rental boats (ICF 1988). 12 70 Social Value« Connected with Fishing Tribal Fishing The Tribes' fishing rights are indispensable to maintaining a cohesive tribal society. Twp tribes fish the Grays Harbor Basin; the Quinault Indian Nation and the Chehalis Indian Tribe. Their goal iB to perpetuate their salmon- dependent culture and promote the economic welfare of their members. River Sport Fishing The Chehalis and its primary tributaries downstream of Porter support a significant Bport fishery. The Washington Department of Fisheries recently emphasized sport fisheries while maintaining, but not increasing, commercial fisheries (WDF 1991). However, under the present management scheme there is little fishing opportunity upriver from Porter, where there were once larger runs of all species. River sport fishing is an important cultural interest of Basin residents so there is high interest in restoring fishing opportunity. Public participation in fishery enhancement projects seems motivated as much by civic pride and commitment to the local community as by expectation of economic development. Marine Fishing •u> mora* oouria nau. mrroter LluElli ■port THIT8 orr nasntai cotjrt t „. llilUilll Many of the Basin's families are connected to fishing. The community of Westport, in particular, is based on ocean fishing with success tied directly to the size of health of fish runs. Charterboat and ocean troll fishing has decreased statewide (Figure 4) along with reduced seasons. However, groups representing both these interests have promoted rebuilding Grays Harbor stocks, even though they often harvest mostly Columbia River fish. In 1991, charterboats began fishing inside Grays Harbor to exploit the very abundant Chehalis coho run of that year (Mark Cedergreen, Westport Charter Association, pers. coram. ) . Figure 4. Washington ocean salmon fiihing effort (PFMC 1992). 13 71 Chapter 2: HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE FISHERY RESOURCES AND HABITATS The history of Chehalis Basin fish runs and habitats is one of pristine productivity, then gross degradation, followed by partial recovery. The recorded hiBtory has seen several revolutions in fishing methods and areas, and in industries and processes affecting fish habitat. In the first several decades of this century, unregulated log transport and fishing, overlapping in time with inadequate water pallution control in the inner Harber, contributed to declining salmon and steelhead catches in the Grays Harbor area. In response, the State imposed fishing regulations and later saw to the removal of splash dams (see discussion on logging later in this chapter) and restocked the streams behind them. Research into habitat quality began in 1940 and prompted a series of water cleanup efforts that continue (Pine and Tracey 1971; Seller 1989). Unfortunately, this did not promote a speedy recovery of fish stocks and a long period of depressed terminal catches followed. All the while, increasing marine interception may have masked potential recovery of coho and Chinook (John Campbell, Weyerhaeuser Corp., pers. coma.). During the 1950s, chum salmon joined chinook, coho, and steelhead on the list of depressed runs (Ward ec al. 1971), and steelhead catch monitoring had been discontinued (WDW unpublished records), adding to the frustration. Accurate catch and escapement monitoring began around 1969. The 1970s brought about an era of increasing understanding of the fishery and habitat resource, and increasing participation by all groups having a stake in those resources. Since catch is a result of fishing efficiency, environmental conditions, and fish production, this report will provide a history of fishing on Chehalis Basin runs, a brief description of the Basin's environmental history, and a history of hatcheries. HISTORY OF FISHING ON CHEHALIS BASIN SALMON AND STEELHEAD The history of fishing for salmon, and to a lesser degree, steelhead, has seen a growing diversity of fishing gear and expansion of fishing areas. Fishing on Chehalis Basin runs progressed seaward as each new fishery became the first to intercept fish along the migratory path of returning adults. Ultimately, Chehalis Basin fishery managers lost their ability to ensure a surplus of fish for harvest and spawning within the Chehalis River Basin. Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Fisheries have tended toward multiple gear types and expansion of fishing grounds. Before European contact, various Indian tribes or bands fished Grays Harbor for salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and sturgeon with weirs and other terminal gear (GHRPC 1992). Settlers began arriving in the 1850s and, 14 72 by 1877, were using fiBh traps (GHRPC 1992) downstream of Indian weirs to supply a salmon cannery. Thus began the conflict between upriver and downriver fisheries that continues even to some degree today. Later, fish traps were built along the shores of Grays Harbor; next, Grays Harbor gillnetters jumped ahead of the trap fishery by exploiting open waters of the Harbor (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b). By 1892, when the commercial catch was first reported (WDF, unpub. records), set and drift gillnetting were legally recognized along with trapping. By 1934, harvests had declined and the trap and eetnet fisheries were outlawed, apparently to stabilize harvest (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b). In the 1950s, nylon gillnets were introduced and quickly replaced cotton and linen nets, making the Grays Harbor drift gillnet fishery more efficient. In 1974, the Federal Court ruled that western Washington tribes having signed treaties with the United States in the 1850s reserved half the harvestable fish passing through their usual and accustomed — that is, historic -- fishing grounds (for example, see Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 1989). This resulted in a reallocation of catch by a reduction in mixed-stock, open- ocean fisheries and increased terminal area returnB and stream-by-stream fishery management throughout western Washington (Dr. Percy Washington, Gaia Inc., pers. comm.). Locally, it also led to expansion of Quinault tribal fisheries off the Quinault reservation and onto Grays Harbor and the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers (Hiss et ai. 1982). Marine Interception Virtually all fishing on Chehalis Basin salmon originally occurred inside the Basin, but, around 1935, fishing boats were fitted with economical diesel motors. Trollers began to exploit the mixed stocks in the ocean (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b). Boats could now easily run to ocean fishing grounds and intercept fish before the runs reached Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River. The ocean troll fishery increased tenfold from 1940 to 1970 (Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission 1992). This resulted in loss of harvest control by local managers (Washington 1988 draft). In the late 1940s, charterboats joined trollers in the marine fishery. By 1950, WDF began keeping catch records from this fleet. The fleet continued to grow steadily and peaked in 1977 (Ward and Hoines 1985). As ocean fleets developed at all Pacific coast ports, Chehalis Basin Chinook and coho were caught off the coasts of Alaska, Canada, and Oregon as well as Washington (now known from coded-wire tagging data). Prior to 1976, individual states managed marine fisheries. But, in that year, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act created the Pacific Fishery Management Council, with the duty of setting fishing seasons and limits for marine waters between 3 and 200 miles off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. However, the Act did not address the issue of Canadian interceptions. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) was formed in 1985, as a result of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada, to prevent overfishing, 15 73 increase salmon production, and ensure each country receives benefits equal to its own production (PSC 1988). Although recent increases in Washington coastal Chinook escapements might be attributable to reductions in interception under the Treaty, to date the treaty has not entirely satisfied the desire for increased terminal fishing opportunity in Grays Harbor. Further significant changes in U.S. and Canadian fishing patterns appear unlikely, but cannot be entirely ruled out. CMZMOOK MMK aa CAM 1=3 u*u Wfrile the overall catches of Chinook and coho have declined over the past 20 years, catch reductions were not equally shared coastwide (Figure 5). Marine Chinook catch landed in Washington decreased more than that of Canada over the last 20 years, while the southeast Alaskan catch remained about the same. Washington coho landings decreased more than those of Oregon, while the Canadian catch remained about the same. HABITAT HISTORY Fish habitat in the Basin has been subjected to progressive degradation from agriculture, pulp production, gravel mining, dams, urbanization, and dredge and fill practices. Over the last 50 year 6, there has been a movement, now accelerating, that has partially succeeded in slowing habitat deterioration. As the primary economic focus in the Basin changed through time, the habitat battleground has constantly shifted. Historically, agriculture was the first land use to conflict with natural fish production. Later, the heyday of logging and pulp production resulted in gross abuses to salmon habitat. As the Basin developed, gravel was mined from the rivers for road building, at the expense of salmon spawning grounds. While all these economic developments have ultimately had to concede a place for the fish, they have given us a legacy of partially resolved technical and political questions. Chapter 5 describes how each economic development has impacted fishery habitat; the history of these developments is addressed here. Fifurt 5 . Landings from oce»n noli and rec luuoul fiihenei (PFMC 1992). Agriculture Agriculture exacted a price from the fishery resource beginning when the Basin was first opened to cultivation. The story of agriculture and ranching is one of early fish habitat damage, historically largely undocumented and 16 74 unredressed, followed by a recent movement toward compatibility with aquatic habitat. In 1857, the City of Hoguiam was founded, with agriculture as its economic base. The demand for dairy products for the Fraser River gold rush stimulated Hoguiam' s development. Bringing land under cultivation had four effects: Removing Side Channels. Sloughs, and Ponds.- Farmers diked certain riverfront land on the Chehalis and its principal tributaries, especially the Wynoochee, Sat sop, and Humptulips, and to a lesser degree the Skookumchuck and Newaukum (GHRPC 1992). This destroyed winter cover and feeding areas for juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout. River confinement is also thought to have stimulated scouring, thus artificially lowering river elevations. Straightening Small Streams.- Straightening of small tributary streams to allow more convenient grazing and farming resulted in loss of total stream area and the essential habitat variation of the riffle/pool complex. Examples are Banaford Creek and Bloom's Ditch (Phinney et al. 1975). Clearing the Bank of Trees.- This removed the shade tree canopy along some tributaries, contributing immediately to wanner water, and, over the long term, to less input of woody debris for fish cover. Snagging, or Logjam Removal.- In the 1880s, the USACE cleared many streams of logjams, which were apparently thought to promote erosion, flooding and channel shifting wherever jams were located. Logging This section will describe some of the damaging timber harvest practices now prohibited by existing WDNR regulations. The effects of past timber harvest practices, although sometimes obvious, are usually maddeningly difficult to measure and link to specific degrees of fishery damage. History of the Industry In the early 1880s, timber harvest joined agriculture as a major economic activity (Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission 1992). In 1832, Grays Harbor's first sawmill was built on the Hoguiam. In 1909, the demand for logs grew quickly for use in rebuilding San Francisco after the fire and earthquake. Thus arose the need to quickly transport many logs from the woods to the Harbor. Before the advent of modern logging equipment and practices, the most efficient way to transport logs to the mills was by water; giving rise to the era of splash dam logging. Logging and driving companies constructed a system of log dams to maintain ponds for holding logs and to create a supply of water to move their cut timber (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b). Log splashing usually occurred weekly. The gates of each dam were suddenly opened and the logs behind the dam sluiced through the gate and carried downstream by the flow. 17 75 Thie was apparently the most ecologically damaging period the Basin haB known (Wendler and Deschamps 1955a). Almost all the structures were total blocks to anadromoue fish and eliminated considerable spawning and rearing areas (Figure 6). These barriers effectively blocked over 60 percent of the salmon spawning and rearing streams of Grays Harbor. The average splash dam was in place about 20 years. The downstream impacts included: (1) mechaaical injury to eggs and fish spawning below the dam, (2) destabilization of gravel beds by moving logs or suddenly increased flows, with the resultant disappearance of distinct riffles and pools, (3) channel instability, (4) deposition of bark over a large part of the stream bottom between splashes, (5) unnatural shading of many miles of tidewater by log rafts, and (6) loss of fish cover by clearing woody debris from stream channels. In the 1930, the timber industry began undergoing a technical revolution as roads and railroads began to replace rivers for log transport (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b), and the dams became obsolete. Many operators abandoned the installations without attempting to remove them. Some fish ladders were constructed where feasible, but many did not work efficiently. Many dams blocked migrating fish until they either rotted out, washed out, or were removed by WDF in the early 1950s. After removal, rapid natural recolonization was observed in several instances. In addition, hatchery- reared fish, usually coho fry, were at times planted upstream to speed recovery. A significant change occurred in the logging industry in 1962 when very high winds blew down extensive timber, creating the need to remove a large number of logs before decay set in. The permanent effect was that Japan became a major buyer, and Weyerhaeuser Company a major exporter, of Chehalis Basin logs (Felver 1982, quoted by Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission 1992). Continuing Effects of Old Logging Practices Shade Removal. Economically valuable trees were usually removed down to the streambank until the last decade. Until shade trees grow back, an exposed stream tends to become warmer and, if it gets too warm, salmon and steelhead cannot use it. If this happens to a number of streams, temperatures may increase downstream as well. Sources of Instream FiBh Cover Removed. Lack of woody debris naturally entering the stream over the years resulted in lost habitat complexity until some point in the last decade. This situation especially hurts juvenile coho and adult Chinook and, to a lesser extent, juvenile steelhead, because it denies them instream cover. Further misguided efforts to remove logging 18 76 Figure 6. Past location of splash dams (Wendler and Daachamps 1955b). 77 debris from streams in the previous decades may have actually diminished productivity in many areas. The upper Chehalis, from Fisk Falls at Mile 113 upstream to several miles beyond the ForkB of the Chehalis, exemplifies this problem. Stream Channel Destabilized. Logging can also reduce fish production by reducing the stability of the watershed and the streambed. To the degree that logging roads and other activities accelerated the natural process of Blope failure, they led to an unnaturally high rate of bedload and silt accumulation (Oederholm and Reid 1987). This can lead to an unstable stseameed, in which higfc flows tend to rapidly sttift the channel, scour spawning gravels, and wash fry that cannot hold their position against the flow downstream. Porter Creek is a likely case of gravel and sand loss attributable to logging. Recent Forest Practices Ieprovements The current trend seems to be slow but steady progress toward compatibility between forestry and fishery resources. The last decade has seen intense interagency effort to make timber harvest compatible with fishery values. In 1980, in Phase II of C.S. vs. Washington, Judge William Orrick ruled that fish habitat protection was a treaty right (Cohen 1986). This led to tribal participation in fish habitat protection on the technical and management levels. The specter of continual controversy over the relation between fisheries and forest practices led to the development of the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement (TFW), wherein all principal parties influenced by forest practices have an opportunity to participate in reducing the detriments. The 1990 decision to list the Northern Spotted Owl as a federally threatened species resulted in a reduction of old growth timber harvest which should reduce some stream degradation to the benefit of salmon and steelhead. Gravel Mining As the Basin population grew and roads replaced rivers for log transport, gravel for roads and general construction came into high demand. Gravel extraction from the wetted channel became popular shortly after the end of the splash dam era, since river-run gravel is especially useful for road-building. At first, draglines and clamshell buckets were commonly used to remove gravel from pits in the main river channel. By 1945, WDF required permits for such work, and applications increased annually (WDF 1986). In the 1950s, WDF recognized the damage and prohibited gravel mining in the wetted channel. However, gravel mining was allowed to continue on the dry bars during low water. The Humptulips was the main gravel producer, followed by the Satsop and Wynoochee. Since then, progressively stricter state and county regulation has eliminated the most damaging effects, and has also successfully encouraged operators to seek gravel from off-channel sources. In 1960, WDF permits further restricted gravel mining by requiring gravel removal by bar scalping, as opposed to pit 20 78 ruction (WDF 1986). Bare had to be smoothly eloped after scalping to trapping fish aa the river rooe and fell. In 1975, WDF further icted gravel removal by closing the Humptulips to new bar scalping above (WDF 1986). The wisdom of this move was confirmed by Collins and Dunne , quoted in Mark et al. 1986) who showed that gravel mining on the ulips had been talcing up to 10 times more than the river could replenish i average year. si scalping is still permitted up to the transport rates derived by .ns and Dunne (1988) for the Humptulips, Wynoochee , ' and Satsop. Annual - /al is divided equally among gravel removal applicants for river of rest. Special state legislation after the 1990 flood allowed a single el removal operator to remove seven times the transport rate on the tulips to help reduce the risk of flood damage. A special provision of legislation closed the Humptulips to further gravel removal for 7 years, ently, there are 6 years remaining on this provision. The Satsop and ochee rivers receive only an average of one to two applications per year, added restrictions on gravel bar scalping (removal) combined with eased demands has made this type of gravel removal nearly economically asible. Urbanisation he Basin was settled, urbanization permanently altered the aquatic urce. Streets, buildings, bridges, culverts, and levees appeared, and s required water supplies and sewage disposal. Streets and buildings ted urban stormwater runoff, exacerbating both flooding and Btreambed ability. Culverts under roads and city streets were seldom designed to w fish to pass upstream. T: a towns not built on filled land often encroached onto floodplains — a pr 3B8 still in full force today in the upper Chehalis. Levees were built in Ce- -alia, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis to protect development in the path of the n-. -, but levees typically cut off seasonally valuable fish habitat. Wat-r rights were granted to cities, industries, and individual homeowners on the Philosophy that the best use of water was always for economic development, i.e. . use outside the natural stream. Only in the 1970s was action begun to protect instream resources (Hahlum 1976). Originally, all urban sewage was discharged untreated into the nearest water body; sewage plants were not in operation, for instance, in the Aberdeen area until 1957 (GHRPC 1992). This made parts of the middle and lower Chehalis River uninhabitable for fish for at least the summer and early fall (WDOE et al. 1974). Estuarine Dredging and Filling Since the turn of the century, log exports have driven the Grays Harbor shipping industry, requiring a navigation channel from the ocean to the inner 21 79 Harbor log docks. In 1911, the Port of Grays Harbor was organized for the purpose of dredging, filling, and wharf construction. The increasing sire of log-export vessels forced successive deepening of the navigation channel from Westport to CoBmopolis in 1923, the late 1940s, 1973, and 1990. The moBt important historical effect of dredging has been filling of wetlands, particularly in the vicinity of the Cow Point (Figure 2) (GHRPC 1992). Landfills in the Grays Harbor tidelands created much of downtown Aberdeen and Hoguiam, and removed extensive rearing habitat for chum, chinook, and coho salmon. Dredged material, along with Bawdust ahd bark from sawmills, was used to fill the tidelands. Wetland filling is now regulated by tbe DS1CZ and has been substantially reduced. However, the full range of other environmental effects of dredging and of dredged material disposal hae only been addressed in the two most recent navigation channel widening and deepening episodes, particularly the current one. The most recent harbor deepening, soon to be completed, is the first to have extensive environmental evaluation built into the project (Ging 1988). Daas and Diversions Besides the splash dams described above, other relatively small dams and diversions have been constructed in the Basin over the years (USDA et al. 1974; GHRPC 1992) for municipal and industrial use. A few of these dams have blocked access to upstream spawning and rearing habitat (Phinney et aj . 1975). The incremental effect of numerous withdrawals in some streams has seriously reduced flow, reducing spawning and rearing habitat and exacerbating poor water quality (Fraser 1986). The Skookumchuck and Wynoochee Reservoirs are by far the two largest dams in the Chehalis Basin. The Skookumchuck was finished in 1970, and the agreed- upon fishery mitigation was fully in place shortly thereafter (Hiss et al. 1982). The Wynoochee Dam was completed in 1974. Unlike the Skookumchuck, the Wynoochee mitigation is yet to be completely agreed upon (for example, see Riley 1992). Industrial Waste Disposal Water quality in Crays Harbor is intimately linked to pulp production. Since its inception in the late 1920s, pulp production appears to have depressed fish survival and created conditions popularly known as the "pollution block" (WDF 1971). At least until very recently, the pollution block limited the effectiveness of potential improvements in habitat and hatchery production throughout the Chehalis system. However, successive changes to mill waste treatment and pulp-making processes have led to stepwise estuarine water quality improvements near the mills. Research in the 1940s identified lack of dissolved oxygen in the inner Harbor as the prime suspect (Eriksen and Townsend 1940). When pollution was controlled enough to restore sufficient oxygen for fish in the inner Harbor, fish survival still appeared poor, and investigators attempted to identify toxic substances that waste treatment failed to remove. The most recent evaluation of fish survival (Schroder and Fresh 1992) suggests toxicity from unidentified substances as recently as 22 80 1989. However, effluent clean-up since that date may have finally removed the "block". Data on fish survival through the presumably cleaner inner Harbor pi will be available over the next several years. A detailed account of inner ;* Harbor water quality appears in Chapter 4. 23 81 Chapter 3: HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF FISH POPULATIONS Anadromou8 fish of sport and commercial value using the Chehalis Basin are spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsche) , coho salmon (O. klsutch) , chum salmon (0. keta) , winter and summer run steelhead trout (O. myklss), eea-run cutthroat trout (0. claxkj.) , white sturgeon {Aclpenser transmontanus) , green sturgeon (A. medirostris) , and American shad (Aiosa sapxdisslma) . The primary forage fish resources are Northern anchovy (Engraulls mordax) and longfin smelt (Sfcirinchus thaleichtAys} i CHINOOK SALMON There is a continuum of chinook entry into Chehalis Basin streams from March through December. Chehalis Basin chinook salmon are managed as separate spring and fall runs. Spring chinook return between March 1 and August 31 to the Chehalis Indian net fishery in the vicinity of Oaxville. Fall chinook begin entering the Satsop as early as September and return to other tributaries later. Fall chinook return to the Grays Harbor fisheries after September 1 (Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) . Terminal Area Run Size and Escapenent Coals Spring Chinook Terminal area run size, that is, escapement plus Chehalis Basin catch, has been sufficient to meet the escapement goal in three of the past five years, although the goal was never met from 1970 to 198S (Table 5; Figure 7) . X»71 1*»J l*Ti 1»TT Xt7i lt«l U*J i»tt >»rT !»•» l»tl Drastic cutbacks in all fisheries, but particularly the Chehalis tribal fishery, may have contributed to recovery (Deschamps, Chehalis Tribe,; Stone, WDF, pers. comm.). Cyclical improvement in early marine survival since the 1983 El Ki.no event may also be contributing. Despite the overall increase in escapement, Wynoochee spring chinook are thought to be non- existent (Stone, WDF, pers. comm.); they were cited as at high risk of extinction by Nehlsen et al. (1991). CHEHALIS SPRING CHINOOK RUN SIZE Fifurt 7. rinz chinook silmon termini! irei ran nzc (WDF, unpublished d*U). 24 82 Wild escapement ooal met Last brood Period of Goal cycle* record* Terminal run size Last Period of brood cycle record0 Spring run 1,400 3/S 4/22 2,023 1,614 Pall run 14,600 4/5* 5/23 39>818 21.S87 Cohe 35,400 3/3 16/25 166,674 104,387 Chum 21,000 VA 7/23 53,247 44,725 Steelhead Winter run Chefaalis system Hatchery C C C 4,884 4,405 Wild 8,600 1/4 5/9 11,032 11,779 Humptulips system Hatchery C C C 1,395 2,841 Wild 1,600 4/4 8/8 4,152 4,412 Summer run 1,035 A. Pint number fundi for number of years goal »«• met or exceeded; tecood number standi for number of yean considered. B. Disputed by QFtD, who claim escapement goal waa met in all S mod recent years C. Meeting hatcher; eacapement goal* ii seldom a Smiting factor in fishery management. D.Periodi of record are: apring Chinook, 1970-1S91; fall chinook. 1969-1991; eoho, 1967-1991; chum, 1969-1991; CbehaCa winter ttfffliead, 19X2 -S3 to 1990-91; Humptnfips winter steelhead, 1978-79 to 1990-91; summer steelhead 1981-1989. Table 5. Chehalis Basin wild salmon and steelhead escapement goals and the number of years in which the escapement goal was recently met. Pall Chinook Although the wild escapement goal was never met from 1969 to 1983, runs have exceeded or met the goal for the last five years (Table 5, Figure 8) and parallel the positive trend for spring Chinook. All the probable factors allowing spring Chinook recovery are likely affecting fall chinook as well. Hatchery production is a small part of the Chehalis Basin fall run, apparently 25 83 CHEHALIS rAlX CHINOOK RUN SIZE ■ lid «iru«iK ffiBH 1»70 1111 It 1« ltT€ Iff It tO It t2 1»M Figure S. CbehaLi Basin fill Chinook terminal area tun size (WDF unpublished data). because of poor poet-release survival of Simpson Hatchery smolts (Brix, WDF, pere. comm. ) . Hatchery production has had relative success on the Humptulips, the difference possibly being due to the inner Harbor pollution block mentioned earlier. Fall o^tinook Marine Interception Fall Chinook are caught primarily in the ocean troll fisheries off southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia. British Columbia fisheries caught 68.9 percent of the Chehalis fail Chinook marine catch throughout the period for which tag returns are available (Figure 9). The remaining marine catch went to Alaska, at 19.7 percent, and Washington at 11.2 percent. Juvenile Chinook Production Seiler et al. (1992a) enumerated the capture of Chinook salmon in a floating inclined plane trap between Oakville and Rochester between 1985 and 1990. Estimates of emigration could not be made because trapping efficiency was not evaluated. The following table roughly indicates the weak relation between smolt abundance and the previous year's adult escapement upstream of Porter; little is actually known about the relation between adult escapement and smolt production. Figure 9. Fall Chinook marine interception patterns (PFMC and WDF data). Brood year Adult escapement Smolt catch 1985 2,826 17,337 1986 3,133 20,964 1987 5,034 39,164 1988 6,152 121,479 1989 5,628 10,002 1990 1,963 16,537 26 84 Current Pall Chinook Total Run Size and Historical Levels Chehalis Basin Chinook abundance is within the same order of magnitude as that reconstructed from historical catch data (Table 6), given the assumptions outlined below. This suggests current run size is a base level of natural production, to be reinforced by improving inner Harbor and upper Chehalis water quality, and by assuring optimum wild escapement through refinements in habitat assessment and fishery management. It is important that any hatchery programs be enhancement, not replacement, of the base level. The following are assumptions supporting estimates of total Chinook run size in Table 6. I- HISTORIC PERIOD The Gnyi Harbor Caleb Reporting Area noo-Indian gillnet catch, averaged over the period 1910-1919, plus pretest Chehsli* Baaio spring and fall Chinook eacapemeat u a conaervative estimate of potential beahhy total run sue, baaed on the following aaaumptiona: A. The Grays Harbor Catch Reporting Area represent**) the ffcrhalw Basin even though the Area included all the riven of the aoTtbem Washingtoa coast to Cape Flattery. Catch recorda beginning in 1936 divided Graya Harbor Area catch into only two categories: Grays Harbor commercial gillnet catch, and north coastal Indian catch, thus implying thai: 1. North coastal non-Indian catch was negligible in compariaoa to north coastal Indian catch; 2. the Grays Harbor Indian catch was negligible in compariaoa to the Grays Harbor noo-Indian catch; and 3. sport catch throughout the Area was negligible. B. The average catch from 1910 to 1919 represented a healthy not (following a method used by Chapman (19&6~) for the Colombia River. 