WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 5/15/08
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Notes
Community Center at Mercer View
May 15, 2008
Members Present
Don Davidson, Chair (Councilmember, Bellevue); Larry Phillips, Vice-Chair (Councilmember, King County); joan burlingame (Rock Creek Representative, Cedar River Council); Richard Conlin (Councilmember, Seattle); Bruce Dodds (Councilmember, Clyde Hill); Don Fiene (Councilmember, Lake Forest Park); Ted Frantz (Councilmember, Hunts Point); Ava Frisinger (Mayor, Issaquah); Jean Garber (Mayor, Newcastle); Don Gerend (Councilmember, Sammamish); Dave Gossett, (Councilmember, Snohomish County); Bill Knutsen (King Conservation District); Kirk Lakey (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife); Terry Lavender (Citizen); Sinang Lee (WA Department of Ecology); John Lombard (Sustainable Fisheries Foundation); John Marchione (Mayor, Redmond); Joan McBride (Deputy Mayor, Kirkland); Dave Orvis (Councilmember, Edmonds); Mike Todd (Councilmember, Mill Creek); Frank Urabeck (Citizen); Janet Way, (Councilmember, Shoreline).
Others Present
Chris Eggen (Councilmember, Shoreline); Diana Forman (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Waters); Roy George (Alderwood Water District); Jenny Giambattista (King County); Paul Hage (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe); Jim Halliday (Lake Forest Park Environmental Quality Commission); Penny Lewis (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Waters); Kathy Minsch (Seattle); Sarah Ogier (King County); Kit Paulsen (Bellevue); Kerry Ritland (Issaquah); Jessica Saavedra (King Conservation District); Mike Shaw (Mountlake Terrace); Jon Spangler (Redmond); Ron Straka (Renton); John Taylor (South Sound Action Area Representative, Puget Sound Partnership); Linda Grob (WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator); Mary Jorgenson (WRIA 8 Actions and Funding Coordinator); Sarah McCarthy (Interim WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator); Sarah Spilseth (WRIA 8 Team); Jean White (WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator);
Welcome New Members & Introductions
Dave Gossett called the meeting to order and introduced new member Mayor John Marchione, Redmond. Councilmember Gossett invited attendees to introduce themselves.
Public Comment
There was no public comment.
Approval of Meeting Notes for January 17 and March 20, 2008 Meetings
The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the January 17 and March 20, 2008 meeting notes.
Updates & Announcements
Jean White, Watershed Coordinator, provided the following updates on recent events and topics:
▫ The WRIA 8 Progress Report for 2006-2007 is finished, and additional copies are available for Salmon Recovery Council members to take to their councils. A press report will be forthcoming. Janet Way suggested that libraries should also receive copies.
▫ The next Salmon Recovery Council meeting is July 17, when the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grant recommendations will be presented. Jean explained that the July meeting was also planned to be the Legislative Agenda Workshop, but Dennis Canty, Evergreen Funding Associates, recommended it be delayed until the September 18 meeting because more information should be available then about the Puget Sound Partnership’s legislative priorities.
▫ Jean White attended a public meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers on April 8. She said the room was packed, and she spoke to them about the diffuser well issue at the Locks and about the need to implement the recommendations in the recent biological opinion for the Locks/Ship Canal. Also, the Corps is requiring jurisdictions to remove trees on the levees, or else they won’t be eligible for flood repair money. This is a big issue in WRIAs 7 and 9, but less of an issue in WRIA 8.
▫ The petition to list Kokanee salmon has been accepted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The petition is being reviewed, and we should hear a response in about a year.
▫ A letter from the Water Tenders regarding the proposed Chinook harvest in WRIA 8 is in the meeting packet. Kirk Lakey will be discussing the proposed harvest later as an agenda item.
▫ Approximately 100 hours of technical engineering assistance is available for WRIA 8 projects from the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This opportunity is part of the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration funding to help build capacity for capital projects in the watersheds. Look for an email in the future with more information.
