HomeMy WebLinkAbout052316_cabs011:30 p.m. Briefing Session
Commissioners Chambers
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Leslie Locke, Executive Assistant
DATE: May 23, 2016
SUBJECT: BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION re: 2017-19 Washington Coast Restoration
Initiative (WCRI) Pulling Together Project
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Jill Silver, 10,000 Years Institute will give a briefing regarding the 2017-19 Pulling Together Project
proposal for the second round of the Washington Coast Restoration Initiative (WCRI). She will also
describe a second proposal for the "Ongoing Riparian Restoration on the Hoh River" project. The 10,000
Years Institute requests the BOCC adopt motions of support for both project applications. A report title
"Winer 2015 - Morgan's Crossing on the Hoh River" is also enclosed as an example of past work of a
similar nature.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Listen to briefing. Consider whether to pass a motion to support each project.
REVIEWED BY:
ip Morley/,C C ty Ad inistrato Date
WASHINGTON COAST RESTORATION INITIATIVE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 2017 - 2019 BIENNIUM
Project Activities
Please mark all activities that are included in the proposed project
X Riparian/Wetland Restoration
Creek Rehab/Channel Reengagement
X Habitat Creation/Restoration
_ Culvert Replacement
Acquisition/Land Purchase
X Outreach and Education
Project Design
Erosion Control
X Resiliency/Climate Adaptation
X Monitoring
_ Flood Control
Bridge Construction/Improvement
_ Recreation Access
_ Research
Marine Restoration
X Invasive Plant Prevention / Control
_ Other
144
Please mark all habitat types that will benefit from the proposed project
X
Stream/Creek/Small River
X
Large River
X
Prairie/Marsh
X
Wetland
X
Lake/Pond
X
Riparian Forest
X
Upland Forest
_
Beach/Dunes
X Estuary/Tidal Flats
_ Open Bay/Open Ocean
X Grass Lands
Other
Other
Appendix A - Application — WCRI — RFP — 2017-2019 Biennium Page 1
Questions
1. How would you briefly describe the project? (S)
The Pulling Together in Restoration Project (PTIR) is a pilot invasive species program in 12 coastal
watersheds, working across jurisdictions and watershed boundaries to fix gaps in existing weed
management, preventing spread of invasive species, and continuing cost-effective and community-based
education, engagement, and containment. The program addresses specific invasive species which harm
forest health, agricultural lands, and habitat for fish and wildlife, enabling these ecosystem features and
habitats to be continually restored through native plant community succession.
1a. Provide a narrative description of the proposed project. (L)
Knotweeds, Scotch broom, reed canarygrass, and other noxious weeds reduce habitat value by replacing
all the important functions of native plants, including food, structure, and shade, and can impact the
growth of trees, food crops and forage. Through the creation of local jobs, and by coordinating within
and across watershed and landowner boundaries and engaging the public and policymakers, this project
represents and continues a much-needed investment in local environmental and economic health that
builds upon existing invasive species control projects and Pulling Together in Restoration/WCRI 2015.
In short, this program combines Early Detection and Rapid Response (ED/RR) and on -the -ground control
via local trained crews, contributing extra hands and eyes to existing projects, stitching up gaps in
protection across jurisdictional boundaries. Alongside existing programs and agency, tribal, and local
partners, these teams survey key pathways such as roads and rivers along which weed seeds and
fragments move with tires, mowers, wind and water into tributaries, pastures, and forest stands. Another
gap -fixing component will improve the success of restoration projects, as we review and develop
recommendations for invasive species management for each project, and where time and capacity are
available, provide additional control services. The program also develops and shares detailed watershed -
specific education and outreach to the public and other managers, and coordination and information
sharing between all, encapsulated in a program platform focused on increasing prevention and control of
damaging invasive species.
At this point, early in the first two year PTIR program (Project 15-1599), we've developed and are
implementing many of the foundational components, including: 1) Protocols by species and site types, 2)
Outreach and specific recommendations to restoration project sponsors, 3) Presentations to tribes, west
end citizens through the ONRC, local supply stores, county weed boards and road programs, the state
Department of Transportation for roadside collaboration, the state DNR for a dedicated Camp crew for
roadside and gravel mine Scotch broom control, 4) Pasture management recommendations to agricultural
landowners (how to stop spreading reed canarygrass), 5) Hiring and training crew, and more. Once the
entire program is running, we will be able to better quantify the cost and environmental benefits, but for
now, we must extrapolate from past successes in the Hoh, Queets/Clearwater, and Quinault watersheds.
1 b. Provide a detailed description of proposed tasks & who will be responsible for each. L
Project tasks/Responsible parties:
A. Build upon prevention of new weed populations along roads, in streams, wetlands, and river
floodplains, in restoration projects, and at recreation sites, by pulling, treating, cutting, or coordinating
their elimination, thereby reducing new focal weed distributions at the targeted sites by 30% or greater in
the first year, and again in the second year. 10, 000 Years Institute staff & ED/RR teams, tribes, road
managers, forest managers, park and rec managers, restoration sponsors, OCC crew, and local citizens.
B. Continue the comprehensive inventory of all other known ongoing control activities in the 13
watersheds, and document achievements in terms of protected habitat area and type, estimated or known
cost benefit, and document unmet needs. 10, 000 Years Institute staff with federal, state, and local
agency and tribal partners contributing information.
C. Conduct regular surveys: Deploy local ED/RR teams to regularly survey state, county, and accessible
timber roads, recreational access sites, and review all riverine restoration project sites for the focal
invasive weeds Pull individual plants, schedule larger populations for treatment through partners or crew.
10, 000 Years Institute staff and ED/RR teams.
Appendix A -Application — WCRI — RFP — FY18 and FY19 Page 2
D. Continue to provide review services and recommendations to restoration project sponsors based on the
Habitat Work Schedule: http://hws.ekosystem.us/home/. 10, 000 Years Institute staff.
E. Track each road, river, recreational site, and restoration project where invasive species are identified,
and/or controlled in a database and in GIS by species, ownership, action, recommendation, and
status/outcome. 10, 000 Years Institute staff, from Habitat Work Schedule.
F. Present updated community and manager workshops (4 in each watershed (Quillayute, Hoh, Queets-
Clearwater, Quinault) 10, 000 Years Institute staff, County NWB staff, other partners as available.
G. Continue to provide educational materials including the previously developed guidance protocols to
resource agencies, road managers, gravel mine managers, tribes, community groups, garden clubs, river
guides associations, landscapers, heavy equipment operators, and local granges. Track who, what, when,
and track their responses. 10, 000 Years Institute staff (and rippling effect outward from recipients).
H. Continue with a draft coordinated weed management plan in collaboration with the county weed
boards. If the plan has not been added to lead entities, resource management agencies, tribes, and other
partners and stakeholders, continue to advocate and work with entities to achieve that goal. 10,000
Years Institute staff, County NWB staff, NPCLE and Quinault LE, all other partners as available.
I. Continue adding to the GIS reporting platform, baseline surveys of collated information from other
entities, and maintained with observations, treatment, and recommendations from this project's inventory.
Estimate and report the degree of prevention by landowner, species, and numbers of plants. 10,000
Years Institute staff.
J. Continue to identify needed projects and assist in developing plans and proposals based on issue
observed during surveys and other activities. 10, 000 Years Institute staff, all partners as available.
1c. Describe problems that the project will resolve, threats the project will reduce and how the
tasks described above will accomplish this. (L)
The focal invasive species addressed in this program include Scotch broom, knotweed, gorse, reed
canarygrass, butterfly bush, everlasting peavine, herb Robert, tansy ragwort, Himalayan and evergreen
blackberry, knapweeds, and English laurel, holly, and ivy. Each of these species spreads along roads and
rivers, impairs natural forest succession or degrades grasslands and wetlands, and is expensive and
challenging to control, especially when given the opportunity to spread.
The concept for PTIR evolved in response to expanding populations and impacts of invasive plants in
forested and aquatic habitats, coupled with a lack of adequate funding and coordination necessary to
effectively prevent and contain them. With changing climate, receding glaciers and unstable river
channels, increasing traffic, rapid timber harvest, and billions invested in restoration for threatened fish
populations, NOW is the time to invest in reducing the spread of noxious invasive Eurasian plants so that
habitats continue to evolve where protected and intended. Without early and effective action, the unique
biodiversity of the Olympic Peninsula will quickly be overwhelmed, and more restoration will be
required, but with greater cost and less opportunity for long-term success.
A problem this program addresses is multiple ownerships, with differing capacity, interest, and legal
authority or responsibility to reduce or control invasive species in each watershed on the coast. Layered
on that ownership, rivers and roads connect between watersheds, and invasive species move down these
pathways. Each entity does some weed control, but all lack sufficient resources and strategies to address
species moving in or out via wind, water, construction, or traffic. When small Scotch broom, knotweed,
everlasting peavine, and reed canarygrass sites are eliminated from roadsides, source populations are
stopped from traveling down ditches and through culverts to streams, where water transports each seed to
bare gravel and banks, the ideal environments for invasion. With few resources to protect the forests and
rivers we're working to restore, this costly cycle of invasion and degradation must end.
Another problem being addressed is invasive species degrading other types of restoration projects:
When constructing instream jams or restoring fish passage through a barrier, planning to treat existing
invasives or to prevent the introduction of new ones is necessary to avoid inadvertent spread via
construction, materials, and equipment. If the gravel for a forest road comes from a mine covered with
Scotch broom or knotweed, seeds and fragments of these species become established in stands that were
Appendix A -Application — WCRI — RFP— FY18 and FY19 Page 3
likely free of them, quickly growing and eliminating important habitats and ecosystem services ranging
from carbon storage to air and water temperature attenuation. It's easy to prevent, but difficult to restore
once established, when the cost of eliminating these species grows, and associated environmental impacts
continue to spread.
