Wria 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum

Wria 9 Watershed Ecosystem Forum

WRIA 9 WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM FORUM

DRAFT SUMMARY

November 10, 2010

5:00– 7:30 p.m.

TukwilaCommunity Center

ATTENDEES

Name / Affiliation
Watershed Ecosystem Forum:
Councilmember Bill Peloza, Co-Chair / City of Auburn
Councilmember Marlla Mhoon, Co-Chair / City of Covington
Brooke Alford / Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance
Al Barrie / Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (MSFEG) /Trout Unlimited
Chris Coffin / WA Department of Ecology
County Executive Dow Constantine / King County
Jay Covington / City of Renton
Scott Jones / City of Algona
Charles Keller / The Boeing Company
Bill Knutsen / King Conservation District (KCD)
Kirk Lakey / WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Mike Mactutis / City of Kent
Councilmember Shawn McEvoy / City of NormandyPark
Mayor Joan McGilton / City of Burien
Paul Meyer / Port of Seattle
Susan Saffery / City of Seattle
Gordon Thomson / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Greg Volkhardt / Tacoma Public Utilities
Councilmember Erin Weaver / City of MapleValley
Alternates:
Noel Gilbrough / MSFEG
Sandy Kilroy / King County
Ron Straka / City of Renton
Other Attendees:
Bill Brosseau / EarthCorps
John Erickson / GHD
Kollin Higgins / KingCounty
Matt Knox / City of Kent
Josh Latterell / KingCounty
Katherine Lynch / City of Seattle
Kathy Minsch / City of Seattle
Jennifer Shih / City of Auburn
Olton Swanson / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tom Van Gelder / Washington Council of Trout Unlimited
Karen Bergeron / WRIA 9 Habitat Project Coordinator
Dennis Clark / WRIA 9 Outreach and Stewardship Coordinator
Linda Grob / WRIA 9 Administrative Coordinator
Doug Osterman / WRIA 9 Watershed Coordinator

I. Welcome and Introductions

Co-chair Bill Peloza opened the meeting and invited attendees to introduce themselves.

II. Public Comment

Bill Knutsenreported that at last night’s annual King Conservation District (KCD) meeting announcements were made recognizing conservation achievements of the past year. Two of the recipients were in WRIA 9: The City of Kent for its commitment to working with youth to do projects, and Bill Peloza and the City of Auburn for their new farmers market.

Al Barrie commented that he was concerned about the proposed expansion of Seattle International Raceway (SIR), which will imperilSoos Creek and cut down on natural spawning. He said he thought we needed to stay on top of what’s going on with SIR, and go on record and ask them to be mindful of fish issues. Bill Peloza suggested that a group could form a coalition and put their concerns in writing to the Forum. Al explained that there are two issues with the expansion: noise, and the potential siltation of Soos Creek, which is where the Forum should be involved. Noise affects the neighbors, but they are not necessarily interested in the siltation issue. Councilmember Peloza responded that he hasn’t seen anything about the issue yet, except just some emails going around. City councils can’t do anything until we have something in writing before us. Doug Osterman reported that County Executive Constantine’s staff proposed that it would be effective to write the CountyCouncilmembersrepresenting the SIR area with your concerns.

Dow Constantine announced that KingCounty has signed a purchase agreement for the MauryIsland gravel site, protecting250 acres and a mile of shoreline. He said the agreement was thirteen years in the making, and when it is completed it will be the largest protection of native shoreline. Funding for the site will come from ASARCO settlement funds, King County Conservation Futures, and the Cascade Land Conservancy.

III. Approval of Meeting Summary

The Watershed Ecosystem Forum unanimously approved the meeting summary for the August 12, 2010meeting.

IV. King Conservation District 2011 Project Allocations

Karen Bergeron, Habitat Project Coordinator, reported that the KCD revenues for grant funding projects and programs for 2011 are $1.2 million. The revenues are proposed for allocation to the following funding categories (amount in parentheses):

  • Small Grant ($75,000): Projects consistent with the Habitat Plan which are important to do now and have community support.
  • Shared Endeavor with KCD ($75,000): Partnering with KCD to do nearshore workshops on private land, intended to show private landowners how to move armoring.
  • High Priority Habitat Project Implementation ($470,000): $100,000 to the Olympic Sculpture Park monitoring,which will be a model project; the remainder would be local match for priority salmon habitat projects, such as providing the 15% match required for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) projects.
  • Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) Project Match ($275,000): For Big Spring Creek construction, the one 2011 ERP project not fully funded.
  • Education and Outreach Implementation ($98,000): $30,000 to the EnvironmentalScienceCenter to extend its programs to other jurisdictions; $50,000 to do stewardship projects and support implementation (typically revegetation projects);$18,000 to the Seattle Aquarium Beach Naturalist Program.
  • Funding Coordination ($198,000): $58,000 to fund KCD Grant Administration; $140,000 to fund WRIA 9 Capital Projects Implementation(Karen Bergeron’s salary).
  • Reserve ($7,000): For contingencies.