1 . The 10-year catch avenging period is the shortest that results in an eaaily interpreted catch trend because undue weight is not given to unusually high or low brood cycle*. 2. The Grays Harbor noo-Indian gillnet catch tread increased from the initial 1890-1899 period, reached ha highest value during the 1910-1919 period, and declinrd from then until now. This suggests: a. Fishing pressure increased to maximum efficiency until the peak period, and overfishing did not seriously affect the population prior to the atari of catch reporting in 1890. b. Terminal area overfishing (Wendler and Deachampt 1955b) combined with the onset of splash dam logging (Wendler and Deachamps 1955a) initiated a atock decline after the peak catch period. c. Bccsnsr marine interception became significant only after the peak period (Wendler and Deachamps 1955b), the peak period catch ia Kill a reliable estimate of total catch, if one accepta that: 1.) Washington marine catch represents coastal marine fishing effort in general; and 2.) Washington marine fishing increased at the same rate prior to inception of marine catch recorda in 1936 (WDF 1971), as it did during ha expansionary penod thereafter, i.e., it was negligible prior to the 1920s. C. Average hrtfnriral spawning escapements were similar to current escapements. n.CURRENT PERIOD Estimated terminal catch plus marine catch phu spawning escapement, averaged over 1987-1990, reasonably esunistes total wild run size of Chehalis Basin fall Chinook, based on me following asaumptioas: A. The ratio of 1987-1990 marine area expanded tag returns to terminal area expanded tag returns multiplied by the terminal area catch, adequately rsthnatrs marine enter teptiun of Chehalis Basin chmook (Table 7). This rests on four propositions: 1. Terminal lag rtemtria rrprttau all ctmtmtmal talmon fiihrria . Any resulting upward bias in total catch would not be excessive since fall Chinook sport catch averaged only about eight percsat of the terminal area catch (WDF, unpublished data). 27 85 Catch year* Escapementc Humptulip 1987 18,850 - 4,878 19S8 •> 28,150 7,376 1989 26,100 11,320 1990 17.500 7.978 Moan 22,650 7,888 Currant period Terminal area wild fall run catch* Chehalis R. Chehalis Basin Total catch/terminal catch" 1.60 Estimated total catch 12,621 Estimated run size (catch plus escapement) 7,517 3,610 18,294 ;?,h.ii. Tribal Hatchery on Cedar Creek - fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, chum, wiser atreUirsrl alpBlaaSOal eosttaan plated Outer Graya Harbor: Sea Farms of Norway at Weatpon - species undetermined WvDDochcc: Briscoe Poods - fall chinook 47 105 Hatcheries were ueually not sited or sized to make up for a specified amount of local habitat damage, nor to restore populations to a particular level. Only in the last two decades have such concepts begun to be accepted. Rather, hatcheries were expected to increase total catch as much as possible. In that sense, coho and steelhead efforts were successful throughout the Basin, and fall Chinook were successful on the Humptulips. Chum enhancement has not noticeably increased catch anywhere in the system and has been discontinued (Dick Stone, WDF, pers. comm.). Sea-run cutthroat releases have been extensive but never evaluated (Jay Hunter, WDW, pers. comm.). Some believe hatcheries pose a danger to natural fish production unless the program is carefully designed and managed (Oregon Trout 1990; Hilborn 1992). Investment in a hatchery leads to demand for efficient harvest of hatchery fish, which may overhirveit intermingled wild fish (Bakke 1987), unless the hatchery program provides for harvest at a separate time or place. Importation of an exotic hatchery stock, or artificial selection for favorable hatchery traits using a native stock, may decrease fitness of natural spawners if these cross with hatchery-reared strays (Hindar et al. 1987). Hatchery fish released at an improper time, place, size, or number can competitively displace naturally produced fish (Solazzi et al. 1990). Finally, hatcheries may serve as incubators of disease and magnify their effect on wild fish (Goodman 1990). Proper management can reduce or avoid most of these effects, but the general theme of recent research is that every existing or proposed hatchery should have specific goals, safeguards, and evaluation for compatibility with the native stock with which it shares a gene pool. HATCHERY FISH PRODUCTION Percent hatchery flBh Species/run Entire Chehalis Humptulips Chehalis Basin System System Summer steelhead* 100.0 100.0 100.0 Coho 43.5 31.2 71.6 Winter steelhead 29. 8 29.0 31.9 Fall Chinook 4.4 B 13.7 Chum 1.8 C c Spring Chinook 0.0 0.0 0.0 There M probably •one Entiled atimmrr iteclbead uuil reproduction but the amount ■ undetermined. Tbereu come contribution from cooperative rearing projecu but it ii presently uoooantificd. Data eot available. Table 14. Hatchery contributions to Chehalis Basin anadromous salmonid runs (WDF and WDW unpublished data; QFiD and WDW 1990). 48 106 Several early Chehalis Basin hatcheries produced an annual average of 300,000 Chinook fry and one million coho fry in the Basxn between 1905 and 1938 (Wendler and DaschampB 1955b). This program wai considered ineffective even in its day, in view of continued declines in catches. During the last two decades, hatchery production has increased overall, although more so in some species than others. Coho and eteelhead hatchery programs are now reasonably successful, contributing about 40 and 30 percent to the Chehalis Basin catches of each species, respectively (Table 14). On the other hand, fall Chinook and chum programs have not made significant contributions despite long-standing hatchery programs. Hatchery production accounts for most of the summer eteelhead catch, but this run contributes a very small number of fish to the total catch. Success of extensive cutthroat trout releases is impossible to determine, since it has not been evaluated. Pall Chinook Salmon Fall Chinook production has been erratic, although smolt production has increased over the last two decades (Figure 17) and has largely replaced fry releases. The Satsop River hatchery program began before 1970 but production was discontinued in 1979 due to dwindling numbers of adults returning to the Simpson Hatchery (WDF unpublished records). In 1987, production was resumed using the Satsop Springs facility for adult capture and rearing and the Simpson facility for hatching. The Humptulips River program began in 1975 and suffered a similar shortage of brood stock. Although the hatchery goal until 1991 was to take one million eggs annually, typical egg-takes in the last brood cycle have been under 150,000, because adult fish do not readily enter the hatchery; the program will continue with an egg-take goal of 500,000 (Mark Kimball, WDF, pers. comra. ) . On-station releases are given priority at all hatcheries, since they appear to survive better than off- station releases (Stone, WDF, pers. coram.). Figure 17. tUtchery-rcared fall Chinook releaied into toe Chehaiii Buin (WDF unpublished d*u) . Coho Salmon Coho production at Simpson Hatchery increased (Figure 18), first in mitigation for the Skookumchuck Dam, and later in response to concerns about underseeding (Brix and Seiler 1977, 1978). Fry and fingerlings in excess of hatchery capacity arm outplanted to many Bites in the upper Chehalis system. On- station smolt releases have also increased over the last decade. 49 107 COHO HATCHERY PRODUCTION I 1 Off«titi«m t:y/fiot*il T77Z On-aucion fxy/flM*xlla«at t 1 Off-tUUOB MDlU i •] "siiBS SiiaMlll 1M4 l»ss 1»'» »•»• »»•« Brood yomx Figure II. Hslcaery-resred coho rcksses into (be Cbehsiis Buta (WDF unpublished d«u). The modern hatchery chum program began at Simpson Hatchery in 1965. Releasee were particularly heavy between 1978 and 192. (Figure 19), The last chum return ng to the hatchery was records., tr. 198" production was diacc tinusd at that point (WDF unpublish d records). Mister Staelhead Cfc'j* Sxljeon r~" ~~ .-! S HATOQX.7 H»OEOCTCOJ» «— «" *CltM ft? £& M •IU1M ClJB*«zlla« ■ J a 1 " in^PiraP5«0n-II Jl III „ IS ii «> Y3. T> ts r? it il » es rr •■ «- »— « Figure 19. rUuhcry-resrcd chum seimon released imo the Qichihi Bum (WDF unpublished d*u). Winter-run steeihesd production has been emphasized in .i&tchery programs. Small numbers were released annually since the early 1950s, but the program has grown eir.ee 1970 (Figure 20). In 1975, on- st&ti?r releasee became a significant part of production, and continue to make uj. about a third of each year's releases. Fifure 20. Hsicherr-rtsred wiser ■osfc—d released into lae CfcchiKi Basin (WDW uapublisbed data). 50 108 HATCHERIES AS A TOOL FOR REBUILDING WILD STOCKS Hatcheries have partially succeeded in that they now contribute heavily to catches of some species, but there is only speculation on the success of hatcheries in rebuilding natural production. In some cases, hatcheries may have actually helped this rebuilding, because natural spawning was the intended result of many off-station releases of hatchery-reared Chinook, coho and winter steelhead. The contribution of planted hatchery fish and strays to natural production in the Chehalis Basin has not bean studied. However, there are numerous biological concerns about the wisdom and feasibility of using hatcheries to rebuild wild stocks. Recent studies and reviews of hatchery supplementation of wild stocks elsewhere makes this point highly debatable because of genetic, competition, and harvest management concerns (Nickelson et aJ. 1986; Killer 1990; Hilborn 1992). 109 Chapter 5: CAUSES OF DECLINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN GRAYS HARBOR AND THE LOWER CHEHALIS RIVER Pulp Mill Effluents In 1928, Grays Harbor Pulp and Paper Co. (now ITT-Rayonier) began discharging untreated acid waste into the Harbor (GHRPC 1992). The effluent killed alarming numbers of fish, crab, and shrimp (Wendler and Deschamps 1955b) and by 1940 prompted the Washington Water Pollution Control Commission (now WDOE) to investigate. The Commission concluded that mill waste was virtually smothering fish by taking dissolved oxygen out of the water and that the waste would have poisoned the fish had it not smothered them first (Pine and Tracy 1971). In 1957, the Weyerhaeuser Company opened the area's second pulp mill in Coamopolis (GHRPC 1992). Their effluent was pumped to the Harbor via a series of ponds and discharge structure in SoufcJi Aberdeen, Like ITT, Weyerhaeuser came under pressure to improve wat' quality (GHRPC 1992). The industrial processes, treatment proi d resulting effluent of the two mills have been described by Hallinan (19Eai Keif ; 1989a), and Johnson et al. (1990). Work on pollution effects ok salmon has been well summarized by the reviews of WDF ("971), Seiler (1?87. ^S39), and Schroder and Fresh (1992) and much of what is reported here \e based on these works. Differential Adult Production Seiler (1987) reported that HumptulipB River Chinook production averaged 33.6 percent of the Chehalis Basin total over the previous 17 years, although the Humptulips system watershed area is only about 10 percent of the Chehalis Basin total area. Recent wild steelhead run size estimates (QFiD and WDW 1991) suggest disproportionately high production from the Humptulips relative to the Chehalis River System, since Humptulips wild steelhead made up 28.0 percent of the Basin's wild steelhead runs in the 1984-1990 period. Differential S»olt Survival to Adult Catch In the early 1970s, a group of Satsop hatchery fall chinook was released into the Humptulips and survived to adult 18 times as well as on-station releases (Fuss et ai. 1981). Several recent studies summarised by Seiler (1989) agree that coho smolts originating in the Chehalis system contribute to the marine catch no more than half as well as smolts coming from the Humptulips system. Seiler (1987) considered steelhead to be affected by poor water quality in the inner Harbor in the same way as coho. 110 Poor Siolt Survival in the E»tuary WDF coordinated a aeries of studies of inner Harbor pollution on salmon. Primary findings included (Schroder and Fresh 1992): - Inner Harbor fish were more highly stressed and less able to resist disease than fish from North Bay; - smolts move in and out with the tide and rest in low-velocity areas, i.e., coho spend considerable time in areas most likely to be polluted; - Inner Harbor fish showed four times the mortality of North Bay fish during long-term observation; - in the short term, full-strength Weyerhaeuser effluent was intermittently lethal to coho amolts; - over the long-term, liver enzymes involved in the metabolism of toxicants and other foreign compounds increased in fish exposed to dilutions of Weyerhaeuser effluent at 30 percent and higher; - swimming 8ti-;,~r.;. was reduced when smolts were forced to swim in effluent solutions from either mill; - in lab experiments, coho usually avoided low concentrations of Weyerhaeuser effluent, but failed to avoid any odors after exposure to ITT effluent. In a variety of other tests over recent years, effluent from both plants was variously lethal or toxic to a variety of non-salmonid tests organisms (WDF 1971; WDE 1975; Hallinan 1989; Reif 1989a, b; Johnson et al. 1990; Schroder and Fresh 1992) . Toxic Chemical* in Mill Effluent Studies reviewed and/or conducted by Reif (1989b), Johnson et *1. (1990) and Schroder and Fresh (1992) analyzed effluent of both mills for metals and a variety of organic compounds including herbicides, pesticides, guaiacols, catechols, dioxins, furans, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, chloroform, 4-methylphenol, and resin acids. Schroder and Fresh (1992) stated that, at 30 percent dilution, all potential toxins in the effluent would fall below detection limits. This suggested that unidentified constituents of the effluent affected mortality. Over 4,000 chlorinated organic chemicals may occur in pulp mill effluent, but the effects on fish are known only for a few of them. They hypothesized that the bioassay organisms were responding to either (1) different chemicals than the ones that could be analyzed in correlation, (2) lower concentrations of chemicals than previously reported to be toxic or (3) other toxicants not analyzed. 53 Ill WDr'» Conclunom and Recommendation* WDF'e general conclusions (Schroder and Fresh 1992) were that: (1) many potentially toxic chemicals were in the effluente; (2) Weyerhaeuser tended to have more detectable compounds than ITT; (3) all chemicals were typical of pulp mills; (4) all known chemical concentrations were below known danger levels for aquatic organisms; and (5) none of the compounds could be directly linked to salmon survival. Schroder and Fresh (1992) recommended continuing to coded wire tag coho smolts at least until the 1992 brood year; resuming hatchery fall Chinook tagging; and investigation into the role of sediment contamination in the pollution block. In the event that tagging does not indicate improved survival, they recommended investigating the interaction of the intensity and location of parasite infestation, particularly N&nophyetus , with effluent composition. Relative Iaportance of Effluents to rish Mortality Through painstaking research, the agencies ruled out virtually every other hypothesis for Chehalis syBtem smolt mortality. Some of the substantiating evidence follows. (1) Upper Chehalis coho smolt production is similar to production in other western Washington rivers (Seiler 1987). (2) Northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) could only be consuming about seven percent of hatchery smolts and less than one percent of wild smolts in the Chehalis River (Schroder and Fresh 1992). (3) Upper ChehaliB waters do not have chronic or widespread toxicity problems (Michaud 1989). (4) Neither the Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and CoBtnopolis sewage treatment plants were impairing aquatic organisms (Schroder and Fresh 1992). (5) Physiological tests determined that coho smolts usually entered the lower Chehalis as robust, stress-free fish (Schroder and Fresh 1992). Recent Claan-uo of Pulp Mill Effluent In 1990, both mills began substituting oxygen or other chemicals for chlorine in the bleaching process, and took steps to prevent accidental spills of toxic materials into the mill waste stream. Each mill also took unique steps to further reduce effluent toxicity (Reif 1989a; Johnson et *1. 1990). 54 112 Monitoring Pulp Mill Effluent The NPDES requires pulp mills to obtain discharge permits administered by WDOE. These permits require certain basic water quality levels to be maintained in terms of BOD, pH, TSS, and fecal coliform bacteria. In addition, they require both mills to pass acute and chronic bioassay tests every two months (Don Kjcsneea, WDOE, pers. comm. ) . Several other tests, particularly for total dioxin and AOX — a measure of absorbable organic chlorides — hava been proposed by WDOE and are being considered by the Water Pollution Control Board- Sediments The EPA found no difference in detected metals between the inner Harbor and North Bay (Schroder and Fresh 1992;. However, sediment chromium was slightly above the EPA criterion for damage to Puget Sound benthic infauna, and nickel was about four times the criterion. Concentrations of 4-methylphenol and N- nitrosodiphenylamine were predicted to adversely affect sediment benthic infauna. EPA also found Dioxin in sediments below both mill outfalls (Schroder and Fresh 1992). WDOE sediment chemistry revealed that "Chromium and nickel were somewhat elevated" at both outfall sites, and "exceeded the most stringent proposed Apparent Effects Threshold values" at the ITT site (Reif 1989b). Bioaccumulation In 1990, FWS sampled sediment, eelgrass (Zoster* marina.), amphipods (Corophium species), clams, mud shrimp, crabs (Cancer magister) , salmon, and flatfish in Grays Harbor (Frederick 1591). Dioxins and furans were detected in several samples, with highest lev«le of dioxin in amphipods and crabs (Frederick 1991). Contamination of aarob oe a potential contributor to delayed salmon smolt mortality. Future Outlook Studies of the relation between water quality, sediments, and fish survival should be broadened by looking at both water and sediment pathways. Fish can pick up contaminants either by absorbing them through their gills directly from the water or by feeding on contaminated organisms. Contaminants, including dioxins, can get into the water either directly from mill outfalls or by resuspension from the sediment. That is, contaminants either redissolve into the water or ride up into the water on clay particles. Resuspension may result from wave and tidal action, or from dredging and spoil disposal. To summarize the current status of inner Harbor pollution in relation to salmon production, (1) an unidentified substance intermittently present in pulp mill effluent as late as 1989 was weakening coho smolfcs after short-term exposure and probably contributed to aortality, (2) both mills have since upgraded their waste treatment, and (3) the first results of post-cleanup fish 113 tagging studies will begin in 1992 to indicate whether the pollution block has been reduced. A number of years of fish tagging will be required to make final conclusions about the success of cleanup. Current Harbor Dredging and Pish Survival Regulatory agencies thoroughly examined the current harbor deepening and spoil disposal project and ultimately agreed that operations would not significantly diminish fish survival (USACE 1990, Ging 1989). Potential negative effects were considered and either minimized by requiring judicious operating plans or mitigated through habitat enhancement. The USACE (1990) arguments against negative effects of dredging and spoil disposal notwithstanding, sediment contamination with potentially toxic chemicals is widespread enough to be a concern (Table 15). Their own argument that winds and tides resuspend sediment throughout the harbor (USACE 1990) implies that dioxin and other contaminants, even though bound to sediment particles, remain available to the food chain that may lead to salmon and shorebirds . Parasitise in the lower Chehalii Parasitism was identified by Schroder and Fresh (1992) as the only contributor to low survival aside from the inner Harbor environment. Biopsies indicated that both Chehalis and Humptulips systems had low pathogen infestation overall, and similar species composition of parasites. One notable exception was the kidney fluke Nanophyetus salmmcola, which occurred more frequently in the lower Chehalis system and the inner Harbor than in the Humptulips or North Bay. The authors stated that parasitism alone could not account for differential survival between the two systems because (1) infestation was highly variable within and between watersheds; (2) no linkage had previously been noted between parasite infestation and survival in the absence of additional stressors; and (3) other coho populations that had high survival rates had higher levels of the parasite. However, heavy parastism by Nanophyetus coupled with additional stressors can cause coho to die prematurely (Schroder and Fresh 1992). CHEHALIS-CENTRALIA TEMPERATURE AND OXYGEN BLOCK Chinook salmon attempt to hold in the Chehalis River between Centralia and Chehalis before gradually moving upstream to spawn in early fall; important Chinook spawning grounds lie upstream. In late summer, a complex combination of natural and human- induced conditions often results in the reach being 1) unsuitable for Chinook holding and/or 2) impassable for adults migrating upstream, because of high temperature and/or low dissolved oxygen (Hiss et &1. 1983a). The marginal conditions also make fish particularly susceptible to mortality from pollution, such as sudden spills of toxic material or oxygen- robbing waste (Pickett 1992). 56 114 Near Weyerhaeuser diffuser (WDE Sitae 33-36, nSACE Site 9) Furans; * 2,3,7,8 TCDF well above detection limitB in flounder and clams. * Sane substances verified near detection levels by FWS the following year. * Substance also occurred in chinook juveniles at the same site (Frederick 1991). Total allphaticst Levels ware higher in amphipods (WDE Sites 33-36, 0SACS Site 9 J . ITT outfall {WDE Site* . 37 end 38. near USRCE sites 7 and 81 Sediment quaiaeols: Were fount! only near here. Inner Harbor From Elliott Slouoh to 'Crossover Channel Elutriate bloassav; Sediment elutriate was toxic to oyster larvae in bioassay. Sediment Resin ncide-: Were at highest levels in inner navigation channel. Inner Bowerman Basin DloTins and fgrtw * Tot»..» " ,"CDD, various higher chlorinated dio: Lai 2 ' S-TCDF, ax;d various higher chic -'. 8 Z'.'sna veil above detection limits in amp/iipo^ - Total allphatics; Sigh levels occurred relative tc other Grays Harbor sites sampled; South Bart Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDF well above detection limits were found in Dungeness Crab liver. North Bar* Levels of 2^3,7, 8-TCDF well above detection limits were found in Dungeness Crab liver. Table IS. Summary of sediment contamination in Grays harbor (Johnson and Coots 1 989; OSACE 1990; Trederick 1991). 57 115 Temperature Chinook salmon prefer temperatures between 7 and 14 degrees centigrade (45 to 58 degrees f ahrenheit ) ; salmon and trout show stress when temperatures exceed 18 degrees for more than a few hours or days (Bell 1984). Adult Nooksack River spring chinook absolutely require temperatures below 23 degrees centigrade (75 degrees fahrenheit) (Mike Barclay, Nooksack Indian Tribe, pers. comm. ) . The Washington Administrative Code states that "Temperature shall not exceed 18.0 *C due to human activities" (WAC 173-201-045 (2 ) (c) (iv) ) in waters classified as axe the Chehalis streams. Present Condition. Throughout the mid-Chehalis, the temperature standard is routinely exceeded from June to September, particularly near Centralia (Hiss et al. 1983a; Aroner 1991; Pickett 1992). Clearly, these conditions are unsuitable for holding adult salmon. If temperatures remain high enough throughout the night, migration through the area could also be blocked. Efforts to reduce temperature have been very local; temperature controls have been engineered into the Skookurachuck Dam, and are under study for the Wynoochee Dam, but temperature problems in the Chehalis Basin have not been studied in detail (Pickett 1992). Causes. Shade removal, resulting from logging (Newman, Weyerhaeuser Co., pers. comm.), agriculture, and residential and industrial development (Barber, WDF, pers. comm.), has contributed to seasonally recurring high temperatures (Pickett 1992). Although current logging regulations sometimes require a certain number of mature trees per length of stream bank to contribute to instream woody debris, this arrangement guarantees only partial shading from a thin row of large trees, rather than the potentially more complete shading and cooling effect of a naturally dense growth of shrubs and trees of various heights. Some farmers maintain pastures and crops directly adjacent to the streambank and thus prevent shade trees and shrubs from establishing. Numerous water withdrawals cumulatively reduce instream flow thereby raising temperatures. Oxygen Salmonids require a concentration of at least five mg/1 dissolved oxygen in the water for survival (Bell 1984) although six mg/1 is still considered stressful. The WAC states that "freshwater dissolved oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg/1" (WAC 173-201-045(2) (c) (ii) (A) ) , except that because of naturally low water velocity in some reaches, the "Chehalis River from Scammon Creek (RM 65.8) to Newaukum River (RM 75.2) dissolved oxygen shall exceed 5.0 mg/1 from June 1 to September 15." (WAC 173-201-080(8)). Present condition. The Chehalis-Centralia area between Miles 66 and 76 has been the site of low dissolved oxygen in late summer and fall (Bernhardt 1974). Dissolved oxygen violations were also recorded at Centralia, Porter, Montesano, and in the Satsop River (Hiss et ai. 1983a; Aroner 1991; Pickett 1992). 58 116 Causes. Seasonally recurring low dissolved oxygen is attributed to nutrient enrichment and treatment plant effluent (Pickett 1992). Water withdrawal exacerbates the problem (Figure 22), by cumulatively reducing instream flow, raising temperatures, and lowering the ability of the water to retain oxygen. A total phosphate-phosphorus standard of 100 micrograms per liter applies to the Chehalis Basin (Aroner 1991). Excessive nitrogen or phosphorus loading supports a boom-and-crash cycle of algal growth; this occurred often at Centralia and sometimes at Porter and Hontesano (Aroner 1991). At Centralia, ammonia, total phosphorus, and ortho-phospohorus all showed a negative correlation to discharge, which may be the result of point source discharges providing most of the loading (Pickett 1992), while nonpoint sources dominate in the other reaches. Effects on Fish The combination of high temperatures and low oxygen probably form a block to fish migration, particularly for spring Chinook. These fish reach the Oakville area in May and June and hold there until spawning in the Newaukum and upper Chehalis from late August until early October. If the range of summer eteelhead is to be extended to the upper Chehalis, the same concern may limit their migration. Wolfe (FWS, pers. comm. ) believes deteriorating temperatures and oxygen levels over the last several decades have also hurt American shad. High summer temperatures and low oxygen may prevent juvenile salmon and trout from using otherwise suitable rearing areas in the main stem Chehalis. In August 1989 spot-check snorkeling surveys, no juvenile coho or steelhead were found in habitat where expected (Bisson, Weyerhaeuser Co., pers. comm.). Total Maxiaua Daily Load Process TMDL is a WDOE program intended to achieve full and permanent compliance with water quality standards in river systems where existing point-source pollution controls have not achieved the standards (WDOE 1990). TMDL is required by the Clean Water Act when conventional technology-based controls fail to protect water quality. In the Chehalis system, the process includes all waters from Porter upstream. WDOE h»e identified biological oxygen demand and colifonn bacteria as the key pollutants and will now determine the total amount of pollutants that can be assimilated without harming designated uses. This level of pollution is called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) which is being determined by intensive monitoring of Basin water quality and modeling to predict water quality conditions at the most susceptible times and locations. This phase will be completed by September 1993. After WDOE identifies point sources and nonpoint sources, the agency establishes a forum in which representatives of each pollution source allocate shares of the TMDL among themselves in a binding agreement with WDOE. This Waste Load Allocation (WLA) agreement also allows a share for anticipated 59 117 increases in polluting activities. At that point, WDE implements pollutant load reductions by incorporating WLA into wastewater discharge permits, developing and promoting more effective waste management practices, and educating the public. DAMS AND DIVERSIONS Probably because of the Basin's relatively low gradient, the two largest dams, on the Wynoochee and Skookumchuck rivers, were built relatively far upstream on tributaries. While they and other smaller dams have taken a toll on fish production, the Basin has escaped the major impacts associated with large- scale dams as has occurred on the Columbia River. Wynoochee Daa Wynoochee Dam was built by the USACE at RM 50 of the Wynoochee River in 1972. The reservoir stores about 70,000 acre-feet from a 70-square-mile drainage area. The city of Aberdeen now operates and maintains the dam under the Water Resources Development Act as amended in 1990 (BPA 1992). The dam controls flooding, provides recreation, augments low flows, and provides municipal and industrial water for the City of Aberdeen (via a diversion at RM 8.1). There is currently a joint Aberdeen/Tacoma project to develop hydropower at the dam. Upstream Adult Passage. Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout spawned upBtream of the dam site before construction (Findlay 1967), and numbers of all but Chinook were estimated. Species Spawning escapement Reservoir site Upstream of reservoir Fall Chinook unknown unknown Spring Chinook unknown unknown Coho 0 1,500 Steelhead 1,000 400 Sea-run cutthroat trout 330 165 The WynoochM project included a barrier dam and fish trap two miles downstream of the main dam. All migrating adult salmonids are trapped and trucked for release upstream of the reservoir. This facility has apparently provided adequate upstream passage in most years (Ging, FWS, pers. coma. ) . To substitute for combined steelhead and cutthroat production lost to inundation, USACE agreed to provide WDW with funds for expansion of the Aberdeen Hatchery to rear 170,000 steelhead smolts, calculated to produce 1,700 adult steelhead, in addition to its then-existing programs. Chinook salmon ware not considered in the mitigation arrangement (OSACE 1967) apparently because their abundance was not determined. 118 Downstream Smolt Passage. To allow downstream emolt passage, the dam was built with six outlet pipes at various elevations so that smolts might locate them at any pool elevation. These open into the tailrace at the foot of the dam. Experiment! (Dunn 1978; LaVoy and Fenton 1979) have shown that this arrangement was killing a number of coho and steelhead smolts. This work also demonstrated delayed migration past the dam and the possibility of mortality in the tailrace. As a remedy, the USACE subsequently constructed a baffle in the tailrace but visual observation indicated no improvement, and the baffle was removed (Dunn, FWS, pers. comm. ) . Costello (1984) wrote that induced mortalities and egression delay were due to failure of the original mitigation measures to (1) account for fish migrational behavior, (2) meet biological and engineering criteria set forth in the multilevel outlet design, and (3) account for circulation and velocity patterns in Wynoochee Lake, especially the forebay. Mitigation. Agency attention shifted to further evaluating the effect of the dam on total adult returns (Mathews 1980), culminating in the recommendation by Hiss et al. (1983b) to provide additional mitigation for the equivalent of 806 adult coho and 254 adult anadromouB trout annually. Interest in resolving mitigation was renewed in 1990 with the transfer of operation and maintenance responsibilities from the USACE to Aberdeen. Aberdeen and Tacotna have been successful at obtaining federal funds of SI. 3 million for the additional mitigation. Negotiations are ongoing between the USACE, Tacotna, Aberdeen, WDF, and WDW to determine the best mitigation package. The currently proposed hatchery project is being challenged in the environmental review process. Skookuachuck Daa Skookumchuck Dam was built in 1970 and is managed by Pacific Power and Light Company (PP£L) of Portland, Oregon. The project provides water for two coal- fired power plants south of Bucoda. The dam can store up to 35,000 acre-feet (Mahlum 1976), and maintains summer flows, of which up to 30 cfs have been diverted at Mile 7.8 and pumped to the plants. The diverted water is turned into steam at the power plant, and not returned to the river. Dam construction permanently inundated approximately two miles of former spawning habitat, and, since it has no fish ladder, blocked access to 12 additional miles of spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho and steelhead spawning area above the reservoir (Hiss st ai. 1982). This resulted in an estimated loss of 500 spring chinook, 311 fall Chinook, 1,800 coho (Finn 1973) and about 700 steelhead spewners (WDG 1970). Half the potential coho rearing area (Finn 1973) and 90 percent of the potential steelhead spawning grounds on the Skookumchuck were above the dam (PP6L 1979). The power company mitigates this loss under agreements with WDF and WDW by: - guaranteeing adequate downstream spawning and rearing flow for Chinook, - artificially rearing coho, and - providing both artificial rearing and fieh passage for steelhead (PPfiL 1979). 61 119 Although trap and haul enables WDW to pass Bteelhead upstream of the dam, WDF does not use the trap to pass coho, because WDF considered the other aspects of mitigation sufficient. Expanding the season for trap-and-haul operations to include salmon could restore access to potential coho spawning and rearing habitat. Eoquiia River System Dams Three diversion dams exist in the Hoguiam system and supply municipal water to the City of Hoguiam. These affect passage for up to 10.2 river miles upstream, depending on whether the fish ladders are passable at all flows. Location of dam Accessible Stream mile miles upstream Ladder present North Fork Little Hoquiam 2.0 2.0 no Davis Creek 0.3 1.7 yes West Fork Hoguiam 10.7 8.3 yes Total 12.0 The Stream Catalog (Phinney et al . 1975) states that North Fork Little Hoguiam Dam is a total barrier to all species, and that the dams on Davis Creek and the West Fork Hoguiam, while equipped with fishways, may periodically not pass chinook, coho, or chum; coho in particular were reluctant to use the West Fork fishway. However, QFiD has been evaluating escapement on the West Fork since 19SS and has built a trap in the fish ladder. They discovered that, with proper flows, chinook, chum, and coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout all use the ladder. For example, an average of 300 coho move upstream past the ladder each year (Chitwood, QFiD, pers. coram.). The three dams also tend to fill with silt and organic debris, which has been periodically flushed downstream. The flushing has been known to cause fish mortality (Chitwood, QFiD, pers. conn.) and degrade spawning gravels for some distance downstream (Bill Banks, City of Hoguiam, pers. coram. ) . An alternative silt removal procedure may exist to remove this danger. Hater Withdrawal There have never been any calculations of fish flow requirements in the Chehalis Basin except that WDF and WDW settled on flow agreements with the Corps after construction of Wynoochee Dam and with Pacific Power and Light upon construction of Skookumchuck Dam. The State of Washington has granted thousands of surface water rights and claims, divided into categories of "Industrial and Commercial" (833 cfs), "Municipal* (590 cfs), and "Individual and Community Domestic" (197 cfs) (Jo* Cat-on, WDOE, pers. com. ; Harper, in prep.). The principal industrial uses 62 120 FOREST PRACTICES Splash Dacn There are still lingering effects of splaBh dams and log driving in the Chehalis Basin: (1) the stream bottom may have been scoured down to bedrock, especially in the upper Chehalis and the South Fork; (2) the channel may have been straightened; (3) pools may have been obliterated; and (4) creation of new pools may be retarded by up to a century due to absence of sufficiently large woody debris entering the stream. As a consequence, salmon spawning and rearing habitat has not recovered (Jeff Cederholm, WDHR, pers. comm. ) • See pages 18-19 for further discussion of splash dams. Logging-associated Landslides Logging-associated landslides most often are <\csocxated with failure of logging roads, some of which are built on slopes whose stability cannot be accurately predicted. During major rainstorms, some of these ongoing landslides trigger sudden flows of boulders, trees, and smaller material into streams. During these events, known as debris torrents, debris typically travels down the streambed for less than a mile and creates a blockage. If this jam is within an area formerly accessible to anadromoue fish, potential habitat is lost, the degree of damage depending on the number of accessible and useful miles upstream. Blockage may persist for a few days or many years, until a subsequent high flows break the debris dam. Debris torrents also can remove all potential spawning gravel, vegetative cover, and pool-maintaining woody debris in their path. A clear example of an impassable debris jam exists on Thrash Creek, a tributary of the upper Chehalis, (Bisson et al. 1986). Bisson (Weyerhaeuser Co., pers. coma.) suggests that debris jams may also be affecting fish access to parts of Cinnabar, George, and Big creeks. Warren Sorensen (Weyerhaeuser Co., pers. comm.) observed evidence of fresh debris torrents on Swem, Smith, and Ludwig creeks after the severe rainstorms of January and February of 1990. Streams made accessible by fish ladders or culverts are susceptible to blockage by any form of accelerated erosion. Increases in large bed load — that is, gravel, cobble, and boulders moving down the streambed — can plug, bury, or otherwise destroy fish access. For example, on Roger Creek, a tributary to the upper Chehalis, accelerated erosion rendered the fish ladder at the creek mouth ineffective (Brian Benson, WDF, pers. comm.). Sedimentation Logging- induced sedimentation clearly reduces fish populations (Cederholm and Reid 1987) by reducing watar circulation around eggs and alevins in the spawning beds. Construction, use, and maintenance of forest roads contributes sediment to streams by mass slope failures or surfaee erosion of the road. In areas of steep slope and unstable soils, mass failures are often the primary path, but in more stable areas, erosion of road surfaces may be the 65 121 predominant sediment source (Bilby et al. 1989). Sedimentation may also occur around improperly constructed culverts, and to a lesser degree from the logged-off land itself (Larse 1970). Stream Clearance Harvest of all streamside timber occurred until the early 1980s. While this practice is now allowed only in exceptional situations, there are many streams where the amount of large woody debris and the composition and structure of riparian vegetation was degraded as a result of this activity, according to Bilby and Ward (1991). They worked in the Chehalis Basin, and concluded that (1) Compared to old growth stream reaches, streams flowing through areas clearcut within the previous five years tended to have: (a) smaller debris pieces (i.e., less stable fish cover); (b) fewer pools (i.e., less coho rearing area during the summer), and (c) less accumulated spawning gravel. (2) Compared to clearcut stream reaches, stream reaches passing through second growth approximately 50 years old tended to have even less woody debris than recently clearcut areas. Clearcutting had created riparian stands composed largely of red alder, but this type of vegetation might not supply sufficient large woody debris, especially to larger streams. Forestry Chemicals Forestry herbicides are used to kill hardwoods so that planted conifers can grow without competition. Forest spraying has also been done for pest control or to apply fertilizer. Forestry chemicals can enter steams either by runoff or direct application over streams. In the Chehalis Basin, regulations cover permissible chemicals, methods of application, and timing, but they remain a common concern (CRC 1991). The direct effect of forest spraying on aquatic life has not been documented in the Basin. Current Forest Practices Timber harvest continues to reduce abundance of the largest and most persistent forms of wood, and thus impedes habitat recovery. For example, salvage of red cedar after timber harvest is still a common practice in the Pacific Northwest (Bilby and Ward 1991). Bilby (1984) studied the effect of debris removal on Salmon Creek, a tributary in the Upper Chehalis sub-basin. Removal of any type of large woody debris destabilizes the wood remaining in the channel, thus allowing flushing of wood downstream, contributing to the decrease in the amount of woody debris in natural fish rearing areas, and destabilizing the stream channel (Bilby 1984). 66 122 AGRICULTURE Grazing Practices Range management has also damaged the fishery resource. Livestock are at times still given free access to streams. They trample the bank, accelerating erosion and reducing bank vegetation and instream cover. SCS has recognized instream values and has begun to assist farmers to remedy these problems. Sedimentation Agricultural practices tend to increase stream siltation and sedimentation. When streambank vegetation is cleared for grazing or row crops, there is an increase in bank erosion. Cattle trampling streambanks causes sedimentation. Run-off from tilled farmlands results in a higher silt load. Agricultural Pollution Agricultural pollution has long been recognized as a major detriment to water quality and fish survival in the Chehalis Basin (Pickett 1992), and is the object of extensive improvements statewide (Troy Colley, Grays Harbor Conservation District, pers. cotnm. ) . Agricultural sources include farms, feedlots, and tree plantations. Agricultural pollution falls into two major categories: animal waste and toxic chemicals. Improper animal waste management, especially from dairy herds, allows plant nutrients and pathogenic bacteria to enter surface waters (Diane Harvester, WDOE, pers. cotnm.). Manure is at times improperly collected, stored, or spread on fields, then rain washes bacteria and nutrients into the stream, contributing to contamination and overnourishment (Pickett 1992). In particular, there is a problem with low DO on the Black River and Gerrard Creek (Diane Harvester, WDOE, pers. cotnm.). Pesticides and herbicides may enter streams when improperly applied or when equipment is improperly cleaned. The degree of pollution cannot be easily assessed because these chemicals tend to enter the stream from one particular spill or other event, do their damage, then dilute or break down before they can be identified or traced to their source. Lincoln and Independence Creeks have had several fish kills in recent years, probably caused by improper application of agricultural chemicals (Jay Hunter, WDW. , pers. comm. ) . Aqua culture There are four commercial fish farms located in the vicinity of Rochester to take advantage of abundant groundwater. Aquaculture discharge poses a potential risk to natural fish production from either chronic conditions, such as from removal of fish wastes and algae during pond cleaning, or short-term events, such as accidental spills of toxic chemicals used to sterilize ponds 67 123 after disease outbreaks. Such events have never been proven to occur, but were among the many hypotheses considered during the investigation of the 1989 Black River fish kill. Aguaculture pond discharges are regulated under state and federal law, and are monitored periodically for compliance. URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION Stonuattr Runoff Urbanization creates impermeable surfaces in the watershed due to roofs, streets, and parking lots. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (1990) lists five effects of urbanization on water quantity: (1) Peak storm runoff volume and stream discharge increases. (2) Runoff reaches streams much more quickly. (3) Flooding increases in frequency and severity. (4) Stream velocities are higher. (5) Streamflow during dry weather is reduced because less water has soaked into the ground and moved slowly into the stream. All these problems degrade fish habitat by creating wider, lees stable stream channels and accelerating stream bank erosion. The resulting sediment fills ponds, streambede, and stonnwater facilities (Pressley and Hartigan 1991). Urbanization-related sedimentation is considered an issue within the Chehalis Basin (CRC and Lewie County CD 1992); of their 20 recommendations to reduce ecological damage associated with improper stonnwater management, six are in some way related to sedimentation. Surface runoff that would have otherwise seeped into the ground instead washes dust, soot, leaves, and whatever else is on the pavement into streams. This material tends to decompose in the water, thus increasing the oxygen demand. The contribution to total instream BOD is difficult to measure but the increase is directly proportional to the amount of impermeable land in the watershed, unless good stonnwater management systems are in place. Stonnwater also carries unwanted chemicals such as oil, fertilizer, and herbicides into streams. These problems are common to most urbanized areas (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1990), although poorly documented in the Chehalis Basin. One example is the Southwest Washington Fairgrounds where stonnwater collecting from the surrounding areas is considered by WDOE to potentially threaten Salzer Creek with contaminated runoff (Pickett 1992). Bank Hardening Farmers, seeking to protect their fields from stream erosion, harden the streambank with rock riprap, tires, or other materials. Many non-agricultural miles of Chehalis Basin streams have also been riprapped, primarily to protect roads and urbanized areas. Pressure to harden the bank is particularly heavy in the Newaukum system, where agriculture is widespread and the bank is largely loose sand and gravel. Aside from the effects of vegetation removal (and resulting increased temperatures) which usually go along with bank 66 72-813 - 93 - 5 124 hardening, other detrimental changes (Fraser 1987) include: (1) loss of local variation in water velocity; (2) loss of collecting places for woody debris and other instream cover; (3) excessive deepening in the protected reach; (4) acceleration of bank erosion downstream; and (5) loss of bank gravel needed for maintaining downstream spawning habitat. Bank protection has degraded fish habitat in the main stem Chehalis, Skookumchuck, Satsop, Wynoochee, Humptulips, Newaukum, and Skookumchuck rivers. Measures to make up for lost fish habitat, such as substituting dense willow plantings for riprap rock, or anchoring fallen trees to add instream cover and trap gravel, can be applied to certain sites. Municipal Sewage Sewage treatment effluent produces biological oxygen demand and coliform bacteria with the potential for exceeding regulated levels in unusual conditions. Sewage plants also potentially release heavy metals, pesticides, and toxic petroleum-based chemicals. There are sewage treatment plants in Chehalis, Centralia, Elma, McCleary, Monteaano, Aberdeen, Coemopolis, and Hoquiam. The plants are periodically tested to ensure compliance with WDOE regulations for oxygen demand and bacteria. In addition, the Chehalis and Centralia plants will be given consideration in the WLA process mentioned earlier. The McCleary plant discharges into Wildcat Creek, a tributary of Cloquallum Creek, which enters the Chehalis. Water quality in the creek may still be limited due to nutrient enrichment, and WDOE has recommended addressing eutrophication prior to future expansion of the plant (Pickett 1992). The Aberdeen, Cosmopolis, and Hoquiam plants contributed insignificantly to the toxicity of inner Harbor water in 1988 and 1989 (Schroder and Fresh 1992). This information, along with the recent increases in inner Harbor dissolved oxygen to the point that WDOE standards are seldom violated, argues against treating inner Harbor municipal sewage as a major fish habitat concern. Septic System Leakage Failing septic systems are given high priority in water cleanup efforts by the Chehalis River Council, in part because previous WDOE-sponsored watershed studies, known as Early Action Watershed Plans, indicated it was a pervasive problem elsewhere in western Washington (CRC and Lewis County CD 1992). A septic system can fail if (1) it is too small for its present load, (2) it is built on land that is either too porous or not porous enough, (3) the tank is not pumped periodically to remove the sludge, or (4) tree roots have grown into the drainfield and blocked the pipe*. In each case, sewage finds a way out of the system before it has been fully treated and contaminates groundwater or surface water. Septic system failure is thought to be widespread in the Chehalis Basin because the rural land is not served by sewer systems (CRC and Lewis County CD 69 125 1992). The effect on surface water is expected to increase in areas like the Black River which has seen a rapid increase in rural residences (Blocher 1991). Industrial Chemical Storage and Disposal Waste chemicals are nonpoint sources when they enter the stream either because of poor storage or when they are dumped by hand. One example is of the American Crossarm Company near Chehalis, where old leaking electrical condensers were stored. Floodwaters rose, destroyed the berm around the site, and carried off unknown amounts of PCB-laden oil (Craig Harper, CRC, pers. comrr.. ) . Several possibilities of improper industrial waste disposal were also proposed during the Black River fish kill investigation and, although none was verified, it was clear that, where river conditions were already marginal, a seemingly small event could trigger a fish kill (Van Dyk 1989). Log Storage Runoff Large stacks of logs are stored in Centralia, Montesano, Aberdeen, Cosmopolis, and Hoquiam before shipment to mills. In storage, logs are sometimes treated with preservatives, which can wash into surrounding waters unless adequate settling basins are used. Schroder and Fresh (1992), in their analysis of contamination of Grays Harbor receiving waters and suspended solids, identified several compounds typical of wood storage potentially toxic at higher concentrations. A wood waste landfill on Dillenbaugh Creek has been suspected of leaching toxic materials into the creek (Pickett 1992). Land Application of Food Processing Waste National Frozen Foods holds a Washington State Discharge Permit to apply food processing waste to land near Salzer Creek. In the summer of 1979, the failure of a wastewater pipe caused a spill directly into the creek, resulting in very low DO levels at Centralia (Pickett 1992) and killing a number of spring Chinook salmon (Jim Fraser, WDF, pers. coram. | . An alarm system to show loss of pressure now ensures prompt action to minimize spills. GRAVEL MINING Chehalis Basin gravel mining near Rochester and Elma from the 1940s to the early 1980e probably damaged shad and sturgeon (John Wolfe, FWS, pers. comra. ) . Gravel operations consisted of pits in the active channel. Wolfe hypothesizes that, since shad eggs drift with currents before settling, they may settle in silt holes and suffocate. Entrapment in mined pits also probably occurred. Collins and Dunne (1986, quoted in Mark et &1. 1986) listed the possible negative fishery effects of gravel mining as elimination of fish habitat such as pools, side channels, and eddies; lowered water table and consequent damage to riparian vegetation; and increased bank erosion. Collins and Dunne (1988) cited evidence that gravel was being removed faster than the natural rate of 126 replenishment on the Humptulips and other southern Olympic rivers. Three kinds of gravel mining have been used in the Basin: in-channel excavation; bar scalping; and off-channel pit excavation. Although in-channel excavation is now prohibited, the other two types continue. Two main fishery issues remain unsettled. First, is the annual gravel harvest limit low enough to ensure against downcutting the river bed and depleting the gravel available for fish in coming years? Second, will present operations destabilize the mined bars or cause channel shifts that make the gravel less suitable for spawning and incubating salmon id eggs? SEDIMENTATION Sedimentation occurs in the form of (1) siltation, that is, deposition of mud and silt carried by the stream and then deposited as flows recede, and (2) bedload aggradation, that is, excessive addition of sand, gravel and boulders which the stream pushes along its bed. Siltation can smother gravel beds, making them unsuitable for fish spawning or incubation. It can also decrease production of aquatic insects, upon which fish depend for food. Bedload aggradation causes the channel to widen and shift position more than normal, thus potentially drying incubating eggs and rearing fry. There are five sources of sedimentation: timber-related activities; urbanization; flushing of sediments from behind dams; runoff from tilled farmlands; and natural slope failures. All but the last have already been discussed. Natural slope failure is presently the most obvious source of sedimentation. For example, recent movement of a chronically unstable slope on the North Fork Newaukum created a landslide that entered the stream, and raised the suspended solids in the water to the point that it was not suitable for municipal use for many months (Ciolli, City of Chehalis, pers. comm. ) . EFFECTS OF FISHING Every fishery has the potential to overfish the wild stock so that it fails to meet its escapement goal. Bycatch, marine interception, terminal harvest, and poaching singly or together could theoretically contribute to overfishing. State and tribal fishery managers make every effort to avoid overharvest in the terminal area. Bycatch Bycatch is the incidental catch of salmon and steelhead in a fishery that targets another species. Many workers have studied bycatch of North American salmonids in the Japanese squid fishery (Myers st ml. 1990; Burgner et al . 1992; Ishida and Ogura 1991; Jfatsu and Hayase 1991), the Alaskan groundfish trawl fishery (Myers and Rogers 1988), and the Japanese salmon gillnet fishery (Harris 1968; Burgner et «i. 1992), and, despite emotional arguments to the contrary, high seas bycatch has not been shown to have damaged Washington stocks (Dr. Kate Myers, University of Washington, pers. comm.). 71 127 Interception Interception is the catch of a given salmon stock outside itB terminal area, where a salmon fleet fishes on a mix of stocks bound for different rivers. Interception may occur on the high seas or in coastal waters. The high seas are defined for this report as marine waters outside the 200-mile national fishery management zone. Hioh Seas Japanese Salmon Gillnet Fisheries. There is little or no catch of Washington Chinook, coho, or chum salmon or steelhead in this fishery (Harris 1988; Walker 1990). D.S. and Canadian CoaBtal Salmon Sport and Troll Fisheries. Marine fisheries within 200 miles of the Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coast intercept large numbers of Chinook and coho bound for the Chehalis Basin. This remains a major influence on terminal run size, and appears to contribute tc the difficulty in meeting wild escapement goals. Grays Harbor coho have been a limiting stock in U.S. ocean salmon fisheries management and have limited access to other stocks in terminal fisheries (Dick Stone, WDF, pers. coram. ) . Marine fisheries do not intercept enough Chehalis Basin chum salmon or steelhead to affect terminal fishery management. Terminal Area Fisheries Fishery managers make pre-season, in-season, and post-season run size estimates. The pre-season estimates help to set the fishing regulations and in-season estimates provide an opportunity to adjust regulations based on how the season is progressing. Overfishing in the directed fishery results when fishery managers overestimate the run size before or during the season, and consequently allow too much fishing. Inaccurate pre-season predictions may result from variation in migration route, variations in marine survival, and/or changes in time and intensity of mixed-stock fishing pressure. Differences between pre-season and post-season estimates of Grays Harbor terminal area natural coho run sizes clearly show the magnitude of the problem (Salmon Technical Team 1991). Catch year Forecast Post-season return 1984 28,700 106,900 1985 56,400 22,200 1986 51,600 42,000 1987 103,300 62,000 1988 26,400 68,100 1989 43,000 70,800 Inaccurate in-season run size updates during terminal fisheries, resulting from unusual entry timing into the terminal area, variations in effort, and variations in catchability caused by temperature patterns, flow regimes, and 72 2,834 4,441 26,671 41,040 10.6% 10.8% 128 tidal influences, add to difficulty in consistently meeting escapement goals. Incidental overfishing in the terminal fishery also results when the fishing period of a harvestable stock overlaps with the presence of a non-harvestable species or the wild component of the same species. For example, in 1988 a strong return of hatchery coho was predicted but wild Chehalis coho were predicted to fall Bhort of the escapement goal (Samuelson 1989), and terminal fisheries were regulated in an attempt to selectively harvest the hatchery fish. However, run reconstruction (Dick Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) , as illustrated below, showed that both hatchery and wild Chehalis coho experienced the same harvest rate. Chehalis system coho Hatchery Terminal area catch Terminal area run Exploitation rate Fortunately in this case, the terminal run size was initially underestimated and as a result the wild escapement goal was met. Poaching This perennial problem adds much uncertainty to fishery management. Poaching includes all forms of unreported catches and, although it causes inaccuracies in post-season run estimates, does the most harm by reducing the number of Bpawners. The topic raises many virtually unanswerable questions. Does it make sense to account for poaching in managing terminal fisheries? Does annual variability in poaching contribute to the difficulty in predicting run sizes? Was poaching a major factor in the historical decline of the catches? What can be done to control poaching? Poaching may have extinguished the native Wynoochee spring Chinook run in the early 1950s, shortly after a road was built to the Wynoochee Falls 50 miles upriver (Dick Stone, WDF, quoting Jack Thompson, pers. comm.). Poachers desire fish for personal food, and roe for bait, either for personal use or for sale. LOCATION, QUANTITY, AND UTILIZATION OF EXISTING HABITAT Habitat information is briefly reviewed here. Data from the FWS habitat survey begun on March 1, 1992, will totally meet the requirements of this section, and will be reported and analyzed in Volume II. 73 129 Adult Holding Habitat Holding habitat is the freshwater area used by adult spring Chinook and summer steelhead while waiting to spawn. Spring Chinook holding has been documented in the Skookumchuck from the dam down to Bucoda, in the South Fork and main stem Newaukum at least downstream to Mile 4, and the main stem Chehalis at least downBtream to the vicinity of Adna (Hiss et aj . 