Finally, most weed control focuses only on Class A or B weeds' — not the Class C weeds such as Scotch
broom (SB). SB is an issue of climate resiliency, riparian succession, and forest growth, and is being
ignored until it has inundated roadsides, harvest units, gravel mines, or pastures, and soil or gravel is
contaminated with seeds lasting 80 years, continuing the spread. It's a climate issue because it's
extremely flammable, and it replaces the forest stands providing humidity and shade, and capturing fog
drip. Counties on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula which are blanketed with SB have a completely
different fire response and management plan than we do on the coast (for now).
It is also in response to several oft -heard reactions of `overwhelm' or avoidance, whereby restoration
sponsors or resource managers react to invasive species with "they're too far gone! (and we can't do
anything to stop them)", or "it's not `my' issue"; both of which ignore the facts: Invasive species spread
further and cause more damage when we avoid dealing with them; 90% of the Olympic Peninsula is NOT
invaded YET, and all invasive species are preventable if we act upon them persistently — meaning
EARLY and OFTEN. So, let's start pulling together!
As to finding funding for invasive species work, there's very little: WSDA runs the only program in the
state for knotweed, and it is vastly underfunded. The state Department of Transportation's Integrated
Vegetation Management Program does not have the funding or the authority to work on SB, and as Class
C, it's not usually covered by any other program. The SRF13 is not intended to fund `programs'.
2. Where is the project located? (S)
The program will occur on federal, state, county, and private roads, recreational access sites, restoration
project sites, and gravel mines in 13 watersheds in WRIAs 20 and 21, shown on the attached map.
WRIA
Rivers and Lakes
Roads Restoration Projects
Recreation/River Access Sites
20
Quillayute River
Federal ONP
HWS project by river
Bear Creek Recreation Area
20
Sol Duc River (Quillayute)
ONF
Klahowya Campground
20
Lake Creek (Sol Duc)
State SR 101
Leyendecker River Access
20
Bogachiel River (Quillayute)
SR 110
Bogachiel State Park
20
Calawah River (Bogachiel)
SR 109
Hoh Oxbow Campground
20
Goodman Creek
DNR Hoh Mainline
Cottonwood Campground
20
Hoh River
Counties
Minnie Peterson Campground
21
Cedar Creek
Clallam Mary Clark
Willoughby Campground
21
Kalaloch Creek
Others...
South Fork Hoh Campground
21
Queets River
Jefferson Oil City
21
Clearwater River (Queets)
Upper Hoh
21
Snahapish (Queets)
Lower Hoh
21
Raft
Clearwater
21
Quinault
Grays Harbor North Shore
South Shore
3. Please list all of the goals and objectives of the project? (S)
The primary goals of the program are 1) Increased effectiveness of invasive species prevention and
management across these coastal watersheds, addressing root causes and sources of invasions, 2)
Conducting ongoing public and agency education; 3) Improving containment of invasives that affect
forests and habitat creation, and 4) Training and deploying a local workforce for local benefit.
1 RCW 17.10—WA State Noxious Weed Law designates noxious weed species which are not widely established and are assumed to be able to be
eradicated as Class A, and those which are still containable with action as B. Class C species are those which are considered to be widely established,
even though they may not be in a particular location.
Appendix A -Application — WCRI — RFP — FY18 and FY19 Page 4
Objectives are to 1) Decrease the costs of invasive species impacts and control, 2) Improve the success of
restoration investments, 3) Develop a coastal coordinated weed management plan that is incorporated into
Lead Entity Salmon Restoration Strategies and other relevant plans, 4) Decrease herbicide use across the
coastal landscape, and 5) involve and engage the coastal public such that they become active in
prevention in their own communities. A final objective is to demonstrate the success of local jobs in
invasive species prevention and control, to encourage the investment of dedicated funding to similar
programs in every watershed.
3a. Provide a narrative description all of the goals and objectives of your project. (L)
Goal 1) Increased effectiveness of invasive species prevention and management, addressing root causes
and sources of invasions, which are invasive species along roads and in gravel mines, moving via wind
and water, equipment, mowers, and traffic.
Goal 2) Conducting ongoing public and agency education through workshops, presentations, and
materials, and coordination with counties, WSDOT, WSDNR, WA Parks, and other landowners and
managers. Workshops will include overview of the program, problems, methods, and handouts.
Goal 3) Improving containment of species by acting early and often in key zones such as roads, gravel
mines, and recreation sites, where they are typically only addressed when they're already a problem.
Objective 1) Decrease the costs of invasive species impacts and control simply by reducing the number of
invasive species that spread through seed. This is accomplished by pulling, cutting, and getting them
before mowing, and by educating boaters and equipment operators not to drive through them.
Objective 2) Improve the success of restoration investments by getting invasives managed before they
establish into problems. One SB on the highway in a mile stops 12,000 seeds from being planted.
Objective 3) Develop a coastal coordinated weed management plan that is incorporated into Lead Entity
Salmon Restoration Strategies and other relevant plans,
Objective 4) Decrease herbicide use across the coastal landscape by reducing the numbers and sites where
these species spread. Otherwise, it will only increase.
Objective 5) Involve and engage the coastal public such that they become active in prevention in their
own communities through training and demonstrating, who will then contribute to reaching down and
pulling invasive plants at the time that it matters — when there's just one to stop going to seed.
The final Objective is to demonstrate the success of local jobs in invasive species prevention and control,
to encourage the investment of dedicated funding to similar programs in every watershed. This program
intends to change the way people think about and conduct invasive species control, modeling a new and
programmatic approach to be shared widely.
3b. What constraints or other factors could impact being able to achieve the projects goals
and how might the project still be successful? (L)
Possible constraints are time, flooding which will limit access, and manager -partners with sufficient
funding, but we'll still get a lot done. In fact, all plants stopped from going to seed represent a measure of
success. As examples:
Scotch broom produces a reported 12,000 seeds per plant per year, remaining viable up to 80 years. Pull
one, stop many. In addition to the environmental impacts, monetary costs of spraying, cut stump
treatment, or pulling are all high, as is coordination of volunteers, a typical approach to SB control.
Tansy ragwort: 250,000 seeds per plant of two types — half fly away on the wind, half drop to the ground.
Only a small percentage germinate, but stopping seed production from the one plant on the roadside on a
watershed ridge road will make a big difference in stopping the spread from where the next seeds grow
new plants. The costs of lost livestock, impacted elk, and pulling or spraying or biocontrol distribution
are much higher in large infestations that pulling a single plant on an otherwise non -infested road mile.
Very few people are engaged in doing this now, but when we get the word out — many more will be!
Reed canarygrass (RCG): 600 seeds per stem, floating in water or moving down roadsides, which last up
to 4 years, of which 14% are estimated to germinate. De -seeding and eliminating a clump of RCG on a
roadside makes a significant difference to downslope aquatic and riparian habitats by controlling the
Appendix A - Application — WCRI — RFP — FY18 and FY19 Page 5
movement of seeds through ditches, into culverts and under bridges. Costs to control RCG-infested rivers
and streams range from prevention at $40/acre or road mile in the Hoh River to $3000 per acre in east
Jefferson County for excavating, rechanneling, and replanting a stream channel. Prevention pays.
4. Please list the species and habitats that will directly benefit from the project and
separately list the species and habitats that will indirectly benefit from your project. (S)
• All native plants and their communities benefit when they don't have to compete with aggressive
Eurasian species (which evolved with grazing animals we don't have here, over millions of years).
• All life history stages of fish and aquatic organisms benefit by the continuous inputs of native plant
materials they've evolved to use for creating pools, providing insect prey, and filtering sediment,
providing bank stability through root structures, and maintaining nutrients in the soil and water that
they're adapted to. A specific example has been reported by Amy Borde, Battelle Laboratory, from
research on RCG and native Lynbye's sedge: RCG significantly reduced the production of
chironomids (black fly larvae) eaten by juvenile fish2.
• All native animals, birds, amphibians, and insects benefit from healthy native plant communities. A
specific animal example is Roosevelt elk, a keystone species in floodplain forests, will benefit from
fewer toxic plants (tansy, Scotch broom, foxglove) and more native high quality forage.
• All native soil biota directly benefit from the prevention and removal of Eurasian allelopathic, or
acidic, or nutrient impoverishing species including knotweeds, Scotch broom, and herb Robert.
4a. How will you measure, or otherwise quantify, the benefits of the project? (L)
• Number of groups and people provided presentations, materials, and recommendations
• Number or acres and density of invasive plants, by species and location, surveyed and/or controlled
• Number of restoration projects provided recommendations
• Number of restoration projects altered to incorporate invasive plant control
• Overall reduction of acres of Scotch broom
• Overall reduction in infested road miles
• Community response to education and outreach — examples where people change behavior
• Incorporation of effective invasive species prevention and control into salmon recovery, road and
pasture, and forest management, and into local citizens' everyday lives and livelihoods.
4b. How will the project have a direct positive benefit for the local ecosystem? (L)
As described elsewhere in this proposal, and as native plants and their diverse communities are the
foundations of coastal ecosystem food webs and terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats, the project will
provide a direct positive benefit to the local ecosystem through increased protection from degrading
impacts of invasive Eurasian plants. Knotweeds, Scotch broom, reed canarygrass, and other noxious
weeds reduce habitat value by replacing all the important functions of native plants, including food,
structure, and shade, and impact the growth of trees and other species, food crops, and forage.
4c. How will the benefits identified be achieved? Please include proposed engineering, natural
features, construction etc. (L)
Roadside surveys: Map and control individual invasives by pulling, cutting seed heads, appropriate
herbicide control where needed; map and provide recommendations on larger infestations, work with
partners to stop seed production, and then to eliminate the problems. Where possible, provide crews for
work on sites that are high priority unfunded sources (e.g. Snahapish & Clearwater River RCG sites).
Recreation access surveys and control: Re -visit recreation access locations, map and control invasives
as above, provide materials to site users.
