No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-086_MiscA,J1·. : t. ': . . . Lake Washingt9,l!/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) Watershed · '1 Fl0PMENT · -v !i PLANNING 20 I S. Jackson Street Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 FRENTON J! .,_ 0 7 2006 t-ic1.,EJVED TO: WRlA 8 Chinook Salmon Plan Reviewers FR: Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRlA 8 Watershed Coordinator Jt,-fo RE: Retrofit Kit for the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan As of July, the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan has been ratified by 24 of the 27 participating jurisdictions, totaling more than 97 percent of the population in the watershed. This far exceeds the requirements of the interlocal agreement among participating jurisdictions as to what is considered a ratified plan. Our records show that you received a hard copy of the Steering Committee Proposed Draft of the Plan ( dated February 25, 2005), so we are sending you a "retrofit kit" to turn it into a Final Plan ( dated July 2005). Since there were so few pages that changed, we thought, and heard from others, that it would be best to save our trees and provide this kit. The pages have been arranged by volume where they should be inserted. There is one page for each volume titled "How the Final Plan Differs from the Proposed Plan" that explains what changes have been made, why, and where they go in the plan. You can either simply tuck each bundle of new pages into the correct volume behind the new cover, you can clip the pages into the correct location, or you can open up the comb-binding and replace the pages and maps as follows: • Newcover • Cover letter ( on! y for volume I) • How Plan is Different (new for each volume) • Inside cover page • Roadmap • Maps in Executive Summary and Chapter4 -Volume I only • Cedar Section table -Volume II only • Back covers -inside last page of all volumes. We have also enclosed the Table of Contents for the website folder of Resolutions. These may be found on the updated WRIA 8 website at: http://dnr.metro.gov/wrias/8. If you have any questions on these retrofit kits please call me, Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, at 206- 296-1907, or Mary Jorgensen, WRIA 8 Grants Manager, at 206-296-8067. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR RESOLUTIONS Beaux Arts Village Bellevue Bothell Clyde Hill Edmonds Hunts Point Kenmore King County Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina (Letter of Support) Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Newcastle Redmond Renton Sammamish Seattle Shoreline Snohomish County Woodinville Yarrow Point The resolutions may be viewed at the WRIA 8 website address: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8. VIASlli.\s ~"l>q,_ i ltA I LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR/SAMMAMISH ~.I.. ~' WATERSHED IWRIA 8) '4t,tAfig\\ STEERING COMMITTEE Bellevue Bothell Clyde Hill Issaquah King County Kirkland Maple Valley Mercer Island Redmond Renton Sammamish Seattle Shoreline Snohomish County The Boeing Company Cedar River Council friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery Greater Maple Valley Area Council Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Mid'Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Northwest Marine Trade Association Save lake Sammamish Sustainable fisheries Foundation Trout Unlimited US Army Corps offnglneers Washington Department of fcology Washington Department of .Fish and WIidiife Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts King Conservation District July 2005 Dear Salmon Supporters: In March 1999, the federal government listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon as threatened according to the definitions of the federal Endangered Species Act. How did this come to pass? One could say it is because salmon have become too much a part of the fabric of our lives. They are harvested commercially and for recreation, feasted upon on special occasions and at intimate dinners, and celebrated in sculptures and stories. As people have become more numerous, we have caught more salmon, encroached upon where they live, and taken what they need to survive. Hence, their threat of extinction. Now it is up to us whether to continue this pattern or to alter our habits and learn how tci co-exist with the fish. Some 40 years ago, the previous generation created a legacy for us by cleaning up Lake Washington, before the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the state Department of Ecology even existed. It is our turn to decide what we will leave to future generations -paintings and songs about Chinook salmon or the opportunity to watch them return every summer and fall to spawn in sustainable numbers. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is a rapidly urbanizing area. It is home to more than 20 percent of the entire state population --more people than in any other water resource inventory area (WRIA) in Washington,. It is also home to three runs of Chinook salmon. Our challenge is to figure out how to accommodate both the economic engine of our state and these creatures that have evolved over millions of years. That is why, on behalf of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and Forum, which represents 27 local governments, we are pleased to share with you the Final WR/A 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. For nearly five years, citizens, scientists, community groups, businesses, environmental groups, public agencies, and elected officials have been working together in our shared watershed to develop this plan. It offers science- based priorities for actions that will protect and restore salmon habitat. But implementation of this plan will also benefit citizens FORUM Beaux Ans Village Bellevue Bothell Clyde Hill Edmonds Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent King County Kirkland Lake forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Newcastle Redmond Renton Sammamish Seattle Shoreline Snohomish County Woodinville Yarrow Point OS071.lW1,1ffll/SIIUTRII01.il -by improving water quality, reducing flood hazards, protecting open space, enhancing management of stormwater run-off, and maintaining a proud legacy for future generations. We strongly encourage everyone interested in salmon conservation to help implement this plan and improve the watershed shared by both salmon and citizens. Sincerely, d;;"".St:. City of Seattle Co-Chair, WRIA 8 Steering Committee .fl__~s Councilmember Don Davidson City of Bellevue Chair, WRIA 8 Forum File: OS0726_ WBcovLTR.indd )pre ~~ City of Newcastle Vice Chair, WRIA 8 Forum How the Final Plan Differs From the Steering Committee Proposed Plan The WRIA 8 Steering Committee Proposed Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Consewation Plan was published February 25, 2005. The proposed plan was approved by the WRIA 8 Forum on May 26, 2005, and as of July 26, 2005, has been ratified by 24 WRIA 8 jurisdictions* totalling more than 97 percent of the population in the watershed. According to the interlocal agreement among the 27 jurisdictions that cost-shared development of the plan, it is now the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WR/A 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The July 2005 Final Plan differs from the February 2005 Proposed Plan as follows: • No text in the February 25, 2005 plan has been changed beyond what is listed below. Readers should note that where the text refers to the Proposed Plan (or draft plan), it is now the Final Plan. Where there is discussion of future Forum review and approval of the plan or ratification by local jurisdictions, these actions have already occurred. • The title on the outside cover and on the inside cover pages of all three volumes has been changed to reflect that this is a final plan, dated July 2005. • Volume I contains a new cover letter from the Co-Chairs of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and the Chair and Vice Chair of the WRIA 8 Forum. • The Quick Road Map has been updated to reflect the addition of this page on how the Final Plan differs from the Proposed Plan as well as to explain where to find the resolutions from the jurisdictions that have ratified the plan. • Volume I, Executive Summary, page 11 contains a corrected version of the watershed map that more accurately reflects the extent of Thornton Creek. • Volume I, Chapter 4, page 6 contains a corrected version of the tier map that more accurately reflects the extent of Thornton Creek. • In Volume II, Chapter 10 (Comprehensive Action Lists for Cedar), the title of the Initial Habitat Project List for Taylor/Downs Creek on page 55 has been corrected to say Cedar River Tributaries Chinook Population (rather than North Lake Washington Chinook Population). Missing pages 59-64 have also been added back in. These are the Initial Habitat Project Lists for Peterson Creek and Rock Creek, which were inadvertently omitted from the February 25, 2005 printing but had been included in the Public Review Draft, November 12, 2004 . There Is a CD available that contains copies of all of the signed resolutions adopted by WR/A 8 jurisdictions that have ratified the Plan. These may also be found on the WRIA 8 website: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/chinook-conservation- plan.htm *The three remaining jurisdictions that signed the interlocal agreement are expected to consider ratification of the plan in the fall of 2005. FINAL LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR/SAMMAMISH WATERSHED (WR/A 8) CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN VOLUME I July 2005 Quick Road Map Through This Plan If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information: See how the plan is This road mare and the Volume I contains chapters 1- organized Table of Con ents, 9 located in each plan Volume II contains chapters volume 10 -13, the comprehensive action lists Volume Ill contains the appendices of information that support the plan Note how the Final Plan How the Final Plan Volume I, Chapter 1 exfclains ~proved by the WRIA 8 Differs from the Proposed how the plan was deve oped arum and ratified by the Plan, located at the participating ~risdict,ons beginning of each volume differs from e WRIA 8 Steering Committee's Proposed Plan Get a quick summary of the Executive Summary, plan located at the beginning of Volume I Understand the purpose, Volume I, Ch~ter 1: Volume Ill, Appendix A lists benefits, and context of the Purpose and oal of the ke~ decisions made by the plan and how it has been Plan W IA 8 Steering Committee developed that directed development of the draft plan Review how the plan will be Volume I, Chapter 2: Plan Volume Ill, Appendix B implemented and during Implementation summarizes case studies of what timeframe using an Framework how similar plans have been adaptive management implemented elsewhere approach Find out how the science Volume I, Cha~ter3: Volume Ill, Appendix C foundation was developed Science Faun ation outlines the technical · and what needs to be done Volume I, Chapter 4: information and analyses in to frrotect and restore Chinook Conservation more detail sa mon habitat Strategy for WRIA 8 Learn about the type of Volume I, Chapter 5: Volume I, Chapter 9: Action actions needed and how Actions to Achieve Our Start-List for regional priorities actions were developed Goals Volume II -Comprehensive Lists of the actions Choose a site-specific Volume I, Chapter 9: Volume Ill, Appendix D riroject or landscape-level Actions Start List explains the methodology for an<t use or cublic Volume II: how actions and rou~h cost outreach ac ion to protect Comprehensive Actions estimates were deve oped or restore salmon habitat List Conduct research and Volume I, Chagter 6: monitoring to measure Measuring an progress Monitoring for Gauging Progress Review recommendations Volume I, Chapter 7: Volume Ill, A~endix B: Case for level of effort needed to Funding Strategy for Plan Studies from !her implement the plan and Implementation Watersheds. funding source options If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information: Consider what fl.Pe and Volume I, Chapter 8: Volume Ill, Appendix E level of commi ments local Commitments and discusses what legal governments and other Expectations for Plan assurances are available from entities will be asked to Implementation the federal government under make in exchange for what the Endangered Species Act benefits and assurances Resolutions from the to be discussed with jurisdictions ratifying the plan regulatory agencies are available on the web at: htt1:1://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/c hinook-conservation-12lan.litm Review rough estimates for Volume I, Chapter 2: Plan Volume Ill, Appendix D costs to implement plan Implementation explains the methodology for actions Framework, subsection how rough cost estimates Part 2 titled Organization, were developed for the Action Roles and Start Lists Resreonsibilities for Plan Imp ementation Volume I, Chapter 7: Funding Strategy for Plan Implementation Volume I, Chapter 9: Actions Start-list Learn the meaning of Volume I, Glossary technical terms or Volume I, Acronyms and acronyms and Abbreviations abbreviations found in the draft plan See a summary of the Volume Ill, Appendix A public comments received on the draft plan and how they were addressed Review who particigated in the development of he plan Volume I, Acknowledgements Chapter 1 contains a discussion of the planning process View maps of WRIA 8 Goto streams reaches used for httR://dnr.metrokc.gov/wri the Ecosr:;tem Dia9,nosis as 8 and Trea ment mo eling effort Learn about potential Volume I, Chapter 4: biol~ical ~oals and Chinook Conservation obje ives or the plan Strategy for WRIA 8 Assumptions about the Volume I, Chapter 5: linkages between habitat Actions to Achieve our conservation hypotheses, Goals proposed actions, and the viable salmonid population ~uidance developed by OAA Fisheries. See the resolutions passed Check the web at: A CD can be made available b~ jurisdictions ratifying the h'18://dnr.metrokc.gov/wria upon request pan s78 cliinooi<-con§ervation- plan.litm The website address for the watershed-based salmon conservation planning effort in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME I Quick Road Map Through This Plan Executive Summary Chapter 1. Introduction Why did we develop this Plan? How will we all benefit from implementation of the Plan? Timeframe for the Plan How was the Plan developed? WRIA 8 Science and Planning WRIA 8 Committees and Participants Steering Committee Proposed Plan: Contents and Recommendations Next Steps for the Plan WRIA 8 Steering Committee Mission and Goals Plan Schedule Approved by Steering Committee References Chapter 2. Plan Implementation Framework 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 7 9 11 12 Part 1: Plan Implementation with an Adaptive Management Approach 1 Applying Adaptive Management Principles 1 Elements Necessary for Adaptive Implementation of This Plan 3 Part 2: Organization, Roles, and Responsibilities for Plan Implementation 4 Lessons from other watershed protection and restoration efforts 4 Implementation in WRIA 8: Key Functions 6 Implementation in WR/A 8: A Recommended Organizational Structure and Staffing 10 Part 3: Timeline for Plan Implementation, Monitoring, Reporting & Evaluation 21 Chapter 3. The Science Foundation What do we know and need to know about salmon and their habitat needs? 1 Scientific Analysis Approach 1 Viable Salmonid Population Framework 1 Watershed Evaluation 2 EDT Modeling 3 WRIA 8 Salmon Populations 4 Cedar River/South Lake Washington Population 6 North Lake Washington Population 10 Issaquah Population 12 Relationship between the WRIA 8 Populations 13 Relationship to Puget Sound Chinook ESU 13 Habitat Conditions in WRIA 8 13 Historical Habitat Conditions 13 Current Habitat Conditions 14 Habitat Limiting Factors 20 Other Factors that Affect Chinook Salmon in WRIA 8 23 Uncertainties about Salmon-Habitat Relationships 25 Other Uncertainties 25 Conclusions/Implications for the Chinook Recovery Plan 25 References 26 Chapter 4. Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Ecosystem Objectives 1 Guiding Principles 1 How Are We Using Science to Guide Effective Actions? 2 Viable Salmonid Population Guidance for WRIA 8 7 Conservation Strategy for Cedar River Chinook 9 VSP Status and Relative Risk for Cedar River Chinook 1 O Watershed Evaluation Framework for the Cedar River 11 EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for the Cedar River 12 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the Cedar River Chinook Tier 1 Subareas 12 Restoration of Migratory and Rearing Areas for Cedar River Chinook 16 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the Cedar River Chinook Tier 2 Subareas 19 Conservation Strategy for North Lake Washington Chinook Population 23 VSP Status and Relative Risk for North Lake Washington Chinook 23 Watershed Evaluation Framework for North Lake Washington.(NLW) 24 EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for NLW Chinook 26 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the NLW Chinook Tier 1 Subareas ·26 Restoration of Migratory and Rearing Areas for NLW Chinook 31 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the NLW Chinook Tier 2 Subareas 33 Conservation Strategy for Issaquah Creek Chinook 37 VSP Status and Relative Risk for Issaquah Creek Chinook 37 Watershed Evaluation Framework for Issaquah Creek Chinook 37 EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for Issaquah Creek Chinook 39 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the Issaquah Creek Chinook Tier 1 Subareas 39 Issaquah Tier 1 Migratory and Rearing Areas 42 Comparing Areas Used by Multiple Populations 45 Potential WRIA 8 Habitat and Hatchery Scenarios 47 Goals and Objectives for WRIA 8 Habitat and Chinook Populations 50 Summary of the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy 60 References 64 Chapter 5. Actions to Achieve Our Goals What actions are needed to achieve our goals for Chinook salmon? WRIA 8 Steering Committee Guidance Summary of Technical Guidance The Comprehensive Action Lists and Start-list Context and Relationship to Other Programs/Processes Additional Opportunities for Collaborative Partnerships Chapter 6. Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Why do we need monitoring? Who else is working on monitoring? Recommended Parameters and Monitoring Timeframes Implementation Monitoring Direct Effectiveness Cumulative Effectiveness Monitoring Validation Monitoring Coordination of Monitoring Efforts 1 2 3 10 14 16 1 2 5 6 7 9 13 13 Draft Interim Goals Next Steps References Chapter 7. Funding Strategy Current Spending on Salmon Recovery in WRIA 8 Local Government Spending Federal Funding State Funding Costs of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Plan Options for Future Funding Levels Option One: Base Level Option Two: Base Level Plus 30% Option Three: Base Level Plus 50% Summary Table Options Considered but Not Fully Developed Capacity to Implement the WRIA 8 Plan at Various Funding Levels Funding Challenges and Actions at the Preferred Funding Level Federal Funding State Funding Local/Regional Funding Implement an interim strategy for funding of WRIA 8 efforts Next Steps Chapter 8. Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation Introduction Benefits to Salmon and the Pubic for Implementing the Plan Expectations for Potential Benefits that Could Be Negotiated with Regulating Agencies Potential Actions to Be Implemented by Non-Local Government Entities Seeking Support from Non-Local Government Entities for Plan Implementation Expectations from Puget Sound Shared Strategy Commitments from Local Governments Next Steps References Chapter 9. Action Start-list 13 13 17 1 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 8 9 10 10 13 13 15 17 19 19 1 2 3 4 4 7 7 8 9 Introduction to Action Start-list 1 Action Start-list for Cedar River Chinook Population 3 Action Start-list for North Lake Washington Chinook Population (Includes Sammamish River) 8 Action Start-list for Issaquah Chinook Population 16 Action Start-list for Migratory Areas (Includes Lakes, Ship Canal, Locks, Estuary/Nearshore) (All Tier 1) 20 Preliminary Cost Estimates of Site Specific Projects and Programmatic Actions 26 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acknowledgements Glossary FIGURES IN VOLUME I Executive Summary Figure 1 Map of the watershed Chapter 2. Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9 Chapter 3. Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Chapter 4. Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 4-9 Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12 Chapter 5. Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-4 Figure 5-5 Chapter 6. Figure 6-1 Chapter 7. Figure 7-1 Plan Implementation Framework Plan Implementation Steps with Adaptive Management Approach Plan Implementation Organizational Structure WRIA 8 Plan Implementation Roles and Responsibilities Summary Matrix Ratification Starts Plan Implementation Clock Plan Horizon is 10 Years Annual Check-in on Plan Implementation Progress Initial Effectiveness Assessment in Year 3 Evaluating Priorities and Progress in Year Convening Leaders The Science Foundation Historic escapement index for the Cedar River Chinook Illustration of the Ballard Locks Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Interactions of human activities with riverine/estuarine ecosystem Building Conservation Hypotheses WRIA 8 Chinook Populations and Watershed Evaluation Tiers Cedar River Chinook Relative Restoration Potential Tier 1 North Lake Washington Chinook Relative Restoration Potential in Tier 1 Subareas NLW Chinook Tier 2 Relative Restoration Potential Issaquah Chinook Relative Restoration Potential Relative Restoration Potential of Migratory and Rearing Areas Lake Washington Segmentation and Prioritization Areas Hypothetical Chinook Population Trends Examples of "Best Prevailing Conditions" Line for Forest Cover under Varying Levels of Impervious Area Actions to Achieve Our Goals Draft: Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in Lower Cedar River Tribuiaries Draft: Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in Middle Cedar River Tributaries Draft: Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in North Lake Washington Tributaries Draft: Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in Issaquah, Carey/Holder, and Issaquah Creek Tributaries {Includes Lake Sammamish Recommendations) Draft: Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in Migratory and Rearing Corridors of WRIA 8 Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Local Cumulative Monitoring Costs Used in WRIA Plan Funding Strategy Funding Sources in WRIA 8 11 2 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 9 19 4 5 6 15 30 36 44 45 46 52 56 18 19 20 21 22 3 4 Chapter 3. Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Chapter 4. Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Table 4-14 Table 4- Table 4-15 Table 4-16 Chapter 5. Table 5-1 Chapter 6. Table 6-1 Chapter 7. Table 7-1 Chapter 9. Table 9-1 Tables in Volume I The Science Foundation Factors used to evaluate and rank watershed conditions 2003 WRIA 8 Chinook salmon population analysis matrix Number of redds recorded in the Cedar River 1999-2003 Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 1 Subareas Cedar Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations Cedar River Tier 1 Restoration Recommendations Restoration Recommendations for Cedar River Chinook Migratory and Rearing Areas Protection Recommendations for Cedar Tier 2 Subareas Restoration Recommendations for the Cedar River Tier 2 Subareas Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 1 Subareas (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, Cottage Lake Creek) Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, Cottage Lake Creek) Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Restoration Recommendations for Tier 1 Subareas (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, Cottage Lake Creek) Restoration Recommendations for NLW Migratory & Rearing Areas Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 2 Subareas (Evans, Little Bear, North and Kelsey Creeks) NLW Chinook Tier 2 Reach-Level Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Protection Recommendations for Issaquah Creek Tier 1 Subareas Issaquah Creek Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Restoration Recommendations for Issaquah Creek Tier 1 Subareas Restoration Recommendations for Issaquah Migratory and Rearing Areas WRIA 8 Goals and Objectives for Habitat and Chinook Populations Actions to Achieve Our Goals Assumptions about linkages between Technical Committee habitat conservation hypotheses, proposed actions, and viable salmon population parameters Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress WRIA 8 Technical Committee Monitoring Recommendations Funding Strategy Capacity to Implement WRIA. 8 Plan at Various Funding Levels Action Start-list WRIA 8 Action Start-List -"Ballpark" Cost Estimates for 3 Chinook Populations: Cedar, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah 3 8 10 12 13 14 4-16 20 21 27 28 31 32 34 34 39 40 41 42 54-55 7 16 11 30 I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary Executive Summary The Steering Committee Proposed WR/A 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Why is there a plan and what is it? The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRJA 8 1 ), located in western Washington, is home to three populations of Chinook salmon: Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah. Each year Chinook salmon spawn and rear in the WRIA 8 rivers and streams, and use the lakes, rivers, estuary, and nearshore to rear and migrate to the ocean. Development in the watershed for human use has dramatically altered habitat that salmon need to survive. Chinook salmon (known more commonly as king salmon) are in trouble; they are far less abundant now than they were even in recent decades, and all three populations are at high risk of extinction. In 1999, the federal government listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Salmon have historically been, and continue to represent, a vital part of the culture and economy of this watershed. The health of salmon populations is an indicator of overall watershed health. Condition of fish habitat is linked to the quality of the environment and the benefits human inhabitants reap from it. Concerned about the need to protect and restore habitat for Chinook salmon for future generations, 27 local governments in WRIA 8, including King and Snohomish counties, Seattle, and 24 other cities in those counties, signed an inter-local agreement in 2001 to jointly fund the development of a conservation plan to protect and restore salmon habitat. The WRJA 8 Steering Committee developed this Plan through a multiple stakeholder planning process. The Steering Committee is composed of city and county elected leaders, concerned citizens, scientists, and representatives from business and community groups, water and sewer districts, and state and federal agencies The Steering Committee Proposed WR/A 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan is the result of these collaborative efforts. It is a science-based plan that contains recommendations for prioritized actions to restore and protect salmon habitat, and a collaborative approach for implementing these actions over the next ten years. The decline of Chinook and other salmon has generally been attributed to four factors: habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. This Plan focuses on conservation of Chinook salmon habitat because local governments have responsibility for the habitat-based aspects of Chinook survival. Local governments and other WRIA 8 partners can make the most impact on habitat where salmon spawn and rear, particularly through implementation of land use and stormwater management policies and programs, local protection and restoration projects, and public involvement opportunities. The state and the tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 8. Puget Sound Shared Strategy will integrate harvest and hatchery recommendations with habitat recommendations. As noted above, bull trout have also been listed as threatened in WRIA 8 under the ESA. Bull trout use some of the lower watershed for migration, overwintering, and foraging. Although much less is known about bull trout's habitat needs, it is hypothesized that 1 The watershed Is also referred to as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Executive Summary proposed improvements to Chinook habitat (especially in the Lake Washington, Ship Canal, and Puget Sound Nearshore subareas) will also benefit bull trout. The bull trout in the Upper Cedar River watershed, i.e., in Chester Morse Lake, are included in the City of Seattle's Habitat Conservation Plan. Next steps to finalize the Plan The Steering Committee has provided significant guidance in the Plan's development and sought input from the public before finalizin~ the Plan. A public review process was held from November 12th through December 17', 2004. The public provided comments at four open houses and submitted 57 comment letters and emails. This feedback was considered by the Steering Committee and the plan was revised. Through this proposed Plan, the Steering Committee recommends local jurisdictions and other WRIA 8 partners make commitments to implement actions and monitoring over the 10-year plan horizon. However, the proposed Plan does not commit jurisdictions or other partners to fund or implement the recommendations. Before commitments can be made, this Plan needs approval of the WRIA 8 Forum, composed of local elected leaders representing the 27 jurisdictions that have funded the planning effort, and review and ratification by local jurisdictions. The proposed Plan is now being submitted to the Forum for their review and approval. The Forum has 90 days to approve or remand the Plan, and recommend how ratification by local jurisdictions should occur. Upon ratification, the Forum will submit the final Plan to the Puget Sound Shared Strategy to become part of the regional recovery plan for Chinook throughout Puget Sound (technically referred to as the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit -ESU). The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed covers 692 square miles and contains two major river systems (Cedar and Sammamish), three large lakes (Washington, Sammamish, and Union), and numerous creeks including Issaquah and Bear creeks. The basin drains into Puget Sound through the Ship Canal and Hiram Chittenden (Ballard) Locks. The WRIA includes the marine nearshore and a number of smaller creeks that drain directly to Puget Sound between West Point in the City of Seattle northward to Elliott Point in the City of Mukilteo. WRIA 8 is located predominantly in western King County, but about 15 percent extends northward into Snohomish County. Over 53 percent of the marine shoreline is located within Snohomish County (see Figure 1, a map of the watershed). Prior to the 1850s, the aquatic areas in WRIA 8 were a network of lakes, streams, sloughs, marshes, islands, beaver ponds, and estuaries. The watershed consisted of forested land through which meandered rivers and creeks. However, later in the 1800s, major alterations began with heavy logging of old growth forests, which degraded forest cover, hydrology, and instream habitat. At the turn of the 20th century, Seattle built the Landsburg Diversion Dam and tapped the Cedar River as its main source of water. Between 1910 and 1920, the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks were built, which created a new connection between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. The connection changed the outlet of Lake Washington from the Black River at the south end of the lake, to the Ship Canal at the west end. This caused Lake Washington's water surface elevation to drop about 10 feet, which in turn also dropped the level of Lake Sammamish and dried up much of the wetlands along the Sammamish River. About the same time, the Cedar River was channelized and re-routed to flow into February 25, 2005 Page 2 Executive Summary Lake Washington. In addition, the Sammamish River was straightened and its banks were hardened. Thus, salmon were faced with a highly altered migration route to reach their natal habitat, as well as an abrupt, artificial estuary to pass through as they moved in and out of the WRIA 8 system. Agriculture, and later, urban and suburban development during the 20 1h century have further altered the watershed's land cover and hydrology. Loss of forest cover and increased impervious areas, increased water withdrawals to serve urban and agricultural areas, and flood control activities (such as channelizing and confining rivers and streams) have all had significant impacts on local instream habitats and the landscape processes that create and maintain these habitats. Salmon have also been affected by development along lake shorelines and the introduction of non-native fish and plants. WRIA 8 is the most densely populated watershed in Washington. Approximately 55 percent of the land area in the WRtA lies inside the Urban Growth Area. The population in 2002 was approximately 1.3 million people; the projected population for 2022 is 1.6 million. Scientific Foundation for the Plan WR/A 8 Chinook populations The Plan is built around the need to support recovery of three Chinook populations in the watershed: the Cedar River population, the North Lake Washington population, and the Issaquah population (see discussion below under Uncertainties). The Cedar River population spawns in the Cedar River's mainstem and to a lesser extent in its tributaries. When juveniles leave the river in the spring, they rear and migrate in shallow habitats along Lake Washington's shorelines, particularly in the south end. The North Lake Washington population spawns in the tributaries to northern Lake Washington and the Sammamish River, including Bear, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey creeks. Issaquah Chinook spawn in tributaries to Lake Sammamish, including the Issaquah Creek system and Lewis and Laughing Jacobs Creek. Propagation of this population occurs through both natural spawning -in the wild -and artificial spawning in the Issaquah Hatchery. Salmon from all three populations migrate in and out of the watershed through the lakes, Ship Canal, and Locks; juveniles rear in the marine nearshore areas of Puget Sound before heading to the ocean. WRIA 8 Chinook populations are unique from other populations in the Puget Sound ESU as they are the only ones that use a lake for rearing and migrating. Current habitat conditions and limiting factors Development in WRIA 8 for human uses has dramatically altered aquatic habitat conditions and the processes that form and maintain them. The factors that limit salmon habitat are similar for the lakes, rivers, and creeks in the watershed, although the magnitude of impact varies by type of water body and specific watershed area. It is important to understand that the limiting factors interact with one another to worsen the habitat problems seen in the aquatic systems. The factors that limit habitat include: • Altered hydrology (e.g., low base flows, higher peak flows following storms, and increased 'flashiness', which means more frequent and rapid responses when it rains) • Loss of floodplain connectivity (e.g., reduced access to side-channels or off-channel areas due to bank armoring and development close to shorelines) • Lack of riparian vegetation (e.g., from clearing and development) • Disrupted sediment processes (e.g., too much fine sediment deposited in urban streams, or sources of spawning gravel disconnected from the river channel) February 25, 2005 Page 3 Executive Summary • Loss of channel and shoreline complexity (e.g., lack of woody debris and pools) • Barriers to fish passage (e.g., from road crossings, weirs, and dams) • Degraded water and sediment quality (e.g., pollutants and high temperatures) What the science says The WRIA 8 Technical Committee is an inter-jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder committee of science professionals who developed the science foundation for the Plan. The Technical Committee used three analytical tools to create the conservation strategy for Chinook habitat protection and restoration. Those tools were a Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) framework based on NOAA Fisheries guidance, a Watershed Evaluation, and an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) habitat model adapted to WRIA 8. NOAA Fisheries is applying the VSP concepts to salmon recovery efforts throughout the West Coast; the Watershed Evaluation was developed by the Technical Committee for application in WRIA 8. The EDT river habitat model has been used by the state and other entities around Washington, and it was customized by the Technical Committee to include the lakes, Ship Canal, and Locks. The conservation strategy"provides the framework for development of Plan actions and is founded on basic ecosystem objectives, including: • Protect and restore habitat Chinook salmon use during all of the life stages that are spent in the WRIA 8 watershed, from egg to fry to smolt to adult • Protect and restore the natural processes that create this habitat, such as natural flow regimes and movement of sediments and spawning gravels • Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality habitat to serve as centers for the population • Provide safe connections between those habitat centers to allow for future expansion. The VSP assessment of the relative risk to the long-term viability of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon determined that all three Chinook salmon populations are at extremely high risk of extinction. Consequently, habitat actions, in coordination with actions by harvest and hatchery managers, are needed to address all three populations. The Technical Committee has hypothesized that the Cedar population is at the highest relative risk (because of steeply declining abundance trends), followed by the North Lake Washington population, then Issaquah. Therefore, the conservation strategy recommends that actions focus on areas used by the Cedar Chinook population as first priority, followed by the North Lake Washington population, and then Issaquah. This strategy could change pending results of the genetics study (described in the Uncertainties section below). The Watershed Evaluation divided areas used by each of the three populations into tiers, based on relative watershed conditions and Chinook abundance and use. In general, Tier 1 subareas have the relatively highest quality habitat and highest fish abundance and/or use, while Tier 3 subareas have the relatively most degraded habitat and infrequent Chinook use. Actions in Tier 1 subareas generally are higher priority than Tier 2, but Tier 2 actions are needed in many subareas to expand the Chinook populations spatially over the long term to reduce the risk posed by having key life stages such as spawning and rearing occur in only one stream or stream segment. In addition, actions are needed at the landscape scale to protect and restore watershed processes that create and maintain Chinook habitat for all life stages. Therefore, it is essential that land use and public outreach actions are implemented in all three tiers. In general, actions recommended for the Tier 1 subareas should protect and restore remaining high quality habitat and related processes, Tier 2 actions should February 25, 2005 Page4 Executive Summary focus on protecting remaining habitat as well as restoring habitat to Tier 1 conditions, and Tier 3 actions should focus on maintaining and restoring water quality and natural hydrologic processes (stormwater and instream flows). The EDT modeling phase of the technical work resulted in restoration and protection priorities at both the landscape scale and reach scale. The conservation strategy identified objectives for actions in each of the Chinook population and migratory areas; these are summarized in Table 1 in the section on Actions below. Working with and resolving uncertainties This Plan reflects the most up-to-date scientific information available regarding the current health of Chinook populations and their habitat in WRIA 8 and management actions that are advisable and necessary to improve their health. However, there remain several areas of scientific uncertainty that influence choices about which actions offer the most benefit toward reaching the Plan's goals ·and objectives. Some of these uncertainties will be addressed through research, and the research results will be incorporated into the Plan through adaptive management. These uncertainties include, but are not limited to the following: • While the WRJA 8 Plan is based on three Chinook populations, the NOAA Fisheries Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT) identifies two: the Cedar River Chinook and Sammamish River Chinook (which includes North Lake Washington and Issaquah sub-populations). The WRIA 8 Technical Committee decided to take a precautionary approach and plan for three populations. A genetics study of WRIA 8 populations, under way at this time, will help address some of the questions surrounding current genetic differences that exist among Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. • Uncertainties about salmon-habitat relationships and interactions among habitat, hatchery, and harvest management decisions (including the relative contribution of hatchery strays on spawning grounds and their impact) have not been fully explored. • The Steering Committee mission and goals require that the Plan set a combination of biological goals and habitat performance goals that focus on the habitat processes, functions and structures that support the biological goals. The PSTRT and the co- managers have identified biological goals (referred to as 'planning ranges and targets') for most Chinook populations in the Puget Sound ESU. o Immediately prior to the publication of this Plan in February 2005, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided recovery planning targets for WRIA 8. These numbers were generated by WDFW using the WRIA 8 Technical Committee EDT habitat model assuming "properly functioning conditions" for habitat in rivers and streams and template (presumed historic) habitat conditions in the lakes, Ship Canal, Locks, and estuary. " The Technical Committee will continue to evaluate potential performance measures, including the planning targets identified by WDFW, as part of the evaluation of conservation actions during 2005. • It has not been determined which actions provide the most habitat benefits per dollar spent, and how far suites of actions will get us toward Chinook recovery. The treatment phase, the "T" of the EDT model, to be completed during 2005, will provide additional analysis and direction. Risk of not taking specific actions has not been determined. • Effects of global warming have not yet been analyzed for the watershed. Puget Sound Shared Strategy is providing analysis of global warming effects on salmon. February 25, 2005 Page 5 Executive Summary Summary of Major Recommendations Adaptive management approach and implementation timeline Plan implementation will be guided by the basic principles of adaptive management, which encourage taking advantage of opportunities to assess progress and learning from actions taken in order to make better decisions in the future. Given the complexity of salmon recovery in WRIA 8, adaptive management can help stakeholders spend limited resources in a more cost-effective way. This approach calls for setting quantitative and qualitative goals for what WRIA 8 partners hope to achieve through the Plan and monitoring to measure success towards achieving those goals. It also calls for establishing a collaborative process to secure resources to carry out actions over the Plan horizon. The Steering Committee made specific recommendations about organizational structure, monitoring, and funding to implement the Plan adaptively, as summarized below. The Steering Committee recommends an initial ten-year horizon for Plan implementation. While setting this timeframe recognizes that stakeholders can more easily commit to taking actions in the near term, it also acknowledges that salmon response to habitat improvements -and detecting that response -will require a very long time. The Plan calls for an annual report to keep stakeholders and the public informed on progress of implementation, along with an assessment every three to five years to determine action effectiveness and implications for Plan priorities. Organizational structure The Steering Committee recommends that the Plan be implemented collaboratively, to continue the collaboration that has characterized current planning efforts in WRIA 8. Coordinated efforts should include tracking actions, technically assessing action effectiveness, communicating progress, and securing funding. The Steering Committee's proposed organizational structure features: • An Oversight Body to provide direction to ongoing Plan implementation activities and guide work of committees and shared staff. This body would consist of representatives of Plan implementers and funders, including government agencies, citizens, and non- governmental organizations; it would meet at least quarterly. • A Summit Advisory Body that would meet less frequently and would serve as a forum where information about Plan progress could be widely shared. This body would advise the Oversight Body on Plan priorities, resource allocation, and major Plan improvements. • Three working committees, made up of members from WRIA jurisdictions and stakeholder organizations and consisting of a Technical Committee, an Action Committee, and a Public Outreach Committee. The Steering Committee recommends retaining a few shared staff to help keep jurisdictions engaged in action implementation, support ongoing technical work to evaluate actions, secure funding, staff WRIA committees, arid to support collaborative implementation needs generally. One of the proposed positions would be a high-profile Executive Director to lead and facilitate efforts among WRIA partners, work with the Oversight and Summit Advisory Bodies, secure external resources through lobbying, and network with the broader recovery effort. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Executive Summary Actions to protect and restore habitat The actions recommended in this Plan are intended to prevent further decline of Chinook habitat and restore habitat that is now degraded. Actions were developed for all areas where the three Chinook populations spawn and rear, and for the migratory and rearing corridors Chinook use to travel to and from the ocean (Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Lake Union, Ship Canal, Locks, and Puget Sound Nearshore). The habitat actions were developed through a collaborative bottoms-up process that involved extensive participation of local stakeholders, jurisdiction staff, environmental and business representatives, project experts, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. The actions were developed with guidance from the Steering Committee mission and goals, the conservation strategy, the Near-Term Action Agenda, and other existing habitat efforts such as the Cedar River Legacy and Bear Creek and Issaquah Waterways programs. Table 1 summarizes the actions, organized by objectives outlined in the conservation strategy and focused on specific scientific outcomes. Actions for the Plan were developed in three broad categories: • Land use, planning, and infrastructure: actions that address habitat-forming processes at a landscape scale, and focus on accommodating future growth while minimizing impacts to salmon habitat. Included are incentive programs, regulations, best management practices, low impact development recommendations, enforcement actions, and policies • Site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects: actions that protect or restore a specific area or parcel through acquisition or easements, and restoration projects such as levee setbacks, revegetation, addition of large woody debris, and removal of barriers to fish passage • Public outreach a·nd education: actions that support the land use and site-specific actions or educate and encourage behavior that benefits habitat health, such as through workshops for shoreline landowners, a regional marketing campaign, and promotion of stewardship by businesses and community groups. Site specific projects in the Plan are identified and prioritized for all Tier 1 and 2 subareas. Land use and public outreach actions are provided for all tiers, including Tier 3. Actions are presented in two forms: "comprehensive lists" of 1,200 actions that can be used by implementers at any time to identify and carry out actions, and a much shorter "start-list" of 170 priority actions on which regional funding and analysis (e.g., the treatment phase of EDT) will focus during the first ten years of Plan impJementation. These lists will evolve through the adaptive management process based on monitoring results and new science. February 25, 2005 Page 7 Executive Summary Table 1: Objectives and Focus of Actions Based on Conservation Strategy Cedar River North Lake Washinaton Objectives of actions for Objectives of actions for Tier 1 Tier 1 and 2 subareas: and 2 Subareas: • Protect/restore habitat to • Protect/restore habitat to increase numbers of increase numbers of Chinook Chinook salmon salmon in Bear and Cottage • Improve habitat to Lake creeks support juvenile rearing • Expand distribution of Chinook • Increase numbers of fish into Tier 2 subareas to reduce and life histories in Tier 2 risk of relying on Bear Creek subareas Objectives of actions for Tier 3 Objectives of actions for subareas: Tier 3 subareas: • Maintain and restore water • Maintain and restore quality and natural hydrologic water quality and natural processes (stormwater and hydrologic processes instream flows) (stormwater and instream flows) Focus of actions: Focus of actions: • Protect water quality • Protect/restore water quality • ProtecUrestore instream (reduce sediments and high flows water temperature) • Protect/restore riparian • Protect natural hydrological habitat processes • Remove/set back levees • Protect/restore riparian to restore connections habitats with off-channel habitat • Reduce bed scour from high • Restore sources of large stormwater runoff flows woody debris (LWD) and • Reduce confinement of the add new LWD to restore channel pool habitat • Restore sources of LWD and install new LWD to provide juveniles refuge from predators /ssaauah Miaratorv!Rearing Objectives of Objectives of actions: actions for Tier 1 • Reduce predation on subareas: juvenile migrants in • Protect existing lakes by increasing habitat and rearing and refuge ecosystem opportunities processes • Protect and restore • Reduce risks of natural estuary and hatchery strays to nearshore processes other populations (Note: All Chinook streams in Issaquah are designated as Tier 1) Focus of actions: Focus of actions: • Protect existing Lakes Washington & habitat and Sammamish processes, such as • Restore shallow water quality, water habitats and forest cover, creek mouths for riparian cover, juvenile rearing and LWD, and channel migration connectivity Sammamish River • Hold on restoration • Restore floodplain actions until connections and additional channel meanders guidance comes • Restore backwater from NOAA pools, LWD, riparian Fisheries and vegetation others as to how Ship Canal/Locks such actions would • Reduce high affect other temperatures and populations due to restore shallow water hatchery strays habitats • Continue to improve fish passage through Locks and Ship Canal Nearshore/Estuary • Restore feeder bluffs, "pocket" estuaries, marine riparian vegetation • Restore riparian vegetation and freshwater mixing zone downstream of Locks • Remove armoring alono shoreline February 25, 2005 Page 8 Executive Summary Measures and monitoring The Steering Committee has recommended a strong monitoring program, recognizing that effective monitoring can help provide certainty that funding is targeted to the most critical actions and determine whether actions are achieving objectives. Three types of monitoring are particularly recommended: implementation, direct effectiveness, and cumulative effectiveness: • Implementation monitoring asks how many and where actions are being implemented, as well as their intended objectives. • Direct effectiveness monitoring asks if specific actions (e.g., the addition of large woody debris) have met their specific objectives (e.g., creating pools). • Cumulative effectiveness monitoring asks whether and how multiple actions across a basin are improving habitat and if salmon survival is improving because of those habitat changes. Cumulative effectiveness is measured through such tools as aerial imagery to evaluate habitat changes, and juvenile outmigrant (i.e., smolt) traps and spawner surveys to evaluate changes in Chinook survival. The Steering Committee has identified cumulative effectiveness as the highest priority for collaborative monitoring, and recommends that it encompass programmatic actions (i.e., land use and public outreach) and actions that reduce predation as well as site-specific projects. Several elements are crucial to the success of the monitoring program. These include: securing stable, consistent funding for monitoring; avoiding duplication of efforts and creating partnerships with other entities involved in monitoring; focusing monitoring on areas of greatest uncertainty; communicating monitoring results to decision-makers and the public; and identifying endpoints to show when goals have been achieved. The Oversight Body and Technical Committee will need to work closely with other entities in the very near term to develop a comprehensive monitoring and data management program, and to find funding for and implement the range of monitoring tasks. Funding Plan implementation The Steering Committee recommends a high level of effort to implement the Plan in order to successfully protect and restore salmon habitat. Current funding, which includes contributions from local, state, and federal agencies for projects that are focused on and have direct benefits to salmon, is roughly estimated at $11 million per year. The Steering Committee recommends funding for future Plan implementation in three areas: continued regional collaboration (i.e., the shared staff and committee support described earlier), implementation of site-specific and programmatic actions, and monitoring. In order to meet this level of effort, the Steering Committee is proposing a funding strategy at a level that exceeds current funding by 50 percent. A 50 percent increase would mean an annual budget for the WRIA 8 Plan implementation of about $17.3 million. The adequacy of this funding level reflects an assumption by the Steering Committee that the current level of in- kind contributions of staff time from participating entities will continue during Plan implementation. The Steering Committee recognizes that in order to go beyond current funding levels, a number of important steps are necessary, including the following: • Support continuation of local and regional sources (e.g., King Conservation District and King County Conservation Futures Tax) • Develop local grant-writing and lobbying capacity • Collaborate to secure new state and/or regional funding sources February 25, 2005 Page 9 Executive Summary • Encourage increased funding from federal sources, e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It should be noted that the proposed level of effort and funding is not based on the number and type of actions that would need to be implemented annually to achieve a specific level of salmon response. Additional information about what is necessary to achieve a specific level of salmon response may become available through the adaptive management process and the treatment phase of the EDT model. Commitments Implementation of the Plan is expected to offer many benefits to fish and humans, including healthy salmon populations; improvement in overall ecosystem health (e.g., water quality); a legacy for future generations of salmon swimming through WRIA 8 streams and lakes; and assurances from federal and state governments to local governments in exchange for commitments to fund and implement the ongoing collaborative effort, proposed actions, and monitoring. The Steering Committee recommends as a minimum commitment that jurisdictions pass resolutions to formally consider the Plan as guidance, and possibly further, that jurisdictions commit to implementing particular actions or adopting the entire Plan. The Steering Committee supports various means to engage federal and state agencies, developers, landowners, citizens, and other non-local government entities in actions that they could implement. In exchange for making commitments to take action, the Steering Committee recommends that jurisdictions work with the federal and state governments to negotiate potential benefits and assurances. These could include funding, expedited permitting, de-listing criteria, and standing of the federal government with the local jurisdictions should there be legal challenges to the sufficiency of the Plan. The more assurances desired from the federal government, the stronger the commitments will need to be. The Steering Committee recognizes that this aspect of the proposed Plan is in its initial stages and is part of an iterative discussion involving federal agencies and other entities participating in salmon recovery. There will need to be a dialog among appropriate parties (such as the Forum, Puget Sound Shared Strategy, federal, state, and local governments, and the co-managers) to define and refine the final commitments, assurances, and expectations that will benefit salmon recovery. Future of WRIA 8 Salmon With this Plan, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee -with the help of governments, businesses, developers, shoreline landowners, community groups, gardeners, and citizens -hopes to lead the region towards a legacy of healthy, harvestable salmon and improved water quality for future generations. In the next 12 months, many decisions about the recommendations in this Plan need to be made. What will be implemented, by whom, and with what funding? How we build our communities, the land and resources we choose to protect, and the shoreline we select to restore all influence salmon habitat. The choice is up to the residents, businesses, and governments in WRIA 8. Will we lose Chinook salmon forever or alter our habits and learn to better co-exist with them? Will we leave only a legend of the king salmon that once swam in our waters, or will we ensure the legacy of thriving Chinook that migrate every year through our shared watershed? Decisions on whether and how to implement this Plan will help determine the answer. February 25, 2005 Page 10 ._,,,-. WRIA Boundary '--"'... River/Stream Major Road C:::J Puget Sound /Lake Incorporated Area 0 b N + 2 4 July 2005 6 Miles f The rnformat,on included on th• map ha s~ oon'1)11ed hom • va, .. 