1983a), based on underwater visual observations. Some holding must alao occur in the main stem Chehalis between Chehalis and Oakville, based on occurrence of adult Chinook in fish kills (Gene Deechamps, Chehalis Tribe, pers. comrn.). Quantity of habitat has not been studied, but is presently being documented during the FWS habitat surveys. Spawning Habitat Location of accessible streams and occurrence of spawning spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho, and chum are listed in the "Stream Catalog" (Phinney et ai . 1975). However, more recent spawner surveys have led to some extensions and deletions of actual spawning grounds, for example in the case of spring Chinook (Hiss et ai . 1985). Steelhead spawning grounds are listed by stream and available miles for the entire watershed in WDW unpublished files. Extent of utilization is estimated annually in spawning ground surveys for spring Chinook, fall chinook, coho, chum, and winter steelhead. Summary escapement data for the Basin was presented in Chapter 3. Sea-run cutthroat trout and a few Dolly Varden char can be expected to migrate at least as far upstream to spawn as steelhead and coho, but agencies do not estimate their escapement. American shad may spawn as far upstream as Rainbow Falls, and white sturgeon as far as Centralia, but this is known only from chance encounters, not systematic observation. Total habitat accessible to anadromous fish will be documented during the FWS habitat surveys, as will the extent of spawning gravel for Chinook. Juvenile Rearing Habitat Freshwater Rearing Generally, salmonids can be expected to rear at least as far upstream as they spawn, and, for species rearing in summer, disperse as far downstream as high temperatures permit. Juvenile chinook salmon emerge from the gravel in March, and some remain in freshwater until October but virtually all migrate to saltwater by the end of summer (WDF 1971). Coho emerge from the gravel in March and April, and rear in freshwater for one year. Quantity of summer rearing habitat for coho has been roughly estimated for use in setting habitat-based escapement goals (Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) . However, smolt trapping studies (Seller 1987) indicate that coho escapement could be larger than those based on coho habitat quantity. One possible explanation is that there is much more habitat than indicated in the stream catalog (Phinney at ai. 1975). Quantity of summer rearing habitat for steelhead has been roughly estimated for use in setting habitat-based escapement goals (WDW unpublished files). 74 130 Eatuarine Rearing Juvenile chinook, coho, and chum salmon use Grays Harbor for rearing before entering the ocean; extent of use by each species has been well documented (Simenstad and Eggers 1981). These authors concluded that: (1) Chehalis Basin Chinook migrate out of streams at age 0. (2) Regarding migration route, juvenile outmigrant Chinook (a) reach Sand Island above Cosmopolis by early April, (b) tend to concentrate in the inner Harbor, mainly near Cow Point on the north bank opposite the Weyerhaeuser pulp mill outfall (Figure 2) , and (c) reach Stearns Bluff on the south bank of Grays Harbor opposite Point New by mid-April. (3) Chinook initially use the intertidal zone, but shift to open waters of the Harbor by August. (4) Hatchery Chinook depend on the estuary for a shorter period than some naturally-spawned individuals. (5) Chinook fingerlings released from hatcheries in early June were at Westport by mid-June and left shortly thereafter. The authors speculate that early summer may be a critical time in their life history, because growth was depressed until most fish left the area, at which time the remaining fish resumed growing. In Oregon, late summer estuarine residents contributed most heavily to the adult return (Reimers 1973). Coho yearlings were abundant in the inner Harbor from mid-April to early June (Simenstad and Eggers 1981). In a sense, the Harbor is less important to coho than to chinook because individual fic>h pass through more quickly and do not take time to grow there (Moser et al. 1989). These investigators found that radio-tagged coho released In the lower Chehalis River generally migrated in the direction of the current; however, most tagged fish also tended to hold their position in areas of low current velocity near large structures such as pilings and docks, particularly around Cow Point. Holding periods ranged from several hours to 12 days. Pish then used either the North or South Channel to migrate to the outer Harbor. Juvenile chum salmon also rear in the shallow intertidal zone; migration into the estuary probably starts in January and continues through mid-May (Simenstad and Eggers 1981). Chum depend more on the shallow intertidal zone than other juvenile salmon for food supply, since they enter the estuary at a size too small to prey on large, open-water zooplanxton, depending instead on relatively smaller epibenthic crustaceans (Hiss and Boomer 1986a). 131 Other Balmonid species seem to depend less on the estuary as a nursery ground, although steelhead were present in low numbers from mid-May to late July, cutthroat smolts were found in July, and Dolly Varden juveniles were found in Harch (Simenatad and Eggers 1981). ANTICIPATED HABITAT PROBLEMS Cantralia Area riood Control The USACE has proposed to rehabilitate 7,000 feet of existing levee along the Skookumchuck River within the City of Centralia, and to add 1,300 to 1,700 feet of new levee. This could cause more rapid winter velocities in the main stem and remove low-velocity side channels that serve as refuge for overwintering coho salmon and cutthroat trout. This project has been indefinitely postponed because the cities of Centralia and Chehalis could not obtain the additional sponsors required by DSACE. Another flood control project has been proposed on Salzer Creek, which enters the Chehalis between the cities of Centralia and Chehalis. The object is to quickly remove floodwater from the county fairgrounds and airport. Floodwaters come from both the creek and from the Chehalis, which backs up into this area in high water. This project is also in abeyance until the cities get additional sponsors. Issues may arise regarding preservation and restoration of riparian habitat, fish access to potential off-channel rearing areas, and fish safety if floodwater pumping is involved. Satsop Energy Development Construction of both Satsop nuclear plants has been halted until regional power needs are re-aBsessed. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is reviewing proposals by potential contractors such as Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS). The earliest that BPA may decide to begin reactivating the nuclear projects is 1993 (Jason Zeller, Washington Energy Office, pers. coram.)- A Final Environmental Statement has been prepared (Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1985) and would have included an agreement with the City of Aberdeen to allow 67 cfs, taken out of the city's water right, to remain instream to compensate for the plant's withdrawal of water from the Chehalis River near Satsop (Cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma 1985). Urbanisation Issues in the rapidly growing suburban area around Grand Mound, Centralia, and southern Thurston County generally include: (1) predicting the effect of increases in municipal well withdrawal on groundwater supply and reduced seepage to the river, (2) ensuring that the new Grand Mound Sewage Treatment Plant will not Increase the risk of more fish kills on the Black and Chehalis Rivers, (3) mitigating the effect of vegetation removal during new construction, and 132 (4) countering the permanent effect of urban runoff on an already delicate river system. Growing suburban development and light industry in the upper watershed will degrade fish habitat by increasing the intensity of storm runoff, making high flows higher and perhaps low flows lower. This means more scouring of spawning beds in the winter and less rearing area in the summer. Industrial Expansion The Grays Harbor Navigational Improvement salmon mitigation site, an artificial slough managed for early estuarine fish rearing, may be threatened by potential development of nearby lowlands for industry or log storage (Gwill Ging, FWE, pers. comm. ) . Runoff from the adjacent developments could pollute the slough and thus reduce rearing habitat value for juvenile salmon. Aquaculture Aquaculture in the Black River area has been criticized on the grounds that it increases the risk of groundwater depletion. If so, an increase in aguaculture could reduce instream flow now coming from local infiltration, since the Black River valley has a strong groundwater connection to the main stem Chehalis. Bank Protection Until recently, agricultural agencies assisted farmers and ranchers in stabilizing eroding streambanks . This process permanently removed key salmonid habitat features including undercut banks, instream woody debris, and shading vegetation (Chapman and Knudsen 1980). Currently, agricultural and fishery agencies usually cooperate to make up for the loss by planting shade trees along the protected bank (Rich Bainbridge, SCS, pers. comm.). Some projects include other added habitat features, such as boulder groins to create pools and eddies, anchored trees to provide instream cover, or dense willow plantings to reduce the need for rockwork. However, since improper bank protection upstream accelerates erosion downstream, the demand for more riprap continues. Although one riprap project with suitable considerations for fish will likely not cause long-term deleterious effects on fish populations, the cumulative effects of numerous riprap projects will be negative. 133 Chapter 6: FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL. AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RELATIONSHD? TO PRIVATE FISHERY CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiah and Wildlife Service The Fish and Wildlife Service is part of the Department of the Interior. The Service is divided for moat operational functions into seven geographical regions. Region One, with its office in Portland, Oregon, covers Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii. Region Eight, having nationwide coverage, conducts basic research for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland Regional Office The Portland Regional Office administers all Service activities in Region One except basic research. Of concern in the Chehalis Basin, are Fisheries and Federal Aid, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, and Refuges and Wildlife programs. Fisheries and Federal Aid The Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries and Federal Aid has two primary responsibilities. The Division of Federal Aid is responsible for funding state programs to increase sport fish populations and sport fishing access through federal taxes on sport fishing equipment and motor boat gasoline and oil. The Washington Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife receive approximately equal federal funding and have programs in the Chehalis Basin (Jerry Davis, FWS, pers. comm. ) . Through the Division of Fisheries, FWS plays an important role in restoring depleted fish stocks of national, interjurisdictional significance, in this case the Pacific salmon. The Western Washington Fishery Resource Office (WWFRO) in Olympia conducts applied fishery research and planning to restore depleted salmonid stocks, evaluate programs of National Fish Hatcheries, and help determine the effects of the Pacific Salmon Treaty on local stocks. In the early 1980s, WWFRO assessed the status of Chehalis spring Chinook. Recently, WWFRO has taken the lead responsibility to satisfy the requirements of the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Resource Restoration Study Act. There are no National Fish Hatcheries in the Chehalis Basin. In the recent past, winter steelhead smolts from Ouinault National Fish Hatchery were released into the Humptulips River, but production has been transferred to the Humptulips Hatchery. The Olympia Fish Health Center has performed fish health certification and diagnostic services for Sea Farms of Washington, Global Aqua, and Swecker's Sea Farms on the Black River (Kim True, OFHC, pers. comm.). 134 Fzsh and Wildlife Enhancement Fish and Wildlife Enhancement (FWE) local offices within the Region conduct environmental review of federal projects under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and other development requiring federal permits. This component of the Service also deals with endangered species (except anadromous Balmonids), contaminants, wetlands, and habitat restoration. The Olympia Field Office of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement covers the Chehalis Basin. FWE has contributed to protection of the Basin's fishery resource principally through environmental review, but also through contaminant monitoring in recent years. Environmental Review. FWE 'a environmental review work helped shape two major federal projects: (1) the widening and deepening of the Grays Harbor navigation channel; and (2) the construction and hydropower addition to the Wynoochee Dam. They have also reviewed several Corps flood control projects in the vicinity of Centralia. Contaminant monitoring. Recent contaminant monitoring has become the pivotal factor in discussions of acquisition of additional land for the Grays Harbor Wildlife Refuge at Bowerman Basin, just west of Hoquiam (Frederick 1991). Additional Service monitoring now under consideration for a wider area of the Harbor may also shed light on the salmon smolt survival issue. Habitat Restoration. The new Washington Ecosystems Project provides fish and wildlife habitat restoration to landowners and may be useful in Chehalis Basin restoration recommendations for specific habitat improvements. Providing at least some of the project is on private land, partial funding may be available on cooperative restoration projects. Refuges and Wildlife All the National Wildlife Refuges of western Washington are administered through the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge Complex near Olympia. The only refuge within the Basin is the Grays Harbor Refuge, located in Bowerman Basin just west of Hoquiam. The Refuge was recently established to protect large, seasonal concentrations of migratory shorebirds. Acquisition of further land is conditioned upon absence of significant contamination, particularly dioxins and furans concentrated in intertidal crustaceans that form the bulk of shorebird prey. Seattle National Flshsrr Research Center The Seattle' National Fishery Research Center provides basic research in fiah genetics, populations, physiology, and pathology for Service offices and other federal agencies. Center personnel have been involved in Chehalis Basin fisheries issues by studying the role of water pollution in poor survival of Chehalis System coho smolts. This work has been reported in Schroder and Fresh (1992). 79 135 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Although the Forest Service hae jurisdiction over only a email portion of Chehalis Basin forest lands, it has an aggressive program of fish habitat management and recreational fishery development. Within the Chehalis Basin, the Olympic National Forest is divided into two Ranger Districts. The upper Humptulips watershed is in the Quinault Ranger District while the upper Satsop and Wynoochee watersheds are in the Hood Canal District. The Foreet Service is responsible for integrated management in these areas. Management means designing timber harvest to minimize ecosystem damage, mitigating for unavoidable damage, and restoring the effects of past degradation. In working toward these goals, the Forest Service has recently begun to assess resource conditions throughout rivers originating on National Forest land, even if the greater portion of a particular stream, and the runs of anadromous fish it supports, lies outside Forest boundaries. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Related Agencies The Soil Conservation Service is responsible for improving agricultural practices through technical support. Local offices assist Conservation Districts in practically every county of each state. Local offices of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service administer financial support to farmers. The Conservation Districts can support individual farmers in riparian habitat restoration including stream fencing and revegetation programs, improved grazing practices, agricultural waste management, and improved irrigation practices. Recently, the Conservation Districts have become active in public outreach and planning to improve water quality and urban runoff management. (Individual Districts are described under local governments.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA '8 Region Ten headquarters is in Seattle. EPA contributes to habitat protection and improvement through its regulatory functions, grants to state (WDOE) and local groups, and design of citizen monitoring programs. Regulatory Functions EPA is directly responsible for NPDES permits on federal lands and Indian reservations; EPA delegates this authority to WDOE on state and private lands (Bev Poaton, EPA, pars. comm. ) . EPA supports WDOE in routine testing of pulp mill waste and provided extra technical and financial assistance during the 1987-1990 amolt survival study as reported by Schroder and Fresh (1992). In addition, the agency has recently been assigned the task of coastal zone management planning nationwide (EPA 1991). This mandates states to require very specific pollution control measures in whatever coastal areas they 72-813 - 93 - 6 136 identify as needing help. Each state must provide for the implementation of measures in conformity with detailed guidance related to agricultural, urban, and forestry runoff, marinas, dams, levees, and shoreline erosion. Strsamwalk Program EPA is now designing a database and data retrieval system to support citizen monitoring of the aquatic and riparian environment throughout the Pacific states. It is developing a list of variables, a field protocol, a monitoring plan describing frequencies and locations, and instructions on recording, managing and retrieving data. The agency is designing a regional GIS database to which physical and chemical data can be attached. The database will be compatible with technical criteria set forth by the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, although EPA will require fewer variables to be measured than the Foundation. D.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service HMFS's Regional Office and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are located in Seattle. There is also a research station in Manchester, Washington. The agency performed a key part of the research in the smolt survival study using its marine netpene (Schroder and Fresh 1992). NMFS also regulates domestic fisheries in the 3-to-200-mile U.S. fishing xone through the PFMC. U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corp* of Engineers The DSACE civil works mission is primarily navigation and flood control but also development of water supply. Water resource development activities assigned to the Corps in the Chehalis Area are administered by the Seattle District. These projects and the procedures leading up to them are described in a recent review (USACE 1991). The DSACE is also responsible for protecting wetlands under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Navigation Grays Harbor navigational channel dredging for widening and deepening is nearing completion; all dredging is complete, but a railroad bridge still needs to be widened. Fish and crab mitigation is in place and under evaluation. Maintenance dredging will be ongoing. Flood Control and Floodolain Management A 4.2-mile levee is planned for Cosmopolis to Aberdeen, with mitigation by installation of one floodgate and upgrading four existing floodgates for fish passage into south bank streams, and wetland creation to replace levee fill. DSACE is presently planning a floodgate and pumping station on Salzer Creek ei 137 (USACE 1990b); the plan is complete but project is on hold because of lack of matching local funds. Skookumchuck flood control projects being considered are (1) dam modification for added flood control — City of Centralia cannot afford to sponsor it but is looking for way to raise funds; and (2) Lower Skookumchuck levee construction — City will not consider this unless comparative coat of dam modification is greater. Water Supply USACE constructed Wynoochee Dam in 1972 for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish habitat improvement (Findlay 1967). Current issues include: (1) ongoing fish mitigation dispute (Hike Scuderi, USACE, pers. comm.); (2) potential title transfer to Aberdeen which would allow development; (3) rule curve change which might improve smolt migration through dam (Scuderi, USACE, pers. comm.). STATE OF WASHINGTON Washing-ton Department of Fisheries WDF preserves, protects, perpetuates, and manages the food fish resources of the State of Washington (WDF 1990). The agency is charged with balancing the needs of all user groups for the overall benefit Washington citizens. The Director is appointed by the Governor. The Department consists of several divisions having distinct functions. The agency is funded by direct appropriation from the general fund of Washington state. Harvest Management Harvest Management contributes to decisions for Washington-based commercial and sport fisheries in cooperation with Indian Tribes, PFHC, and PSC. WDF also produces annual sport fishing regulations for salmon, sturgeon, and shad and pre- and post-season stock assessment reports for salmon. Most WDF harvest management activities for the Chehalis Basin are conducted at the Coastal Lab in Monte sano. They cooperatively manage terminal salmon harvest and balance terminal fishing opportunity to allow equal catch by Indian and non-Indian fisheries. They also attempt to balance the needs of commercial and sport non-Indian fisheries. Coastal Lab personnel also conduct routine spawning ground surveys, ensure that non-Indian commercial catch is properly recorded and reported, participate in planning forums, and, along with the Salmon Culture Division, help develop and manage cooperative rearing projects. 82 138 For management of coho and Chinook, State and Tribal co-managers divides the Basin into two river systems, the Humptulips and the Chehalis, but manages chum in the Basin as a single entity because of the difficulty of assigning chum catch and escapement to a particular river system. Habitat Management WDF divides the Basin into four habitat management regions, each with its own Habitat Manager, whose primary duty is to inspect projects for which Washington State Hydraulic Permits are required, and ensure that fish habitat is not compromised. Habitat managers may also represent the agency in watershed planning forums and local habitat improvement projects. Saleon Culture The Salmon Culture Division in Olympia coordinates WDF hatchery programs statewide, and determines the number of fish reared annually and Bite of release. The Division also provides eggs and fry to cooperative rearing projects. WDF Chehalis Basin hatchery facilities are the Simpson Hatchery on the East Fork Satsop and the Humptulips Hatchery. WDF also shares in certain operations of the Mayr Brothers Hatchery on the Wishkah. In addition, WDF owns and manages rearing ponds at the Skookumchuck Dam. Research and Planning The Research and Planning Division monitors salmon smolt production from several tributaries of the Basin, and counts all upstream and downstream migrants on Bingham Creek. The Division also coordinated the 1987-1990 smolt survival study (Schroder and Fresh 1992). This division is also responsible for completing three planning processes. In 1985, WDF began developing CRPHP process to guide fishery restoration and land use in Washington watersheds (Anonymous 1986). These Plans formalize agreement among all fishery restoration and management agencies and tribes. They state management goals and criteria and list the principal habitat problems. The second is the Sport Fishery Enhancement Plan (WDF 1989a), a statewide effort to maximize sport fishing opportunities and thus increase economic contribution to Washington. For the Chehalis Basin, the Plan recommends that Humptulips fall Chinook production increase from 500,000 smolts to 1 million. The third is the recent Salmon 2000 Report (Appleby et ad. 1992) which calls for integrated planning of enhancement projects, a recognition of the importance of wild stocks, and management of fish culture with ecological and genetic criteria. 139 Washington Department, of Wildlife WDW preserves, protects, and perpetuates Washington's wildlife resource, while providing maximum recreational opportunity (WDW 1991b). WDW manages Washington's game and sport fish (including steelhead and trout). The agency is responsible to the Washington Wildlife Commission, which represents citizens with an interest in sport fiBhing and wildlife in various regions of the State. The Director is appointed by the Governor. fisheries Management Division The Division produces annual pie-season sport fishing regulations for winter and summer run steelhead trout, sea-run cutthroat trout, and resident game fish. Winter steelhead terminal commercial harvest is managed jointly with the Quinault Nation to allow equal catch by Indian and non-Indian fisheries. WDW conducts routine steelhead spawning ground surveys, sees that commercial catch of this species is properly recorded and reported, participates in planning forums, and develops and manages cooperative rearing projects. WDW divides the Basin into two river systems, the Humptulips and Chehalis, for estimating commercial catch and hatchery escapement, but divides the Basin into 15 separate river systems in estimating sport catch and wild escapement. Steelhead Culture WDW '8 only hatchery in the Basin is at Lake Aberdeen. WDW also Bhares in the cost of steelhead production at the Mayr Brothers Hatchery on the Wishkah and at the WDF Humptulips Hatchery. In addition, PPfcL, in coordination with WDW, operates an adult steelhead trap at the Skookumchuck Dam. Progeny are reared to smolts in a rearing pond at the base of the dam and released volitionally each spring. WDW also supports a number of cooperative rearing projects. Washington Department of Ecology WDOE is responsible for water resource development and water quality management as well as other environmental programs throughout the State of Washington. Its Director is appointed by the Governor but receives advice and guidance from the Ecological Commission. The agency is funded by direct appropriation from the state's general fund as well as numerous dedicated sources and federal grants. WDOE is divided into Offices, Programs, and Sections on the state level, with many parallel sections at the regional level. Five parts of the agency deal in some way with fish habitat in the Chehalis Basin which is in WDOE's Southwest Region. 84 140 Office of Central Proqrg»i and Enforcement Central Programs Central Programs cover four areas: (1) environmental review and sediment management, which reviews EISs, and projects dealing with disposal of dredged material (the Water Quality Program also participates in this activity); (2) enforcement support functions with the shorelands and Water Quality Programs and the Southwest Region, as well as other programs; (3) spill management investigated the 1989 Black River fieh kill and oil and other spills; and (4) regulation of major industrial sources such as pulp mills. In Grays Harbor, this Section routinely monitors chemical content and biological effects of pulp mill effluent as called for in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits. The Water Quality Program is an active participant in this effort. Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program: This Program is responsible for water quality monitoring. It conducts ambient monitoring for surface and ground water as well as special investigations such as toxic discharges. This program performed much of the bioassay and chemical analysis in the Grays Harbor smolt survival study (Schroder and Fresh 1992). This office supports the TKDL study and modelling of biological oxygen demand and coliform bacteria (WDOE 1990). Office of Water and Shorelands Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program This Program provides advice on hydrology and water resources for flood control, and acts as a liaison with the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation. The Program also administers the Shoreland Management Act, local government master programs, and Coastal Zone Management grants. They also implement wetlands and shellfish programs. Water .Resource* Program The purposes of this Program axe: (1) regulate and maintain official records of surface and ground water rights and claims; (2) review Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for hydroelectric power; (3) assists in biological investigations and establish and regulates instream flow requirements of various streams for fish species; and (4) adjudicate water rights claims. 141 Water Quality Program This program establishes water quality programs for point and nonpoint sources and adopts and administers surface and ground water standards by: (1) maintaining liaison with the SCS; (2) developing stormwater management programs and guidelines; and (3) overseeing nonpoint watershed planning, particularly in Puget Sound; (4) developing agricultural policy and writes discharge permits, working with Central Programs, the Southwest Region; (5) promulgating forest practices rules with the Forest practice Board and evaluating the effect of forest practices on water quality, working through the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Process; (6) developing aquaculture policy and fish farm waste discharge permits, working with Central Programs and the Southwest Region; and (7) setting effluent limits and writing permits for wastewater treatment plants and other industrial activities. Water Cuality Financial Assistance Program This program administers funds under Washington's Centennial Clean Water Fund. The program supports the Chehalis River Council and the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission in producing water quality improvement plans, and is the most commonly-sought funding source for the Conservation Districts ' habitat restoration projects. The program also administers state and federal grants for local government water quality programs. This includes grants to GHRPC, CBFTF, and local conservation districts. Southwest Regional Office The Southwest Regional Office covers the Olympic Peninsula and southwest Washington. The Region participates along with the Central Office in the Spill Response Team. It also includes two Sections that implement programs of Water Resources and Water Quality programs. Responsibilities for the TMDL and WLA processes are coordinated through this office. The regional office conducts inspections of facilities, investigates general complaints, and initiates enforcement actions for water quality violations. HPDES and State Waste discharge permits are written and administered in the regional office. Washington Department of Natural Resources WDNR manages the State's public timber and mining resources and its subtidal shellfish beds. It implements the Forest Practices Act, manages the Aquatic Lands Program, and conducts research in fish habitat restoration. 86 142 fore«t Praetieti Board The ForeBt Practices Board was formed under The Forest Practices Act of 1974 to regulate forest practices on private and state land. The Board has representatives from the Washington Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture, Trade and Commerce, and Ecology, timber interests, the Tribes, and the counties. The Board's rules are adopted following the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, which requires public notice and a hearing (Dan Bigger, WDNR, pers. comm. ) . At the same time, an EIS procedure begins as specified in SEPA and culminates in a 30-day review period, after which the new regulations go into effect (Bigger, WDNR, pers. comm.). The approved rules become a part of the Washington Administrative Code Title 222; and are published, along with explanatory text, in the Forest Practice Rules and Regulations (Washington Forest Practices Board 1988), for use by timber operators. Ti.h«r, rish. and Wildlife Process WDNR, working with other state agencies, the Northwest Renewable Resources Center, and various Indian tribes, developed a revolutionary process in 1986 to facilitate regulation of logging practices on state and private timberlands under jurisdiction of the Forest Practices Act. Under this agreement, a number of government agencies, tribes, and associations suddenly became reviewers of timber practices. TFW participants address the issues of st reams ide buffer zones, accelerated erosion and slope failure from road construction, the value of instream woody debris, and other technical habitat questions. The current trend is toward intensive research to adapt general rules to individual timber sales, and thus to balance profit with environmental safety for fish and wildlife. The principal product of TFW negotiations in the mid-1980s was the 1988 revision (Washington Forest Practices Board 1988) of the ForeBt Practice Rules and Regulations giving fishery and environmental agencies an avenue for commenting on proposed timber sales and helping design activities to reduce risk to fish. However, several controversies demanded rule revision. (1) Optimum fish habitat protection required exhaustive negotiation between timber operators and state habitat biologists (Randy Carman, WDF, pers. comm.). (2) FEMA considered State timber practices to be causing an unacceptable increase in flood insurance claims (Bigger, WDNR, pers. comm.). (3) A Snohomish County court ruled against the Forest Practices Board for failing to consider cumulative impacts (Bauersfield, WDF, pers. comm.). Aquatic Lands Program This is a grant program for local entities to improve the quality of state lands for fish and wildlife and public access. 143 Stewardihip Ipccntive Prograj The recently created Stewardship Incentive Program offers cost-sharing to private landowners in fish and wildlife habitat restoration. This program serves agriculture as well as timber lands, and is coordinated with local Conservation Districts. riih Habitat Research WDNR is authorized to conduct research on cost-effective means to quickly restore the fish-rearing capacity of lands where logging has occurred. In the Chehalis Basin, the agency haB installed many instream habitat enhancement features in Porter Creek and is evaluating their success. INDIAN TRIBES Quinault Indian Nation The Quinault Indian Nation is a recognized successor-in-interest to the tribes and bands which were party to the Treaty with the Quinault, 12 Stat. 971. The decision in Dnited States v. Washington, which was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, authoritatively holds the Treaty with the Quinault and other Stevens Treaties secure to the tribal treaty signatories a right to harvest on a river-by-river, run-by-run basis one-half of the harvestable salmon and steelhead passing through usual and accustomed tribal fishing grounds and stations. The Quinault Nation's presently adjudicated usual and accustomed fishing grounds and BtationB include the Queets, Raft, Quinault, Moclips, and Copalis Rivers, the Grays Harbor watershed, including the lower portions of the Chehalis River baBin, and the adjacent waters of the Pacific Ocean. Quinault fisheries inside the Grays Harbor watershed presently operate primarily in the Humptulips River, North Bay, the inner Harbor, and the mainstem of the Chehalis River from the Harbor to the vicinity of Montesano. The Quinault Nation i« the only tribe fishing within the Dnited States v. Washington Case Area that has been adjudicated by the federal district court to possess complete self-regulatory Btatus. As the result of thiB status, tribal members exercising Quinault treaty rights are not subject to state regulation and are regulated exclusively by the Quinault Indian Nation. The Nation's self-regulating status also exempts the Quinault Nation from state permit requirements for fishery research and enhancement activities. Although the Nation and its members are exempt from state fishery regulation, the Nation's Fisheries Division routinely consults with the WDP and WDW with respect to its salmon and steelhead management, research and enhancement activities. 88 144 The Nation's fisheries management goals are: 1. Protect and enhance the Quinault Indian Nation fisheries resources. 2. Protect and enhance the self-regulatory capabilities of the Quinault Indian Nation. 3. Protect and enhance the fisheries of the Quinault Indian Nation. Several fisheries operate within the Nation's usual and accustomed fishing area. River fisheries are managed cooperatively between the State of Washington and the Nation. Marine fisheries are negotiated with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the International Halibut Commission and the Pacific Salmon Commission. Management authority rests with the Fisheries Manager, the Quinault Fish and Game Commission and three fish committees, one each for the Queets River, the Quinault River and Grays Harbor (off- reservation) . Technical expertise is provided to the management authorities by the staff of the Quinault Fisheries Division, part of the Nation's Department of Natural Resources. The Fisheries Division is comprised of 25 full-time and up to 20 seasonal staff. The division is divided into three sections; harvest management, technical services, and resource enhancement. Harvest management staff are responsible for analyzing catch and tag data, modeling runs, determining harvest options, and reporting to regional data management centers. Technical services activities include catch monitoring, bio-sampling, spawning escapement estimation, juvenile assessment, tagging projects and wild stock supplementation efforts. Resource enhancement covers a wide range of fish culture work including broodstock capture, spawning, incubation, rearing, tagging, feeding, and caring for cultured fish. Chehalis Indian Tribe The Chehalis Tribe's goal is to promote the economic welfare of its individual members and the Tribe as a whole through tribal commercial fishing and other tribal businesses (Gene Deschamps, Chehalis Tribe, pers. coram. ) . Since the formation of the Reservation, Federal law has recognized the Chehalis Tribal right to fish on the Reservation. However, the Tribe has claimed it should be allowed to fish the Chehalis River off-reservation. This was denied in a recent court decision, which the Tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court. Until resolved, the Tribe confines its fishing to the Reservation. A decision favoring the Tribe would lead to a guaranteed harvest share and expand the Tribe's fishing area. The number of harvestable fish available to the Tribe presently depends largely on negotiations between the State and the Quinault Nation. Chehalis tribal fisheries are managed under pre-season catch quotas annually set by written agreements between WDF, WDW, and the Quinault Nation, based on modeling of predicted run sizes. The Tribe has not been able to harvest many hatchery fish in the Chehalis 145 Basin because the reservation is upriver of major existing hatcheries. To addresB this, the Tribe is proposing a major hatchery at Cedar Creek, which enters the Chehalie just downstream of the Reservation. A feasibility study has been prepared (Jones et ai . 1987) and the Tribe anticipates publishing an EIS shortly. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Countief The Chehalis Basin includes most of Grays Harbor, a large part of Lewis, smaller parte of Mason, Thurston, and Pacific, and very small parts of Wahkiakum and Pacific counties. Grays Harbor and Thurston counties have been moat active in aquatic habitat protection. Grays Harbor County Regional Planning Commission has attempted to review the county Shoreline Management Plan to make sure fish habitat and water quality are considered. Thurston County Health Department has been active in monitoring and protecting water quality, particularly in the Black River system (Blocher 1991). Prays Harbor Regional Planning Commission The GHRPC was created under the Area Redevelopment Act, PL-8716, primarily for furthering local economic development (Bill Banks, City of Hoquiam, pers. cotnm. ) . Membership in GHRPC includes nine cities in Grays Harbor County, the County itself, the Grays Harbor Public Utility District, Port of Grays Harbor, the Grays Harbor Transit District, two local school districts, and the Grays Harbor Parks and Recreation District. GHRPC has no regulatory authority of its own but helps the County and cities develop their respective zoning ordinances. This group recognizes the potential value of improved fish runs for economic recovery, and works under the assumption that fishery restoration is compatible with the present practices of Grays Harbor industries. They have advocated the priority of (1) extensive fish habitat restoration in the middle and upper Basin and (2) comprehensive public education. They have called for a large volunteer program to achieve these objectives. Cities All cities in the Chehalis Basin are responsible for managing their wastewater, whether from storm runoff or from municipal sewage, to maintain adequate water quality. Additionally, the cities of Centralia, Chehalis, Aberdeen, and Hoquiam withdraw surface water for municipal needs. They are legally responsible for withdrawing no more than their water rights specify. Centralia and Chehalis have the option of drawing from either surface or groundwater or a combination of the two. While they have no statutory responsibility to choose the source based on the least ecological effect, they have the option of managing for this purpose. 90 146 Port of Orayc Harbor The Port exists to promote trade and commerce within Grays Harbor County (GHRPC 1992). The Port manages all shipping traffic in the Harbor and co- sponBored the recent widening and deepening of the navigation channel. The Port is interested in increasing tourism though enhanced fishing opportunities so manages coho netpene at Aberdeen, Westport, and Ocean Shores. PRIVATE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND HANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Chshalu Basin Fishery Task Pore* The CBFTF, formerly the Grays Harbor Fishery Enhancement Task Force, is a non- profit, non-partisan group of fishery, business, and community leaders allied to enhance salmon, steel head, and sea-run cutthroat trout resources, and to restore habitat critical to these species, in the Chehalis River Basin (CBFTF 1991), It sees its role as identifying fishery enhancement and habitat restoration projects, soliciting grants and donations, matching projects with appropriate funding, enlisting community support to maintain projects, and fostering mutual support among fishery user groups. The Task Force is one of 12 regional fishery enhancement groups statewide partially funded under the WDF Regional Salmon Enhancement Program. The Task Force supported 11 fish rearing projects (four major hatchery operations, three smolt rearing stations, and four fry hatching stations) and one cooperative educational effort in 1992 (CBFTF 1992). Long Live the Kings Long Live the Kings (LLTK) works toward restoring Chinook salmon runs on streams with depleted natural production, and specializes in rapidly mobilizing support and resources for new fish culture programs. LLTK sponsors a fall chinook hatchery program on the Wishkah River, in coordination with CBFTF. LLTK is trying to rebuild wild stocks using short-term artificial enhancement of wild brood stocks. Black River Hatch This citizen group monitors water quality in the Black River and thus forestall fish kills such as occurred in September of 1989. It is supported and guided largely by the Thurston County Department of Environmental Health, The Chehalis Indian Tribe, and several of the commercial trout farms in the Black River watershed. Trout Unlimited Trout 0 a nationwide sport fishing group whose Grays Harbor Chapter works with the CBFTF in supporting three major fish rearing projects: fall chinook, coho, and chum salmon at the Satsop Springs ponds on the East Fork Satsop; 91 147 sea-run cutthroat trout at the Mitchell Creek Pond on the East Fork Satsop; and winter steelhead at Loomis Ponds on the Humptulips River. Weyerhaeuser Corporation Weyerhaeuser supports fishery projects in the Basin by channeling funds through Long Live the Kings and by supporting a full-time fishery enhancement project coordinator for the CBFTF. The company also supports extensive, long- term research on forestry effects on fisheries. Orayi Harbor Conservation District All Conservation Districts, although essentially administered by the SCS, act as private organizations in that they are governed by a local volunteer board. The GHCD is based in Montesano. The District specializes in school programs in ecological awareness and in salmon enhancement (Troy Col ley, GHCD, pers. coram. ) . They also provide assistance to farmers in streambanx protection and elimination of nonpoint pollution. GHCD proposes to conduct a survey of land use and riparian condition throughout the Basin, including all other counties, to assist in repairing habitat damage associated with agriculture. Lewis County Conservation District The LCCD, located in Chehalis, supports fish habitat improvement in three ways. First, it supports administration of the Chehalis River Council, a citizen group working to improve water quality in the upper Chehalis. Second, it has incorporated shrub and tree planting into bank protection measures. Third, LCCD proposed a multi-million-dollar dairy waste digester to reduce dairy waste run-off into streams from the farms along the South Fork Chehalis. Thurston Conservation District TCCD emphasizes habitat restoration projects in cooperation with private landowners. The Long Range Plan of 1992 (Thurston CD 1992) specifies the CD as leading fishery habitat protection in the areas of farm planning, riparian protection, and in providing plants for streambanx revegetation. Columbia-Pacific Resource Conservation & Development Council The Council was formed to combine SCS and private industry funds to address certain resource problems facing Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahxiakum counties. It is based in Aberdeen. The Council has entered into a contract with the DSFS to develop an enhancement plan for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Wynoochee (Walls 1991). 92 148 Gray* Harbor Poggie Club This group represents local sport fishers and maintains a coho net pen in Aberdeen. The club works mainly through the CBFTF. Grays Harbor Gillnetters This group represents the non-Indian commercial fleet fishing within Grays Harbor. The Gillnetters operate coho egg box programs on the Hoguiam and Johns rivers under the CBFTF. The resulting fry are released in the two respective sub-basins. Washington Trailers Association This is one of several groups representing the joint interests of trollers based throughout western Washington. The Association also rears Wynoochee native coho on Hillian Creek, a tributary of the Wynoochee. They sponsor a cooperative coho smolt rearing project with the Onalaska School District at Herryman's Pond on the South Fork of the Newaukum. Elata Game Club This group works in the Satsop sub-basin with TU to jointly hatch and rear coho at the Muller Hatchery and to rear sea-run cutthroat trout at the Mitchell Creek Pond. Both axe located on the main stem Satsop River. Cb.eha.lis Basin Technical Advisory Board Also known as the Lower Chehalie Water Quality Board, this group existed to provide technical advice and review for the GHRPC in preparation of the Lower Chehalis Water quality Study (GHRPC 1992). The Board's job is now complete. Chehalis River Council The mission of the CRC is "to promote conservation and restoration of the Chehalis Basin, with consideration for current and potential uses, through (1) fostering recognition by all land and water users of the direct link between individual actions or inactions and water quality, (2) facilitate citizen empowerment, (3) seek solutions to resource problems, and (4) foster communications among Chehalis Basin interest groups, and work with all interested citizens within the Chehalis Basin" (CRC 1991). As described in the CRC newsletter (Lewis County CD 1990), the primary goal is to develop a plan to identify, correct, and prevent nonpoint source pollution, and thus protect beneficial uses of water. The WDOE provides technical assistance and administers grants from the State Centennial Clean Water Fund to prepare watershed plans. The Upper Chehalis Action Plan will enable the CRC to apply for an implementation grant through the Centennial Clean Water Fund. 93 149 The CRC roster includes Trout Unlimited, the Washing-ton Environmental Council Grays Harbor, Lewie, and Thurston Conservation Districts, the City of Centralia, Lewis County Public Works, the Chehalie Tribe, the Thurston County Office of Water Quality, the Washington State Dairy Federation, and the Weyerhaeuser Company . Educational Activities Grays Harbor College has a two-year fishery technician program with a demonstration hatchery and habitat improvements on local streams. The Onalaska Public School District has strongly promoted a fisheries and natural resources curriculum complete with a full-scale coho rearing pond. The SCS is very active in natural resource education and outreach, especially through the Grays Harbor Conservation District. They have emphasized land management to protect and restore fish habitat, primarily on agricultural lands. The main focus has been farmers and, more recently, school programs. 94 150 Chapter 7: ONGOING RESEARCH AND NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attempts to address declines of the fisheries resource have not only been based on research, but also on such obvious problems as declining catch, visible pollution, and fish mortality. Therefore, "research" is broadly interpreted here to include scientific studies as well as habitat information, hatchery records, fish tag returns, annual catch reports, and professional opinion. This analysis of ongoing research and needs for additional information will be addressed relative to fisheries restoration possibilities. The concept of restoration itself has changed, and will probably continue to change, as fishery managers and concerned citizens weigh the risks and rewards of new fisheries enhancement initiatives. Restoration has been, and can be, approached through habitat management, hatchery production, and fishing regulation, or some combination of these three general approaches. HABITAT MANAGEMENT Water Quality Inner Grays Harbor Water Quality Inner Harbor water quality has apparently been the most critical factor influencing restoration of Chehalis salmon and steelhead; it contributed to poor coho smolt survival at least until 1989 (Schroder and Fresh 1992). The same conditions may have reduced chinook salmon and steelhead smolt survival. Results of pulp mill effluent clean-up efforts will become known in a few more years. Further study may be necessary but can be delayed pending the outcome of ongoing (plus expanded) survival evaluation (Schroder and Fresh 1992). Current Additional Information Weeds Coho taoolno.- Ongoing Chehalis Basin wild and hatchery coho coded-wire tagging programs should be continued to evaluate success in cleaning up inner Harbor water quality (Schroder and Fresh 1992). Fall Chinook tagging.- Fall chinook from Satsop Springs and the Humptulips Hatchery should be coded-wire-tagged to verify whether this species suffers from a pollution block (Schroder and Fresh 1992). This would also allow more accurate estimation of marine interception. Work should begin with the 1993 release and continue through 1996. Sufficiently large release groups of sero- age chinook are available for tagging at both Humptulips and Satsop Springs, but tagging has been precluded by lack of funding (Johnson, WDF, pers. comm. ) . 95 151 Contaminant studies.- Dioxxns, furans, and related compounds should be studied for both their extent in the Grays Harbor environment and benthic organisms, and their effects on aalmonid prey organisms. The links between the contaminants, the prey organisms, and the salmonids Bhould also be studied. Feasibility of oyster larvae bioassavs.- Studies to evaluate effluent bioassays on oyster larvae should be completed. If feasible, the bioasaays should be required on at least a quarterly basis for continued NPDES licensing of pulp mills. Potential Additional Information HeedB It coded-wire tagging studies indicate salmon survival has not improved, the following studies should be conducted. Parasite/contaminant studies.- The combined effects of paraBtism by NanophyetuB (a liver fluke) and/or Ceratomyxa (a myxosporidian known to cause aalmonid mortalities) and exposure to various pulp mill effluents on coho smoltif ication should be investigated (Schroder and Fresh 1992). Further effluent toxicity tests.- Although waste treatment at both Grays Harbor pulp mills has been upgraded, the new effluent has not been retested for toxicity to salmonids. One argument is that fish are less likely to be killed by dioxins as a group now than before, because dioxins produced in oxygen bleaching are below detection limits. The rebuttal is that detection limits may be greater than the highest safe dose for long-term fish survival. Detection limits are set by equipment capability, technique, precision, and cost. There is a chance that although total dioxins are reduced, TCOD, the more toxic of the 135 forms of dioxin, may be more abundant now than before (Malek, EPA, pers. comm. ) . It is also possible that a synergistic effect of a variety of contaminants could be affecting salmonids; toxicity tests similar to those reported by Schroder and Fresh (1992) should be conducted for all salmonid species if tagging does not indicate improved survival. Sediment as a contaminant reservoir.- If sediments serve as a reservoir of contaminants that are killing fish, then cleanup of mill waste may not immediately resolve the problem, and the need would arise for a more comprehensive picture of the distribution of the most toxic substances as body burden in salmon prey organisms. Long-term survival of contaminated fish.- If contaminant analysis shows tainted juvenile salmon in the inner Harbor and clean fish in North Bay, fish might be captured from each area and held for a number of months in uncontaminated .saltwater, with mortality and condition at death observed. This experiment would differ from previous studies (Schroder and Fresh 1992) on long-term survival in that the experimental groups of fish would be assumed to have eaten contaminated or clean prey, respectively. 152 Upper Chehali« River Svitem Water Quality Ab seen in Chapter 5, the water quality problem in the rnxd-Chehalis is reasonably well documented. However, there are a number of areas where information could be improved. Continuous water quality monitoring.- There are some problems with existing water quality monitoring. For example, oxygen is measured each month at one time of day, although periodB of daily oxygen lows lasting less than a month are strongly suspected. Continuous oxygen monitoring should be invoked, especially at known problem locations. Nutrient levels should be monitored often enough to detect changes in loading over the season. Enough stations need to be chosen to isolate the effects of all major point sources, and define the relative importance of tributaries as nonpoint sources. Monitoring should occur annually from July through mid-October. Extent of water quality problems.- Existing plans for analysis have apparently not yet been focused sharply on all degraded qualities of the water. In particular, no plans have been made to use existing temperature models to determine how increased shading may reduce the temperatures. The models should be used to predict the cooling effect of bank revegetation, with the goal of directing tree planting efforts where they can do the most good. Acute toxic contamination.- Additional information is needed to further reduce the risk of acute toxic contamination, for example from improper or illegal waste disposal from agriculture or light industry. Relation between water quality and quantity.- Detailed investigations are need to increase understanding of the relation between water quality and water quantity. For example, municipal and agricultural water withdrawal may influence temperature and nutrient concentration. Septic contamination of river.- A hydrological study is desirable to determine whether the aquifer in the vicinity of Centralia has a net flow into or out of the Chehalis river during the summer. This would help the CRC and the Lewis County Conservation District decide how much emphasis to place on the connection between septic systems and river nutrient loading. It would also help the City plan for future water supply. Water Quantity Wynoochee Dam There may be opportunity for further enhancement of Wynoochee River summer flows, since the City of Aberdeen now uses far less than its water right. The history of determining actual Wynoochee "fish flows" should be reviewed, and arguments for and against a full-scale instream flow study should be made explicit. If an instream flow study were chosen as the basis for negotiating flows, the necessary field work could be completed in one to two years. 