Restoration project site surveys and control: Visit restoration sites, map invasive s and develop
recommendations; share with sponsors. Pull individual plants, identify critical issues needing resolution.
2 2015. Borde, A. et al. Phalaris arundinacea vs. Carex lyngbyei: a comparison of the food web contribution between non-native and
native wetland species. Pacific NW National Laboratory. Society of Wetland Scientists, PNW Chapter Meeting, October 7, 2015.
Appendix A - Application — WCRI — RFP — FY18 and FY19 Page 6
5. What are the proposed project's start and finish dates? (S)
Start date is as soon as funded, and finish date is end of the program cycle, or March 2020.
5a. Please provide a timeline for your project, including critical aspects that may not be
funded by WCRI. A table submitted on a separate page is acceptable if referenced here. (L)
Please see attached table, Attachment A, Project Timeline.
6. How many jobs, shown in 12 month FTEs, are projected to be created by the project? (S)
4 (ongoing) FTEs will be continued by this program.
6a. How many jobs, in 12 month FTEs, are projected to be maintained by the project? (S)
All 5 jobs; as long as funding continues for this program (and we'll do our best to establish that it makes
sense to create a legislatively -funded Capitol Budget or agency program). If funding ends, there will be
no PTIR jobs (and many more invasive impacts). However, with their training, crew members will be
good candidates for other river, agency, and private project work, as long as there is funding to hire them.
6b. Describe and/or show how, including dollar values, the answers to 6 and 6a were
determined. Please note if the hires are likely to come from the local community. (L)
Please see the attached budget, Attachment B. Dollar values are: Program coordinator at $39/hour, field
coordinator at $35/hour and ED/RR crew at $25/hour. As long as we can find or train up qualified crew,
the hires are all from the local community, with the possible exception of the program coordinator, who
will likely have integrated into the local community by 2017, while working with the existing program.
7. Please list the aspects of life (such as access and recreational opportunities) in the local
community that will benefit from the project. (S)
The local community will benefit through healthier forests growing faster (less competition from Scotch
broom and blackberry) and cleaner (i.e. less herbicide application — benefiting all species and people),
fish for recreational, commercial, and subsistence harvest, hiking and nature experiences that are in native
plant communities, supporting native biodiversity and the Olympic Biosphere Reserve. Fewer resources
will have to be allocated and spent on fire suppression (from SB), as well as weed control in restoration
and road management. (We will attempt to quantify these savings.)
7a. Explain how the community benefits listed above will be achieved as part of the project (L)
The local community benefits will be achieved by pulling, cutting, treating, and eliminating invasive
species EARLY, before they spread from sources and pathways along roads, at recreational sites, in
gravel mines, and at restoration sites, which will reduce the movement of invasive species into rivers,
forests, pastures, and industrial, residential and commercial properties. (I am probably missing something
that I'm supposed to address here — apologies if so.)
7b. Please describe any outreach and education aspects of the project. (L)
Outreach and education are key components of this program. They include:
• Presentations and workshops (4 in each watershed — Quillayute, Queets\Clearwater, Hoh, and
Quinault) on the program, species and impacts, methods to stop seed and spread including manual,
cultural, mechanical, chemical, and biological, and best methods for each type of site, and the person
or entity doing the control.
• Provide educational materials including resources from weed boards and the guidance protocols on
the focal species developed in PTIR 2015 at the workshops and to resource agencies, road managers,
gravel mine managers, tribes, community groups, gardening clubs, guides associations, landscapers
and heavy equipment operators, and local granges.
• Maintain and respond to queries related to the 8 educational signs encouraging ED/RR for boots,
boats, and vehicles in each watershed at recreational access points/
• Communicate to agencies and landowners the species and locations found, and track responses.
• Work with restoration project sponsors to incorporate invasive species prevention and control.
8. Please list project partners. (S)
Olympic National Park (ONP) — Upper Queets Invasive Plant Control Project, others TBD
Olympic National Forest (ONF) — ONF Invasive Plant Control Projects — Queets, Sol Duc
Tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault — Knotweed and other weed projects, boat cleaning stations
Appendix A - Application — WCRI — RFP — FYI and FYI Page 7
WA Department of Transportation — Highway Weed Control Program, Adopt -a -Highway Program
WA Department of Natural Resources — Access to all state lands sites, forest road and gravel mine
invasives prevention and control, sites for signage, participation in weed -free seed mix use
WA State Parks - Partner on control at Bogachiel State Park, site for signage
Counties: Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor Weed Boards — Contribution to protocol development, partner
on roadside control, participation in weed -free seed mix use
City of Forks — Roadside weed control collaboration, opportunities for community outreach
Nonprofits: North Olympic Land Trust, Jefferson Land Trust — educational outreach, practice methods
Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition — Partner and crew for Hoh, Queets, Clearwater projects
Hoh River Trust — Partner in Hoh River invasives control
The Nature Conservancy — Partner in Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater invasives control
Recreational groups: Guides Association — Partner in education/outreach to river guides
Olympic Correction Camp — Partner in developing and deploying a dedicated Scotch broom control crew
Private residential landowners — Partners in removing butterfly bush and preventing and controlling other
ornamental and weedy invasive species, and supporting work to be done on adjacent roadways.
8a. Explain how partners will be involved in the project. (L)
Included in the list above— saving space!
9. Please list all permits that will be needed to complete the project, clearly noting any that
are already issued or approved. (S)
Issued/Approved — WSDA/WDOE National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
Issued/Approved - WDNR Land Use License (LUL)
Underway - WSDOT — General Agreement for working on roadsides
Underway - WDNR — MOU for Camp Crew work
Underway - ONP — General Agreement for working in the Park
10. Please list all landowners of property that is part of the project, from whom access will be
required or who will be significantly impacted by the project. (S) A map may be included.
All in the above partner list will receiveop sitive assistance. This will grow as the project continues to
expand, and the spread of invasives is reduced. The one point of contention for a few landowners is the
use of herbicides — which we avoid as much as possible, and have as a goal to decrease with a reduction
in invasives. And some may not wish to participate — we will work around them as carefully as possible.
10a. Discuss any current or proposed engagement with impacted property owners. (L)
We are working with many landowners on the coast within the project area already, spreading the word
about the importance of everyone contributing at whatever scale possible. We are expanding our outreach
to all property owners through the current PTIR project, and find where we have personal engagement,
and the opportunity to demonstrate methods and success, most are positively encouraged.
11. Provide a narrative as to why the project is a good fit for WCRI funding. (L)
This is one of the most important issues for coastal restoration, and one most poorly addressed by any
other program. WCRI is the only program on the coast that has sufficient funds in the current biennium
to add significantly to the resolution of ongoing restoration needs. And it's the only non -salmon funding
source focused on coastal restoration issues. It is also the only program available to non-profit
organizations, focused on local jobs and therefore local expertise and knowledge, that responds to the
need to address invasives and the combination of climate and community resiliency. Empowering
communities, local youth, agencies and tribes in protecting and maintaining the ecosystem and the
forestry, fisheries, and clean water, air, and soil that all rely on is really what coastal restoration is about —
modeling how it can become locally -owned and operated. Added to that, it's funding the PTIR program
which saves a LOT of money — the public's, private industry, and tribal — doing the work, closing the
gaps, to end the destructive cycles of constant and costly habitat degradation.
Appendix A -Application —WCRI — RFP — FY18 and FYI Page 8
WASHINGTON COAST RESTORATION INITIATIVE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 2017 - 2019 BIENNIUM
APPENDIX C
LOCAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
In order to be considered for funding, proposals need to show local support for the project. This
is accomplished by submitting a Local Support Document signed by an appropriate organization
to danajdkwcssp.org by July 22, 2016. Below is a list of local organizations that qualify. A
form signed by a group not listed below must be accompanied by a written explanation as to how
the group is an appropriate supporter of the project and showing that the group is comprised of a
variety of community representation. Organizations signing the Local Support Document in
should not be directly involved with the project.
The following is a list of acceptable signees for the Local Support Document:
(Signees may not be the project sponsor)
Board of County Commissioners
City Council
Conservation District Board of Supervisors
Lead Entity Group
Local Port Commission
Managing Entity of a Tribal Government
Marine Resource Committee
APPENDIX C - WCRI - RFP - 2017-2019 Biennium Page 1
WASHINGTON COAST RESTORATION INITIATIVE
LOCAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
The intent of this form is to document support by a local organization for a project being
proposed for funding through the Washington Coast Restoration Initiative (WCRI).
Project Name:
Project Sponsor:
Supporting Organization:
Signing Representative:
Title:
Contact information:
By signing below, it is affirmed that the above named organization is in support the project as it
is currently proposed. Furthermore it is agreed that the project is likely to have a net benefit to
the local environment and community.
Signature:
Date
The space below may be used by the supporting organization to provide comments or additional documents may
be attached, if needed.
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
Project Number 16-1378
Project Name Ongoing Riparian Restoration on the Hoh River
Sponsor 10,000 Years Institute
List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO:
If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original
1. Project Location. Please describe the geographic location, water bodies, and the location
of the project in the watershed, i.e. nearshore, tributary, main stem, off -channel, etc.
The project covers the 30 miles of the mainstem Hoh River's floodplain and channel migration zone (CMZ) on the
Olympic Peninsula in west Jefferson County, from the boundary of the Olympic National Park at river mile (RM) 30
downstream to the river's mouth at the Pacific Ocean. Also included are the lower reaches (0.5 to 2 miles) of the
nine significant tributaries. These are, from upstream to down — Alder, Braden, Dismal, Elk, Lost, Nolan, Owl,
Willoughby and Winfield creeks.
