Exceprts from Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (EFH)

Those of you interested in filling in the floodplain will find this interesting. This is part of the *draft* Pacific Coast Salmon Plan for Essential Fish Habitat from the National Marine Fisheries Service. This is just a draft, but may provide a clue to what is coming under federal regulations. There's lots more in here.

-

Wetland and Floodplain Alteration
Wetlands and wetland conversion
Flood control projects
Magnitude of losses
Conservation and Enhancement --

Construction/Urbanization
Altering Land Surface
Construction by waterways
Environmental Review
Construction away from waterways
Erosion rates
Water runoff rates and floods
Stream temperature
Riparian zones
Conservation and Enhancement Measures

Dam Construction/Operation
Dams without fish passages
Downstream passage
Nitrogen supersaturation
Estimated mortalities
Hydrologic effects of dams
Dams affect on downstream esturaies
Conservation and Enhancement Measures --

Under this plan, the Chehalis Basin is definitely included in salmon recovery regulations. See it all at this www site

Public Law 104-267, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, amended the MSFCMA to establish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in federal Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and to require federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The MSFCMA requires all Fishery Management Councils to amend their FMPs by October 1998 to describe and identify EFH for each managed fishery. In accordance with the MSFCMA, NMFS published an interim final rule in the Federal Register on December 19, 1997 (62 FR 66531) providing guidelines to assist the Councils in description and identification of EFH in FMPs. NMFS also is required to provide each Council with recommendations on EFH for each fishery under the Council's authority.

NMFS developed this proposed EFH recommendation for the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan through a process that has involved input from the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), its advisory bodies, and the fishing industry at the Council's public meetings in September 1997, November 1997, and March 1998. NMFS also formed a technical team consisting of state, tribal, university, federal and industry individuals to provide technical input and advice on the development of the NMFS recommendations.

After consideration of public comments submitted by May 8, 1998, NMFS will finalize these recommendations for submission to the Pacific Fishery Management Council at its June 22-26, 1998 public meeting in Seattle. The Council will adopt proposed amendments to the salmon FMP for EFH and other issues at this meeting, and the Council's proposed amendment will then be made available for public comment. At its September 14-18, 1998 meeting in San Francisco, CA, the Council will approve the final amendment to the salmon FMP for submission to the Secretary of Commerce.

After the amendments to the Fishery Management Plans are approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the consultation requirements of the MSFCMA will be in effect.

Wetland and Floodplain Alteration

River valleys were once marshy and well vegetated, filled with mazes of floodplain sloughs, beaver ponds, marshes and wetlands. Salmon evolved within these systems.

Juvenile salmon, especially coho, can spend large portions of their fresh water residence rearing and over-wintering in floodplain environments and riverine wetlands. Salmon survival and growth are often better in floodplain channels, oxbow lakes, and other river-adjacent waters than in mainstem systems (NRC 1996). Additionally wetlands provide other ecosystem functions important to salmonids such as regulation of stream flow, stormwater storage and filtration, and often provide key habitat for beavers (that in turn may provide instream habitat benefits to coho from their active and continual placement of wood in streams) (OCSRI 1997). Floodplains (even those that are not wetlands) also help store water, filter nutrients, and cycle nutrients into the aquatic ecosystem.

Wetlands and wetland conversion

Wetlands throughout the region have been converted through diking, draining and filling to create agricultural fields, livestock pasture, areas for ports, cities, and industrial lands. Wetlands were further altered to improve navigation along rivers. These changes have transformed the complex river valley habitat, with many backwater areas into a simplified drainage systems most of whose flow is confined to the mainstem (NRC 1996). The losses have been extensive.

California, has lost 91% of the wetlands present before Euro-American colonization (about 454,000 acres remain), Oregon has lost 38% of its historical wetlands (1.39 million acres remain), Washington has lost 31% (about 938,000 acres remain), and Idaho about 56% of its historical wetlands (about 385,000 acres remain) (NRC 1996).

Due to this alteration, these areas became less capable of absorbing flood waters, and further alteration occurred as flood control structures were built to handle the increased water flows.

