D. Prioritized Watersheds

Criteria
Results

For NOPLE, the most significant challenge in developing a project strategy was to prioritize the vast NOPLE region (Appendix F) geographically. NOPLE accomplished this by placing watersheds and the nearshore into prioritized tiers, Tier 1 being of highest priority. To simplify the task, NOPLE first grouped like watersheds into geographical units, where appropriate, and then defined the status and trend for each stock within those units. NOPLE then used a series of scientific/technical and socio-political criteria and factors to assign each of the geographical units into one of four tiers. The Technical Review Group (TRG) applied scientific/technical criteria and factors to each of the geographical units. The Lead Entity Group (LEG) of local governments and tribes, after considering comments and concerns from the four Citizen Facilitation Groups (CFG’s), was responsible for applying socio-political criteria and factors and making the final tier designations.

Scientific and technical criteria

The scientific and technical criteria and factors were divided into coarse-scale and fine-scale and are described in more detail below and as summarized in Strategy Development Criteria (Table 1). Geographical Units were assigned to tiers according to the Strategy Development Data (Appendix B) that resulted from sequentially applying each of these coarse-scale tier assignment criteria and factors. Productivity criteria were primarily used to maintain the balance in emphasis on both strong and weak stocks, particularly in Tier 1. Fine-scale tier assignment criteria and factors while not tier specific, were applied to make appropriate adjustments to the initial tier assignments.

Productivity Criteria – Productivity criteria were the initial and primary criteria used to assign each geographical unit to a particular tier. See Watershed Data Matrix (Appendix A) and Productivity (Figure 2).

1. Historic Productivity – a qualitative term that is based on the TRG’s collective knowledge of the historical biological and physical characteristics of the geographical unit. Characteristics considered included yield / unit area (smolt production) and the hydrology, geology, geomorphology, and geography of the unit. Each geographical unit was initially assigned to a tier using this criterion.
2. Current Productivity – a qualitative term, relative to Historic Productivity, that’s based on the known biological and physical condition of the geographical unit. Characteristics considered included yield / unit area (smolt production) and the current condition of habitat with respect to the hydrology, geology, geomorphology, and geography of the unit. This criterion was used to further justify the initial tier assignments that were based on historic productivity levels.
3. Potential Productivity – a factor used to further justify the tier assignment of a geographical unit that was historically highly productive, but now requires large scale restoration efforts to achieve recovery. This criterion, while not scaled from high to low, was used to further justify the initial tier assignments that were based on historic productivity levels.

Diversity Criteria – Diversity criteria provided either additional justification for the initial tier assignments or reasoning to move the geographical unit to a different tier. See Watershed Data Matrix (Appendix A) and Stock Status and Trends (Table 2).

4. Number of Historical Populations – used as one indicator of historic diversity.
5. ESA Threatened Listings – a listing under the ESA; four stocks are listed as Threatened on the NOP. This criterion was used as one indicator of impacts to historic diversity.
6. Number of Critical & Extirpated Stocks – the total number of critical and extirpated stocks within each geographical unit, enumerated from our Watershed Data Matrix. Extirpated stocks are those that are at risk of becoming functionally extinct. This criterion was also used as an indicator of the impacts to historic diversity.

Habitat Criteria – Habitat criteria, in the form of basin size and land use patterns, provided either additional justification for the initial tier assignments or reasoning to move the geographical unit to a different tier.

7. Basin Size – square miles of drainage area within a geographical unit. Basin size was not used as a criterion in and of itself, rather, it was used in conjunction with other criteria when assigning qualitative measures (i.e., from high to low), primarily because smaller basins can be as highly productive as larger basins. See Watershed Basin Area (Figure 3).
8. Land Use Patterns – the extent by which infrastructure limits our ability to conduct restoration and protection activities.

Hatchery – Hatchery impacts primarily provided justification to move geographical units to lower tiers. See Current Hatchery Information (Table 4).