2. Brief Project Summary.
The (Ongoing) Hoh River Riparian Restoration Project provides near-term restoration and long-term protection for
the natural continuation of native riparian forest providing ecosystem services, processes, and functions required
by the Hoh River watershed's native salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, char, and all other species inhabiting the
ecosystem. These services include woody debris development and deposition, thermal attenuation, litterfall,
nutrient cycling, food production, sediment transport and sorting, and structural habitat creation, and are
achieved by eliminating competition from, and eventual replacement by, aggressive non-native plant species.
3. Problems Statement.
A. Describe the problem including the source and scale.
Site, Reach, and Watershed Conditions: Despite a century of homesteading, recreation, forestry, agriculture, and
development, native plant biodiversity is high in this temperate moist coniferous forested watershed, where Sitka
spruce and western hemlock can grow to over eight feet in diameter and 250 feet tall. The river's wide and
dynamic channel migration zone (CMZ) contains a diverse array of lateral riverine habitats and side channel
complexes critical to rearing salmonids (Smith 2000, NPCLE 2015).
Roosevelt elk shear the understory of native shrubs and small trees in the floodplain, creating open park -like
conditions. Olympic National Park's boundary lies upstream of river mile (RM) 30. Inside the Park, terrestrial and
riverine habitats are pristine. Alder, spruce, cedar, hemlock, and bigleaf maple abound, with cottonwood, vine
maple, and Douglas fir interspersed. Downed woody debris is high, both in the floodplain and in the river. When
recruited to the river to become large downed logs and stable log jams, the large trees create deep pools used by
adult salmon, steelhead, and bull trout for holding and feeding, and off -channel rearing and wintering habitats
used by salmon and trout fry and fingerlings. Eventually, gravel bars and silt floodplains develop around them,
1
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
forming new channel and floodplain complexes of willow and alder, growing into the conifer stands necessary for
continued large wood recruitment to the river. In yearly winter flood events, the river forms new channels and
surfaces, exposing bare soil and gravel. Additionally, melting glaciers are contributing enormous quantities of
mobile sediment, raising and widening the alluvial bed of the channel.
The river is rated as 'Tier I watershed' in salmon recovery and watershed plans (WRIA 20 North Pacific Coast Lead
Entity Salmon Recovery Plan and the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Plan), containing 'highly productive
wild salmon habitats.' Over 7,500 acres are protected in a wild salmon refugia corridor owned by the private entity
Hoh River Trust.
Many reaches in the upper 15 miles of river west of the park boundary contain complex mature riparian forests
across the active floodplain and channel migration zone (CMZ), spanning up to a half mile in width, but here the
river flows through industrial forestlands and rural residential or agricultural lands where historic land use
practices removed a high percentage of the floodplain's very largest trees, reducing large tree recruitment to the
river channel, and altering habitat formational processes and salmon habitat by contributing to channel widening
and bank erosion (NPCLE 2013). State and County roads and the river intersect at erosional points in several
reaches (SR 101 at MP 176, Oil City Road at MP 9, and Upper Hoh Road at MP 4, 6.7, and MP 8).
In the river below the Oxbow at RM 15, agricultural clearing has removed many of the large native conifer and
cottonwood trees that historically maintained a deep and stable main thread, widening and shallowing the
channel, and eroding the river's banks.
Channel instability is particularly high in two particular sections of the middle watershed —the first above Spruce
Canyon above RM 24, and the second above the Hoh Oxbow, a narrow canyon between RMs 16-17; where
sediment is trapped and stored, causing deep new channels to form through mature forested floodplain, and
creating a wide and unstable zone where continuous scouring and burying of early successional plant communities
occurs.
With changes in the State's Forest Practices Act and Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance, timber harvest is
no longer allowed within the river's channel migration zone. The replacement of these trees over time is thus
reliant on processes of native riparian succession.
The Problem: The combination of 1) historic removal of large conifers in the river's floodplain, 2) introduction of
invasive species by homesteaders, river bank revetment and road construction, and other sources, and 3) CMZ and
annual flooding, scour, and deposition create ideal conditions for invasive plant seeds and fragments to colonize
and establish.
The succession of vegetation communities and species, critical to the maintenance of habitats, requires that
invasive plant species that fundamentally interfere with riparian processes and functions are controlled. Non-
native and aggressive species (knotweed, reed canarygrass, Scotch broom, and herb Robert) are proven to
eliminate biodiversity and natural succession in native mixed and coniferous riparian forests, and are especially
problematic on migrating rivers like the Hoh, where yearly flooding and channel changes move and deposit seeds
and roots, and expose open soil and gravel over wide areas; creating ideal conditions for further invasability
(Naiman et al, 2010, TNC 2010, Woodward et al. 2011). Because of their impacts to ecosystem processes and
functions, these four species are included in the short list of focal species in the paper evaluating the spread of
invasive species post-Elwha Dam removal (http://pubs.usgs.goy/of/2011/1o481pdflofr20111o48.odf). Research
demonstrates that they impair riparian processes and functions, reducing structure, shade, nutrients, and bugs in
both short and long timeframes.
Among the many potential ecological effects of invasive plants, a particular threat is the inhibition of
establishment of native trees, thereby preventing shade and large woody debris inputs adequate for fish habitat
(Boersma and others, 2006; Harrington and Reichard, 2007). Consequently, preventing establishment of exotic
plants is the highest priority of Olympic National Park for management of the former reservoirs (Chenoweth
and others, 2011).
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
Once established in monocultures, these species are more costly (and therefore perhaps infeasible) to eradicate.
And importantly, all other restoration investments intended to develop and maintain large conifers and native
plant communities along the Hoh River will be impacted by these aggressive species.
Compared to rivers in more populated and developed counties, the Hoh River and its floodplain have relatively low
levels of most these species, which has been held steady by persistent control work since 2003 on knotweed, with
Scotch broom and herb Robert added as funding and time allowed. Addressing these species early in their invasion
supports all other aquatic and riparian habitat restoration investments in the watershed through the maintenance
of native plants as a foundation for the ecosystem. (For details, see comparison maps in PRISM)
Knotweed moved into the river around 1999 from a homestead in the CMZ at RM 29.75 in the upper watershed,
beginning the projects that continue today. As it completely replaces native plant communities where it's
established in solid stands (e.g. Urgenson et al, 2009, 2011, 2013), the species eliminates habitat structure and
alters chemical and biological processes in the riverine habitat types that support the Hoh River's wild salmon,
steelhead and bull trout. Ridding the watershed of knotweed has been an essential component of overall Hoh
River riparian restoration project success through continued contributions of native wood, shade, bugs, and
nutrients. (In 2014, 125 knotweed sites were found and treated. 2015 data shows 44 points, a reduction of 60%;
however — some of these were new points, and several were sites where knotweed was treated over several years,
with none found in the past two, but now there's resprouting occurring.)
Several other specific invasive species expanding in the watershed form monocultures that impair or eliminate the
diversity and functions of native riparian forests and aquatic ecosystems. Reed canarygrass, Scotch broom, herb
Robert, Canada thistle and European blackberry are present in localized distributions in the river floodplain where
introduced by human activity, but none is yet widely established as on the east side of Puget Sound. In fact, reed
canarygrass (RCG) was not present in the watershed until 2010. It moved via boots or beavers into Elk Creek (right
bank tributary in the middle watershed) in 2012, and was observed as 1 meter clumps dotted down the river
corridor near that floodplain. At the same time, RCG was observed spreading rapidly in adjacent watersheds
(Quillayute, Sol Duc, Bogachiel, Hoko, Quinault, Humptulips). Research establishes clear correlations to habitat
degradation to channel margins, wetlands, and side channels, (e.g. Antieau 2008, May 2-). Examples such as
Chimacum Creek in east Jefferson County provided the impetus to prevent it from filling important off -channel
habitats which are essential to the survival of the Hoh River's overwintering juvenile salmonids in frequent bed -
moving flood events, and to reduce the economic and environmental costs of future restoration.
While knotweeds eliminate all understory growth and provide no physical structures or food for native species,
and RCG fills wetlands and channel margins, outcompeting native trees and forbs; herb Robert and Scotch broom
affect the growth of all native plants through chemical changes to the soil — in the case of the former, affecting
understory forbs and shrubs (WSNWCB), and the latter — all species of trees, from the early successional willow
and alder, to the late successional conifer (TNC 2010).
Over the past decade on the Hoh River, we have observed sites where these species replace native species and
stop riparian succession. Examples include a large river bank revetment project in the Lower Hoh along Highway
101 at MP 176, where infested gravel and equipment introduced Scotch broom to a staging area in the floodplain
(Baker Bar) around 2008/9 (see comparison photos). While the floodplain forest around the staging area is
transitioning and growing normally, the entire graded and infested area remains a monoculture of eight foot tall
Scotch broom shrubs. Scotch broom seeds are reported to last between 60 and 80 years, and appear to
continually be re -entrained in floods and scoured beds and banks. Seeds from this annually flooded area have
spread to bars and floodplains downstream; where we now have new stands of Scotch broom on young landforms
which should be covered in willow and red alder, and which would in time would transition to Sitka spruce,
western red cedar, cottonwood, and western hemlock. The Nature Conservancy's Element Stewardship Abstract
quotes the state of Oregon's analysis that SB costs ODF $40 million dollars annually in lost timber production and
costs to control the species (http://www.invosive.orp/weedcd1pdfsltncweedslcytisco.pdfl. This information
supports the control and elimination of Scotch broom where a river regularly transports mature Sitka spruce to the
Pacific Ocean, opening new ground to early sera) stages that must grow new Sitka spruce to keep the habitat -
forming processes intact.
3
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
Herb Robert (Geranium Robertianum) is listed as a Class B noxious weed by the State Weed Board, and was first
reported by a Hoh Tribe biologist in 1995 in the upper Hoh watershed in Olympic National Park at an equipment
yard. It is listed as a focal species of high concern in Woodward et al. Despite years of pulling and removing
plants, the species has been spreading rapidly in the watershed primarily via water, but also with wildlife, foot
traffic, quads, and roadside mowing. The NWB's Written Findings briefly mentions the species' allelopathic take-
over of native species as "...appear to be". We can attest to its ability to completely eliminate native understory
species over acres of floodplain in the past decade.
