WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council s1

WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 1/21/10

WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council

Meeting Notes

Redmond Public Library

January 21, 2010

Members Present

Dr. Don Davidson, Chair (Mayor, Bellevue); Eileen Barber (Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery [FISH]); Joan Burlingame (May Creek Representative, Cedar River Council); Bruce Dodds (Councilmember, Clyde Hill); Chris Eggen (Councilmember, Shoreline); Don Fiene (Councilmember, Lake Forest Park); Brian Goodnight (Alternate, Snohomish County); Bill Knutsen (King Conservation District); Kirk Lakey (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife); Terry Lavender (Alternate, Citizen); Bart Masterson (Councilmember, Mill Creek); Mike O’Brien (Councilmember, Seattle); Larry Phillips (Councilmember, King County); Brian Reece (Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group [MSFEG]); Tris Samberg (Councilmember, Bothell); Carl Scandella (Councilmember, Yarrow Point); Gary Smith (Water Tenders); Laurie Sperry (Councilmember, Kenmore); Cleve Steward (Sustainable Fisheries Foundation); Frank Urabeck (Citizen).

Others Present

Marci Chew (Mill Creek); Danielle DeVoe (MSFEG); Jenny Gaus (Kirkland); Diana Forman (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Water); Sandy Kilroy (King County); Erika Kinno (King County); Keith MacDonald (Redmond); Mike Mactutis (Kent); Kathy Minsch (Seattle); Edward Mulhern (Renton); Sarah Ogier (King County); Jessica Saavedra (King Conservation District); unidentified person (Kenmore); Linda Grob (WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator); Mary Jorgensen (WRIA 8 Actions and Funding Coordinator); Erin Montgomery (WRIA 8 Project Assistant); Sarah Spilseth (WRIA 8 Project Assistant); Scott Stolnack (WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator); Jean White (WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator).

Introductions

Chair Dr. Don Davidson opened the meeting and introduced new members Bart Masterson, Councilmember, Mill Creek, and Mike O’Brien, Councilmember, Seattle. Dr. Davidson then invited all attendees to introduce themselves. Jean White introduced Sarah Spilseth, who is returning to the WRIA 8 Team after spending a year working as a contractor for NOAA-NMFS in California and acknowledged that it is Erin Montgomery’s last WRIA 8 meeting as her position ends Jan. 31st and thanked her for her work for WRIA 8.

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

Approval of Meeting Notes for November 19, 2009 Meeting

The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the meeting notes for the November 19, 2009 meeting.

Updates & Announcements

Jean White, Watershed Coordinator, provided the following updates on recent events and topics:

▫ Committee Updates: The Technical Committee is working very hard on an EPA grant due at the end of January to fund WRIA 8’s habitat monitoring and look at trends in hydrology. They have made good progress on H-Integration and are on Step 4.

▫ Streamside Landowners Workshop: Forty-seven people attended the workshop, which highlighted research and strategies for more successful outreach to streamside property owners. 70% of the participants rated the workshop as useful or extremely useful, particularly Snohomish County’s research and experience with workshops.

▫ Green Shorelines Steering Committee: The Steering Committee met on November 6 and is working on finalizing the workshop report and identifying next steps for implementing the workshop findings. We are planning to do spring mailings to lakeshore property owners in spring 2010 to promote the Green Shorelines guidebook.

▫ King Conservation District Board of Supervisors Elections: The elections are on March 16. Bill Knutsen announced that this year there will be more than one person contesting in the election and more polling places. People can vote at libraries in Seattle, Carnation, Auburn, Bellevue, Des Moines, Shoreline, and Vashon Island. He explained that anyone wanting to run must submit an application before the election to get on the ballot, even if they want to be a write-in. Bill also reported that KCD is working to repopulate its Advisory Committee, and he said people should contact him and he will provide an application for the committee. Sandy Kilroy, King County, is helping to work on the operating guidelines. Eileen Barber inquired about the criteria for Advisory Committee membership. Bill said he would like to see a lot of people involved, but the goal is to try and balance across the community and interest groups.

