Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council

Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council

May 23, 2013 | 10:00 – 3:00 | Edmonds City Hall

DRAFT Meeting Summary

Meeting Attendees

Recovery Council Members and Alternates
Members & Alternates / Representing / Members & Alternates / Representing
Alison Agness / NOAA / Ken Currens / RITT
Allen Rozema / Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland / Lisa Chang / EPA
Allison Butcher / Master Builders’ Association / Margaret Clancy / Washington Environmental Council
Bill Blake / Stillaguamish Watershed / Mike Shelby / Western Washington Agriculture
Cecilia Gobin / Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission / Paul McCollum / Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Chris Ellings / Nisqually Watershed / Rich Parkin / EPA
Cindy Wilson / South Sound Watershed / Rob Purser / Suquamish Tribe
Dave Herrera / Skokomish Tribe / Scott Powell / Snohomish Watershed
David Troutt / Nisqually Tribe / Stephanie Martin / Makah Tribe
Dawn Pucci / Island Watershed / Thom Johnson / Point No Point Treaty Council
Doug Osterman / Green/Duwamish & Central Puget Sound Watershed / Tim Walls / Snohomish Watershed
Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz / Lake Washington/ Cedar/Sammamish Watershed / Tom Kantz / Puyallup-White Watershed
Joan McGilton / Green/Duwamish & Central Puget Sound Watershed / Tom Ostrom / Suquamish Tribe
Kathy Peters / West Sound Watersheds

Observers and Guests

Guests / Representing
Bruce Jones / NWIFC
Michael Schmidt / Long Live the Kings
Tyson Wade / NWIFC

Staff

Staff / Affiliation / Staff / Affiliation
Jeanette Dorner / PSP / Stacy Vynne / PSP
Kristen Cooley / PSP / Stephanie Suter / PSP
Laura Blackmore / Blackmore Consulting / Tristan Peter-Contesse / PSP
Scott Williamson / PSP

Opening

David Troutt called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone, and asked them to introduce themselves.

Review Meeting Summary

Joan McGilton moved to approve the March 28, 2013 Meeting Summary as written, which was seconded by Bill Blake. The Recovery Council approved the motion unanimously.

Chairman’s Report and Updates

Mike Shelby announced he was retiring, and was then commended by David Troutt for his service. Mike Shelby acknowledged the value of a collaborative process, and noted that farmland can be protected via different initiatives to meet the needs of all stakeholders. Farm, Fish, Flood was mentioned as an example: the project protected the agricultural footprint while minimizing flooding and protecting fish.

Updates: Private Investment

David Troutt presented his thoughts on the utilization of private funding for salmon recovery. David acknowledged that the federal budget was tight, and the PCSRF was shrinking, which means less available funds for projects. Partnerships with private foundations and corporations were mentioned as a possible goal for next year. The SFRB is set up in Washington to incorporate private donations. The program needs more centralized, meaningful support from NGOs as well.

Dave Herrera mentioned a need for more public awareness of the benefits of the PSSRC projects. Dave cited the reduced flooding hazard from the Skokomish project involving the removal of bottlenecks for salmon and water as an example.

Culvert Case

In 1992 Washington tribes filed a case against the state involving culverts that were blocking fish habitat. Certain orders created timeframes for different agencies to remove or amend the culverts. Local tribes are advocating that the case not divert funds from salmon recovery projects.

The order from the 9th Circuit Court is currently subject to appeal, which is being considered by the State. Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz stated that WRIA 8 supports the verdict in the Culvert Case, and that there was interest in working with state agencies to prioritize culvert projects.

Mike Shelby provided an anecdote regarding a project last year in Skagit County in which a culvert was to be replaced, but the project had to stop because the salmon were putting redds down. They were able to wait for the egg sacks to mature enough to withstand the project.

Laura Blackmore proposed writing a letter to the Attorney General’s Office in support of the current order, but finding a signatory proved difficult. The Washington Environmental Council may send a letter.

PSNERP Letter of Support

David Troutt reported that on behalf of the Recovery Council, he sent a letter of support to the Corps for PSNERP, which received a brief response. WDFW is working with the Corps to move this project forward. David also noted that after years of serving as PSNERP Project Manager, Curtis Tanner is moving back to the USFWS.