Flood control projects

Flood control projects involve the construction of water storage dams, dredging to increase channel capacity, or the building of dikes and levees which prevent rivers from over-topping their banks. These projects have been extensive through the region. In the Pacific Northwest, an estimated 3000 km of dikes, 5000 km of dike protection, and 5,800 km of channel modifications (dredging) for flood control had been completed by the early 1970s. In the lower-Columbia River 90,000 acres of floodplains have been lost by flood control diking (Kaczynksi and Palmisano 1993).

In addition to the direct loss of the overwintering habitat, nutrients, and lower flows that wetlands and floodplains provide, the construction of dikes, levees (as well as roads etc. in the floodplain) have other affects on salmon habitat. These structures prevent the connections between the rivers and floodplain, depriving the rivers of supplies of large woody debris (which provide important cover and help shape stream channels and capture spawning gravels), as well as the input of fine organic matter and dissolved nutrients which support the food web for salmon (NRC 1996).

These structures also deprive the river of a place to deposit sediment, so more sediment moves downstream, causing stream channel aggradation, estuary filling, as well as frequent scour and fill which damages habitat the spawning redds.

Magnitude of losses

While the magnitude of these effects are not known with any certainty, an annual loss of between 220,000 and 560,000 juvenile coho is estimated to result from the loss of about 54% of the riverine slough and wetland habitat that once was available for coho salmon rearing in Washington's Skagit Valley floodplain. The complete loss (by 1977) of major wetlands along Seattle's heavily urbanized Thornton Creek, a tributary of Lake Washington which used to support coho helps explain the fact that there have been no coho returns since 1979 despite continued placement of young hatchery fish in the stream (NRC 1996).

Conservation and Enhancement --

Alteration of Wetlands and Floodplains In addition to applicable measures related to siting of docks and marinas, the maintenance of dikes and drainage ditches (in the estuarine alteration section), the following general measures apply.

1. Avoid alteration of all non-water dependent riverine and lake-associated wetlands in areas of salmon EFH
2. For water-dependent uses, require avoidance of impacts, unless an analysis shows that alternative siting alternatives don't exist. Where avoidance is not possible, require siting that minimizes impacts to the maximum extent possible. Minimize impacts through appropriate site design, engineering, and best management practices, and mitigate all non-avoidable impacts. Follow mitigation sequencing with in-kind and on-site replacement being favored over off-site or different wetlands being replaced. In-lieu payments and mitigation banking should be reserved only for those projects where no other options are available.
3. Avoid filling and building in floodplain areas affecting salmon EFH.
4. Promote relocating and buy-outs of infrastructure in floodplains. Use disaster relief preferentially to locate buildings out of harms way, rather than money to rebuild or repair.
5. Where floodplain building or alteration is unavoidable establish buffer zones where filling and building is prohibited., elevate buildings or otherwise assure a no-net loss of floodplain storage capacity outside the buffer. That is, where soil or structure is added to one part of a flood plain, another part must be excavated to maintain the land's flood storage capacity.
6. Use wetland mitigation and enhancement ratios that are sufficient to assure a net gain in acreage, as well as function and value.
7. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland loss should be completed prior to conducting activities that may adversely affect wetlands wherever possible.
8. All mitigation should be designed to meet specific performance objectives for function and value and monitored to assure achievement of these objectives. Bonding or other performance agreements should be required to assure these objectives are met.
9. The cumulative affects of all past and current wetland alterations should be considered by Federal, state, and local resource management and permitting agencies during the permitting decision process.
10. All permits for wetland alteration should reference latitude-longitude coordinates of the area so information can be incorporated into GIS systems. Inclusion of aerial photos may also be required to help geo-reference the site and evaluate impacts over time. A long-term data base should be established.
11. Assure any mitigation work is performed in areas prioritized as to long term viability and functionality.
12. Encourage and assist cities, counties, and watershed planning groups to evaluate and prioritize areas for wetland and floodplain protection and restoration.
13. Promote awareness and use of the USDA's wetland and conservation reserve programs (available for agricultural activities) to protect and restore wetland and floodplain habitat.
14. Encourage and promote restoration of degraded wetlands 15. All culvert replacements and repairs in EFH must assure fish passage for both adult and juvenile fish.
16. During dike repair, consider options such as set-back dikes (several hundred feet away from the stream), lowering and widening the dike, partial repair to allow connectivity to floodplain, fish passage etc. Consider allowing a break in the dike to maintain habitat for fish and wildlife (use culverts or other designs for fish passage).