153 Skookumchuck Dajr. Work should be done to determine the feasibility of using the trap at Skookumchuck Dam to pass coho salmon above the dam. If feasible, this process could open additional spawning and rearing area. There is concern, however, that the large, reservoir-reared coho Btnolts would prey on spring Chinook fry (Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) . Worth .For* Newaukum Diversion Dam The three sources for the cities of Centralia and Chehalis are the North Fork Newaukum River, the main stem Chehalis, and wells, the principal one being north of Centralia. The primary issue is whether increased use of the city well would deplete Chehalis River instream flow as much as existing surface withdrawals do. A hydrological study might be able to answer this. The feasibility of informally protecting instream flow on the North Fork Newaukum should be investigated. An instream flow study of habitat available at different flows would help resolve this question. Conservation of Irrigation Water Information is needed to support meeting the established WDOE base flows on all streams by promoting voluntary conservation of irrigation water. Irrigated agriculture in the upper Chehalis River System centers around the Newaukum and South Fork Chehalis sub-basins, where most streams have been closed to further water appropriation since 1975 to protect water quality and fishery resources. Basic information, such as instream flow studies and continual monitoring of streamflows is needed to assess the present situation and monitor rehabilitation programs. Agricultural Practices GIS-based soilB and land-use maps are necessary components for 1) helping to determine regions where streams flow through mostly farmland, and 2) guiding recommendations for fencing and vegetation in streambank restoration projects. Forest Practices Timber. Fish, and Wildlife Ambient Monitoring The Chehalis Basin is particularly important for forestry research because of its large size and extent of land in commercial timber (Jeff Light, Weyerhaeuser Co., pers. comm.). Past TFW ambient monitoring has been conducted by Quinault Nation on Brittain and Elwood Creeka, tributaries of the Humptulips, and on an unnamed tributary of the West Fork Satsop (Dave Schuett- Hames, NWIFC, pers. comm.). Not enough ambient monitoring had been done to date in the Chehalis Basin or in southwest Washington as a whole; a special need exists for documenting baseline conditions In old growth, for no such 96 154 data exists at present in southwest Washington. This area is geologically different enough from the rest of western Washington to warrant special attention, because of the abundance of basaltic formations and marine sediments. Specific needs are to monitor (1) old growth sites, including those already studied by Dr. Bilby of Weyerhaeuser Co., and (2) streams in managed forest over a wider range of gradient, channel confinement, and channel size than present resources have allowed. Current FWS habitat inventory effort is the most intensive and extensive to date in the Basin, and results are expected to be useful to evaluate future timber harvest (Dave Schuett-Hamee, NWIFC, pera. comm. ) . Streams of particular interest because of previous or ongoing research are Thrash, Stillman, and Bingham creeks (Light, pers . comm. ) . Porter Creek Habitat Restoration The Washington Department of Natural Resources is evaluating habitat enhancement designed to increase coho overwintering habitat in Porter Creek. Large, woody debris in the streambed is essential for habitat complexity (Cederholm and Reid 1987). As in many Chehalis Basin streams, timber removal from the entire stream corridor 40 to 50 years ago destroyed the pools and instream winter cover, which in turn reduced coho smolt production. By constructing instream winter cover, coho production should be restored. The rationale for introducing cover now rather than waiting for nature to take itB course is that nature may take 100 years to replace as much natural, large woody debris as could be artificially placed in one or two years (Jeff Cederholm, WDNR, pers. comm.). Experimental design consists of 1,500 meters of untouched control area, and two test areas of the same size, one featuring log weirs and cabled log clusters, and the other featuring debris pieces placed at the lowest possible cost, with minimal attention to permanence, clustering, or high-water access (Jeff Cederholm, WDNR, pers. comm. ) . Fish populations are estimated twice a year and outmigrants are counted below each reach. Temperatures are also monitored. Data has been collected for two years pre-project and two years during construction. Two or three years of post-project monitoring are planned. Results should provide good direction for habitat modification as a restoration technique. Urbanization Urbanization in northern Lewis and southern Thurston Counties raises several water quality questions. Monitoring should be incorporated into the design and development of the new Grand Mound sewage treatment plant to avoid an increase in fish kills in the area. Also, application of WDOE's 900-page manual of best management practices for stormwater runoff management, developed for Puget Sound, should be applied and evaluated in the Chehalis Basin. 99 155 Gravel Mining The most common form of gravel removal affecting fish habitat is bar Bcalping. State and county regulations reduce many detrimental effects but a few risks remain unaddressed due to lack of reliable data on inatream gravel transport rates. Two main fishery issues remain unsettled. 1) Is the annual gravel harvest limit low enough to ensure against downcutting the river bed and depleting the gravel available to both fish and miners in coming years? 2) Will present operations destabilize the mined bars or cause channel shifts that make the gravel less suitable for spawning and incubating salmonid eggs? Grays Harbor County is working with the Quinault Indian Nation to monitor the location and amount of gravel removal and find the answers to these questions. Enhanced Rearing Habitat Gravel Pit Rehabilitation Recent work by SamuelBon et a.1. (1989) has demonstrated that converting abandoned gravel pits to salmon rearing ponds in the lower Chehalis and Humptulips River Systems may help to increase production. Any additional fish production at these projects should be evaluated to determine whether additional sites should be developed. Side Channel Habitat Enhancement Existing aerial photos should be reviewed for the purpose of identifying side . channels, Bloughs, and gravel pits blocked off from the river as of 1992. Site visits should begin in 1993. Site-specific plans, construction, and post-project evaluation should be developed. Fish production at these projects will also be evaluated. Enhanced Spawning Habitat WDF created a chum salmon spawning channel on the lower Sataop River in 19S5 by excavating the floodplain, placing spawning gravel, and ensuring fish access from the river (Randy Young, WDF, pers. conn.). No subsequent evaluation has been conducted (Dave King, WDF, pers. coram.). Grays Harbor College students have rehabilitated the Weyerhaeuser-Briscoe gravel pits on the Wynoochee River for chum salmon spawning and coho rearing (Samuelson et al. 1989). They have also rehabilitated parts of Alder Creek and Swano Lake in South Aberdeen. All these projects should be subjected to continuing, organized evaluation so that decisions can be made about the efficacy of additional similar projects. 156 WILD STOCK MANAGEMENT AND ROLE OF HATCHERIES To maximize opportunities for artificial enhancement without jeopardizing wild stocks, adequate information on the history of introduced stocks and release locations is needed. Although this exists, it has not been analyzed, because most of the data is on paper only, and not computerized. A complete river-by- river history of stock identity would be useful in sketching the degree of similarity between hatchery and native stock for each river system in the Basin, at a minimum for fall chinook and winter steelhead. For example, the Satsop received more outside fall chinook transfers than the rest of the Basin (Brix, WDF, pers. coram. ) ; verifying this observation against actual release records could confirm or modify the present policy of limiting transfers of Satsop chinook outside that system. This information would allow fishery management agencies to formally agree on the role of hatcheries in augmentation, supplementation, and wild stock management in each sub-watershed and each segment of Grays Harbor where a particular fishery operates. Further research is also needed on the genetic, disease, and ecological interaction effects of supplementation of wild stocks using hatchery-reared fish. Population simulation models should be developed to evaluate the sizes and locations of enhancement facilities that can be established without causing harm to wild stocks. REGULATION OF FISHING Current management of Chehalis Basin terminal salmon and winter steelhead has at times resulted in overharvest (Figures 8, 10, 12, and 13, Table 5). Managers will have more success if the following information needs are met. Eacapeaent Goals The total spawning habitat available for coho, chinook, and steelhead is thought to be greater than previously estimated. If true, habitat-based eBcapement goals could be adjusted bo that escaping adults more fully utilize all available habitat. This is why one goal of the current FWS habitat survey is to begin assessing the quantity of coho and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat and Chinook spawning habitat. Some additional work will be needed over the next several yearB to enable refinement of the goals. Escapement Estiaation Evaluations Current QFiD spawning escapement evaluation work should continue. They count the number of fish passing upstream at a trap in the fish ladder of the West Fork Hoquiam diversion dam. Spawning surveys are then conducted on the stream so that, on an annual basis, estimated escapements are compared to actual populations, species composition on the spawning grounds are verified, and within-species sex composition is determined. 101 157 Stock Statu* fall Chinook It is presently difficult to accurately assess the marine catch of fall chinook. Numerical stock status information could be greatly enhanced by coded-wire tagging representative groups from Simpson and Humptulips hatcheries. Caution would be necessary in using Simpson fall Chinook as an indicator for wild stocks since Simpson Hatchery fall chinook are a mixture of a number of imported stocks (Stone, WDF, pers. comm. ) . Spring Chinook Restoration of Wynoochee spring chinook is an important goal of the CBFTF. WDF personnel do not believe any native Wynoochee spring chinook exist (Stone, WDF, pers. comm.). The details of a restoration program depends partly on the present distribution and abundance of any spring chinook (likely Cowlitz stock) returning to the Wynoochee, which has not been systematically assessed. The firBt step required to support restoration is to assess the river's potential to support pre-spawning adults through the summer. Agencies need to know the river entry timing and spawning distribution of any existing spring- summer chinook. This could probably best be done by a systematic snorkeling survey. Chun Harvest managers are presently using a single, relative index for annual chum escapement estimation. Ascertainment of chum escapement numbers, by system, could greatly enhance chum management (Dick Stone, WDF, pers. comm.). Co ho Ongoing investigations of Bingham Creek and upper Chehalis smolt production should be continued, as should coded-wire tagging of wild and hatchery coho in the Basin. Evaluation of escapement estimation techniques should continue. Winter Steelhead Freymond (1989) cited a need for more accurate sport catch reporting throughout the Chehalis Basin. He also encouraged that river of origin be specified in catch reporting for both sport and commercial fisheries. SusBer Steelhead Return rates of hatchery fish to certain rivers has decreased in recent years, for unknown reasons. If management decides to emphasize this run, it might be advisable to investigate reasons for decline in post-release survival. 102 158 Saolt Survival studies Steel head smolt survival studies conducted by QFiD should continue. For several years, steelhead yearlings have been coded wire tagged at Wiehkah Ponds prior to transfer to Loomis Ponds on the Humptulips. Loomis Ponds are the imprinting and release site for a steelhead enhancement program. Data from tag recoveries are used for exploitation analysis, estimates of marine survival, and contribution to the high seas and terminal area fisheries. Interception Terminal area recovery and consistent reporting of coho coded-wire tags has usually not been adequate to estimate marine interception in most years. Terminal area catch is often only partially or inconsistently sampled or reported from one year to another with the exception that Quinault Indian Nation gillnet fisheries are systematically sampled for biological and tag recovery data and catches are consistently reported. Complete and consistent tagging and recovery information would be useful to estimate not only the effectiveness of the Pacific Salmon Treaty in reducing interceptions, but also the total run size, and hence, the true measure of rebuilding. Ideally, coded-wire tagging Btudies of Chinook and coho, at least from the hatcheries, would be useful indefinitely as index stocks. This will require a consistent system of estimating tag recoveries for all terminal fisheries. This, in turn, requires: (1) expanding mark sampling to include the Chehalis and Humptulips system river and estuary sport fisheries and expand carcass sampling; (2) estimating the portion of the catch mark sampled in theBe fisheries, probably through creel -census; (3) developing improved sport catch estimates for these two systems for years when creel census is not feasible; and (4) ensure consistency in designating and recording tag recovery areas for all terminal fisheries as is done for all Quinault gillnet fisheries. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS Current information provides significant data on the extent of available habitat and degraded areas. There are, however, numerous information gaps. The FWS habitat inventory being conducted under the Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Study Act during 1992 is designed to fill these gaps. However, some other gaps will remain and these can be addressed to a reasonable degree by a modest program of future investigation as shown below. 103 159 Topic Periodicity CURRENT INFORMATION NEEDS Coho \Mggmg Annually Fall chiaook taffmf Annually Extent of dioxin and furana is Gnyt Once Haibor Oyster biotssay feasibility Once, then quarterly Comuaiouj temperature, oxygen, and nutrient rnocotoring Eur a of water quality degradation in Upper Cbehahs Acute toxic contamination Relation between water quality and water quanuty Septic link verification Wynoochee flow augmentation Newaukum Diveraion Agricultural water conacrvation inatream gravel mining Side *K««m»i« and gravel pas EvaKistmn of anhinrairl spawning History of tuck mtroductiona Geneuc, disease, and ecological concerns re. hatchery/wild Hatchery /wild population nmuliuoo goala Coded wire tagging and recovery Coded wire ugging and recovery Sampling tff^iro**"'* and benthic Regulatory bioaaaay Oirmirsl leau to determine which parameters are deleterious Once Planning for apilla, etc. Once Model development Once Hydrologies! study Once Inatream flow study Once Inatream flow study Once Investigation foQowed by planning process Once Gravel deposition and scour ratea Unde^errmned Photography, survey, fiah trapping Continual AiMsarwraof fish use Once Hatchery records Ongoing Scientific research Once for each Modeling suck Use all habitat survey data 104 160 TouJ chioook and cobo run sizes Tuning and distribuuon of Wynoochee spring chinook Survival of summer steelhead Eacapemem estimation evaluation Smott survival studies Spring/fall Chinook competition cudici 5 yean Once Ongoing Ongoing Once Coden wire lag recoveries Snorkel and spawner survey Undetermined Surveys and analysis Coded wire tagging and recovery Biological investigations POTENTIAL INFORMATION NEEDS Parasile/corjuminanl studies Once Physiological tests and bkmisays Effluent toxicity teau Once Bioasaays Sediments as contaminant reservoir Once Sediment sampling Loaf-term fish survival Once Long-term scawalcr survival teats Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation It will be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the restoration program so that mid-course correction can be made, if necessary. Each type of proposed habitat improvement activity will require post-project monitoring to determine relative effectiveness in restoring fish populations. 105 161 Chapter 8: RESTORATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED FISHERY RESTORATION GOAL Based on the findings in this report, there is high potential for restoring salmon and steelhead runs in the Chehalis Basin. The following is a general Chehalis Basin fisheries restoration goal. To optiaixe natural salaon and steelhead production while maintaining the existing genetic adaptation of wild spawners and allowing the highest compatible level of hatchery production. Natural production will be restored when the total estimated wild catches consistently lie within the range of historical estimates, and when wild escapement goals are consistently met. This leads to the following goals for each species. (1) Doubling Chehalis River System coho salmon Bmolt-to-adult survival, compared to the 1989 level, so that Chehalis River System emolt survival equals Humptulips River sraolt survival. (2) Increasing chum salmon run sizes to historical levels. (3) Sustaining the recent increase in Chehalis River System fall Chinook salmon by improving water quality throughout the Chehalis River System and ensuring escapements that fully and consistently utilize the wild spawning habitat. (4) Expanding spring Chinook salmon wild production to its full potential range. (5) Ensuring that wild winter steelhead fully and consistently use spawning habitat in each available Chehalis River Basin sub-basin. (6) Evaluating existing wild summer steelhead populations in Chehalis Basin tributaries. RESTORATION CRITERIA Criteria for Habitat Improvements Habitat restoration projects in the Chehalis watershed may not be cost- effective unless recent effluent treatment upgrades at the two inner Grays Harbor pulp mills result in significant improvement of survival. If survival has improved sufficiently, habitat restoration throughout the basin will be worthwhile and projects using promising techniques should be initiated to begin restoration. If survival has not improved, further efforts should be directed to solving the poor inner Harbor survival problems before extensive watershed habitat restoration proceeds. Since it will take at least two more 106 162 years before results of tagging studies can confirm clean-up effectiveness, preliminary habitat restoration projects should be started and evaluated. Once the inner Harbor water quality allows reasonable smolt survival, proven habitat restoration projects can begin throughout the Basin on a larger scale. Selection of habitat restoration projects will be guided by the ongoing habitat survey. Criteria for Hatchery Programs Hatchery production supports a large share of the catch in several important fisheries. However, once habitat problems have been corrected, the primary hatchery role in fishery restoration should be to augment, rather than replace, natural production. Hatcheries may produce fish poorly adapted for wild survival and can jeopardize the health of wild runs, so. programs must be developed cautiously. Any new hatchery initiatives should meet these concerns by either (1) being phased out after reaching optimum natural production, or (2), if permanent, support harvest at a time and place that does not preclude meeting the wild escapement goal. Ongoing State and Tribal processes are designed, and should continue, to carefully evaluate all hatchery programs for both their likely production contributions and their potential interaction with wild stocks. Artificial enhancement can and should be utilized wherever it will not harm the integrity of wild stocks. The key to successful integration of hatchery and wild production is 1) choosing locations and stocks that do not conflict biologically or in harvest strategies with natural runs, and/or 2) possible acceptance of hatchery stock overescapement . Restoration Project Evaluation It will be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the restoration program so that mid-course corrections can be made, if necessary. The FWS recognizes the immediate need to extend the existing coded wire tagging program to evaluate relative survival of hatchery fall Chinook from the Chehalis and Humptulips River Systems. Moat other proposals to study inner Harbor water quality and environmental contaminants should be postponed until the effect of the 1989 waste treatment improvements at both Grays Harbor pulp mills is adequately evaluated. If survival does not increase significantly, additional studies leading to further water quality remedial actions will be necessary. Some types of both hatchery and habitat restoration projects have not yet been proven for their effectiveness. Therefore, it is recommended that all unproven restoration projects initially include careful evaluation to determine how well they produce additional fish. As the most productive restoration techniques become apparent, they will be emphasized in the restoration efforts. The general type of restoration projects needing evaluation include 163 spawning channels, off-stream rearing habitat, acclimation ponds, remote site incubators, fry, pre-smolt, and emolt stocking, addition of woody debris, stream fencing, riparian vegetation improvements, changes in instream flows, reduction in streambed sediments, and changes in water quality. Information ascertained through the ongoing habitat survey will be used to identify highest priority restoration projects. The first of these most dramatic cases will serve as pilot projects, having evaluation built in as an integral part of the project. Public and Interagency Involvement Public and interagency cooperation is vital to the success of restoration. This requires the active participation of the tribes and agencies named in the Chehalis Act as the Restoration Plan is implemented. Tiese key entities will identify and explore avenues of cooperation with all interested private organizations and agencies not already involved. The public will be invited to a Basin-wide fisheries conference in the fall of 1992 where study findings will be presented and suggestions for restoration priorities sought. The FWS recommends that the ChehaliB Basin Steering Conmittee, formed under the Chehalis Basin Fishery Restoration Study Act, be continued to provide policy guidance to the restoration proposed in thiB report. Furthermore, a ChehaliB Basin Fishery Restoration Project Review Team should be formed to strategically plan ChehaliB Basin fisheries restoration and implement all the restoration recommendations detailed below. The Team would be composed of representatives of each relevant agency, tribe, and the public and would meet regularly to review project proposals. Each project proposal would be evaluated for its likelihood to restore fish, cost-effectiveness, co6t-share requirements, and performance evaluation. All proposed habitat and artificial production proposals should be subjected to the planning criterion path presented in the "Salmon 2000" report (Appleby et al. 1992). It is also critical that all existing programs designed to protect, restore, and enhance fisheries and their habitat continue to be fully supported and funded. RESTORATION OBJECTIVES To achieve full restoration, the primary emphasis should be on habitat improvement because state, local, and tribal hatchery projects are already relatively well-developed and state and tribal harvest managers continue to work together to maximize harvest while allowing adequate escapement. 108 164 The overall life-span of the restoration project is 20 years, assuming full funding is made available. Some tasks can be completed in one or several years while others will be accomplished gradually over the 20 years. Since all restoration projects will at least initially be evaluated for fish restoration effectiveness, these recommendations will need to be revised over time. Projects found to be ineffective will not be further pursued. The costs of these evaluations has been included in the project costs estimated below. Objectives FWS recommends that the following objectives be simultaneously pursued to achieve full restoration of Chehalis Basin fishery resources. A general description of the tasks required is provided under each objective. Tasks have been prioritized as follows: PRIORITY 1: Expected to produce excellent results and/or should be at least begun for evaluation. PRIORITY 2: Expected to produce very good results but not necessary to start immediately. PRIORITY 3: Expected to produce good results. OBJECTIVE Is Restore or improve natural spawning or rearing habitat. PRIORITY 1: * Open access to spawning grounds blocked by landslides , culverts , dams, or water diversions. * Reopen and rehabilitate side channels and oxbows or convert abandoned gravel pits to salmon rearing ponds. * Create additional groundwater- fed spawning channels. * Restore habitat degraded by logging, agriculture, road building, and urbanization by planting trees for shade, fencing streams to eliminate livestock and protect trees, adding or removing woody debris as appropriate, and/or building sediment ponds to reduce flash runoff . PRIORITY 3: * Determine whether existing gravel removal operations reduce spawning success. OBJECTIVE 2: Improve water quality to meet State Standards year-round in the middle and upejgrChehalio River Syefcem. PRIORITY 1: * Initiate routine monitoring to detect critical seasonal water conditions in the middle Chehalis River. 165 PRIORITY 3: * Determine how Increased flow in the main stem Chehalis could help to reduce temperature and oxygen problems . * Determine link between septic system seepage and Chehalis water quality. * Determine how to prevent fish kills from acute toxic chemicals , especially when fish are stressed from high temperatures and low oxygen . OBJECTIVE 3i Ensure that the environmental conditions causing poor smolt survival in inner Grays Harbor are remedied. PRIORITY 1: * Coded-wire tag two 250 ,000-fish groups of Chehalis and Humptulips chinook salmon to evaluate relative survival. * Continue coded-wire tagging of Chehalis and Humptulips wild and hatchery coho salmon to evaluate relative survival . PRIORITY 3: * Determine the extent of dioxins, furans, and related compounds in the Grays Harbor environment and benthic organisms, and the links between contaminants , prey organisms , and salmonids . * Further investigate effluent toxicity, parasite and contaminant relationships, and sediment as a contaminant reservoir (only if coho and chinook tagging studies indicate poor survival continues) . OBJECTIVE 4i Ensure that storage dam operation and surface water withdrawal is compatible with fish production. PRIORITY 2: » Conduct Wynoochee River instream flow studies if necessary and negotiate improved flows for fish. * Determine how to improve smolt passage at Wynoochee Dam and implement improvements . * Reduce inflow of organic material and nutrients. PRIORITY 3: * Develop an agreement to protect instream flows in the North Fork Newaukum River. « Encourage meeting established WDOE base flows on all streams by promoting voluntary conservation of irrigation water. 110 166 OBJECTIVE 5j Extend the range of salmon and steelhead within the Basin to achieve optimum habitat use. PRIORITY 2: * Restore full natural production of spring chinook to the Wynoochee River * Manage all salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and fisheries to provide recreational fisheries while meeting wild escapement goals that consistently and fully utilize all wild spawning habitat in the Basin . OBJECTIVE 6t Optimize opportunities for artificial enhancement without jeopardizing wild stocks. PRIORITY Is * Develop remote-site incubation to increase chum production and possibly extend the range of chum within the Basin. PRIORITY 2: * Continue experimentation in developing fall-run brood stock and rearing at Satsop Springs for eventual in-river directed harvest. * Investigate reasons for decline in post-release steelhead survival in recent years. PRIORITY 3: * Conduct a complete review and summary of all historical artificial stock introductions to help with decisions about future management. * Evaluate cooperative rearing projects for their contributions to fisheries and gradually phase out inefficient projects. OBJECTIVE 7: Use fisheries harvest management techniques and increased enforcement to increase run sizes. PRIORITY Is * Revise estimates of available salmon habitat and refine escapement goals to optimize natural habitat use. PRIORITY 2: * Improve chum salmon stock assessment by refining absolute value of chum escapement and redefining escapement goal . * Improve terminal area sport and commercial salmon and steelhead catch sampling to ensure that stock estimates are accurate and consistent. * Increase enforcement to reduce poaching of salmon and steelhead. 