WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council s1

WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Notes Community Center at Mercer View January 15, 2009

Members Present Dr. Don Davidson, Chair (Councilmember, Bellevue); Larry Phillips, Vice-Chair (Councilmember, King County); Jeff Bash (WA Department of Ecology); Ted Frantz (Councilmember, Hunts Point); Jean Garber (Councilmember, Newcastle); Don Gerend (Councilmember, Sammamish); Brian Goodnight (for Councilmember Gossett, Snohomish County); Mike Grady (Councilmember, Mercer Island); Bill Knutsen (King Conservation District [KCD]); Kirk Lakey (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]); Terry Lavender (Citizen); Joan McBride (Deputy Mayor, Kirkland); Tom Rasmussen (Councilmember, Seattle); Tris Samberg (Councilmember, Bothell); Carl Scandella (Councilmember, Yarrow Point); Laurie Sperry (Councilmember, Kenmore); Cleve Steward (Sustainable Fisheries Foundation); Mike Todd (Councilmember, Mill Creek); Frank Urabeck (Citizen); Janet Way (Councilmember, Shoreline); Rich Zwicker (Councilmember, Renton).

Others Present Hans Berge (King County); Rika Cecil (Shoreline); Holly Coccoli (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe [MIT]); Chris Eggen (Councilmember, Shoreline); Steve Foley (WDFW); Diana Forman (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Waters); Jenny Giambattista (King County); Roy George (Alderwood Water District); Paul Hage (MIT); Doug Hatfield (WDFW); Sara Hemphill (KCD); Sandy Kilroy (King County); Erika Kinno (King County); Dave LaClerque (Seattle); Yvette Lizee-Smith (King County); Kathy Minsch (Seattle); Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz (Puget Sound Partnership); Joyce Nichols (Bellevue); Jeffrey Possinger (KCD); Jessica Saavedra (KCD); Jon Spangler (Redmond); Ron Straka (Renton); Betty Swift (Portage Bay Coalition for Clean Waters); John Taylor (Puget Sound Partnership); Zelma Zieman (Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance); Linda Grob (WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator); Mary Jorgenson (WRIA 8 Actions and Funding Coordinator); Scott Stolnack (WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator); Jean White (WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator).

Introductions Don Davidson opened the meeting and introduced new members Carl Scandella, Yarrow Point, Rich Zwicker, Renton, and alternate Brian Goodnight, Snohomish County. He invited attendees to introduce themselves.

Public Comment There was no public comment.

Approval of November 20, 2008 Meeting Notes The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the meeting notes for the November 20, 2008 meeting.

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

2009 Workplan Highlights: There will be a total of six Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) meetings in 2009. Due to a rate increase at Mercer View, the rest of this year’s SRC meetings will be at Bellevue City Hall. The WRIA 8 field trip is tentatively scheduled for September 11. Other WRIA 8 events being planned are a spring project scoping and permitting workshop, a series of three-four lakeshore workshops with the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance, and a fall workshop on improving outreach and education programs. 1 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 1/15/09

Jean announced that the WRIA 8 Committee reports are on the lavender handout, and she reported that the H-Integration process will be completed in 2009.

Cedar River Flooding: Scott Stolnack, Technical Coordinator, reported that the flooding on the Cedar River set a new record at Renton, but was less than the all time high at Landsburg Dam. Factors contributing to the flooding were the heavy rainfall, melting snow, and saturated soils. He explained that flooding contributes to scouring of salmon redds, but the flood magnitude and duration are both important when considering the effects. From a river ecology standpoint, flooding creates new habitat that is good for riparian processes and overall ecosystem resilience. Areas where the river is naturally connected to the floodplain probably saw less impact from scouring. Scott noted that the effects from the 2006 flood were significant, with the next year having the lowest juvenile survival on record. However, the year after that survival was the highest on record. He said it is too early to say what effects will be on this year’s broodstock, and we will have to wait for juvenile surveys and adult returns in three to five years to know for certain.

Discussion: . Janet Way inquired if the timing of the flood (January versus December) has a particular effect on survival. Scott Stolnack affirmed that timing does have an effect, since the eggs would have hardened by January. They would therefore be less susceptible to shocks. . Tom Rasmussen asked about the impact of pollution runoff during the flood on juvenile survival. Scott replied that we don’t know the particulars, but because of the volume of the flows it was probably minimized. . Frank Urabeck stated that we will have a pretty good idea about survival in the spring when we get traps back in the river for Chinook and sockeye, and we won’t need to wait three to five years. Scott Stolnack agreed that we will have a good idea of what is going on, but we won’t know the survival for sure for fish that were flushed into Lake Washington. . Janet Way asked how the projects we looked at last fall on the WRIA 8 field trip were impacted by the flood. Scott Stolnack explained that we are still assessing the project at Cedar Rapids, but we do know the one cluster of three logs, washed down to Renton. Overall, flood district projects are being monitored by the King County Flood District staff. Councilmember Way asked if we know if this was a 200 or 300 year storm. Scott said it was a 100 year flood. (NOTE: Since the January SRC meeting the USGS revised their discharge estimate at Renton to a level lower than the 1990 flood; the January 09 event is therefore considered to be less than a 100 year flood event.)