Geranium robertianum poses a threat to forest understories and to plant biodiversity in forest of western
Washington. It is capable of growing under full canopy closure in very dense populations (up to 250 plants/m2)
and under more open canopies in populations of fewer, but more vigorous, plants. Where it occurs there appear
to be fewer native herbaceous species. It is spreading in forested natural areas in western Washington from sea
level to about 4000 feet at an alarming rate. Prevention of spread of this species into additional areas of western
Washington, as well as parts of eastern Washington, is thus desirable.
(http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/siteFiles/Geranium robertianum.pol')
Due to their propensity and ability to completely alter riparian succession, these species have become integrated
into the project as an Early Detection/Rapid Response (ED/RR) component, augmenting successful knotweed
control with additional funding from WSDA and other sources.
Knotweed is not found upstream in Olympic National Park. The lower reaches of nine tributaries that flow across
the river's floodplain have been repeatedly surveyed for knotweed (none found), but reed canarygrass was found
on Elk Creek, where treatment began in 2012 and continued in 2013 under WSDA funding, and 2014 with SRFB
funds. In other tributary surveys, small clumps of RCG have been found, originating from seed flowing off
road/stream crossings; but we're finding them early and treating them often, stopping new invasions and channel
filling downstream of the roads (a significant cost/benefit ratio). In 2014, 317 RCG sites were treated. In 2015, the
strategy of ED/RR and removing seeds appears to be showing success as preliminary data analysis of the 2015
season show a reduction to 196 sites. (See http://www.clallam.net/weed/doclQ/N2012RCG.pdf for the first
iteration of a RCG protocol developed in the Hoh watershed.)
B. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by your project.
Chinook
Life History
Present ..
juvenile, adult)
Egg, juvenile, adult
Current
PopulationSpecies
rising)
Decline
(Y/N)
N
..
juvenile, adult)
all
Coho
Egg, juvenile, adult
Decline
N
all
Steelhead
Egg, juvenile, adult
Decline
N
all
Cutthroat
Egg, juvenile, adult
Unknown
N
all
Rainbow
Egg, juvenile, adult
Unknown
N
all
Bull Trout
Egg, juvenile, adult
Decline
Y
all
C. Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that
your project expects to address.
Limiting factors for Hoh River Chinook, coho, steelhead, cutthroat, and char that are relevant to this project are
described in Smith 2000, and in the NPCLE 2015 Strategy, as lack of functional riparian forest, lack of shade, loss of
large woody debris capable of stability in the river's channel and flows, off -channel habitat access, and bank
erosion from lateral channel migration, leading to bank armoring. This project addresses all through the short and
4
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
long-term promotion of healthy native riparian forest successional processes. (Smith, Carol J., 2000. Salmon and
Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors in the North Coastal Streams of WRIA 20. Washington State Conservation
Commission, Lacey, Washington State. 147 p. (available on HWS: http://hws.ekosystem.us)
4. Project Goals and Objectives.
A. What are your project's goals?
The goal of this riparian restoration project is the short-term restoration, and long-term protection and
continuation of native riparian successional processes required by native biota for provision of ecosystem services
critical to high quality salmon habitat, to be achieved by addressing a major cause of habitat degradation around
the region - preventing, reducing or eliminating competition by aggressive non-native plants. All species benefit
from healthy native habitat, at all life -stages and times of year.
This goal is encouraged in the WDFW's Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (emphasis added):"Though the
goal of restoration is to return stream processes to a close approximation of pre -disturbance conditions by
addressing the root causes of degradation and constraints on processes that sustain habitat circumstances may
exist that preclude full recovery. Restoration strategy development must consider the various scales at which
constraints such as existing infrastructure, invasive species, limited native species abundance and extinction, and
past current or future land use occur. Where impacts and constraints exist primarily as site- or reach -scale
conditions, restoration strategies may include reconfiguration, removal, or avoidance of these
constraints. "
The Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership and the regional salmon recovery plan also point to
invasive species as the top of a list of critical threats to salmon that are likely to be exacerbated by climate change
(Chapter 3, page 4). The threat from invasive plants is broadly articulated as:
'... degrade native habitats by quickly overwhelming the soil, water and nutrients of native plant species, as
well as creating less shade than native plants. This in turn creates a physical environment very different from
that in which salmon evolved and are able to flourish."
By incorporating invasive species control at a foundational level on a major river system, we are working to
maintain the ecosystem services provided by native riparian forests to the native fish and other biota using the
river, and to promote the enhancement and recovery of high quality salmon habitat in a river that regularly
changes course and resets bank stability and forest condition. Especially with knotweed, Scotch broom and reed
canarygrass, now a seemingly insurmountable problem in many watersheds; this early, pro -active, response to
invasive species demonstrates a significantly different approach between the Hoh River and most other
watersheds where invasive species are regrettably allowed to proliferate.
B. What are your project's objectives? Objectives support and refine your goals,
breaking them down into smaller steps. Objectives are specific, quantifiable actions
your project will complete to achieve your stated goal. Each objective should be
"SMART." Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time -bound.
This project's objective is the elimination of specific invasive species in order to restore and conserve the Hoh
Rivers riparian forests in the long-term, and to support the Hoh River's salmon, steelhead, cutthroat and char
recovery goals.
We approach this objective through the implementation of early detection and rapid response protocols at both
site and reach -scales, over the near and long-term. In the near term, the project's goal is to reduce the
distribution of the project's focal priority invasive species (KW, RCG, HR, SB) by at least 30% in each mile of river
channel and floodplain (divided into river miles and named floodplain complexes) between the ONP boundary at
RM 30 and the Pacific Ocean, as compared to the previous year.
In earlier years, 2003, 2004, and 2007, the projects reduced knotweed by 98% each year. That successful outcome
continues to be achieved, but is somewhat difficult to quantify because the area that water flows over, and the
area we can afford to survey completely also changes each year.
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
In summary, through prevention, education, cross -boundary coordination, and control work, our objective is to
maintain the ecosystem services native riparian forests provide to the species using the river. From the regional
Salmon Recovery Plan (WCSSP, 2013): "...as with other threats to salmon, prevention is the most effective and least
expensive way to avoid the deleterious effects of invasive species" (Chapter 3, page 5). And:
"Protection of relatively intact, functioning ecosystems is a far more cost-effective approach to conserving
the integrity of biological communities than restoring an ecosystem after it has been degraded." (WDFW
Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, 2012).
C. What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether you
achieve your objectives?
While keeping up with invasive species is always a challenge, obtaining funding continues to be the biggest
constraint — particularly where invasive species are still considered less important than, and disconnected from the
success of 'turn the dirt' construction projects. 10,000 Years Institute advocates for additional programs and
funding to address invasive species to federal, state, and local representatives and agencies, and continually
develops project scopes and proposals that encourage new investment and management focus across ownerships,
agency, and watershed boundaries. For a current example, see the Washington Coast Restoration Initiative project
funded through RCO — Pulling Together: Coastal Jobs in Restoration - #15-1599.
5. Project Details.
A. Provide a narrative description of your proposed project.
Our integrated pest management and survey strategies include intensive field inventories and data collection,
targeted control strategies, coordination with entities representing potential vectors of spread, pre- and post -
project monitoring, and community education. Most important to the project's success is the elimination or
reduction of plant fragments that can produce new plants. We accomplish this working from upstream down the
river corridor, intensively surveying across the floodplain and river corridor to find small hidden plants, and
applying targeted and specific aquatically -approved herbicides in the smallest possible effective doses. The two
low risk herbicides we use (aquatically -labeled glyphosate and imazapyr) have been recommended by experts as
appropriate for our site and conditions, and are applied when the plants are taking in nutrients and environmental
conditions are conducive for effectiveness, and never when hot, wet, or windy. A licensed applicator with an
aquatic endorsement supervises all applications. In fact, the Hoh River Knotweed Project was recognized as one of
six example projects in the nation by Oregon State University researchers on behalf of NOAA, for the protection of
ESA trust species (Gianou and Chan 2011).1
We do not drip spray or injected herbicide into surface water. There are no remaining stands of knotweed in the
Hoh watershed taller than 10 feet or larger than 10 feet2, so overhead spraying is not conducted, greatly reducing
off -target drift potential.
We conduct effectiveness monitoring — surveys and GIS tracking - in three primary ways:
• prior to each field season on the last year's work in selected sites
• during each season, conduct effectiveness surveys at selected sites 2-3 weeks after treatment to ensure
that the rate of application is appropriate and the crew is successfully locating plants
• after each season in selected sites, monitor again to ensure that plants have been successfully killed and
there are no hidden stragglers.
Per the request of the SRFB technical review committee in 2011, the lower reaches of large tributaries - Alder,
Willoughby, Elk, Winfield, Lost, and Nolan - have all been surveyed for knotweed for a minimum of % mile and up
1 Gianou, Kelsey L. Aquatic Pesticide Best Management Practices and Relational Database for the Protection of NOAA
Trust Species.
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/29270/Aquatic%20Pesticide%2OBest%2OManaoement%2OPractices%20and%2ORelational%2OData
base%20for%20the%20Protection%20of%20NOAA%20Trust%20Snecies.pdf?sequence=l
I
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
to % mile, starting at the confluence of a major road crossing — either highway or logging road, and moving
downstream to the river's confluence. Knotweed was not observed on any tributary, but Elk Creek was
surprisingly infested with reed canarygrass. This infestation became a priority focus in the 2012 ED/RR project
funding by WSDA, and continued in the 2013-2015 project. The treatment has been successful throughout the
watershed, even though the species spread through 2014. (As we expected, in 2015, we've seen fewer new sites
as we've collected millions of seeds during treatment, eliminating that component of spread.)