[These conservation measures for Wetland/Floodplain Alterations were adapted from NMFS (1997d) and Metro (1998)]

Construction/Urbanization

Though the total amount of urban area may be small, cities and towns are often located in important habitat areas for salmon, areas with low gradients, that often contain wetlands, flood plains or that are along major rivers, tributary junctions and estuaries.

Urbanization has typically resulted in extensive losses of estuaries, wetlands, and riparian habitats.

Alter Land Surface

Additionally, activities associated with urbanization (e.g. building construction, utility installation, road and bridge building, storm water discharge) alter the land surface, soil, vegetation, and hydrology significantly and can affect salmon EFH directly and indirectly through habitat loss and modification. Aquatic habitats in urban and urbanizing areas are more highly altered than in any other land-use type in the Pacific Northwest and the proportion of the streams within the urban areas that are degraded is greater than those subject to other land uses (Gregory and Bisson 1997).

Construction by waterways

Construction in and adjacent to waterways often involves dredging and/or filling activities, bank stabilization (see other sections), removal of shoreline vegetation, waterway crossings for pipelines and conduits, and the construction of docks and piers which can destroy salmon habitat directly, or cause turbidity and sedimentation, raise water temperature, shade-out vegetation, alter hydrology and flow characteristics, and re-suspend pollutants, all of which can affect both salmon and their prey. Explosives are sometimes also used in essential salmon habitat for the construction of dams and bridges with potentially acute effects on salmon and their prey. The on-going cumulative effects of waterway projects may include the reduction in total vegetated area, the loss of riparian vegetation (resulting in greater stream heating in the summer and the lack of recruitment of large woody debris), the constriction or channelization of stream channels (e.g. with concrete or riprap) with flow and hydrologic impacts, and impairment of water quality through run-off of sediment, fertilizer and pesticides washed from yards and oils and metals from roads and parking lots, or of nutrients from failing septic systems.

Environmental Review

Many projects along or in waterways are of sufficient scope to cause significant long-term or permanent adverse affects on aquatic habitat; however, most waterway projects and other projects associated with the growth, urbanization and construction within the region are small-scale projects that often receive minimal or no environmental review as they cause independently minor losses or temporary disruptions. The significance of small-scale projects lies in the cumulative and synergistic effects resulting from a large number of these activities occurring in a single watershed. For example, in the watersheds of the Puget Sound region between 1990 and 1996 there were 2678 permits (Hydraulic Project Approval) granted for work that involved a combination of bank protection (e.g. diking, riprap, flood control), bulkhead construction and repair, docks, piers, wharfs, and breakwaters, and storm drain and sewer outfalls (PSWQAT 1997).

Construction away from waterways

Construction activities that are removed from waterways can also have detrimental effects on salmon habitat through the run-off of large quantities of sediment, as well as the nutrients, heavy metals, and pesticides that are adsorbed to the sediment. Run-off of petroleum products and oils from roads and parking lots and sediment, nutrients, and chemicals from yards as well as discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities are also associated with urbanization. Withdrawal of water for municipal use, lawns and gardens, especially during the summer and early fall, can contribute to water temperature and flow problems for salmon.

Through the increased amount of impervious surfaces, urbanized areas also alter the rate and intensity of run-off into streams and waterways (see below).

The magnitude of these affects can be much greater than in other types of land uses, despite the smaller geographic extent. For example, in areas under going urbanization, rates of erosion are often greater rates of erosion than agricultural or forest lands due to the extensive excavation involved and the time the soils remain exposed.

Erosion rates

Erosion rates from natural areas such as undisturbed forested lands are typically less than one ton/acre/year, while erosion from construction sites ranges from 7.2 to over 1000 tons/acre/year (EPA 1993). In studies done in urbanizing areas in Maryland, sediment loads from lands under going urbanization were found to be up to 50 times more than those in rural areas, while annual sediment yields from urban development to streams were up to 200 tons/acre or more, far more than from agricultural erosion in the same area (about 5 tons/acre); stream sedimentation blanketed benthic faunas and altered fish species composition. A major problem was the period of time that disturbed surfaces lay exposed-- more than a year at 25% of the sites.