King Conservation District (KCD): Jeffrey Possinger, Exectuve Director, announced that the KCD assessment is coming up on the King County Council docket on August 1, 2009. KCD has been holding a series of meetings to discuss where the district wants to go in the future. KCD would like Salmon Recovery Council input on the parts that involve salmon recovery, and there will be public meetings with stakeholders. Jeffrey said KCD is monitoring two companion bills in the State House and Senate looking at raising the assessment in other districts. King County is the only district with a $10 assessment. Snohomish County turned down its assessment, while Pierce and Spokane Counties passed it. Terry Lavender asked what it means that Snohomish County turned down an assessment. Jeffrey explained that the Snohomish Conservation District brought forward an assessment request, in an amount probably less than the KCD assessment, and it was not passed by the Snohomish County Council.

Jeffrey reported that two positions on the KCD Board of Supervisors are coming up for election on March 19, 2009. There is also an unfinished one-year term position, which will be appointed. KCD is expanding its election to 13 total locations to get broader representation on the Board of Supervisors. Eleven voting locations are at King County Libraries, one is at the Renton Community Center, and the

2 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 1/15/09 final one is at the Downtown Library. Don Davidson noted that KCD is making a stronger effort to get the word out and involve people.

Puget Sound Partnership: John Taylor, Puget Sound Partnership Action Area Liaison, reported that the Partnership is moving into implementation this year. He said we were luckier than some departments in this year’s governor’s budget, with our capital budget increasing from $20 million to $30 million. However, the budget process isn’t over, the legislature has yet to act on the budget, and there is the expectation that the deficit in March is not going to be good. SRFB is being reduced to $10 million from this year’s $18 million, with $100,000 for administration, and significant cuts to WDFW. John said the Partnership is also looking at how to reorganize, but in the meantime he and Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz will continue to be the South Central Action Area contacts. In the longer term (not before 2010) the Partnership is looking for regional investments for creating 12 county-wide Puget Sound district that would put together implementation plans, and it is also looking at potential funding sources and having some sort of tax like Sound Transit.

Discussion: . Joan McBride asked when the draft funding bill would come out. John Taylor replied that it would probably be out in the next few weeks . Don Davidson commented that the Partnership has been fairly active as this has moved forward, and cooperative efforts are working quite closely. We’re still looking at those pieces of how to implement plans. . Jeff Bash inquired how long the Partnership reorganization is expected to take. John Taylor explained that we should know that in February. The Partnership is now in the process of hiring a new deputy, who will take on the implementation/capital responsibilities. . Janet Way noted that capital projects are the projects that this council approved, so she requested that the Partnership support our WRIA 8 projects when it can. She said it sounds like in 2009 SRFB dollars will be down 10-20% from last year. John Taylor responded that the Partnership is also looking at getting some of our projects on the stimulus plan out of Washington D.C., and bundling Puget Sound projects. Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz reported that “green” jobs were highlighted in the state stimulus package released by Governor Gregoire today, and she specifically referenced Puget Sound. Frank Urabeck commented that it would be helpful to get from Jean White a staff analysis of the stimulus package when it comes down from Washington D.C. . Mike Grady stated that he is concerned about stormwater, and the fact that the NPDES program is either zeroed out or at a bare minimum in the WA Department of Transportation (WADOT) budget. He asked what the Partnership is doing about that, and if we are looking at ways to enhance protection above and beyond NPDES. John Taylor responded that the Partnership is trying to look at redirecting some combined sewer overflow (CSO) money to stormwater, because stormwater is the biggest problem affecting Puget Sound. The Partnership is having a dialog with EPA, the Department of Ecology, and others, and the Action Agenda asks us to identify areas when retrofitted stormwater projects have the best benefit for Puget Sound. . Mike Grady noted that those who want to go beyond NPDES are unable to because of litigation. John Taylor replied that he doesn’t have an answer for that, and will check back. . Responding to a question about CSOs, John Taylor explained that dollars can be reallocated from CSO to stormwater projects. He said we can crank down on the CSO CIP, and up on the stormwater CIP without requiring legislative action, and the ratepayer will pay the exact same amount. Jeff Bash commented that he would be happy to bring in a stormwater expert from DOE to speak to the Salmon Recovery Council. . Cleve Steward asked if the Partnership is looking at floodplains and low impact development (LID) that could abate flooding and water quality at the same time. John Taylor said the Partnership will be

3 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 1/15/09

very active in low impact development. He added that retrofitting, not LID, is the solution for stormwater. . Mike Grady stated that zeroing out stormwater in the WADOT program is one of the biggest problems, and the one we complain about the most. We need to figure out a way to send that message up the chain of command.