1y of aoureM and IS •ubfect to chan1111 without not 1Ce. K ing County miikH l",(I r epr &&enl ations or w111rrlll'lhe1, express o, ~~. u l o aiccuracy, colTl)l•en Ms.. 1,meli'leu. °' ngt,tl to the UM ot sui;h ,ntormation .it;ng County lh&JI not be Nlble to , any g,enara l. Stl8Cl&I 1rdrect. mcdllntal o, ~··rflaJ damages ,nc1uon0, bu1 nOII ~rrwtftd lo, \ot.t ,...,.,..,.,., or lost prof¢$ rnun.ng trom lhe uu or ~ ot uw tnfonnahon COl'llarl'l$d on IM m ap Ariy w NI ~ this map or 1nl ormatk>n on this map 1• prohcl:ed ekCept r,y wntten ~rrnubn o l King Counly M ap produced by King Cou nty DNRP GIS and WLR Visual Co mmunications & Web Unit Fi le name:0507wBexecsu mmMAP.ai wgab • '~ ' I 1 -:.Ml } ' /-3.V , ,,v-· :, :~ d ~ ! Jc:~~ : .... C I / "'I ;t.TNNWOOD , ;:-<e> . :~q:. . ·-· ~: . ' " ,,_'· >, .f":') .... ---..., ~ !I ','--- \ .~". ,pl SEATT LE -~"' cf ' ~ ,· -~,,,. ~ ' 'i ) t lRKLAN D ;) HIU ~·· . v)~ ::"., ~ ~ 0 -e;.- . <.!'~WOOD INVILLE 9~ \ C s.. <-~, ; .,,. ~ ~ ~: '# ,{',.:o ~ ' ' <:;i ;,-",~i' \ .llED MON ij ... --~ _I, ~ -~ 1 Eva,., .. _:~ ..... ·-.:.~ \,;~ ' A!l!t.' -~}. .''-~ /'~ •; J ' :, ~ ..f:~1.,, ' .~ ~ .. ,-,; ('> ·' V •.~ ~ ')' BELLEVUE , •, , Jl ' c/ SAMMAMISH J ' ,( I l f ·\ ·,cl' i ~ ') ""'" -~ ":.. I '·•vq~i~j(~. . 0 ~ '· •'\',~ \~<;~"_~,f 1fa.,, '·,Q..., '.~..+ .::J.\ .... ~'--.. ,~""{~ ~'. -,. '"" u J \., • :;1-~' ~ £ l<l*Li:r ,(~,' ISSAQu).!:! O O ' .' ~6 ·, P,.,,,Q/J C r , .. ~ -.... ~ "' ··-~" ..... Fi[tcr.11 1 Q ._ .... :;,,,a1, ci' ~" '· ,b ~G,'">:o-· -~ '. -,\>I> ,o , --""·"'~ I ·•. ; .'.:;:::'t;<..;lwster Mune ,. · .'.'''>s. Reservoir .. -... .,_ -....... Figu re 1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Location Map WRIA 7 s-.a - ® King County Department of Natura l Re sour ce s and Parl<s Water and La nd Re sources Division f ~ASEl[,vC' «)'% I") 0 n, ... C) ::: ~ ~ <l' t "f~<4M1S\\ ~ ''\ ·<~,'1, ...... ~. '~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAJ\ Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan "The wild salmon of Puget Sound can be saved, but only if we muster the political will and wisdom to match the social and technical challenges presented by the salmon's struggle for survival. I believe we have the opportunity to demonstrate the capacity of a free society to save a resource in a manner that supports both nature and people. . . We not only can, but I believe, we must succeed." --William 0. Ruckelshaus, Salmon Recovery Funding Board Chairman Sunday, July 23, 2000, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Why did we develop this Plan? The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, located in western Washington, comprises 692 square miles and includes two major river systems (Cedar and Sammamish) and three large lakes (Union, Washington, and Sammamish). It also includes the marine nearshore and numerous smaller subbasins that drain directly to Puget Sound from West Point in the City of Seattle northward to Elliott Point in the City of Mukilteo. WRIA 8 1 is located predominantly in western King County, but about 15 percent extends northward into Snohomish County. However, over 53 percent of the marine shoreline is located within Snohomish County. Additional information about the watershed is provided in Chapter 3. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is home to three populations of Chinook salmon: Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah. Each year Chinook salmon spawn and rear in the rivers, streams, and tributaries and use the lakes, rivers, estuary, and nearshore to rear and then migrate to the ocean. Development of the WRIA 8 watershed for human use has dramatically altered the habitat salmon need to survive. Chinook salmon in WRIA 8 are in trouble; they are far less abundant now than they were even in recent decades, and all three populations are at high risk of extinction. In March 1999, the federal government listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Salmon have historically been, and continue to represent, a vital part of the culture, quality of life, and the economy of this region. The salmon's decline is an indicator of the overall health of the watershed. Condition of fish habitat is linked to the quality of the environment and the benefits human inhabitants reap from it. Concerned about the need to protect and restore habitat for Chinook salmon for future generations, 27 local governments in WRIA 8, including King and Snohomish counties, Seattle, and 24 other cities in those counties, signed an interlocal agreement in 2001 to jointly fund the development of a conservation plan to protect and restore salmon habitat. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee developed this Plan through a multiple stakeholder planning process. The Steering Committee is composed of city and county elected leaders, concerned citizens, scientists, and representatives from business and community groups, water and sewer districts, and state and federal agencies. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee Proposed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan is the result of this collaborative effort. It is a science-based plan containing recommendations for actions to restore and protect salmon habitat, and an approach for implementing these actions over the next ten years. The Plan was developed using the mission and goal statements adopted by the Steering Committee in 1999. The mission and goals, and a description of the overall planning process and stakeholder committees, are provided later in this chapter. 1The watershed is also referred to as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan The decline of Chinook and other salmon in the watershed has generally been attributed to four factors: habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries (Washington State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, 1999). This Plan focuses on conservation of salmon habitat, because local WRIA 8 partners have responsibility for the habitat-based aspects of Chinook survival. Local governments and other WRIA 8 partners can make the most impact on habitat where salmon spawn, rear, and migrate, particularly through implementation of local protection and restoration projects, land use policies, and public involvement opportunities. In this watershed, dams were built for water supply rather than hydropower and therefore are being addressed by local governments. Ocean conditions, which can have significant impact on salmon spawner abundance, are outside the influence of WRIA 8 partners. The state and the tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fisheries resource, are addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 8. The Puget Sound Shared Strategy2 will integrate harvest and hatchery recommendations with habitat recommendations. It should be noted that bull trout have also been listed in WRIA 8 as threatened under the ESA. Bull trout use some of the lower watershed for migration, overwintering, and foraging. Although much less is known about bull trout's habitat needs, it is hypothesized that proposed improvements to Chinook habitat (especially in the Lake Washington, Ship Canal, and Puget Sound Nearshore subareas) will also benefit bull trout. The bull trout in the upper Cedar River watershed, i.e., in. Chester Morse Lake, are included in the City of Seattle's Habitat Conservation Plan. Now it is up to all of us who live and work in WRIA 8 whether to lose Chinook salmon forever or alter our habits and learn to better co-exist with them. Saving salmon and their habitat will not be an easy task, considering WRIA 8 is the most highly urbanized and populated watershed in the state. However, regional collaboration to protect our environment is not new to this watershed. Some 40 years ago, the previous generation created a legacy for us by cleaning up Lake Washington, before the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the state Department of Ecology ever existed. It is our turn to decide what we will leave to future generations -stories and pictures of Chinook salmon, or the opportunity to watch them return every year to spawn. Our challenge is to figure out how to maintain both our quality of life and the survival of these creatures that are so closely associated with life in the Pacific Northwest. This challenge is also an opportunity to prove that humans and wild salmon populations can continue to thrive together, even in urbanized watersheds like WRIA 8. It will require that transportation and development projects needed to support human populations in the future occur in a way that minimizes impacts to salmon habitat, through low impact development practices and many other innovative actions proposed in this Plan. How will we all benefit from implementation of the Plan? There are many types of benefits that can arise from implementation of the Plan, from supporting Chinook salmon recovery to cleaner water for public health to possible legal assurances from the regulating agencies. The Steering Committee mission and goal statements lay out expectations for Plan goals and benefits (please refer to goals statements on page 9). During the development of the public 2 The Puget Sound Shared Strategy is collaboration among several levels of government, including federal agencies responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act, the state, and the tribes, as well as other stakeholders. Shared Strategy intends to develop a recovery plan at the Puget Sound scale that incorporates the WRIA 8 plan, similar efforts from groups in other watersheds, and plans for harvest and hatchery management from the co- managers of the fisheries resource (i.e., the tribes and the state). February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan review draft, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee had further discussions on the benefits they would like to see for salmon, the public, and implementing entities. Foremost among these are: • Healthy salmon populations and habitat • Ecosystem health, including species diversity, maintenance of native species, and water quality • Legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport fishing and quality of life, which includes cultural heritage • Legal assurances from federal and state governments to local governments in exchange for commitments to implement the Plan. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee listed a second tier of benefits as well: • Preserving options and opportunities for the future • Change in culture, behavior, and thinking -a paradigm shift • Funding and assistance from federal and state agencies, co-managers of the fisheries resource, the private sector, and non-profit organizations • Cleaner, colder water that also benefits public health • Common priorities for action and resources among WRIA 8 partners • Assurances from federal and state governments that implementation could meet various federal and state laws and requirements beyond the ESA such as the Clean Water Act, the Growth Management Act, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits • Regional cooperation and success on a challenging issue. Steering Committee members recognize that implementation of the Plan offers other benefits as well: • Support of local growth management plans • Public ownership of the problem/Holding participants and others accountable • Efficient use of resources and investments • Certainty and predictability for jurisdictions, private sector, and the public • Streamlining of state and federal permitting processes (WRIA 8 partners would need to work with permitting agencies for this to occur) • Distributed responsibility for taking action and expending resources • Shared science upon which actions are based • Support of improved public safety through protection and restoration of the floodplain. Timeframe for the Plan The Plan incorporates an adaptive management approach that calls for course corrections based on new information and monitoring of proposed actions, considering both biological and institutional performance. Chapter 2 describes the Steering Committee recommendations for an implementation timeline. The overall proposal is for a ten-year horizon for Plan implementation. This does not mean that all Plan implementation activities will be geared to a ten-year window. For example, Plan progress will be reported annually, and steps in assessing effectiveness of actions will most likely be taken within a cycle that repeats approximately every three years. Ten years is viewed as the timeframe over which the initial Plan priorities are most likely to be useful as guides for habitat actions, with year ten anticipated to be when serious consideration is given to shifting priorities based on monitoring results and new knowledge. It is important to note that the time horizon for fully achieving recovery of Chinook populations will likely take much longer. February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan How was the Plan developed? Watershed planning to promote a number of objectives, including salmon habitat conservation, has been under way in WRIA 8 during the last decade. In early 1999, shortly before the Chinook ESA listing, government and community partners undertook a concentrated campaign to obtain public input on potential salmon conservation efforts in the watershed. Several themes emerged from the public input that included the following: a variety of education and involvement tools are needed to promote stewardship; habitat protection and conservation should be the highest priority, with habitat restoration efforts next; existing environmental regulations should be effectively enforced. These themes were incorporated into the WRIA 8 Steering Committee mission and goals (see page 9). WRIA 8 Science and Planning As mentioned earlier, 27 local governments in WRIA 8 signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund the current planning effort to conserve salmon habitat in the watershed. The interjurisdictional, multi-stakeholder planning process incorporates science into actions in four phases. The first phase was the technical analysis of the factors of salmon habitat decline that was published in the Salmon and Stee/head Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar- Sammamish Basin (Kerwin 2001 ). The second phase was development and publication of the Lake Washington/Cedar! Sammamish (WR/A 8) Watershed Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation, which provided immediate guidance and a menu of voluntary actions that could be implemented while the Chinook Plan was being developed. A number of these projects and program recommendations have already been implemented or are now under way. The third phase continued the technical analysis that is laid out in Chapter 3. This scientific and technical assessment has resulted in the conservation strategy described in Chapter 4. (More explanation is provided later in this chapter.) This document represents the final work product of the interlocal agreement signed in early 2001. There have been earlier iterations. The first was the December 31, 2003 Draft Plan Framework and Preliminary Actions List and the second was the June 3dh Work Product for the WR/A 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The November 12, 2004 draft Plan was circulated widely for public review. Input from the public review process was considered by the Steering Committee to develop this proposed Plan. WRIA 8 Committees and Participants As noted earlier, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee is responsible for the development of the Chinook Plan and they have actively provided guidance and direction through the various phases and work products. Their regularly scheduled meetings are open to the public and offer opportunities for public comment. The Steering Committee set the scope and direction of the Plan, which received significant input and work through an inclusive, interjurisdictional, multi- stakeholder, bottoms-up process to propose actions and an implementation structure. There have been many working committees involved in all the phases and in developing draft Plan work products. The interjurisdictional, multi-stakeholder Technical Committee consists of science professionals who developed the science foundation and conservation strategy described in Chapters 3 and 4. The Synthesis Committee was composed of members of all the working committees and helped develop the scope, schedule, and criteria for the draft Plan. The interjurisdictional Adaptive Management Work Group proposed options for an implementation framework that includes monitoring and measures, a collaborative organizational structure, funding strategies, and expectations for commitments and assurances. February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan The Staff Committee consists of staff representatives from the local governments that are cost- sharing the planning process. Staff Committee members keep their respective jurisdictions apprised of progress and issues related to the planning progress. In addition, some committee members participate on the various working committees according to their expertise and interest. Experts on site-specific projects and on land use were convened by subarea to ensure maximum participation and knowledge of issues and opportunities. The site-specific habitat restoration and protection projects were identified and prioritized by local sub-area experts and members of the Technical Committee, including staff representing 60 percent of the local jurisdictions (engineers, basin stewards, park planners, etc.), scientists, citizens from ten different interest groups, and representatives from five regional, state, and federal agencies. The land use actions were developed by the Land Use Subcommittee, consisting of local government and consultant planners representing more than 60 percent of participating jurisdictions, along with citizens and business representatives. The Land Use Subcommittee developed policy and programmatic recommendations for the land use actions, particularly considering the urban and urbanizing nature of the watershed. They identified potential tools to avoid and mitigate impacts of future development and redevelopment on salmon habitat, including regulations and enforcement, incentives for developers and landowners, stormwater management, and management of public lands and rights-of-way. The interjurisdictional Public Outreach Committee consists of public outreach and stewardship staff from several of the participating jurisdictions as well as interested citizens. This committee is responsible for both developing the public outreach recommendations for the Plan and for promoting public involvement in the Plan's review and implementation. For all three types of actions, recommendations were based on the Chinook conservation strategy (see Chapter 4) and drew from the committees as well as the Near-Term Action Agenda, and existing science-based basin and protection programs, such as Bear Creek and Issaquah Waterways, and Cedar River Legacy. Individual jurisdictions and stakeholder groups volunteered their staff and professional resources to these various groups. (For more information on how actions were developed, see Chapter 5 and Appendix D. For a full list of participants on all the committees, see the Acknowledgements.) The Service Provider Team consists of employees of the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks who are cost-shared by the 27 local jurisdictions that signed the interlocal agreement. The team was hired to coordinate the WRIA-based planning process and work with all the committees to develop and produce the Plan. The WRIA 8 Forum consists of elected officials representing each of the 27 local governments that signed the interlocal agreement to jointly fund salmon conservation planning in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Steering Committee Proposed Plan: Contents and Recommendations This Plan contains recommendations for actions to restore and protect salmon habitat based on a scientific framework, and a proposed approach for implementing these actions over the next ten years. The Steering Committee has approved submittal of this plan to the Forum after seeking review and input from the public and local governments on its content and recommendations. After the public review process ended on December 17th, the Steering Committee incorporated the feedback received into this Steering Committee Proposed Plan, February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan which is now being reviewed by the WRIA 8 Forum. The Forum has 90 days to approve or remand the Plan, and to recommend how ratification of the Plan by local jurisdictions will take place. Upon ratification, the Forum will formally submit the Plan to the federal and state regulatory agencies, probably through Puget Sound Shared Strategy to become part of the regional recovery plan for the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Chapters 3 and 4 provide the scientific foundation for the Plan. These chapters were developed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. Chapter 3 describes current habitat conditions that affect Chinook salmon and the three analytical tools used to create the conservation strategy for Chinook habitat protection and restoration. Those tools were a Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) framework based on NOAA Fisheries guidance, a Watershed Evaluation, and an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model adapted to WRIA 8. NOAA Fisheries is applying the VSP concepts to salmon recovery efforts throughout the West Coast, while the watershed evaluation was developed by the Technical Committee for application in WRIA 8. The watershed evaluation resulted in designation of WRIA 8 subbasins into Tiers 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 subareas based upon watershed condition and Chinook use. The. EDT river habitat model has been used by other watershed groups and the state, and it was customized by the Technical Committee to include the lakes, Ship Canal, and Locks. Customization of the EDT model for WRIA 8 involved more than 90 technical experts representing 45 local, state, and federal agencies and stakeholders. Chapter 4 lays out the conservation strategy, which includes a series of hypotheses about how rehabilitation of the three Chinook populations can be achieved through landscape-level and in-stream conservation actions. Also included is an analysis of potential WRIA 8 habitat and hatchery scenarios risks caused by hatchery operations as well as options for ranges and targets for habitat conditions and Chinook populations in WRIA 83 . Additional technical analyses are located in Appendix C. Chapters 5, 9, and 10 describe recommendations for prioritized actions intended to prevent further decline of Chinook habitat and restore habitat that is now degraded. The action recommendations were developed for all the geographic subareas used by each of the three Chinook populations: areas used for spawning and rearing, as well as the migratory and rearing corridors they use to travel to and from the ocean (Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Lake Union, Ship Canal, Locks, and Near shore). There are three main types of action recommendations: 1) land use actions that could be adopted by jurisdictions on a voluntary basis, such as incentives, regulatory options, and best management practices, 2) site-specific habitat and restoration projects, and 3) public outreach and involvement opportunities. The actions were developed through a collaborative process that involved extensive participation of local stakeholders, jurisdiction staff, environmental and business representatives, project experts, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee, as described earlier in this chapter. This process identified approximately 1,200 actions for Chinook salmon. These are referred to as "comprehensive lists" and are provided in Chapters 10-13. The comprehensive lists provide action recommendations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 s.ubareas and relative priorities between these actions. Chapter 9 describes the action "start-list"; it is the result of efforts to compile the land use recommendations, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public 'The NOAA Fisheries Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team is charged with developing criteria for delisting Chinook salmon at the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) level. They and the co-managers have identified biological goals, referred to as 'ranges and targets', for most Chinook populations in the Puget Sound ESU. Immediately prior to the publication of this Plan in February 2005, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided recovery planning targets for WRIA 8. See Chapter 4 for additional information. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan outreach and education opportunities into a single strategy list that focuses watershed priorities yet also provides a manageable number of actions (170). To generate the start-list, the Service Provider Team applied criteria approved by the Steering Committee to the comprehensive lists (see Appendix D for the criteria). Preliminary "ballpark" cost estimates were developed for the start-list actions to provide planning level information (see Chapter 9 and Appendix D). As noted above, the conservation strategy provides guidance for the type and location of habitat actions. This guidance was used to prioritize actions at a more detailed level by the working committees, who evaluated and/or prioritized identified actions using the following additional criteria approved by the Steering Committee: • Extent to which the action furthers the conservation strategy (benefits to Chinook) • Feasibility/implement ability (technical, community and local support). Chapter 14 lists action recommendations for Tier 3 subareas. Chapter 15 describes actions identified by the public through the winter 2004 public review process. The Steering Committee directed that these actions be analyzed and considered for incorporation into the comprehensive and/or start-list in the future through the adaptive management process. Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 8 describe a proposed framework for implementing the Plan. The chapters describe Steering Committee guidance for implementing the Plan through an adaptive management approach. Chapter 2 explains what this means and also describes the recommendations for organizing Plan implementation. Included are key functions necessary to support the adaptive management approach as well as recommendations for the Plan implementation timeline. Chapter 6 proposes a monitoring framework that recommends measures to track actions and evaluate results in order to determine progress. Chapter 7 considers options for three possible levels of funding to implement the Plan. Chapter 8 begins the discussion of commitments in the context of benefits possible from implementing the Plan. The extent to which jurisdictional partners and others are willing and able to commit to implement these actions needs further discussion. The WRIA 8 Forum is being asked to provide direction with respect to these and other questions. Next Steps for the Plan The Steering Committee has provided significant guidance in the development of these work products. For the plan to come alive, decisions will soon be needed by participating jurisdictions on the following issues: continuing intergovernmental collaboration and decision-making, setting priorities for watershed funding, securing long-term funding sources, monitoring progress to assure money is spent on actions that truly make a difference, and negotiating assurances from the federal and state governments. Other Ongoing Work Needed for the Plan While many of the uncertainties related to the Plan will be addressed through the adaptive management framework, additional technical work is currently in progress to address a number of immediate concerns. These are briefly described below. Genetics Study The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has initiated a genetics study with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to analyze juvenile samples taken from the three assumed populations in WRIA 8, samples from hatcheries known to contribute to adult returns (e.g., University of Washington, Issaquah, Grover's Creek), as well as archived scale and tissue February 25, 2005 Page 7 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan samples from adult spawners. It is expected that this study will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. However, it is likely that there will be continued questions regarding the interactions of hatchery and wild Chinook. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee and participating scientists will review the genetics study and share the information with the NOAA Fisheries Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and others for consideration in identifying independent populations within WRIA 8. If necessary, the Technical Committee will then adapt the conservation strategy in light of this new information. Relative Effectiveness of Proposed Actions Additional scientific analysis will be needed before there is certainty that these specific actions will be sufficient to rehabilitate the habitat conditions necessary to support viable harvestable salmon populations. The Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model will be carried out in 2005 to help answer the following types of questions: • What is the relative impact of different habitat protection and restoration actions over a given time period on Chinook and/or coho? • How do actions in different geographic areas impact salmon performance? • How far will a proposed set of actions go toward the habitat and/or population viability goals of this plan? In addition to supporting decision-making about Plan implementation, the Treatment results will also be used as hypotheses that can be tested and evaluated over time as part of the WRIA 8 adaptive management program. The Future for WR/A 8 Chinook Salmon With this Plan, the WR/A 8 Steering Committee --with the help of governments, businesses, developers, shoreline landowners, gardeners, and citizens --hopes to lead the region towards a legacy of healthy, harvestable salmon and improved water quality for future generations. In the next 12 months, many decisions about the recommendations in this Plan need to be made. Which recommendations in the Plan will be implemented, by whom, and with what funding? How we build our communities, the land and resources we choose to protect, and the shoreline we can restore all influence salmon habitat. The choice is up to the residents, businesses, and governments in WRIA 8. Will we lose Chinook salmon forever or alter our habits and learn to better co-exist with them? February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan WRIA 8 STEERING COMMITTEE Mission To develop a watershed conservation plan that will recommend actions to conserve and recover Chinook salmon and other anadromous fish. The focus of this phase shall be to preserve, protect and restore habitat with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning Chinook salmon. Goals The plan shall: • Be supported by the best available science. • Set a combination of biological goals-(based on the productive capacity of the watershed and its subareas) and habitat performance goals (focused on the habitat processes, functions and structures that support the biological goals). • Protect Chinook salmon and, if applicable, other listed species sufficiently to be incorporated into rules issued by the federal government to implement the Endangered Species Act. • Be written to withstand court challenge while providing appropriate certainty and flexibility for major economic and governmental activities in the watershed. • Recognize tribal desires for the protection and meaningful exercise of their treaty rights. • Support commercial and sport harvest of those fish from the Lake Washington basin whose populations are not depressed and whose harvest will not adversely impact depressed salmon runs. Wild Chinook from the Lake Washington basin should not be subject to directed harvest until they are delisted. • Be coordinated with local and regional responses to the Clean Water Act and other pertinent environmental laws. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Requirements The plan must: • Identify the factors of decline for targeted species in the watershed. • Protect targeted species through all relevant life stages. • Protect the genetic diversity of these species within and across watersheds by providing a geographically dispersed, connected network of high-quality habitats. • Protect and foster the natural processes that create and sustain habitat characteristics favorable to salmon. • Provide for certainty of implementation through binding agreements that identify explicit objectives, responsibilities and timelines and have adequate funding and legal authority. • Establish quantifiable criteria and standards by which progress toward objectives will be measured. • Establish a comprehensive monitoring and reporting program, including methods to measure whether objectives are being met. • Employ adaptive management, using the scientific method to test the results of actions taken so that management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately. • Encourage the coordination of federal, state, tribal, local, corporate and nongovernmental activities and projects designed to recover salmon and their habitats. February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan STEERING COMMITTEE MISSION AND GOALS, CONTINUED Ecological Approach (in Addition to NOAA Fisheries Requirements) The plan shall: • Focus on habitat as the factor in salmon conservation over which local parties have primary legal authority and responsibility. This shall not keep the Steering Committee from encouraging appropriate reforms in harvest and hatchery practices, the management of non-native species, and other activities outside of its direct control, which may be necessary for the successful conservation of salmon. • Protect the best existing habitat as its highest initial priority. • Do no further harm"--it shall prevent actions that could reasonably be expected to damage salmon habitat or foreclose important restoration options. • Recognize that hydrology is the most important factor in the ecological processes that create and sustain aquatic habitat. • Support directing the very large majority of future population growth to already urbanized areas (based on evidence that new development has greater negative effects on the hydrology and ecological health of streams in rural areas than in urban areas). • Recognize that near shore areas along Puget Sound provide distinct and important salmon habitat in the watershed. Political Approach The plan shall: • Provide regular and multiple opportunities during its development for two-way dialog with the general public and key affected constituencies, recognizing that the plan cannot succeed without their overall understanding and support. • Recognize that long-term salmon conservation requires that the public understands and appreciates how everyday actions affect salmon. • Emphasize education and public involvement, including the widespread use of volunteers in work that protects and restores habitat. • Take maximum advantage of other past and current planning efforts that may be useful in developing the best possible plan. • Recognize that local governments are one of the most important implementing entities for the plan, particularly because of their responsibilities for land use and because they are likely to play important roles in funding the plan's implementation. • Create incentives for behavior that would support the goals of the plan (such as redevelopment in urbanized areas). • Be coordinated with growth management planning, including the development of comprehensive plans and countywide planning policies, because of the large overlap of issues and data collection between the two. • Strive to distribute the overall burdens for plan implementation as equitably as possible over the entire geographic area of the watershed. • Prioritize actions to provide the greatest benefits to salmon recovery at the least overall cost. However, some actions in heavily populated areas provide unique opportunities for public education and involvement and may qualify as priorities based on those criteria. Experimental actions may also risk some costs for potentially significant benefits. February 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan PLAN SCHEDULE APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE 4/28/04 MILESTONE Completion Date "Preliminary draft Chinook plan" with integrated list of Tier I Actions (site-specific June 30 sorted by short and long term); integration/tradeoffs analysis prototype, and imulementation framework. Steering Committee work session -review Tier 1 actions, prioritization framework, and July 28 integration/tradeoff analysis Complete actions list for remaining Chinook subareas: July I -Sept 15 (September 1-15 Site-specific: Tier 2. prioritized. Technical land use: specific for Tier 2 and basin-wide.fi,r Tier 3. Committee review Public outreach: Specific.for Tiers 2 and 3. of actions list) As site-specific action meetings for Tier 2 take place, could ask stakeholders to bring forward any Bull trout, Col10 and Kokanee actions they are aware of. These would not be (same list of prioritized in the Chinook plan, but would be listed in an appendix for future refinement. resource assumptions) Complete supporting analyses ( cost estimates. integration/tradeoff analyses) Steering Committee work-sessions-September 22 and • Revie\v/approvc actions lists and new analyses; review TR T input. October 6 • Finalize implementation (adaptive management) framework Forum update on June 30 preliminary draft October 21 Team prepares public review draft, professional publication (5 wks) October 7 - November 11 Jncludes final implementation framework developed by Adaptive Management Work Groun Steering Committee submits draft recommended Chinook plan for public review, November 12 informal Forum review Puhlic review and Informal Forum review: 5 weeks total November 11 - • Public review: 4 open houses December 17 • Informal Forum review: 8 presentations to city, county councils, Suburban Cities Association Team compiles public comments and prepares draft responses for Steering Committee Dec. I 7 -January 6, review (2 wks). Mail out January 6, 05 '05 Steering Committee work sessions -revie,v/providc guidance on public comments January 12 and 19, 05 Team makes final revisions, professional publication (5 wks) Fcbruat1 24. 05 Steering Committee submits final recommended Chinook plan to Forum (90 day clock February 25, '05 starts\ Forum annroves or remands Mav 26, '05 Shared Strategy comoletes final "rolluo" of regional recovery plan June· 05 Plan implementation. Run T in EDT? 2005 and beyond Complete actions for other species'! February 25, 2005 Page 11 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Plan References Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar- Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA WRIA 8 Steering Committee, 2002. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation. Seattle, WA Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, 2002. Planning Ranges and Preliminary Guidelines for the Delisting and Recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Washington State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, 1999. Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon -Extinction is not an Option. Olympia, WA February 25, 2005 Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 2: PLAN IMPLE:\lEI\TATIO'.'; FRA!VIEWORK Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Part 1: Plan Implementation with an Adaptive Management Approach The WRIA 8 Steering Committee's Mission and Goals statements that direct the development and implementation of this Plan are ambitious. They encourage an approach to Plan implementation that provides confidence that the activities undertaken are effective and timely and that the WRIA partners develop and use tools to show progress toward achieving the Mission and Goals. They reflect deeply held interests in returning Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed to robust health, making strategic and cost-effective decisions about how to spend limited resources, and maintaining the region's quality of life. They call for clear communication with the public about the successes and challenges that will be part of Plan implementation. Meeting any one of these interests alone would be difficult, and crafting an approach to meeting them all together is truly challenging. In recognition of this challenge, the implementation of this Plan will take advantage of fundamental principles of adaptive management. This reflects the basic assumption that adaptive management principles offer strategies and techniques that are useful in addressing the unique complexity of salmon recovery in WRIA 8. Another factor influencing the choice to employ these principles is guidance offered in several documents pertaining to WRIA s·s salmon planning work. These documents include the Coastal Conservation Guidance 1 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound2 from the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT); and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) An Outline for Salmon Recovery Plans 3 . Each of these documents, produced by an agency with a significant role in salmon conservation and recovery, recommends the application of adaptive management principles in the development and implementation of plans intended to return salmon populations to robust health. Applying Adaptive Management Principles Using adaptive management principles appropriately and strategically depends foremost upon establishing a common understanding among decisions-makers and stakeholders about what adaptive management is. Here are several key features of adaptive management and how they relate to meeting the Plan implementation goals in WRIA 8: • A systematic process for improving future management actions by teaming from the outcomes of implemented actions4 . It may be helpful to think about this theme as implementing a series of activities that support learning and strategic decision-making. One way to depict such a process is shown in Figure 2-1. The figure shows both a series of specific activities and arrows that indicate the importance of establishing purposeful and explicit connections between the activities -each action informs the next action. Undertaking actions that address the individual activities without giving similar consideration to the connections between them will lead to ineffective or inefficient Plan implementation. 1 !1Ufr//www. nwr. nod a .qov/1 sa lmo_n_,~sairnesa/pubsisal :rirest. oc r 2 http -/ /wvvw. s ha reds c.i I n1 on strateq v. orulf: le s/ Gui rl an ce \Y)2 CD oc u n1 en lO 2-03-0 3a. p df 3 ht:p:/.1vv"WW. v.ra.oov/wdfw/recoverv/recovery mode!.htm 4 From David Marmorek/ESSA, "What is Adaptive Management?". a presentation to the Washington Trout.I Seattle Public Utilities Adaptive Management Conference. February 13-14, 2003: Seattle, WA February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • A means to reduce the risk of insufficient investments and misdirection of future funding. There is considerable interest in making timely and cost-effective use of resources to make habitat improvements that support achievement of salmon conservation goals. Adaptive management calls for using actions as learning tools that can direct the next conservation dollar to the most beneficial action available at that time. • Setting reasonable expectations and timeframes. Both the technical limitations on predicting and diagnosing the response of salmon to habitat actions and the long timeframe needed to draw confident conclusions encourage cautious optimism about the near-term benefits of habitat actions. An adaptive management approach calls for quantitative and qualitative statements of what WRIA 8 partners hope to Figure 2-1 -Plan Implementation Steps within an Adaptive Management Approach ~ Identify actions and ~ ~ expected outcomes ~ Define the problem and ~ ~ identify uncertainties ~ t • Compare results to expected outcomes IMPLEMENT achieve through the Plan and the use of analytical tools that give a sense of how actions move habitat and salmon conditions toward those goals and objectives. It also calls for building and sustaining an organization that can drive implementation of actions over the timeframe within which WRIA 8 partners can realistically expect to reach their goals. • Taking action even though there is uncertainty. The long-standing interest of WRIA 8 partners in salmon conservation, the immediate gravity of the salmon conservation challenge, and the availability of funding for salmon conservation have all ensured that important actions have already been undertaken. While these actions continue and new ones are implemented, the unavoidable uncertainties inherent in complex ecological challenges like salmon conservation must be recognized. These uncertainties originate in the unpredictability of the response of salmon to habitat management actions, the limits of existing analytical techniques to accurately describe this response, and the varying -and potentially very long -timeframes necessary for data collection to accurately describe the response. This uncertainty should be used to foster a sense of urgency to learn from implemented actions and turn new knowledge into more effective actions. February 25. 2005 Page 2 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Communicating information to the public and building understanding. Learning is an integral part of Plan implementation within an adaptive management approach. As Plan implementation moves forward, more will be learned about how salmon use the watershed and how habitat actions can and do benefit them. Implementers will need to communicate what they learn with a wide variety of audiences with a stake and an interest in how well the Plan works. • Expecting surprise and capitalizing on "crisis". One thing that is certain in implementing actions over the near and long term is that habitat and political or social conditions change unexpectedly and that salmon will respond in ways that contradict assumptions. While the actions recommended in the Plan should be based upon reliable and credible technical information, Plan implementation should go forward with openness toward learning from the unexpected. Denying that the results of some actions are surprising, or worse, avoiding analysis of unexpected results, lessens the ability of WRIA 8 partners to make informed decisions and increases the likelihood of repeating predictable and avoidable mistakes. • Distinguishing mistakes from failure. The actions WRIA 8 partners commit to and implement will rely on scientists' best --but probably incomplete --understanding of biology and ecology. Therefore a solid scientific foundation must be created that will allow implementers to conclude when the appropriate response to assessment of progress is "We've learned we need to correct our strategy" or when it should be "We're never going to achieve our goal!" Not every instance in which expectations are not met means the failure of the overall effort, but the tools must be developed that will allow implementers to know the difference. Elements Necessary for Adaptive Implementation of This Plan The adaptive management literature identifies the basic elements of an adaptive management- based program to implement a plan like this one. Creating an implementation structure that lacks any of these elements would limit the ability to adapt in response to knowledge gained through the implementation of actions. It would also increase the likelihood that current and future investments would not be as cost-effective in working toward the Steering Committee Mission and Goals. The basic elements of an adaptive management program are: 1. Goals 2. Assumptions and uncertainties about key habitat and species factors related to the goals 3. Specific actions believed to contribute to achieving the goals 4. Hypotheses about the contribution of the actions to the goals 5. Measures to assess the effectiveness of the actions 6. Data collection supporting the measures to assess effectiveness 7. Communication at all levels of the results of actions and the improvement of knowledge 8. Resources sufficient to carry out each element over the necessary time period and geographic area 9. An organizational (decision-making) structure that defines roles and responsibilities for each element 10. Commitments to implement the plan and its actions 11. A systematic process that links these elements together predictably One objective for this draft of the WRIA 8 Plan is to take significant steps toward describing how each of these elements is created and/or sustained and linked in support of Plan February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework implementation over the coming years. This chapter describes actions and Steering Committee decisions that pertain to each of the elements in general, and several of them specifically, including numbers 7, 9 and 11. The other chapters in this document address the remaining elements. Part 2: Organization, Roles, and Responsibilities for Plan Implementation As Part I of this chapter highlights, implementation efforts that include a commitment to managing adaptively need a clearly defined organizational strategy. Managing adaptively requires taking a systematic approach to learning about the results of implemented actions, and using that learning to improve future actions. This ongoing process of learning and adjusting course is unlikely to occur unless the Plan itself reflects an agreement among decision-makers on how the steps involved in adaptive management will be carried out, and by whom. For example, the Plan must describe who will gather the information needed to evaluate which actions have been implemented, what the results of specific actions have been, and how the actions together have cumulatively influenced the health of habitat and salmon runs. It must also describe how the information will be interpreted and by whom. Lastly it must describe how decisions making will occur, who will receive information once it's interpreted, and how subsequent decisions will be made to ensure that priorities are on course to maximize the benefits of limited resources toward achieving recovery of salmon runs in the watershed. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee has devoted considerable attention to developing recommendations for an adaptive approach to implementing this Plan. One of the central questions considered was "How 'regional' should the implementation process be?" WRIA 8 partners have collaborated closely over the last five years to develop a conservation strategy based on sound science, and to identify recommended projects, programs and regulatory changes needed to fulfill that conservation strategy. Now, as the WRIA transitions from Plan development to on-the-ground Plan implementation, is regional collaboration still important? The Steering Committee's resounding answer to this question is yes. Key to ensuring that actions recommended in the Plan become a reality, that WRIA 8 partners learn from those actions, and that learning improves effectiveness over time will be a commitment to continue working together. Moreover, the Steering Committee strongly believes that leaders drawn from a range of governments and stakeholders will be needed to sustain the steady collaboration that has characterized WRIA B's efforts to date. Collaboration cannot survive without leadership. This section highlights the Steering Committee's recommended approach to organizing Plan implementation. It first highlights lessons learned in WRIA 8 by examining the experience of other watershed protection and restoration groups around the country that have made the transition from planning to implementation. It then describes specific recommendations regarding how implementation should be organized in WRIA 8. Lessons from other watershed protection and restoration efforts Many other watershed protection and restoration groups have navigated the transition from developing plans to putting plans into action Each group has developed a unique approach to implementation based on the scale of its watershed, the nature of the natural resource issues and problems being addressed, and the universe of key stakeholders and institutional contexts. However, comparing these groups before and during their efforts to implement watershed plans February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework yields some common lessons that have helped to inform the Steering Committee's recommended organizational recommendations. For a more detailed description of findings from a review of watershed cases, please see Appendix B. There are many varied approaches to setting up an organizational structure for plan implementation An examination of watershed groups around the country reveals that they have chosen a variety of organizational structures. Some of the groups have elected to establish a non- profit watershed group once they transition to implementation. Non-profit organizations provide some advantages in the pursuit of external sources of funding. Others have developed temporary, ad hoc regional organizations through agreements similar to the lnterloca\ Agreements in WRIA 8 and 9. Still others have centralized implementation efforts in a single agency. However, nearly all successful watershed groups have created a collaborative committee structure to track and guide plan implementation Perhaps the strongest commonality among watershed groups is the commitment to carry some level of collaboration into the implementation phase. Committees are often formed to actively oversee aspects of implementation. Often there is a policy-level committee representing multiple governments and stakeholders that meets periodically to receive information or make decisions about implementation. Sometimes there are also subcommittees charged with particular tasks. Many watersheds have set specific goals and objectives, and have tracked their progress through monitoring Across the country, many watershed groups have sought to incorporate some degree of adaptive management into their implementation process. How formal and structured this learning process is varies greatly due to differences in the size of the watershed, the complexity of its plan and the resources available. For example, some watershed groups define a general vision and qualitative goals for their plans, while others define very specific and measurable goals and objectives. Approaches to collecting information, managing data and developing reports to summarize monitoring information also vary widely. But almost all watersheds attempt to track their progress in some way. Some watersheds have developed a formal process and timeframe for revisiting plan priorities Regional efforts focused on larger watersheds often have very specific goals, indicators or thresholds towards which progress can be clearly tracked. Most of these efforts have established a timeline to evaluate and update their plans periodically: often every 5 years, but in some cases annually. Time frames for implementation plans typically range from 5 to 20 years. Staffing resources vary widely among watershed efforts, but most have some level of staffing to support coordinated implementation Almost all successful watersheds have some level of watershed-wide staffing. In most efforts, there is a staff watershed coordinator assigned to help provide coordination and keep the diverse elements of implementation (stakeholders. meetings, projects, monitoring results) moving smoothly. Beyond a single plan coordinator, staffing positions and levels vary. The level of staffing for each watershed organization typically reflects a balance between the services desired by the stakeholders and the availability of funding to support the recovery effort. February 25. 