A land-use study in Virginia, comparing urban, agricultural, and forested areas in terms of their effects on state water resources concluded that forestry practices contributed little, agriculture was an important source, and urban development contributed the most sediment (as well as other pollutants). A 14 year study of sediment control practices in Washington, DC, where yields of suspended sediment from urban land were up to six times more than yields from cultivated land and up to over 120 times those from forested and grassed lands, control measures, including shorter exposure times, installation of settling basins, temporary vegetation during construction, and earlier final vegetation installations, decreased suspended sediment yields by 60% to 80% (Waters 1995).

Water runoff rates and floods

Similarly, effects on run-off rates due to the amount of impervious surface can be much greater than in any other type of land use. As development proceeds, the percentage of land covered by hard surfaces increases, reducing the area available for water infiltration and increasing surface runoff. Buildings, rooftops, sidewalks, parking lots, roads, gutters, storm drains, and drainage ditches in combination quickly divert rainwater and snow melt to receiving streams, resulting in an increased volume of runoff from each storm, increased peak discharges, decreased discharge time for runoff to reach the stream, increased frequency and severity of flooding (EPA 1993).

An Illinois study on flood hazards and mitigation shows how the extent of urbanization alters the amount of runoff. Under conditions of natural ground cover there is 0% impervious surfaces and about 5 percent of the rainwater runs off the land. Rural development areas with 10-20% impervious surfaces have a surface water run-off of about 23%. Single family homes, with 35-50 percent impervious surfaces, results in a 35% surface water run-off. In conditions of full-urbanization, where there is between 75-100% impervious surfaces, 61% of the rainwater runs off the land (Metro 1997).

In studies in King County, Washington, that modeled hydrologic conditions (using 40 years of actual precipitation records) for forested watersheds versus a fully urbanized watershed (with 40% impervious surface), predicted flooding events were quite different. In forested watersheds seven 5-year flood events were predicted, in urban watersheds, about 38 flood events were predicted. The interval between flood events in forested watersheds were predicted to range between 4 and 14 years, while in the urbanized watershed there was only one year without a flood event of this magnitude (Palmisano et al. 1993).

In addition to increasing flooding events, the alteration in quantity and timing of run-off accelerates bank erosion and the scouring of the streambed, as well as the downstream transport of wood, resulting in simplified stream channels and greater instability, all factors harmful to salmon (Spence et al. 1996). The lack of infiltration also results in lower stream flows during the summer by reducing the interception, storage, and release of ground water into streams. This affects habitat availability and salmonid production, particularly for those species that have extended freshwater rearing requirements (e.g. coho). The higher peak flows, the lower low flows, as well as the reduction in stream complexity (e.g. fewer pools, woody debris, and hiding places) that results from development, also can change species compositions in streams, favoring cutthroat trout populations over the natural coho populations (WADOE 1997).

Generally, it has been found that instream functions and value begin to seriously deteriorate when the levels of impervious surfaces exceed 10% of a subbasin (WDFW 1997).

Stream temperature

The amount of impervious surfaces also can influence stream temperatures. The air and ground temperatures in impervious areas can be 10 to 12 degrees warmer than in agricultural and forested areas. In addition, the trees that could be providing shade to offset the effects of solar radiation are often missing in urban areas. A study in Maryland of headwater streams, found that urban streams had mean temperatures that were consistently warmer than a forested reference stream, and that the increase in temperature appeared to be a direct function of the increase in amount of impervious surface (Metro 1997).

Riparian zones

Existing urban and industrial sites, highways, and other permanent structures will prevent restoration of riparian zones in heavily developed areas. In these areas, generally along major river systems, buffers will not be continuous and riparian areas will remain fragmented. Habitat improvement plans will need to identify locations of healthy riparian zones and opportunities for re-establishing corridors of riparian vegetation between them, so that nodes of good quality habitat can be maintained and managed in ways with protection of salmon habitat (Sedell et al. 1997).

Conservation and Enhancement Measures

Conservation and Enhancement Measures -- Construction/Urbanization In addition to the applicable measures under the Dredging, Estuarine (e.g. marina and dock construction), and Bank Stabilization sections, the following measures should be applied.