Habitat/Harvest/Hatchery Integration Panel Scott Stolnack reported that the H-Integration planning process was initiated by the state (WDFW), with input from others, to coordinate actions among all H sectors (harvest, hatchery and habitat) to recover salmon runs. NOAA Fisheries identified this as a particular need in WRIA 8, so the Technical Committee has hosted and facilitated monthly meetings with the co-managers. He said that the framework we are using comes from the NOAA population characteristics (abundance, productivity, genetic diversity, and spatial distribution), with the objective to set measurable goals across the H sectors. The WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Plan serves as the basis for the habitat component of H- Integration.

Scott said H-Integration is a six step process, and we have completed the first three. Next up on the schedule:  Full Technical Committee review of steps 2 and 3;  Step 4 (selecting suite of actions across all Hs) begins next week, and should be complete by March;  Step 5 draft (documenting rationale, implementation steps, etc.) should be complete by May, depending on the level of detail; and  Step 6 (adaptive management plan) may require support from the regional adaptive management work group.

Scott called the process positive and productive, and said we understand each other more than we did at start.

Harvest: Paul Hage, Senior Fish Biologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), explained that harvest is abundance- based and governed by the Puget Sound Management Plan. If abundance is high, harvest is possible; if abundance is low, it’s not possible. He said we count Chinook, sockeye and coho as they come through the Locks for most of the run timing, and for Chinook, we make a determination about a fishery roughly half-way through the season. The stock that drives the decision to have a directed harvest is Cedar River Chinook. In 1993 the fishery was ten days in Elliott Bay, five days in the Locks, and periodic in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. In 1994 returns were low enough that we weren’t going to meet escapement goals, so staff recommended to the tribe that we don’t have a directed fishery. The tribe acted on that, and the fisheries have been closed for 15 years, except for the small harvest on Lake Sammamish. Eighteen percent of Chinook are taken in Canada and Alaska (with most in Canada), another 17% is taken from the ocean fishery in Puget Sound, small numbers are taken in places like Hood Canal, which add up when considered together, and another 4% is taken incidentally when we have a sockeye and coho fishery. Paul said this represents the average going back 15 years. He said we don’t know what the future holds, but starting in June we will start counting Chinook in the Locks once again.

Don Davidson asked what portion of fish in Lake Washington are Cedar River fish. Paul explained that about 90% of the salmon coming into the lake are clipped fish, with the remaining 10% unclipped fish [fish from the Issaquah Hatchery are marked by having their adipose fin clipped]. The unclipped fish are either Cedar River fish or Sammamish fish that go back to Issaquah Creek.

Hatchery:

Doug Hatfield, WDFW Hatchery Complex Manager, said our focus at the Issaquah Hatchery is on how we interact with unclipped fish. The Hatchery Review Group reviewed and made recommendations in 2003 for segregated (minimal interaction with natural fish) and integrated (interaction with natural fish) hatcheries. Issaquah Hatchery is an integrated hatchery, and we are trying to make sure natural fish have a greater influence on hatchery fish, and not the other way around. We are also trying to ensure the natural fish will influence the genetics of hatchery fish over a long period of time. Since 2004 we have been bringing in natural broodstock to mix with the hatchery fish, and hope to incorporate 50% natural fish with hatchery fish. Doug said we are looking at how to reduce the number of hatchery fish on the spawning ground, which currently stands at 70%.

Wrap Up: Holly Coccoli, Fisheries Biologist, MIT, commented that this process has started a good interaction. Lake Washington is an urban basin where we want to get the natural goals up. We all have to work together on the Hs, habitat, harvest and hatchery, to have sustainable salmon runs into the future. In the meantime we are looking at juvenile migrant trapping to give us immediate information about the impact of H-Integration.