▫ New King County Code Regarding Approval of Habitat Projects in Agriculture Production Districts (APDs): Jean said that there is a new King County code that will make it harder to do large scale habitat projects in county APDs, though the impact for WRIA 8 (with just one APD on the Sammamish River) will be less than for the Snoqualmie and Green Rivers, which have much larger APDs. The code requires that aquatic habitat projects in APDs have to be on land either unsuitable for agriculture purposes, or provide a net gain to agricultural productivity in an APD. Examples of ways that habitat projects could provide a benefit to agriculture include: improved drainage, flood storage in APD, improved water availability, adding land to the APD. The code only applies where clearing and grading permits are involved. Weed removal and planting and on-site mitigation are exempted from the code. King County has proposed a procedure for how the code will be implemented in which a subcommittee with representatives from King County’s Departments of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) and Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) will make the final determination on whether or not proposed habitat projects meet the code. King County is seeking public comment by February 19 on the draft procedures developed by the two departments. Jean said 2010 will be a test year for the new code and procedures. Tris Samberg asked if landowners will still be required to have buffers on the Sammamish, or be able to farm right up to the river’s edge. Sandy Kilroy explained that the code does not change or modify any buffers under the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), but she said she understands that agriculture does have some modified buffers. In the Sammamish River Basin, where the trail parallels the river, the buffer between the trail and river will remain. The Sammamish River and APD are separated from one another by recreation.

▫ City of Kent Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): Mike Mactutis, Kent, reported that the city’s main water supply is Clark Springs along Rock Creek. Kent has been working on an HCP on that site, and is about to put it in the federal register. The HCP includes mitigation plans that are in the WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Plan. Mike said Kent will be sending out notice about the 60-day public comment period once it is published.

Progress Report on Habitat Projects

Mary Jorgensen, WRIA 8 Actions and Funding Coordinator, presented a broad overview of what has been accomplished with WRIA 8 funding since the ESA listing of Chinook salmon and how this relates to the habitat project progress within the surveyed period of 2008-2009. She distributed four maps showing project-related information: 1) Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) projects on a base map of priority conservation areas in the WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Plan; 2) 1998-2009 completed salmon habitat projects for all the WRIAs (7, 8 and 9) in King County; 3) WRIA 8 King Conservation District (KCD) projects 1999-2005; and WRIA 8 KCD projects 2006-2009. Since 1999, SRFB/PSAR and KCD grants have funded 127 projects, most projects are completed, and 30 projects are underway. Many of these projects were early action projects prior to approval of the July 2005 WRIA 8 Plan. The location of the projects on the maps shows that they align with the priority areas.

Mary explained that over the last eleven years these grants funds when combined with matching funds and other local projects and programs are estimated to have provided around $100 million or more toward salmon recovery. This estimate came from known grant amounts combined with previous identified funding levels in the WRIA 8 Plan Funding Strategy Summary Table (Volume I, Chapter 7, page 9). The Funding Strategy Summary Table shows a base level of $11.6M, and a preferred level of base + 50%, or $17.4 million as necessary for plan implementation. Some WRIA 8 Plan fund estimates are similar to those funds we have since received, some potential fund sources have not materialized, and some would take new analysis to determine current local spending for salmon related projects or programs. For these reasons the grant fund amounts are the most reliable to track. Of the $24.5M spent for grants (not counting match funds, which may be another non-WRIA 8 grant or local funds), $9.4 million went to the Cedar River, $2.2 million to migratory areas, $6.5 million to North Lake Washington, $3.4 million to Issaquah, $1.8 million to monitoring, $798,000 to stewardship/public outreach, and $495,000 to studies. Mary showed a bar chart example for grant funding with the Plan estimate bar at nearly $8 million but the 2009 grant bar was approximately $5.9 million.

Mary showed a Habitat Work Schedule (HWS) satellite image of the WRIA 8 watershed area within the Puget Sound with dot locations (latitude/longitude coordinates) of all our projects. She said over the next year Sarah Spilseth, Project Assistant, will be entering shape information into the HWS that will change these dot locations into area measurements that we can use for a more accurate portrayal of progress in the watershed at the 5-Year Summit meeting. These specific measurements, such as acres of restored floodplain or miles of restored and planted stream banks, will show progress through the GIS mapping and analysis of information in the Habitat Work Schedule.