1. Prevent alterations to waterways except for water-dependent uses, where alternatives are not available or in emergencies where structures are in danger and cannot be relocated out of harm�s way. All non-avoidable impacts should be mitigated to assure a net gain in habitat values.
2. Riparian buffers zones of appropriate width should be protected, restored, or established on all permanent and ephemeral streams that include or influence EFH. The buffers should be wide enough to support shading, large woody debris input, leaf litter inputs, sediment and nutrient control, and bank stabilization functions.
3. Inventories should be conducted of the remaining riparian areas, wetlands, flood plains, and natural drainage ways in urban and urbanizing areas affecting salmon EFH.
The health of these systems, the potential for restoration and enhancement, and the connectivity between these areas should be assessed.
4. A plan should be devised to protect remaining riparian zones, flood plains and wetlands and using a combination of conservation easements, purchases, density or development restrictions and transfers, setbacks or other means.
5. In areas where avoidance of impacts is not possible, minimum setback requirements should be established to protect and restore ecological functions, and mitigation of unavoidable impacts required. Variances to setbacks should only be allowed if variances on the property away from the resource areas have been exhausted.
6. Avoid the disturbance of areas that are steep or otherwise susceptible to erosion.
7. Plan development sites to limit clearing and grading and cut and fill activities.
8. Avoid filling and building in floodplain areas affecting salmon EFH.
9. Where floodplain building or alteration is unavoidable establish buffer zones where filling and building is prohibited., elevate buildings or otherwise assure a no-net loss of floodplain storage capacity outside the buffer. That is, where soil or structure is added to one part of a flood plain, another part must be excavated to maintain the land�s flood storage capacity.
10. During construction, setback areas should be temporarily fenced to avoid the disturbance of natural riparian vegetation and maintain riparian functions.
11. Assure the use of best management practices in building and road construction and maintenance operations, including avoiding ground disturbing activities during the wet season, minimizing the time disturbed lands are left exposed, requiring the use of erosion prevention and sediment control methods, minimizing vegetation disturbance and maintaining buffers of vegetation around wetlands, streams and drainage ways, and prohibiting building activities in areas of steep slopes with highly erodible soils, and assuring that storm water runoff from sites pass through a sediment pond, sediment trap, or other facility designed to slow water run-off and trap sediment and nutrients. Require the posting of performance bonds or other mechanism to assure activities meet performance standards.
12. Assure detention basins are adequately screened to avoid fish entrainment.
13. Require maintenance of water and sediment detention facilities and maintenance reporting.
14. Disallow new municipal water withdrawals and impoundments in areas with streamflow and temperature problems, unless evidence has been provided that all efforts to minimize water withdrawals have been met through effective water conservation, water pricing and recycling measures.
15. Promote the use and upgrading of stormwater retention and treatment systems, including promotion of the use of artificially created wetland systems, for all-sized municipalities.
16. Assure municipal and industrial discharges meet Clean Water Act standards.
17. Assure runoff from developing areas, construction sites, roads, highways and bridges affecting salmon EFH is controlled to the maximum extent possible using best management practices such as those extensively described and analyzed in Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-point Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA 1993).
18. Assure municipalities are using best available technologies and upgrading their waste water systems to avoid combined sewer overflow problems and avoid chlorinated sewage discharges into rivers, estuaries and the ocean.
19. Where feasible, remove impervious surfaces such as parking lots and abandoned buildings from riparian areas and re-establish or restore wetlands.
20. Encourage and assist cities, counties, and watershed planning groups to identify, evaluate and prioritize areas for riparian, wetland and floodplain protection and restoration.
21. Encourage mass transit and bicycle route planning and more compact urban development plans to reduce the need for additional roads.
22. Apply the applicable marina and dock management measures (see estuarine section) to similar projects in lakes and rivers containing salmon EFH.
23. Discourage in-water blasting unless it is the only practicable method, including different project designs, available to accomplish project goals and conditions can be applied to prevent injury to salmon, their prey, and habitat. Require timing restrictions and methods to minimize shock wave impacts, avoid site dewatering, and divert fish from the site as well as monitoring of impacts and damage mitigation bonds. Additionally assure that pollution prevention methods are applied, damage to streambanks and riparian vegetation is avoided to the maximum extent possible, and mitigated where damage is unavoidable.