State Budget

David Troutt stated that it appears that the Washington State Legislature will fund PSAR at a minimum of $60M, but the total funding level is uncertain as well as when the final decision will be made. Joan McGilton stated that Burien has been watching the Seahurst project closely. PSAR funding looks good, but Joan was cautious about the ESRP losing funding, and mentioned that the SRFB is now asking to review the project again. David Troutt will follow up on this. Michael Grayum can provide information to Recovery Council members who wish to continue talking with their legislators about the importance of PSAR.

Results of Steelhead Projects

Last year, the Recovery Council used $250K in SRFB dollars to fund 4 steelhead projects:

o  A finer application of the Intrinsic Potential Model by NWIFC

o  The LLTK Marine Survival Study

o  A pilot watershed chapter development in the Nisqually Watershed

o  A pilot watershed chapter development in Hood Canal

Tyson Waldo of NWIFC presented a PowerPoint on Mapping Puget Sound Steelhead Threshold Intrinsic Potential (IP) Habitat Using High Resolution National Hydrographic Data. NWIFC also reviewed rearing potential as an appendix to the report.

Project Information:

The model was based on a previous model of the Oregon Coast, and NOAA made it clear that this would have to be amended to fit Puget Sound. Intrinsic potential was too coarse for decision making at that level, and the spatial data would need to be localized. For example, at the 100k scale, there are no opportunities to select some side channels, etc. The January 2013 Puget Sound Steelhead DPS boundaries were used as the analysis area. Increased agency usage of the National Hydrographic Dataset (USGS 2012) has prompted a shift towards that database across the board.

NWIFC utilized a gradient filter to identify reaches with steelhead potential. They did not use a width, as these are difficult to incorporate into a GIS, but instead grouped small streams together. Confinement and flow were left out, as they are also difficult to incorporate. Potential steelhead areas were analyzed downstream of certain gradients and widths, as well as certain lake and tidal zone habitats. The lake and tidal zones probably do not include steelhead rearing.

Project Utilization:

This type of GIS screening aids conversations about decision-making for steelhead recovery. A web viewer for the public is currently being created for public communication. A critical habitat overlay will be available. This project is currently in Beta; errors are being resolved.

An interactive map tool for lead entities to “draw on” is available for this group to use. NWIFC is available for webinar or in-person trainings on the use of the model.

Salish Sea Marine Survival Project

Long Live the Kings (LLTK) partnered with the Pacific Salmon Foundation, a Canadian non-profit, for this cross-boundary project. The Pacific Salmon Foundation began work on marine survival of all salmon species in 2009 as a result of a private donation. The LLTK project created a U.S. technical team to “catch up” with the Canadians, and to start the preliminary research. The focus quickly turned to the marine environment as a primary constraint to steelhead.

Michael Schmidt of Long live the Kings presented evidence that early marine survival is linked to overall survival, and acknowledged that most mortality seems to occur before the Strait. He stated that the relationship in the Salish Sea is complex, which calls for an ecosystem-based approach with multiple disciplines involved. LLTK hosted a three-day workshop in November 2012 at which nearly 100 scientists evaluated hypotheses, and an advisory panel developed recommendations for future research. Michael’s presentation presented a timeline and organizational structure for the project, as well as the recommendations for a joint US-Canada approach to research to identify the causes of poor marine survival of steelhead and other salmon species.

LLTK produced a workshop report detailing these research recommendations, as well as the results of a two-day ecosystem indicators workshop that NOAA hosted. The report is available on the LLTK website and was emailed out to the Recovery Council.

LLTK and its partners currently are working to raise funds for the research phase, which needs $10M overall. They have identified $1.5M for the first year. Michael is working on several grant applications to fund the research, including a SRFB grant in the San Juan Watershed. Chris Ellings will be in charge of bringing the several grants in play to the Recovery Council for support, as well as updating the Council on the status of the projects.

RITT Update

Ken Currens, RITT Vice-Chair, provided the RITT update. He announced that Eric Beamer, who played a crucial role in the RITT, is stepping down from the RITT. Thanks to his work, nearshore and nearshore habitat are in the Salmon Recovery plan.