The Watershed Ecosystem Forum unanimously approved the King Conservation District 2011 Project Allocations.

V. Convene as ERP Executive Committee: Ecosystem Restoration Project 2011 Project Funding Priorities

Olton Swanson, Army Corps of Engineers, said we appreciate all the WRIA 9 support over the last ten years for the Yellow Bus Tour, North Wind’s Weir, and other projects. He mentioned there will be a lot of construction going on next year at RiverviewPark and Big Spring Creek.

Gordon Thomson went over theestimated ERP budget for 2011, which has a $2 million carryover from 2010 and $5.5 million in the president’s budget for a total amount of $7.5 million. This amount is proposed for allocation to the following projects (location, amount in parentheses):

  • Riverview Park Construction (Kent, $5 million): Includes local match of $2,692, 308 for a total amount of $7,692,308.
  • Site 1 – North Wind’s Weir (Tukwila, $20,000): Includes local match of $10,769 for a total amount of $30,769.
  • Big Spring Creek Design (King County/Enumclaw Plateau, $480,000): Includes local match of $258, 462 for a total amount of $738,462.
  • Big Spring Creek Construction ($2 million): Includes local match of $1,076,923 for a total amount of $3,076,923.

Gordon went over the Green-Duwamish ERP five year plan list, which he called a workingdocument. The amounts beyond 2011 are best estimates. Besides Riverview Park, North Wind’s Weir and Big Spring Creek, projects that have been on the list for some time are Mill Creek, Lake Meridian Outlet, Lower Russell River Road, Upper Springbrook and Porter/Lones Levee Setback. A new project on the list that is working into the Corps schedule is Boeing Levee Setback. He said the ERP Project Management Committee puts the five year list together before offering up projects that end up on the list approved by the WRIA 9 Forum.

Al Barrie asked if there is any money in the future for resumption of the fish passage above Howard Hanson Dam. Noel Gilbrough said that project is still several years off, and is a different project than ERP.

The ERP Executive Committee unanimously approved the Ecosystem Restoration Program 2011 Project Funding Priorities.

VI. Reconvene as Forum: Funding Mechanisms

Doug Osterman, Watershed Coordinator, reported that we have begun working with the other WRIAs on a dedicated funding source, a watershed investment district (WID). At the first cross-WRIA funding mechanisms meeting in Kirkland in October, there was a significant amount of interest expressed from WRIAs 8, 7 and the Snoqualmie Watershed in the WID idea. He said we also talked to the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) and met with Martha Kongsaard, chair of the Leadership Council, which led to PSP staff coming to the cross-WRIA meeting, and we will also soon brief WRIA 10 folks in PierceCounty.

Three specific working groups were formed at the October meeting:

  • Work Group #1 will work on developing criteria for evaluating funding sources.
  • Work Group #2 will work on developing a game plan once we come up with something.
  • Work Group #3 will work on evaluating current legislation and legislation that comes up in this legislative session.

Doug asked Forum members to let his know if they are interested in being on a working group. Marlla Mhoon suggested sending out electronically to the Forum the list of working groups.

Dow Constantine reported that while he was at the Ecosystem Coordinating Group meeting two weeks ago he spent time trying to get other WRIAs interested in funding mechanisms. He said we need to be united with our message. Martha Kongsgaard is very interested in moving forward on a funding mechanism, and the governor is also interested. Local funding is probably the only kind of funding possible for implementing the Habitat Plan.

VII. Adaptive Management Report and Monitoring Plan Development

Kathy Minsch, Seattle, introduced the presentation, and briefly went over what theImplementation Technical Committee (ITC) has been working onin 2010. She said she will be sending out a survey on programs (as compared to projects) to send out to jurisdictions in order to assess progress.

Katherine Lynch, Seattle, said that the ITC presented its approach to the WRIA 9 Adaptive Management Plan at the August Ecosystem Forum meeting. It was to distill the existing body of complex information into more manageable pieces that could be used to help develop strategies for meeting watershed performance goals (Chinook population targets, habitat benchmarks, etc.). Adaptive management consists of three components: testing (evaluating T1 hypotheses, and status and trends), adapting (revising strategies, priorities, designs), and learning (reallocating funds, adjusting programs, modifying regulations). She said today’s presentationwould focuson the results of the ITC’s status and trendsanyalyses, of the Green/Duwamish River Chinook population, and ofthe primary factors of decline , specifically those relatingto riparian conditions, natural flows, and to shoreline/bank armoring. The results of the status and trends analyses will be summarized in the ITC’s Monitoring Report, which in turn, is intended to provide the basis for the WRIA 9 Adaptive Management Plan.