2005 Page 5 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Implementation in WR/A 8: Key Functions Review of other implementation efforts around the country has confirmed that the need for collaborative work across jurisdictional and organizational boundaries does not end with the production and publication of a final Plan. Successful watershed groups have recognized a need to continue the hard work of working together right through implementation. The Steering Committee strongly recommends that WRIA 8 partners continue to collaborate and coordinate during Plan implementation. Committee members agree that adaptive management will not happen effectively, and the goals of the Plan will not be pursued efficiently, if jurisdictions and stakeholders implement the Plan individually. at their own discretion, and with little or no coordination. The following section summarizes the Steering Committee's specific recommendations for how to organize Plan implementation. These recommendations were developed by considering how function should drive form. The Committee identified the specific functions and tasks most necessary to support a robust and adaptive implementation, and then decided which would best be accomplished through ongoing regional collaboration and which would best be accomplished by implementers acting at their own discretion. The results of this deliberation are summarized below. For each of the regional functions, the Steering Committee decided who should accomplish them, how, and on what timeline. These decisions together yielded the proposed committee structure. staffing plan, and timeline proposals in the following section. Function One: Tracking and Guiding Plan Implementation Adaptive Plan implementation requires a deliberate process to track if actions recommended in the Plan are implemented, and to what degree. The Steering Committee favors a coordinated approach to tracking the extent of Plan implementation, rather than a more decentralized approach in which each jurisdiction tracks its own actions separately. The Steering Committee also favors building capacity to actively champion and coax progress in implementing Plan actions. Specifically. the Steering Committee recommends that responsibility for collecting and maintaining information about implementation should lie with local jurisdictions and others who are conducting the actions. However, a regional policy body should meet to synthesize and review the information. Reports regarding progress towards implementation would equip the regional body to decide how to improve implementation, for example by securing missing resources, addressing institutional or policy obstacles, or providing needed technical assistance to action implementers. While responsibility to collect implementation information should rest with individual implementers, the Steering Committee recommends that a common set of implementation measures be developed to ensure that information from different jurisdictions and stakeholders can be compared and synthesized. These common measures should be limited in number, and should accommodate the different types of actions (e.g. site specific and land use). Some staff support will be required to gather data on common implementation measures from different jurisdictions and stakeholders, and synthesize it for the regional policy body. Information will be synthesized in an Annual Report on implementation progress, the depth and breadth of which remains to be determined. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Function Two: Making Technical Assessments About Effectiveness Adaptive management will require a process for compiling and analyzing information describing the result of actions. The Steering Committee generally supports an approach to monitoring that emphasizes a strategic deployment of limited resources to gather the most useful monitoring information in the most cost-effective manner possible. Several different types of information about results will be needed. "Direct effectiveness" monitoring will be needed to evaluate the results of individual actions and make improvements in project selection and design. "Cumulative effectiveness" monitoring will be needed to evaluate how multiple actions are affecting habitat condition and fish populations, and to identify possible adjustments in conservation priorities. The Steering Committee supports an approach that gives individual jurisdictions the role of gathering most of the monitoring data. but emphasizes coordination in the selection of measures, methods, and interpretation of results. Specifically, information about the results of projects should be collected by individual jurisdictions and stakeholder organizations as they implement actions. However, the WRIA will provide common measures and guidelines to help jurisdictions produce information that can be "rolled up' to produce a watershed assessment of Plan progress and effectiveness. The Steering Committee sees a key role for a regional technical committee in this process. The technical committee will be the bridge between local data collection efforts and regional decision making, by developing the common measures and by synthesizing information gathered locally for presentation to a regional policy body. While the Steering Committee recommends that responsibility for collecting information about the results of specific actions should lie with action implementers, it also recommends that a limited set of data about the cumulative results of actions be collected through a regionally managed and funded process. For example, there should be a regional process to collect certain measures of land use change needed to evaluate habitat degradation or improvement at a landscape scale. A regional technical committee would have a key role to play here too, in designing and implementing the joint monitoring and presenting results to the policy body. In addition to committee work, this function would benefit from support by a dedicated staff person or consultant. This resource person could help coordinate the synthesis and evaluation of data from multiple sources, while also providing support for committee meetings, communications, and work products. Function Three: Evaluating Progress and Making Decisions About Priorities The third function is closely tied to the first two. It is also the heart and soul of adaptive management. Adaptive management is most successful when decision-makers are central actors in the process. using current information to adjust priorities and resources for better results. As in the case of Function One ("tracking and guiding Plan implementation") the Steering Committee recommends that WRIA 8 partners accomplish this function collaboratively. Specifically, decision-makers from the WRIA should be convened in a manner that allows them to stay connected to new information about habitat improvements and fish populations, and to make joint decisions about how to adjust recovery efforts for maximum success. February 25, 2005 Page 7 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework The Steering Committee believes the decision making function would best be accomplished with two separate policy bodies. The first body would be a small group with responsibility for reviewing reports from the technical committee, and making "day to day" decisions about implementation priorities and resource allocation. The second body would be a much larger group that would meet less frequently, and would serve as a forum through which new learning about effectiveness and progress could be disseminated to a broad set of jurisdictions and stakeholder organizations. Together, these two policy bodies would make the Plan a living, adaptive document. The Steering Committee agrees that both would need staff support to function well. Function Four: Communicating Progress A fourth key function is communicating about the results of Plan actions to audiences who are not directly involved in implementing elements of the WRIA 8 plan. External audiences will include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), which is accountable for achieving recovery of chinook salmon, interested landowners and citizens in WRIA 8 and the larger Puget Sound area, elected officials, and funders of salmon recovery actions such as foundations and government grant programs. The Steering Committee strongly supports the notion that ongoing communication with external audiences about progress towards Plan goals will be essential to the Plan's ultimate success. Clear messages and accurate information about the results of habitat actions will help maintain the support of funders, by demonstrating that WRIA 8 partners are using resources wisely to achieve recovery. It will also cultivate public awareness of the work that is being done and public support for local contributions to Plan implementation. The Steering Committee recommends that communication occur both at the local jurisdiction and at the watershed-wide scale. WRIA 8 partners will actively communicate about their individual efforts to complete habitat projects or accomplish public outreach or land use initiatives. However, communication to inform external audiences about overall progress towards Plan goals will be coordinated across the watershed via a regional communication strategy. A regional communication strategy will be created and focused on achieving effective communication without significant additional cost. It should: • include the development of a shared set of messages about progress, tailored for different audiences • take advantage of existing public outreach staff within jurisdictions and stakeholder groups • take advantage, to the greatest extent possible, of existing communications "infrastructure" such as web sites, newsletters, cable TV programs and other venues that can be readily used to disseminate information about what is happening in the watershed • use modern technologies such as the internet to reach a maximum number of people. The Steering Committee recommends that a public outreach committee support the effort to develop and carry out a regional communication strategy for the Plan .. A staff person could February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework also help coordinate the use of existing communications infrastructure to "get the word out" from WRIA8. Function Five: Managing Data Describing Plan Effectiveness Adaptive management depends on the availability of good scientific information. There are many approaches that could be pursued to manage the storage. access and retrieval of information gathered through research and monitoring in WRIA 8. The Steering Committee agrees that the best approach would be one that allows regionally significant habitat and fish data to be shared among WRIA 8 partners. Sharing data will be essential for developing assessments of the WRIA's progress towards improved habitat and fish runs at the reach and at the watershed scale. The Steering Committee recommends several actions to lay the groundwork for efficient sharing of data across jurisdictional boundaries. WRIA partners will: 1. work together to develop guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of important data sets 2. agree on a set of clear protocols for sharing data 3. choose mechanisms for sharing data, e.g. web sites, conferences and workshops The Steering Committee also considered recommending the creation of a data "clearinghouse" for all monitoring data gathered during implementation of the WRIA Plan. Centralizing monitoring data could produce multiple benefits for recovery efforts both within and beyond the WRIA. Having data in one location would greatly facilitate access for WRIA partners, potentially preventing duplication of mobilization and data gathering efforts and maximizing the resulting learning across jurisdictional boundaries. It would also provide a ready resource for a technical committee to use in updating the EDT model, and in developing assessments of effectiveness for a regional policy body. Finally. a clearinghouse could be beneficial for others such as regulators and non-profit organizations that might find the information useful in understanding salmon recovery efforts and progress in WRIA 8. While there are many potential advantages to developing a data clearinghouse, there are also significant uncertainties regarding how it would be structured, and what its development and subsequent maintenance would cost. Moreover, further exploration is needed to determine the best geographic scale for a data clearinghouse. One option would be to create a data clearinghouse for all of Puget Sound, aggregating monitoring data collected in various watersheds that are part of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. State agencies such as the Department of Fish and Wildlife and regional entities such as Shared Strategy may be considering this and other approaches. The Steering Committee recommends further consideration of the concept of a data clearinghouse, in concert with other agencies in.valved in salmon recovery across the state. In the meantime, the Committee supports an approach to data management that maximizes regional coordination through the development of shared technical standards for data quality assurance and quality control, and common protocols for sharing data across jurisdictional and agency boundaries. Some staff resources will likely be required to coordinate data management and data sharing among WRIA partners. In addition, assistance from a technical committee will be needed to design and recommend overall approaches to managing data access and data sharing. February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Function Six: Securing Funds to Support Plan Implementation Lastly, adaptive implementation of the Plan will depend on consistent and aggressive efforts to garner resources, to fund the actions themselves and to fund the implementation process described in this chapter. Across the country, those working to implement long-term natural resource plans have faced great challenges in maintaining steady, stable funding sources that weather changes in economic conditions and political dynamics. Of all the implementation functions considered by the Steering Committee, the active pursuit of funding is perhaps the one that was most clearly highlighted as being fundamental to the success of the Plan. The Steering Committee recommends that considerable effort be devoted to seeking external funds to supplement local contributions to Plan implementation. Implementing jurisdictions and stakeholders should coordinate lobbying and other fund raising efforts. The Steering Committee also strongly recommends building staff-level capacity to champion and advocate for funding to support strong progress in implementing the actions in the Plan. Actively seeking external funds could become an important role for a regional policy body. Members could work together on building new relationships and maintaining existing relationships with funders. through lobbying or other means. They could also coordinate efforts to transmit written or verbal reports to funders demonstrating the tangible results from resources invested in the WRIA 8 recovery effort. In addition, any consistent effort to increase available external resources will necessitate some staff and committee support. For example, if WRIA 8 were to launch a new push to prepare and submit grant applications for regional projects, a staff person could help identify potential grant sources and prepare grant applications. A committee could help develop a funding strategy, and could assist in the prioritization of projects for regional grants cycles. Implementation in WR/A 8: A Recommended Organizational Structure and Staffing With definition of the key functions that should be performed during the Plan implementation phase, the Steering Committee considered which individuals or groups should perform these functions. The Committee has given specific thought to the need for an organizational structure for Plan implementation that would provide assurance that these functions would be performed effectively and efficiently, therefore also providing assurance that progress, learning and adaptation would take place. The preceding text provides a general sense of the scope of activity under each key function. This section provides detailed information regarding the overall organizational structure that would support the key functions. This structure incorporates specific roles and responsibilities focused on Plan implementation activities and encompasses the involvement of committees, agency and stakeholder staff, and staff jointly funded by the participants in Plan implementation. This structure also is intended to roughly correspond to a level of effort, represented in the pace, scope and breadth of actions, the Steering Committee feels is appropriate for the Plan implementation phase. The recommended organizational structure reflects several fundamental assumptions that have bearing on its appropriateness for Plan implementation: February 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • High -level decision makers and staff from government agencies and stakeholder groups will continue to participate at roughly current levels of engagement in the WRIA 8 salmon recovery effort • There will be a mechanism for funding and providing oversight of a small contingent of shared staff. The lnterlocal Agreement that supported the shared staff during the Plan development phase is one model for such a mechanism. • Any deviations from this organizational structure will be offset by actions to ensure the overall desired level of effort will be achieved and sustained. For example, if expectations for in-kind contributions of jurisdiction staff time to perform specific activities are not met the shortfall will be addressed by increasing the amount of shared staff time supported by agreement among implementing entities. • There will be a need to coordinate with and have a presence within regional salmon recovery processes. While it is difficult to predict the scope and structure of these processes or the role of individual watersheds within them, they may occur at several scales including multiple WRIAs, Tri-County, the Puget Sound Basin, and/or the state. The current recommended committee structure, in combination with the recommended shared staffing, broadly accounts for this need, but it should be revisited when coordination opportunities and needs become clearer. • The appropriateness of the organizational structure will be reviewed periodically as part of the adaptive management framework and may be changed to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency. Recommended Committee Structure The Steering Committee is recommending several shifts in emphasis within the WRIA 8 committee structure as WRIA 8 moves into the implementation phase. One shift, alluded to in the preceding discussion of evaluating progress, is the establishment of an Oversight Body that will be the focus of Plan implementation guidance and tracking. A second related shift is the establishment of a Summit Advisory Body representing the broad-based WRIA 8 community that provides the foundation for ongoing salmon recovery efforts well into the future. The extent to which these shifts indicate a change in roles for specific current committees or committee members will become clearer through the process of Steering Committee and Forum approval of the Plan. The following text provides a list of the committees that are part of the recommended organizational structure for Plan implementation, accompanied by a short description of the activities that each committee would undertake. The names attached to these committees are intended to be roughly descriptive of the role of the committee. These names may change with further consideration of the organizational structure. Figure 2-2 provides an organizational chart depicting the committees and their inter-relationships Oversight Body -This body will provide direction to ongoing Plan implementation activities and guide the work of committees and shared staff. It will be comprised of representatives of Plan implementers and funders. including government agencies, citizens, non- governmental organizations. and others. It is likely to meet on at least a quarterly basis. Its specific responsibilities will include: February 25. 2005 Page 11 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Track status of implementation and the results of Plan actions via reports from staff • Guide completion of Annual Reports • Make decisions, with input from the Summit Advisory Body, about Plan priorities, resource allocation and major Plan improvements • Receive and develop the response to information regarding significant unexpected events • Provide guidance to staff on work program priorities • Develop and pursue strategies to increase resources • Finalize recommendations for Salmon Recovery Funding Board/King Conservation District grants • Foster broader awareness of the Plan and its goals Summit Advisory Body -This body will serve as a sounding board in the assessment of effectiveness and progress of recovery efforts and will advise the Oversight Body regarding the advisability of maintaining or changing priorities. Its membership will include the members of the Oversight Body and a broader set of decision makers --elected officials, regional leaders, and stakeholders. It is currently anticipated to meet in Year Three and Year Five following the ratification of the Plan according to the framework described in the current WRIA Planning lnterlocal Agreement. Its responsibilities will include: • Serve as a forum where information about effectiveness and Plan progress can be widely shared • Advise the Oversight Body on Plan priorities, resource allocation, and major Plan improvements • Transmit new information to agencies jurisdictions and stakeholders to guide local projects, programs and regulatory updates • Sustain community support for the range of recovery activities Technical Committee -The Technical Committee is likely to be the busiest of the committees during the first year of Plan implementation. It will serve as the hub for maintaining and improving the scientific basis for strategic actions. Its membership will include scientists from jurisdictions and stakeholder organizations, with consultants taking part as needed for specific tasks. It is likely to meet on a monthly or more frequent basis. Its responsibilities will include: • Recommend a monitoring plan, with common measures, protocols and QA/QC procedures • Synthesize monitoring and research results and advise the Technical Coordinator on the development of annual reports • Manage the analysis of the treatment stage of Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model of habitat conditions • Advise the oversight body on adjustments to the conservation strategy and priorities • Provide input to shared staff about work program priorities Action Committee -This committee is intended to carry forward the work of the current Project Subcommittee that has assisted in the review and prioritization of projects for February 25, 2005 Page 12 I Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District funding. It will have a broadened portfolio of tasks related to Plan actions. This committee is different from the ad- hoc action identification committees are referenced in Chapter 5 and were formed solely to identify actions for the Comprehensive Action List. Its membership will include a geographically diverse group of citizens, scientists, and project and program managers from agencies, jurisdictions and stakeholder organizations with expertise in habitat projects. It is likely to meet periodically throughout the year, with varying frequency depending upon the current demands, e.g., preparing Salmon Recovery Funding Board project lists. Its responsibilities will include: • Assist Funding Coordinator to develop recommended prioritization of projects for Salmon Recovery Funding Board, King Conservation District and other grants • Serve as a sounding board for the Funding Coordinator on fundraising strategies, e.g. potential new funding sources and their fit with WRIA 8 projects, etc. Provide support for the completion of Annual Reports as needed Public Outreach Committee -This committee will serve as the hub for developing and coordinating communication regarding Plan implementation. Its members will include staff with expertise in public environmental communications and education drawn from jurisdictions and organizations Its meeting frequency will likely be approximately quarterly but potentially more frequent as specific tasks warrant. Its responsibilities will include: • Craft shared messages about Plan progress • Use existing communications infrastructure (web sites, newsletters, etc.) to disseminate messages and information • Help design and organize meetings of Summit Advisory Body • Provide guidance to shared staff about work program priorities • Special events could also be organized to foster coordination and collaboration on stewardshipProvide support for the completion of and sharing of information from annual reports as needed Recommended Staffing The committee structure described in the preceding section will provide a means of engaging WRIA 8 partners in an ongoing and adaptive process for managing Plan implementation. It will also provide a means of accomplishing much of the work involved, from designing and implementing regional monitoring and research efforts, to reviewing information about progress and adjusting Plan priorities, to communicating progress to stakeholders and funders outside of WRIA8. However, the Steering Committee strongly believes that successful implementation cannot be achieved with committees alone. It will also require sustained and energetic leadership from a small contingent of shared, dedicated staff whose charge it is to ensure that momentum from the planning phase carries over into implementation, and results in the completion of a wide range of site-specific projects, land use actions and public education initiatives across the watershed. By "shared" the Steering Committee has in mind a staff that is employed by a collective group of WRIA 8 partners, rather than by a single WRIA 8 jurisdiction, similarly to the current shared staff February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework funded by the WRIA 8 2001 lnterlocal Agreement. This shared staff would take its direction and guidance from the Oversight Body, with input from the Summit Advisory Body, and other subcommittees comprised of representatives of WRIA 8 jurisdictions and stakeholder groups. However, the Steering Committee has not discussed in detail what the best mechanism would be for funding shared staff or structuring its accountability. In addition, some Steering Committee members believe that there may be opportunities to share staff across WRIAs. These opportunities are difficult to assess now, but deserve further exploration. While the general concept of a dedicated staff supporting implementation is analogous to the WRIA's current dedicated staff supporting planning, the Steering Committee agrees that new challenges associated with the Plan implementation phase will require a new set of staff roles and job responsibilities specifically designed for this phase of the WRIA's recovery work. Therefore, the following staffing recommendation features several positions not currently included on the ILA-funded staff, and eliminates others that currently exist. It does not presuppose the specific individuals that would fill these positions. Before describing the specific job responsibilities associated with each of the recommended staff positions it is important to highlight the overall purpose identified for shared staff. Shared staff will occupy a key leadership role. Specifically, the staff will: • Ensure that momentum from the planning phase carries into the implementation phase • Help keep jurisdictions actively engaged in implementation • Support ongoing technical work to evaluate actions • Help keep the ·wRIA 8 implementation process well-coordinated with implementation efforts in other WRIAs and around Puget Sound wide • Secure external resources to finance the Plan through grant programs, appropriations and other funding sources • Communicate progress and successes to external audiences • Staff WRIA committees and support their decision-making To identify what staffing positions are needed, the Steering Committee again used a "form follows function" approach. The Committee carefully considered the functions associated with adaptive implementation that would be more effectively and efficiently achieved with help from a shared staff. The Committee also considered what specific support the Oversight Body, Summit Advisory Body, and Technical, Outreach and Action Committees would need from staff to facilitate their work and decision making. The result is a proposal for 3.5 FTE positions, fewer than the 5 currently funded under the lnterlocal Agreement. The job responsibilities envisioned for each of the proposed 3.5 positions are described below: Executive Director (1 FTE) There is a strong consensus among Steering Committee members that an Executive Director position is critical to the long-term success of WRIA salmon recovery efforts. A well-respected, outspoken and energetic Director will provide the drive needed to keep the watershed steadily moving towards its habitat protection and restoration goals. It is particularly important to locate this leadership capacity in the staff due to expected changes in the level of effort and time that elected officials and other stakeholder representatives will be able to devote to collaborative work once the Plan has been finalized. While the proposed committee structure calls for February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework continued participation by a broad cross-section of local and regional leaders, the committees will not meet as frequently as they did during the planning phase. Moreover, the attention of individual committee members may shift more towards mobilizing local implementation efforts, now that actions have been identified and prioritized. This increases the need to have a strong and effective Executive Director who can continue to galvanize and guide regional collaboration. The Executive Director should be a persuasive champion of Plan implementation, working directly with the Oversight Body to ensure that watershed goals for habitat protection and restoration are achieved over time. Specific job responsibilities will include: • Encourage, coax and facilitate efforts by WRIA 8 partners to implement actions • Secure external resources by lobbying and building relationships with funders • Serve as the spokesperson for WRIA 8 efforts with the press and with external parties • Coordinate the ongoing work of the Oversight Body and Summit Advisory Body • Inform those involved in regulatory processes such as the update of critical areas ordinances about relevant recommendations from WRIA S's Plan • Network with recovery entities (e.g. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, the Technical Review Team (TRT), other WRIA groups, the Co-managers, etc.) to ensure that WRIA 8 is informed about and well-coordinated with other efforts • Oversee any shared, regional budgets and regionally funded staff Funding Coordinator (.5 FTE) The Steering Committee recommends an ambitious funding strategy, described fully in Chapter 7. This funding strategy begins with the premise that the level of resources available in WRIA 8 to support site specific, land use or public outreach actions should be increased by 50% above the "base' level of funding that has typified recent years. Locating and maintaining new sources of funding will be challenging given the tight fiscal circumstances governments are facing at all levels. Moreover, even existing funding sources are vulnerable, and sustained effort will be needed to maintain them. WRIA S's ambitious funding strategy highlights the need to locate fundraising capabilities in the shared staff The Steering Committee recommends a half-time position for a Funding Coordinator focused exclusively on securing external funds to support the implementation of actions across the watershed, as well as the costs required to maintain a collaborative implementation process (staff costs, costs for monitoring and research. etc.). The Funding Coordinator will be the main staff person supporting the work of the Action Committee. Specific job responsibilities for the Funding Coordinator will include: • Work with the Executive Director to prepare an annual funding strategy for review and approval by the Oversight Body • Identify new potential grant sources • Work with the Action Committee to develop recommendations for the Oversight Body regarding projects for cyclical grant programs (e.g. King Conservation District and Salmon Recovery Board grants) • Prepare grant applications for regional actions and regional implementation needs February 25, 2005 Page 15 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Work with the Technical Coordinator to maintain and update action lists targeted for funding • Convene and staff the Action Committee Assistant to the Executive Director (1 FTE) The Executive Director will have a diverse and ambitious work program. Recognizing the need for staff support for the Director as well as other positions in the shared staff, the Steering Committee is recommending a full time Assistant position. The person in this role will be the Director's right hand aid, supplying administrative and programmatic assistance to keep staff and committee work running smoothly. The Assistant will also assume responsibility for specific communications tasks that cannot easily be accomplished by a public outreach committee. It is difficult to summarize all the likely job responsibilities of the Assistant, however a few specific ones are as follows: • Help staff the Oversight and Summit Advisory Bodies, by organizing meetings, preparing meeting notices and summaries, and assisting the Director in developing meeting agendas • Carry out the leg work associated with tracking Plan implementation • Assist in the preparation of annual reports for the Oversight Body, Summit Advisory Body, and the public • Help develop a variety of communications tools (e.g. newsletter articles, press releases, web site material, etc.) to inform external audiences about Plan progress • Provide general administrative assistance to the Executive Director • Provide general administrative assistance to the Funding and Technical Coordinator as time allows and as requested by the Executive Director Technical Coordinator (1 FTE) Developing, synthesizing and interpreting technical information about the effectiveness of Plan actions is essential to adaptive Plan implementation. While the Technical Committee can accomplish many of the tasks that will facilitate the ongoing use of science to refine and improve the Plan, the Steering Committee strongly agrees that the Technical Committee must have support from a full time Technical Coordinator to be effective. Throughout the planning process, the Technical Committee has had such a coordinator. However, the coordinator's time has been donated by one jurisdiction, rather than funded regionally. In the future, the Technical Coordinator should be a key member of the shared and regionally funded staff. The Technical Coordinator will have a diverse set of responsibilities. Some aspects of the job will involve coordinating with other entities that have gathered information useful for assessments of habitat improvement and salmon recovery in the watershed. For example, local jurisdictions will conduct monitoring about project effectiveness, and federal and state agencies and tribes may conduct monitoring about the status of fish populations (e.g. spawning surveys). The Technical Coordinator will be responsible for tracking these efforts, gathering and synthesizing information useful for watershed-level decision making, and communicating that information to the Oversight and Summit Advisory Bodies. Other aspects of the Technical Coordinator's job will involve designing and implementing research and monitoring that is regionally funded. February 25, 2005 Page 16 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework The Technical Coordinator will work closely with the Technical Committee on all major job responsibilities. Specific responsibilities will include: • Lead the development and implementation of a monitoring framework for jointly funded monitoring activities • Lead the development and implementation of jointly funded research activities • Coordinate WRIA monitoring activities with tribes, agencies. stakeholders, and other WRJAs • Assist the Technical Committee to develop a common set of measures and guidelines for data collection, to ensure that data gathered by different jurisdictions and stakeholders can be compared and aggregated • Oversee and coord.inate data management • Lead production of technical content for Annual Reports on the effectiveness of projects and overall progress toward habitat improvement • Convene and staff the Technical Committee The 3.5 positions described above cover the roles that the Steering Committee believes are most essential to supporting a collaborative and robust adaptive implementation process. Together, these positions will provide support to each of the committees in the recommended organizational structure. The relationships between individual shared staff and committees are shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3 shows a matrix summarizing the roles and responsibilities both for the proposed staff positions and for the various proposed committees. This staffing recommendation makes a determination about how roles should be organized as FTEs. and describes specific work programs for each. However, it is important to note that the Oversight Body or a newly hired Executive Director might choose to maintain these roles but organize the actual positions differently. Moreover, decisions could be made to have specific tasks or entire work programs carried out by consultants rather than by shared staff. The Steering Committee agrees that internships should be arranged to increase the capacity of shared staff. Interns could help support technical work under the responsibility of the Technical Coordinator. They could also assist with communication services, meeting support, fundraising and joint stewardship activities. Several educational institutions around Puget Sound have formal internship programs that should be explored to determine for their fit with future WRIA work. Finally, it should be noted that the intent of the recommended staffing plan is to describe a base level of staffing necessary to perform activities that directly support collaborative Plan implementation. The plan does also not account for additional staffing resources that would be needed to accomplish functions other than those described in this chapter. For example, the staffing plan does not account for staffing resources that might be needed to accomplish habitat planning for Coho, bull trout, or other species of concern in WRIA 8. In addition, there may be other opportunities for regional collaboration that could not be taken advantage of with these recommended staffing resources. If the Oversight Body wanted to sponsor training for jurisdictions and stakeholders about how to do certain types of actions (e.g. land use management tools, enforcement, or volunteer management for stewardship projects) staff resources beyond those described in this recommendation would likely be necessary. February 25, 2005 Page 17 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework February 25, 2005 Page 18 Figure 2-2:-Plan Implementation Organizational Structure Summit Body Staffed by: ED and ED Assistant • _ 9_"'.~~15'3.Rf_llng __ -• membership Public Outreach Staffed by ED Assistant ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Oversig htBody Staffed by: ED and ED Assistant Technical Staffed by Technical Coordinator • Jurisdictional Staff Participate February 25, 2005 Page 19 ) I/ ( Action Staffed by Funding Coordinator ----------1f , , , , , Functions Tracking and Guiding Plan ! lmplementati on Making Technical Assessments about Effectiveness Evaluating Progress and Making Decisions About Priorities Communicati ng Progress Managing Data Describing Plan Effectiveness and Proqress Securing Funds to Support Plan lmplementati on Functions D Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Figure 2-3: WRIA 8 Plan Implementation Roles and Responsibilities Oversight Body ,! 'I , ' , ' Summit Body -../ Requires participation by decision-makers/leaders TBD D , Summary Matrix Requires in-kind contribution of staff bv iurisdictions February 25, 2005 Page 20 Executive Director J -../ '-I ../ Technical Program Coordinator 0 ,! 'I Funding Coordin ator ~ Assistant to the Executive Director '>) 0 (minor) ,j -.J 0 (minor) 'I D Requires funding from WRIA 8 partners throuah ILA or other mechanism Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Part 3: Timeline for Plan Implementation, Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Much time and consideration during the Plan development process -and in developing the 2002 Near-Term Action Agenda -has been given to identifying actions that can and should be implemented to reach habitat and salmon goals. The planning process is based on, and must lead to, making a difference on the ground through a range of programs, policies and projects implemented by WRIA 8 stakeholders. There are unavoidable limitations. however, on the ability of WRIA 8 partners to improve habitat and salmon population conditions enough in the few years after the Plan is done to declare victory in recovering ESA-listed Chinook and bull trout. This is the case regardless of how specific the habitat actions, or how firm the commitments to implement them, are: detecting salmon response to habitat improvement happens over many years, while stakeholders' ability to make firm commitments of resources to specific actions spans only a few. It is critical, given these limitations, to build and follow a Plan implementation timeline that both accounts for our near term opportunities and limitations and maintains attention to the fundamental, longer-term indications of effectiveness and progress. This section describes the basic features of a Plan implementation timeline that meets this need. The Steering Committee, through work sessions focused on Measures/Monitoring, Organizational Structure, and Implementation Timeline, has provided information essential to crafting a recommended Plan implementation timeline with activities and milestones that address the following questions: 1. When does the Plan implementation clock start ticking? 2. What is the Plan implementation horizon? 3. When will we check on progress implementing the Plan? 4. When will we begin to formally assess Plan effectiveness? 5. When will Plan priorities and results be evaluated? 6. When will leaders convene to review Plan status? Each of these questions is addressed in the following text. Each is presented with the answer provided by the Steering Committee and a brief description of the factors that were weighed in addressing the question and that will continue to influence how the timeline discussion is fully resolved. When does the Plan implementation clock start ticking? The Steering Committee recommends that the implementation clock start with the ratification of the Plan. In making this recommendation the Steering Committee recognized several factors that bear on or emerge from it. Each of these factors is likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification. They may also affect achieving resolution of issues related to organizational structure, measures and monitoring. funding, and commitments. These factors include the following: February 25, 2005 Page 21 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework Figure 2-4 -Ratification Starts Plan Implementation Clock Plan is Ratified Implementation of prioritized plan actions per !LA---~-------~-------___. Standard 0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 YS Y6 Y7 • Setting the baseline for monitoring -Setting the baseline is an essential element of the monitoring framework for the Plan as it establishes the habitat and species conditions to which future conditions will be compared in order to judge progress and effectiveness. The monitoring baseline could be set to coincide exactly with the formal initiation of the Plan's implementation phase, but the fundamental aim is to set the baseline as near to when implementers undertake Plan actions so the change attributable to them can be fully captured. The Steering Committee recommends setting the baseline separately from starting the implementation clock. Doing so will accommodate the limitations in the existing data describing conditions and the unpredictable nature of the ratification process. The data assembled by the Technical Committee for use in describing current conditions in the EDT modeling work will define the baseline for monitoring/reporting/evaluation purposes. • Initiating the Monitoring/Reporting/Evaluation Process -Starting the implementation clock has symbolic meaning, as representative of moving to the next phase of WRIA 8's salmon recovery effort, and practical meaning for the logistics and operations of Plan implementation. The monitoring/reporting/ evaluation process, described in the following text and a critical part of showing success and progress, will be formally initiated with the start of the implementation clock. The years shown as milestones in the monitoring/reporting/evaluation process are therefore measured from Plan ratification. • Connecting Ratification to Resources for Monitoring/Reporting/Evaluation -De-I inking ratification from the formal start of implementation increases the risk that there will be a significant lag between the baseline time and initiation of the monitoring/reporting/evaluation process. This is largely an artifact of the assumption that monitoring of measures of change from the baseline is not possible until ratification and subsequent delivery of resources to fund the work. It is possible that ratification will not happen until mid/late 2005, with monitoring not starting until early 2006, while the baseline could be set at 2003 using the EDT modeling data. February 25, 2005 Page 22 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework What is the Plan implementation horizon? The Steering Committee recommends a ten-year horizon for Plan implementation. A number of factors bear on or emerge from a horizon of that length. Each of these factors is likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification They may also affect achieving resolution of issues related to organizational structure, measures and monitoring, funding, and commitments. The significant factors include the following: Figure 2-5-Plan Horizon is 10 Years Plan is Ratified per ILA~---- Standard Implementation of prioritized plan actions 1 Multiple Chinook life cycle(s) for several year classes • Year 10: Overhaul Plan? SPAWN•-- /REAR OC[Afli SPAWN SPAWN -• /REAR '4--------GtE-Af+··-----·--1>-/REAR•----·-·----• SPAWN .,. /REAR• -------OCE/\N-SPAWN• ------·-·-Gt:E-AN-·-·-·-__ .,. SPAWN_._ '"" /REAR jREAR ; SPAWN , SPAWN • f REAR •·-·-·-·----·-Gf£n·N------·--• j REAR "' · Ot:E-A-N---------·--1>- •---SPAWN -----. .. /REAP ---·-G-E:-l::.AN-·-1>- Two Major Comp Plan/CAO updates ... H/,JOP Ten Construction Windows for Instream Projects .. +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ ...... ...... t + ... ... ... ! t ! ! • __ £[ojf:}_(t_pnQ!1tizat1on Desiq_n Perm:ttmq_ etc ' - 0 Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 YS Y6 Y7 YS yg YlO • Allowing time to see action effects -By the tenth year after the start of Plan implementation there should be a sufficient body of data compiled to allow a solid, but initial, assessment of how salmon populations are responding to the range of habitat actions implemented during that period. A ten-year horizon will also allow each chinook year class at least two opportunities to spawn/rear in habitat changed as a result of Plan actions. • Synchronizing the Plan horizon with other relevant processes -The preceding discussion of organizational structure alludes to the need for WRIA 8 to have a presence in other major processes and projects that influence salmon recovery in WRIA 8. Such processes include updates of Comprehensive Plans and Critical Areas Ordinances, prioritization of projects within jurisdiction CIP programs, instream flow rule making, and others. Making direct connections to the most important of these processes will be possible but challenging: providing relevant habitat and salmon information indirectly to the other processes is possible but will not likely be a significant work task. Decision-makers must identify the external processes that are the most important and warrant attention when considering specific connections to Plan implementation. • Plan actions happen over different timescales -A ten-year horizon does not mean that all activities associated with Plan implementation are geared toward a ten-year window. For February 25, 2005 Page 23 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework example, commitments to Plan implementation may extend over only a portion of the ten year horizon, and steps in assessing the effectiveness of actions will most likely be taken within a cycle that repeats over an approximately 3 year timeframe In this context ten years is viewed as the timeframe over which the initial Plan priorities are most likely to be useful as guides for habitat actions, with year ten anticipated to be when serious consideration is given to shifting priorities based on monitoring results. When will we check on progress implementing the Plan? The Steering Committee recommends checking on and reporting Plan implementation progress annually. In addition, it recommends the production of an annual report describing the actions that were implemented during that year and summarizing the Plan activities undertaken from the start of implementation. The significant factors bearing on or emerging from these recommendations, and likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification, include the following: Figure 2-6 -Annual Check-in on Plan Implementation Progress Plan is Ratified per ILA Standard Implementation of prioritized plan actions --------------------~----+ Gather actioh implementation info _,-Annual Annual Annual Ahnuar ,AnnU:al ,, Report !>~~ROrt Report R,eport Report:- 0 Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 YS • Transition to Plan implementation -Regardless of when the implementation clock starts, activities in the first year of Plan implementation would include mobilizing people and resources supporting the Plan implementation framework. The recommended committee structure and staffing model provide a sense of how people and resources would be arrayed. Transitioning to the recommended new structure will entail hiring and orienting staff, establishing new committees with specific implementation tasks, and retasking existing committees with slightly different work. These activities will be undertaken concurrently with the implementation of habitat actions. • Responsibility for assembling the Annual Report -This will be finalized with agreement on the funding, organizational structure, and staffing for Plan implementation. The recommended organizational structure anticipates that the Oversight Body, Technical Committee, Action Committee and Public Outreach Committee will have a role in this key task. The staff described in the recommendation for shared staff will likely play prominent February 25, 2005 Page 24 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework roles in this task. It is possible that completing the annual report may entail additional contributions from jurisdiction staff, consultants, and/or others. • Annual Report content-There is currently no requirement dictating how Jong the Annual Report must be or what it must describe. In addition to describing activities that are part of the Plan and their results. the Plan could also capture non-Plan activities that may influence the effect"1veness of Plan actions. Annual Report content can be determined and planned for as part of finalizing the Plan and with further consideration as Plan elements are implemented. Providing the desired level of detail and breadth of content will be possible only with people, time and money sufficient to complete report development tasks. • Annual Report as communication tool -There is a strong desire to use the annual report as a communication tool for the general public and not Just as information for implementers and engaged stakeholders. Meeting this desire may require the use of several communication mechanisms (e.g., newsletter, web page, presentations to councils, etc.) and a higher level of resources. When will we begin to formally assess Plan effectiveness? The Steering Committee recommends assessing Plan effectiveness initially in Year 3. The significant factors bearing on or emerging from these recommendations. and likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification, include the following: Figure 2-7 -Initial Effectiveness Assessment in Year 3 Plan is Ratified per ILA Standard 0 Implementation of prioritized plan actions data collection C"" .. = C"''""' ( Annual Annual Anriual Annual Annual Report Report Report Report Report Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 YS --__. • Collecting effectiveness data -Data for judging effectiveness will be collected at least as soon as Plan implementation formally starts, if not earlier if resources allow. Three years should provide sufficient time to get an initial read of effectiveness of a subset of implemented Plan actions. The Technical Committee will play a primary role in developing the monitoring framework that guides data collection and drawing conclus·1ons from effectiveness data. February 25, 2005 Page 25 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Frequency of reporting effectiveness -It is likely that as Plan implementation continues data pertaining to action effectiveness will be collected on an ongoing basis. It is also likely. however, that drawing substantive new conclusions from that data will not happen on a predictable -in this case annual -timeline. Effectiveness should be reported in the Annual Report on a frequency supported by data collection efforts. • Identifying and responding to crises -The annual reporting process will not be the main avenue for communicating about unexpected events that may call for significant shifts in strategy and/or resource allocation. Within the anticipated organizational structure the Oversight Body would be the management level group that would receive and develop the response to information regarding significant unexpected events. • Timeframe for responding to effectiveness findings -Just as there are limits to reaching conclusions from data regarding effectiveness, there are limits to how quickly and frequently implementers can respond to such conclusions. It is likely that significant changes driven by effectiveness findings are manageable every several years, apart from unique circumstances that would warrant immediate action to avoid catastrophic effects. • Reporting -Results of this assessment can be captured in the Annual Report. When will Plan priorities and results be evaluated? The Steering Committee recommends evaluating Plan priorities and results initially in Year 5. Acting on this recommendation will be influenced by data collection timing limitations similar to those that affect the preceding recommendation regarding assessing effectiveness. The significant additional factors bearing on or emerging from this recommendation, and likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification, include the following: Figure 2-8 -Evaluating Priorities and Progress in Year 5 Plan is Ratified per lLA Standard 0 Anrltial. Repo,r:t Yl Implementation of prioritized plan actions 'Pir!J~-i, _R_ep_o_~i Y2 data collection AriOO~i -~~1J-1 Y3 'AnriUa! Repqrt Y4 -• Compile cumulative effectiveness info \ Anm'1al ~epor_t Y5 February 25, 2005 Page 26 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Relating evaluation to salmon cycles -Year 5 is the earliest you can get a read from a salmon cycle that begins after Plan implementation has officially begun, but that provides only one data point (e.g., spawner-recruit ratio) for that year class. This type of evaluation should happen every three or five years based solely on the desire to avoid synchronizing evaluation with the return of only one year class. This would be the result if evaluation occurred every fourth year. • Frequency of evaluating priorities and progress -The frequency of this type of evaluation after Year 5 has not been determined. In setting this interval decision-makers will weigh several key factors including the desire to maintain some consistency in priorities over time, the need to respond to emerging negative or positive trends in a timely manner, and fundamental constraints on drawing conclusions from small data sets. • Reporting -Results of this evaluation can be captured in the Annual Report When will leaders convene to review Plan status? The Steering Committee recommends the formation of an Oversight Body for Plan implementation and convening a Summit Advisory Body in Years 3 and 5. The significant additional factors bearing on or emerging from this recommendation, and likely to receive additional consideration as the Plan moves toward finalization and ratification, include the following: Figure 2-9 -Convening Leaders Plan is Ratified per ILA Implementation of prioritized plan actions ----------i.