A survey for progress in 2008-2009 was conducted of jurisdictional project sponsors. Of the 162 habitat projects in the WRIA 8 Start List (Volume I, Chapter 9), 58 are underway, ten are proposed for the near future, 36 are proposed for the long term, four will not be implemented, and ten are complete. Forty-four other projects have no data, which can mean the project sponsor does not have data or is unclear about that specific project. Completed Start List projects are for the Cedar population: Cedar River Rainbow Bend Acquisition (C236A), Jones Reach Protection (C228a – Seattle parcels) and Alaska/Adam Street (C281); for migratory areas: Salmon Bay Natural Area (M247); and for the Sammamish population: Expand Twin Creeks (N377), Cottage Lake Creek Forest Cover Protection (N277), Sammamish River Reach 3 Restoration (N343), Anderson Property Acquisition (I215/I285), and Squak Valley Park Acquisition (I226a, part of the Squak Valley Park Restoration project). Other WRIA 8 projects that have been completed include numerous planting projects, protection of additional parcels along Issaquah Creek and East Fork Issaquah Creek that compliment other acquisitions, and a new shoreline restoration project on Mercer Island. The project survey also indicated that there are many projects underway or ready to start once funded. Next steps are: 1) the August Field Trip that will be a key opportunity to talk to legislators about the Puget Sound Partnership 2011-13 biennial request for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) funds, and 2) the 5-year Summit with measurements of progress through the Habitat Work Schedule.

Discussion:

▪ Frank Urabeck asked if the $24.5M amount includes funds from the Army Corps of Engineers at the Locks. Mary Jorgensen replied that some of the funds, such as for the smolt slides project, is included. Frank inquired if Seattle’s enhancement at Landsburg is included, and Mary said it is not because it is part of SPU’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Cleve Steward commented that many of Seattle’s projects are not included if they are under HCP funding.

▪ Carl Scandella asked if these projects are measuring effects on salmon in addition to looking pretty. Mary explained that several projects include effectiveness monitoring, such as Salmon Bay Natural Area or Cedar Rapids. When information from the completed projects, such as acreage or stream miles, is combined with project effectiveness we will have a more complete picture. This next step is underway with Scott Stolnack, Technical Coordinator, and the Technical Committee determining which projects have effectiveness monitoring elements in place and then analyzing the data from the monitoring. This type of information will be presented at the 5-Year Summit.

▪ Don Fiene asked if the Habitat Work Schedule (HWS) website is live yet. Mary said it is, and most of the SRC, except the new members, have passwords but are not using the HWS. Chris Eggen inquired if a reminder could go out to members about the passwords. Mary replied that we will work to get everyone signed up and understanding the HWS.

▪ Larry Phillips thanked Mary for pulling the progress report together. He said it demonstrates that we set out to do what we said in the plan.

Chinook Harvest Management Plan

Jean White reminded the SRC that after hearing a presentation at their October meeting on the proposed Chinook Harvest Management Plan (HMP) they decided to comment on the draft plan and formed a subcommittee to review the plan at their November meeting. Members of the sub-committee are Frank Urabeck, Cleve Steward, Terry Lavender, Scott Stolnack and Hans Berge, Senior Ecologist at King County. The HMP process consists of the co-managers submitting a plan to NOAA, and NOAA judging whether or not the plan will hinder recovery of Chinook. There must be an approved HMP in place to have a fishery, and the current HMP expires in spring 2010. The proposed HMP is not much different from the current HMP even though there is a lot of new information about our Chinook populations – for example now all hatchery fish are marked (their adipose fins are removed) so hatchery fish can be differentiated from wild fish. The harvest issue is a negotiation between the tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as co-managers, and the public does not have a way to participate or comment.

Jean explained that the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, of which our WRIA 8 Plan is a chapter, says you need to have integration of the “H”s (habitat, harvest, hatchery recovery actions). We have been meeting with the co-managers on H-Integration for 3 years and the process has been going well. In WRIA 8 we have made a big investment fish in/fish out monitoring which we do in partnership with the co-managers and want to be sure that this information is used. The HMP is pretty technical in parts with technical jargon with nuanced meanings. I suspect we will hear that we have misinterpreted some things in the plan. There are also areas of honest disagreement among the scientists, which is okay. Our big picture goal is to slow down the HMP train, point out areas in the HMP where we have concerns, and not have harvest changes for the Lake Washington Watershed that will be in place for five years. She said we are trying to open a dialog with NOAA and the co-managers, and Kirk Lakey has been helping us in understanding the process