Discussion: . Don Davidson asked for clarification that there are 70% hatchery fish on the spawning ground. Paul Hage explained that the stray rate of hatchery fish is about 2% or 3% of the total hatchery run. For every 100 fish, 70 are hatchery fish, or 70%. The stray rate has been as high as 30% and as low as 10% on the Cedar spawning grounds. . Janet Way inquired about the ability of hatchery fish to reproduce, and also asked about predation. Paul Hage replied that there are estimates built into the system of natural mortality, which applies to stock size. . Holly Coccoli explained that studies on reproductive fitness tend to focus on coho, and we assume there is some effect on reproductive fitness. All hatchery fish have been marked the last three or four years and are fully integrated by now, so hatchery fish are probably not the worst thing. There are a couple of schools of thought, and we tend to think abundance of hatchery fish on the spawning ground is probably worth the risk of habitat degradation. We all in agreement that we want more NORs in the population. . Don Gerend commented that the hatchery fish should not be too high above the hatchery. Doug Hatfield replied that we try and catch hatchery fish before they go upstream, and also reduce the numbers selectively. If we have more fish than we need, we cull them out, usually contacting a buyer so they end up in a food bank. We take what we need to spawn and return the rest. Councilmember Gerend asked for clarification that only natural fish are put upstream. Doug explained that there are some hatchery fish upstream as well, depending on the number we catch. The percentage of natural- origin spawners over time will push the genetics more towards natural fish. . Cleve Steward stated that straying is a problem at certain levels, and he asked what we can do to minimize and monitor straying. Doug Hatfield reported that some assumptions we had to start with have been turned upside down with the marking of hatchery fish. Straying is more significant then we thought, and we have to selectively harvest fish or install trapping devices to sort them (floating weirs in the river, etc.). Cleve asked about minimizing the tendency to stray. Doug noted that the more time you take to rear fish increases the tendency they have to return. Some releases are at four months while some hatcheries keep them twelve months so they return to the hatchery.

Don Davidson reported that the day we went out to the Locks for the press event he was amazed at the number of unclipped fish going through the Locks. He thanked the H-Integration Committee members for their effort and for providing the Salmon Recovery Council with the information.

Draft Guidelines for Commenting for WRIA 8 Staff and Committees Jean White said we are periodically asked to endorse grant proposals and/or comment on issues important to WRIA 8 with a short timeline. The Draft Guidelines for Commenting for the WRIA 8 Team and Committees was prepared to provide some clarification on the proper way to address these issues. The guidelines divide issues into three categories and lists examples:  Non-Controversial Issues that are High Priority for WRIA 8: for example, a request for WRIA 8 support for a Tier 1 project on the Start List, the WRIA 8 Coordinator would review, approve and sign a comment letter.  Potentially Controversial Issues that are not High Priority for WRIA 8: for example, a citizen request to comment on a development in a Tier 2 or 3 area would be politely declined, because it takes up too much staff time.  High Profile/Potentially Controversial Issues that are High Priority for WRIA 8: an example is the widening of State Route 520. When time is not adequate to fully vet the issue, WRIA 8 staff will contact the appropriate committee by email, pick up the phone to seek out experts in the particular location, and get consensus from the most actively participating people. Jean would review and approve any comments, get approval from the SRC Chair and Vice-Chair, and have one or the other sign the response letter. On these issues the Technical Committee would follow Conservation Strategy in the WRIA 8 Plan.

Discussion: . Janet Way asked for an example of what would be considered not a high-priority. Jean White responded that she would base that on what’s in the WRIA 8 Plan and Conservation Strategy. For example, Tier 1 areas on the Cedar River that are critical for Chinook survival are the highest priority, whereas tributaries are Tier 2. Councilmember Way commented that sometimes a Tier 2 area is also a high priority, so issues in one of those areas might fall into a category that is high priority. . Don Davidson explained that one of the things we did in the Plan was to prioritize areas into tiers. Kelsey Creek is our little creek in Bellevue, and it is Tier 2. Jean said these are the things that pop up, and we have to decide if we have the time to respond and can be helpful. . Jean Garber commented that she felt very comfortable with the guidelines, and thought they were well thought out. . Frank Urabeck said he was willing to give the guidelines a shot since he was the one who raised this issue, adding that the Technical Committee does not always give the correct answer. He said he was relying on Jean White’s judgment, and said she doesn’t always have to provide a letter. Jean explained that she would not have commented on the issue that lead to the development of these guidelines, except that the proposed project was in the highest priority reach on the Cedar River according to the EDT model. . Mike Todd asked if we can add in the guidelines that they will be reviewed in six months and that when issues come up between meetings that WRIA 8 comments on that the SRC should be briefed at their next regular meeting. Don Davidson affirmed that statement could be added.

The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved the Guidelines for Commenting for WRIA 8 Staff & Committees with the understanding the guidelines would be reviewed in six months and that the Salmon Recovery Council should be briefed on issues which are commented on between meetings.