9. Current Hatchery Activity Impacts - including out-plants from hatchery facilities, and whether those activities are for production purposes or for the recovery of wild stocks. This criterion includes the effects of “incidental mortality” on wild fish during the harvest of hatchery fish.

Socio-political criteria -- The tiered list of geographical units was altered, where appropriate, when various socio-political aspects of salmon recovery were considered, because a habitat recovery strategy can not be successful without considering the various socio-political aspects of salmon recovery. Some examples of the socio-political aspects of salmon recovery include, but are not limited to:

• Development of small watershed / nearshore stewardship groups,
• Consideration for various economic concerns, for example, economic livelihood, regulatory changes, and USFS funding levels,
• Effectiveness of land use regulation and enforcement (e.g., Growth Management Act, Critical Areas Code, Shorelines Management Act, Forest Practices Act, etc.),
• Assurance of equity between Tribal U & A’s, WRIA’s, watershed basins, & nearshore areas,
• Consideration that salmon recovery is sometimes in conflict with governments, agencies, organizations, and citizens – including landowner concerns, development, harvesting natural resources (fishing, mining, timber, etc.), transportation, dams, water diversions, and allocations,
• Determination and rallying of overall public support,
• Providing outreach & education information to the public, including the full range of growth impacts on salmon recovery choices,
• Encouraging the development of better projects from Project Sponsors, and
• Consideration of property tax benefits for allowing recovery activities on land (e.g., conservation easements and restoration activities).

Results and Conclusions

Tiering Rationale. The NOP region was divided up into 24 geographical units (see NOPLE Map (Appendix F)), as listed here from west to east:

• Hoh Basin
• Goodman Complex – including the Cedar, Goodman and Mosquito Creeks
• Quillayute Basin - including the Quillayute Mainstem, Calawah, Bogachiel, Sol Duc, and Dickey sub-basins
• Waatch Complex – including the Waatch River, Waatch Creek, Petroleum Creek, and Sooes River
• Ozette Basin
• Sekiu Basin
• Hoko Basin
• Clallam Basin
• Pysht Basin
• East & West Twin basins
• Lyre Basin
• Salt Basin
• Western Strait Clallam Independents – all independent drainages between Village and Colville creeks, not otherwise listed here.
• Elwha Basin
• Urban Independents – including Peabody, Tumwater, Dry, and Lees creeks unless listed separately
• Valley Basin
• Ennis Basin
• Morse Basin
• Central Strait Clallam Independents – including Bagley, Siebert, and McDonald creeks
• Dungeness Basin
• Eastern Strait Clallam Independents – including Bell, Gierin, Cassalery, Cooper, and Meadowbrook creeks. Note: Meadowbrook is treated here as an independent drainage.
• Jimmy-Come-Lately Basin
• Sequim Bay basins – including Dean, Johnson, and Chicken Coop creeks
• NOP Nearshore – Hoh River north to Cape Flattery east to Sequim Bay

Tier 1

Thirteen geographical units were assigned to Tier 1 and are listed below, alphabetically:

• Dungeness Basin
• Elwha Basin
• Hoh Basin
• Hoko Basin
• Crescent-Lyre Basin
• Morse Basin
• Nearshore
• Ozette Basin
• Quillayute Mainstem
• Dickey Basin
• SolDuc Basin
• Bogachiel Basin
• Calawah Basin

Productivity. Historically, the basins of the Dungeness, Elwha, Lyre, Morse, Ozette, the Dickey and the Sol Duc were highly productive (i.e., relative productivity level of 5 or 4 with 5 being the highest) (Productivity, Figure 2). The basins of the Dungeness, Elwha, Ozette, and the Quillayute are also among the largest basins within the NOP; hence, total productive output was invariably high (Basin Area, Figure 3). While the Crescent-Lyre and Morse basins are smaller than others within Tier 1, historically they were considered to be highly productive. Declines in productivity to current levels within the Crescent-Lyre, Dickey, and Sol Duc were smaller relative to other basins. These relatively smaller declines in productivity provide justification for their Tier 1 assignment. Historic productivity levels within the Hoh Basin were lower than other basins within the tier, however, an ESA listing of Threatened for bull trout and the relatively large drainage area warranted a Tier 1 assignment. Similarly, historic productivity levels within the Bogachiel and Calawah were lower than other basins within the tier; however, their proximity to the Quillayute mainstem and large drainage areas warranted a Tier 1 assignment.