Specific project elements include:
• Invasive species inventories and ED/RR (per the goals and objectives in 4A and B).
o Phases 1— 4 involve training, effectiveness monitoring, planning, coordination and outreach,
surveys and early action on small and new infestations, from RM 30 to RM 0.
• Invasive species control (per the goals and objectives in 4A and B).
o Extensive surveys with GPS units, documenting phenology, location, size, and species of focal
invasive plants, and control — manual or chemical means, as environmentally appropriate and
effective, from upstream at RM 30 to downstream at RM 0.
• Prevention of invasive species through coordination along transportation corridors, timber, agriculture,
gravel mining, landscaping and nursery trades, and recreational fishing industries.
• Education about invasive species to resource and land managers, citizens, schools, and the general public.
• Methods development to effectively prevent, recognize, evaluate, and control invasive species that are
shared.
• Local job training creating an informed citizenry who share their knowledge with their families and
communities, report sightings of invasive plants, and who are less likely to drive through a pasture of reed
canarygrass or stand of knotweed and spread it further.
These actions will lead to the goals and objectives of protecting, restoring, and conserving the Hoh River's native
riparian forests and successional processes by making space for all that to occur naturally, over time.
B. Provide a scope of work. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project
tasks, who will be responsible for each, what the project deliverables will be, and a
schedule for accomplishing them.
Project Phase
Dates)
Tasks
By Whom
Olympic Weed Working Group meeting (present project)
1OK/PCSC
Project planning/logistics/methods
1oK/PCSC
Landowner outreach
1OK/PCSC
Phase 1
June 15 —July 30
Crew selection and training
10K
2015 treatment effectiveness surveys
IOK/PCSC/HRT/Hoh Tribe
Coordination with project partners
10K
Equipment, materials and supplies organization/ordering
10K
Phase 2
July 1— October 15
Survey and treatment from upstream to downstream
10K/PCSC/HRT/Hoh Tribe
Disassemble equipment and store herbicides
1oK/PCSC
Compile herbicide application records
1OK/Jefferson County
Database updates
1oK
Phase 3
October 15 —December 15
Develop GIS update
1OK/Jefferson County
Report and provide all data
10K
Olympic Knotweed Working Group meeting
10K/PC5C
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
C. Explain how you determined your cost estimates.
Project costs are based on previous years' experience regarding the amount of time to conduct the various phases,
known wages, contract costs, and equipment costs. A budget based on the project phases and tasks rather than
the RCO categories is attached.
D. Describe the design or acquisition alternatives that you considered to
achieve your project's objectives.
Our preferred methods and logistics alternatives have been iterative, developed over years of experience. Our
integrated pest management and survey strategies include intensive field inventories and data collection, targeted
control strategies, coordination with entities representing potential vectors of spread, pre- and post -project
monitoring, and community education.
E. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies
informed your project?
We participate in many forums on the subject of invasive species prevention and control in big rivers in the PNW,
and consult regularly with others in the field, but frankly, because of our long experience and experimentation -
we're considered leaders on the subject, and provide consultation to others.
F. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the
project or acquired land.
This is the 1`" year of the project, starting with inventories and methods development under the Hoh Tribe in 2001
and 2002. Even tiny knotweed plants are difficult to find, but with additional species spreading, the project is
expanding rather than contracting. Indeed, it will likely be at least a decade more before most of the species that
are being addressed are fully controlled. 10,000 Years Institute is strongly focused on the sustainability of Olympic
Peninsula watersheds, and a requisite component of sustainability — or'THRIVAL' rather than survival - is the
integration of invasives into watershed -scale resource and landscape management, especially in the face of a
changing climate and limitations for species migration off the Peninsula. We are leading that charge.
6. Context within the Local Recovery Plan.
A. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and/or local
lead entity's strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat (i.e., addresses a
priority action, occurs in a priority area, or targets a priority fish species).
This project is highlighted as very important to restoring riparian and aquatic habitat function in the WRIA 20
regional recovery plan, in the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Plan, and in the North Pacific Coast Lead
Entity's salmon recovery strategy.
In the regional context, the project strategies in the NPCLE Salmon Recovery Plan that this project directly
addresses and supports are:
Preservation and protection (also Acquisition): Land may be purchased and conserved, but if it's then
turned into invasive monocultures replacing native forest, it's no longer providing quality habitat, and
will require more investment after invasion which is exponentially more costly
Restoration of Processes -Long term: Invasive species are especially impactful when evaluated in the
long term. A conifer tree of key piece size takes 70 to 300 years to grow on the Hoh River. Invasive
0
Landowner outreach - end of season communication
1oK/PCSC
Write and disseminate annual report and results
10K
Phase 4
January 1— June 30
Presentations at conferences
10K
Coordination with researchers
10K
C. Explain how you determined your cost estimates.
Project costs are based on previous years' experience regarding the amount of time to conduct the various phases,
known wages, contract costs, and equipment costs. A budget based on the project phases and tasks rather than
the RCO categories is attached.
D. Describe the design or acquisition alternatives that you considered to
achieve your project's objectives.
Our preferred methods and logistics alternatives have been iterative, developed over years of experience. Our
integrated pest management and survey strategies include intensive field inventories and data collection, targeted
control strategies, coordination with entities representing potential vectors of spread, pre- and post -project
monitoring, and community education.
E. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies
informed your project?
We participate in many forums on the subject of invasive species prevention and control in big rivers in the PNW,
and consult regularly with others in the field, but frankly, because of our long experience and experimentation -
we're considered leaders on the subject, and provide consultation to others.
F. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the
project or acquired land.
This is the 1`" year of the project, starting with inventories and methods development under the Hoh Tribe in 2001
and 2002. Even tiny knotweed plants are difficult to find, but with additional species spreading, the project is
expanding rather than contracting. Indeed, it will likely be at least a decade more before most of the species that
are being addressed are fully controlled. 10,000 Years Institute is strongly focused on the sustainability of Olympic
Peninsula watersheds, and a requisite component of sustainability — or'THRIVAL' rather than survival - is the
integration of invasives into watershed -scale resource and landscape management, especially in the face of a
changing climate and limitations for species migration off the Peninsula. We are leading that charge.
6. Context within the Local Recovery Plan.
A. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and/or local
lead entity's strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat (i.e., addresses a
priority action, occurs in a priority area, or targets a priority fish species).
This project is highlighted as very important to restoring riparian and aquatic habitat function in the WRIA 20
regional recovery plan, in the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Plan, and in the North Pacific Coast Lead
Entity's salmon recovery strategy.
In the regional context, the project strategies in the NPCLE Salmon Recovery Plan that this project directly
addresses and supports are:
Preservation and protection (also Acquisition): Land may be purchased and conserved, but if it's then
turned into invasive monocultures replacing native forest, it's no longer providing quality habitat, and
will require more investment after invasion which is exponentially more costly
Restoration of Processes -Long term: Invasive species are especially impactful when evaluated in the
long term. A conifer tree of key piece size takes 70 to 300 years to grow on the Hoh River. Invasive
0
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
species stop riparian successional processes, increasing that time frame. Add climate change, channel
instability, and other impacts, and the cost of continually replanting, and replacing large wood to that
scenario, and controlling invasive species on a 30 mile long and half mile wide river at a cost of $120K
per year pencils out as reasonable.
iii. Restoration of Physical Habitat -short term: As articulated elsewhere in this proposal, the species that
are targeted in this project cause short term harm by changing soil chemistry, sediment transport and
deposition, thermal characteristics of water, litterfall and insect production which in term likely cause
immediate impacts to migrating, feeding, and rearing salmon, and their capacity to successfully
reproduce at both site and reach scales.
iv. Reconnect Fragmented/Isolated Habitats: Invasive species form non -habitat, which literally
fragments corridors of productive habitat. Reed canarygrass creates thermal barriers. Knotweed
discontinues the litterfall, LWD production, and nutrient cycling of native species. Scotch broom does
as well.
V. Fish Passage: Invasive species such as reed canarygrass form physical barriers to fish passage,
particularly at low flows. Invasive species are also brought into sites during the construction of fish
passage barrier removal projects. Ending the use of contaminated materials, and encouraging the
inclusion of invasive species monitoring and control pre, during, and post project is a focus of this
project.
vi. Floodplain & Wetland: Missing from this category is the recognition and inclusion of invasive species,
which completely alter the functions and maintenance of both types of landscapes and habitats
critical to salmon recovery. See Naiman et al, 2010.
vii. LWD Placement: Invasive species impair the development and deposition and location of LWD, in
both short and long terms.
viii. Salmonid Habitat Quality and Quantity: Invasive species impact the quality and quantity of habitat by
causing short term and long term alterations to biological, physical, chemical, and hydrological
processes that form and maintain habitat.
ix. Salmonid Life Histories: Invasive species, especially reed canarygrass, affect the rearing of salmonids
by filling channel margins and off -channel habitats so that their use by juvenile salmonids is
eliminated.
X. Riparian forest and native vegetation: Clearly stated.
A. Sediment Control: Knotweed, reed canarygrass, and Scotch broom all affect the transport, storage,
and sorting of sediments; reducing habitat quality by increasing sedimentation, or armoring banks so
that they become vertically -scoured, and lose the capacity for overtopping by flood events, and
disconnecting juvenile fish use of historically -accessible floodplains.
xii. Salmonid habitat connectivity: Addressed above — especially reed canarygrass.
Without natural enemies, once invasive species appear, they persist and expand through a variety of aggressive
reproduction strategies, replacing native plant communities in riparian forests, channel margins, side channel
complexes and off -channel habitats such as wetlands. As they replace native plant communities, the services
provided to all other biotic communities from fish and insects to birds and wildlife are lost.
Data from the successes and challenges of this project inform scientists and project managers about this species
ecology and effectiveness of evolving control strategies, and policy -makers, resource professionals, landowners
and the public about the ability of invasive plants to impact aquatic and riparian habitats.
B. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. (Consider
its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and
imminence of risk to habitat).
This project and all the efforts to date are essential factors in allowing riparian forests to recover from a century of
harvest coupled with a dynamic river that rips and tears every winter. Channel migration, scour and deposition
constantly expose bare soil and gravel for invasive seeds and plant fragments to colonize. Overbank flooding
transports seeds and fragments of stem and root far into forested terraces. We have essentially been
implementing a prevention and Early Detection/Rapid Response (ED/RR) program for over a decade and the
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
results show that investment pays off. With invasive plant parts and seeds moving in from infested gravel used in
road construction and restoration projects, on boots, by birds, and through deliberate introduction in ornamental
planting, and with all the exposed soil and gravel from each storm event, an active long-term invasive species
control program is absolutely necessary to sustain investments made in salmon and forest recovery. After 14 years
of surveys and successful treatment, the Hoh knotweed infestation has been reduced to a very sparse population;
only 44 plant sites were observed in 2015; down from thousands in the early to mid 2000's. Many are now single
plants less than 3 feet high. Since new plants grow from stem nodes and root fragments deposited by floodwaters;
this means there is much less available to be transported to new locations — but it only takes ONE plant to move
and restart the problem! In addition to knotweed, we've expanded to other species that are showing up, and are
setting the highest standards and developing effective and creative methods of ED/RR on reed canarygrass — an
especially problematic species for wetlands, channel margins and side channels in most other western Washington
streams and rivers.
C. If your project is a part of a larger overall project or strategy, describe the
goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps, and which
of these steps is included in this application for funding.
There is no comprehensive program on the North Olympic Coast for invasive species (such as a Cooperative Weed
Management group), but all other landscape management programs include invasive species control, prevention,
and eradication. It is included in NPCLE, WCSSP, Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, and in the 10,000 Years Institute's recently funded project within the
Washington Coast Restoration Initiative (WCRI), The Pulling Together in Restoration Project and Program.
Project Proponents and Partners.
D. Describe your experience managing this type of project.
Institute staff has been coordinating the Hoh River Knotweed Control Project since its inception in 2001 by the Hoh
Tribe, developing the project strategy and methods and documenting challenges and effectiveness. Working under
WSDA funding in 2012, we developed a protocol for the treatment of reed canarygrass in the Hoh River. The past
three years, staff has been contracted to assist the Quinault Nation in the development of watershed -scale
invasive survey and treat programs. The Institute also coordinates with the Olympic Knotweed Working Group and
provides data to researchers at the University of Washington and Olympic National Park who are studying the
ecological impacts of knotweed species on native riparian ecosystems.
E. List all landowner names.
Hoh River Trust, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Hoh Indian Tribe, G. Peterson, J. Richmond, D.
Richmond, M. Lewis, J. Fletcher, A. Huelsdonk, and Olympic National Forest.
F. List project partners and their role and contribution to the project. Attach a
Partner Contribution Form (Manual 18, Appendix G) from each partner in PRISM.
Refer to Manual 18, Section 3 for when this is required.
Hoh River Trust Surveys, access to property, interns assisting our crew.
Hoh Indian Tribe Surveys, access, staff and interns conducting control.
Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition Local access/outreach support/OCC crew time.
Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board Materials, education/outreach.
Jefferson County Public Works GIS services.
Washington Department of Natural Resources Access, land use permit.
10
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
G. Stakeholder Outreach.
The only opposition is to herbicide application on several properties — and those concerns are slowly being eroded
away by the rest of the community's acceptance and appreciation of the contribution we're making to their
landscapes by keeping noxious weeds low.
We've conducted extensive public outreach over the past 15 years — landowner visits, local presentations,
mailings, posters, and interaction with fishing guides, timber industry representatives, and government agency
staff, and we continue with this. We work across landowner boundaries, including federal, state transportation,
state lands, and county road departments to educate about spreading plant propagules, and to assist with
reduction of same. We hear positive feedback, especially from fishing guides, who note the significant difference
between the Hoh River and adjacent rivers in terms of encroaching non-native species. And no, there are no
public safety concerns other than the 3 landowners who have concerns about herbicides in general.
Knotweed Removal Project Supplemental Questions
Answer the following supplemental questions:
A. Describe the level of infestation in the watershed.
The level of infestation of knotweed in the watershed is extremely low, with 4 acres of plants controlled on 3420
acres surveyed in 2014. It's widely distributed over these 3420 acres, and we estimate we missed at least 200 of
the very small plants hidden in deep native vegetation. Deeply -rooted viable rhizomes continue to be exposed by
river migration and scour, and are growing leaves even after several years of burying — so the fact that it's limited
in distribution does not mean that the threat of re -invasion is correspondingly low.
B. What has been accomplished to date related to knotweed control in the
watershed? Who has done the work? What is the success of these actions?
Knotweed was found in 1999 by Hoh Tribe mapping crews, beginning the program that continues today; chasing
after one clump that spread from river mile (RM) 30 to the river's mouth in a big winter storm event. The project
has been continued since 2003 by 10,000 Years Institute. It's been extremely successful, and is emulated by many
across western Washington, but none started as early (except the Quinault Nation on the Clearwater River, which
is being conducted by 10,000 Years Institute), and none other has been able to achieve such a low level of
infestation or of herbicide application.
C. What is the planned prioritization strategy for knotweed control within the sub -
watershed or watershed? Include efforts before and beyond the duration of the requested
grant funding.
The project has been inventorying and controlling knotweed for the past 14 years, protecting all other salmon
recovery investments in the watershed from invasion of this species, which would require addition of knotweed
control to each culvert, log jam, bank revetment, and riparian planting project. Knotweed surveys are also the
foundation of the invasives ED/RR program in the watershed, allowing the location and control of other noxious
weeds that cause serious harm to riparian forests and salmon habitat across western Washington. As of the time
of submission of this proposal, we're working under SRFB/RCO funds from 2014, and this coming year, we'll be
working under WSDA funding. We regularly review other opportunities for funding this ED/RR program — and have
a proposal to the legislature for an ED/RR SWAT team program in the Hoh and adjacent watersheds ($550K), and
expect to apply to the NFWF Pulling Together Initiative for the same, or for the Hoh River ED/RR program in the
future.
D. What is the anticipated time to control?
11
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
The anticipated time to control from upper to lower is 3 months, each year. Unfortunately, there is no such thing
as a "minor maintenance control effort" on 30 miles of active floodplain and CMZ of up to 1 mile wide, except that
we now spend most of our time finding and mapping small plants or clumps, and very little time treating them.
Similar to other Eurasian species such as Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom, this plant can withstand years of
deep burying of small fragments of root before it's exposed and grows. And every plant's stem nodes and root
fragments form new plants, that can be deposited anywhere the water flows.
List the major tasks necessary to reach a maintenance control level and their
anticipated time schedule. Include efforts before and beyond the duration of the
requested grant funding.
We have reached maintenance control level, and are dedicated to eradication - within 10 years appears achievable
as we continue to reduce the plant material available for re -growth.
F. Describe the staffing level needed to meet your annual treatment goals and how
you plan to achieve that staffing level.
The necessary staffing level for surveys and control work is a minimum of 6 crew plus crew leader, and we have
that crew hired and trained. Additional staff to 8 crew is anticipated, plus interns. Ideally, we'd have 20, but that's
not feasible under current funding. Additional program coordination, administration, and GIS assistance is also
required, and covered in the budget, and already in place prior to the start of this project.
G. What are the completed and/or planned landowner outreach efforts?
All landowners have been contacted and visited and except the two that are opposed to herbicide application, are
on board. (Only one of these is a problem for reinvasion — and it's at the mouth of the river, and will not reinfest
anywhere upriver.) Updated landowner agreements are being obtained as needed.
H. What is the estimated total cost to reach a maintenance control level within the
sub-watershed/watershed proposed for treatment?
There is no other large river in Washington State where knotweed and other species have been reduced in a 30
mile long and mile -wide river and 8 tributaries to this level. An annual investment of between $60,000 and
$150,000 per year for the past 13 years has been invested to achieve this level of minimal invasive species impacts.
As shown by comparisons with other large rivers where knotweed, reed canarygrass, and other species are well-
established (e.g. Quinault, Skagit), the cost of preventing knotweed colonization has been a fraction of what would
be spent should the species be allowed to become fully established in this wild river.
I. What is your funding strategy for:
1. Getting to maintenance control levels for the sub-watershed/watershed?
This question is addressed above.
2. Long-term maintenance/control?
We regularly review and apply to other opportunities for funding this ED/RR program: In 2015 -2016, we worked
under WSDA knotweed program funding, as well as remaining funds in #13-1147. In 2016, we will begin the
Washington Coast Restoration Initiative program of an ED/RR SWAT program in the Hoh and adjacent watersheds
($550K), working on vectors from transportation corridors and recreational sources. We plan to apply to the
NFWF Pulling Together Initiative for the Hoh River ED/RR program, and again to WSDA in the future.
How will the SRFB funds be leveraged with other programs in the same sub-
watershed/watershed?
12
Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Project Proposal April 20, 2016
This project leads on invasive species and ED/RR in the watershed, but other owners and managers also work on
invasive species —for forestry, fisheries, agriculture, and transportation goals. We partner and collaborate with all
of them. Hoh River Trust and the Nature Conservancy are working on forest restoration, including invasive species
management (though we provide much of it to them). Olympic National Park has their EVMT working at the river's
mouth and upriver in the Park. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducts vegetation
management along the state highway, as does the state Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Jefferson
County and private owners. And we leverage funds from overlapping years' projects.