Josh Latterell, King County, reported on the status of the Chinook population, explaining that escapement is adult spawners, production is juvenile migrants, and survival is egg to migrant. The co-manager escapement goal for the Green River is 5,800 adult spawning Chinook fish per year. He reported that we are exceeding that on average. The Green annually produces 100,000 to 700,000Chinook migrants from 1,500 to 4,000 redds. For comparison, the natural-origin (NOR) Chinook survival rate is around 10% on the Skagit, and 2% to 6% on the Green. Josh noted that 2006 was a bad year for survival because it was a flood year. There is a tight relationship between juvenile production and streamflow, and Josh said we should dig into it a little more.

Katherine Lynch initiated the presentation on the factors of decline, with a reference to the Tier 1 Hypothesis 2, which states that protecting and improving riparian conditions by adding native vegetation will enhance habitat quality by improving water quality, stabilizing streambanks, providing overhanging vegetation and large woody debris (LWD), etc. She went over the riparian conditions in Newaukum and Soos Creeks, which are the two main tributaries to the Green/Duwamish Rivers. Newaukum produces 16% of naturally spawning Green/Duwamish Chinook. Stream temperature is critically important to aquatic organisms, and shade and flow discharge are important factors for influencing stream temperature.

Katherine characterized riparian conditions along Newaukum and Soos creeks using high resolution aerial photo classification in GIS, to represent tree canopy cover as a single line along the channel. AlthoughSoos Creek sub-basin is about two times the areaof Newaukum,the amount of channel length is very similar in both creeks: 113 miles in Newaukum, 123 miles in Soos. This is largely due to an extensive network of agriculture ditches in the Newaukum sub-basin. The network of agricultural ditches also contributes to a high level (60%) of stream channel without tree canopy cover in Newaukum, compared to about 18% in the Soos Creek channel. Soos Creek has a higher percentage of stream channel length with tree canopy cover on both banks (50%) than Newaukum (25%)

Katherine compared changes in riparian conditions along Newaukum and Soos creeks from 2005-2009, and found a slight downward trajectory (~1%)of riparian tree canopy coveralong both NewaukumandSoosstream channels (sub-basin averages). This occurred despite areas of replanting in both creeks (~8600 ft of stream channel in Newukum and ~400 ft in Soos). At the current rate of replanting, it would take many years to see improvement in either creek. Water temperature does appear to be a concern for salmon spawning and incubation in both creeks (based on the multiple times the highest 7-Average Daily Temperature (7-DADMax) exceeded 13° C, Ecology’s annual maximum temperature criteria at the initiation of spawning and fry emergence for salmon and trout, for WY2005 through WY 2009).

Josh Latterell went over riparian conditions in the Middle Green, which has critical spawning and rearing areas, and is a source of wood, prey, and gravels. The method used to evaluate the Middle Green was photo classification in GIS. Today 59% of the Middle Green is forested, and of that forest, 64% is under public ownership, 62% is agriculture land, and 41% is unforested private land. Josh noted that between 2005 and 2009 there was a loss of forest to natural process and clearing, with 36 acres in restoration gains, 30.4 acres lost to the river, and 3.7 acres cleared. He said there was a lot of erosion from flooding, but called it a positive sign because we get wood recruitment, with around 60 large logs entering the river per year due to natural processes. Key findings indicate that between 2005 and 2009 there has been very little human clearing in the channel migration zone, with most changes natural, and a replanting rate that is 12 times faster than the loss. Josh said we need to set a target for reforestation, which wasn’t done in Habitat Plan, and resolve competing uses. 100% forest cover will require an additional 767 acres of planting, and 65% forest cover will require an additional 111 acres, but planting rates are too slow to meet either target by 2015. At this rate it will take 93 years to reach 100% forested, and 13 years to reach 65%.

Kollin Higgins, King County, gave some of the reasons why we care about marine riparian vegetation:it increases food availability, improves predator refuge, enhances migration corridor, enhances rearing area, etc. The methodology used to evaluate marine riparian vegetation wasbased off of data that was collected using photo interpretation of 2002 aerial and 2000 oblique photos, with somefield checking.2009 data was created using photo interpretation of 2009 aerial and 2006 oblique photos, with no field checking.Vegetation was broken into four categories: None (cities), Grass (generally residential), Shrubs (areas that had slides and were naturally revegetated), and Trees (forest and low density residential). He said he compared 2002 and 2009, looking at the 200 foot buffer area off the shoreline. For the 2002 evaluation the tree category was further broken downinto trees separated from the shoreline, and trees adjacent tothe shoreline. The comparison between years focused on the following categories: trees separated from the shoreline, dense trees adjacent to the shoreline, and patchy trees adjacent (not overhanging).