Ken reported that there is a need to replace the “technical horsepower” on the RITT, as well as a need to be prepared to support steelhead recovery planning.

Adaptive Management & Monitoring

Jeanette Dorner provided an update on the project, mentioning the two workshops in April-May for core teams with PSP and LLTK. These included a rapid conceptualization process to see how watersheds will translate their recovery plans into the Common Framework by June 2014. There was good participation and positive feedback from the workshops, and the “wall of agitation” captured valuable feedback.

As part of the project, the LLTK Team has created a Toolkit document to provide guidance to watersheds for using the Common Framework. The Toolkit draft has been sent out for review. Watersheds are currently developing work plans for their areas. Work on the translations will launch fully in June.

Questions/Discussion:

o  Doug Osterman stated that is was hard to understand what this project will involve in terms of hours. He mentioned that it makes it difficult to prioritize other work.

o  Joan McGilton stated that this would be a difficult project with reduced staff and no additional support. She worried about the ability to create the quality of product that is needed.

o  Jeanette Dorner recognized that this project will require a large investment. She stated that the $40K grant per watershed and extra PSP staff time will help to offset the difficulties.

o  It was additionally stated that it was inspiring to see other M & AM efforts at the SFRB meeting, which provided an example of where Puget Sound could be in a couple of years.

Monitoring & Adaptive Management (M&AM) Subcommittee

David Troutt stated that there was a need to revitalize the Recovery Council’s Monitoring and Adaptive Management Subcommittee, referencing the proposal in the packets. The development of the subcommittee was authorized at the November meeting, and its first task should be to develop its charge. The Executive Committee believes the subcommittee should be a policy body, rather than a technical one, in order to address current issues. The following are the recommendations for the subcommittee:

o  The M&AM Subcommittee should be an expanded version of the Executive Committee and meet directly after the EC meetings.

o  We should add more watershed and Tribal representatives to the subcommittee to ensure we capture and address the full breadth of policy issues.

o  We recommend adding Scott Powell, Tom Ostrom, and Cecilia Gobin to the subcommittee.

o  The Charge is to work with the contract team and PSP to identify and help resolve policy issues and questions that arise over the course of the project.

o  Dr. Davidson should be involved as a trusted voice representing implementers.

Joan McGilton made a motion, which was seconded by Margaret Clancy, to approve the Executive Committee’s proposal to revitalize the M&AM Subcommittee. Other Recovery Council members are welcome to participate in the subcommittee.

Subcommittee Updates

Regulatory Subcommittee

Dave Herrera stated that at the March Recovery Council meeting, the Recovery Council authorized the formation of the Regulatory Subcommittee and adopted a charge for it. A major focus of that charge is to identify regulatory mechanisms that adversely affect salmon recovery, and identify ways to improve those mechanisms. Since then, staff have been developing a scope of work for the research to fulfill this charge. The Regulatory Subcommittee met Monday, May 13, to discuss the scope of work – their input is included in the version that Laura Blackmore sent out with the packet. Dave proposed the following outcomes for the regulatory research in an attempt to tighten up the approach:

o  Clear and factual identification of the regulatory mechanisms that impede or adversely affect salmon recovery, their effects on habitats and issues of concern, and why they exist.

o  Ability to present this information by habitat type or issue.

o  Recommendation of a subset of regulatory mechanisms to focus on changing in the short and long term.

Questions/Discussion:

o  Ken Currens noted that the Strategic Science Plan includes an institutional analysis that is consistent with this plan.

o  Doug Osterman wanted to ensure that staff start with existing matrices from Urban Land Institute, local jurisdictions, etc. He acknowledged that additional literature review and research were needed.

o  Joan McGilton asked for an analysis based on the matrix to evaluate where the Recovery Council should focus its efforts.

o  Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz mentioned that the Department of Commerce might be doing a complementary approach, and may even be providing funding for some regulatory gaps or conflicts work.

o  Allison Butcher stated that the scope of work is too broad and is concerned that if we take everything on we will not be able to get anything done.

o  Bill Blake recommended starting with why the regulation or policy is a problem and drilling down past political will to why people don’t follow regulations, to uncover the social aspects.