K. What are the proposed re -vegetation plans for treated sites?
In the past, partners including the Hoh Tribe, Hoh River Trust, and Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition have all planted
conifer and alder trees in the floodplain and river bars where knotweed, Scotch broom, and other species have
been controlled, but until this year, we've never had to consider re -vegetating the shrub or forb layer, because the
level of infestation has been so low. We're currently planning to follow up herb Robert treatment with forb and
grass seeding, and reed canarygrass treatment with willow stakes on Elk Creek, which is the only site where it
covers more than 1/100` of an acre. Homestead landowners are implementing our recommendations for
replanting grasses and forbs after control of tansy ragwort and European blackberry.
Use this section to respond to the comments you will receive after your initial site visits, and
then again after you submit your final application.
Response to Site Visit Comments
Please describe how you've responded to the review panel's initial site visit comments. We
recommend that you list each of the review panel's comments and questions and identify how you
have responded. You also may use this space to respond directly to their comments.
Response to Post -Application Comments
Please describe how you've responded to the review panel's post -application comments.
13
Winter 2015 - Morgan's Crossing on the Hoh River:
A Riparian Restoration Success Story
A complex of off -channel habitat on the Hoh River has developed as a success story, where
10,000 Years Institute and crew from our partner Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition have worked
together over the past decade to protect native wetland and riparian forest communities from
invasion by non-native plant species, and beavers have come behind us to create several acres
of beautiful and highly productive fish and wildlife habitat.
This site is located at a floodplain complex we call Morgan's Island, located south of the Upper
Hoh Road at MP 6.5. We've worked at this site on knotweed and Scotch broom since 2002, and
more recently on reed canarygrass, which appeared in a few scattered clumps in 2014, likely
from imported hay at a ranch upriver.
Knotweed, Scotch broom, and reed canarygrass all impact native ecosystems by replacing food,
habitat structure, and altering nutrient inputs and soil chemistry. They're green like our native
plant communities, but don't feed or house native wildlife, and form monocultures which
replace the native plant communities that provide food and habitat structure, among other
services. One of the causes for ESA -listing of Oregon spotted frogs in NW Oregon and SW
Washington is due to habitat changes caused by reed canarygrass.
The Backstory: In 1997, the main -stem river was on the north side of the river channel,
eroding the bank and damaging the Upper Hoh Road at MP 6.7. The river began to migrate
southward when a large Sitka spruce tree fell onto the upriver bar in 2000, directing flow to the
south through an old side channel, and subsequently through Morgan's Island, which is
depicted in the aerial photo below.
Following the aerial is a photo series showing the development of off -channel habitat (OCH),
subsequent to the river moving south. The river's southern migration exposed a dry gravel bar,
which was flowing only in high water events, and on which we conducted a decade of spot
treatment on scattered knotweed and Scotch broom plants when the gravel bar was high and
dry.
Starting in 2014, we've prevented this off -channel habitat from filling with reed canarygrass
(RCG) by de -seeding and treating five 25 foot2 clumps in 2014 and several more small clumps in
2015 with aquatically -labeled glyphosate at 1% and aquatically -labeled surfactant. This early
action, part of the Hoh Riparian Restoration Project (SRFB and RCO project #13-1147), has also
stopped the movement of seeds and stems to thousands of vulnerable locations across the
adjacent and floodplain downstream. As of the end of season in 2015, all RCG up and down -
river has been controlled.
a
a
�L
V
N
a
t
V_
t
3
N
c
0
Q.
0
4.
0
Q
a
L
a
-0
E
s
a
to
m
E
3
a
L
a
0
a
t
v
L
a
a,
t �
E
N
6 O
�
O +,
C
(va)
s 4'
4J f6
4-E
O x
Q O
O Q
a+ Q
v Q
s
O +-;
4. =
bo
L i
O �
v
CD 41 O ate-
00 C O
to ,N v
v >
> 4- C
L b0 m
N C a.+
a -
O N
N �
N Q 4J
O = Y
N C C
Y
0 O
N b4 -6
'E
C �
O C O
o 3
i � N
fC ai bA
L L
a
3 —
a,
m i -C
bq j bA
c
O
to M
C t C
� C
v � N
L m Q
cu ` 0
> 5 C
L 4-
E
4L Q!
E Q1 }+
U �
-0 m v
N N
L
O 4-1
C N �
to to v
a-1
Cl)
t N
Ln 4.1
� � 3
N
0 L
0 Q
a 3 v
to 3c
0 3 0
0 o c
N cr- .Y
N_
L N
110 �
O i
L
� N N
4-+
1 .— C
N E O
O O O
I- O
C N
O U
Q O O
-0O -O•
v
O N ate+
t N
'a 41 -
O C ++
41 3
4-
O :in O
C N LA
Q
— N
N t
O f6 4..i
U COC
N � �
C O
�L �
O N M�
CL
Q N
cu D N
C
= M
O - E
4' U N
NL
to ++ L
W O v
CL 3
Y 0
O
'p O
O
i CL L
M2�
t
41 l6 4V
N O
M U
t N
- 3 to
� � c
ra •bD
v _ CL
`° a) 34-1
u LL c
> - E
>- o
m
cu C U i N
O C 4-p
C
O O E
v s o
�a .to
�t c
- +-
C
o
N 2, �, v
O N Y
+•+ 3 � C
M
� o
O 00 a,
cn N 3 N
O E O N
0
�
2
2 2 4--
k � k
0 R c
m 2 \
E
�
\ k
- a) d
o R �
0 ƒ 2
4 R
c: $
/.
k L
M C k
CL) -0 -0
� k tto
2
§ R S 0
. 4 g
§ 3 k
S ƒ § 2
k 2 � �
r,j2 / o
3 0
o E o §
Ln
��_a
LA
#
# 0 2
M Ln' c
G / R
k § k
/
o ) ƒ
c
$ 4 a
§ ƒ
m °
CL / m
a a R Cu3 -0 E
0 R 2 m
§
\
[ f ƒ \
4-1
§ E a) /
f 1- 0
y o /
km /
m � R m
/ 2� /
m -0 §
/ ƒ .-0
�
a®4�/
/ % / c
W _C ° L
3 m 3 k
o
\ � k ƒ
0 ®
° —
/ k
tio ƒMa)
0®t#
co -C k
R-0 kf
k � CL
m
m m
- o m
cu E § / E
E
4 2 /
W R % m
3 f
E o
a)q 2
i a /
_ ®¥ 2
/ k -C $
EL § \
2 � 2
4 m
o \
} \ 14-
4 -k (U
d CL
ECccE
� M-0
k %
2 2 6 �
0-0 w
7 3 /
)8 2
E
ms/
0 2 2 ±
k
»§�
& m
2 0 § \
2 7 ® 0
a § y y
i CL2
m CL
E
f�
%
a-%
m
— s
0 0
U S
s m
H QJ
cui
O >
L m
N _a(L)
Y
L - O
L
o
� N �
s
w 0
S _
� Y O
C
CN +,
O C W
v O C
U � C
cc vi 4-
0 O
cu
bb M
; 0 N
aU 3
a� v
u j U
� L
0 O
4- O Vi
m ,� L
C >
N U m
o O s
M N
m a +,
M
WC O
v
> a�
N �
N O (7
3 t
d° + o
5 :3 a
o ° a)
— Cu
Ou 3
++ N
bD m
M N
O 4�
c `0
° o -�
M = c
s 0D
u `- O
t- N -0
° c v
L
v o o
ca E
v
o t
CL C
m
'L L
Y
O m O
O Y
s � �
a 'v
L m
LM O bo
O > O
N t u
Summarizing the reed canarygrass story: In 2009, we observed only four RCG clumps at
different spots down the entire Hoh River. We didn't have funding or permits to work on reed
canarygrass, and with a focus on knotweed and no experience in RCG, it didn't arise as an issue
until we found it fully established in beaver ponds and scattered down Elk Creek, a very
productive left bank spawning and rearing tributary. Finding RCG here, at a point when
knotweed was considerably under control, was deeply discouraging. Indeed, we owe thanks to
Dave King (retired-WDFW fisheries biologist), who insisted that we survey tributaries for
knotweed even though we were certain (and correct) that there was none to find.
Literature on the species and control methods provided the basis for a protocol specific to large
river systems. According to research, each stem can produce up to 600 seeds which remain
viable for up to four years. These float, blow, and are carried to new locations. The protocol
(available upon request) includes a new strategy the collection of seeds, which is, designed to
stop a new invasion. Observations in other rivers and streams on the Peninsula demonstrate
that RCG would fill the floodplain, side -channels, wetlands, and the margins of the entire river
overtime, eliminating off -channel habitats where velocity and turbidity is reduced in storm
events and food is abundant, and is an established limiting factor for rearing fish and
amphibians.
Since we began collecting seeds in 2012; and based on the reported seed viability, we predicted
RCG should be reduced in sites and numbers by 2015. A total of 317 RCG sites were mapped in
2014, which was two years after beginning to collect seeds. This year, 2015, was the third year
since starting seed collection. It seems to have worked - there were 193 sites this past season,
with an overall corresponding reduction in area. As we're continuing to collect all the seeds in
the river, the tributary, and along roads, we expect that RCG will again be reduced next
year. The riparian restoration project long term goals are complete eradication and to
eliminate re -introduction. We're working with all partners in the watershed, as well as to
educate community outside the watershed, to achieve these outcomes.
The take -away: The most important practice to the project's success in protecting these
vulnerable habitats has been early and persistent action including removing every seed.
Without early action on the invasive species over the past decade, this entire floodplain and
side channel would be dominated by knotweed, reed canarygrass, and Scotch broom. There
would be no high quality fish habitat, and the native riparian plant communities would be
disappearing, where the impacts to native fish, wildlife, insects, amphibians, and plants would
be long-term and much more costly to restore.
If you'd like to visit any of our worksites on the Hoh River, give a call or send an email.
Thank you! Jill Silver
10,000 Years Institute
360.301.4306
isilver@10000vearsinstitute.org
www.10000yearsinstitute.org