▫ A synthesis of the Puget Sound topic papers should be coming out from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), and Salmon Recovery Program Director Joe Ryan said those are the papers to review. Jean White said there is still going to be a Puget Sound Symposium, which is being rescheduled. She then introduced John Taylor, the newly appointed liaison for the South Central Puget Sound Action Area. John Taylor reported he is a consultant spending ¾ of his time on PSP. He said tons of comments have been received so far on the topic papers. He explained that there are six action areas around the Puget Sound, and they are engaging in different ways, including scheduling action area-wide meetings. This action area is so organized and has so many players that he will communicate by coming to meetings like the Salmon Recovery Council’s to find out what is working and what isn’t. Another idea is to have a summit of WRIAs 8 and 9 in September which he is working with Jean and Doug Osterman on. John provided his email address: , and phone number: 206-652-9506.
2008 King Conservation District (KCD) Grant Recommendations
Mary Jorgensen, Actions and Funding Coordinator, reported that twelve grant requests for $1,393,826 were received for the available $1,171,300 in KCD funds. This year’s Project Subcommittee members are Councilmember Don Fiene (Lake Forest Park), Jonathan Frodge (King County, WRIA 8 Technical Committee), Rich Gustafson (former Councilmember, Shoreline), Sarah McCarthy (Interim Technical Coordinator), Kathy Minsch (Seattle), Kirk Prindle (Issaquah), and Brian Ward (Bellevue). On April 24th they visited the six site specific projects and talked with project sponsors. The next day, April 25, the Subcommittee heard presentation from the public outreach applicants, and later discussed their scores, ranking, and recommended fund allocations for the projects. Of the $1.2 million available, site specific projects were allocated $801,682 (69%), monitoring received $294,748 (25%), and public outreach programs were awarded $74,870 (6%).
Site Specific Recommendations:
# / Project / Sponsor / Request / Award1. / Lower Cedar River Acquisition / King County / $250,000 / $200,000
2. / Lower Bear Creek Restoration / Redmond / $227,000 / $220,000
3. / Squak Valley Park (Issaquah Creek) Restoration / Issaquah / $350,000 / $320,682
4. / Issaquah Creek Restoration at Lake Sammamish State Park / Mountains to Sound GreenwayTrust / $50,000 / $46,000
5. / Madrona Park Creek Daylighting and Restoration / Friends of Madrona Woods / $50,000 / $15,000
6. / Wolfe Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study / Heron Habitat Helpers / $50,000 / $0
Total / $801,682
Monitoring Recommendations (non competitive):
# / Project / Sponsor / Match / Award1. 1 / Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys / King County / $107,716 / $126,848
2. / Lower Bear Creek Restoration / Redmond / $61,000 / $167,900
Total / $294,748
Public Outreach Recommendations:
# / Project / Sponsor / Request / Award1. / Cedar River Salmon Journey / Friends of the Cedar R. / $48,117 / $25,380
2. / Salmon Watcher Program / King County / $31,278 / $28,150
3. / Beach Naturalist Program / Seattle Aquarium Society / $12,600 / $11,340
4. / Salmon-Safe Certification of Urban Landowners / NBIS / $50,000 / $10,000
Total / $74,870
Discussion:
▪ Janet Way asked if there was any leeway in considering funding for the Wolfe Creek project, which is downstream from the Locks. Don Fiene responded that after the Project Subcommittee reviewed the project proposal with the sponsors the Subcommittee had concerns that the funds would be used for engineering studies for pipe connections rather than directly daylighting the stream. Additionally, they were concerns about the benefits for salmon and the connection to the small beach area. He called it a good project because of the community involvement, but felt they needed to develop the proposal more in the lower section where it enters the Ship Canal.
▪ Richard Conlin commented that he respected the scientific judgment, and he was hopeful that at the next stage the Wolfe Creek sponsors will have a project we can fund.
▪ Ted Frantz noted that the Cedar River Acquisition project is short $50,000, and he asked if that was going to hinder the acquisition. Mary Jorgensen explained that the project has two other pending grant applications, a $1.2 million request into Conservation Futures, and $250,000 request for SRFB. Currently they do not have willing landowners identified so the SRFB grant will include a feasibility study to find those landowners who are interested in selling.
