WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 5/17/07

WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Notes May 17, 2007

Members Present Don Davidson, Chair (Councilmember, Bellevue); Larry Phillips, Vice-Chair (Councilmember, King County); Nancy Ahern (alternate for Councilmember Richard Conlin, Seattle); Charles Beck (alternate for Councilmember Dave Gossett, Snohomish County); joan burlingame (Rock Creek Representative, Cedar River Council); Rika Cecil (alternate for Councilmember Richard Gustafson, Shoreline), Dan Clawson (Councilmember, Renton); Geoff Clayton (Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce); Bruce Dodds (Councilmember, Clyde Hill); Ted Frantz (Councilmember, Hunts Point); Ava Frisinger (Mayor, Issaquah); Jean Garber (Mayor, Newcastle); Dave Garland (WA Department of Ecology); Don Gerend (Councilmember, Sammamish); Mike Grady (Councilmember, Mercer Island); Bob Hensel (Councilmember, Kenmore); Laure Iddings (Mayor, Maple Valley); Rosemarie Ives (Mayor, Redmond); Kirk Lakey (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife); Terry Lavender (Citizen); Joan McBride (Councilmember Kirkland); David Orvis (Councilmember, Edmonds); Andrea Perry (Councilmember, Bothell); Ray Power (The Boeing Company); Linda Smith (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Cleve Steward (Sustainable Fisheries Foundation); Mike Todd (Councilmember, Mill Creek); Frank Urabeck (Citizen); Bruce Young (Councilmember, Beaux Arts Village).

Others Present Rebecca Cors (Friends of the Cedar River Watershed); Diana Forman (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Waters); Stef Frenzl (Snohomish County); Jenny Gaus (Kenmore); Roy George (Water District Commissioner); Jenny Giambattiste (King County); Julie Hall (Seattle); John Lombard (Sustainable Fisheries Foundation); Sarah Ogier (WRIA 8 Service Provider Representative, King County); Kit Paulsen (Bellevue); Sue Rooney (Friends of the Cedar River Watershed); Jessica Saavedra (King Conservation District); Mike Shaw (Mountlake Terrace); David St. John (King County); Kathy Wright (King County); Linda Grob (WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator); Frank Leonetti (WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator); Jean White (WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator).

Don Davidson opened the meeting.

Welcome New Members & Introductions Don Davidson introduced new Salmon Recovery Council member Terry Lavender, who was an alternate on the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. He then invited all attendees to introduce themselves.

Public Comment There was no public comment.

Approval of March 15 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Notes The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the March 15, 2007 meeting notes.

Updates & Announcements Staff Information: Jean White, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator, announced that two graduate student interns were recently hired with the $50,000 Department of Ecology grant. The interns will create a database to help sort WRIA 8 Plan recommendations and create a tracking and reporting system for implementation monitoring. They will also be analyzing overlaps between the WRIA 8 Plan and other regional planning efforts such as the Shoreline Master Plan Updates, stormwater permitting and the flood levy to identify good opportunities and partnerships for implementing WRIA 8 Plan recommendations. WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 5/17/07

2 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 5/17/07

Regional Salmon Report: Jean White reported that Bill Ruckelshaus has been appointed chair of the Puget Sound Partnership, with a director to be hired by mid-June. The Partnership is looking to create a draft action agenda by next March, which will be adopted in September 2008. The public involvement process is starting next fall and will go into September 2008. Jean remarked that Shared Strategy is really going away at the end of December 2007, and the Puget Sound Action Team staff becomes Puget Sound Partnership staff in July 2007. A retreat is being held on June 19-21 to bring different watersheds together to discuss how to work together on salmon recovery once Shared Strategy is gone and to develop recommendations for how the watersheds should be integrated into the new Puget Sound Partnership.