The Dungeness, Elwha, Morse, and Ozette basins have experienced significant decreases in stock productivity levels, (i.e., in the Dungeness and Ozette from 5 to 2 and Elwha and Morse from 5 to 1). There are numerous arguments for what has caused these decreases, ranging from impacts to habitat, harvest activity, and changes in the oceanic environment. Our efforts should focus on returning these and all Tier 1 systems to stable, highly productive, and diverse producers of fish.

While the effort to restore and improve stocks in the Dungeness, Elwha, Morse, and Ozette basins will be expensive, the productivity potential of these basins warrants such efforts. These large restoration efforts include dam removal, property acquisition, dike setback, elimination of reed canary grass, and large wood supplementation. We believe that the Dungeness, Elwha, Morse, and Ozette basins must have a well-designed “Watershed Recovery Strategy” that includes the sequencing of all restoration activities within each of the basins. A “Watershed Recovery Strategy” will also help us understand the scale of the effort required to “fix” these basins.

It’s difficult to compare productivity levels in the nearshore with those found in basins through any quantitative means. On a relative scale, however, the nearshore as a whole was believed to be highly productive and that an assignment to Tier 1 seemed appropriate at this time. Current productivity levels in the nearshore are unknown but are suspected to be declining.

Diversity & Stock Issues. Most of the Tier 1 geographical units historically contained larger numbers of individual stocks than those units in other tiers (Stock Status & Trends, Table 2), one indicator of historic diversity. The basins of the Dungeness, Elwha, Hoh, Morse, Ozette, the Quillayute mainstem, Sol Duc, and the Bogachiel each contained 7 or more individual populations. The Crescent-Lyre and Hoko basin, while having fewer populations historically, were placed within Tier 1 for other reasons. The Crescent-Lyre and Hoko Basins were placed within Tier 1, not only for high historic productivity levels, but also to protect the unique genetic diversity of the stocks, particularly the severely declining fall chum and western strait chinook populations, respectively.

Negative impacts to habitat over the past 150 years were responsible, in part, for the decline of many stocks within the Tier 1 geographical units. Today, stocks within the basins of the Dungeness, Elwha, Hoh, Morse, Ozette, and in the upper Sol Duc (e.g., bull trout) within the Quillayute Basin are now listed as Threatened under ESA, an indicator of current diversity conditions. Numerous stocks (13 in total) within these same basins, many of which are not listed by ESA, are also considered either critical or extirpated by SASSI and the NOP TRG (Stock Status and Trends, Table 2); another indicator of current diversity conditions. A total of 9 stocks in the Dungeness, Elwha, and Ozette basins and two in the Hoh Basin are also declining.

The nearshore area, estuaries in particular, is critical to juvenile Pacific salmon for feeding, rearing, and migrating. Juvenile chum and chinook salmon, in particular, are recognized as being fundamentally dependent on nearshore ecosystems. This fact is of heightened significance to the NOP (and HCCC), given that ESA-listed Hood Canal / Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and Puget Sound chinook salmon occur throughout many of our nearshore ecosystems. Chinook and chum stocks, in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, while not currently listed by ESA, are considered to be at critical or depressed levels. However, the importance of the nearshore is not restricted to chum and chinook salmon alone. All salmon must migrate through the nearshore, both as juveniles heading to sea and as adults returning to spawn. Hence, the nearshore within the salmon recovery jurisdiction of the NOP (and HCCC) supports multiple species and stocks of Pacific salmon that originate not only from watersheds within this geographic unit, but also from outside this area. The nearshore is increasingly being recognized as a critical, year-round component of Pacific salmon life histories, hence, further warranting a Tier 1 assignment. We also know that the nearshore supports the life history of forage fish species, crustaceans, and macro-invertebrates, which are critical prey for Pacific salmon. Detailed information on the nearshore can be found in the NOP and HCCC Shared Framework.