- Standard Summit Advisory Body convenes Oversight Body convenes I l t • t I t • • • • • Annual Annual Ann-ual AnnUal Annual Report: Report: ·Report;. Report: Report What actions What actions What effects What effects Progress and have been have been can we-see can we-:see priorities OK implemented implemented From .Our from o'i.Jr for moving ? 7 actions? actions? forward? 0 Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 YS • Evolving Complexity of Leadership Role -The purposeful linkage of the leadership bodies to the reporting activity denotes an expectation that the substance of review and guidance by leaders will be progressively more complex. In Years 1 -3 leaders will focus on tracking implementation as they build their knowledge base of the challenges to and opportunities for habitat protection and restoration. By Year 5 and beyond, leaders are more directly engaged with the value and appropriateness of Plan actions in the context of these challenges and opportunities. February 25, 2005 Page 27 Chapter 2: Plan Implementation Framework • Membership and Responsibilities of Oversight and Summit Advisory Bodies -These topics are discussed in the preceding section describing the committees anticipated to be part of the Plan implementation organizational structure. • Anticipating and Accounting for Turnover-It is likely that even within the first five years after initiating Plan implementation there will be turnover in decision-makers and staff involved in the process. This turnover increases the risk of losing critical knowledge of priorities and opportunities. The recommended timeline builds in measures that can help maintain knowledge of progress from the Plan implementation, including the formation of an Oversight Body focused specifically on implementation issues, the suggested frequency of convening leaders, and the linkage to annual reporting. February 25, 2005 Page 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 3: THE SCIE~CE FOU~DATIOl\ Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Chapter 3: The Science Foundation What do we know and need to know about salmon and their habitat needs? The science foundation for the WRIA 8 Conservation Plan rests upon our knowledge of Chinook salmon and habitat conditions within the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed. This section of the plan provides a description of the scientific information used to develop the WRIA 8 conservation strategy, including analytical tools, existing information about salmon populations, and habitat conditions within the system. Scientific Analysis Approach The WRIA 8 Technical Committee (W8TC) developed three tools to use in determining basin conservation strategies for Chinook habitat protection and restoration. Those tools included a Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) framework, a Watershed Evaluation, and an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model adapted for WRIA 8. A description of each tool follows, as well as a discussion of how it was developed and applied to form the conservation strategies. The results of applying these tools, as well as the strategies developed for salmon conservation, are identified in Chapter 4, Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8. Viable Salmonid Population Framework NOAA Fisheries developed the VSP concept as guidance for regional conservation efforts to restore the viability of salmon populations. A viable salmonid population is defined as "an independent population of any Pacific sa·lmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation, and genetic changes over a 100-year time frame (McElhany et al. 2000)." Four population attributes are used to evaluate population viability: • Abundance: How many fish are there at various life stages? • Productivity/Population growth rate: Is the population replacing itself or growing? • Spatial Structure: How are fish geographically distributed? • Diversity: How many life history strategies (variation in how habitat is used in space and time) are present and how diverse is the population genetically? Please see Appendix C-1 and McElhany et al. (2000) for additional information on the VSP concept, VSP attributes and their evaluation. Objective. Development and Application The VSP framework was developed to document hypotheses relevant to current population status and prescribe logical objectives to minimize the risk of extinction faced by WRIA 8 Chinook populations. The framework was developed through: 1. Defining the VSP attributes based on McElhany et al. (2000); 2. Documenting assumptions and guiding hypotheses for each VSP attribute (diversity, spatial structure, productivity, and abundance); 3. Evaluating how changes in population or habitat conditions affect risk for each VSP attribute, based upon assumptions, hypotheses and current population conditions; February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation 4. Prescribing qualitative VSP objectives; and 5. Forming conclusions about the overall priority among populations within WRIA 8. The framework was used, in conjunction with the Watershed Evaluation and EDT Modeling results, to interpret, prioritize, and sequence habitat restoration and protection potentials for WRIA 8 (see Appendix C). The evaluation of relative risk is a fundamental aspect of ESA response, and the VSP framework (and Watershed Evaluation) helped the W8TC interpret the EDT model results appropriately. Watershed Evaluation Watershed conditions, such as types of land use and vegetation cover, have a large effect on aquatic habitat conditions and the processes that create and maintain that habitat. For example, upland watershed conditions have a large influence on runoff amounts and quality through storage and filtering of rainfall and recharge of groundwater sources, which in turn, affects water temperatures and flows in aquatic ecosystems (Ziemer and Lisle 1998). As such, watershed conditions are an important component of any conservation plan addressing aquatic habitats and species. Neither the VSP framework nor the EDT Modeling account for watershed conditions and therefore, the watershed evaluation filled a hole in the analytical approach. Obiective, Development and Application The Watershed Evaluation was developed to account for watershed conditions and how those conditions 1) influence existing instream habitat and 2) facilitate or limit the effectiveness of habitat protection and restoration actions that could be implemented. Development of the watershed evaluation included: 1. Evaluating watershed conditions for each sub-basin through the use of indicators. Indicators included both impact factors that degrade aquatic habitat and mitigative factors that contribute to aquatic habitat integrity (Table 3-1 ). 2. Ranking sub-basins into high impact, moderate impact, and low impact categories. based upon the watershed conditions. 3. Categorizing fish use of sub-basins using Chinook salmon demographic information (Table 3-2). This information was also used in the VSP Framework to assess relative Chinook spatial distribution in WRIA 8. Sub-areas were organized as: • Core areas: High Chinook abundance and frequent use (used in all years). • Satellite areas: Moderate Chinook abundance and moderately frequent use (used in most years). • Migratory areas: Areas used only for migration and rearing, not spawning. • Episodic areas: Low Chinook abundance and infrequent use (used in few years). 4. Developing priority tiering for sub-basins based upon watershed conditions and fish use. Developing broad strategies to address watershed conditions for each tier. February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Table 3-1: Factors used to evaluate and rank watershed conditions. Impact Factors Mitigative Factors Total impervious area (%) Forest cover (%) Road crossings per kilometer (#/km) Riparian forest cover (%) Storm Volume Wetlands (%) Gradient >4% (% length) Gradient <2% (% length) The priority tiering was applied to WRIA 8 to identify the sub-basins that should be addressed first to minimize risk to Chinook populations. Watershed conditions were used to develop sub- basin specific land use recommendations, in light of EDT modeling results for instream habitat conditions. The Watershed Evaluation Report can be found in Appendix C. EDT Modeling The EDT model was developed to help diagnosis the condition of salmon populations based upon the instream habitat conditions they encounter and our understanding of how salmon respond to those habitat conditions (Lestelle et al. 1996; Mobrand 1999). The model is habitat- based and predicts how Chinook populations respond to changes in habitat resulting from such events as human modifications, climate change or natural landscape-scale events, to the extent that these changes can be described in terms of physical habitat changes in streams. Objective. Development and Application The objective of using EDT in WRIA 8 was to assess existing habitat conditions in order to develop prioritized habitat actions for Chinook salmon recovery ("diagnosis"). The second objective of the model was to test the relative benefits of suites of prioritized actions ("treatment") to allow the WRIA to pick the most effective suite of habitat protection and restoration actions, although this use of the model has not yet been utilized. The "diagnosis" portion of EDT was also conducted for coho salmon, although results have been interpreted only for Chinook at this time. The "diagnosis" portion of the model included: 1. Establishing reaches for all Chinook-and coho-bearing aquatic areas with WRIA 8; 2. Compiling and entering environmental data (e.g., sediment, riparian vegetation, channel morphology) into the model describing current and 'template' (historic) habitat for each reach. Template conditions in the model are assumed to be 1850s pre-European settlement habitat with the current hydrologic routing (i.e., Cedar flows into Lake Washington rather than the Black River, and the outlet of the system is through the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks rather than the Duwamish River). 3. Narrowing the set of environmental data to those "ecological attributes" that most directly influence Chinook and coho populations, based upon "rules" for how Chinook and coho interact with the environment. 4. Applying "rules" to the ecological attributes to determine biological performance for Chinook and coho "survival attributes" (e.g., habitat diversity, key habitat quality, flow, and channel February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation stability). For WRIA 8, rules had to be developed for Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River, the Ship Canal, and the marine nearshore. Because of uncertainties regarding how WRIA 8 Chinook use the nearshore and estuary, as well as the documented use of the WRIA 8 estuary and nearshore by Chinook from other WRIAs, the Technical Committee did not rely on the relative geographic priorities produced by habitat modeling efforts. Using the comparison of historic versus current habitat conditions in the Tidal Habitat Model, the Technical Committee developed recommendations that focus on reversing the effects of anthropogenic modifications to the system and protecting remaining areas of functioning habitat. 5. Evaluating the inftuence of survival factors on population performance (ie., habitat capacity, productivity, and life history diversity) through model application. More detail about the EDT concept and model can be found at the Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. website (www.mobrand.com). A summary of the WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Habitat Model is included in Appendix C-3. The modeling results included identifying regional priority areas where habitat protection and restoration would most influence the Chinook populations and the habitat problems that affect individual reaches within the region. Those results were interpreted by the WBTC and integrated with results from the VSP Framework and Watershed Evaluation to develop a conservation strategy for each WRIA 8 Chinook population. WRIA 8 Salmon Populations The Puget Sound Technical Review Team (PSTRT, 2001) has identified two independent populations of Chinook in WRIA 8: the Cedar River and Sammamish River Chinook. The Sammamish River population includes North Lake Washington and Issaquah sub-populations. The population identifications are based on geography, migration rates, genetic characteristics, life history patterns, phenotypic attributes, population dynamics, and environmental and habitat conditions, all of which serve as indicators of reproductive isolation. In their determination of population structure, the PSTRT notes that it is unclear whether the tributaries draining into the north end of Lake Washington historically supported an independent Chinook population. However, the PSTRT has also identified two factors indicating that this area has the potential to support independent Chinook populations. First, the PSTRT states that the Sammamish River drainage (including Issaquah Creek and the North Lake Washington Tributaries) is larger than the smallest watershed containing an independent population in their analysis of Puget Sound Chinook populations. Second, a recent analysis of spawner capacity developed for the PSTRT by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2003) indicates that the Bear/Cottage system, the lower portion of North Creek, and Issaquah Creek have a high probability of supporting Chinook spawning, while Swamp Creek, Little Bear Creek, Carey and Holder Creeks, and the upper portion of North Creek have a moderate probability of supporting Chinook spawning. While two populations are identified in WRIA 8 by the PSTRT, recent genetic information available at the time the Conservation Strategy was developed indicated that there may be enough difference between the North Lake Washington Chinook and fish returning to the Issaquah Creek Hatchery to consider them separate from one another (Marshall 2000), which may be especially true from a fisheries management perspective. In addition there are other differences such as run timing (e.g., the North Lake Washington Chinook run starts earlier than Issaquah Hatchery returns, peaks at approximately the same time, and tails off over a longer February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation period} that may reflect genetic differences between North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook that should be maintained. After much discussion, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee decided to take a precautionary approach and plan for three populations: the Cedar River population, the North Lake Washington population, and the Issaquah population. The Technical Committee recognizes that the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations are closely linked, with the Issaquah Hatchery population influencing the North Lake Washington population. The W8TC based their decision to plan for three populations on the desire to adopt a conservative approach to WRIA 8 Chinook populations in light of uncertainties about population structure, and the potential that unique genetic characteristics necessary for the long-term viability of the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations, if lost, may not be recovered. This conservative approach is consistent with the Steering Committee's objective that the Plan preserves options and opportunities for recovery. By identifying three populations, the WRIA placed priority on protecting all Chinook within the watershed, as well as any local adaptations that these fish possess. This approach supports the continued survival of offspring of naturally spawning Issaquah Hatchery Chinook strays which would be protected under the Endangered Species _Act. In addition, the three population approach errs on the side of caution to maintain future opportunities for conservation in the Issaquah sub-area. Finally, this approach confers ancillary benefits on other species such as coho, and supports the widest level of stakeholder participation, all of which are consistent with the Steering Committee's stated goals and objectives. Throughout this document, three populations will be discussed, consistent with the direction that WRIA 8 chose to take with Chinook recovery. The reader should note that the use of the term 'population' as it relates to Chinook throughout this document reflects the WRIA 8 Technical Committee's precautionary approach, and that the term is therefore NOT synonymous with the PSTRT's use of the term. The discussions surrounding WRIA 8 population structure are continuing as new information materializes. In 2003, returning adult hatchery Chinook were adipose-clipped for the first time. Stray rates in that year indicated that there were more hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds than expected (22% of spawners in the Cedar River mainstem, 54% of spawners in Bear/Cottage Creeks, and 48% of all spawners in the WRIA}. While straying is a natural phenomenon, the large releases of hatchery fish (e.g. 2 million Chinook fry are released annually from the Issaquah hatchery) combined with small populations of naturally-spawning Chinook in WRIA 8 (average adult returns to the Cedar River, for example, was only 325 fish between 1998 and 2002) mean that the relatively high contribution rates of hatchery-origin fish could pose a risk to the genetic diversity of the Cedar and North Lake Washington populations. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has initiated a genetic study with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW} to analyze juvenile samples taken from the three assumed populations in WRIA 8, samples from hatcheries known to contribute to adult returns (e.g., University of Washington, Issaquah, Grover's Creek}1 , as well as archived scale and tissue 1 Hatchery-origin salmon are differentiated from natural-origin salmon by a clipped adipose fin. While the practice of 'ad-clipping· helps to identify hatchery origin of returning adults, it does not identify the specific hatchery of ongin. In order to confirm the hatchery of origin, a hatchery-specific Coded-Wire Tag (CWT) is implanted in a portion of juveniles released from the hatchery. The Issaquah hatchery recently began a CWT program for a portion of hatchery releases, but these tagged fish have not yet returned as adults. In the absence of this confirmation, the assumption that the majority of ad-clipped hatchery fish observed on the Cedar River and North Lake Washington spawning grounds are coming from the Issaquah hatchery is based on the following lines of evidence: February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation samples from adult spawners. It is expected that this study will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. However, it is likely that there will be continued questions regarding the interactions of hatchery and wild Chinook. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee and participating scientists plan to review the genetic study and provide the information to the PSTRT for consideration in identifying independent populations within WRIA 8. The Technical Committee will then adapt the Conservation Strategy in light of this new information. Potential revisions to the Conservation Strategy are summarized in Chapter 4 and in Appendix C-5. Cedar River/South Lake Washington Population Adults from all WRIA 8 populations return to the watershed primarily between June and September. The Cedar River/South Lake Washington population (Cedar) spawns in the Cedar River and in some of its tributaries (Taylor, Peterson, and lower Rock creeks and the Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch) between September and November. Juveniles, after emerging from the gravel, migrate into the south end of Lake Washington either as fry or fingerlings between February and June. While in the lake, the juveniles rear and migrate north along the shoreline in shallow habitats with gentle gradient and small substrates (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). They also utilize small creek mouths (Tabor et al. 2003). Once they become larger (May or June), most of the juveniles move offshore and prepare to exit WRIA 8 through the Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks). Chinook smolts typically enter saltwater between May and July (DeVries 2001; DeVries 2002). They then spend time rearing in the marine nearshore environment of WRIA 8 and other areas of Puget Sound before migrating to the larger ocean. Based upon the abundance of adults using various areas and the frequency of that use, the following categorizations were made for the sub-basins with the Cedar River (Table 3-2): • Core areas: Lower and Middle Cedar River (below Landsburg Dam) • Satellite areas: Upper Cedar River (above Landsburg Dam), Taylor/ Downs Creek and Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch. • Migratory areas: Lake Washington, Ship Canal, Lake Union, Locks and Marine Nearshore. • Geographic proximity and number of fish released. The only other Chinook hatchery within WRIA 8 is the University of Washington's Portage Bay facility, which releases less than 10% of the fish released by Issaquah (180,000 vs. 2,000,000 annually). • It is unlikely that the majority of ad-clipped fish observed in the Cedar came from hatcheries other than Issaquah. Although CWTs from Grovers Creek and the UW have been recovered in the Cedar River (during 2003 13 CWTs were recovered out of 329 carcasses), these hatcheries produce far fewer fish and CWT a significantly greater portion of releases (60-100% depending on the year). Although 100% of UW releases were tagged in 1996-7, no UW tags were found on the Cedar River spawning grounds when these fish returned as adults. Similarly, 100% of Grovers Creek fish released in 1995 were tagged, and no Grover's Creek fish were observed on the Cedar spawning grounds when these tagged fish returned as adults. • The Soos Creek Hatchery began ad-clipping Chinook prior to the Issaquah Hatchery. In years when 4 and 5 yr-old ad-clipped fish were returning to the Soos Creek hatchery, no ad-clipped fish were observed in the Cedar River. Also, the Soos Creek hatchery CWTs 10-15% of releases and no Soos Creek tags have been found in WRIA 8 to date. • Significant numbers of ad-clipped Chinook were first observed on the Cedar River in the first year (2003) that clipped adults began returning to the Issaquah hatchery in significant numbers (as 3-yr olds). • The timing of ad-clipped fish in the Cedar River coincides with the peak returns to the Issaquah Hatchery, and is different from peak returns to the UW, Soos, and several other regional hatcheries. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation • Episodic areas: Lower Rock Creek, Peterson, Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch, Madsen and Molasses creeks. Diversity. Diversity is the least understood of the VSP attributes throughout the watershed. Adults are generally believed to be wild, native fish (Table 3-2), although juvenile hatchery Chinook salmon were introduced to the system between 1944 (Ajwani 1957) and 1965 (WDFW hatchery planting records). In addition, hatchery adults were found in the Cedar River during the 2003 spawning season (about 25% of adult returns; Burton et al. 2004 ), the first year that ad-clipped Issaquah hatchery fish returned to the watershed in significant numbers. Spawning generally occurs between August and November (Priest and Berge 2002; Burton et al. 2003). Juveniles emerge from the gravel between January and April and exhibit two rearing strategies, both consistent with an ocean-type life history (i.e., spending less than one year in freshwater). In most years, the majority of juveniles enter Lake Washington within days of emergence (fry migrants; Seiler et al. 2003). A smaller portion of juveniles rear in the river, then enter the lake as larger fingerling migrants later in the spring and early summer. The small proportion of fingerling migrants in the population is believed to be caused, in part, by habitat loss in the Cedar River. February 25, 2005 Page 7 3 WRIA8 Ch k --· lat' t . Diversity Abundance PROFESSIONAL SURVEYS ~ Q) a. ~ Known Chinook C 0 salmon Chinook Population t5 minimum affiliation ::, life history Mean adult population salmon cl origin 1 e Status 1 trajectories2 affiliation subareas abundance Years of record Cl. Cedar Cedar Native Wild Depressed 2 746 64-66. 68-99 Upper Ceda1 Mixed Comp. Unk 79 2003 Taylor Native Wild Depressed 2 12 98-2003 Peterson Native Wild Depressed 2 1 98-2003 Rock Native Wild Depressed 2 3 1960-2003 Walsh Native Wild Depressed 2 1 98-2003 N. Lk. Wash. Bear" Native Wild Unk 2 404 85-99 Little Bear Native Wild Unk 1 11 71-89. 94. 96 North 6 Native Wild Unk 1 25 74. 76, 81, 84. 86-88.01 Swamp 7 Native Wild Unk 1 6 75-77. 80-81, 84-88. 90 Thornton Native Wild Unk 1 3 99-00 McAleer Native Wild Unk 1 n/a nla Issaquah Issaquah '" Non-native Comp. Healthy 2 2,796 86-99 Lewis Non-native Comp. Healthy 1 n/a n/a Laughing Jacobs Non-native Comp. Healthy 1 n/a n/a Unaffiliated Kelsey' Native Wild Unk 1 138 99-00 based on Coal Native Wild Unk 1 n/a nla SASSI and May Native Wild Unk 1 2 82. 98-99 TRT Juanita Native Wild Unk 1 1 88 Pipers Unk Unk Unk 1 n/a nla 1 from SASSI 2 Minimum life history trajectories currently represents the number of observed juvenile life history strategies 3 Includes Upper Cedar River Watershed 4 Core/Satellite/Episodic: OBSERVATIONS (since 1996, except Kelsey Incidence of Mean chinook per adults years of observed observation n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 1 out of 5 8 3 out of 5 0 0 out of 5 1 2 out of 5 11 2 out of 5 n/a n/a 9 4 out of 5 n/a n/a 70 11 out of 11 0 1 out of 5 2 2 out of 4 0 0 out of 3 n/a n/a Chapter 3: Science Foundation Distribution Productivity production/ female Mean survival ratios Number of Low ~ ~ Length tributaries gradient O -u .;:; E: i:i CJ) m o 0 BFW, of used/ un-"O ~"O 3 (.) VJ Q. C ·5.. Basin min stream length confined CJ) Q) -(]) O O W 0) :!:::::= (/) .~ 0...;:; --- Area (from used, used, m ~ == ~ Tota! "' m © reaches ~.Qi~ -o. 00. (mi2) EDT) miles miles (%)/ miles Fry Smalls Cm Em% ~ ~ Cl) ll..-o U)-o 0 '" 65 70-100 f 24.9 4/ 3.0 22/ 83' 489 136 12.2 3.4 14.4 Cedar Core 128 70-1001 unk unk 18/ 54 Cedar Sat 7.5 1.2 0 54/ 5.5 Cedar Sat 6.4 8 ft 0.2 0 75/ 3.4 Cedar Epi 14.8 17-35 ft 1.3 0 76/ 4.1 Cedar Epi 6.6 8 ft 0.3 0 35/ 5.6 Cedar Epi 50 10-27 ft 17.1 2/ 7.2 61/ 44 21 72 0.5 1.8 2.3 NLW Core 15 12-18/t 7.6 1/ 0.8 56/ 12 NLW Sat 29 10-24 ft 10.8 1/ 0.5 71/ 22 NLW Sat 25 10-24 ft 12.2 1/ 2.0 65/ 14 NLW Sat 11.6 12-15 ft 1.7 1/ 0.2 3314 NLW Epi 3.6 10 ft 2.6 0 61/ 4 NLW Epi 60 8-30 ft 26 5/ 13.4 23/ 34 lss Core 1.9 0.6 0 5/ 0.2 lss Epi 16 0.5 1/ 0.5 68/ 0.5 lss Epi 17 5-19 ft 13 3/ 5.9 76/ 17 NLW Sat 9 9 7-9 ft 2.1 0 14/ 2 NLW Epi 14 9-15 ft 3.2 0 49/ 14 NLW Epi 6.6 2 ft 2.2 0 60/ 5 NLW Epi 2.9 0.4 0 12/ 1 est. Unaffiliated Epi Core subareas: Chinook salmon are present on an annual basis in the subarea and the subarea represents the center of (highest) abundance for each population affiliation (for spawning, rearing, and migration areas). It is recognized that geographic size of the subarea and the amount or location of suitable spawning and/or rearing habitat often distributed within the subarea (e.g., among tributaries within spawning areas or along shoreline areas) are critical for long term maintenance of the core breeding group, or deme. Because of persistent levels of abundance, the variation in abundance and distribution of these demes have been best accounted for within the watershed, though data gaps exist. Satellite subareas: Chinook salmon are present most years (more than half the years of a typical 4-5 year life cycle) and are less abundant than in core areas, though population uncertainty exists ttiat is reflective of the level of effort made to determine abundance and distribution. Records are more incomplete, effort is inconsistent among potential satellite areas and methods of enumeration vary. However, it is recognized that geographic size of the subarea and the amount of suitable spawning and rearing habitat often distributed among tributaries within the spawning subarea are critical for long term maintenance of the satellite and core breeding groups Episodic use subareas: Chinook salmon are present infrequently, and may not be present or observed during the typical 4-5 year life cycle, indicating that when fish are observed, they are strays from another production area and not necessarily the progeny of natural production from the area in question. Epizodic use areas typically are smaller in geographic size, offer limited spawning and rearing opportunities (relative to core and satellite areas), due not only to limited habitat availability, but also due to habitat degradation that likely has a greater negative influence over the limited area, and the likelihood that natural production will be successful and hence contribute to the maintenance of the local breeding group and the core population as a whole. 5 Bear Creek inlcudes Lower Bear, Upper Bear, Cottage Lake and Evans subareas. 6 North Creek includes Upper North and Lower North Creek subareas. 7 Swamp Creek inlcudes Upper Swamp and Lower Swamp Creek subareas. 8 Kelsey Creek includes Upper Kelsey and Lower Kelsey Creeks as well as Mercer Slough. 9 Proximity to Cedar River suggests Kelsey Creek could be a satellite of the Cedar. Geomorphology suggests Kelsey Creek chinook are closer to North Lake Washington population. Technical committee assigns to NLW tribs. 1 O Issaquah Subbasin includes North Fork, East Fork, Lower Issaquah, Middle Issaquah, Upper Issaquah, Fifteenmile, and McDonald subareas. February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 3: Sc ientific Foundat ion Abundance. The number of adu lt Chinook returning to spawn in the Cedar River has decl ined in recent years , with the five lowest escapements occu rring in the last e ight years (Figure 3-1 ). H owever, 2001 and 2002 illustrated in creases in the number of redds over 1999 and 2000 (Table 3-3). Between 1964 and 1999, the adult returns to the Cedar River averaged approximately 750 fish. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Review Team (NMFS BRT) estimated the 5-year geometric mean abundance between 1998 and 2002 of 327 fish returning to spawn in the Cedar River (NMFS BRT 2003). Abundance trends illustrate that the Cedar River population is in steep decline . Reduced abundance is primarily driven by habitat degradation and the los s of life history diversity, among othe r factors that fish face upon entering Puget Sound (e.g., ocean condit ions , harvest). Spatial Structure. Adult Chinook habitat use in the Cedar River system is concentrated in the mainstem ri ve r below Landsburg Dam (river miles [RM] 14-18), with small use of larger tributaries. The area above Landsburg Dam was made accessib le to Chinook in the fall of 2003, increasing the spawning area ava ilable in the Cedar River system . T here is no known use of tributaries to Lake Washing t on for sp awning. Juveniles exhibit some spatial variation , with fry migrants using shallow shorel in e and small creek mouth habitats in Lake Washing ton and finge r ling migrants using edge habitat in the Cedar River itself. C 1 800 Q.) E Q.) 0... cu () (J) w 1600 14 00 ·--fl----- a., 1200 1--c u 1000 1---.. Q.) £ 800 _: i 600 l--! i 400 ~ _ I I ' j 2,:a _____ 1 u <O co 0 N -st <O <O <O ,.._ ,.._ ,.._ ,.._ ~ ~ 0) 0) 0) 0) ..... ..... ..... ..... co 0 ,.._ co 0) 0) ..... ..... o Bear/Cottage II Cedar Ri\.er __ , ~~------' i ··----·------.... '-···~· ···-··· N ""' <O co 0 N ""' co co 0 N '<1' co ro co co 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0) cr: 0) 0) 0) ~ Cl 0) 0) 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N N N Return Year ----~---- Figure 3-1: Historic escapement index estimate for Lake Washington Chinook based on fish counts and Area Under the Curve methodology, 1964-2004 (Burton et al. 2004) Feb ru ary 25. 2005 Page 9 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Table 3-3: Number of redds recorded in the Cedar River and tributaries in 1999-2002. Survey Year Initiation of Completion Total Cedar Trib. Redds Surveys of Surveys Redds 1999 Aug. 181h Nov. 19tn 180 NS 2000 Aug. 17th Nov. 30t h 53 0 2001 Aug. 15th Nov. 15th 390 8 2002 Aug. yth Nov. 15th 269 12 Productivity. The WRIA has not calculated a population growth rate for the Cedar River population , although Table 3-2 includes information on the estimated numbers of fry and smolts produced per adult female . The NMFS BRT estimated population growth rates for the Cedar River population for the 5 most recent years (1997-2001 ). The growth rate for the Cedar population ranges between 0.933 and 0.966 depending on the number of years of data and influence of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (see Appendix C-1 for more discussion of these growth rates; NMFS BRT 2003). A population growth rate of 1 indicates that the population is replacing itself. A growth rate above 1 is a population that i s in creasi ng in size and a rate below one indicates a population in decline. Calculations by the NMFS BRT, as we ll as the steep decline in adult returns between 1964 and today, suggest that the population does not currentl y replace itself in most yea rs. Reduced productivity appears to be strongly linked to habitat loss. North Lake Washington Population The North Lake Washington population (NLW) spawns in the tributaries to northern Lake Washington and the Sammamish River between September and November. This includes Bear, Little Bear, North , Swamp and Kelsey creeks. Similar to migration behavior seen in the Cedar River, juveniles migrate into the Sammamish River or Lake Was hington either as fry or fingerlings between February and June. Juveniles rear as they migrate t owards Lake Washington and typically enter the lake at a la rge r size than their fry migrant counterparts from the Cedar River. While a small portion of the NLW juveniles use nears hore areas in Lake Washington , most fish are believed to move into offshore areas quickly. NLW Chinook smolts pass through the Ship Canal and Locks to reach Puget Sound during May, June and July (D eV ries 2001 ; DeVries 2002). As with other Chinook smolts from WRIA 8 , they rear in marine nearshore areas of Puget Sound before heading to the ocea n. The following categorizations were made for the sub-basins with the NLW population (Tab le 3- 2 ): • Core areas: Bear and Cottage creeks. • Satellite areas: Ev ans , Swamp , Little Bear, North, and Kelsey creeks. • Migratory areas: Sammamish River, Lake Washington , Ship Canal , Lake Union , Locks and Marine Nearshore. • Episodi c areas: McAleer, Juan ita, Thornton, May, and Coal creeks. Feb ru ary 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Diversity. The NLW population is believed to be composed of wild, native fish (Table 4-2), however, a substantial number of hatchery fish have been found on the spawning grounds (about 54%) during 2003. These hatchery fish are presumed to be from Issaquah Creek due to a very similar migration pathway and the fact that ad-clipped Chinook have not been observed in significant numbers on the spawning grounds until ad-clipped Chinook began returning to the Issaquah hatchery. For more discussion about the presumption that hatchery Chinook are from the Issaquah hatchery, please see the footnote on page 6 of this Chapter. Spawning generally occurs between September and November (Mavros et al. 2000). Juveniles emerge from the gravel between January and April and exhibit two rearing strategies, a fry migrant and smolt migrant. The proportion of fish exhibiting the small migrant life history type appears to be related to river flow and this type dominates in low flow years (Seiler et al .2003). It is hypothesized by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee that this population historically had relatively even genetic diversity due to the similarity between the tributary sub-basins connected to the Sammamish River. Typically salmon are best adapted to their natal streams due to selective pressures of the habitat of that system (e.g., flow regimes, habitat types, underlying geology). When conditions are similar between sub-basins, there are few differences in the selective pressures to drive genetic diversification or cause increased survival of fish with different genetic traits than those of the larger population. Because Bear, Little Bear, North, and Swamp creeks historically had similar conditions, such as flow regimes and habitat types, it is unlikely that salmon returning to Bear Creek evolved to be significantly genetically distinct from those returning to Little Bear, Swamp, or North Creeks. Abundance. As with the Cedar River population, the NLW population has declined in number in recent years. Between 1985 and 1999 the adult returns to Bear Creek, the core spawning area, averaged approximately 400 fish (Table 3-2). The NMFS BRT estimated the 5-year geometric mean abundance (1998-2002) of 331 fish returning to spawn (NMFS BRT 2003). Returns to other NLW creeks ranged between one to 25 fish, except for Kelsey Creek that has averaged 138 adult returns in 1999 and 2000. Spawning surveys on many of the creeks in this population have been spotty, providing less accurate abundance information than is available for the Cedar River. Overall, the abundance of this population is considered extremely low for long term viability. Spatial Structure. The spatial structure of the NLW population is severely restricted, mostly as a result of habitat degradation. Adult Chinook spawning occurs primarily in Bear Creek (90%), with small numbers using other tributaries of the Sammamish River and Lake Washington. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that spawning was h.istorically more evenly distributed across the larger creeks, such as Bear, Swamp, North, and Little Bear. The PSTRT (2001) notes that there is a lack of information regarding historic Chinook use of the Sammamish River tributaries, making this hypothesis difficult to confirm. Based on the spawner capacity analysis recently developed for the PSTRT by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2003), the Bear/Cottage system and the lower portion of North Creek had a high probability of supporting Chinook spawning, while Swamp Creek, Little Bear Creek, and the upper portion of North Creek had a moderate probability of supporting spawning. Juveniles exhibit some spatial variation in the time that they inhabit the Sammamish River and Lake Washington (fry and smolt migrants). Productivity. The WRIA has not calculate a population growth rate for the North Lake Washington population, although Table 3-2 includes information on the estimated numbers of fry and smolts produced per adult female in Bear Creek. The NMFS BRT estimated population growth rates for the North Lake Washington population for the 5 most recent years (1997-2001 ). This growth rate estimate ranges between 0.995 and 1.077, depending on the number of years of data and influence of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (see Appendix C-1 for more February 25, 2005 Page 11 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation discussion of these growth rates; NMFS BRT 2003). A population growth rate of 1 indicates that the population is replacing itself. A growth rate above 1 is a population that is increasing in size and a rate below one indicates a population in decline. The population is in better shape than the Cedar River population, however, productivity needs to increase to increase abundance and allow the population to spread to vacant habitats. Issaquah Population The Issaquah population spawns in tributaries to Lake Sammamish, including the Issaquah Creek system and Lewis and Laughing Jacobs creeks. This population also contains the Issaquah hatchery and population propagation occurs through both natural and artificial spawning between September and November. Migration behavior and timing of naturally- spawned juveniles have not been investigated in great detail, however, limited information indicates that they migrate into Lake Sammamish as either fry or fingerlings, similar to behavior seen in the NLW and Cedar populations (Seiler et al. 2003). Juveniles rear as they migrate towards Lake Washington and typically enter that lake at a large size, moving quickly into offshore areas. While in Lake Sammamish, juvenile chinook likely use shallow areas with gentle slopes, similar to fish in Lake Washington. As with other WRIA 8 smolts, those from the Issaquah population pass through the Ship Canal and Locks to reach Puget Sound during May, June and July, and then rear in Puget Sound before reaching the ocean. The following categorizations were made for the sub-basins with the Issaquah population {Table 3-2): • Core areas: Issaquah Creek including tributaries Upper, Middle, Lower, East Fork, North Fork, and Fifteenmile Creek). • Satellite areas: None. • Migratory areas: Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Lake Washington, Ship Canal, Lake Union, Locks and Marine Nearshore. • Episodic areas: McDonald, Lewis and Laughing Jacobs creeks. Diversity. The Issaquah population is composed of both naturally-spawned and hatchery fish (Table 3-2). It is unknown if Issaquah Creek or other tributaries supported an independent population of Chinook salmon prior to the hatchery. Abundance. The Issaquah hatchery population is the only WRIA 8 population seen as healthy, with an average of about 3,000 adults returning annually between 1986 and 1999 (Table 3-2). Spatial Structure. The spatial structure of the Issaquah population is limited to mostly the Issaquah Creek system. Current spatial structure is affected by habitat degradation and leaves the naturally-spawning proportion of the population open to catastrophic events. Productivity. Because this population is hatchery dominated and not identified by the PSTRT, there are no estimates of the number of returning adults for each spawner. It is hypothesized that productivity (or success) of hatchery fish is not as high as that of naturally-spawning fish (based on existing research from other areas and salmonid species), although this has not been examined in WRIA 8. The relative success of hatchery versus naturally-spawning Chinook is being evaluated as part of the joint Chinook spawner surveys being performed by WDFW, the City of Seattle, and King County on the Cedar River, Bear/Cottage Creeks, and several other February 25, 2005 Page 12 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation tributaries. Regardless, habitat in the Issaquah system and throughout WRIA 8 has been significantly impacted in the spawning, rearing, and migration areas. Relationship between the WR/A 8 Populations As discussed earlier, the WRIA 8 plan is based upon three Chinook populations, while the PSTRT identifies two populations. Our understanding of the relationships between populations within WRIA 8 are complicated by the amount of hatchery straying witnessed in 2003 (and presumed to have occurred in previous years before hatchery fish were ad-clipped) and limited by our current information about genetic differentiation within the watershed. A genetic study of WRIA 8 populations, currently underway, will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. However, additional studies will be necessary to evaluate the interactions of hatchery and wild Chinook. In addition to uncertainties over two versus three WRIA 8 Chinook populations, there are some creeks that have questionable population affiliation (i.e., Lake Washington tributaries such as May Creek and Kelsey Creek). As more information becomes available, population affiliations for different sub-basins in the watershed may be modified accordingly. Regardless of the population designations and the interactions between fish using different areas of the watershed, habitat needs are ubiquitous. Relationship to Puget Sound Chinook ESU The Puget Sound ESU contains 22 populations (PSTRT 2001 ). The PSTRT is concerned with a viable ESU and developing a strategy to achieve this relies upon all remaining 22 populations. In developing this strategy, the PSTRT will consider geography of the populations, differences in catastrophic risks, life history diversity and risks to individual population VSP attributes. The final strategy is not likely to rely upon all Puget Sound populations being at low risk of extinction, and the PSTRT could conceivably pursue an ESU recovery plan that maintains the WRIA 8 populations at high risk of extinction. Regardless of the acceptable level of risk to each population, the PSTRT has stated that none of the remaining 22 populations in Puget Sound can be allowed to go extinct if recovery is to occur. However, the WRIA 8 Chinook populations are unique from other populations in the Puget Sound ESU, as these populations are the only ones that use a lake for rearing and migration. Even if WRIA S's populations are managed at high risk of extinction as part of ESU recovery, the unique habitat use of these populations can be important for preserving unusual life history traits in the ESU. Additionally, WRIA 8 is the most highly urbanized watershed in the ESU and represents an opportunity to illustrate that urbanization and healthy salmon populations do not have to be mutually exclusive. Habitat Conditions in WRIA 8 This section describes the historical and current habitat conditions, along with the factors that limit aquatic habitat, and therefore, salmon populations. This information is summarized from Kerwin (2001 ). Please refer to that report for more detail. February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Historical Habitat Conditions and Major Watershed Alterations Prior to settlement by European descendants, WRIA 8's aquatic areas were a network of lakes, streams, sloughs, marshes, islands, beaver ponds and estuaries. The watershed consisted of forested land, with meandering rivers and creeks. The Sammamish River valley was a complex of marsh and slough habitat. However, in the 1800's major alterations began in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish basin and continued into the 1900's. These alterations include: • Logging of old growth forest changed land characteristics (e.g., soils, infiltration and evapotranspiration ). Logging activities also disrupted instream habitat processes from log transport (e.g., splash dams), altered upland water storage and runoff, and reduced woody debris inputs. • Construction of the Ship Canal and Locks created a new connection between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. The connection changed the outlet of Lake Washington from the Black River, at the south end of the lake, to the Ship Canal. This project caused Lake Washington's water surface elevation to drop about 10 feet (3 m), which in turn exposed about 2 mi 2 (5.4 km 2 ) of previously inundated shallow water area. Reduced water levels led to a 12.8% decrease in the lake shoreline, drained many of the lake's wetlands, and changed the tributary mouths that entered the lake (Chrzastowich 1983). Lowering the level of Lake Washington also dropped the elevation of Lake Sammamish and dried the marshes along the Sammamish River. With these alterations, the Black River went dry and the Lake Washington/ Sammamish system was separated from its historical drainage course to the Green/Duwamish River. About the same time, the Cedar River was re-routed into Lake Washington. Salmon were faced with a highly altered migration route to reach their natal habitat, as well as an abrupt, artificial estuary through which to migrate as they moved in and out of the WRIA 8 system. • Urbanization and flood control activities further changed aquatic areas in WRIA 8. Water withdrawals to serve urban and agricultural areas removed both surface and groundwater from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and some of the tributaries. Vegetation was cleared to make way for development, affecting the infiltration and overland flow of water and degrading riparian areas. Riparian areas were further affected by flood control activities along many of the rivers and creeks, which disconnected the stream channel from its surrounding areas through the construction of levees, dikes and revetments. These structures modified sediment and wood recruitment, along with stream-floodplain interactions. Dredging was conducted in some areas to further reduce flooding, which effectively straightened and simplified the stream channels. Along lake and marine shorelines, development for residential, commercial, and industrial uses moved to protect property through installing bank armoring. Installation of armoring affected sediment recruitment from bank erosion and bluff sloughing. Collectively, these alterations have disrupted many of the ecological processes that create and maintain aquatic habitat. Current Habitat Conditions Current habitat conditions in most areas of WRIA 8 are degraded. These habitat conditions are today a large result of our land use practices. Below is a brief description of habitat conditions for major sub-basins in WRIA 8. More details about existing habitat conditions can be found in Kerwin (2001 ). February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Lake Washington Lake Washington, the largest lake in Washington State west of the Cascades, has a surface area of 34.6 mi2 (89.6 km 2 ), with a length of 18.6 mi (30 km) (north-south) and an average width of 1.5 mi (24 km). The mean and maximum lake depths are 108 ft and 220 ft (33 and 67 m), respectively. Lake Washington receives inflow from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, as well as numerous creeks such as Kelsey, Thornton, Juanita, McAleer, Lyon and May. The lake drains through the Ship Canal to Puget Sound. The lake has over 80 miles of lake shoreline and almost all of the area surrounding the lake is developed for residential and commercial uses and, as such, the majority of the lake shoreline (>82%) is armored (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000; Weitkamp et al. 2000). The shoreline also contains numerous overwater structures (>2,700; Kerwin 2001 ). Lake Washington is used by all three populations in WRIA 8 as a migratory and rearing area. Shoreline habitat conditions are important for juvenile Chinook using Lake Washington, particularly those from the Cedar River population. Degraded shoreline conditions resulted originally from lowering the lake water surface levels when the Locks were constructed. Further adverse impacts are a result of urbanization and the majority of the lake shoreline is now used for urban residential uses. Landscaped yards and bank armoring (bulkheads and riprap) have reduced the amount of riparian vegetation and woody debris contributed to the lake. Armoring has also modified substrates in shallow areas due to prevention of bank erosion and altering sediment dynamics at the water-land interface. Overwater structures have increased shading and segmented the lake shoreline and nearshore areas, affecting aquatic organisms such as benthic invertebrates, a prey item of juvenile Chinook (Warner and Fresh 1998; Kahler et al. 2000; Koehler 2002). Docks and piers also affect the migration movements of juvenile Chinook. These alterations have reduced the amount and quality of shallow water habitat, an important habitat for rearing juveniles (Tabor and Piaskowsi 2002; Tabor et al. 2003). Lake Sammamish Lake Sammamish covers about 7.6 mi 2 (19.8 km2), with a length of 8 mi (13 km) (north-south) long and a width of 1.2 mi (2 km), and drains an area of 260.5 mi 2 (250 km 2 ). The mean depth of the lake is 58 ft (17.7 m) and a maximum of 105 ft (32 m). Issaquah Creek is the major tributary to Lake Sammamish, with other inflow from creeks such as Tibbets, Lewis and Laughing Jacobs. The Sammamish River drains the lake at the north end and a flow control weir in Marymoor Park controls the lake discharge. The majority of the lake shoreline is privately owned, mostly for residential uses. There are a few major parks along the lake shoreline, including Marymoor Park at the north end, ldylwood Park on the northwest side, and Sammamish State Park at the south end, which includes the mouth of Issaquah Creek. As with Lake Washington, much of the shoreline of the lake is armored and many docks and piers have been constructed to support recreation. Lake Sammamish is used as a migration corridor by the Issaquah Creek population. There is similarity in habitat conditions and habitat use by Chinook between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. The shoreline habitat conditions of Lake Sammamish are important for juvenile Chinook (Tabor and Piaskowsi 2002; Tabor et al. 2003) from the Issaquah population. Shoreline armoring affects the quality and quantity of riparian vegetation and woody debris. Overwater structures affect both prey resources and migration behavior of Chinook salmon. These alterations have reduced the amount and quality of shallow water habitat. February 25, 2005 Page 15 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation The Cedar River The Cedar River, originating in the Cascade Mountains, is the largest tributary to Lake Washington. The river is about 46 mi (74 km) in length and can be separated into the upper Cedar River, above Landsburg Dam, and the lower Cedar River. The upper Cedar River is about 25 mi (40 km) long and can be separated into sections between Landsburg Dam and Cedar Falls (accessible to anadromous fish) and between Chester Morse Reservoir and the headwaters (inaccessible to anadromous fish). The watershed drains an area of 125 mi 2 (324 km 2) and is almost