Discussion: ▪ Cleve Steward asked if staff would like input from the Salmon Recovery Council in advance of the retreat. Jean White responded that they don’t even have an agenda yet so it would be difficult to do. ▪ Don Davidson explained that Shared Strategy developed into the Puget Sound Regional Council, which will continue as a subset of the Puget Sound Partnership. He suggested that maybe a Puget Sound-wide tax would support the Partnership. ▪ Linda Smith commented that she was at a meeting in the Skagit, where a lot of people seemed to think the Puget Sound Partnership is too salmon-oriented. Don Davidson agreed that there were a lot of unknowns as to how it’s all going to go together. He hopes to be at the retreat to hear how the conversation goes. ▪ Frank Urabeck suggested that rather than just reacting, the bigger local governments may want to be proactive with the Puget Sound Partnership. ▪ Larry Phillips remarked that there are some implications here. We came together ten years ago to look at salmon, and formed several Forums. The state said here are some funding sources, we became WRIAs, and we galvanized after the listing of salmon was announced. Shared Strategy was born, and figured out how to roll up all the conservation plans. The Puget Sound Partnership is not a listing, and Shared Strategy, the roll up organization for the Puget Sound Chinook Plan is sunseting at the end of the year. ▪ Don Davidson responded that the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council is still going to exist, but who administers it is the question. He said he thinks that the new Puget Sound Partnership will need to staff it. Councilmember Phillips mentioned that Jim Kramer of Shared Strategy is applying for the Puget Sound Partnership’s director position.

Funding Update: Jean White announced that the Governor’s request for funding to implement salmon plans did result in funding. The Puget Sound Salmon Fund totals $40.75 million. WRIA 8’s is share is $2.28 million, and we recently put out the request for project proposals. The Puget Sound Salmon Funds will be distributed through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) with a process that will parallel this year’s SRFB grant process. She said we hope SRFB tightens up its guidance at their July 13 meeting. Final SRFB and the Puget Sound Salmon Fund project decisions will occur December 14 and 15.

Cleve Steward asked if the Puget Sound Salmon Fund money would be spread out over two years. Jean White replied that the expectation is that it is all for this year, but SRFB could change that at the July 13 meeting.

Cleve questioned if there was any chance of getting the King Conservation District (KCD) process pushed back. Jean White responded that the dates are fixed for now for the field trips and subcommittee meetings, which makes it a real challenge for us to reschedule. Cleve remarked that a lot of people are scrambling to get proposals submitted.

3-Year List Update: Frank Leonetti, WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator, explained that we had a request from Shared Strategy in March to update and slightly modify the 3-Year List. We subsequently added projects, corrected some project descriptions and removed some that were finished. He said there were a couple of significant steps that we followed as part of this update, including reviewing Issaquah Creek restoration projects, which hadn’t happened before because only Issaquah Creek protection projects had been previously recommended when we were planning for three separate Chinook populations in WRIA 8. One of the first amendments to the Plan was to follow NOAA Fisheries’ Technical Review Team identification of only two Chinook populations (fish from Issaquah Creek and the North Lake Washington tributaries are now identified as the Sammamish population). The Technical Committee then went back to Volume II of the Plan and looked at the Issaquah restoration projects, rating them for benefit and feasibility, and adding them to the 3-Year List and 10-Year Start List as appropriate.

Discussion: ▪ Dave Garland asked if there is a dam at the Issaquah hatchery. Ava Frisinger replied that it is a water intake dam. Dave inquired if the Issaquah Hatchery Dam Passage project was a Corps project. Linda Smith responded in the affirmative. Cleve Steward explained that there is a move afoot by a coalition to write a SRFB/Puget Sound Salmon Fund proposal to fund the project since it has been difficult to obtain Corps funding for the project. ▪ Don Davidson remarked that the government wants doable projects in three years, but sometimes that’s not possible, due to having to accumulate properties, etc. Frank Leonetti responded that he thinks the impetus for the 3-Year List is on initiating projects. ▪ Linda Smith mentioned that the state Salmon Fund money could be used for matching federal Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters funds.