Tier 2

Seven geographical units were assigned to Tier 2 and are listed below, alphabetically:

• Clallam Basin
• Deep Basin
• East and West Twins
• Jimmy-Come-Lately Basin
• Pysht Basin
• Salt
• Sekiu

Productivity. Historically, the Pysht and Salt basins were considered to have moderately high productivity levels (Productivity, Figure 2), higher than the majority of the geographical units assigned to Tier 3. While the current productivity level in the Pysht basin has declined, the NOP TRG considers this basin to have the “best hope” of recovery for western Strait chinook and chum within WRIA 19 due to lower impact land-use practices. Western Strait chinook and chum are currently considered by the NOP TRG to be at great risk of extirpation (Stock Status and Trends, Table 2).

Lower historic productivity levels within the E & W Twin, Sekiu, Clallam and Deep basins did not warrant a lower Tier assignment, primarily due to the fact that the potential for the successful restoration of these basins is thought to be high.

Diversity and Stock Issues. Jimmy-Come-Lately Creek is the primary watershed of concern within Sequim Bay. This geographical unit was placed within Tier 2 due to concerns that summer chum and coho are at great risk of extirpation (Stock Status and Trends, Table 2). Summer chum is also listed as Threatened under the ESA.

Tier 3

Seven geographical units were assigned to Tier 3 and are listed below, alphabetically:

• Eastern Strait Clallam Independents
• Central Strait Clallam Independents
• Ennis Creek
• Goodman Complex
• Valley Basin
• Waatch Complex
• Western Strait Clallam Independents

Productivity. In general, historic productivity levels of basins assigned to Tier 3 were lower than in Tier 1 or 2. Five of the Seven geographical units within Tier 3 were classified as having medium (level 3) historic productivity levels (Productivity, Figure 2). These basins are Ennis Creek, the Goodman Complex, Western Strait Clallam Independents, Central Strait Clallam Independents, and Eastern Strait Clallam Independents. Negative impacts on habitat have caused less severe declines in productivity levels within these basins then in some of the larger geographical units within Tier 1. The Waatch Complex, while historically of medium-high productivity level, was placed into Tier 3 because of the overwhelming influence of hatchery out-plants on wild stocks for production purposes within this basin.

Diversity and Stock Issues. The total number of historic populations within the geographical units assigned to Tier 3 was lower, generally, than those in Tier 1 or 2 (Stock Status and Trends, Table 2). Four populations were present within each of the basins of the Eastern Strait Clallam Independents, Central Strait Clallam Independents, Goodman Complex, Valley Basin and the Western Strait Clallam Independents. Five populations were present within the Waatch Complex. No ESA listed stocks are present within the geographical units assigned to Tier 3. The total number of known critical and extirpated stocks and those that are at risk of extirpation was not enough to warrant a higher tier assignment for these basins.

Socio-Political Considerations. The Valley and Ennis Basins, while small drainages relative to others within the tier and ones that have been severely impacted by poor land use practices, were moved from Tier 4 to Tier 3 because of the tremendous community involvement and support for the restoration of these basins.

Tier 4

One geographical unit was assigned to Tier 4 and is listed below:

• Urban Independents

Productivity. The small drainage areas and heavily degraded conditions of these mostly urban basins did not warrant a higher tier assignment at this time.

Diversity and Stock Issues. Historically, four populations were present within these basins (Stock Status and Trends, Table2). Previous land use practices are primarily responsible for the extirpation of three of these populations.