Proposal to Co-Sponsor Lakeshore Coordination and Communication Meetings Jean White reported that WRIA 8 partnered for two years with the University of Washington, City of Seattle, and NOAA Fisheries on making lake shorelines more salmon friendly. Survey work was done, the Green Shorelines Guidebook has just been published by Seattle, and now we are proposing to have series of four meetings on the shorelines of Lakes Washington and Sammamish.

Jean introduced Zelma Zieman, Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance, who will be coordinating the meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to reach out to contractors, permitters, and property owners, and have a professional facilitator manage the process. Jean said we want to collect unfiltered feedback, record a range of viewpoints, and identify areas of common understanding, and then we will forward the gathered information to the Shoreline Master Plan Update Group. She reported that she is looking for approval from the SRC to co-sponsor the meetings. A small group met with Zelma in September to start the process, and we hope to have the first meeting in March. All the meetings must be done before summer. Zelma Zieman added that among the things we are looking at is having free facilities and parking.

Discussion: . Ted Frantz asked if there is assistance available for individual cities. Zelma Zieman replied that the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance helps cities navigate through the process for free. . Bill Knutsen asked if the information would extend upstream to rivers and streams, or will it only apply to lakes. Zelma Zieman explained that our agency is state-wide, but this series of meetings is for Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. . Joan McBride called the meeting proposal so timely, and she requested that a meeting be held in Kirkland. She said it would be nice if the meetings could travel to different cities. Cleve Steward agreed with Deputy Mayor McBride, and recommended taking the workshops to the people. . Mike Grady also agreed with Joan McBride regarding traveling meetings, but he said it would be best if the meetings could be crafted into one meeting. . Ted Frantz asked how the meeting would be advertised, and who would be invited. Zelma Zieman responded that we want to involve perspectives from broad groups of people, so we are looking at contractors around the area, shoreline property owners, and some of the citizen and property owner groups in WRIA 8 who have been involved in the effort. Councilmember Frantz inquired if information would be sent to the cities, who would then contact their citizens. Jean White explained that SRC members would certainly hear from her about the workshops. . Janet Way asked if it was okay to invite citizens from other lakes, like Lake Ballinger. Zelma Zieman said she wasn’t sure. When we first started looking at setting up workshops we limited our scope to Lakes Washington and Sammamish. Councilmember Way reported that we are trying to get a Lake Ballinger group started, and the information at the meetings would be helpful. Jean White responded that some of the pieces won’t apply to Lake Ballinger, but we can talk it about it later. Zelma noted that there are some specific regulatory issues that apply just to Sammamish and Lake Washington. Dave LaClerque, City of Seattle, added that so far this program has just looked at lakes with listed Chinook.

The Salmon Recovery Council unanimously approved co-sponsoring a series of lakeshore coordination and communication meetings.

Success Story: Green Shorelines Guidebook Overview Dave LaClerque reported that he worked with lots of folks from WRIA 8 on the Green Shorelines Guidebook project, which was funded by a KCD grant. A major threat to Chinook is critical rearing habitat in the lake shorelines, and right now 70% of that shoreline is hardened. He said there has been a failure in providing alternatives to armoring. Property owners tend to favor a vegetated shoreline look, but have four concerns: the lack of information, cost, reliability, and permitting process.

The guidebook provides information on several alternatives to bulkheads, such as beach coves, full beach installation, moving the bulkheads back, using vegetated buffers actively to hold the slope in place, and using logs. Dave explained that the guidebook contains a green shorelines decision tree, which helps make the decision on the type of alternative to install based on slope, etc. Cost is a key piece of the information, and he said we worked with a consultant to come up with the costs. Even

7 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting Summary 1/15/09 though there is a huge amount of variation, green shorelines end up being the same price or a little less expensive than armoring, which sends a positive message that alternatives are not necessarily more expensive. Dave concluded by saying he was very eager to work with SRC members’ respective groups. He encouraged people to grab as many copies of the Green Shorelines Guidebook and tri-fold outreach flyer as they’d like, and to let him know who else should be sent copies. Janet Way responded that she would like copies for Lake Ballinger, and said it seems like the guidebook could apply to all the lakes.

Don Gerend reported that Sammamish is working on its shoreline master plan update, and he said the guidebook might be in conflict with our shoreline plan, because it says homeowners can’t armor 80% of their property. Dave LaClerque said he is also working on Seattle’s shoreline master plan update and worked with the City of Sammamish staff in developing this guidebook.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m. The next Salmon Recovery Council meeting is March 19, 2009, at Bellevue City Hall.