▪ Larry Phillips inquired if we have heard back from the governor in regards to our letter about the widening of SR520 and its impact on Lower Bear Creek (where the highway widening is taking place). John Marchione responded that Redmond did hear back. He said the Salmon Recovery Council letter was very helpful, and now the state understands the ecological concerns.
In separate votes the Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the 2008 King Conservation District site specific, and monitoring and public outreach grant recommendations.
Proposed Harvest Management for Issaquah Hatchery Chinook
Kirk Lakey reported that Issaquah Creek has an excessive amount of returns of hatchery stock: 23,000 when only 1,200 are needed for the hatchery production. We don’t want that many hatchery fish straying to the spawning grounds, and last year the surplus was 10,000 Chinook returning to the hatchery. The proposal is to have a fishery before they get to the Locks, north of the Locks, in Lake Washington, or at the mouth of Issaquah Creek, but Kirk noted that once the fish go through the Locks they are of no use to the fishery. Sport and/or noncommercial harvest could be implemented using large-holed nets which do not impact the unmarked fish. He said WDFW’s role is to get unmarked fish on the spawning ground. The ultimate decision-makers on the proposed fishery, and in any harvest, are NOAA Fisheries, and so far no decision has been made.
Discussion:
▪ Terry Lavender asked why they don’t produce fewer fish at the Issaquah Hatchery. Kirk Lakey replied that we either have to remove or produce fewer fish at the hatchery, and we also need to improve the habitat around it. Now we don’t get sufficient unmarked fish to meet the guidelines for the Issaquah Hatchery’s standards. We have too high flows and too small fish which can’t get above the ladder in Issaquah Creek.
▪ Don Davidson asked if there are techniques that are used to selectively harvest just the hatchery fish. Kirk Lakey explained that nets with longer holes can be use and tangle nets. Nets can be checked more frequently and unmarked fish are released. A sport fishery is also talked about.
▪ Frank Urabeck announced that another proposal is to have a selective sports fishery in Puget Sound downstream of the Locks, but not in Lake Washington for conservation reasons.
▪ Larry Phillips asked what happens to the excess number of returning hatchery fish. Kirk Lakey explained that some go to food banks, or sold for pet food. People in this area have an interesting opinion of putting dead fish in the watershed. They generally don’t want dead fish in their backyard, even in Issaquah Creek, and if we dump 5,000 dead fish into Thornton Creek they aren’t going to be happy.
▪ Janet Way said she could imagine a number of places in Thornton Creek where WDFW could put fish. Kirk Lakey replied that the department would welcome a request from a local group to do that.
▪ Jean White commented that this wasn’t a decision item on the agenda, but she asked if the Salmon Recovery Council wanted to weigh on the issue. She said she thought there is a role to say “Be careful to be selective with a fishery”. The salmon trying to get back up the Cedar River and Bear Creek are in this mix. Kirk Lakey reiterated that NOAA Fisheries will make the final decision.
▪ Don Fiene proposed that we continue to track this. Terry Lavender agreed, but also asked for any help we could have with educational materials.
▪ Don Davidson suggested if the Salmon Recovery Council does weigh in on a proposed harvest that the Technical Committee should review any harvest proposal and make recommendations to the Council to help write a balanced letter. Joan McBride agreed, and said they should come back to the Council with results of the discussion and create outreach materials for the public.
▪ Don Davidson asked about the deadline for NOAA Fisheries decision on the fishery. Frank Urabeck responded that they were supposed to make a decision on May 2, but it still hasn’t happened.
▪ Janet Way remarked that there has to be an amazing amount of confusion out there for the public on this. The news reports that salmon are endangered one day and then they hear we have an excess of fish and there should be a harvest. How this is communicated will be very important.
▪ Larry Phillips suggested at a minimum the Technical Committee should track this issue. It is a waste of resources to not use the extra fish or sell them. We have to get more information,