Kollin went over the 2002-2009 results, with red indicating a loss or degradation from 2002 conditions, green is an increase or improvement from 2002 conditions, and grey is no change. Most of the green areas are on Vashon Island, which is where there was an increase in patchy trees. Dense trees have been reduced in places on Vashon and inFederal Way, and the improvements in Normandy Park are due to landslides revegetating. He said we’ve done very little replanting in marine environment, so most of the positive changes are due to natural growth. Losses are mostly due to people (92%), with 8% due to natural landslides. People-caused losses include new houses, new roads, and clearing vegetation around existing houses. He reported that the trajectory around the marine shoreline is downward over next the next five years, and we don’t expect much improvement due to restoration work.

Kollin provided the riparian wrap-up, concluding that we are making progress in some places (Middle Green) while not in others (Soos Creek), and even where we are making progress, it is slow going. While the causes for most of the losses are understood it is unclear why losses occurred. Regulations can’t adequately protect the extent of riparian areas, and the big message is, we’ve made some progress, but there are areas we need to keep working on.

Discussion:

  • Jay Covington asked what the setback is when stream banks are restored. Katherine Lynch responded that we didn’t distinguish that, just if trees were planted.
  • Al Barrie inquired if monitoring was done above and below Big Spring Creek. Katherine Lynch said it was, with gauges above and below the creek.
  • Noel Gilbraugh noted that Newaukum has 16% of the spawners in the watershed, and he inquired how much Soos Creek has. Josh Latterell explained Soos was not surveyed every year, so we do not have the numbers.
  • Jay Covington questioned how much of the natural processes in the Middle Green occurred on public land. We allow public land to be reforested, whereas private land won’t be.
  • Jay Covington asked to what extent the purchase of the Maury Island property might affect marine shorelines. Kollin Higgins replied not thatmuch in the short term. Only about 1,000 feet of the property’s shoreline has trees, and there is a lot of Scotch Broom and thesoil is not the best for planting new treese.
  • Kirk Lakey asked if we have any information relating to marine riparian areas and what percentage is armored versus unarmored. Kollin Higgins explained that in general where you have armoring there are no trees. Josh Latterell added that on the Middle Green, the majority of training levees are flanked on either side by basically agriculture land and no vegetation. In some places there is vegetation behind levees that are used for floods.
  • Kirk Lakey asked how much of our good riparian areas are at risk to the Corps levee vegetation policy. Noel Gilbrough responded that 25-30 miles are affected by the policy.
  • Greg Volkhardt asked if we have Chinook survival numbers onSoos Creek down to ElliottBay. Josh Latterell explained that a pending report was trying to estimate data on the lower river, but it was done before the Habitat Plan done. He said hasn’t yetseen the latest data from North Wind’s Weir. Noel Gilbrough remarked that there is lots of wood in the river on the Skagit, but on the Green wood goes into the river at Auburn and shoots straight down the river to mouth.
  • Susan Saffery inquired if all this work has helped staff identify what we can do, or where we need to do further study. Kollin Higgins said both. We haven’t really tracked vegetation before, and if we are really serious about knowing this we will have to spend some of our limited pots of money on it.
  • Susan Saffery asked if this work helps focus areas where we want to focus dollars. Karen Bergeron said it does help us figure out where to focus projects. Josh Latterell explained that this information is like a census of the watershed. Kathy Minsch added that we probably need more funding for project effectiveness monitoring, and funding to figure out where we want to put in more vegetation.
  • Doug Osterman commented thatthere are nuggets from this work for jurisdictions to use when doing their shoreline master programs. It could help focus on putting in more vegetation and not more armoring on the shoreline. Kollin Higgins responded that we haven’t dug in enough to figure that all out.
  • Jay Covington mentioned that people buy shoreline property for views and access, and we will have to tell them you need to plant trees and can’t have your views and access. Noel Gilbrough reported that in Seattle a woman came to his house yesterday to talk about installing a rain garden. We should do something similar on the shoreline, and not make people get rid of all of their view, but some of their view.
  • Kollin Higgins responded that KCD does marine shoreline property owner workshops to educate people about putting trees on their property. The workshops have been going on for the last five years, with about 20 people attending per workshop. Marlla Mhoon noted that we have approved Shared Endeavor money to partner with KCD on shoreline armoring/homeowner workshops.
  • Kathy Minsch noted that in WRIA 8 Seattle has done a whole Green Shorelines guidebook which tells lakeshore property owners where to put in vegetation.
  • Al Barrie commented that if you do something good now, you won’t be able to see the affect for another four years because of the salmon life cycle.

VIII. Public Comment