Steelhead Listing: Frank Leonetti reported that there is one Lake Washington steelhead population, but two stocks cited (Cedar and Lake Washington). Lake Washington steelhead return from the ocean in January, spawn in April, and can spawn more than once in their lifetime. Steelhead spend one to three years in fresh water, and are found there on a year-round basis, which means they are always potentially present. In the Cedar we have an escapement goal of 300 fish (the number of adults that “escape” harvest and return from the ocean to the spawning grounds) going upstream. The recent average abundance is 36 fish based on surveys on the Cedar, and there hasn’t been any recent counting at the Locks for returning fish. Frank said there is currently negative productivity for steelhead (not replacing itself) in the Cedar, which is the lowest in the ESU. In 1997, there was a broodstock program initiated. However, there were no known adult returns from that program. Residualism (where fish do not go to the ocean but mature in Lake Washington) is suspected. Higher freshwater growth rate, warmer temperatures, low marine survival, spring spawning and multiple spawning opportunities will potentially favor residualism. In the WRIA 8 Plan, programmatic actions that improve smaller streams will be important for steelhead. One important factor for projects is that there may be no fish window for construction because steelhead are potentially always present in freshwater.

Discussion: ▪ Frank Urabeck remarked that sea lion predation has been a major impact, and ¾ of our steelhead are lost before they get to the ladder at the Ballard Locks, where only 12-24 steelhead have been running in the last few years. There could be an exploding trout population in Lake Washington and the Cedar, which could be impacting sockeye and steelhead. He said some people have already said the run is gone, and there are no fisheries and haven’t been in a long time. A brood program was initiated in 1997 and we tried to reseed the Cedar, but it didn’t work. Frank Urabeck suggested that more data needs to be gathered.

▪ Frank Leonetti mentioned there are different H-factors for steelhead than Chinook, and we may have to consider other types of actions in our plans. Steelhead will have permitting and consultation issues, etc. ▪ Mike Grady reported that a 4-d rule for steelhead probably would not be issued until late summer or September. ▪ Frank Leonetti explained that the fish window is limited for steelhead. There is not a great difference in the mapped distribution of steelhead relative to Chinook distribution except in smaller tributaries. ▪ Mike Grady noted there are Section 7 issues with steelhead. We may see a formal consultation being needed with the Services if a project is lower in the tributary, and steelhead may be there. There also may be a number of thermal layer barriers in the summer. ▪ Frank Urabeck inquired if they will use same criteria and economic analyses as were used for Chinook. Mike Grady replied that he wasn’t sure about that. Frank Urabeck asked what happens if steelhead are virtually gone, and the situation is we don’t have any fish. Councilmember Grady explained that is part of the discussion of critical habitat.

2008 Budget and Work Plan Budget: Jean White presented the proposed 2008 budget, and explained that we may receive other grants this year that we did not include. Possible grants include another DOE grant next year, and SRFB and Puget Sound Salmon grants that include 5 % for capacity building, which could mean another $100,000+ coming to WRIA 8.

Discussion: ▪ Don Gerend asked where the interns show up in the 2008 budget. Jean White replied that we have them for 2007, but we don’t know if we have the grant next year. ▪ Don Davidson remarked that the Management Committee reviewed and approved the 2008 budget. ▪ Mike Todd asked about the monitoring money. Jean White explained that we put it in operations. ▪ Cleve Steward inquired if the EDT license is no longer required, or just not for next year. Frank Leonetti responded that EDT is now Web-based, so a license is no longer required.

Work Plan: Jean White reported that one item dealing with regional roll up of the conservation plans was dropped from last year’s Work Plan, and a line was added to seek other funding authorities for the General Investigation study.