167 OBJECTIVE 8t Increase public awareness of the values of fisheries to the Chehalis Basin. PRIORITY 3: * Develop an education program for Chehalis Basin schools. * Develop a video supporting the value of Chehalis Basin fisheries restoration. * Sponsor a contest to develop a logo for Chehalis Basin fisheries restoration program. * Ensure that all restoration projects are identified by at least small signs carrying the restoration program logo. FUNDING NEEDS Some restoration has occurred and will continue under existing federal, state, local, and volunteer programs. The proposed habitat restoration projects complement existing programs but should not replace them. Since it is important that restoration techniques be demonstrated to be effective before they are fully implemented, it is recommended that restoration be funded gradually over 20 years. After careful review of the size and scope of all tasks necessary for full restoration, it is recommended that a total of $1 million .be committed to Chehalis restoration from interested agencies in each of the 20 years. This level of funding is expected to restore significant fish populations, ultimately stimulating the economic recovery of the Chehalis Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Service is not prepared at this time to request additional funds for its share of this work. However, funds may become available by reprogramming from lower priority activities or through other sources. RESTORATION PLAN The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program has begun and restoration of the anadromous populations will require a 20-year program of implementation. The following step-down plan represents the first 6 years of scheduling for actions and responsibilities in the Restoration Program. Adjustments to the step-down plan will be necessary each year to adapt to continuing changes in program needs. Funding levels represent only the federal contribution to restoration. 72-813 - 93 - 7 168 STEP-DOWN PLAN Fiscal Year* $55 120 100 75 75 50 105 120 100 50 25 25 30 50 40 40 40 102 200 150 120 100 50 50 Restore/ improve natural spawning or rearing habitat (FWS/WDF/wpw/Tribes/CBFTF) Open access to spawning grounds Reopen side channels Create spawning channels Restore degraded stream habitat Determine effects of gravel removal Improve middle and upper Chehalis water quality ( WDOE. Tribes . FWS) Chehalia River water quality 100 100 25 20 20 monitoring Determine flow/temperature 50 50 relation in main stem Chehalis Work on septic contamination 50 50 Prevent fish kills 50 50 Ensure adequate smolt survival in Inner Grays Harbor (FWS, wdf.WDOE. Tribe s) Tag Chehalis Basin Chinook 75 75 75 75 75 Continue tagging Chehalis coho * Understand dioxins in the Grays 200** 200*' Harbor food chain Reduce impacts of dams and diversions on salmonids ( FWS, WDOE , WDF , WPW , Tribes) Wynoochee River instream flow Improve smolt passage at Wynoochee Dam Protect North Fork Newaukum River instream flows 50 30 50 30 50 169 Fiscal Year* Action 94 95 96 97 98 99 Seek voluntary conservation of 4° irrigation water Restore salmon and steelhead to original ranges (FWS ,WDF.WDW, Tribes .CBFTF1 Restore Wynoochee spring Chinook 50 50 40 40 Ensure all spawning and rearing 50 30 30 20 habitat is fully utilized Maximize artificial enhancement without jeopardizing wild fish ( FWS . WDF . WDW , Tribes . CBFTF) Use remote incubators for chum 75 70 50 Explore expansion of Satsop wild 50 30 brood for directed harvest Improve steelhead post-release 50 50 50 survival Complete artificial enhancement 30 review Evaluate cooperative rearing 7S projects Improve harvest management and enforcement (WDF, WDW, Tribes) Refine habitat-based escapement 100 50 50 goals Improve chum escapement 50 50 estimates and goals Improve catch sampling 50 50 50 Increase fisheries enforcement 50 100 100 Increase public awareness of Chehalis fisheries ( FWS. WDF. WDW. Tribes ,CBFTT) Develop school program 50 Develop -Chehalis fisheries video 30 Develop Chehalis fisheries logo 5 114 170 Fiscal Year* Action 94 95 96 97 Supply signing for restoration 5 5 5 pro^ectB Prograa administration, coordination and evaluation (PWS) Program administration 30 30 30 30 Program coordination 50 30 30 30 Program evaluation 40 40 40 30 30 30 30 40 40 presently funded by WDF • necessary only if evaluations show smolts continue to die in the estuary 171 LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1986. Watershed Planning; a cooperative approach to Washington's Fisherj.es Future. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Washington Department of Fisheries, and Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia. Appleby, A., L. Brown, K. Bruya, M. Fraidenburg, and S. Wright. 1992. Salmon 2000, technical report. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia. Aroner, E. 1991. Chehalis River Water Management Project: Task 5: draft water quality problem description. Chehalis River Council, Lewis County Conservation District, Chehalis, Washington. Bakke, B.M. 1987. A review of the scientific literature on hatchery supplementation of wild anadromous fish stocks. Oregon Trout Tech. Rep. 2: 1-14. Bell, M.C. 1984. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Bernhardt, J. 1974. Water quality violation investigation and resource damage assessment, Chehalis River fish kill. Washington Department of Ecology memorandum to Howard Steeley dated September 30, 1974. Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. J. Forestry 82 ( 10) :609-613. Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Sci. 35 (2 ): 453-468. Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second- growth forests in southwestern Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48( 12):2499-2508. Bisson, P. A., J.L. Nielsen, J.W. Ward, R.E. Bilby, and J.T. Heffner. 1986. Salmon enhancement in streams: Progress Report No. 3. Weyerhaeuser Co. Tech. Rept. 050-5405-1. Blocher, S. 1991. Water quality on the Black River, Thurston County, Washington: an analysis of the first year sampling results from the Black River Water Cooperative Monitoring Project. Thurston County Environmental Health, Olympia, Washington. BPA. 1992. Wynoochee hydroelectric project: adopted environmental assessment and draft addendum. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 116 172 Brix, R. and D. Seiler. 1977. Upper Chehalis River amolt trapping study. 1976. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Wash. Dept. Fiah. Prog. Rept. 25: 1-14. Brix, R. and D. Seiler. 1978. Upper Chehalis River smolt trapping study. 1977. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Wash. Dept. Fish. Prog. Rept. 48:1-16. Bruya, K. 1990. Draft notes from April 10, 1990 Chehalis Coordinated Resource Production and Management Plan meeting. Washington Department of Fisheries, Planning, Research, and harvest management Division, Olympia. Burgner, R.L. J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz, and S. Ito. 1992. Distribution and origins of steelhead trout in offshore waters of the north Pacific ocean. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bull. 51:1-92. Cederholm, C.J. and L.M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on coho salmon (Oncorhynchus klsutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: project summary. p. 373-395 In E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy ( ed s.) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Uni versity of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No. 57. Chapman, D. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the nineteenth century. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:662-670. Chapman, D.W. and E. Knudsen. 1980. Channelization and livestock impacts on salmonid habitat and biomass in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109:357-363. Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force. 1991. Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force 1991 action plan. Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force, Aberdeen, Washington. Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force. 1992. Sponsored projects. The Fish Ladder 2 ( 1 ) : 1 . CH2M-Hill Northwest. 1989. Port of Grays Harbor economic impact study. CH2M-Hill Northwest. Bellevue, Washington. CRC. 1991. Chehalis River Council retreat, Satsop Wells Environmental Learning Lodge, July 13-14, 1991. Lewis County Conservation District, Chehalis, Washington. City of Aberdeen and City of Tacoma. 1985. Supplement to and additional information for application for a license for a major project — existing dam — Wynoochee Dam hydroelectric Project. Aberdeen, Washington. 173 Cohen, F.G. 1986. Treaties on trial; the continuing controversy over northwest Indian fishing rights. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Collins, B. and T. Dunne. 1988. Proposal to Grays harbor County Planning and Building Department for studies of: effects of river bar gravel harvesting on aquatic habitat in the Humptulips, Wynoochee, and Satsop Rivers and of gravel transport rates in the Humptulips, Wynoochee, and Satsop Rivers. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Costello, R.J. 1984. An evaluation of and recommendations for the proposed Wynoochee Hydroelectric Project with respect to perceived impacts on, and alternative mitigation and protection strategies for, fisheries resources above and below the project development. Hosey and Associates Engineering Co., Bellevue, Washington. CRC. 1991. Mission statement of the Chehalis River Council. Chehalis River Council, Minutes of Retreat, July 13-14, 1991. CRC and Lewis County CD. 1992. Chehalis River Basin preliminary action plan for the identification and control of nonpoint source pollution. Chehal is River Council and Lewis County Conservation District, Chehalis, Washington. Craig, J. A., and R.L. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the Columbia River. Fish. Bull. 32:133-216. Crisson, M. 1991. Wynoochee Dam and hydroelectric project. Letter to Dawn Whitehead, USFWS, dated July 5, 10991. Tacoma Public Utilities, Tacoma, Washington. Dadswell, M. J. , G.D. Melvin, P.J. Williams, and D.E. Themelis. 1987. Influences of origin, life history, and chance on the Atlantic coast migration of American shad. Pp. 313-330 In M.J. Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, CM. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R.A. Rulifson, and J.E. Cooper (eds.). Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1, Bethesda, Maryland. Dunn, C.A. 1978. Evaluation of downstream fish passage through multi-level outlet pipes at Wynoochee Dam. Washington Department of Fisheries Prog. Rept. 45:1-96. EPA 1991. Proposed guidance specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters, proposed under the authority of Section 6217(g) of the Costal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 199 0. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Erilcsen, Q. and L.D. Townsend. 1940. The occurrence and cause of pollution in Grays Harbor. Washington State Pollution Control Commission. Pollution Series, Bulletin 2. 118 174 Findlay, J.D. 1967. Letter to District Engineer, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, dated June 26, 1967. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Finn, E. L. 1973. Final report: Skookumchuck-Hanaford Creek fisheries investigations. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Management and Research Division, olympia, Washington. Fraidenburg, M. 1982. North-migrating natural Chinook salmon stockB from Oregon to southeast Alaska: their status, distribution in fisheries, and conservation needs. Salmon Plan Development Team, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Olympia, Washington. Fraser, J. 1986 (draft). Watershed planning: Grays Harbor problem list. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Frederick, D. 1991. Level II preacquisition survey interim summary: Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. Memorandum to Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Portland, Oregon from Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Olympia, Washington, dated August 21, 1991. Freymond, W. 1989. Chehalis Basin steelhead management/ 1988-2000. Washington Department of Wildlife, Aberdeen, Washington. Notes distributed with speech before the Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force on January 28, 1989. Fuss, H., T. Rasch, and C. Johnson. 1981. A review of the experiments with the 1972 brood spring and fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) released from eighteen Washington Department of Fisheries hatcheries. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington Progress Report 143:1-333. Ging, G. W. 1988. Final draft: Grays Harbor Navigation Improvement Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office, Olympia, Washington. Ging, G.W. 1989. Final Supplemental Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Grays Harbor Navigation Improvement Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office, Olympia, Was hington. Goodman, M.L. 1990. Preserving the genetic diversity of salmonid stocks: a call for federal regulation of hatchery programs. Environmental Law 20: 84-111. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1992. Lower Chehalis River Basin Water Quality Management Study. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Aberdeen, Washington. 119 175 Hallinan, P. 1989. Weyerhaeuser, Cosmopolis Class II inspection. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Services and Laboratory Services Program, Compliance Monitoring Section, Olympia, Washington. Harris, C.K. 1988. Recent changes in the pattern of catch of North American salmonids by the Japanese high seas salmon fisheries. p. 41-65 In W.J. McNeil (ed.) Salmon production, management, and allocation: biological, economic, and policy issues. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Hilborn, R. 1992. Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the Northwest. Fisheries — A Bulletin of the American Fisheries Society 17(1) :5-8. Hindar, K. , N. Ryman, and F. Utter. 1991. Genetic effects of cultured fish on natural fish populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:945-957. Hiss, J.M., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Status of Chehalis River salmon and steelhead fisheries and problems affecting the Chehalis Tribe. Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Hiss, J.M., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1983a. Chehalis spring Chinook progress report 1990-1992. Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Hiss, J.M., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1983b. Evaluation of existing fisheries measures at the Wynoochee Lake Project. Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Hiss, J.M. and R.S. Boomer. 1986a. Feeding ecology of juvenile Pacific salmonids in estuaries: a review of the recent literature. Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. ICF Technology, Inc. 1988. Economic impacts and net economic values associated with non-Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. ICF Technology, Inc. Redmond, Washington. Ishida, Y. and M. Ogura. 1991. Salmon distribution and impact of the Japanese squid driftnet fishery on salmon resources in the north Pacific. In Scientific review of north Pacific high seas driftnet fisheries, Sidney, B.C. June 11-14, 1991: report for presentation to the United nations pursuant to resolutions 44/225 and 45/197. National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries. Johnson, A. and R. Coots. 1989. Survey of chemical contaminants in the bottom sediments of Grays Harbor estuary. Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Toxics Investigations/Ground Water Monitoring Section, Olympia, Washington. Johnson, A., P. Hallinan, K. Seiders, and D. Davis. 1990. Quality of Grays Harbor pulp mill effluents march-June 1989. Washington Department of Ecology. Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program. Olympia, Washington. 176 Johnson, J.K. and J.R. Longwill. 1991. Pacific salmon coded wire tag releases through 1990. Regional Mark Processing Center, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, Oregon. Johnsson, J.I. and M.V. Abrahams. 1991. Interbreeding with domestic strain increases foraging under threat of predation in juvenile steelhead trout (O/icorAync/ius myk-iss) : an experimental study. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:243-247. Jones, R. , H. Senn, L. Mobrand, R. Johnson, and J. Kawaguchi. 1987. Chehalis Tribal fish hatchery feasibility study report. Fish Management Consultants, Olympia, Washington. Larse, R.W. 1970. Prevention and control of erosion and stream sedimentation from forest roads. In Proceedings of a symposium on forest land uses and the stream environment. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Lattin, S. 1992. Economic benefits of marine facilities. Address to Pacific Coastal Economic Recovery Conference. Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington. LaVoy, L. and J.G. Fenton. 1979. Evaluation of adult steelhead returns to Wynoochee River from smolt releases 1972, 1974, and 1975 and comparisons with juvenile studies. Washington Department of Game, Olympia. Lewis County CD. 1990. Chehalis River Council Newsletter 1:1-2 Liou, A. 1991b. Memorandum to Dawn Whitehead of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office, Olympia, Washington. dated April 22, 1991. Liou, A. 1991c. Wynoochee hatchery design criteria and general operating procedures. Letter to Gwill Ging, USFWS, dated August 21, 1991. Harza Northwest Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Mahlura, S.E. 1976. Water resources management program, Chehalis basin (Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23). Washington Department of Ecology, Policy Development Section, Water Resources Management Division, Olympia, Washington. Basin Program Series No. 2. Mark, T.C., T. Trohimovich, and H. West. 1986. The impacts of river bar gravel harvesting on river resources. Grays Harbor County Planning and Building Department. Aberdeen, Washington. Mathews, S.B. 1980. Effects of Wynoochee Dam on anadromous fish. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 121 177 Maurice, K.R., R.W. Blye, P.L. Harmon, and D. Lake. 1987. Increased spawning by American shad coincident with improved dissolved oxygen in the tidal Delaware River. Pp. 79-88 In M.J. Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, CM. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R.A. Rulifson, and J.E. Cooper (eds.). Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society Sympos ium 1, Bethesda, Maryland. Michaud, J. P. 1989. Ceriodaphnla bioassay results from the Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers. Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services. Memo to Art Johnson dated June 9, 1989. Miller, W. 1990 (ed.). Analysis of salmon and steelhead supplementation. Technical Report 1990. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Moser, M.L., A.F. Olson, and T.P. Quinn. 1989. Migratory behavior of coho salmon smolts {Oncorhynchus klsutch) in Grays Harbor, Washington, pp. 220-226 In B.G. Shepherd (ed.). Proceedings of the 1988 Northeastern Pacific Chinook and Coho workshop. North Pacific International Chapter, American Fisheries Society and British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Penticton, British Columbia. Myers, K.W. and D.E. Rogers. 1986. Stock origins of Chinook salmon in incidental catches by groundfish fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgt. 8:162-171. Myers, K.W., R.V. Walker, S. Fowler, and M.L. Dahlberg. 1990. Known ocean ranges of stocks of Pacific salmon and steelhead as shown by tagging exp eriments, 1956-1989. (International North Pacific Fishery Commission Document) FRI-UW-9009. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seattle. Nehlsen, W.J., J.E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21. Nickelson, T.E. 1986. Influences of upwelling, ocean temperature, and smolt abundance on marine survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Oregon Production Area. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:527-535. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. 1988. Assessment of gravel transport and impacts of removal on rivers in Grays Harbor County. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., Kent, Washington. OFM 1991. 1990 population of cities, towns, and counties. Washington Office of Financial Management, Olympia, Washington. Oregon Rivers Council. 1992. The economic imperative of protecting riverine habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon Rivers Council, Inc., Eugene. Research Report 5:1-18. 122 178 Oregon Trout. 1990. A proposal and justification for a natural production program in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon Trout, Inc. Palmer, D. In prep. The Black River sub-basin. In C. Harper, et al . Upper Chehalis Water Quality Plan. Chehalis River Council, Chehalis, Washington. PFMC. 1992. Review of 1991 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. Phinney, L.A. , P. Bucknell, and R.W. Williams. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Vol. 2: coastal region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Pickett, P.J. 1992. Historical data sources and water quality problems in the Chehalis River Basin: first interim report for the Chehalis River TMDL Study. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Watershed Assessments Section, Olympia, Wasington. Pine, R.E. and H.B. Tracy (eds.) 1971. Grays Harbor cooperative water quality study 1964-1966. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Technical Report 7. PP+L 1979. Environmental statement for a proposed Skookumchuck Dam hydroelectric unit. Pacific Power and Light, Inc., Portland, Oregon. PresBley, H.E. and P.D. Hartigan. 1991. Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound basin: public review draft, June, 1991. Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia. PSC. 1988. 1987/88 Third annual report. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. , Canada. PSC 1989. 1988 annual report. Pacific Salmon Commission. Joint Chinook Technical Committee Report No. TCCHINOOK (89)-l. PSWQA. 1992. ESSB-6132 shellfish protection legislation: summary of provisions. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. QFiD and WDW 1991. Stock status and harvest management plans for steelhead returning to the Queets, Quinault, Grays Harbor, copal is, and Moclips rivers in winter 1990-91. Quinault Fisheries Division, Taholah, Washington. Reif, D. 1989a. ITT Rayonier class II Inspection. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Compliance Monitoring Section, Olympia, Washington. 123 179 Reif, D. 1989b. Biomonitoring report for FY 88. Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Compliance Monitoring Section, Olympia, Washington. Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall Chinook in Sixes River, Oregon. Res. Rep. Fish. Comm. Oregon 4(2):l-43 Riley, W.M. 1992. Fee-title transfer to the City of Aberdeen and Flood control rule curve revision Grays Harbor County, Washington: draft Environmental Assessment. Letter to Col. Walter J. Cunningham, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, dated May 5, 1992, from Water Resources Assessment Section, Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency . Royal, L.A. 1972. An examination of the anadromous trout program of the Washington State Game Department. Washington State Game Department, Olympia, Washington. Salmon Technical Team. 1991. Review of 1990 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. Samuelson, C. 1989. Summary of 1988 commercial fisheries and salmon returns to Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Memorandum to Dick Stone dated June 19, 1989. Washington Department of Fisheries, Montesano. Samuelson, D., L. Wargo, D. Cornell, W. Heimbigner, N. MacMillan, E. Roos, and R. Yanak. 1989. A physical, chemical, and biological survey of Weyco-Briscoe Wynoochee gravel pits and channels. Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington. Schroder, S. and K. Fresh. 1992 (eds.) Results of the Grays Harbor coho survival investigations, 1987-1990. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Tech. Rept. 118: 1-413. Scott, J., S. Moore, and R. Moore. 1992. Draft review of the Chinook exploitation rate indicator stock program for the Washington coast and Puget Sound. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. SCS 1975. Land and water resource information: Chehalis subarea. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, U.S. Forest Service, and State of Washington. Seiler, D. 1987. Habitat implications of differential survival of Grays Harbor Basin's anadromous salmonids. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Seiler, D. 1989. Differential survival of Grays Harbor Basin anadromous salmonids: water quality implications. p. 123-135 In CD. Levings, L.B. Holtby, and M.A. Henderson (eds.) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Effects of Habitat Alteration on Salmonid Stocks. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 105. 124 180 Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, P. Hanratty, p. Topping, M. Ackley, and L.E. Kishimoto. 1992a. Washington studies to increase regional salmon production: program to improve wild salmon management. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Annual performance report, October 1990 - September 1991. Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, P. Hanratty, p. Topping, M. Ackley, and L.E. Kishimoto. 1992b. Wild salmon production and survival evaluation. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Annual performance report, October 1990 - September 1991. Simenstad, C.A. and D.M. Eggers . 1981. Grays Harbor and Chehalis River improvements to navigation environmental studies: Juvenile salmonid and baitfish distribution, abundance, and prey resources in selected areas of Grays Harbor, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, and S.L. Johnson. 1990. An evaluation of the uae of coho salmon smolts to supplement wild production in Oregon coastal streams. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, Fish. Res. Rept. 10:1-22. Stevens, D.E., H.K. Chadwick, and R.E. Painter. 1987. American shad and striped bass in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin river system. Pp. 66-78 In M.J. Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, CM. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R.A. Rulifson, and J.E. Cooper (eds.). Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1, Bethesda, Maryland. Stevens, J. 1992. A fight for the last fish? Address to Pacific Coastal Economic Recovery Conference. Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington. Steward, C.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery fish: a synthesis of published literature. In W.H. Miller (ed) . Analysis of salmon and steelhead supplementation. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Project No. 88-100. Technical Report 1990. Stone, R. 1989. Grays Harbor salmon stocks: status and management strategy. Washington Department of Fisheries, Montesano, Washington. Notes distributed with speech before the Chehalis Basin Fishery Task Force on January 28, 1989. Thurston CD. 1992. Thurston Conservation District long range plan. Thurston Conservation District, Olympia, Washington USACE 1967. Wynoochee Reservoir, Wynoochee River, Washington: design memorandum No. 9: fish and wildlife. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. 12S 181 USACE 1990a. Final environmental assessment: 1989 sediment collection and testing program. Grays harbor, Washington navigation improvement project operations and maintenance. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle District Seattle, Washington. USACE 1990b. Status report on Centralia/Chehalis flooding and proposed Corps projects. Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE 1991. Water resources development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Washington 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. USDA, SCS, Economic Research Service, USFS, and state of Washington. 1974. Land and water resource information: Chehalis subarea. U.S. Department of Agriculture. VanDyk, J. 1989. Update: fish kills in Black and Chehalis rivers. Press release, WDOE, Olympia. Walker, R.V. 1990. Origins of coho salmon in the area of the Japanese mothership and land-based driftnet salmon fisheries in 1986 and 1987. International North Pacific Fishery Commission Document FRI-UW-9012. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. Walls, J. 1991. RCSD and Forest Service stalk fish. The Fish Ladder 1(1) :6. Ward, W.D., R. Robison, G. Nye, and D. Reed. 1971. 1970 fisheries statistical report. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Ward, W.D. and L.J. Hoines. 1985. 1984 fisheries statistical report. Department of Fisheries, State of Washington. Olympia. Washington Forest Practices Board. 1988. Washington forest practices rules and regulations. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Washington, P. 1988 (draft). A preliminary assessment of factors effecting [sic] the production of Chinook and coho salmon in the Grays Harbor basin. Gaia Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. WDA 1991. Washington agricultural statistics, 1990-1991 annual. Washington Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Service, Tumwater, Washington. WDCD 1988a. Advisory committee/ industry responses to report on economic impacts and net economic values associated with non-Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. Washington Department of Community Development, Olympia, Washington. 126 182 WDCD 1988b. Economic impacts and net economic values associated with non- Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries: review of economic impact and net economic value. Washington Department of Community Development, Olympia, Washington. WDOE 1975. Grays Harbor fish toxicity studies, 1974. Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fisheries, Weyerhaeuser Company, and ITT-Rayonier, Inc. Olympia, Washington. WDOE 1990. Chehalis River Basin water quality: total maximum daily load and wasteload allocation project. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Focus. December 1990. WDOE, WDF, Weyerhauser, and ITT-Rayonier. 1974. Grays harbor fish toxicity studies. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia. WDF 1971. Grays Harbor cooperative water quality study, 1964-1966. Wash. Dept. Fish. Tech Rept . 7. WDF 1986. Gravel harvesting from river bars in the Grays harbor/Chehalis River basin: its effects on fish life and habitat and recommended mitigation. Draft Report, Habitat Management Division, Tumwater , Washington. WDF 1989a. Recreational fishery enhancement plan. Part I: salmon, sturgeon, and shad. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WDF 1991. Recreational fishery enhancement plan; July 1991 progress report. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WDF 1992. Salmon, shellfish, bottomfish, sport fishing guide. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WDG 1970. Chehalis Basin study: fish and wildlife appendix. Washington Department of Wildlife, Environmental Management Division. Olympia, Washington. WDW 1991a. 1989-90 steelhead sport catch summary. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDW. 1991b. Washington Department of Wildlife, 1990-1991 annual report, meeting the challenge of the 90s. Olympia, Washington. WPPSS 1985. Final environmental impact statement related to the operation of Washington Public Power Supply System. Nuclear Project No. 3. Docket No. 50-508, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Publication No. NUREG-1033. Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1988. Washington forest practices rules and regulations. Washington State Forest Practices Board. Olympia, Washington. 127 183 Wendler, H.O. and G. Deschamps. 1955a. Logging dams on coastal Washington streams. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Fish. Res. Paper l(3):27-38. Wendler, H.O. and G. Deschamps. 1955b. The salmon fisheries of Washington's coastal rivers and harbors. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Yatsu, A. and S. Hayase. 1991. Estimation of total catch and bycatch of the Japanese squid driftnet fishery in 1989 and 1990. Fisheries Agency of Japan, National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries. 184 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 185 Statement of David Youckton, Vice-Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalls Reservation, before the subcommittee on Fisheries Management and the sub- committee on Environment and Natural Resources, House Committee on Merchant Marine and fisheries concerning Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration on July 14, 1993. Honorable Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, My name is David Youckton and I am a member of the Chehalls Indian Tribe. I am also a tribal fisherman. I am pleased to be here with Dr. C.S. Sodhi, Tribal Director of Natural Resources, to present views on restoring salmon and steelhead runs to the Chehalis River Basin. I have been fishing for salmon in the Chehalis River for almost 30 years, the river where my ancestors have fished in the past. I started fishing with my grandfather in 1964. At that time we could fish for 365 days of the year and there was enough fish for everybody. Now we are permitted to fish an average of 40 days in a year and if lucky we can catch some fish. The Chehalls Tribe has been building partnerships among local, state, federal, industry, community groups and other stake holders to develop and manage the Chehalls River Basin. Under the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resources Study and Restoration Act of 1990, the Chehalis Tribe got Involved in a joint project with U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Services and Quinault Indian Nation. The Chehalis Tribe has been on the Steering Committee for the project and has participated In two studies entitled "Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resources: Status Trends, and Restoration Goals and "Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resources: Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Degradation" Mr. Chairman, these studies have revealed that there are many factors involved In the decline of the salmon runs over the years. Let's be assured that there are no quick methods to restoration. But, we simply cannot afford to let the Chehalls River Basin deteriorate further. Now is the time we should get on with the monumental task of restoration of the Chehalis River Basin to support healthy salmon runs. Presently, on my reservation there is approximately 65% unemployment where as In the neighboring non-lndlan logging community there Is a 25% unemployment rate. The restoration project will provide short as well as long-term employment to both Tribal and Non-Indian communities. Mr. Chairman, The Chehalis Tribe believes that the Chehalis River Restoration Project is a well thought out and comprehensive program. We have come here to ask that the federal government commit to the continued adequate funding of the project so the Chehalis River Basin can be restored. The Chehalls River Restoration Project has a 'Win- Win" outcomes for federal, state tribal and private entities. Mr. Chairman, the Chehalis River Basin has our tribal name and, we have lived on the Basin for thousands of years. We are committed to restore and manage the resources of the Chehalis River Basin and will take responsibility for our share of work. Salmon fishing is our way of life. I do not think that I have put in my years yet. I want to continue to fish for at least 30 more years. I want future generations to enjoy the river and salmon. If tomorrow, I am told that there is no salmon in the river, I will still be out there in the cold winter night with my net In the water, because that's where I want to be and that's what it means io be a iribai fisherman. I want to thank you for allowing me to present the views of the Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation. We will be pleased to answer any questions. 186 David Yockton, Chehalis Indian Tribe Questions for Chehalis Hearing Witnesses Questions for the entire panel: Can hatcheries continue to play a role in restoring salmon stocks and what are the risks to wild stocks? Yes, hatcheries must play an important role in restoring the salmon stocks on the Chehalis River Basin. There are possible risks to the wild stocks which could disrupt the genetic integrity to wild stocks (e.g., diseases, over fishing, etc.). When hatchery stocks are abundant and are fished heavily, they could over fish weak wild stocks at the same time. But these risks could be overcome with proper management. Who should fund the restoration of the Chehalis River Basins fishery resources? Present distribution of funds as administered by the Fish & Wildlife Services seems logical. However, any in kind contributions by cooperating groups and agencies would be welcomed. What are the Task Force members doing to restore the Chehalis River Basin? There is a cooperative effort to collect brood stock at various locations in the basin and rear them in acclimation ponds. Present efforts stress fishery enhancement and not habitat restoration. Studies are presently being done in water quality investigations. What should be done to improve watershed stewardship on Federal, State, and private lands in the Chehalis River Basin and in other pacific Northwest watersheds? Promote better communication and coordination utilizing state of the art information. What are the key factors that must be initially addressed in the Chehalis Basin? In other coastal basins? In the Columbia River Basin? The key factors are relationship between the hatcheries and wild production. Understanding environmental limitations, such as the so called pollution block in the Aberdeen, Hoquiam area. Also, catch distribution issues in the various fisheries (e.g, success of the US-Canada negotiations is of extreme importance). What are the potential socio-economic benefits of restoring the Chehalis basin fishery resources? Increased catches in the various commercial Tribal and Sport Fisheries should increase social, as well as economic benefits. The benefits should be a several fold increase in catches to the fisheries. What are the socio-economic costs? The soci-economic costs are difficult to evaluate at this time. Is an Environmental Impact Statement warranted? Yes, for major facilities (e.g, Proposed Chehalis Tribe Cedar Creek Hatchery which has been completed). For minor NEPA projects a finding of no-significant impact (FONSI) would suffice. For SEPA projects (State Environmental Policy Act) a DNS (Declaration of Non- Significance) should be added. According to the American Fisheries society, 214 stocks of Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead are at risk of extinction. Are any of these "at risk1' stocks in the Chehalis River Basin? Probably, the run of chum salmon in the Chehalis River upstream from the mouth of Black River. Additional questions for the Chehalis Tribe: What are the Tribes doing on their reservations to contribute to restoration? Brood stocking of fall chinook, in cooperation with the Chehalis River Basin Task Force (Save the Kings Project). Which are planted in various areas of the basin. Our Fisheries personnel do spawning ground surveys throughout the upper watershed to identify streams needing improvement. Additional projects are being considered. The Chehalis Tribal Fisheries is allotted a quota of fish each season. If the fisheries below the reservation over fishes or the run size expectancy is low, the Chehalis Tribe may reduce their fishing time or may not fish at all to help preserve future fisheries. What are the Tribal benefits of restoring the fish runs to the Chehalis River Basin? The increased catches for ceremonial, subsistence and commercial fisheries will improve the Tribe's economic and cultural growth. 187 Statement of Diana M. EDIboxi President of the Chahalk Basin Fisheries Task Force Presented to tha UJS. House of RepTOnrmtattves' Fisheries Managamant Sub-Cammi ttae Merchant Marine and Flsharlaa Committee July 14, 1993 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Good Afternoon. I am Diane Ellison, President of the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force and owner of Ellison Timber and Properties. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of implementation of the Chehalis Fisheries Resource Restoration Program. I especially want to thank Representative Unsoeld and her staff for their sensitivity to the needs of our fisheries resource and their thoughtful oversight as this program has developed. I am the fifth generation of a timber family. Since 1884, my family members have been employed in the timber Industry. For the past 110 years we have been tree farmers in the Kamilchee, Wynoochee and Wlahkah Valley's in Grays Harbor and Mason Counties of Washington State. In the ten years that I have manage my families tree farm, I have managed five separate harvests and replanted over 130,000 trees. During this time of logging, replanting and managing my forest land, I have experienced intense, and sometimes painful, change. Change so dramatic that my entire paradigm of reality has been transformed. How and Why has that change come about? A few years ago I got involved with an organization saving wild salmon called "Long Live the Kings". As I sat on the river bank at night with my childhood fishing buddies - broodstocldng - I became enmeshed in an effort to save our "wild salmon" from extinction. 188 I started a small fisheries project on my family farm. In that process, my focus shifted from TREES AS TIMBER to the larger more inclusive perspective of TOTAL BASIN MANAGEMENT, involving the inter-relationships of salmon habitat, water quality, viability of forests, sustainable fisheries and my deep commitment to the HUMAN DRAMA of the folks living in the Wishkah Valley. When a private land owner begins to manage both for fisheries and timber objectives, change occurs. Their visionary management goals expand and become more inclusive as they begin to recognize the interdependence of a total eeo-system approach. The organization I chair, the Ghehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, brings all the user groups to the table in cooperation for the benefit of the resource, and has been doing so for the past 13 years. Currently, membership includes recreational, tribal, and commercial fishermen, concerned citizens, businesses, environmental organizations, economic development interests, organized labor, local government entities, and natural resource agencies - united in the restoration of our fisheries resources. This coalition has met the challenge of ronsensual decision making and interdisciplinary team building - developing new methods of managing natural resources to meet the changing values of public opinion. Our need to address fisheries issues is urgent. Without long term planning, coupled with Immediate high impact action, we will loose our opportunity to save our precious fishery resources for future generations. 189 In 1989 the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, and many other? from our region, asked for your assistance to restore these precious resources. You graciously complied with passage of the Chehalis Fisheries Resource Restoration Act of 1990. In compliance with this Act, the VS. Fish & Wildlife Service has conducted a comprehensive habitat survey, documenting all existing and correctable degradations. The data collected in this survey has been ocdmOated and is available to those planning restoration efforts. U is time to go to work. Initial implementation funding provided for tha 1993 fiscal year have been allocated to 14 restoration efforts throughout the watershed. These range from an artificial spawning channel for coho and chum salmon to be built by a local sportsmen's club; to a major stream blockage removal effort conducted by the Washington Department of Fisheries; to the creation of "overwintering nondr' on private property that will provide warmer water, better feed and cover, while protecting young salmon from rapid main- stream flows. The majority of these projects will be conducted by the private eiusenE who have committed their land and their time to benefit the resource. Over half of Washington's land, including much of the most valuable fish and wildlife habitat, is privately owned. How these lands are managed has profound effects on the species that live there, making landowner support and cooperation critical to fish and wildlife management and enhancement efforts. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has done a tremendous job during the study portion of the Restoration Act, now it is time to fully pursue restoration. We must develop partnerships between all the stakeholders in the river basin. Through mutual trust, these local land owners, grassroots citizens can team together to share funding, knowledge and expertise for common goals. 190 In coming years we could expect to see restoration proposals from a wide spectrum of the community, including those who wish to remove log jams on the south tork of the Ghehalls River in the upper watershed; Install In-stream gtructurcg in the Black RJvor to Improve water flow, re-create pools and riffles, and dean out spawning gravel; ftatW"" ■""* ry«?«t»f >rep>" "*■»" bonis on the main-stem Chehalis River; and much much more. Because of the study that has already bean completed by the US. Fish & Wildlife Service, we are in a pocmon to propel forward with this valuable work The Chehalis Fisheries Resource Restoration Program can and will become a modal for further restoration efforts that are envisioned for the Olympic Peninsula and other areas of Washington State. The value of those restoration efforts can be measured by the number of salmon they will protect and produce, by the numerous Jobs that win be provided for displaced timber workers and others In severely Impacted tlmhar communities, by the duality of our environment which they will perpetuate, and by many ether tangible and cignlfleant factors; but I ask you to consider the greatest factor - the sense of stewardship that is bom tn the citizens and communities who will undertake this priceless work through their own initiative and sweat, reshaping their sense of reality and priorities, as they pilot their own destinies. Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 191 NORTHWEST STEELHEAD & SALMON COUNCIL 2401 Bristol Court SW, Suite A-18 Olympia, WA 98502 TESTIMONY OF TROUT UNLIMITED TO U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Wednesday, July 14, 1993 Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Manton and to the honorable Representatives of the committee for inviting Trout Unlimited to testify on restoring salmon and steelhead in the Chehalis River Basin of the State of Washington. My name is Jerry Pavletich, West Coast Director for Trout Unlimited, testifying on behalf of our Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council in the State of Washington, and more specifically, our three chapters located within the Chehalis River Basin. The Chehalis River Basin is the second largest basin in the State of Washington comprising an area of 2,660 sguare miles ( 1.7 million acres ). There are hundreds of miles of rivers and streams, all ultimately flowing into Grays Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. Anadromous fish resources; historic, current, and potential, are of national significance and an increasingly important factor in the economy of the region. Through the Chehalis River Basin Fisheries Resource Study and Restoration Act of 1990, Congress's investment of almost $425,000 for the study and $372,00 for initial restoration projects has proven to be a prudent one. Through contributed funds, complimentary studies and projects, and enormous amounts of dedicated volunteer efforts, the Chehalis Basin is a showcase of cooperative spirit and a standard for the rest of the State. Chairman Manton, you challenged us to identify what is needed to restore salmon and steelhead. I can answer that with the motto of our Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council - "Clean Water, Wild Fish, and Kids". I will briefly elaborate on each. Clean Water - The Chehalis Basin is predominantly timber (85%) [minimal old growth] and agriculture (about 10%) . Historic logging practices have left many miles of river without adequate riparian vegetation and many drainages without adequate regeneration that is necessary to prevent siltation of stream beds. Repairing this damage takes a great deal of manual labor. Congress can provide funding for such job opportunities. Agricultural practices need to be improved in many areas to reduce contamination from animal wastes. Congress can continue to support local conservation districts through technical staff and funding for implementing best management practices on farms. Municipal waste treatment and correction of failing septic systems is also an area that could benefit from Congressional aid. Improving water quality is a major component necessary to rebuilding salmonid stocks. Wild Fish - Fortunately, only two man-made dams exist in the basin, affecting only a small percentage of the habitat. Congress can make sure it doesn't get any worse! "In-stream" restoration projects are necessary to replace lost habitat. The Chehalis River Basin Task Force (an example of cooperative efforts among numerous public and private entities) sponsors more than a dozen projects aimed at fish passage, spawning channels, and rearing ponds. Congress can continue to support such efforts. Not all wild stocks are healthy and none are out of danger. Congress can play a major role in international negotiations to insure minimal interception on the high seas by illegal driftnets, through the U.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, and imposing selective fishery techniques within U.S. waters to insure the maximum return of threatened and endangered stocks to their natal streams. Kids - Let us not lose sight of the fact that not only are we trying to preserve a heritage for our children, but that we must instill in our children the knowledge and ability to make prudent decisions. Congress can encourage inclusion of environmental education curriculum, support those activities of federal agencies that reach out to students, and particularly fund the Pathways to Fishing" and "Hooked On Fishing - Not On Drugs" programs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Trout Unlimited would be pleased to work with any members of the committee on details of the items I have mentioned today. # # # 192 Washington Trailers \^™EEJJ BJu°J°^?8'oo8 Association cfcg _ _^gkl Phone (206)741 '9287 TESTIMONY TU THE COMBINED SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVmONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Prepared by Geoff Lebon, Washington Trollers Association, July 14, 1993 Presented by Diane Ellison, Chehalis Basin Fisheries Enhancement Task Force The Washington Trollers Association consists of commercial hook and line fisher persons who fish for salmon off the coast of Washington State. During the past 20 years, our harvest of coho salmon has decreased by 95% and our harvest of chinook salmon has decreased by 85%. These reductions have taken place because it was the only tool fishery managers have had to endeavor to rebuild salmon runs. In light of all the ESA listings coming to bear on salmon, it is obvious that this tool has not worked. The Grays Harbor basin is an integral part of the salmon production within the troll fishery. The Washington Trollers Association, realizing this, has been very active in fishery enhancement over the past decade and we have seen firsthand, many of the problems within the basin Many of the mainstream rivers have been stripped of their riparian zones in the agricultural areas allowing summer time temperatures to skyrocket. Temperatures within the lower Neuwakum for example approach the mid-70 degree range during the summer. The 70 degree point is considered a lethal point for young salmon by many people Even though the Neuwakum provides prime coho spawning opportunity, its gravel beds are empty during the spawning months. Wholescale logging of some watersheds is causing many detrimental flow conditions for young salmon in their redds, or nests, and in the water itself. High winter flows, or scouring floods, and low summer flows with high temperatures are reflections of this activity. The West fork of the Wishkah is a prime example of this: a water shed encompassing many land owners, both governmental and private, who, for the most part decided to log their lands at the same time. A sticky issue for any governing body to deal with. This watershed, offering prime coho and steelhead habitat is in need of help. The majority of the acreage within this area has been logged within the past 1 5 years, and that which is left is still being logged For this reason, the Washington Trollers Association is concentrating on working with the native coho in this watershed and with the timber companies to protect the habitat. 193 Page 2 Testimony on Chehalis River basin - July 14, 1993 Prepared by Geoff Lebon, Washington Trailers Association These conditions are exasperated even further by the poor water conditions within the lower Grays Harboi estuary. This is seen from the low salmon survival rate of downstream migrants passing through the estuary during low spring runoff years vs. higher rates during times of high spring runoffs which through dilution create a higher level of water quaiiiy. In order to overcome the above mentioned problems, we must increase the quality of the water within the Grays Harbor estuary. There is now, and always has been, another major contributor to the decline of salmon within the Chehalis basin: POACHING. Poaching is nearly out of control within the Chehalis basin. While trying to broodstock for native coho during the fall of 1992, we could not beat the poachers to the salmon. There were tens of people fishing in the areas of the spawning bars, while just downstream where it was legal to fish, few people were fishing. In talking to the enforcement agents of the Washington Department of Fisheries, we were told that just ten years ago they had ten enforcement agents for Grays Harbor County. During the 1992 spawning season they had just one They simply did not have the manpower to pursue the illegal activities we were witnessing. Unfortunately, many poachers do not just use hook and lines, but rather resort to gillnets and other detrimental techniques. The Skagit River, although not part of the Chehalis basin, has many of the same problems. It has a depleted coho run that may even be a candidate for ESA listing and a watershed with severe habitat problems. A Washington Department of Fisheries official confided that in the spawning season of 1 989, as a run or native coho headed for its natal stream, it was temporarily delayed by low flows. Before the next rain arrived, about 80% of this run had been poached out. The Department of Fisheries knew about this situation but did not have the enforcement capabilities to handle the problem. The Chehalis basin is no different. In working in the rivers, I could make a decent living writing tickets from the illegal fishing activity I alone have run into. It is not uncommon to have people drive up to your house with illegal fish in the back of their pickups and attempt to sell you the fish! The U.S. Government can dump millions of dollars into the Chehalis Basin and they can do a fine job of rebuilding and solving the habitat problems, but it will fail unless you protect the fish that are striving to spawn within that same habitat that you have just allocated tax dollars to reclaim. 194 Page 3 Testimony on Chehalis River basin - July 14, 1993 Prepared by Geoff Lebon, Washington Trailers Association With ongoing sport and commercial fisheries moving forward in the process of rebuilding the Chehalis Basin salmon runs, the Federal government must pay equal attention to protecting the fish on the spawning grounds. It is one of the most critical times in the itfe cycle of the salmon and they are most vulnerable. Please, don't let their call for help go unheeded! 195 TESTIMONY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Presented to SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Regarding HR3787 CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN FISHERIES RESOURCE RESTORATION ACT As you know the State of Washington is facing a major challenge of watershed protection and restoration to remedy degraded habitats, depleted fish and wildlife resources, and water quality and quantity problems. These widespread problems, if not resolved, directly threaten the quality of life for our citizens in economic, cultural and social terms. Federal, state and tribal governments must take a lead role in creating opportunities around these issues. Otherwise we virtually insure continued reactive and intensely disruptive responses to federal and state laws and judicial mandates like ESA rather than defining a brighter and more stable future for our natural resources and the communities they support. The fact that we need federally supported watershed restoration can not be denied. The question of what effective watershed restoration entails and how we collectively define priorities is still subject to widespread public discussion. We are at a point of creating a new strategic vision for the future that will direct long-term actions to protect critical habitats and species communities. We are looking at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to integrating restoration efforts across species within river basins or ecosystems. But regardless of the size of the challenge, the solutions can not wait any longer -- we must seize the opportunity now. The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Resource Restoration Act certainly represents a new approach to this challenge. The State truly appreciates Representative Unsoeld's untiring efforts on this legislation. Important first steps have been taken to identify the problems affecting fisheries resources in the basin and important public involvement activities have been incorporated into the planning process. We generally agree with the goals, objectives and recommendations prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the context of a broad restoration vision. State, tribal, federal, and local governments, along with various industry and publics, are at a point, however, where a truly strategic plan for the future is needed. From a long-term stock management and habitat perspective, we must define the framework of "where we need to go" and what integrated strategies will lead us there. What measures are needed to insure that we secure the future of healthy stocks and their critical habitats so that we can in fact preserve and pursue additional options for recovering depleted habitats and stocks to productive levels? The Chehalis Basin Restoration program can significantly benefit the fisheries resource and associated economy if carefully tailored to address key problems that limit production. This means a comprehensive program that integrates actions in the harvest, production and habitat areas that are compatible with sound biological principles designed to insure long-term stock health. The State and western Washington treaty tribes have aeveiopea a statewide Wild Stock Initiative to create a framework for and lead Washington watershed recovery efforts in a consistent and successful manner. We would like to see federal involvement that is responsive and supportive of this comprehensive effort, both region-wide and within the Chehalis basin specifically. Within the Chehalis this means better integrating continued federal staff and funding support into the strategic vision that the State and tribes are leading development of in Washington. We must insure that actions taken with federal investments are most effectively geared toward the balanced need of protecting existing critical habitats and fish resources while looking for opportunities to recoup the productive capacity of the basin where it has been impaired. We would like to see federal funding support of a more effective state, tribal and federal partnership in the Chehalis to both define and implement strategic actions to create and maintain healthy aquatic resources and economies. O BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 05982 692 3 ISBN 0-16-041752-X 9 780160ll417528 90000