Discussion: ▪ joan burlingame said she assumed the 2008 budget is going to include something for the steelhead listing. Jean White explained that when it comes to us we will do an analysis on how your Salmon Conservation Plan benefits for Chinook will also benefit steelhead. Don Davidson remarked that it is difficult to put money in the budget when we’re not sure about the impacts of a steelhead listing. ▪ Cleve Steward inquired if it is too early to earmark the 5% capacity building money. Jean White replied that it is too early because we don’t know what will be eligible for that money yet. Cleve mentioned that he thought a steelhead listing is going to require work from us. Don Davidson said he feels we’ll have time to address it. Mike Grady commented that as of 3:20 p.m. today, we are still in the throes of when we are going to finalize the 4-d rule and critical habitat. ▪ Kirk Lakey asked if we want to add a bullet into the work plan about steelhead, possibly under Salmon Recovery Council Coordination/Share Strategy, or under Technical Coordination. Jean White agreed that we could put in some language under Technical Coordination. Joan McBride supported adding it as a placeholder and said it is a great idea.

The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved an amendment that adds a placeholder bullet about steelhead under the Technical Coordination section of the 2008 Work Plan. The Salmon Recovery Council then unanimously approved the 2008 Budget and Work Plan.

Memorandum of Understanding Jean presented the draft 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Don Davidson noted that since the MOU covers the next nine years we might want to insert a clause on how to terminate it, which may take some “lawyering” to address. Jean explained that the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) has some language on termination, but will ask the King County Prosecuting Attorney for advise on adding a termination clause.

Mike Todd suggested adding some performance measures in the termination language, to have some way to objectively look at performance. Jean White reminded them that the ILA calls for an independent evaluation of the service provider team every three years.

The Salmon Recovery Council agreed to delay the vote on the Memorandum of Understanding until the next meeting.

Jean White also presented the 2008 Service Provider Staff Job Duties. She said some duties may shift between staff over the next year, but is providing this as guidance.

WRIA 8 Committee Reports Technical Committee: Frank Leonetti reported that the Technical Committee has been looking at EDT treatment actions on the Cedar River. Eight projects were selected (including levee setbacks, placing large woody debris, etc.), and the results show which reaches have the greatest potential for Chinook increases. He mentioned that we don’t have a good process for evaluating projects in Lake Washington, but we do have the ability to evaluate relative gains in individual reaches and relative to the greater lake environment as a whole. The conclusions for the Cedar show we are on the right track, effectively targeting habitat diversity and the juvenile rearing life stage. There is significant restoration potential in Reach 3, and restoration potential in Lake Washington relative to the Cedar. More floodplain actions are needed to achieve the 10-year plan objectives. He said that modeling to include land use and protection assumptions is in progress, and we have collaborators at the University of Washington working on it.

Discussion: ▪ Frank Urabeck asked at what point in time we will be able to learn if we are making a difference. Frank Leonetti responded that in terms of the lifecycle of Chinook we are probably three to five generations away, or 10-20 years. Over the short term we can assess issues like flooding in the Cedar, etc. He said there are scales of monitoring, but the most important one is long-term fish in/fish out. ▪ Geoff Clayton noted that we had the concept of de-listing early on. EDT does not count fish, but tells which fish habitat relative to another is a high priority. ▪ Ted Frantz asked if returns mean the fish coming into Puget Sound from the ocean. Frank Leonetti explained that it means the fish coming back to the spawning ground. Ocean impacts/changes are static in the model. Councilmember Frantz inquired if we are measuring how salmon survive from the Locks upstream. Frank L. replied that we are measuring that, and also out to ocean, and back through the lake environment, to the spawning ground and laying eggs in the gravel.

Implementation Committee: Jean White reported that the Implementation Committee, which is meeting the first Thursday of each month, now has a purpose statement. The July meeting will be focused on shorelines, with a follow-up on the Shoreline Master Plan, and presentations on a survey of shoreline owners and different shoreline techniques. The Committee is also considering having a lobbying workshop in the fall. Jean said at the 6 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 5/17/07 last meeting we discussed the Neashore General Investigation (GI) study. King County has decided that it doesn’t make sense economically to continue to sponsor the GI because it is too uncertain as to whether or not there will be funds for constructing projects once the studies are done. So the Implementation Committee discussed other options for funding projects proposed for the GI. One option is to include the projects in Phase 2 of the GI (Seattle is continuing to sponsor of Phase 2 of the GI). Linda Smith commented that she hates to think the Nearshore GI is something we can’t get funded. She also mentioned that she just received the Biological Opinion on the Locks from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and she will share it with the Implementation Committee once she is able to release it.

Communication Committee: Jean White announced that the first meeting of the Communication Committee is May 29, 10:00 a.m. to Noon.

Report on Kokanee Meeting & Next Steps David St. John, King County, reported that a large and diverse audience attended the initial kokanee meeting on April 24. Each government around Lake Sammamish was represented, as were NGOs and state agencies. Over the last eleven years of spawning surveys results have varied widely, and we’ve seen from a couple hundred to 4,000 kokanee. He explained that Trout Unlimited is pursuing listing Lake Sammamish kokanee as a threatened species, not an endangered one, but we are not sure when that petition will happen. When it does we will try to get money for kokanee projects, such as occurred after the Chinook listing. This population is in serious trouble, and while we may not see results in habitat improvement in five-ten years, we need to have a population to work with. Bellevue is interested in having a MOU to work on this, and King County is in favor of exploring that option. David mentioned that there was a lot of recognition at the meeting that we need a strategy, and there was a degree of optimism in the group that we have the tools to work with (Shoreline Management Act, strategic assessment for Chinook, etc.). What we need now are commitments more than the cobbled-together efforts of the past few years. We are ready to move forward, and David said he is willing to keep reporting back to the Salmon Recovery Council. The next kokanee meeting is May 24.

Don Davidson reminded the Council that we decided to have reports back on kokanee, but we wouldn’t be providing staffing through the WRIA 8 team.

Don Gerend remarked that there is very strong support in Sammamish for kokanee, where everyone talks about the little red fish, not about Chinook. joan burlington asked if the Kokanee Committee is looking at the kokanee near Lake #12 and Rock Creek in WRIA 9. David St. John replied that right now the focus is just on WRIA 8. joan said she suspects that if the committee doesn’t look at the creek, kokanee will be gone.

Success Story: Juvenile Dungeness Crab (aka fish food) Habitat Study Stef Frenzl, Snohomish County, said the Juvenile Dungeness Crab Habitat Study involved digging in the mud along the marine shoreline looking for fish food. He noted that local salmon plans identify the nearshore habitat as important to recovery. This study was an opportunity to look at the bigger picture and how species interact, and a move from salmon-centric to ecosystem-centric. He explained that we were looking for the Dungeness crab at the juvenile molt stage, and the types of substrate habitat they prefer as they spend the summer in the nearshore of Snohomish County. Over 70 volunteers spent 1,700 hours at 36 sampling events, collecting 685 samples and measuring 862 juvenile crabs. Major findings were that crabs prefer silt/sand mixed with coarser material and silt/sand with vegetation. Staff is now working with WDFW on a priority habitat management recommendations document for juvenile

Dungeness crabs. Partners in the study with Snohomish County were WDFW, Tulalip Tribes, WSU Beach Watchers, and Edmonds Community College. Don Davidson thanked Stef for his presentation, and mentioned that the WRIA 8 shoreline goes up to Mukilteo.

Public Comment: Geoff Clayton reported that he took a group of stakeholders to view the screw trap near Redmond, where it was fascinating to see the outmigration of salmon. He noted that counting at fish traps is going to be critical for us – Bear Creek has high productivity, but we wouldn’t know it without traps.

Sue Rooney, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed, announced that her group provides volunteer bodies for work on implementation projects and is excited about working with WRIA 8.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Due to passage of the budget, the June meeting was cancelled. The next meeting is July 19, 2007, 3:00 to 5:30 pm.