completely owned by the City of Seattle. The watershed is operated to provide a clean source of drinking water for Seattle and surrounding areas. As such, it is mostly forested with coniferous trees in mutli-seral stages, from old growth to recently harvested areas (logging has been discontinued in the watershed in 1993). The upper Cedar River (between Landsburg Dam and Cedar Falls) became accessible to salmon in the fall of 2003 when a fish ladder was completed at Landsburg Dam. For the entire 2003 season, a total of 79 Chinook were passed above Landsburg Dam and spawning surveys confirmed the presence of 15 Chinook redds. With passage at the ladder, there is about 14 mi (23 km) of additional habitat now available to Chinook, characterized primarily by a narrow valley with step-pool and plane-bed channel forms. There are several tributaries that enter the river, with upper Rock Creek being the largest. The mainstem channel does not contain much woody debris, due to past practices of removing wood to protect the dam at Landsburg. However the habitat is otherwise of high quality due to the cessation of logging and lack of development. This area is used by Chinook salmon for spawning and limited rearing as they move downstream. The area of the Cedar River above Chester Morse Reservoir is the only area in WRIA 8 known to contain bull trout and bull trout use the lake for general residence and tributary areas (i.e., Cedar and Rex rivers) for spawning and rearing. Operation of the City of Seattle's water supply facilities on the Cedar River captures 43% of the upper Cedar River watershed runoff and significantly influences stream flows and aquatic habitat throughout the river below Masonry Dam (RM 35.6). A number of activities have been implemented in an effort to avoid flow-related impacts in the river including a comprehensive lnstream Flow Incremental Methodology Study (IFIM; Cascade Environmental Services, Inc. 1991 ), adoption of an instream flow management regime (based on the IFIM study and additional biological and hydrologic investigations), and activities implemented as part of the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan instream flow management program (see City of Seattle 2000 [Sections 4.4, 4.5.2 and 4.6], 2002, 2003 and 2004 for more information). lnstream flow management of the Cedar River aims to provide beneficial instream habitat conditions and avoid harm to fish species through a guaranteed flow regime, minimum and supplemental flow commitments, limits on stream rate reductions, and instream flow monitoring and research to inform real-time stream flow management activities. The program also includes evaluating the effectiveness of the instream flow program at avoiding impacts to fish species in the Cedar River. The lower Cedar River, downstream of Landsburg Dam, runs for approximately 21 mi (34 km) before entering the southern end of Lake Washington. The lower river drains an area of 66 mi 2 (171 km 2 ) that contains a mixture of land uses. Most of the lower watershed is rural with forest cover; however urbanization has occurred in the vicinity of Renton and Maple Valley. The lower valley of the river is broad, with a wide floodplain in many areas and many tributaries including Lower Rock Creek, Peterson Creek, Taylor/Downs Creek and the Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch. A good portion of the lower river banks are armored with revetments and levees to provide flood February 25, 2005 Page 16 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation control. That, combined with flow regulation from the dam at Landsburg, has reduced connectivity between the river and adjacent floodplain areas (Perkins 1994 ). Bank armoring and residential land uses in riparian areas have reduced the sediment and wood supply, disturbed riparian vegetation, and reduced the areas available to accommodate flow during flood events. As such, the instream habitat is rather simple, with primarily glide and riffle habitat and few pools or off-channel areas. Chinook use the lower river for migration, spawning and rearing, although spawning is adversely affected by scour-causing flows (exacerbated by the lack of a floodplain). Rearing opportunities are limited by the lack of habitat complexity (e.g., pools and edge habitat). Sammamish River The Sammamish River, 13.8 mi (22.2 km) in length, connects the northern ends of lakes Sammamish and Washington. Including the watershed of Lake Sammamish (97 mi 2 or 251 km 2 ), the Sammamish River watershed covers about 240 mi 2 (622 km 2 ). The Sammamish River can generally be divided into two sections based on topography. The upstream section, running from the outlet at Lake Sammamish to River Mile (RM) 4.5 (7.2 km), runs through a broad valley that is more than one mile wide in places. This area contains the mouths of Bear and Little Bear creeks. Land uses in this upper section of the river include open space and recreation, urban residential and commercial uses associated with the cities of Redmond and Woodinville, and agriculture. The lower section of the river, from RM 4.5 to the confluence with Lake Washington, has a narrower valley that includes the mouths of Swamp and North creeks. Similar to the upper section, land uses include urban development in the cities of Bothell and Kenmore and open space. The Sammamish River is used mainly as a migratory corridor, with some rearing, by the Issaquah and NLW populations. The Sammamish River has undergone some of the most dramatic alterations in the WRIA 8 system. Prior to settlement, the river was highly sinuous with many swamp, marsh, and forested wetland areas that were influenced by backwater effects from Lake Washington up past the confluence with Little Bear Creek. When the lake level was lowered, floodplain farming became possible on a large scale as much of the wetland areas were drained. Subsequently, much of the river was straightened during drainage projects and the projects to reduce flooding through dredging and bank armoring further eliminated connections between the river and its floodplain. As a result, river channel was reduced to approximately half its historic length, and wetland areas were reduced from approximately 3,000 acres (12 km 2 ) to 150 acres (0.6 km 2 ) (King County, 2002). These actions have altered sediment transport and the Sammamish River now contains a large amount of fine sediments. Adjacent land uses and bank armoring have degraded riparian conditions, affecting sediment and wood contributions from riparian areas. The channel and instream habitat has been highly simplified, with less than 1 % pool habitat (R2 Resource Consultants 1999). The river also exhibits extremely high temperatures during the summer and early fall. Ship Canal and Lake Union The Ship Canal, approximately 14 km in length, was constructed in 1916 to provide navigable passage between Lake Washington, Lake Union and Puget Sound. The waterway is a narrow, armored channel in the Montlake and Fremont cuts and widens in Portage Bay, Lake Union, and Salmon Bay. Lake Union itself covers about 0.96 mi 2 (2.5 km 2 ) and has an average depth of 33 ft (10 m). Land use along the Ship Canal and in Lake Union is dominated by residential neighborhoods in the upland areas and water-dependent businesses bordering the shoreline. These water-dependent businesses include marinas, commercial shipyards and dry-docks, February 25, 2005 Page 17 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation along with some houseboat communities. Development of the Ship Canal waterway has lead to extensive armoring of the shoreline, loss of natural shoreline vegetation, and increased overwater structures (Weitkamp et al. 2000; Toft et al. 2003). All three of WRIA 8 populations use this area for migrating from the Locks to Lake Washington. The Ship Canal and Lake Union lack quality shallow water habitat and shoreline complexity. In addition, water temperatures in the Ship Canal have been increasing steadily over the last 30 years, with an increase in the number of days that temperatures are greater than 68°F (20°C) (Weitkamp et al. 2000). The area also is characterized by degraded water and sediment quality from upland urban runoff and adjacent commercial and industrial sites. The contribution of contaminants and increased nutrients is further complicated by the presence of salt water in the Ship Canal and Lake Union due to operation of the Locks. The salt water prevents mixing and creates anaerobic conditions in the summer. However, there is also some indication that the cooler salt water upstream of the Locks may help with regulating water temperatures and fish transition between salt and freshwater. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Locks in 1916, in conjunction with the Ship Canal. The Locks are located at the western end of the Ship Canal, at the downstream end of Salmon Bay. The· water upstream of the Locks is mostly freshwater, although some saltwater does intrude into the area from Lock operations. The area downstream of the Locks is primarily saltwater, although a small freshwater lens occurs immediately adjacent to the downstream side of the structure. A narrow tidally influenced channel (inner Shilshole Bay) connects the Locks area with outer Shilshole Bay in Puget Sound. The Locks includes two lock chambers (a large and a small lock), a dam, six spillways, a saltwater drain and a fish ladder (Figure 3-2). The lock chambers are connected hydrologically to the upstream and downstream water bodies through underground filing culverts. These culverts deliver freshwater from the upstream side of the Locks to the chambers to raise the water level and drain water in the chambers to the downstream side of the Locks to lower the water level. Water movement through the filling culverts happens rapidly and flows occur with great velocity. Immediately upstream of the Locks is a saltwater drain, which is located in a low point of Salmon Bay. The drain carries saltwater, which is heavier than freshwater and settles on the bottom of Salmon Bay, to the downstream side of the Locks. The spillways of the dam spill excess water. During smolt outmigration, they are fitted with smolt flumes to pass juveniles over the dam. Land uses downstream of the Locks are primarily residential and the shoreline of the waterway is primarily armored and lacks riparian vegetation (Toft et al. 2003}. The Locks and the area immediately adjacent are used by migrating salmon, both adults and smalls. The adults primarily pass through either the lock chambers or the fish ladders. Juveniles primarily move through either the smolt flumes, lock chambers or the filling culverts. Upstream and downstream areas adjacent to the Locks are used for physiological transition between salt water and fresh water. There are several problems that the Locks pose for aquatic habitat and for salmon directly. The Locks can cause direct injury to salmon smalls as they exit the system through entrainment in the filling culverts for the lock chambers. Additions to the Locks, such as smolt flumes and strobe lights, have been designed to entrain less fish into the culverts. Habitat-related issues include the lack of estuary habitat to transition between fresh and salt water. The amount of estuary area around the Locks is very small and there is an abrupt transition in salinity and temperature conditions. The estuary habitat is further restricted due to bank armoring and loss February 25. 2005 Page 18 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation SALMON BAY FLOW Figure 3-2: Illustration of the Ballard Locks (Kerwin 2001 ). of riparian vegetation that has lead to a loss in shallow water habitat in the downstream area of the Locks. Marine Nearshore WRIA S's marine nearshore stretches between West Point in the City of Seattle, northward to Elliott Point in the City of Mukilteo. The marine nearshore area is generally defined as the area between the upland-aquatic interface to the lower limit of the photic zone in the aquatic environment (roughly minus 30 m or 98 ft MLLW). The nearshore environment extends landward to include coastal landforms such as coastal bluffs, the backshore, sand spits, and coastal wetlands, as well as marine riparian zones on or adjacent to any of these areas. In addition, the nearshore environment includes subestuaries such as the tidally influenced portions of stream mouths. The nearshore environment contains a variety of habitat types, such as eelgrass meadows, kelp forests, mud and sand flats, and tidal marshes. Similar to the interactions of streams with their floodplains, marine systems undergo physical, biological, and chemical processes to create and maintain habitat. These processes relate to tidal action, wave and wind energy, sediment recruitment and transport, and upland hydrology, among others (see KCDNR 2001 ). As with many other areas in WRIA 8, urbanization has occurred along much of the shoreline. Residential development occurs along the majority of WRIA S's marine shoreline, with commercial and industrial uses occurring in some locations. These developments have armored banks and removed riparian vegetation. Much of the WRIA 8 shoreline is armored to protect the railroad tracks that run along the shoreline north of Shilshole Bay. Salmon use marine nearshore areas for rearing and migration, with juveniles using shallow shoreline habitats. February 25, 2005 Page 19 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Marine shoreline habitat has been degraded through urbanization. Shallow gravel habitat has been lost due to disruption of natural beach forming processes, resulting from bank armoring that restricts the recruitment of sediment from adjacent areas. In addition, bank armoring concentrates wave energy at the face of the structure, increasing erosion of beach sediments. Docks, piers and jetties also alter sediment transport dynamics. The shoreline has also lost complexity from filling of tidal marshes and backshore areas, bank armoring and removal of riparian vegetation. Aquatic and terrestrial vegetation has also been lost due to development of shorelines and runoff from urbanized areas. While riparian vegetation has been directly removed as shorelines are developed, aquatic vegetation is affected by freshwater storm drains that concentrate runoff and impact marine aquatic plants that are adapted to increased salinity levels, such as eelgrass. Runoff can also increase turbidity, reducing the ability of light to penetrate the water and making deeper areas uninhabitable for photosynthetic plants. WRIA 8 Creeks The habitat conditions of creeks that drain to the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, lakes Washington and Sammamish and the marine nearshore area are numerous and include Piper's, Boeing, Bear, Little Bear, Thornton, Peterson, Kelsey and Rock creeks, among others. These creeks drain the surrounding watersheds, transporting water from upland areas to larger receiving water bodies. The creek watersheds contain a variety of land uses from undeveloped to rural residential and agriculture, to roads and rights-of-way, to commercial and industrial activities. Some, like Cottage Creek, are fairly undeveloped, while others like Thornton Creek are extremely urbanized. These creeks, depending on size and habitat conditions, can be used by adult Chinook for spawning. Juveniles may also spend limited time in the creeks to rear before migrating to downstream areas of the WRIA 8 system. For creeks that enter Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the marine nearshore, the creek mouth habitat may be used by juveniles as they migrate along lake and marine shorelines (Tabor et al. 2003; Beamer et al. 2003). Creek habitat can be affected by many land use practices. Impervious surfaces in the watershed alter the frequency, volume and quality of storm runoff reaching the creek. In the worst cases, these high flows are exacerbated by bank armoring and encroachment into the floodplain, which have reduced the channel capacity. Isolating the floodplain also cuts off the sediment supplies and disrupts the processes of sediment recruitment and transport. Often riparian vegetation is removed or degraded by either flow conditions or direct removal for residential landscaping. Lastly, culverts, weirs, and other instream structures cause barriers for the movement of fish and sediments. Creek habitat conditions vary in quality depending on their position in the urbanizing landscape. Kerwin (2001) provides more detail on individual creeks and Chapter 4, Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8, provides information about sub- basin conditions for creeks that contain spawning populations of Chinook salmon. Habitat Limiting Factors While WRIA 8 contains different sorts of habitats, the habitat limiting factors can be summarized into general categories for the lakes, rivers, and creeks, although the magnitude of impact varies by type of water body and specific watershed area. While these factors are listed separately, it is important to realize that the limiting factors interact with one another to exacerbate the habitat problems seen in WRIA B's aquatic systems. The habitat limiting factors in WRIA 8 include: February 25, 2005 Page 20 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Altered Hydrology Urbanization within WRIA 8 has drastically altered upland, stream, and lake hydrology in most areas. Urbanization in upland areas (e.g., vegetation clearing, soil compaction, road and building construction) increases the amount of impervious surface within watersheds which, in turn, influences the infiltration of precipitation and increases the amount and rate at which surface water runoff reaches aquatic areas (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Poff et al. 1997). In river and creek habitats, the increase in flow can cause significant modifications to instream habitat and channels often respond to these flow regime changes through an overall enlargement, specifically channel incision and widening (Dunne and Leopold 1978). The increase in flow can have far reaching implications by displacing natural structure (e.g., coarse sediment and wood), increasing rates of erosion and decreasing overall bank stability. The effects of higher stream flows are further exacerbated by poor riparian conditions and disconnection of the stream channel from the floodplain, through bank armoring, channel incision and encroachment. Alternatively, stream hydrology can be altered by regulation of instream flows and water withdrawals (either surface water or groundwater), that typically reduce water levels. This can reduce the flows available to form habitat and connect with off-channel areas. Flow withdrawals, particularly in drier months, can reduce base flow levels and reduce available habitat areas for fish. Historic changes from lowering the level of lakes Washington and Sammamish, as well as regulating lake levels to vary only by 2 feet, reduces shoreline habitat complexity by limiting seasonal wetland formation and other habitat-forming interactions at the water-land interface. The amount of water available in Lake Washington also affects operations of the Locks and dictates how water is used at the smolt flumes and for boat lockages, affecting the outmigration route, and hence survival, of juveniles. Loss of Floodplain Connectivity Streams and rivers are dynamic systems that constantly interact with their surrounding floodplain (Naiman and Decamps 1990; May 1996; Morley 2000). Bank armoring, dredging, channel incision and urban encroachment effectively channelize the stream and severely limit interactions between the stream channel and the adjacent floodplain. This reduces the recruitment of coarse sediments and wood from floodplain areas, and limits materials available for habitat forming processes. Additionally, urban systems have lost riparian areas as a result of bank armoring, development of drainage infrastructure, and increased buildable area in the watershed (May 1996). Without the floodplain, streams and rivers lose habitat complexity, most notably off-channel and margin refuge habitats that provide resting areas for migrating fish and slow velocity areas during high-energy discharge events. The interactions of water bodies with their adjacent land is similarly important for the lakes and marine nearshore of WRIA 8, which allows sediment and wood recruitment (discussed further under channel/shoreline complexity below). Lack of Riparian Vegetation Land development and encroachment into areas adjacent to streams has reduced the extent, composition, and integrity of riparian vegetation along all water bodies of WRIA 8. Mature, native plant communities, dominated by deciduous and coniferous trees, have been replaced by pavement, commercial/ industrial activities, landscaped residential yards and invasive- dominated shrub communities (e.g., Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberries). In February 25. 2005 Page 21 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation addition, riparian zones have been isolated from aquatic environments by bank armoring. As a result, riparian function has been altered. The riparian zone along stream banks, as well as lake and marine shorelines, has little woody debris to contribute to the habitat of the adjacent aquatic area. Other riparian inputs, such as leaf litter and terrestrial insects, are reduced as well (Gregory et al. 1991; Morley et al. 2003; Sobocinski 2003). In creeks and rivers, degraded riparian vegetation combined with increased high flow events reduces bank stability and increases bank erosion (May 1996). These riparian alterations, combined with other factors, have reduced aquatic habitat complexity and the availability of prey resources for salmonids. Disrupted Sediment Processes Sediment recruitment, storage, and transport can be severely altered by altered hydrology, bank armoring, and reduced floodplain interactions. Depending on the flow dynamics, land uses, and underlying geology of the area, aquatic areas can suffer from either a lack of coarse sediments (e.g., gravel) or an abundance of fine sediments. Decreased gravel classes have been observed in urban streams as a result of altered sediment supplies and velocities (Finkenbine et al. 2000). Disconnecting stream, lake or marine nearshore areas from their adjacent floodplain/land interface has reduced sediment recruitment. Currents or flow velocities are responsible for distributing these substrates in the aquatic environment and without additional input, the system is left sediment deficient. In streams, increased stream gradients and flow velocities have further reduced retention of in-stream sediments (Pizzuto et al. 2000). These conditions reduce the ability of aquatic habitats to create and maintain habitats. In freshwater areas, this reduces the amount of spawning substrates that are available for salmonids and the habitat complexity of the stream or lake area to benefit rearing juveniles. In salt water areas, there is a Joss of shallow gravel substrate areas for juvenile refuge and feeding. While coarse sediment recruitment is a problem with floodplain isolation, increased fine sediment is often a problem as well, especially in urbanized streams (Wydzga 1997). Fine sediment can be supplied through either upland construction or erosion of the shoreline. Channel bank erosion, in particular, is a major source of fine sediment, which is exacerbated by increasing high flows (Paul and Meyer 2001 ). While habitat problems associated with find sediments are mostly limited to creeks and rivers, the introduction of fine sediment has implications for the food web. Most benthic invertebrates cannot forage effectively in areas dominated by fine sediments (Collier 1995). Sedimentation can also cause egg mortality by filling intragravel spaces in redds, which reduces water flow or traps developed fry in the substrate. Suspended sediments also affect salmonid behavior (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Loss of Channel and Shoreline Complexity The combination of altered hydrology, Joss of floodplain connection, degraded riparian communities, and altered sediment processes severely limits habitat forming processes and therefore, habitat complexity. This occurs in both lotic (streams and rivers) and Jentic systems (lakes and the marine nearshore). In streams and rivers, the channel and banks are simplified, resulting in few pools and an abundance of glides and riffles, lack of instream structure, lack of coarse substrates, overhanging vegetation and woody debris, and little variation of edge habitat at the channel-floodplain interface. In lakes and the marine nearshore, there is an absence of high-quality, shallow water habitat with small substrates, in-water wood, overhanging vegetation, and variable edges at the land-water interface. Juveniles have poor rearing habitat that does not provide areas for foraging and refuge from predators (or in streams, high flows). Adult salmonids do not have areas to hold or rest while migrating, nor do they have large areas of suitable spawning habitat. February 25, 2005 Page 22 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Barriers Road crossings and other development activities have placed many creek channels in pipes and culverts (Finkenbine et al. 2000). Weirs and dams have also been installed in stream channels to reduce channel gradient and decrease stream velocity (May 1996). These structures were typically not designed to pass sediment or wood, and as a result, these materials are trapped in upstream areas, limiting their ability to contribute to downstream habitat formation. In addition, instream structures are often impassable to fish by creating outfall or velocity barriers (WDFW 1999), thereby restricting the amount of instream habitat available to fish. Fish ladders and downstream flumes, such as at the Locks and Landsburg Dam (Cedar River), are passable to adults and juveniles but may have detrimental impacts through delayed migration or other sub-lethal effects (although none have been documented). Other Factors that Affect Chinook Salmon in WR/A 8 In addition to habitat limiting factors, other conditions affect WRIA 8 salmon populations as well. These conditions and activities interact with salmon populations in complex ways that are not discussed in detail here. Rather, these factors are presented in a simplistic fashion to provide a general overview of the negative effects that can occur on Chinook populations. Degraded Water and Sediment Quality Human-induced changes to water quality (e.g., industrial effluent, sewer overflows, urban runoff) can alter water temperatures, turbidity, oxygen content and nutrient and contaminant concentrations (Karr 1995; Paul and Meyer 2001 ). Water and sediment quality are degraded in the Ship Canal, Lake Union, and the Sammamish River, primarily in relation to water temperatures, although sediment quality is of concern in the Ship Canal and Lake Union as well. In general, these changes can affect the kinds, amounts, and activity of all aquatic organisms in streams (Welch et al. 1998). For salmonids in particular, poor water quality can harm them directly or indirectly through oxygen depletions, lethal temperature levels, acute and chronic toxicity, or prey reductions (Karr 1995; Bjornn and Reiser 1991 ). Introduced Fish and Plant Species These invasive species alter community and food web dynamics by increasing competition and/or predation for native species and affecting habitat types. Introduced fish can directly compete with native fish for prey or space or they can affect predation levels. Lake Washington, Lake Union, Lake Sammamish and the Puget Sound nearshore contain a variety of introduced aquatic species that may directly or indirectly affect juvenile salmon. For example, bass and perch are introduced fish that prey on juvenile salmonids. Shoreline alterations assist these non-native species through reducing juvenile refuge habitat and increasing bass and perch habitat (Kahler et al. 2000). Invasive aquatic plants can also increase habitat for predators (Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992). Invasive terrestrial plant species affect terrestrial litter and insect inputs, which can alter food web dynamics. Ocean Conditions Ocean conditions, in terms of temperatures and upwelling patterns, vary substantially from year to year. These conditions affect the growth and survival of salmon in the ocean and therefore, adult returns to WRIA 8. While these conditions are beyond the control of WRIA 8, they will February 25, 2005 Page 23 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation influence yearly variations in Chinook returns and complicate understanding the progress toward recovery. Harvest Commercial and sport fishing reduces the number of adult Chinook, as well as other salmon, that return to spawn in their natal rivers. Harvest of fish can damage populations in three ways, 1) through reducing adult returns to levels below that needed to sustain their population, 2) through selective harvest that focuses on certain portions of the population, affecting the population demographics (e.g., run timing, fish size), 3) as by-catch during fishing for other marine species. In WRIA 8, WDFW and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe co-manage harvest of fish from the WRIA 8 system to maintain adequate adult returns. There has not been any directed terminal harvest on WRIA 8 Chinook in over a decade. Any harvest of Chinook is a result of by- catch or incidental harvest. Through the North of Falcon process, harvest rates are regulated in international and coastal waters as well as Puget Sound and the marine waters of Washington state by Washington state treaty tribes and WDFW. However, as fish move further from Washington state, there are an increasing myriad of national and international agencies that regulate fishing rates, types and areas. Hatcheries Many of the Chinook hatcheries operating in the Pacific Northwest served as mitigation for blocking access to habitat. The largest issue surrounding Chinook hatcheries (as well as for other salmon species) is the potential for hatchery fish to become well-adapted to hatchery conditions (and poorly-adapted for spawning in the natural environment) and then interbreeding with wild spawning fish. This situation can lead to an overall decrease in the adaptations in the population for spawning and rearing in natural conditions, therefore reducing the reproductive success of the population and their ability to replace themselves. Hatchery practices for collecting, spawning and rearing fish can either control for these impacts or exacerbate them. Knowledge about this issue, as well as other less severe impacts of hatcheries, is increasing although much is still to be learned. Recent hatchery reviews and recommendations of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG, 2004) are intended to modify hatchery practices and reduce or avoid detrimental impacts to naturally spawning populations. WDFW is currently reviewing HSRG recommendations and making decisions about implementation. However, there remains a large question about whether salmon recovery and hatchery programs can both operate simultaneously and successfully at the same time. In WRIA 8, there is also concern regarding operation o(a sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River and the potential Chinook impacts that could occur. Cedar River Chinook populations could be affected by 1) competition on the spawning grounds between adults with increased numbers of sockeye and 2) competition in Lake Washington between juveniles. Concerns over sockeye and Chinook interactions in Cedar River spawning areas include energetic costs to female Chinook associated with defending a redd site from more numerous sockeye produced from the hatchery, increased difficulty with finding a suitable redd site, and egg mortality due to redd superimposition of Chinook redds by sockeye. Studies conducted between 1999 and 2002 have found that disturbance of Chinook redds by sockeye has varied from 0.6% to 88%, varying with both Chinook and sockeye numbers on the spawning grounds, however it is not known how that disturbance affects egg-to-fry survival (Burton et al. 2003). This disturbance effect, as well as effects related to energetic costs for Chinook defending redds and ability of Chinook to find suitable spawning sites under increasing sockeye densities are currently being evaluated under a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery. February 25, 2005 Page 24 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Increasing the numbers of sockeye fry entering Lake Washington could have implications for a number of species inhabiting the lake, including Chinook. Specific concerns about the effects of increasing sockeye numbers on Chinook in the lake include the depletion of prey resources and food web interactions resulting in increased predator numbers. While Chinook and sockeye tend to inhabit different areas of Lake Washington, their prey resources overlap when Daphnia become abundant in the lake. Analyses of prey resources in Lake Washington have indicated that the capacity of the lake is adequate to support increased numbers of sockeye fry, however, there is uncertainty about the effects on prey resources when the hatchery is at full production (Seattle 2003; TetraTech/KCM, Inc. 2003). Increased sockeye numbers could also affect predation in Lake Washington in two ways. Populations of predatory fish, such as northern pike minnow, may increasingly feed on sockeye as sockeye numbers increase. This may result in growth in the predator population, and in turn, increased predation pressures on Chinook. The other scenario is that sockeye buffer predation pressure on Chinook salmon, reducing Chinook predation. Conditions in Lake Washington for Chinook as a result of sockeye hatchery operation are also under further evaluation. Uncertainties about Salmon-Habitat Relationships While there has been much research into the relationships between ecological processes, the habitat created, and habitat use by salmon ids, knowledge is still incomplete. Kerwin (2001) lists outstanding data gaps for all of WRIA B's water bodies. While salmon recovery planning moves forward in spite of these uncertainties, the adaptive management foundation to WRIA B's salmon conservation plan will allow habitat protection and restoration actions to be refined, based upon new information. Other Uncertainties The main uncertainty in WRIA Bis the population structure of the Chinook in the watershed. As discussed earlier in this chapter, WRIA B has considered the PSTRT's designation of two independent populations (Cedar and Sammamish) and decided to take the more conservative, precautionary approach of identifying three populations (Cedar, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah) for planning purposes until additional genetic information is available in February of 2005. The discussions surrounding WRIA B population structure and the most appropriate habitat priorities will continue as new information materializes. Additional years of information on stray rates as well additional genetic information will be helpful in understanding the situation. However, a number of other questions may also need to be addressed at some point within this watershed, for example: • How much of a contribution do hatchery strays make to the gene pool in the Cedar and N LW tributaries? • How does straying affect the local adaptation of the Cedar and NLW groups (e.g., reproductive success)? • How does hatchery straying affect population dynamics/persistence given low returns? As knowledge about the WRIA B population structure progresses, WRIA B's salmon conservation plan must be adaptively managed to reflect any new information. Currently, this plan accounts for potential changes in habitat priorities under different population scenarios (1 versus 2 versus 3 populations). This discussion is included in Chapter 4. February 25, 2005 Page 25 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Conclusions/Implications for the Chinook Recovery Plan Development of the WRIA 8 watershed for human uses has dramatically altered aquatic habitat conditions and the processes that form them. Those habitat conditions, combined with the effects of water and sediment quality, invasive species, harvest, hatcheries, and ocean conditions, have impacted WRIA 8 Chinook populations. The WRIA 8 conservation strategies address the habitat component of this suite of challenges facing WRIA 8 Chinook populations. These strategies are discussed in Chapter 4, Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8. February 25, 2005 Page 26 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation References Ajwani, S. 1957. A review of Lake Washington Watershed; historical, biological and LimnologicaL M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 148 pp. Beamer, E., C. Greene, A. McBride, C. Rice, T. Beechie and K. Larsen. 2003. Recovery planning for ocean-type Chinook salmon in the Skagit River: Results from a decade of field studies. Presentation at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center Open House. October 21, 2003. Seattle, Washington. Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83- 138 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. Bryan, M.D., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1992. Species richness, composition, and abundance of fish larvae and juveniles inhabiting natural and developed shorelines of a glacial Iowa lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 35: 329-341. Burton, K. L. Lowe and H. Berge. 2004. Cedar River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Redd Surveys and Carcass Assessments: Annual Report 2003. 60 p. Chrzastowich, M. 1983. Historical changes to Lake Washington and route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations WRI 81-1182. 9 p. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan for the issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. City of Seattle, USFWS and NMFS. 1999. Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. See especially Section 4.4.3. City of Seattle. 2002. Annual Accomplishments Report, Year 1. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. . City of Seattle. 2003. Annual Accomplishments Report, Year 2. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. City of Seattle. 2004. Annual Accomplishments Report, Year 3. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Collier, K.J. 1995. Environmental factors affecting the taxonomic composition of aquatic macro- invertebrate communities in lowland waterways of Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 453-465. DeVries, Paul. 2001. PIT tagging of juvenile salmon smalls in the Lake Washington basin: Year 2000 pilot study results. Final Report. Prepared by R2 Resources Consultants, Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. DeVries, Paul. 2002. PIT tagging of juvenile salmon smalls in the Lake Washington basin: Second year (2001) pilot study results. Final Report. Prepared by R2 Resources Consultants, Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Dunne, T and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. Freeman Press, New York. 818 pp. February 25, 2005 Page 27 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Finkenbine J.K., D.S. Atwater and D.S. Mavinic. 2000. Stream health after urbanization. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:1149-1160. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an urbanized ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser, editors. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: Focus on links between land and water. BioScience 4: 540- 551. Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers and other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA-listed Salmonids in Lakes. Final Report prepared for the City of Bellevue. Karr, J.R. 1995. Clean water is not enough. lllahee 11: 51-59. Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem Report: eastern shore of central Puget Sound, including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Prepared by Batelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Pentec Environmental, Striplin Environmental Associates and Shapiro Associates. King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2002. Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan. Koehler, M.E. 2002. Diet and prey resources of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the littoral zone of an urban lake. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich (Mobrand Biometrics· Inc.) and T.A. Vogel (BPA). 1996. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) applied ecosystem analysis -a primer. Report to Bonneville Power Administration Project No. 199404600, Contract No.1994AM33243, 112 p. Marshall, A.R. 2000. Genetic analysis of Cottage Lake Creek/Bear Creek and Issaquah Creek naturally spawning fall-run Chinook. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton and K. Walter. 2000. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. 40 p. May, C.W. 1996. Assessment of cumulative effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion: implications for salmonid resource management. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. McElhany, P., M.H. Rucklehaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-432, 156 p. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 1999. The EDT method -draft. 34 p. February 25, 2005 Page 28 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Morley, S.A, J. Toft, K. Hasan, A. Pratt and T. Bennett. 2003. Evaluating habitat restoration opportunities for Pacific salmon within the Duwamish River. Presentation at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center Open House. October 21, 2003. Seattle, Washington. Morley, S.A. 2000. Effects of urbanization on biological integrity of Puget Sound Lowland streams: restoration with a biological focus. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Naiman, RJ. and H. Decamps. 1990. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3: 209-212. Newcombe, C.P and J OT. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediments and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 693-727. Paul, M.J., and J.L Meyer. 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-65. Perkins, S.J. 1994. The shrinking Cedar River: Channel changes following flow regulation and bank armoring. Pages 649-659 in RA. Marston and V.R Hasfurther, editors. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Conference on Effects of Human-Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems. Middlesburg, Virginia. Pizzuto, J.E , WC. Hession and M. McBride. 2000. Comparing gravel-bed rivers in paired urban and rural catchments of southeastern Pennsylvania. Geology 28: 79-82. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, RE. Sparks and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769-784. Priest, B. and H. Berge. 2002. 2001 Salmon spawning surveys in selected tributaries of the Cedar River, Washington. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 13 p. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT). 2001. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound TRT Review Draft. 52 p. R2 Resource Consultants. 1999. Habitat Survey, Sammamish River, King County, Washington, 1999 Data Report-Final. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle Public Utilities (Seattle). 2003. Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Project Final EIS. Seattle, WA. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Kishimoto. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 1999 and 2000 from three Lake Washington tributaries: Cedar River, Bear Creek and Issaquah Creek. Sobocinski, K. L. 2003. The impact of shoreline armoring on supratidal beach fauna of Central Puget Sound. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 92 p. TetraTech/KCM, Inc. 2003. Adaptive Management Plan Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. Seattle, WA. Tabor et al. 2003. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin: Annual Report, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries and Watershed Assessment. Lacey, Washington. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. Tabor, RA. and RM. Piaskowsi. 2002. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lenthic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin: Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and February 25, 2005 Page 29 Chapter 3: Scientific Foundation Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries and Watershed Assessment. Lacey, Washington. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. Toft, J., C. Simenstad, C. Young and L. Stamatiou. 2003. Inventory and mapping of City of Seattle shorelines along Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and Shilshole Bay. Report by the Wetland Ecosystem, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. Warner, E.J., and K.L. Fresh.1998. Technical review draft: Lake Washington Chinook salmon recovery plan. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 141 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1999. Fish passage design at road culverts. Prepared by the Habitat and Lands Program, Environmental Engineering Division. Olympia, Washington. Weitkamp, D., G. Ruggerone; L. Sacha, J. Howell and B. Bachen. 2000. Factors Affecting Chinook Populations, Background Report. Prepared by Parametrix Inc., Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. and Cedar River Associates for the City of Seattle. Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby and C.W. May. 1998. Stream quality. Pages 69-94 in R.J. Naiman and RE. Bilby, editors. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. Wydzga, A. 1997. Effects of urbanization on fine sediment deposition in Puget Sound Lowland streams. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Ziemer, R.R. and T.E. Lisle. 1998. Hydrology. Pages 43-68 in R.J. Naiman and RE. Bilby, editors. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. February 25, 2005 Page 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 4: CHl~OOK CONSERVATIOI\ STRATEGY FOR \VRIA 8 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 The purpose of this chapter is to document the scientific rationale for the conservation actions that will be described in Chapter 5. The Conservation Strategy is a series of hypotheses about how the rehabilitation of WRJA S's three Chinook populations can be achieved through landscape-level and instream conservation actions. A summary of the Conservation Strategy is included at the end of this section. It should be noted that while the ecosystem objectives and guiding principles described below call for a multi-species approach, the Conservation Strategy described in this chapter is focused on the viability of Chinook salmon populations in WR\A 8. This Conservation Strategy will be expanded by the Technical Committee to include additional salmonid species when requested by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. Ecosystem Objectives The WRIA 8 Technical Committee (Technical Committee) members relied upon a series of ecosystem objectives and guiding principles to develop and apply the Conservation Strategy. These objectives and guiding principles were originally developed as part of the WRIA 8 Near- Term Action Agenda (available athttp://dnrmetrokc.gov/Wrias/8/near-term-action-agenda htm) and are repeated here, as they constitute the conceptual framework underlying the development of the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy. The WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy recognizes four ecosystem objectives for salmon habitat protection and restoration. These ecosystem objectives are the basis for developing and prioritizing habitat actions that are responsive to habitat factors of decline. The objectives are to: • Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat characteristics favorable to salmon. • Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and maintain functional corridors linking these habitats. • Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality refuge habiiats to serve as centers of population expansion. • Maintain connectivity between high-quality habitats to allow for population expansion into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover. Guiding Principles Knowledge of natural watershed processes can provide a design template for the implementation of conservation actions. However, highly altered environments throughout the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed may require unique approaches that differ from complete restoration of historic natural watershed processes. The following guiding principles characterize what should be done specifically in WRIA 8 to restore the altered environment in a way that is consistent with the ecosystem objectives; the guiding principles also serve to focus the near-term actions on factors of decline. The WRIA 8 guiding principles are to: • Protect and restore natural physical, chemical, and biological processes and the habitats they form that are necessary for the recovery and conservation of salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. • Protect and maintain existing quality refuge habitats from which salmon populations may expand. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA B • Maintain and restore the corridors that link habitats, including headwaters, channel migration zones, floodplains, wetlands, lake shorelines, estuaries, and marine nearshore habitats. • Maintain and reconnect salmon access to freshwater, saltwater, and estuarine habitats. • Emphasize self-sustaining, abundant, diverse, and widely distributed runs of naturally produced salmon when developing protection and restoration strategies. • Approach the development of management actions in a scientifically rigorous manner, including the articulation of appropriate hypotheses. • Employ scientifically rigorous adaptive management techniques, including implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring, to all elements of conservation activities. • Identify, protect, and restore those areas that exhibit high existing salmon use, greatest production potential, or a high future conservation value for salmon. • Plan, develop, and implement management actions (for example, regulations, easements, incentives) to ensure protection of biologically important areas. • Conduct research and investigations necessary to further the understanding of watershed processes that are critical to the formation of habitat necessary for salmon conservation and survival. • Identify and implement appropriate action alternatives responsive to habitat-limiting factors and recovery goals for naturally produced salmon. Finally, the following three additional principles from NOAA Fisheries (Spence et al, 1996) were considered in the development and application of the Conservation Strategy: • Do no further harm to watershed processes, habitat structure, and aquatic functions important for salmon production. • Conserve the best remaining habitat that supports Chinook salmon spawning. • Conserve those areas that are understood to support high Chinook salmon use and productivity, including rearing and migration corridors. How Are We Using Science to Guide Effective Actions? As described in Chapter 3, conservation hypotheses concerning the rehabilitation of WRIA B's Chinook populations were developed using three nested analytical tools to help the Technical Committee answer fundamental questions about Chinook populations, watershed conditions, and instream habitat conditions. The diagram in Figure 4-1 shows WRIA B's general construct of hypothetical relationships between human activities, watershed processes, instream habitat conditions and salmon population condition. The scientific basis for the relationships described in this diagram, particularly the impacts of human alterations on ecosystem process, structure, and function, are summarized in King County's recent Best Available Science Report (King County 2004; see Volume 1 Chapter 7) as well as Bolton and Shellburg, 2001. Figure 4-2 shows an example of Technical Committee hypotheses about how key habitat conditions influence critical Chinook life stages. The three nested analytical tools used to develop conservation hypotheses about these relationships are as follows: Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework: What is the status of Chinook populations in WR/A 8, and what are the sources of risk to population viability? Based on guidance from NOAA Fisheries Puget Sound Technical Review Team, the Technical Committee assessed the status of each Chinook population by looking at four population parameters: productivity, spatial distribution, diversity, and abundance. For each population the relative risk for each population parameter was also assessed to help target conservation actions. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that conservation actions designed to benefit February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 diversity, spatial distribution, and productivity will support increases in abundance. If impacts to population abundance from hatchery influences, harvest, and unfavorable ocean conditions become reduced, local conservation actions will have a proportionately greater effect on population abundance. The Technical Committee recognizes that this hypothesis may not hold where population levels are so low that depensatory (Allee) effects are possible. In such situations actions that directly target abundance will be necessary to rehabilitate the population. Watershed Evaluation: Within each of the three populations identified by the WR/A 8 Technical Committee, how should conservation efforts be designed to reflect fish use and the relative watershed conditions in each subarea? The watershed evaluation tool was developed to stratify subareas used by each population based on how the subarea is used by Chinook and the relative level of watershed function in the subarea. By combining this information subareas were divided into three Tiers, along with areas used for migration and rearing. Actions in areas of high watershed function should focus on protecting habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes; actions in areas of moderate or low watershed function will require restoration of key habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes. In Tier 3 areas with episodic Chinook use, conservation actions should focus on protecting and enhancing water quality and natural stream/low regimes to benefit other salmonid species and downstream areas used by Chinook. The EDT diagnosis of habitat limiting factors and restoration priorities is available for many of these streams, and the tiering of subareas will be re-evaluated by the Technical Committee to include use by coho and other salmonids as directed by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. A map showing the independent Chinook populations in WRIA 8 and the subarea Tiers is shown in Figure 4-3. In addition to use of this tool for sub-area stratification and strategy development, the watershed evaluation ratings were used as to corroborate the EDT diagnosis results by comparing watershed conditions with in-stream habitat conditions. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT): Within each subarea, what habitat conditions should be protected or restored to rehabilitate the population? The EDT Model is a riverine habitat model that was customized by the Technical Committee and regional experts to include the nearshore, estuary, Ship Canal and Locks, the Sammamish River, and Lakes Washington, Sammamish, and Union. The EDT model compares the survival of Chinook under current and template (or estimated historic) habitat conditions to 'diagnose' habitat limiting factors and provide a relative sense of the protection or restoration potential of different stream reaches and subareas. At the direction of the Steering Committee, the Technical Committee has not undertaken the 'treatment' step to compare the relative effectiveness of proposed conservation actions. The "treatment" step of EDT will begin early in 2005. The EDT habitat model has been used extensively throughout the Pacific Northwest to support a variety of different salmon conservation efforts, and it is important to remember that the strength of the EDT model (and its stated purpose) is relative comparisons of habitat conditions and salmon performance. The model is not a true salmon population model and is therefore not intended to predict overall salmon population abundance, or the numbers of fish that will benefit from a specific conservation action. However, the PSTRT and co-managers have used EDT as a tool to establish population goals and planning targets based on modeled habitat capacity for eighteen of the twenty-two independent populations in the Puget Sound ESU, but have not done so for WRIA 8. Additional information about the application of these analytical methods is available in Technical Appendices C-1 (Viable Salmonid Population Framework), C-2 (Watershed Evaluation) and C-3 (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Habitat Model). February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-1: Interaction of human activities with riverine/estuarine ecosystem. Human activities influence salmon popu indirectly through influences on biophysical processes and alterations of habitat patterns, and directly through influencE population production and diversity. Adapted from Martin, 1999. Drives Chapter 1 Geoclimatic Setting Climate Geology Landform Ocean Link Constrains [ [Others] J /,/ [ Nutrient J \ ,./ . transfer _y-• -- [ Sediment transport (micro) Alters ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' PROCESS: Biophysical/Chemical Processes Runoff Heat energy input Erosion/sediment transport Woody debris recruitment Nutrient cycling Tidal flux Chf!mical inout STRUCTURE: , , " Channel Patterns/Habitat Structure Channel morphology Unit complexity Hydrologic connectivity Flow regime Temperature regime Substrate composition Woody debris frequency/distribution Water quality Riparian vegetation composition Estuarine complex FUNCTION: Ecological Function Habitat quantity & quality Trophic foodweb Biodiversity -' ' Other Species Predation Food Source Species Transport (e.g., mussels) Influence Salmonid Populations Productivity Life history diversity Genetic diversity Abundance Spatial Structure Human Use of the Watershed Housing Development Road Infrastructure Agricultural Production Water Diversion Timber Production Pollutant Dischan:ie Alters Influence ... Human Interventions Tribal Harvest Commercial Harvest February 25, 2005 Page 4 [ Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-2: Building Conservation Hypotheses Linking Habitat Changes to Population Attributes for Chinook Life Stages (Pre-spawning holding and miaration to b~ adc:IP.d\ I -[:] Protect these attributes .... Enhance and Restore these Attributes ... Protect these attributes .... Enhance and Restore these Attributes ... February 25, 2005 Page 5 Figure 4 -3 ' ' I I ', ', ' '-, ' ',, I ~ ,, ' ' ,. ,.: t ' " ,_, "' ·' CEDAR Tier 1 Tier 2 --- NORTH LAKE WASHINGTON Tier 1 Tier 2 ISSAQUAH Tier 1 MIGRATORY/REARING AREAS AND OTHER SUBAREAS Migratory/Rearing Corridors used by one or more Chinook populations (Tier 1) Subareas draining into Chinook Streams and/or Migratory/Rearing Corridors (Includes Tier 3 Chinook streams and other salmon-bearing streams not yet evaluated. In these subareas, land use and public education actions will be necessary to support protection and restoration of key habitat and habitat-forming processes.) Incorporated Areas Urban Growth Area Boundary .._,,-.. WRIA 8 Boundary River or Major Stream Major Lake WRIA 8 Chinook Populations and Watershed Evaluation Tiers @ King County Department of Nat ural Re su u rces ant.I Parks Water and Land Resources Division 0 t + Julyl005 4 M ites ::d W> 1Jo1odu<edh·t ('"Jl.a .. 11t},C NIIP NM t,1\ •IKIYt~i.11, omn,u,,.._.1..;n~ '°' ,,.,.,.1) Vrnn :,c,04m.~ CY)]..,,, ..... t..:•\l!A',(~ ..,~,I Th• 9"ern:n10•1 •lCUOfld or 1:r11s MAP '-ls oaen coriptl6c 'rom • ... anery of s.ou,ce1 l!IM s :,1,1~110 cnar,gi; 1¥11ho1,11 noltei IC t,g Coun1y rn,1 1\es nv 1oprfilsw r\41 t~, o r w.inilr't as 1n,;p<e u or lf'l'lf'.)lto::1 .is w a::ura.:-y ,conp ••eneu . 1n1eW'lll s.s O' r,gh:s k> tr e use 0 1 s udl 1-..0rm.ibQn ,<..,~ Co..nry Wwl nc1 be kab tt lcf l!ln'f gen.1111, 1P9Cial, nc:111«:: incda"1al. o r COl"'HIQU4orl i.l carmiges ,nc.luJ~ but net limit:Q,;J :a 1e,1 ro~o11u .. s o r IDS! protni 11t1ul:ll"l9 f1crt U11t UM Of nl1SUH ot The ntO'TildhOf' con:awv;.J Qf1 th t, mi\l) Al'I'( a.ale at lilts maP 0, nl~malon on t'"ti rr.ap • DfOf'"COu H Cef:l b( ¥t·<tlllfl pt1f"tS$iQU cl K~"9 Coun1v Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population Guidance for WRIA 8 The Puget Sound Technical Review Team (PSTRT, 2001) has identified two independent populations of Chinook in WRIA 8: the Cedar River and Sammamish River Chinook. The Sammamish River population includes North Lake Washington and Issaquah sub-populations. In their determination of population structure, the PSTRT notes that it is unclear whether the tributaries draining into the north end of Lake Washington historically supported an independent Chinook population. However, the PSTRT has also identified two factors indicating that this area has the potential to support independent Chinook populations. First, the PSTRT states that the Sammamish River drainage (including Issaquah Creek and the North Lake Washington Tributaries) is larger than the smallest watershed containing an independent population in their analysis of Puget Sound Chinook populations. Second, a recent analysis of spawner capacity developed for the PSTRT by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2003) indicates that the Bear/Cottage system, the lower portion of North Creek, and Issaquah Creek have a high probability of supporting Chinook spawning, while Swamp Creek, Little Bear Creek, Carey and Holder Creeks, and the upper portion of North Creek have a moderate probability of supporting Chinook spawning. While two populations are identified in WRIA 8 by the PSTRT, recent genetic information available at the time the Conservation Strategy was developed indicated that there may be enough difference between the North Lake Washington Chinook and fish returning to the Issaquah Creek Hatchery to consider them separate from one another (Marshall 2000). In addition there are other differences such as run timing (e.g., the North Lake Washington Chinook run starts earlier than Issaquah Hatchery returns, peaks at approximately the same time, and tails off over a longer period) that may reflect genetic differences between North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook that should be maintained. After much discussion, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee decided to take a precautionary approach and plan for three populations: the Cedar River population, the North Lake Washington population, and the Issaquah population. The Technical Committee recognizes that the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations are closely linked, with the Issaquah Hatchery population influencing the North Lake Washington population. The WBTC based their decision to plan for three populations on the desire to adopt a conservative approach to WRIA 8 Chinook populations in light of uncertainties about population structure, and the potential that unique genetic characteristics necessary for the long-term viability of the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations, if lost, may not be recovered. By identifying three populations, the WRIA placed priority on protecting all Chinook within the watershed, as well as any local adaptations that these fish possess. This approach supports the continued survival of offspring of naturally spawning Issaquah Hatchery Chinook strays which would be protected under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the three population approach errs on the side of caution to maintain future opportunities for conservation in the Issaquah sub-area. Finally, this approach confers ancillary benefits on other species such as coho, and supports the widest level of stakeholder participation, all of which are consistent with the Steering Committee's stated goals and objectives. Throughout this document, three populations will be discussed, consistent with the direction that WRIA 8 chose to take with Chinook recovery. The reader should note that the use of the term 'population' as it relates to Chinook throughout this document reflects the WRIA 8 Technical Committee's precautionary approach. and that the term is therefore NOT synonymous with the PSTRT's use of the term. The discussions surrounding WRIA 8 population structure are continuing as new information materializes. In 2003, returning adult hatchery Chinook were adipose-clipped for the first time. Stray rates in that year indicated that there were more hatchery-origin fish on the spawning February 25, 2005 Page 7 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 grounds than expected (22% of spawners in the Cedar River mainstem, 54% of spawners in Bear/Cottage Creeks, and 48% of all spawners in the WRIA). While straying is a natural phenomenon, the large releases of hatchery fish (e.g. 2 million Chinook fry are released annually from the Issaquah hatchery) combined with small populations of naturally-spawning Chinook in WRIA 8 (average adult returns to the Cedar River, for example, was only 325 fish between 1998 and 2002) mean that the relatively high contribution rates of hatchery-origin fish could pose a risk to the genetic diversity of the Cedar and North Lake Washington populations. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has initiated a genetic study with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to analyze juvenile samples taken from the three assumed populations in WRIA 8, samples from hatcheries known to contribute to adult returns (e.g., University of Washington, Issaquah, Grover's Creek), as well as archived scale and tissue samples from adult spawners. It is expected that this study will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. However, it is likely that there will be continued questions regarding the interactions of hatchery and wild Chinook. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee and participating scientists plan to review the genetic study and provide the information to the PSTRT for consideration in identifying independent populations within WRIA 8. The Technical Committee will then adapt the Conservation Strategy in light of this new information. Potential revisions to the Conservation Strategy are summarized in this Chapter and in Appendix C-5. The risk of extinction posed to all three populations is extreme and must be reduced through actions that create habitat conditions that support viability of the populations. This section will provide conservation hypotheses for all three populations. However, the potential interactions between these populations and the need for additional information about population genetics lead to the following technical hypotheses that should guide conservation actions across the WRIA: 1. The Cedar and NLW populations are both in crisis with an extreme risk of extinction. However, there is some uncertainty that the NLW and Issaquah populations are independent of one another, while there is higher certainty that the Cedar population is independent. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that a higher priority should be placed on risk reduction for the Cedar population due to the steeply declining trends in returning adults and the greater genetic separation from other Chinook in the watershed. 2. Based on 2003 Chinook surveys in WRIA 8 (the first year that clipped hatchery fish were observed in large numbers in WRIA 8), straying of in-basin and out-of-basin produced Green-River origin hatchery (Issaquah, Portage Bay and Grovers Creek Hatcheries)' Chinook poses a potential risk to the genetic integrity of any independent Chinook populations. While this risk is primarily due to hatchery produced Chinook, habitat actions to increase the abundance and productivity of naturally spawning Green-River origin Chinook in the Issaquah basin could also unintentionally increase the total number of Chinook straying into the North Lake Washington and Cedar basins, resulting in decreased genetic diversity of the locally adapted populations. In addition to the potential risk to genetic diversity, hatchery straying could pose a risk if hatchery contributions to natural spawning are reducing the fitness or reproductive success of naturally spawning Chinook in WRIA 8. Based on research about the influence of hatchery produced salmon on naturally spawning populations in other systems, (see, for February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 example, Myers et al 2004 and NOAA Fisheries 2004), the Technical Committee hypothesizes that restoration actions designed to increase productivity and abundance in the Green-River origin Issaquah Chinook population may contribute to the overall extinction risk facing the Cedar and North Lake Washington locally adapted populations. Additional research is necessary to increase our understanding of hatchery contributions to natural spawning, and the impacts of interactions between naturally spawning and hatchery origin Chinook in WRIA 8 on population viability. WRIA 8 is currently working with the WDFW genetics laboratory to improve our understanding of the genetic variation of Chinook from WRIA 8 streams and several Central Puget Sound hatcheries (including the Issaquah, Grovers Creek, and University of Washington hatcheries), and will review the results of this analysis with the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and the Co-Managers in February 2005 to inform their decisions about Chinook population structure in WRIA 8, and WRIA S's decisions about the future direction of the WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Plan. Until additional questions are answered regarding existing genetic diversity, hatchery straying, the relative contribution of hatchery strays on the spawning grounds, and the level of genetic introgression that has resulted over time from hatchery contributions to spawning, the Technical Committee advises a precautionary approach that protects and maintains habitat diversity and Chinook genetic diversity within the WRIA. 3. The Issaquah basin includes high quality habitat and geomorphic conditions that contribute to habitat diversity within WRIA 8, and the basin is used by naturally spawning Chinook that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Protection of existing high-quality habitat in the Issaquah system should continue while the genetic impact of hatchery straying is evaluated. 4. Recent preliminary modeling work by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) (Lakey, 2004) in cooperation with the co-managers indicates that abundance numbers from the WRIA 8 populations are critically low and that WRIA 8 populations may be dependent on hatchery strays unless habitat productivity is substantially increased. Hatchery augmentation of the naturally spawning Chinook in WRIA 8 may be necessary to reduce the risk of extinction while habitat improvements identified in Chapter 5 of this plan are implemented. The following section describes conservation strategies for each of the three populations described by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee and based on the Technical Committee's analysis of VSP status, the watershed evaluation, and the EDT habitat model. Conservation Strategy for Cedar River Chinook The Cedar River is the largest tributary to Lake Washington and drains an elongated basin of 188 square miles that extends from the crest of the Cascade Mountains to the southern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton. As described in Chapter 3, the Cedar River was re- routed from the Black River to Lake Washington in 1916. The upper two-thirds of the subarea is owned and managed by the City of Seattle and supplies drinking water to two-thirds of Seattle and its regional customers. The Cedar River Municipal Watershed is almost entirely coniferous forest, and its management is governed by the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. The lower third of the Cedar River subarea below the Landsburg Diversion Dam includes 21 miles of mainstem river and 15 tributaries, and drains a 66-square-mile area. The lower Cedar River mainstem and four main fish-bearing tributaries provide the majority of the current spawning habitat for chinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout in the WRIA 8 system as February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 well as significant spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and cutthroat trout. The four main tributaries for Chinook are: Lower Rock Creek, Walsh Lake Diversion, Peterson Creek, and Taylor Creek. Most of the lower Cedar River subarea is rural and forested, except for the cities of Renton and Maple Valley, where the subarea is urbanized. Results of Technical Analyses VSP Status and Relative Risk for Cedar River Chinook For the WRIA 8 Cedar River Chinook population, the assessment of the VSP population parameters can be summarized as follows: Productivity: Reduced by habitat degradation. Diversity: lnstream juvenile rearing life history trajectory reduced by habitat loss. Spatial Structure: Historically, it is likely that Chinook were distributed predominately along the mainstem Cedar, with tributaries playing a relatively minor role in terms of overall abundance. The spatial distribution of the population is largely longitudinal along the length of the main stem Cedar River. Abundance: As shown in Chapter 3, the population abundance is in steep decline, driven primarily by reduction in habitat productivity and the loss of life history diversity. Hatchery strays are assumed to contribute to the current observed abundance. Low abundance, combined with the downward trend in abundance suggest that the Cedar population is at risk from depensatory (Allee) effects, and therefore at risk of extinction. At this time none of the four VSP attributes is sufficient to support viability of the population. Rehabilitation of all population attributes will be necessary to restore the population. The relative risk posed to each of the four population attributes is: • Productivity: High • Diversity: High due to the combination of hatchery strays that contribute to natural spawning, and reductions in the instream rearing life history trajectory. According to the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG, 2004), hatchery contribution rates higher than 1-5 percent would result in a high risk to naturally spawning Chinook from a Segregated Hatchery Program. However, it should be noted that the Co-Managers, in response to the HSRG's recommendations, have recommended that the Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program should be switched from a Segregated to an Integrated Hatchery Program (Lakey, 2004). If an integrated hatchery program is pursued, hatchery contribution rates to natural spawning could be as high as 30 percent with a low risk to the naturally spawning population. • Spatial Structure: Low • Abundance: High. The Technical Committee suggests the following hypotheses based on this assessment of population attributes and relative risk: • All population attributes require rehabilitation if the Cedar River Chinook population is to be viable. • Of the four population attributes, the greatest extinction risk comes from reduction in habitat productivity and the potential loss of the instream juvenile rearing life history strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Watershed Evaluation Framework for the Cedar River Following the assessment of Cedar River Chinook salmon population attributes, the Technical Committee stratified subareas used by the population based on the degree of fish use and the level of watershed function. Using Chinook salmon demographic information to assess the relative abundance within subareas and the frequency that subareas are used by Chinook, the Cedar subareas can be organized as follows: • Migratory and rearing areas -Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary. • Core areas of high Chinook abundance and frequent use -Cedar Middle (Reaches 12- 18 ), Cedar Lower (Reaches 1-11) • Satellite areas of moderate Chinook abundance and moderately frequent use -Upper Cedar (Reaches 19-28), Taylor/ Downs Creek, Walsh Lake Diversion. • Episodic areas with infrequent Chinook use -Lower Rock, Peterson, Madsen, Molasses. The relative watershed function of these subareas can then be assessed by rating factors that sustain function and factors that limit function: • Factors sustaining watershed function: wetland area, forest cover, riparian cover, gradient less than 2%. • Factors limiting watershed function: Impervious surface, flow volume, road crossings, gradient >4%. Following an assessment of watershed function factors listed above, the subareas that contribute to the Cedar River Chinook population can be organized as follows: • High Function -Middle Cedar (Reaches 12-18), Rock Creek, Upper Cedar, Walsh Lake Diversion, Taylor/ Downs Creek, Peterson Creek. • Moderate Function -Lower Cedar (Reaches 1-11 ). . • Low Function -Madsen Creek, Molasses Creek, Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary. By combining the fish use and watershed function ratings, the Technical Committee has stratified the subareas that contribute to the Cedar River Chinook population as follows: • Tier 1 -Middle Cedar (Reaches 12-18), Lower Cedar (Reaches 1-11 ), Migratory Areas (Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary). • Tier 2 -Lower Rock Creek, Upper Cedar, Peterson Creek, Walsh Lake Diversion, Taylor / Downs Creek. • Tier 3 -Madsen Creek, Molasses Creek. The Technical Committee suggests the following hypotheses based on the Watershed Evaluation Framework: • Protection and restoration actions will be necessary in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas to rehabilitate Cedar River Chinook productivity, diversity, spatial distribution, and abundance. • Watershed function can be improved by improving watershed conditions that limit function (i.e. total impervious area and road crossings) and enhancing factors that sustain function (i.e. total forest cover and riparian forest cover). February 25, 2005 Page 11 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 • Actions in areas of high watershed function should focus on protecting habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes; actions in areas of moderate or low watershed function will also require restoration or enhancement of key habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes • Actions in the Tier 3 subareas should focus on protecting and enhancing water quality and hydrologic integrity. EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for the Cedar River The results of the EDT diagnosis for each subarea, and the protection and restoration hypotheses developed based on the application of VSP, the Watershed Evaluation Framework, and EDT, are summarized in the following section. Maps showing the EDT reaches are available on the WRIA 8 website (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/8/index.htm). Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the Cedar Chinook Tier 1 Subareas The Tier 1 subareas include Cedar Middle (EDT Reaches 12-18) and Cedar Lower (EDT Reaches 1-11 ). Each of these subareas is a core area for Chinook use. Cedar Middle has a relatively high level of watershed function resulting from a low impervious surface percentage, few road crossings, and a high level of forest cover and riparian forest. The Lower Cedar has a moderate level of watershed function, due primarily to increases in impervious surface and storm flow volumes, along with reductions in forest cover and riparian cover. Habitat Protection Hypotheses for the Cedar Chinook Tier 1 Subareas Recommendations for these subareas focus on protection of the habitat processes and structures that make these areas a significant source of production for the Cedar River Chinook population. Using the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that in both the Lower and Middle Cedar Tier 1 subareas the life stages most affected by existing high- quality habitat conditions are egg incubation, fry colonization and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are sustained by protection of the following habitat attributes: • Water quality (sediments, temperature, metals) • Flows (sufficient flows during seasonal low flow periods) • Habitat quantity (pool habitats) • Habitat attributes that contribute to the creation of pool habitats (riparian function, LWD, channel connectivity). By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully degraded habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for protection. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat; and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. The Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare protection recommendations for the entire subarea (Table 4-1) as well as individual stream reaches (Table 4-2). Table 4-1: Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 1 Subareas _ ____ _ _ ___ ((::E!cla__r_rylidd~_~El_a_c:11E!s_!2_:1_8, Cedar Lower Reaclle!;1_-11J ___ _ __ • Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts to key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high temperatures. Adverse impacts from road runoff (especially the Maple Valley Highway SR 169) should be prevented. • Forest cover should be protected throughout each of the subareas to maintain February 25, 2005 Page 12 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 watershed function and hydrologic integrity (especially maintenance of sufficient baseflows), and protect water quality. • Road crossings should be minimized to maintain floodplain connectivity • Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning by establishing instream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrologic continuity. For more information about current flow management of the Cedar River, see Chapter 3. Table 4-2: Cedar Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations (Middle Cedar and Lower Cedar) Tier 1 Subarea: Middle Cedar (Reaches 12-18 Lower Cedar (1- 11 Reaches are listed in order of Relative Protection Priority Critical Chinook Life LWO, Riparian Function, and Channel Stages for Protection:· Connectivity should be protected in the following reaches: Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization 16, (tie 17 & 18), 15, 14, 12, 13 4, 8, 9, 3, (tie 5 & 6 & 11 ), 7, 10, 1, 2 Reach Protection Priorities: • The landslide reach (Reach 4) has the highest protection potential on the Cedar River. Channel connectivity, LWD, pool habitats, and riparian function should be maintained within this reach to support the potential identified by EDT and to serve as a reference site for habitat restoration efforts in other parts of the Cedar River. • In the Lower Cedar, pool habitats, LWD and channel connectivity in reaches adjacent to Reach 4 should be maintained to support the potential that exists in these reaches. • In the Lower Cedar, riparian function, LWD, and channel connectivity should be maintained in reaches with relatively higher use for spawning and egg incubation in the Lower Cedar subarea (Reaches 8-9). • In the Middle Cedar, riparian function, LWD, and channel connectivity should be maintained in reaches with higher use for spawning and egg incubation (Reaches 14-16) • In the Middle Cedar, reaches with the relatively most intact riparian function, LWD, and channel connectivity should be maintained. In addition, these features should be protected in downstream reaches 14 and 15 to maintain spawning and egg incubation habitat functions. Based on the three analytical tools described above, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that conservation actions based on the basin-wide and reach-specific protection recommendations will maintain habitat conditions that are currently favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that actions based on these recommendations will maintain favorable conditions for these life stages in each of the Tier 1 subareas (Cedar Middle and Cedar Lower) and will ultimately support the existing sources of productivity and life history diversity for the Cedar River Chinook population. February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Habitat Restoration Hypotheses for the Cedar Chinook Tier 1 Subareas Although protection of existing high-quality habitat and habitat-forming processes is the primary objective in the Tier 1 subareas, restoration of watershed function and instream habitat attributes is necessary to the rehabilitation of Cedar Chinook productivity and life history diversity. Based on the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that the life stages most affected by degraded habitat conditions in these reaches are fry colonization and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Habitat quantity (pool habitat area), • Habitat quality (composed of channel confinement, riparian function, and large woody debris). By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully restored habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for habitat restoration. The restoration potential of reaches in the Tier 1 subareas is shown in Figure 4-4. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea as well as individual stream reaches. These recommendations are summarized in Table 4-3. The recommended changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages will ultimately increase the productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity of the Cedar River Chinook population. Table 4-3: Cedar Chinook Tier 1 Restoration Recommendations (Cedar Middle and Cedar Lower) Basin-Wide Recommendations • Restore riparian vegetation to provide sources of LWD that can contribute to the creation of pool habitat. Reach-Specific Recommendations • Channel confinement has reduced floodplain connectivity and reduced the amount of pools and small cobbles. Reach-level restoration actions should focus on setback or removal of dikes and levees, the addition of LWD to create pools, and planting riparian vegetation. • In the long-term, potential LWD source areas upstream should be restored. February 25, 2005 Page 14 E ::::s E >< ra ~ -s ra . .;:; ... C: .... .l!! 0 0 a.. Q) > -.;:; ra ai . 0::: Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-4: Cedar Chinook Relative Restoration Potential 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 I 0 0 (D 0. OJ ~ ' ~ Lower Cedar Reatie1ier 1 Sub-Areas 1 "11 I • _I • I • Middle Cedar Reaches 12,18 _I 11_1_1 •-•, 1. I~•--• _I _I~• l_,I_,_ 0 (D 0. OJ ,' (,.) 0 (D 0. OJ ~ ' u, 0 (D 0. OJ ,' ~ 0 0 0 (D (D (D 0. 0. 0. OJ OJ OJ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' (0 ~ ~ ~ (,.) EDT Reach 0 0 r (l) (l) OJ 0 0. 0. :, (l) OJ OJ 0. 0. ,' ~ (/) OJ ' rr ~ ~ ~ C u, ~ ~ :;o (Q NOTE: The EDT habitat model determines the relative potential of a reach for salmon performance (a combination of productivity, abundance, and life history diversity) based on habitat conditions in the stream reach and the exposure of Chinook life stages to those habitat conditions. Similar habitat conditions may therefore result in different potentials due to differences in Chinook exposure. In addition, the salmon performance potential that exists in a reach may be due to upstream conditions (i.e. hydrologic conditions or sources of sediments and LWD) as well as conditions in the reach. For more information about habitat conditions, key life stages, and technical recommendations, please see the description of each subarea in the Conservation Strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 15 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Restoration of Migratory and Rearing Areas for Cedar River Chinook While restoration of the Tier 1 Cedar River subareas is critical to rehabilitate the productivity and life history diversity of the Cedar River Chinook population, the population is also impacted by conditions in other subareas used for migration and rearing. Based on the Watershed Evaluation and the EDT diagnosis of restoration potential, restoration of Lake Washington should also be a high priority for regional restoration efforts. The EDT results provide a relative sense of the restoration potential in Lake Washington versus the Cedar River, with the potential restoration benefits in the south end of the Lake approximately equal to the potential benefits that exist in the mainstem of the Cedar River below Landsburg Dam. Based on the EDT diagnosis, juvenile migrants from the Cedar River would benefit from habitat restoration actions that reduce predator abundance and predator efficiency (particularly cutthroats, sculpin, and bass) in Lake Washington. Predation on juvenile Chinook appears to be driven primarily by habitat conditions that limit cover for juvenile Chinook migration and rearing, and increase exposure to predators, such as bank hardening and reductions in sandy shallow water habitat, LWD and overhanging shoreline vegetation. Although the Lake Washington shoreline is highly developed, the remaining areas with these characteristics (sandy shallow-water habitat, overhanging vegetation, LWD) should be protected and maintained. It should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty about how Chinook use lake habitat in WRIA 8 and how Chinook interact with other species (i.e. sockeye, cutthroat, bass, and perch), and that these uncertainties are the subject of multiple ongoing studies. In light of these uncertainties the Technical Committee strongly recommends that conservation actions in the lakes focus on habitat and landscape solutions that benefit Chinook rearing and migration rather than attempting to manage individual predator species. The estuary and marine nearshore areas of WRIA 8 are important for the success of Chiriook from WRIA 8, as well as juvenile Chinook and other salmonids from other watersheds in Puget Sound. Because of uncertainties regarding how WRIA 8 Chinook use the nearshore and estuary, as well as the documented use of the WRIA 8 estuary and nearshore by Chinook from other WRIAs, the Technical Committee did not rely on the relative geographic priorities produced by habitat modeling efforts. Using the comparison of historic versus current habitat conditions in the Tidal Habitat Model, the Technical Committee concluded that protection and restoration should focus on reversing the effects of anthropogenic modifications to the system, especially the modification of ecosystem processes such as sediment supply, and protecting remaining areas of functioning habitat. However, actions in the estuary are somewhat difficult to assess due to the altered conditions that exist there (i.e. the construction of the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks and the abrupt transition from freshwater to saltwater). In addition, research in the marine nearshore environment has been advancing new concepts and theories in more recent years. It will be important to take an experimental approach to protection and restoration and stay current with emerging information so that restoration and protection actions can be tailored accordingly. Restoration actions for migratory and rearing areas are summarized in Table 4-4. February 25, 2005 Page 16 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-4: Restoration Recommendations for -'"-··---·~· Cedar River Chinoo~~ra~l)I and Rearin~reas --------------· Lake Washington: • Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with gentle slopes designed to maximize littoral areas with a depth of less than 1 meter. • Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas. Historically these small creeks had sandy deltas at the creek mouth and were associated with wetland complexes. • Restoration efforts should begin with lake segments at the southern end of the lake, near the mouth of the Cedar River, along with other high priority reaches along the southern shore of Mercer Island and in Union Bay at the entrance to the Ship Canal. • Protect and restore water quality in small tributaries. • More information is needed about the trajectories of Cedar River juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington, particularly when they move offshore. • Shoreline processes of Lake Washington have been changed by the regulated maximum one foot rise and fall of the lake. Therefore, the removal of bank hardening structures may not be sufficient to create sandy beaches and augmentation of sediment supplies may be necessary. • The outmigration of juvenile Chinook would benefit from improved shoreline connectivity. The use of mesh dock surfaces and/or community docks would reduce the severity of predation on juvenile Chinook. • Habitat in the smaller Lake Washington tributaries (Tier 3 streams such as Thornton, McAleer, and Lyon) should be restored for coho so that production of cutthroat trout which prey on juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington is reduced. • Consider increases in fishing limits for cutthroat trout. Ship Canal and Locks: • High water temperatures impede juvenile Chinook outmigration during the summer in the Ship Canal. These high temperatures also lead to increased activity by predators (primarily bass). Options to reduce water temperatures in the Ship Canal should be evaluated. • Protect and restore water quality to prevent adverse impacts to key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and other toxics. In· particular, adverse water quality impacts from commercial and industrial land uses should be prevented. · • Additional investigations are needed to determine habitat characteristics that could provide Chinook with refuge from predators in the Ship Canal. • Riparian vegetation should be restored to provide cover for juvenile migrants. February 25, 2005 Page 17 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-4 (continued): Restoration Recommendations for Cedar River Chinook Migratory and Rearing Areas Estuary and Nearshore: • Protect remaining feeder bluff(s) that supply sediment and support littoral habitat creation. • Reduce bank hardening, especially in areas where the armoring falls within the tidal zone and/or separates a sediment source from the nearshore environment. Such actions would help restore natural shoreline accretion and depletion processes and support littoral habitat creation. • Undertake a sediment source study to attempt to do 2 things. 1 )establish where feeder bluffs were prior to the railroad. 2) quantify rates of erosion of those bluffs. Based on the sediment source study, work with the known locations of feeder bluffs to either open up certain slide prone areas so that slides make it into the nearshore, or start a beach nourishment program. Although all actions discussed in the Conservation Plan will be part of an Adaptive Management program, it should be emphasized that the experimental nature of a beach nourishment program require a comprehensive and robust adaptive management and monitoring system. • Protect remaining Marine Riparian Vegetation (MRV), to maintain overhanging cover and terrestrial inputs (e.g. leaf litter, invertebrates) for juvenile Chinook and their prey. One example of intact MRV is an area near West Point on an eroding bluff. • Plant vegetation along shoreline, close to the Mean High High Water (MHHW) line to provide overhanging cover and terrestrial inputs (e.g. leaf litter, invertebrates) for juvenile Chinook and their prey. • Reduce the number and coverage of overwater structures (e.g., docks, piers) as a way to reduce segmentation of the shoreline and the effects on both habitat forming processes and juvenile Chinook behavior. • Reconnect and enhance the mouths of small streams to create pocket estuaries. These areas are important for smaller juvenile Chinook and could be very important for juveniles from other watersheds that leave the rivers as fry. For WRIA 8 fish, pocket estuaries may have the most benefit near the Locks by providing an increased estuary area. • Reconnect backshore areas (e.g., marshes, wetlands) to contribute to shoreline habitat diversity and terrestrial inputs. • Protection of sediment and water quality, especially near commercial and industrial areas (e.g., fuel spills, discharge of pollutants, etc.). • More information is needed about how the railroad design could be altered to re- connect nearshore processes such as sediment supplies from feeder bluffs, and restore access to pocket estuaries and backshore areas. • More information is needed about marine nearshore habitat processes and connections to juvenile Chinook salmon habitat. • More information is needed about the migratory and rearing behavior of wild and hatchery juvenile Chinook from WRIA 8 in the vicinity of the Locks and WRIA 8 nearshore. Increased use of coded-wire tags (CWT) would improve our understanding of how salmonids from WRIA 8 and other Puget Sound WRIAs use the nearshore environment. • More information is needed to evaluate the affects of hatchery outputs (both timing and amounts) on survival and growth of wild salmonids in the marine nearshore. • More information is needed about how commercial and recreational crab harvest affects the available prey resources for l,uvenil_e_C_h_i_n_o_o_k. __________ _ February 25, 2005 Page 18 I Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the Cedar Chinook Tier 2 Subareas The Tier 2 subareas for the Cedar River Chinook population include the Upper Cedar (above Landsburg), Lower Rock Creek, Taylor/Downs Creek, Peterson Creek, and Walsh Lake Diversion. Full passage at Landsburg Dam was assumed as part of the EDT habitat modeling exercise in order to determine the protection and restoration potential in these reaches .. At this time the Technical Committee has prepared recommendations for the Upper Cedar, Lower Rock, Peterson, and Taylor/Downs Creek. Recommendations for Walsh Lake Ditch have not been developed while the potential re-direction of the Walsh Lake Diversion back into Upper Rock Creek (a Cedar River tributary above Landsburg Dam that is separate from Lower Rock Creek) is being evaluated. If directed by the Steering Committee, the 'Treatment' phase of the EDT model may be used as part of feasibility studies and evaluations conducted to support decisions on this issue. All of these Tier 2 Cedar subareas are considered to be satellite areas for the Cedar River Chinook population. As noted in the VSP analysis of the Cedar River Chinook population, the tributaries are believed to have played a relatively small role in the spatial distribution and overall abundance of the population. However, the availability of high- quality habitat in these areas is necessary to reduce the risk of natural disturbances (i.e. landslides such as those caused by the 2001 Nisqually earthquake) that could impact spawning areas in the mainstem Cedar. In addition, the Upper Cedar subarea provides increased spatial distribution of Chinook spawning aggregations along the mainstem of the Cedar River. Each of these subareas has a relatively high level of watershed function, driven by low impacts from impervious surface and road crossings and relatively high levels of riparian and forest cover. Taylor/Downs Creek has experienced relatively moderate increases in storm volumes, while each of the Tier 2 sub-areas has relatively moderate or low percentages of wetlands. Habitat Protection Hypotheses for the Cedar Chinook Tier 2 Subareas The life stages most affected by existing high-quality habitat conditions are egg incubation, fry colonization and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are sustained by protection of the following habitat attributes: • Water quality (sediments, temperature, metals) • Flows sufficient for pre-spawning migration • Habitat quantity (pool habitats) • Habitat attributes that contribute to the creation of pool habitats (riparian function, LWD, channel connectivity). By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully degraded habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for protection. The protection potential of reaches in the Cedar Tier 2 subareas is shown in Figure 4-5. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea as well as individual stream reaches (Table 4-5). February 25, 2005 Page 19 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-5: Protection Recommendations for Cedar Tier 2 Subareas c---c--ccc~(c-U~p~p-er Cedar, Lower Rock Creek, Taylor/Downs Creek, Peterson) Basin-Wide Protection Hypotheses: • Protect high watershed function by maintaining forest cover, riparian cover, and minimizing the amount of road crossings and impervious surface. • Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts to key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high temperatures. Adverse water quality impacts from road runoff and other sources of non-point source pollution should be prevented. • Protect adequate flows during seasonal low flows to maintain the pre-spawning migrant life stage in Rock and Taylor/Downs Creek. • The Upper Cedar River Watershed is protected by the City of Seattle as a water supply source. Existing elements of the City's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), such as allowing LWD in the mainstem channel and protecting forest cover through non-logging policies should be continued. No additional protection recommendations beyond those included in the HCP were developed for this subarea. Reach-Specific Protection Hypotheses: • Pool habitat and the habitat features that support the creation of pool habitat (LWD, riparian function, and channel connectivity) should be maintained in reaches with high protection potential in order to maintain key Chinook life stages. In Lower Rock Creek, protection efforts should begin with reaches 1, 3, and 5. • Pool habitat, riparian function, LWD, and channel connectivity should be maintained in reaches with a.relatively lower protection potential (Lower Rock Reach 5) to support spawning, egg incubation, and pre-spawn migration in downstream reaches 4A and 4B. • In Taylor/Downs Creek, pool habitat and the habitat features that support the creation of pool habitat (LWD, riparian function, and channel connectivity) should be maintained in reach 1 in order to maintain key Chinook life stages in this subarea. • In the Upper Cedar, protect LWD in the channel unless it poses a danger to dam operations. Protection of these habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale is intended to maintain habitat conditions that are currently favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that maintaining·favorable conditions for these life stages in the Upper Cedar will ultimately support future sources of productivity and life history diversity for the Cedar River Chinook population. In Lower Rock and Taylor/Downs Creeks, protection of favorable habitat conditions for Chinook will maintain spatial distribution and reduce the risk of catastrophic environmental disturbances for the population. Habitat Restoration Hypotheses for the Cedar Chinook Tier 2 Subareas While restoration of the Tier 1 and migratory areas have a higher relative potential to improve the viability of the Cedar population, restoration in the Tier 2 tributaries is necessary to enhance the productivity of the population and ensure that high-quality habitat is available to the population in the event of natural environmental disturbances in the mainstem of the Cedar. In the tributary systems, the life stages most affected by degraded habitat conditions in these reaches are spawning, egg incubation, pre-spawn February 25, 2005 Page 20 I Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRlA 8 holding, and pre-spawn migration. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Habitat quantity (pool habitat types), • Habitat quality (composed of channel confinement, riparian function, and large woody debris). • Sediment load (fine sediments, turbidity, and embeddedness ). • Low flows. By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully restored habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for habitat restoration. The restoration potential of reaches in the Cedar Tier 2 subareas is shown in Figure 4-5. This potential results from instream habitats, basin- wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea as well as individual stream reaches. These recommendations are summarized in Table 4-6. The recommended changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages will ultimately increase the spatial distribution and productivity of the Cedar River Chinook population. Table 4-6: Restoration Recommendations for Cedar Tier 2 Subareas ----~(Lower Rock C!eek, Taylor/Downs Creek, U_eEer_ C~cl_.t_r:l_____ _ __ _ __ _ Basin-Wide Hypotheses: • Re-vegetate riparian corridor with deciduous vegetation to provide nutrients and food sources. • Continue to implement restoration activities identified in the City of Seattle's Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), such as restoring forest cover and riparian areas, decommissioning roads, removing fish passage barriers. No additional restoration recommendations beyond those included in the HCP were developed for this subarea. • In Taylor/Downs Creek, key life stages would benefit from a reduction in stormwater flows that have increased bed scour and deposition of fine sediments. • Restoration of seasonal low flows would support the pre-spawning holding life stage in Rock Creek. Reach-Specific Hypotheses: • Reduce channel confinement by removing bank armoring/ hardening in Lower Rock reach 1. • Increase pools by restoring large woody debris and riparian vegetation in Lower Rock reaches 1 and 2. • Continue to implement restoration activities identified in the City of Seattle's Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). These changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages in the Tier 2 subareas. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages in the Cedar Tributaries and the Upper Cedar will ultimately increase the spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity of the Cedar River Chinook population. February 25, 2005 Page 21 -0 .... .... O 1.2 E ~ E 1 >< ra 0.8 :E ~ 0.6 ra Cedar Tributaries Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-5: Cedar Tier 2 Relative Restoration Potential Upper Cedar ................ , ..•. ·•·············· ................................................. . I l 04 lJ a.. 0.2 (I) > ~ 0 L---~. -.. ,.-.,.--,-·-~· , I , • . _ , •. 1J, .. I .. <ii 0::: ,<:, ;-,?, ,?, ,?, ,?, ,?, ,?, <9r. ~ o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 <9'& o,. ;r-._ 7 ,f~ ,f'\.? ,fv ;r-._"i?. ,f'S o~ '<)o '-</ ~ '7 ~ "~ '7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "; 7 "''8 "',::, Y-,., "'':2 "'':2 "'';?. ";.. ,.. ~ ,.. ':2 ~ o '7 -~ ~ r ~ '& / ~ EDT Reach NOTE: The EDT habitat model determines the relative potential of a reach for salmon performance (a combination of productivity, abundance, and life history diversity) based on habitat conditions in the stream reach and the exposure of Chinook life stages to those habitat conditions. Similar habitat conditions may therefore result in different potentials due to differences in Chinook exposure. In addition, the salmon performance potential that exists in a reach may be due to upstream conditions (i.e. hydrologic conditions or sources of sediments and LWD) as well as conditions in the reach. For more information about habitat conditions, key life stages, and technical recommendations, please see the description of each subarea in the Conservation Strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 22 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy for the North Lake Washington (NLW) Chinook Population The Bear Creek subarea covers approximately 32,100 acres or 50 square miles. The subarea is located in southern Snohomish County and northern King County and is composed of three main lowland stream tributaries: Bear Creek, Cottage Lake Creek, and Evans Creek. Bear Creek empties into the Sammamish River in the City of Redmond. Both Bear Creek and Cottage Lake Creek provide excellent spawning and rearing habitat for chi nook, coho, sockeye, and kokanee salmon and steelhead trout. Little Bear Creek is currently the least developed of the three main lowland tributaries to the Sammamish River (the other two are North and Swamp Creeks), and it has the least degraded habitat. As of 2001, between 25% and 40% of the North and Swamp Creek subareas were covered with impervious surface, and these sub-areas are located almost entirely within the urban growth area (2% of North Creek is outside the UGA). Little Bear Creek supports runs of chi'nook, sockeye, kokanee, and coho salmon. The basin encompasses a drainage area of approximately 15 square miles, begins in Snohomish County, flows southward into King County, and empties into the Sammamish River. Approximately 80 percent of the Little Bear Creek subarea is located within Snohomish County. Anadromous salmon and trout access almost all of this system, though there are some significant passage barriers to adults at low-flow periods and to juveniles during high flows. Results of Technical Analyses VSP Status and Relative Risk for North Lake Washington Chinook For the WRIA 8 North Lake Washington Chinook population, the assessment of the VSP population parameters can be summarized as follows: • Productivity: Reduced by habitat degradation. Currently, Chinook productivity is focused in the Bear Creek system (majority is in the Cottage Lake Creek tributary, followed by the Bear Creek mainstem ). • Diversity: Historically, it is likely that the variability in diversity within this population was low due to similar environmental regimes in the tributary sub- basins connected to the Sammamish River. It is likely that there were at least two different life-history trajectories for juvenile rearing: an early fry-migrant trajectory and a later smolt-migrant trajectory. The small-migrant life history is dominant in years of low flow and high flows. Hatchery strays are assumed to contribute to the natural spawning population. According to the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG, 2004 ), hatchery contribution rates higher than 1- 5 percent would result in a high risk to naturally spawning Chinook from a Segregated Hatchery Program. However, it should be noted that the Co- Managers, in response to the HSRG's recommendations, have recommended that the Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program should be switched from a Segregated to an Integrated Hatchery Program (Lakey, 2004). If an integrated hatchery program is pursued, hatchery contribution rates to natural spawning could be as high as 30 percent with a low risk to the naturally spawning population. • Spatial Structure: The spatial distribution among the core and satellite areas has narrowed considerably compared to historic conditions. Approximately 90% of the population currently resides in Bear Creek; historically it is likely that the NLW Chinook population was distributed fairly evenly among Bear, North, and Little February 25, 2005 Page 23 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Bear Creeks. The historic contribution of Kelsey Creek and other Lake Washington tributaries used by the population is unknown. Abundance: As shown in Chapter 3, the population abundance is at a very low level, driven primarily by reductions in habitat productivity and contraction of the spatial distribution. Hatchery strays are assumed to contribute to the current observed abundance. Consistently low abundance suggests that the North Lake Washington population is at risk from depensatory (Allee) effects, and therefore at risk of extinction. At this time none of the four VSP attributes is sufficient to support viability of the population. Rehabilitation of all population attributes will be necessary to rehabilitate the population. The Technical Committee summarizes the relative risk posed to each of the four population attributes as follows: • Productivity: High • Diversity: Moderate to High depending on the level of hatchery contribution to total spawners (contribution rates higher than 1-5% would result in high risk to the population) • Spatial Structure: High • Abundance: High The Technical Committee suggests the following hypotheses based on this assessment of population attributes and relative risk: • All population attributes require rehabilitation if the NLW Chinook population is to be viable. • Of the four population attributes, the greatest extinction risk comes from reduction in habitat productivity and the severe contraction of the population distribution. • Efforts to restore habitat productivity should include the Sammamish River and Lake Washington as well as the North Lake Washington tributaries. • Hatchery influences pose a significant risk to the genetic diversity of the population. Watershed Evaluation Framework for North Lake Washington Following the assessment of Chinook salmon population attributes, the Technical Committee stratified subareas within each of the three WRIA 8 Chinook populations based on the degree of fish use and the level of watershed function. Using Chinook salmon demographic information to assess the relative abundance within subareas and the frequency that Chinook uses subareas, the NLW subareas can be organized as follows: • Core areas of high Chinook abundance and frequent use -Upper Bear (Reaches 8-14), Lower Bear (Reaches 1-7), and Cottage Lake Creek (Reaches 1-5). • Satellite areas of moderate Chinook abundance and moderately frequent use - Evans (Reaches 1-7), Upper North, Lower North, Upper Swamp, Lower Swamp, Little Bear (Reaches 1-12), and Kelsey Creeks • Migratory areas -Sammamish River, Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary. February 25, 2005 Page 24 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 • Episodic areas with infrequent Chinook use -McAleer Creek, Juanita Creek, Thornton Creek, May Creek, Coal Creek. The relative watershed function of these subareas can then be assessed by rating factors that sustain function and factors that limit function: • Factors sustaining watershed function: wetland area, forest cover, riparian cover, and gradient less than 2%. • Factors limiting watershed function: Impervious surface, flow volume, road crossings, gradient >4%. Following an assessment of watershed function factors listed above, the subareas that contribute to the North Lake Washington Chinook population can be organized as follows: • High Function -Bear Creek Upper, Bear Creek Cottage Lake Creek. • Moderate Function -Bear Creek Evans, Bear Creek Lower, Little Bear Creek, North Creek, May Creek. • Low Function -Swamp Creek Upper, Swamp Creek Lower, Kelsey Creek, McAleer Creek, Juanita Creek, Thornton Creek, Sammamish Valley Upper, Sammamish Valley Lower, Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary. By combining the fish use and watershed function ratings, the Technical Committee has stratified the subareas that contribute to the NLW Chinook population as follows: • Tier 1 -Bear Creek Upper, Bear Creek Cottage Lake Creek, Bear Creek Lower, Migratory and Rearing Areas (Sammamish River, Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary). • Tier 2 -Bear Creek Evans, Upper North Creek, Lower North Creek, Little Bear Creek, Kelsey Creek. • Tier 3 -McAleer Creek, Juanita Creek, Thornton Creek, Swamp Creek Upper, Swamp Creek Lower. Kelsey Creek is included as a Tier 2 subarea at this time due to the abundance and frequency of Chinook use. More research is needed to understand the genetic origin of the Chinook that use Kelsey Creek and why these fish continue to use the system despite the relatively low level of watershed function Due to these outstanding questions, restoration and protection actions in the Kelsey Creek subarea should be considered experimental. The Technical Committee suggests the following hypotheses based on the Watershed Evaluation Framework: • Protection and restoration actions will be necessary in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas to rehabilitate NLW Chinook productivity, diversity, spatial distribution, and abundance. • Watershed function can be improved by improving watershed conditions that limit function (i.e. total impervious area and road crossings) and enhancing factors that sustain function (i.e. total forest cover and riparian forest cover). February 25, 2005 Page 25 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 • Actions in areas of higher watershed function should focus on protecting habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes; actions in areas of moderate or low watershed function will require restoration of key habitat attributes and habitat- forming processes. • Actions in the Tier 3 subareas should focus on protecting and enhancing water quality and hydrologic integrity. EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for North Lake Washington Chinook The results of the EDT diagnosis for each subarea, and the protection and restoration hypotheses developed based on the application of VSP, the Watershed Evaluation Framework, and EDT are summarized in the following section. An appendix with a description of the EDT stream reaches is also included at the end of this document (C- 6). Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the NLW Chinook Tier 1 Subareas The Tier 1 subareas include Upper Bear (EDT Reaches 8-14), Lower Bear (EDT Reaches 1-7) and Cottage Lake Creek (EDT Reaches 1-5). All three of these subareas are core areas for Chinook use. Cottage Lake Creek and Upper Bear Creek have relatively high levels of watershed function resulting from a low impervious surface percentage, few road crossings, and a high level of forest cover and riparian forest. Lower Bear has a moderate level of watershed function, due primarily to increased impervious surface and storm flow volumes, along with reductions in forest cover and riparian cover. Habitat Protection Hypotheses for the NLW Chinook Tier 1 Subareas Recommendations for these subareas focus on protection of the habitat processes and structures that make these areas a significant source of production for the North Lake Washington Chinook population. Using the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that in all three Tier 1 subareas the life stages most affected by existing high-quality habitat conditions are egg incubation, fry colonization and pre- spawning migrants. These critical life stages are sustained by protection of the following habitat attributes: • Water quality (low levels of fine sediments, turbidity and metals, low water temperatures) • Flows (sufficient flows during seasonal low flow periods) • Habitat quantity (pool habitat areas to limit exposure to predators and high flow events) • Habitat attributes that contribute to the creation of pool habitat area and provide cover (riparian function, LWD, channel connectivity). By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully degraded habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for protection. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea (Table 4-7) as well as individual stream reaches (Table 4-8). February 25, 2005 Page 26 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-7: Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 1 Subareas ____ (Upper Bear, L<>'ll.ler Bear, Cottage Lake Creek)_ ___ _ • Headwater areas, wetlands, and sources of groundwater (e.g. seeps and springs) should be protected to maintain hydrologic integrity and a temperature regime that supports Chinook life stages. • Riparian function (including overbank flows, vegetated streambanks, and groundwater interactions) should be protected throughout the basin to protect key Chinook life stages. • Key Chinook life stages are maintained by protecting water quality to prevent adverse impacts from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high temperatures. • The continued implementation of land use policies that protect critical areas (including groundwater sources), forested land cover, and minimize impervious surface will contribute to the protection of critical Chinook life stages. • Adverse impacts from non-point source pollution (particularly road runoff) should be prevented through stormwater best management practices and the minimization of the number and width of roads in the basin. • Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning by establishing instream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrologic continuity. • The impact of surface water and groundwater withdrawals on flow conditions for salmon life stages should be investigated and addressed. • In order to maintain the existing high relative level of watershed function and hydrologic integFity ( especially maintenance of sufficient baseflows ), forest cover, wetland areas, and riparian forest should be maintained and increases in impervious surface and road crossings should be minimized. • Sources of groundwater inflow to Cold Creek should be identified and protected to maintain cold temperatures and hydrologic integrity in Cottage Lake Creek and lower Bear Creek. • Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning by establishing instream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrologic continuity. • Road crossings should be minimized to maintain floodplain connectivity. • Spawning areas in Cottage Lake Creek are the most significant source of productivity and abundance for the North Lake Washington Chinook population and should be protected. • Spawning areas Bear Creek are a significant source of productivity and abundance for the North Lake Washington Chinook population and should be protected. • Opportunities to retrofit existing roadways (especially Avondale Road and SR-520) and commercial/ industrial areas with stormwater treatment BMPs should be ursued. February 25. 2005 Page 27 Tier 1 Subarea Upper Bear Lower Bear Cottage Lake Creek Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-8: Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, Cottage Lake Creek) Reaches are listed in order of Relative Protection Priority Critical Chinook Life Stages for LWD, Riparian Function, and Channel Protection: Connectivity should be protected in the following reaches: Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; 0-Age Active Rearin Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization 14, (tie 13 & 9), (tie 8, 10-12) 2, 7, 6, (tie 3 & 5), (tie 1 & 4) 3, 2, (tie 1 & 4 & 5) • Areas of relatively high-quality habitat forming features (LWD, riparian function, and channel connectivity) providing cover and refuge for critical life stages should be protected and maintained. Table 4-8 lists the reaches in each subarea beginning with reaches that have the relatively most intact habitat conditions. Based on the three analytical tools described above, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that conservation actions based on the basin-wide and reach-specific protection recommendations will maintain habitat conditions that are currently favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that actions based on these recommendations will maintain favorable conditions for these life stages in each of the three Tier 1 subareas (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, and Cottage Lake Creeks) and will ultimately support the existing sources of productivity and life history diversity for the North Lake Washington Chinook population. Habitat Restoration Hypotheses for the NLW Chinook Tier 1 Subareas Although protection of existing high-quality habitat and habitat-forming processes is the primary objective in the Tier 1 subareas, restoration and enhancement of watershed function and instream habitat attributes would contribute to the rehabilitation of NLW Chinook population attributes, particularly the productivity of the population. Based on the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that the life stages most affected by degraded habitat conditions in these reaches are egg incubation, juvenile active rearing (0-age), and fry colonization. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Sediment load (fine sediments) • Channel stability (bed scour, riparian function, LWD) • High flows • Habitat diversity (channel confinement, riparian function, and LWD) • Predation, interactions with non-native fish species, and elevated water temperatures. By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully restored habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for habitat restoration. The restoration potential of reaches in the Tier 1 February 25, 2005 Page 28 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 subareas is shown in Figure 4-6. This potential results from instream habitats, basin- wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea as well as individual stream reaches. These recommendations are summarized in Table 4-9. The recommended changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages will ultimately increase the productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity of the North Lake Washington Chinook population. February 25, 2005 Page 29 C:h,mtP.r 4: C:hinnok C:onsP.rv:ation StrntP.nv for WRIA 8 Figure 4-6: North Lake Washington Chinook Relative Restoration Potential in Tier 1 Sub-Areas (Upper Bear, Lower Bear, and Cottage Creeks) Lower Bear Upper Bear Cottage 0 0.80 ~ 0 0.70 E 0.60 ::, E ·;. "' E 0.50 ::-0.40 "' :;:: C: Q) -0 a. Q) 0.30 0.20 i 0.10 <ii et: 0.00 0" 0'1, 0"" d' 0<::, 0<o 0"' K K K K K K K e,'li e,'li e,'li e? e,'li e,'li e,'li <lj <lj <lj <lj <lj <lj <lj 0'b 0q, """ ~ K K e,'li e,'li <lj <lj "'1, ,: <oe,'li ,0 K <oe,'li ," K <oe,'li ,, <oe,'li K <oe,'li EDT Reach " ~ ":, " <::, 0 e: e: er ef .,:,.'Ii<:$ .,:,.'Ii<:$ .,:,.'Ii<:$ .,:,.'Ii<:$ .,:,.'lie,, c.P c,O c..,O c..,O c,O NOTE: The EDT habitat model determines the relative potential of a reach for salmon performance (a combination of productivity, abundance, and life history diversity) based on habitat conditions in the stream reach and the exposure of Chinook life stages to those habitat conditions. Similar habitat conditions may therefore result in different potentials due to differences in Chinook exposure. In addition, the salmon performance potential that exists in a reach may be due to upstream conditions (i.e. hydrologic conditions or sources of sediments and LWD) as well as conditions in the reach. For more information about habitat conditions, key life stages, and technical recommendations, please see the description of each subarea in the Conservation Strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 30 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-9: Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Restoration Recommendations for ___________ Tier 1 Subareas (Upper Bear,_Lower Bear, Cottc1_9_e Lake Creek) ______ _ Basin-Wide Recommendations: • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from source control best management practices that reduce fine sediment inputs to the system. Additional studies are needed to improve our understanding of the sources of fine sediment in these subareas. • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from riparian restoration to reduce peak water temperatures that favor non-native species and provide future sources of LWD. • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from stormwater management practices that reduce sediment inputs from bed scouring high flows. • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from riparian restoration to provide future sources of LWD that can improve channel stability and contribute to the creation of pool habitat areas with suitable cover. • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from a review of hatchery outplant policies to ensure that predation on wild Chinook is minimized. Reach-Specific Recommendations: • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from the addition of LWD to create pool habitat areas that reduce exposure to predators. • Fry colonization and juvenile active-rearing life stage would benefit from reduction in channel confinement (particularly in Cottage Lake Creek reaches 1 and 2 and the Lower Bear reaches) and the addition of LWD to create pool habitat areas that reduce exposure to predators and high flows. • Egg incubation life stage would benefit from the addition of LWD to create pool habitat areas that trap fine sediments. This recommendation does not address the causes of the sediment problem, and is intended to complement the source control and flow control measures identified as part of the basin-wide hypotheses. Restoration of Migratory and Rearing Areas for NLW Chinook While enhancement of the Tier 1 subareas is important for rehabilitation of the NLW population, restoration of the Sammamish River and Lake Washington would have a significant beneficial impact on key Chinook life stages in Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas. The EDT results provide a relative sense of the restoration potential in the Sammamish River and the NLW tributaries. The restoration potential of the Sammamish River is approximately equal to the combined restoration potential in Bear, North, and Little Bear Creeks, and is therefore a critical element of restoring Chinook in Bear Creek and several of the Tier 2 subareas. In the Sammamish River, the key life stages are juvenile rearing and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Habitat quantity (pool habitat areas with adequate cover), • Habitat diversity (LWD and riparian function) • Water quality (temperatures that limit migration) Restoration of these habitat attributes will benefit juvenile rearing and adult migration in the Sammamish River. Restoration of habitat conditions that support these life stages is intended to increase the productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity of the February 25, 2005 Page 31 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 North Lake Washington Chinook population. Restoration hypotheses for the Sammamish River are summarized in Table 4-10. Although the restoration potential is not as high as the Sammamish River, Lake Washington restoration would also provide significant benefits to NLW Chinook. Based on the EDT habitat modeling effort, juvenile migrants would benefit from actions that reduce predation by cutthroats and other predators. Predation on juvenile Chinook appears to be driven primarily by conditions that limit cover for Chinook and increase exposure to predators, such as bank hardening, steep slopes, and a lack of LWD and shoreline vegetation. Restoration actions for Lake Washington are summarized in Table 4-10. Table 4-10: Restoration Recommendations for NLW Migratory and Rearing Areas Sammamish River: • Restore floodplain connections and promote meandering as a way to increase connections with cool groundwater sources. Re-meandering and levee setbacks should focus on Sammamish River reaches 3-6. Higher priority should be placed on upstream re-meandering projects so that the temperature benefits of cool groundwater can impact multiple downstream reaches of the Sammamish River. • Restoration in Sammamish River reaches 1 and 2 should focus on the addition of backwaters pool areas, restoration of side channels, and the use of LWD as cover. • Big LWD and jams may be necessary to restore functions and processes. Set back levees, need bigger scale projects than current projects. • Restore riparian vegetation along the mainstem Sammamish and the Sammamish River tributaries. Restoration of tributaries is especially important as a means of cooling sources of inflow to the mainstem river. • Raise the overall water level in the river channel. This can be achieved by inducing more groundwater flow, adding LWD, and increasing habitat complexity in the river channel. • The impact of surface water and groundwater withdrawals on flow conditions for salmon life stages and the creation and maintenance of habitat structures should be investigated and addressed. • Further investigations are needed into the potential for chemical contamination near the mouth of the Sammamish River at the site of the former cement plant near mouth. Lake Washington: • Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with gentle slopes designed to maximize littoral areas with a depth of less than 1 meter. • Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas. Historically these small creeks had sandy deltas at the creek mouth and were associated with wetland complexes. Restoration efforts should start at the mouth of the Sammamish River, with other high potential reaches around Union Bay and the mouths of Kelsey and May Creeks. • Protect and restore water quality in small tributaries. • Juvenile Chinook in the NLW population are less shoreline-oriented than juveniles from the Cedar River. More information is needed about the trajectories of NLW juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington, particularly when they move offshore. • Shoreline processes of Lake Washington have been changed by the regulated maximum one foot rise and fall of the lake. Therefore, the removal of bank February 25, 2005 Page 32 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 hardening structures may not be sufficient to create sandy beaches and augmentation of sediment supplies may be necessary. • The outmigration of juvenile Chinook would benefit from improved shoreline connectivity. The use of mesh dock surfaces and/or community docks would reduce the severity of predation on juvenile Chinook. • Habitat in the smaller Lake Washington tributaries (Tier 3 streams such as Thornton, McAleer, and Lyon) should be restored for coho so that production of cutthroat trout which prey on juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington is reduced. • Consider increases in fishing limits for cutthroat trout. Ship Canal, Ballard Locks, Estuary, and Nearshore: See migratory and rearing recommendations for Cedar River Chinook in Table 4-4. Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses in the NLW Chinook Tier 2 Subareas The NLW Tier 2 subareas include Evans, North, Little Bear, and Kelsey Creeks. Historically, the NLW Chinook spawning was distributed fairly evenly among these areas and the Bear Creek system. Restoration of these subareas is necessary to increase the spatial distribution and productivity of the NLW Chinook population. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that restoration and enhancement of habitat conditions in these subareas will reduce the risk of extinction that results from having the population centered in one spawning area (Bear Creek). In addition, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that increased productivity of the Tier 2 areas will also increase the viability of the overall population. The Evans, North, and Little Bear systems all had moderate relative watershed impact ratings, with impacts primarily from impervious area and flow volume increases. Watershed function in these subareas is moderate, although the Evans subarea was rated high due to relatively intact wetland, forest, and riparian areas. The Kelsey Creek subarea has relatively high watershed impacts limiting watershed function, primarily due to impervious area, flow volume increases, and relatively high road crossings. Mitigative factors in the Kelsey system are rated moderate, and include relatively high levels of wetland area in lower Kelsey. Forest and riparian cover are rated low in both upper and lower Kelsey Creek. Habitat Protection Hypotheses for the NLW Chinook Tier 2 Subareas Recommendations for these Tier 2 subareas focus on protection of intact habitat processes and structures. Using the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that in all subareas the Chinook life stages most affected by existing high- quality habitat conditions are egg incubation, fry colonization and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are sustained by protection of the following habitat attributes: • Water quality (low levels of fine sediments, turbidity and metals, low water temperatures) • Flows (sufficient flows during seasonal low flow periods) • Habitat quantity (pool habitat areas to limit exposure to predators and high flow events) • Habitat attributes that contribute to the creation of pool habitat area and provide cover (riparian function, LWD, channel connectivity). February 25, 2005 Page 33 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Degradation of these habitat attributes would reduce the potential of these habitats to support Chinook populations. The Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare protection recommendations for the entire subarea (Table 4-11) as well as individual stream reaches (Table 4-12). Table 4-11: Basin-Wide Protection Recommendations for Tier 2 Subareas (Evans, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey Creeks) ----~-- • Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts to key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high temperatures. Adverse impacts from road runoff should be prevented. • Forest cover and wetlands should pe protected throughout each of the subareas to maintain watershed function and hydrologic integrity (especially maintenance of sufficient baseflows), and protect water quality. • Road crossings should be minimized to maintain floodplain connectivity • Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning by establishing instream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrologic continuity. Table 4-12: NLW Chinook Tier 2 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations (Evans, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey Creeks) Reaches are listed in order of Relative Protection Priority Tier 1 Subarea: Evans Little Bear Upper North Lower North Kelsey Critical Chinook Life Stages for Protection: Pre-Spawning Migrant, F Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant, Fr Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant, Fry Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant, 0- age active rearing; Fry Colonization Pre-Spawning Migrant, Fry Colonization LWD, Riparian Function, and Channel Connectivity should be protected in the following reaches: 1; 6-7 (tie); 2-4 (tie); 5 10-11 (tie); 3; 4; 7-8 (tie); 2 & 5 (tie); 6; 1 10; 9; 6; 8; 7; 12; 11 1; 5;4; 3; 2 Kelsey 3; Valley 7; Goff 1, Kelsey 4, and West Trib 4-5 (tie); Kelsey 8; Valley 1; West Trib 1; Kelsey 1 (these reaches represent the top 10 in the Kelsey system; remaining reaches are not listed due to limited space) When the NLW Tier 2 systems are compared, the reaches with the most relatively intact habitat (based on LWD, riparian function, and channel connectivity) are as follows: 1. North 10 2. North 1 and 9 (tie); 3. North 6; 4. Kelsey 3; 5. Little Bear 10 and 11; North 8; Valley 7 February 25, 2005 Page 34 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy tor WRIA 8 Habitat Restoration Hypotheses for the NLW Chinook Tier 2 Subareas While restoration of the Tier 1 and migratory areas have a higher relative potential to improve the viability of the NLW population, restoration in the Tier 2 tributaries is necessary to enhance the productivity of the population and ensure that high-quality habitat is available to the population in the event of natural environmental disturbances in the Bear Creek spawning areas. As might be expected from the watershed evaluation factors described above, these systems are primarily impacted by habitat changes associated with urban development. In these tributary systems, the life stages most affected by degraded habitat conditions are egg incubation, fry colonization, and pre- spawning holding. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Egg incubation -sediment load, bed scour, flows • Fry colonization -flows, _riparian cover, channel connectivity, LWD, and bed scour • Pre-spawn holding -riparian cover, channel connectivity, LWD, pool habitats, flows The restoration potential of reaches in these subareas is shown in Figure 4-7 below. February 25, 2005 Page 35 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0.9 Evans ~OB ~ 0.7 ioB -lOB ~ OA 0 io~ ~ £ 0.2 ~ & 0.1 t 0.0 i ~ ... I I m m < < "' "' ~ ~ ~ '?. w w Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-7: NLW Chinook Tier 2 Relative Restoration Potential I I I Lower North I I I Upper North I I Little Bear Kelsev I I I 1 .•. 1 I I I I I I I ,l, .. 111 I I 111 I I I I I I 111 .:1 I I •.•. • 1 ;,: ;,: < G) m m "-0 "" "" " " m m '< 0 '< '< CT I 0 "' :1 m "' m "' "' ~ < 0. ~ "-:, " "' '< ro Q ;i m m z z z < < 0 0 0 "' "' " " " ~ ~ CT CT CT w w " ,. co in '"' cii .. ~ C u, w 0 5 Q "' "' w ~ w '< "1l 0 "" ~ "1l ~ .:0: U) r r r r ;,: < CD CD CD CD "' 'l: "' m "' "' "" ~ ~ ~ ~ "' '< 3 " G) u, "1l 0 " " ~ C co ~ cf 0 ~ cf "' 0 0 ~ ~ CT "' I 0 "' Q "' :, G) 0. '< " 0 :, u, "' " 0 u, ;;; " "' ~ ul ~ m Q EDT Reach NOTE: The EDT habitat model determines the relative potential of a reach for salmon performance (a combination of productivity, abundance, and life history diversity) based on habitat conditions in the stream reach and the exposure of Chinook life stages to those habitat conditions. Similar habitat conditions may therefore result in different potentials due to differences in Chinook .exposure. In addition, the salmon performance potential that exists in a reach may be due to upstream conditions (i.e. hydrologic conditions or sources of sediments and LWD) as well as conditions in the reach. For more information about habitat conditions, key life stages, and technical recommendations, please see the description of each subarea in the Conservation Strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 36 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy for Issaquah Creek Chinook The Issaquah Creek subarea encompasses approximately 61 square miles of King County. The creek's headwaters flow from the steep slopes of Cougar, Squak, Tiger, and Taylor mountains into Lake Sammamish. The subarea includes Issaquah Creek and its tributaries: Holder Creek, Carey Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, and McDonald Creek. It also includes the north and east forks of Issaquah Creek and Tibbets Creek. (Tibbets Creek is not actually a tributary to Issaquah Creek, but it shares a common floodplain with the mainstem during large flood events.) The Issaquah Creek subarea supports chinook, coho, and kokanee salmon and steelhead trout. It may also support bull trout. The middle and upper sections of Issaquah Creek have exceptional fish habitat; Carey Creek and Holder Creek, in particular, provide excellent habitat for salmon. The Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, which is managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, currently produces Chinook and coho salmon, as well as Lake Washington steelhead trout. All fish not needed for production are allowed to spawn in Issaquah Creek. In 2000, the hatchery began mass-marking all Chinook and coho juveniles leaving the hatchery as a means of distinguishing returning hatchery adults from naturally produced fish. Results of Technical Analyses VSP Status and Relative Risk for Issaquah Creek Chinook As described in the VSP Framework (Appendix C), the application of VSP guidance to a population that is largely driven by hatchery operations is problematic. While natural spawning does occur in the Issaquah basin, the majority of this is from hatchery fish passed above the Issaquah Hatchery weir, along with some natural-origin adults that are likely the first-generation progeny of hatchery Chinook. In light of recent (2003) Chinook spawner surveys showing a high hatchery contribution rate to the spawning grounds, hatchery-origin fish (from Issaquah and other Puget Sound hatcheries) are considered to pose a risk to the viability of the Cedar and North Lake Washington independent Chinook populations. As described in Chapter 3, additional data is needed regarding stray rates and the impact of straying on genetic diversity in WRIA 8. Additional genetic analyses are being conducted to assess the amount of genetic diversity that currently exists in WRIA 8, and the genetic similarity to hatchery Chinook, and a report is due in February 2005. This information will be shared with the Puget Sound PSTRT to enhance the analytical basis for independent population determinations in WRIA 8. According to the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG, 2004 ), hatchery contribution rates higher than 1-5 percent would result in a high risk to naturally spawning Chinook from a Segregated Hatchery Program. However, it should be noted that the Co-Managers, in response to the HSRG's recommendations, have recommended that the Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program should be switched from a Segregated to an Integrated Hatchery Program (Lakey, 2004 ). If an integrated hatchery program is pursued, hatchery contribution rates to natural spawning could be as high as 30 percent with a low risk to the naturally spawning population. Watershed Evaluation Framework for Issaquah Creek Using Chinook salmon demographic information to assess the relative abundance within subareas and the frequency that subareas are used by Chinook, the Issaquah subareas can be organized as follows (please note that for the Issaquah population this demographic information is heavily influenced by hatchery operations): • Core areas of high Chinook abundance and frequent use (all subareas with observed Chinook use were included as core areas in order to be conservative -Issaquah abundance and frequency of abundance is driven by hatchery management decisions and does not necessarily reflect Chinook habitat preference): Upper Issaquah (Carey February 25, 2005 Page 37 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 and Holder), Middle Issaquah (reaches 11-12), Lower Issaquah (reaches 1-10), Fifteenmile Creek, East Fork Issaquah, North Fork Issaquah • Satellite areas of moderate Chinook abundance and moderately frequent use -none. • Migratory areas -Lakes Sammamish, Washington, and Union, Sammamish River, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary. • Episodic areas of low Chinook abundance and infrequent use -McDonald Creek, Tibbetts Creek. The relative watershed function of these subareas can then be assessed by rating factors that sustain function and factors that limit function: • Factors sustaining watershed function -Wetland area, forest cover, riparian cover, gradient less than 2%. • Factors limiting watershed function -Impervious surface, flow volume, road crossings, gradient greater than 4%. Following an assessment of watershed function factors listed above, the subareas that contribute to the Issaquah Chinook population can be organized as follows: • High Function -Carey/Holder Creeks (Upper Issaquah), Middle Issaquah, Fifteenmile, North Fork • Moderate Function -Lower Issaquah, East Fork, McDonald, Tibbetts • Low Function -Migratory areas (Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Nearshore and Estuary). By combining the fish use and watershed function ratings, the Technical Committee has stratified the subareas that contribute to the Issaquah population as follows: • Tier 1 -Carey/Holder Creeks (Upper Issaquah), Middle Issaquah, Lower Issaquah, Fifteenmile Creek, North Fork, East Fork, Migratory and Rearing Areas (Sammamish River, Lakes Washington and Union, Ship Canal, Nearshore and Estuary). • Tier 2 -None • Tier 3 -McDonald Creek, Tibbetts Creek. The Technical Committee suggests the following hypotheses based on the Watershed Evaluation Framework: • Protection actions will be necessary in Tier 1 sub-basins to maintain favorable habitat conditions that support use by salmonids. • Watershed function can be improved by improving watershed conditions that limit function (especially total impervious surface and the number of road crossings) and protecting factors that sustain function (especially forest cover and riparian forest). • Actions in areas of high watershed function (Carey/Holder and Fifteenmile Creeks, Middle Issaquah, and North Fork Issaquah) should focus on protecting habitat attributes and habitat-forming processes to prevent any reduction in relative watershed function; actions in areas of moderate watershed function should focus on enhancement of habitat-forming processes and key habitat attributes. • Actions in the Tier 3 subareas should focus on protecting and enhancing water quality and hydrologic integrity. February 25, 2005 Page 38 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 EDT Habitat Model Results and Recommendations for Issaquah Creek The results of the EDT diagnosis for each subarea, and the protection and restoration hypotheses developed based on the application of VSP, the Watershed Evaluation Framework, and EDT are summarized in the following section. An appendix with a description of the EDT stream reaches is also included at the end of this document (C-6). Habitat Protection and Restoration Hypotheses for the Issaquah Chinook Tier 1 Subareas The Tier 1 subareas include Carey/Holder and Fifteenmile Creeks, Lower (reaches 1-10) and Middle (reaches 11-12) Issaquah Creek, and the North and East Forks of Issaquah Creek. Each of these subareas is considered a core area, but there are differences in the relative level of watershed function. The moderate function subareas (Lower Issaquah and East Fork) have relatively high impacts from increases in impervious surface and relatively moderate impacts from increased stormflow volumes. For both the moderate and high function subareas, forest cover and riparian forest cover are relatively intact and should be maintained to support watershed function. Habitat Protection Hypotheses for the Issaquah Chinook Tier 1 Subareas Recommendations for the Tier 1 subareas focus on protection of the habitat processes and structures that make these areas a significant source of production for the Issaquah population. Using the EDT habitat model, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that the life stages most affected by existing high-quality habitat conditions in the Tier 1 subareas are egg incubation, fry colonization and pre-spawning migrants. These critical life stages are sustained by protection of the following habitat attributes: • Water quality (low levels of fine sediments, turbidity and metals, low water temperatures) • Flows (sufficient flows during seasonal low flow periods) • Habitat quantity (pool habitat areas to limit exposure to predators and high flow events) • Habitat attributes that contribute to the creation of pool habitat area and provide cover (riparian function, LWD, channel connectivity). By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully degraded habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for protection. The protection potential of reaches in the Tier 1 subareas is shown in Figure 4-9 .. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea (Table 4-13) as well as individual stream reaches (Table 4-14. Table 4-13 Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Protection Recommendations ________ _____________ _ ____ for Issaquah Creek Tier 1Subareas --------·--_________ _ Basin-Wide Protection Hypotheses: • Headwater areas, wetlands, and sources of groundwater (e.g. seeps and springs) should be protected to maintain hydrologic integrity and a temperature regime that supports Chinook life stages. • Key Chinook life stages are maintained by protecting water quality to prevent adverse impacts from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high temperatures. • The continued implementation of land use policies that protect critical areas (including groundwater sources), forested land cover, and minimize impervious February 25, 2005 Page 39 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 surface will contribute to the protection of critical Chinook life stages. • Adverse impacts from road runoff should be prevented through stormwater best management practices and the minimization of the number and width of roads in the basin. Opportunities to retrofit existing roadways with stormwater treatment BMPs should be pursued. • Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning by establishing instream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrologic continuity. Flows in the east and north forks should be maintained and improved to avoid stranding of Chinook. • In order to maintain the existing high relative level of watershed function and hydrologic integrity (especially maintenance of sufficient baseflows), forest cover, wetland areas, and riparian forest should be maintained and increases in impervious surface and road crossings should be minimized. • Road crossings should be minimized to maintain floodplain connectivity. • Riparian function (including overbank flows, vegetated streambanks, and groundwater interactions) should be protected throughout the basin to protect key Chinook life stages. • Sources of groundwater should be identified and protected to maintain cold temperatures and hydrologic integrity. Carey and Holder creeks are believed to be important cold water sources and should be protected. Table 4-14: Issaquah Creek Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations Reaches are listed in order of Relative Protection Priority Tier 1 Subarea: Carey/Holder Middle Issaquah Lower Issaquah Fifteen mile North Fork East Fork Critical Chinook Life LWO, Riparian Function, and Channel Stages for Protection: Connectivity should be protected in the following reaches: Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Pre-Spawning Migrant; Fry Colonization; Egg Incubation Holder 2; Carey 4; Holder 3; (tie Carey 1-3 & Holder 1) 11; 12 (tie 7 & 9), (tie 1-2), (tie 6, 8, & 1 O); (tie 3-5) 2; 1 1; 3; 2 3;2 and 1 Reach-Level Protection Hypotheses (based on Table 4-14): • Habitat forming features (LWD, riparian function, and channel connectivity) that provide cover and refuge for critical life stages should be protected and maintained, starting with February 25, 2005 Page 40 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Carey Creek (especially reach 4), Holder Creek (especially reach 2), EF Issaquah reach 2, and Fifteenmile Creek reach 2. • LWD in reaches 1 and 2 should be maintained -restoration efforts in the state park reaches should proceed cautiously to avoid adverse impacts to existing habitat. Protection of habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale is intended to maintain habitat conditions that are currently favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that maintaining favorable conditions for these life stages will ultimately support the existing sources of productivity and life history diversity for the Issaquah Chinook population. Issaquah Tier 1 Restoration Hypotheses The life stages most affected by degraded habitat conditions in these reaches are egg incubation, pre-spawning holding and fry colonization. These critical life stages are limited by degradation of the following habitat attributes: • Habitat quantity (pool habitat areas) and quality (riparian function, LWD, and channel confinement) • Channel stability (bed scour, riparian function, LWD) • Sediment load (fine sediments) • High and low flows. By comparing the survival of Chinook life stages under existing conditions and fully restored habitat conditions, the EDT habitat model 'diagnoses' the potential of stream reaches for habitat restoration. The restoration potential of reaches in the Tier 1 subareas is shown in Figure 4-8. This potential results from instream habitats, basin-wide conditions that create and maintain that habitat, and Chinook use of habitat in the reach. For this reason the Technical Committee has used the watershed evaluation and EDT to prepare technical recommendations for the entire subarea as well as individual stream reaches. These recommendations are summarized in Table 4-15. The recommended changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages will ultimately increase the productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity of the Issaquah Chinook population. Table 4-15: Basin-Wide and Reach-Specific Restoration Recommendations ··---------·---------···· for lssaguah _Creek Tier 1 _Subareas _________ ···-..... _____ _ Basin-Wide Restoration Hypotheses: • Restore riparian vegetation to provide sources of LWD that can contribute to the creation of pool habitat. • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from source control best management practices that reduce fine sediment inputs to the system. • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from stormwater management practices that reduce sediment inputs from bed scouring high flows. • Egg incubation and fry colonization life stages would benefit from riparian restoration to provide future sources of LWD that can improve channel stability and contribute to the creation of pool habitat areas with suitable cover. • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from riparian restoration to reduce peak water temperatures that favor non-native species. • Restoration of seasonal low flows would support the pre-spawning holding life stage in Issaquah Creek and the North and East Forks of Issaquah Creek. February 25, 2005 Page 41 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from a review of hatchery outplant policies to ensure that predation on wild Chinook is minimized. Reach-Level Restoration Hypothesis: • Channel confinement has reduced floodplain connectivity and reduced the amount of pools and small cobbles. Reach-level restoration actions should focus on setback or removal of dikes and levees, the addition of LWD to create pools, and planting riparian vegetation. • Fry colonization life stage would benefit from the addition of LWD to create pool habitat areas that reduce exposure to predators. • Egg incubation life stage would benefit from the addition of LWD to create pool habitat areas that trap fine sediments. This recommendation does not address the causes of the sediment problem, and is intended to complement the source control and flow control measures identified as part of the basin-wide hypotheses. • Restoration in the State Park reaches (1 and 2) should proceed cautiously to avoid adverse impacts to existing habitat. These changes to habitat attributes at the reach and basin scale are intended to create habitat conditions more favorable to critical Chinook life stages. The Technical Committee hypothesizes that improved conditions for these life stages will ultimately increase the productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity of the Issaquah Chinook population. Issaquah Chinook Tier 1 Migratory and Rearing Areas Juvenile Chinook in the Issaquah system out-migrate through Lake Sammamish and the Sammamish River to Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, and the WRIA 8 nearshore. Restoration of each of these areas would benefit Issaquah Chinook, but the greatest restoration potential exists in Lake Sammamish, particularly in areas adjacent to the mouth of Issaquah Creek. Shoreline areas at the head of the Sammamish River in and around Marymoor Park have the next highest restoration potential within Lake Sammamish. Based on the EDT habitat modeling effort, it is hypothesized that juvenile migrants would benefit from actions that reduce predation and the efficiency of predator species such as cutthroat and residualized coho. The abundance and efficiency of predation appears to be driven primarily by conditions that limit cover for Chinook and increase exposure to predators, such as bank hardening, steep slopes, and a lack of LWD and shoreline vegetation. Restoration actions for Lake Sammamish are summarized in Table 4-16. Restoration actions for other migratory subareas used by Issaquah Chinook are cov.ered in the NLW and Cedar River Chinook recommendations (Table 4-10). Although the Lake Sammamish shoreline is highly developed, the remaining areas with habitat characteristics likely to reduce predator abundance and efficiency (sandy shallow-water habitat, overhanging vegetation, LWD) should be protected and maintained. February 25, 2005 Page 42 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Table 4-16: Restoration Recommendations for Issaquah Migratory and Rearing Areas Lake Sammamish: • Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with gentle slopes designed to maximize littoral areas with a depth of less than 1 meter. The greatest restoration potential exists at the mouth of Issaquah Creek, followed by the head of the Sammamish River • Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas. Historically these small creeks had sandy deltas at the creek mouth and were associated with wetland complexes. Protect and restore water quality in small tributaries. • Juvenile Chinook in the NLW population are less shoreline-oriented than juveniles from the Cedar River. More information is-needed about the trajectories of NLW juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington. • The outmigration of juvenile Chinook would benefit from improved shoreline connectivity. The use of mesh dock surfaces and/or community docks would reduce the severity of predation on juvenile Chinook. • Habitat in the smaller Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish tributaries (Tier 3 streams such as, but not limited to, Laughing Jacobs, Tibbetts, and Ebright Creeks) should be restored for coho so that production of cutthroat trout which prey on juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington is reduced. • Consider increases in fishing limits for cutthroat trout. Lake Washington, Sammamish River, Ship Canal, Ballard Locks, and Nearshore !Estuary: See Table 4-10 NLW Chinook Recommendations February 25, 2005 Page 43 .~ 1.2 I -! C 2 0 a. C ' O 0.8 ~ ., cu 0 06 -1----- -! ,.,, ! Q) i ~ 0.4 ll: --- > I :;:: 02 l cu I -I I ~ 0' -- "' "' w w ru ru D D C C ru ru '1 CY " "' w ru D C ru CY "' "' ri $ Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-8: Issaquah Chinook Relative Restoration Potential -• "' "' "' "' w w w ~ ru ru ru ru D D D D C C C C ru ru ru ru CY CY CY CY "' I .:., 0, ru er CY 0 <' ro ~ o· 0 i ' ---I ' i I I I I -~--· ------. ~·-----•----· I I I I I I I • • • • • • • ----1--·--1----1-1-1-1-----1 • • • • • • • 1--, -I --1 r-r---r-. · 1 : I . . . . --1_ -~ __ _!I -1. -1 _ -------I ---"' "' ~ w ru ru "' "' r C w w ~ TI ru ru TI .0 D D .0 ro ro C C C C " " ru ru CY '?: "' 0 00 ru z z CY '?: -n .,, '. N "' "' w w ru ru D .0 C C 00 ru CY CY EDT Reach m s: r -n a. 0 ~ "' m ro w -n " ru ~ C TI TI ~ D "' "' C w ru ru '§: CY D " ~ C "' '§: " "" ru Q CY Q N ri $ r r 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ s: I n 0 0 ii 0 ~ 0 ru ii s: 1i I 0 ii ~ i 0 ru " ~ -----' s: 1i 0 00 ~ C TI TI ~ 0 ru " ~ NOTE: The EDT habitat model determines the relative potential of a reach for salmon performance (a combination of productivity, abundance, and life history diversity) based on habitat conditions in the stream reach and the exposure of Chinook life stages to those habitat conditions. Similar habitat conditions may therefore result in different potentials due to differences in Chinook exposure. In addition, the salmon performance potential that exists in a reach may be due to upstream conditions (i.e. hydrologic conditions or sources of sediments and LWD) as well as conditions in the reach. For more information about habitat conditions, key life stages, and technical recommendations, please see the description of each subarea in the Conservation Strategy. February 25, 2005 Page 44 r Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Comparing Areas Used by Multiple Populations While this Conservation Strategy calls for habitat conservation actions to benefit each of the three WRIA 8 Chinook populations, the EDT diagnosis can be used to describe the relative potential of migratory and rearing areas that are used by multiple populations. While the impacts of specific actions are best evaluated as part of the Treatment phase of EDT, the geographic potential of these subareas can be used as guidance to help conservation planners target restoration actions. Actions in each of these migratory and rearing areas are necessary to create conditions that support population viability. However, the larger relative restoration potential of Cedar River Chinook (and greater uncertainties about modeling Chinook survival in the marine areas) results in greater weight being placed on restoration in Lake Washington. Lake Washington can be further sub-divided based on Chinook trajectories through the lake to provide a relative sense of where the greatest restoration potential exists in the Lake (Figure 4-9 and 4-10). This information is not intended to imply that conservation actions are only required in Lake Washington. Conservation .actions are necessary in each of these subareas as different Chinook populations use them, and each area plays a unique role in supporting viability of WRIA 8 Chinook populations Conservation planners may also want to consider actions in migratory areas that benefit multiple populations. For examples, actions in the Ship Canal or in Union Bay would theoretically benefit all three populations, actions in the Sammamish River or the north end of Lake Washington would benefit two populations, and actions in the south end of Lake Washington would benefit one population. The Treatment phase of EDT (scheduled for completion in the fall of 2005) will provide conservation planners with a better understanding of the potential relative impacts of proposed actions, and it is anticipated that the impact of actions in the migratory areas benefiting multiple populations will be a central component of this analysis. Specific recommendations for these subareas are discussed as part of the restoration recommendations for the Cedar, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah populations. ... ,: 0 0 E -~ ::, 0 E -·;. ti) "' 0 '" .s 0:: ~ '" > "' :;:; :;:; .!!! ,: '" Q) -0:: 0 a. Figure 4-9: Relative Restoration Potential of Migratory and Rearing Areas 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0. 1 0 Marine Areas Ship Canal Lake Wa Samm R. Sub-Area . l . ----------------1 Lake Samm February 25, 2005 Page 45 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-10. Lake Washington Segmentation and Prioritization Areas. For detailed description of lake 'reaches', please see Appendix C-4. 2 O 2 4 Miles " + .1rea piv1itil:at,~n LJ1 LJ2 CJ3 D< o, l3§illJ 8 IIIIIIIF February 25, 2005 Page 46 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Potential WRIA 8 Habitat and Hatchery Scenarios: Implications of Alternative Population Structures for Chinook Conservation and Recovery in WRIA 8 As noted in Chapters 3 and 4, there is uncertainty regarding Chinook population structure in WRIA 8. The PSTRT has identified Cedar River Chinook and Sammamish River Chinook as two independent populations, with the Sammamish River population including North Lake Washington and Issaquah Creek sub-populations. In light of uncertainties about the relationship between North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook, the WR/A 8 Technical Committee decided to develop a Conservation Strategy for three populations (Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah Chinook). This decision was based on the desire to adopt a conservative approach to WRIA 8 Chinook, and this approach errs on the side of caution to protect the habitat diversity that exists in WRIA 8. In response to uncertainties about Chinook population structure, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee has initiated a genetic study with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to analyze juvenile Chinook from the three assumed populations in WRIA 8, plus juveniles from hatcheries known to contribute to adult returns (e.g., University of Washington, Issaquah, Grover's Creek), as well as archived scale and tissue samples from adult spawners. It is expected that this study will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. This information will be reviewed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee and other participating scientists, and shared with the PSTRT for their consideration in evaluating population structure in WRIA 8. Any potential revisions to the basic population structure of WRIA 8 Chinook in response to this genetic analysis would have implications for WRIA S's habitat strategy, as well as hatchery operation decisions by the tribal and state Co-Managers. The purpose of this section is to provide examples of some of these implications so that WRIA 8 is positioned to adapt the Conservation Strategy and proposed conservation actions in response to new information about Chinook population structure in WRIA 8. In discussing potential population scenarios and the implications of these scenarios for habitat conservation and hatchery management, several caveats must be kept in mind: • Population structure decisions are not the purview of the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. The WRIA is providing information to the PSTRT and NOAA Fisheries, who are charged with identifying independent Chinook populations in Puget Sound. • Hatchery management decisions are not the purview of the WRIA 8 Technical Committee, WRIA 8 Steering Committee or the WRIA 8 Forum. Hatchery management decisions are the jurisdiction of the Co-Managers (Treaty Tribes and the State of Washington). • Implications of potential population scenarios for hatchery management were provided to the WRIA 8 Technical Committee by WDFW's liaison to the WRIA 8 salmon conservation planning effort, based on on-going discussions of the Co-Managers and the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG). • Co-Manager decisions about hatchery management in response to the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG) recommendations are currently under discussion and are not final. • The focus of this draft WR/A salmon conservation plan is habitat, as this is the area over which local parties have primary legal authority and responsibility. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee (1998) mission statement notes, however, that this "focus shall not keep the Steering Committee from encouraging appropriate reforms in harvest and hatchery February 25, 2005 Page 47 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 practices, the management of non-native species, and other activities outside of its direct control, which may be necessary for the successful conservation of salmon." • The nested analytical approach that includes the Viable Salmonid Population Framework, Watershed Evaluation, and the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Habitat Model was applied to the three Chinook population scenario. It has not been applied to other potential population scenarios, and detailed information about how the habitat strategy might change cannot be provided by the Technical Committee until this technical analysis is complete. • As population scenarios change, the assessment of population status and relative risk to the viability of the population(s) is likely to change. However, given the long-term nature of Chinook recovery, it is unlikely that this change in relative risk will result in significant changes to high priority habitat conservation actions in WRIA 8 during the 10-year planning horizon. • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee provides the scientific framework, based on NOAA Fisheries Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria, for identifying and prioritizing habitat restoration and protection needs to maintain independent Chinook populations. The Steering Committee is responsible for policy decisions and makes the final decisions on habitat actions and priorities that are included in the Plan. • The implications of the Chinook population scenarios are provided as examples and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible habitat and hatchery implications. In addition to these caveats, the discussion of implications for hatchery management requires some definition of terms. The HSRG (2004) has provided several system-wide hatchery management recommendations designed to help ensure a scientifically defensible hatchery program. A key element of these recommendations is to manage hatcheries according to either an integrated or segregated strategy, based on the ecological context of each hatchery operation and the potential benefits and risks to naturally spawning salmon populations. These terms are defined as follows (WDFW, 2004 and HSRG, 2004): • Integrated Strategy. The intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild. Habitat quality remains important if integrated artificial production programs are to be successfully implemented, as hatchery broodstock must include a percentage of natural- origin adults in order to maintain genetic characteristics of naturally spawning fish. • Segregated Strategy. The intent is that reproductive isolation of returning adults from the hatchery program allows the natural environment to drive the adaptation of the natural population. Once established, segregated broodstocks are composed entirely of returning, hatchery-origin adults. As a consequence, genetically segregated hatchery populations can, and will, change genetically, relative to naturally spawning populations. Such changes may be intentional to maximize the desired benefits of the program, while minimizing risks to naturally spawning populations. However, in contrast to integrated programs, any natural spawning by hatchery-origin fish from a segregated program will impose potentially unacceptable risks to natural populations. Regardless of the hatchery management strategy that is pursued, WDFW (2004) notes that productive, natural habitat provides the greatest certainty of healthy, harvestable salmon populations, and a 'balanced portfolio' of complementary habitat protection, habitat restoration, and artificial propagation will be necessary to recover sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally-spawning Chinook salmon. February 25, 2005 Page 48 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 A matrix summarizing the following description of the potential implications of Chinook population scenarios on the WRIA 8 habitat strategy and Co-Manager decisions about hatchery management is included in Appendix C-5. Scenario A: Three WRIA 8 Chinook Populations (Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah This is the assumed scenario for the Conservation Strategy described in this Chapter, and the basis for the conservation actions identified in Chapter 5. As described in the VSP assessment, the Cedar River Chinook population is presumed to be genetically independent, while the North Lake Washington and Issaquah populations are assumed to be closely related but with life history differences (e.g. run timing) and the potential for some genetically distinct characteristics. The Issaquah population is presumed to be heavily influenced by the hatchery. This population scenario has the broadest ramifications for habitat actions, and requires the most comprehensive set of protection and restoration actions in order to return all three populations to viable levels. The habitat strategy differs for each of the three populations, with an initial focus on improving habitat productivity and life history diversity for the Cedar River Chinook population. In the North Lake Washington population, actions emphasize both productivity and spatial distribution (i.e., expansion of the population into North, Little Bear, Kelsey and Evans, as well as Bear/Cottage Creek). The distribution of this population is currently focused on the Bear/Cottage Creek system, while it is historically thought to have been distributed amongst multiple North Lake Washington tributaries. In order to reduce the overall risk posed to the viability of this population from this limited distribution, the population needs to expand into other North Lake Washington tributaries. Under this population scenario, Issaquah is the third priority for restoration actions, as the population is driven by hatchery production and therefore faces the lowest relative risk of extinction. Protection of functioning ecosystem processes and habitat function, however, are considered to be a high priority, as the Issaquah basin includes some of the best overall existing habitat in the WRIA. The Issaquah hatchery is currently designated as a 'segregated' hatchery, with the objective of minimizing interactions between wild and hatchery Chinook (e.g., limit hatchery contribution to natural spawning to 1-5%, as suggested in the HSRG 2004 recommendation). In light of recent hatchery contribution rates (first able to be documented when ad-clipped hatchery origin adults returned in 2003) showing that 22% of spawners in the Cedar River were of hatche[y origin, there is a risk that this high contribution of hatchery strays to naturally spawning populations may reduce the local adaptations and genetic diversity that are present in the Cedar and North Lake Washington populations. However, it is possible that current habitat productivity is so low that a reduction in hatchery contribution rates could reduce the total numbers of spawning adults and place the population at even higher risk of extinction. In order to meet HSRG goals for a low hatchery contribution rate while minimizing the risk of extinction for naturally spawning Chinook, significant habitat improvements will be necessary to increase natural production. Scenario B: Two WRIA 8 Chinook Populations (Cedar River, Sammamish River) This scenario is the population structure currently identified by the PSTRT. It includes a genetically independent Cedar River Chinook population (as in Scenario A) and a Sammamish River population that includes a naturally spawning hatchery influenced sub-population in North Lake Washington and a hatchery supported sub-population in Issaquah Creek. Under this scenario it is possible that the WRIA 8 habitat strategy may narrow in focus Emphasis on the Cedar River population would increase, as the Sammamish population may be at a relatively lower risk due to the hatchery support and the expansion of the population due to February 25, 2005 Page 49 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 the inclusion of North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook. Compared to Scenario A, there is a relatively reduced emphasis on spatial distribution for the North Lake Washington portion of the Sammamish population. By combining North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook into one population, the overall spatial distribution of the population is no longer confined to one stream (Bear/Cottage Creeks), reducing the relative risk for this population viability attribute. However, habitat restoration in Bear/Cottage Creek, Issaquah Creek, and the Sammamish River might receive relatively greater emphasis in order to increase natural production overall and improve the fitness (or number of offspring produced) of natural spawners in Issaquah Creek. Efforts to increase the abundance of Issaquah Chinook would have to be monitored and balanced to avoid straying into the Cedar River until Cedar River Chinook abundance has been increased. Either an integrated or segregated hatchery management strategy could be adopted by the Co- Managers under this population scenario. If an integrated strategy is selected, hatchery broodstock from each population would need to be managed separately from one another to maintain two genetically distinct populations. Scenario C: One WRIA 8 Chinook Population This population scenario assumes that naturally spawning Chinook in the Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah Creek have all been heavily influenced by hatchery contributions over time and are therefore genetically similar. In this scenario, habitat actions may narrow to target those areas that have the most potential to protect or restore habitat capacity and productivity throughout the WRIA. For example, protection actions could target existing core spawning areas in the Cedar River, Bear/Cottage Creeks, and Issaquah Creek, while restoration actions might focus on key migratory and rearing areas (such as the Ship Canal, Union Bay, and the Sammamish River) that benefit Chinook from more than one spawning area. As a result, habitat restoration actions might be less geographically diverse under this scenario. An integrated hatchery management strategy is likely under this population scenario. In order to meet HSRG goals for a low stray contribution rate and increase the fitness of naturally spawning Chinook, significant habitat improvements to increase natural production would be necessary. Goals and Objectives for WRIA 8 Habitat and Chinook Populations Pursuant to the WRIA 8 Steering Committee mission statement, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee tasked the Technical Committee to identify habitat and population goals and objectives for WRIA B's Chinook populations. The combination of habitat and biological goals recognizes that the activities of WRIA stakeholders (particularly local governments) most directly impact habitat conditions, but habitat conservation activities are intended to support the larger biological goal of recovering sustainable and harvestable populations of Chinook. Habitat goals and objectives are needed to understand how WRIA 8 can create habitat conditions that support Chinook viability; biological goals and objectives are needed to identify the characteristics of a viable population and the relative role of habitat in supporting that population. The state and Tribal Co-Managers have identified biological goals (referred to as 'planning targets') for most Chinook populations in the Puget Sound ESU. However, specific planning targets for independent populations in WRIAs 8, 9, and 10 were not provided while this Plan was in development. In the absence of planning targets for Chinook population attributes in these WRIAs, NOAA Fisheries has stated that their default objective for habitat (in the absence February 25, 2005 Page 50 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 of locally generated objectives) will be Properly Functioning Conditions (PFC). In addition to PFC, the TRT has identified Population Viability Analysis (PVA) numbers for WRIAs 8, 9, and 10. These numbers have been established at 17,000 Chinook for each WRIA, which is the lower equilibrium spawner abundance values from PVA, assuming a population growth rate equal to 1. Immediately prior to the publication of this Plan in February 2005, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided recovery planning targets for WRIA 8. For the Cedar Chinook population, planning targets are 1,000-8,200 spawners with a productivity of 1-3.1 recruits/spawner. For the Sammamish population (combining NLW and Issaquah), the planning targets are 1,000-4,000 spawners with a productivity of 1.0-3.0. These numbers were generated by WDFW using the WRIA 8 Technical Committee EDT habitat model assuming PFC habitat conditions in rivers and streams and template (presumed historic) habitat conditions in the Lakes, Ship Canal, Locks, and estuary. Under template or historic conditions, the EDT model assumes the current hydrologic routing in WRIA 8, with the Cedar River flowing into Lake Washington and connection to Puget Sound through the Ship Canal and Locks. The Technical Committee found it most useful to think about habitat and population goals and objectives in terms of overall trends rather than focusing narrowly on absolute numbers. This is largely due to the fact that salmon populations are naturally highly variable and an excessive focus on maintaining one value for productivity and abundance would result in highly unstable and unviable populations. Any short-term objectives and long-term goals discussed in this section should be considered within the context of a larger goal of restoring naturally dynamic population structures. Most importantly, the Technical Committee focused on overall trends due to the simple fact that WRIA 8 Chinook populations are in decline and the productivity of these populations must increase if extinction is to be avoided. As noted in the Viable Salmonid Population Framework {Appendix C-1 ), the short-term and long-term productivity of the Cedar River Chinook population is below 1 (0.933-0.966), meaning that spawners are not replacing themselves. If this range of productivity continues, abundance would drop below theoretical minimum viable population thresholds (assumed to be 100-250 spawners, based on McElhany et al 2000) in 12-50 years. In the NLW population, productivity was estimated to be between 0.995 and 1.077. In both populations current low abundance levels raise serious concerns about the potential risk of extinction from environmental disturbances, demographic stochasticity, or inbreeding depression. Regardless of long-term abundance objectives, habitat actions to increase productivity trends above 1 are necessary to avoid extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 8 Chinook to viability in the long-term. In discussing potential approaches to habitat and biological goals and objectives, the Technical Committee used the simple graphic shown in Figure 4-11 to describe hypothetical Chinook population conditions and trends. Under current conditions, WRIA 8 populations are believed to be on a path toward extinction (Trend A), while uncoordinated individual habitat actions (Trend B) only serve to slow rather than reverse this trend. Trends C through E represent potential trajectories from varying intensities of coordinated habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions. February 25, 2005 Page 51 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Figure 4-11: Hypothetical Chinook Population Trends Overall Chinook Population Condition E D C Trend C thru E: Land Use+ Public Outreach + CIP Actions Habitat Actions + Hatchery + Harvest Conservation Actions B: Land use OR Public Outreach OR CIP Hrihitrit Adinn.c:: A: Current trend -Status Quo Given the low population numbers and downward trends of WRIA 8 Chinook populations, there is a high potential that population effects (Allee effects) may drive the population to extinction if habitat, hatchery, and harvest conservation actions are not implemented. Under these conditions the pace of recovery (as represented by the slope of the line) should be more similar to Trend Ethan Trend C. The figure does not identify thresholds for Chinook recovery such as viability, ESA de-listing, sustainability, or harvestability. In addition, the simplistic representation of overall population condition is not intended to imply that population recovery can or should occur at a constant pace over time. The Technical Committee is less concerned with precisely defining viability for the WRIA 8 populations. and more concerned with reversing the current downward trend before the populations are extinct. Put simply, the Technical Committee believes there is a negligible risk of overshooting population viability goals within the plan timeline of 10 years, while the risk of extinction under current trends is extremely high. However, the Technical Committee recognizes that long-term goals are necessary as context for short- term objectives and for measuring progress toward recovery. The Technical Committee will be evaluating the planning targets identified by WDFW along with other potential performance measures described in this Chapter as part of the evaluation of conservation actions during 2005. Recognizing that Chinook populations are naturally variable and that the current negative population trends need to be reversed quickly, the Technical Committee has identified potential habitat and population goals for the near-term (10 year plan horizon) as well as the long-term goal of creating habitat conditions that support viable populations of Chinook salmon (summarized in Table 4-16). The Technical Committee has not finished the discussion on objectives for some attributes. The concept for the goal has been identified, even if the objective has not been established. In some cases the Technical Committee proposes a number of possibilities for further evaluation. The Technical Committee discussion of habitat goals and objectives has focused on variations of PFC. Possibilities under consideration include a percentage of PFC, similar to the habitat February 25, 2005 Page 52 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 recovery objectives identified by WRIA 7 (Snohomish County, 2004) or a modified PFC for urban areas (such as that described in NOAA Fisheries 2003 or a percentage improvement in key habitat attributes identified through the EDT model and the WRIA 8 limiting factors report. Habitat objectives have not been finally determined and will be evaluated by the Technical Committee using the EDT model to compare the relative impact of these objectives on Chinook performance. As noted in Chapter 6, short-term habitat objectives will need to reflect the fact that some habitat actions may not be seen within the 10-year plan horizon. Examples of response times for typical habitat restoration actions are shown in Beechie et al, 2003 and range from 1-5 years for most instream habitat projects to greater than 10-50 years or more for some land use actions. As part of the Technical Committee's evaluation of potential habitat objectives, LWD performance standards from various authors (Fox 2001, May 1996, and WFPB 1997) were applied to reaches identified in EDT as having a high restoration potential. For Bear Creek EDT reach 10 (0.69 km), approximately 170 pieces of LWD (>2 m length, >10 cm diam) would need to be placed to meet Best Prevailing Conditions (380 pieces/km) in WR/A 8 sub-areas with similar levels of impervious surface, and WSFB conditions of 2 pieces per channel width. Among these 170 pieces, 75 pieces should/could be "key" pieces meeting WFPB definition of "key pieces," 2.5 m3. In terms of an actual restoration project or approach, a focus on placing only "key" pieces might be advisable given the short-and longer-term potential for the Bear Creek and Cottage Lake Creek buffers to supply smaller woody debris. As part of the Treatment phase of EDT it is anticipated that the EDT model could be used to compare the relative effectiveness of meeting PFC in higher priority reaches versus supplying lower densities of wood ('key pieces') in more stream reaches throughout the system. February 25, 2005 Page 53 Near-Term (10-vrl Objective Habitat-• Percentage of PFC (see, for lnstream example, WRIA 7) • Percentage increase in current conditions Percentage of modified PFC Habitat-• Percentage of PFC Landscape • Best Prevailing Conditions Conditions Biological · See below Chinook Populations Productivity • 2X current survival for juveniles and smolts within subareas • ::'.2 adult returns/ spawner 2-4 years out of 10 Spatial Convert 1 satellite subarea to Structure core (i.e. Upper Cedar and North Creek); expand spawning area distribution Life History Percentage increase in Cedar Diversity instream rearing trajectory; improve Sammamish habitat conditions to support eventual small rearina Abundance Meet co-manager escapement goals of 1,250 naturally spawning adults on Cedar and 350 in Bear & Cottage Lake Creeks Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Loni:i-Term Goal Comments PFC • In the highly urbanized sub-basins of WRIA 8 PFC may not be possible. Near-term objectives may vary by subarea • PFC not developed for lakes, modified estuary, nearshore Modified PFC See, for example, Clark County and NOAA Stormwater Guidance for modified PFC in urban areas PFC or Modified PFC Viability (less than 5% risk of See individual population attributes below extinction over 1 00 years) c:_1 adult returns/ spawner X years While productivity greater than 1 indicates a growing out of Y population, the low current population numbers may WDFW target: 1-3.1 recruits/spawner require an initially higher productivity to reduce the in Cedar, 1-3 recruits/spawner in risk of adverse impacts from Allee effects, Sammamish environmental perturbations, and natural population fluctuations • Recapture historic distribution; Historic Chinook distribution is assumed to be with • Consistent use of NLW tribs in current hydrologic routing in WRIA 8 (that is, no addition to Bear for spawning) reconnection of the Cedar River to the Duwamish River and the WRIA 9 Chinook nonulation \ Increase Cedar instream rearing Changes in juvenile life history trajectories trajectories from 25% to 50% (the monitored through smolt traps and PIT tags presumed historic percentage); Increase % of smalls rearing in the Sammamish River • WDFW Target: 1,000-8,200 Escapement is a co-manager objective that reflects spawners in Cedar; 1,000-management as well as biological needs. However, 4,000 spawners in Sammamish meeting escapement goals would represent a • Use EDT "Margins of significant increase for WRIA 8 populations. Sustainability" to estimate minimum sustainable populations February 25, 2005 Page 54 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Some landscape factors included in the watershed evaluation have PFC criteria, but the Technical Committee is considering the use of the watershed evaluation analysis to identify 'Best Prevailing Conditions'. As shown in Figure 4-12 below, when landscape factors such as forest cover can be compared to impervious surface there is considerable variation for a given level of impervious surface. In Figure 4-12 this can be interpreted to mean that when impervious surface levels are at 40%, forest cover can be as high as 52% based on current WRIA 8 conditions. In areas with 10-15% impervious area, forest cover varies considerably from 45% (Peterson Creek) to nearly 80% (East Fork Issaquah). The upper values in the forest cover range could be said to constitute 'Best Prevailing Conditions", and could be used as an objective for other subareas with similar levels of impervious surface. This concept could also be expanded to in-stream habitat conditions evaluated in the EDT model. The Technical Committee recognizes that this objective is based on current conditions in WRIA 8 rather than what is biologically necessary to support viability. However, it may represent a practical starting point for increasing landscape factors such as forest, wetland, and riparian cover, as well as in-stream habitat conditions such as woody debris, channel connectivity, and water quality. Figure 4-12: Example of 'Best Prevailing Conditions' Line for Forest Cover under Varying Levels of Impervious Area "' .. "' "' ~ u "C .'l "' ~ 0 ... 60 GO 1 40 I 30 ! i ! 20 ' l ' 10 0 0 High • • ·-Medium 20 40 bG Impervious Classes (%) For impervious areas near 40%, forest cover ranges from 30% (Lower Cedar) to 52% (Cottage Creek). This upper value constitutes the 'Best Prevailing Conditions' for subareas with similar levels of impervious area . 100 February 25, 2005 Page 55 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Chinook population goals and objectives are based on the analysis of population status contained in the VSP Framework. While the EDT habitat model includes productivity, abundance, and diversity outputs, these numbers are appropriately used for making relative comparisons and the absolute value of the model outputs have limited utility as planning targets for Chinook populations. Biological objectives are based on moving population attributes in the direction of presumed historic status for the population. For both the Cedar and NLW Chinook populations increased productivity is the primary objective if current population trends are to be reversed. While the number of adult returns per spawner must exceed 1.0 for the population to be growing, the Technical Committee believes that higher changes in productivity are necessary in the face of extremely low population numbers. The Technical Committee recommends that juvenile survival (not overall productivity) within WRIA 8 subareas be doubled within the plan horizon of 10 years. This means, for example, doubling survival of juveniles within subareas, as measured by the number of fry produced on the spawning grounds, the number of fry and/or smolts migrating from the spawning grounds, and the number of juveniles in the Sammamish River, Lake Washington, the Ship Canal (including the Ballard Locks), and the nearshore subareas. For spatial distribution, the Technical Committee has established a long-term goal of re- establishing the historic distribution of each population, with a near-term objective of converting a satellite area into a core area with relative high abundance and consistent use by spawning Chinook. In the Cedar River, the Upper Cedar (above Landsburg Dam) is a prime candidate for increased use by spawners if we are to extend the longitudinal distribution of spawning along the mainstem Cedar. In the long term, other satellite areas should also become core areas of production to minimize risk to the population. For the NLW population the long-term objective is to support frequent and relatively proportional spawning in each of the tributary areas (Bear, Evans, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey). In the near term the Technical Committee has not identified a specific tributary to target for increased spawning. Rather, it is hypothesized that restoration of North and Little Bear Creeks, along with restoration of the Sammamish River corridor will result in increased Chinook use of the Tier 2 sub-areas. Little Bear has some of the best remaining habitat of the north Sammamish River tributaries, while North Creek is most likely to support sustained Chinook use given its size and habitat capacity (Sanderson et al 2003). For life history diversity, the Technical Committee has established a goal of increasing the Cedar River instream rearing life-history trajectory from 25% to 50% of out-migrants. A near-term objective for the 10-year plan horizon has not been established, but is likely to be a percentage increase (25-50%) over the current level. This would mean an interim objective of 30-40% instream rearing by juvenile Chinook. In the NLW population, the objective is to increase the percentage of Sammamish River rearing life history trajectories. Specific goals and objectives have not been established by the Technical Committee. As noted earlier in this section, this Plan was developed without specific abundance planning targets from the Co-Managers. In February 2005 WDFW established planning targets of 1,000-8,200 spawners in the Cedar River population and 1,000-4,000 spawners in the Sammamish population. In order to identify performance measures for WRIA 8's adaptive management program, the Technical Committee will continue to evaluate potential long-term abundance objectives such as those provided by WDFW in February 25, 2005 Page 56 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 order to better understand the population levels necessary to first avoid extinction and then reach WRIA S's objective of providing habitat conditions that support sustainable and harvestable Chinook populations. This evaluation of potential performance measures will continue as part of the Technical Committee's evaluation of action effectiveness using the EDT model and other analyses during 2005. The Technical Committee will evaluate multiple lines of evidence along with the WDFW planning targets, including the following: • NOAA Fisheries Spawning Capacity Analysis (Sanderson et al 2003): estimate of density-independent habitat capacity based on an analysis of several landscape factors. • EDT Template (WRIA 8, 2003): Estimate of density-independent habitat capacity based on assumed historic habitat conditions and current hydrologic routing. • EDT 'Margins of Sustainability' in the EDT model: estimate of self-sustaining population sizes based on professional judgment using EDT population performance curves • Population Viability Analysis: evaluates extinction risk under different timeframes. Assumes that future population productivity can be estimated based on historic observed abundance levels. Does not factor in density-dependent effects such as increased competition as population size increases. • Theoretical values from the conservation literature (for example 1,000-5,500 spawners cited in McElhany et al 2000 necessary to avoid deleterious effects from genetic drift and environmental stochasticity) Until this analysis is completed, the Technical Committee has identified existing Co- Manager escapement objectives as the abundance objective for the 10-year plan horizon. While these objectives (1,250 spawners in the Cedar and 350 spawners in the NLW tributaries) would constitute a considerable improvement from current levels for WRIA S's Chinook populations, it is important to note that these fisheries management objectives do not necessarily equate to viability. Regardless of the total abundance, the number of local spawning aggregations should also be increased along with the number of returning adults. In the case of the Cedar River population this means extending the spawning distribution above Landsburg Dam, as well as increasing the density of spawning below Landsburg. For the NLW Chinook population, this expansion of spawning aggregations should be achieved through expansion into satellite areas rather than expanded distribution within the Bear and Cottage Lake Creek system, which are presently thought to be at or near capacity. The Technical Committee has not established population goals for naturally spawning Chinook in the Issaquah Basin. Population attributes are strongly driven by hatchery operations and the likelihood of a persistent Chinook population in the Issaquah basin in the absence of the Issaquah Hatchery is uncertain, as Issaquah Creek was not likely used by Chinook prior to the establishment of the hatchery. While habitat protection and restoration hypotheses have been developed for the Issaquah basin, naturally-spawning Green-River origin Chinook are considered a potential source of risk to the genetic integrity of the Cedar and NLW populations. Inclusion of the Issaquah population in the development of biological goals and objectives will be re-evaluated pending the results of genetic analyses by the WDFW genetics lab in February 2005. February 25, 2005 Page 57 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 The Technical Committee has not set goals or objectives related to hatcheries, as the operation of hatcheries is the under the Co-Managers jurisdiction and outside the jurisdictional authority of the WRIA planning effort. However, based on preliminary information about the contribution rates of hatchery fish on the WRIA 8 spawning grounds, the Technical Committee strongly and unequivocally supports the recommendations of the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG, 2004) concerning the operation of the Issaquah Creek Hatchery by the Co-Managers and the implementation of the Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to ensure that the genetic integrity of WRIA 8 populations are maintained. Where there is uncertainty about the impacts of hatchery- wild interactions, hatchery management actions should err on the side of conserving viable populations of Chinook. The Technical Committee is currently working with the WDFW genetics lab to increase our understanding of the level of genetic diversity that exists in WRIA 8, and additional work will be necessary to better understand the effects of hatchery straying on the genetic diversity of WRIA 8 populations. For a description of WRIA B's approach to monitoring and evaluating progress toward habitat and biological goals, please see Chapter 6. February 25, 2005 Page 58 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Summary of the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy The Puget Sound Technical Review Team (PSTRT, 2001) has identified two independent populations of Chinook in WRIA 8: the Cedar River and Sammamish River Chinook. The Sammamish River population includes North Lake Washington and Issaquah sub-populations. In their determination of population structure, the PSTRT notes that it is unclear whether the tributaries draining into the north end of Lake Washington historically supported an independent Chinook population. However, the PSTRT has also identified two factors indicating that this area has the potential to support independent Chinook populations. First, the PSTRT states that the Sammamish River drainage (including Issaquah Creek and the North Lake Washington Tributaries) is larger than the smallest watershed containing an independent population in their analysis of Puget Sound Chinook populations. Second, a recent analysis of spawner capacity developed for the PSTRT by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2003) indicates that the Bear/Cottage system, the lower portion of North Creek, and Issaquah Creek have a high probability of supporting Chinook spawning, while Swamp Creek, Little Bear Creek, Carey and Holder Creeks, and the upper portion of North Creek have a moderate probability of supporting Chinook spawning. While two populations are identified in WRIA 8 by the PSTRT, recent genetic information available at the time the Conservation Strategy was developed indicated that there may be enough difference between the North Lake Washington Chinook and fish returning to the Issaquah Creek Hatchery to consider them separate from one another (Marshall 2000). In addition there are other differences such as run timing (e.g., the North Lake Washington Chinook run starts earlier than Issaquah Hatchery returns, peaks at approximately the same time, and tails off over a longer period) that may reflect genetic differences between North Lake Washington and Issaquah Chinook that should be maintained. After much discussion, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee decided to take a precautionary approach and plan for three populations: the Cedar River population, the North Lake Washington population, and the Issaquah population. The Technical Committee recognizes that the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations are closely linked, with the Issaquah Hatchery population influencing the North Lake Washington population. The W8TC based their decision to plan for three populations on the desire to adopt a conservative approach to WRIA 8 Chinook populations in light of uncertainties about population structure, and the pot!)ntial that unique genetic characteristics necessary for the long-term viability of the Issaquah and North Lake Washington populations, if lost, may not be recovered. By identifying three populations, the WR/A placed priority on protecting all Chinook within the watershed, as well as any local adaptations that these fish possess. This approach supports the continued survival of offspring of naturally spawning Issaquah Hatchery Chinook strays which would be protected under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the three population approach errs on the side of caution to maintain future opportunities for conservation in the Issaquah sub-area. Finally, this approach confers ancillary benefits on other species such as coho, and supports the widest level of stakeholder participation, all of which are consistent with the Steering Committee's stated goals and objectives. Throughout this document, three populations will be discussed, consistent with the direction that WRIA 8 chose to take with Chinook recovery. The reader should note that the use of the term 'population' as it relates to Chinook throughout this document reflects the WRIA 8 Technical Committee's precautionary approach, and that the term is therefore NOT synonymous with the PSTRT's use of the term. February 25, 2005 Page 59 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 The discussions surrounding WRIA 8 population structure are continuing as new information materializes. In 2003, returning adult hatchery Chinook were adipose-clipped for the first time. Stray rates in that year indicated that there were more hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds than expected (22% of spawners in the Cedar River mainstem, 54% of spawners in Bear/Cottage Creeks, and 48% of all spawners in the WRIA). While straying is a natural phenomenon, the large releases of hatchery fish (e.g. 2 million Chinook fry are released annually from the Issaquah hatchery) combined with small populations of naturally-spawning Chinook in WRIA 8 (average adult returns to the Cedar River, for example, was only 325 fish between 1998 and 2002) mean that the relatively high contribution rates of hatchery-origin fish could pose a risk to the genetic diversity of the Cedar and North Lake Washington populations. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has initiated a genetic study with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to analyze juvenile samples taken from the three assumed populations in WRIA 8, samples from hatcheries known to contribute to adult returns (e.g., University of Washington, Issaquah, Grover's Creek), as well as archived scale and tissue samples from adult spawners. It is expected that this study will help address a number of uncertainties surrounding current genetic differences that exist among wild and hatchery Chinook stocks in WRIA 8. However, it is likely that there will be continued questions regarding the interactions of hatchery and wild Chinook. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee and participating scientists will review the genetic study and share the information to the PSTRT for consideration in identifying independent populations within WRIA 8. If necessary, the Technical Committee will then adapt the Conservation Strategy in light of this new information. The current risk of extinction posed to the WRIA 8 Chinook populations is extreme and must be reduced through actions that create habitat conditions that support viability of each population. There is some uncertainty that the NLW and Issaquah populations are independent of one another. Based on this uncertainty and the declining productivity trend of the Cedar population, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that a relatively higher priority should be placed on risk reduction for the Cedar River Chinook population. Cedar River Chinook The greatest source of risk comes from reduction in habitat productivity and the potential loss of the instream juvenile rearing life history strategy. In addition, hatchery influences pose a significant risk to the genetic diversity of the population. Rehabilitation of the Cedar River Chinook population requires conservation actions to protect and restore habitat in the Tier 1, Tier 2, and migratory subareas. The main source of productivity for this population is in the Tier 1 subareas along the mainstem of the Cedar River. Restoration of these subareas is important to increase productivity and create habitat conditions that support the instream juvenile rearing life history strategy. Hypotheses about conservation actions are focused on the protection of water quality and high- quality instream habitats used for spawning and juvenile rearing, such as intact pool habitats, riparian buffers, and LWD. Restoration hypotheses are focused on increasing the availability of pool habitats and off-channel areas for juvenile Chinook by re- connecting floodplain areas, adding LWD, and re-planting riparian vegetation. In addition to restoration actions in the mainstem Cedar, juvenile Chinook would benefit from shoreline restoration actions designed to improve rearing and refuge habitat and reduce predator efficiency in the south end of Lake Washington and in the Ship Canal. February 25, 2005 Page 60 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 Shoreline restoration activities should focus on removal of bulkheads and rip-rap to create sandy, shallow habitat areas. These restoration actions should be focused on areas adjacent to the mouth of the Cedar River and in nearby areas of southern Lake Washington, along the south end of Mercer Island, at the mouths of small creeks, and in Union Bay. North Lake Washington Chinook The low abundance of the NLW Chinook population results from reduced habitat productivity and severe reduction in the spatial distribution of the population from several streams systems with approximately equal contribution to the population (Bear, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey Creeks) to one stream system (Bear Creek) that is the core of the population. In addition, hatchery influences pose a significant risk to the genetic diversity of the population. In order to rehabilitate this population and reduce the risks of extinction, conservation actions should be targeted at protecting the existing source of productivity in the Bear Creek system, restoring the habitat capacity of the Tier 2 NLW tributary systems, and restoring the channel meanders and pool habitats that support juvenile rearing and adult migration in the Sammamish River corridor. Issaquah Creek Chinook The Technical Committee is concerned about the risk to independent Chinook populations posed by straying of hatchery and naturally-produced hatchery-origin Chinook. In 2003, approximately 50% of spawners in WRIA 8 were hatchery-origin fish, with percentages as high as 75% in some stream systems. Based on this data and past genetic analyses of NLW and Issaquah Chinook, the Technical Committee calls on NOAA fisheries and the co-managers to implement the recommendations of the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG, 2004) and make any other appropriate management changes at the Issaquah and other Puget Sound hatcheries that are necessary to reduce risk to the Chinook populations in WRIA 8. Within the Issaquah system, conservation actions for the Issaquah Chinook population should focus on protection of existing high-quality habitat in the Issaquah system. Although restoration hypotheses have been identified by the Technical Committee, restoration actions for Chinook should not proceed until NOAA Fisheries has concluded the status of the WRIA 8 populations. Based on current information about the genetics and stray rates of Issaquah-origin Chinook, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that restoration of habitat in the Issaquah system and Lake Sammamish could increase the already high spawning contributions from hatchery strays in the WRIA and thereby increase the risk to genetic diversity of the Cedar and NLW independent Chinook populations. Migratory and Rearing Areas In order to create and maintain habitat conditions that support viable populations of Chinook, conservation actions should address habitats used at different stages of the Chinook life cycle. Restoration and enhancement of the migratory and rearing areas (including the nearshore, estuary, Lake Washington, the Ship Canal and Locks, the Sammamish River, and Lake Sammamish) have a high potential to benefit Chinook productivity and abundance, and in many cases could benefit multiple populations. In the lakes, actions should focus on creating habitat conditions that improve rearing and refuge opportunities, such as the restoration of sandy shallow water areas and restoration of stream deltas. In the Sammamish River, re-meandering of the river will February 25, 2005 Page 61 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 restore connections with cool groundwater while increasing habitat diversity, benefiting juvenile out-migrants as well as returning adults. High temperatures in the Ship Canal during the juvenile out-migration can become extremely stressful (>19 C) and affect the behavior and success of smelts in reaching Puget Sound. High temperatures may also affect predation rates in the Ship Canal, especially those of bass. Conservation actions should focus on providing habitat refuge for Chinook and reducing high temperatures that drive predation. Finally, the nearshore and estuary subareas are critical for migration and rearing of Chinook populations (as well as other species) from multiple WRIAs. While there are relatively greater uncertainties about nearshore habitat and Chinook use of that habitat, experimental approaches to the protection of functioning habitat and the restoration of ecosystem processes (particularly sediment supply) and habitats (particularly eelgrass beds and 'pocket' estuaries) should be implemented. Uncertainties Regarding Hatchery Contribution to Natural Spawning of Chinook In 2003, returning adult hatchery Chinook were adipose-clipped for the first time. Stray rates in that year indicated that there were more hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds than expected (48% on average in WRIA 8, 22% in the Cedar River, 54% in Bear Creek). While this represents only one year of data and the genetic impacts of this level of straying and spawning contribution from decades of hatchery operations are not known, the Technical Committee has taken a precautionary approach and identified hatchery straying and the potential contribution to natural spawning as a significant risk to the genetic diversity of WRIA 8 Chinook. The Technical Committee, in cooperation with WDFW, has initiated an analysis to evaluate the genetic differences between WRIA 8 populations and nearby hatchery stocks, and a report is expected in February 2005. Additional studies wiil be needed to evaluate the following questions: • How much of a contribution do hatchery strays make to the genetic pool in the Cedar and NLW tributaries? • How does straying affect the local adaptation of the Cedar and NLW groups (e.g., what is the reproductive success of hatchery strays)? • How does hatchery straying affect population dynamics/persistence given low returns? February 25, 2005 Page 62 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 References Beechie, T.J., E.A. Steel, P. Roni, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. US Dept of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-58, 183 p. Available at: http://www. nwfsc. noaa .gov/publications/tech memos/tm58/tm5S. pdf Bolton, S. and J. Shellberg. 2001. Ecological issues in floodplains and riparian corridors. White paper prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Transportation. University of Washington, Center for Streamside Studies. King County, 2004. Best Available Science Volume 1: A Review of Science Literature. Available at: http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/cao/. Lakey, Kirk (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). October 12, 2004. Personal Communication. Martin, D. 1999. An Ecosystem Strategy For Restoring Threatened/Endangered Salmon In King County. Prepared by Martin Environmental for King County, Washington. May, CW. 1996. Assessment of cumulative effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion: Implications for salmonid resource management. Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle WA. McElhany, P., M. Ruckelshaus, M. Ford, T. Wainwright and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. NOAA 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance ESA Guidance for Analyzing Stormwater Effects. Habitat Conservation Division. NOAA-Fisheries Northwest Region. March 2003. Sanderson, B., J. Davies, K. Lagueux, T. Beechie, M. Ruckelshaus, and W. Holden. 2003. WRIA 08 DRAFT SUMMARY REPORT: An Assessment of Chinook Spawning Potential in the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Resource Inventory Area. Prepared by The Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Analysis Team. Prepared for the Puget Sound Chinook Technical Recovery Team and the WRIA 08 Watershed Group. Snohomish County. 2004. Draft Snohomish Basin Salmon Conservation Plan. Available at: http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/swm/Publications/2004DraftSnohoBasinSalmo ConservationPlan/index.htm Spence, B. C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, Oregon. Washington State Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1997. Watershed Analysis Manual, v. 4.0. February 25, 2005 Page 63 Chapter 4: Chinook Conservation Strategy for WRIA 8 WDFW. 2004. Role of Hatcheries in Salmon Recovery: Concepts and Tools. Presentation by WDFW Director Jeff Koenings to September 23, 2004 meeting of the Shared Strategy Development Committee. WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 1998. Mission, Goals, Requirements, and Approach. Available at: hit p :/id n r. m etrokc. gov /Wria s/8/wri a8 miss ion. h tm February 25, 2005 Page 64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 5: ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals What actions are needed to achieve our goals for Chinook salmon? This chapter describes action recommendations intended to prevent further decline of Chinook salmon habitat and restore Chinook salmon habitat that is now degraded. The action recommendations were developed for all the geographic subareas used by each of our three Chinook populations: areas used for spawning and rearing, as well as the migratory and rearing corridors they use to travel to and from the ocean (Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Lake Union, Ship Canal, Locks, and Nearshore). The habitat actions were developed through a collaborative, bottoms-up process that involved extensive participation .of local stakeholders, jurisdiction staff, environmental and business representatives, project experts, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. The actions were developed using the following guidance: • Steering Committee Mission and Goals (provided in Chapter 1) • Conservation strategy and technical hypotheses (see Chapters 3 and 4) • The Near-Term Action Agenda published August, 2002, and other existing local and regional habitat protection and restoration efforts (Cedar River Legacy, Waterways, etc.) • Expert opinion of stakeholders participating on working committees Application of this guidance resulted in the "start-list" and "comprehensive" action lists described later in this chapter and provided in Chapters 9 through 15. The action lists are grouped by Chinook population in the following order: Cedar, North Lake Washington, Issaquah, and Migratory/rearing corridors. Within each population, the actions are then grouped according to the three broad categories described below. (A brief description of the Steering Committee and technical guidance and how it was used to develop the actions is provided in the next section, followed by a description of the two types of action lists.) • Land use, planning and infrastructure: actions that address habitat-forming processes at a landscape scale, and focus on protecting what's in place. Actions include incentive programs, regulations, best management practices (BMPs), programs, and policies, and address landscape features or processes such as: forest cover, road crossings, natural flow regimes, and movement of sediments. • Site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects: actions which protect or restore a specific area or parcel, through conservation easements or acquisition; or, restoration projects such as levee setbacks, revegetation, or adding large woody debris. There are also more general, subarea-wide recommendations that should lead to additional site-specific project recommendations in the future. • Public outreach and education: actions that support the land use and site-specific actions or educate and promote behavior that affects habitat health. They can apply at a specific location, to a particular target audience, and basinwide, and range from regional marketing campaigns, to workshops for creekside landowners or industry professionals, to utility incentive programs. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals WRIA 8 Steering Committee Guidance The WRIA 8 Steering Committee has provided guidance on how actions should be developed, both in its mission and goal statements adopted in 1999, and during ten six- hour work sessions held in 2004 and early 2005. During the last two work sessions, the Steering Committee reviewed changes to the action lists which were proposed during the public review process. The start-list and comprehensive lists which appear in Chapters 9 through 15 reflect this public input; key messages from the public comments are summarized later in this chapter. While the entire Steering Committee mission and goal statements guide the development of a science-based plan, several elements give specific guidance to the three action categories. Steering Committee Guidance for Land Use Actions The Steering Committee mission and goal statements state that the salmon conservation plan shall: ./ Recognize that local governments are key implementing entities for the plan, because of their responsibilities for land use ./ Direct most future population growth to already urbanized areas, because new development has greater negative effects on hydrology and ecological health of streams in rural than in urban areas ./ Create incentives for behavior that would support plan goals ./ Be coordinated with the Growth Management Act, local and regional responses to the Clean Water Act, other environmental laws and past/current planning efforts. The Steering Committee gave additional guidance about land use actions at their work sessions during spring 2004: ./ Land use actions should be part of the plan, including specific recommendations in Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas and a menu of land use tools that could be applied WR IA-wide ./ Land use actions should not be required; however, the potential risks to Chinook habitat if recommended land use actions are not accomplished should be assessed ./ Actions should be linked to specific science-based outcomes, and a variety of approaches should be included to meet those outcomes (see Appendix D, Parts 5 and 6 for a menu of land use actions and references about low impact development, critical areas and other land use topics) Steering Committee Guidance for Site-Specific Projects The development of site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects was guided by the Chinook conservation strategy, which was guided by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee mission and goal statements, detailed in Chapter 1. At their work sessions, the Steering Committee provided additional guidance on development and prioritization of site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects: • Use subarea experts to qualitatively evaluate potential habitat protection and restoration projects for their "benefits to Chinook" and "feasibility" (approved criteria in Appendix D) February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals • Keep all potential projects on the list for this draft, even if evaluated as low "benefit to Chinook" or low "feasibility" by subarea experts • Identify restoration projects for the Issaquah population, but do not prioritize them until more data are collected and analyzed to ensure a better understanding of the genetics and interrelation of WRIA B's Chinook populations • Use both EDT modeling results (in particular, the habitat diversity index) and existing science-based habitat protection programs, such as Waterways and Cedar River Legacy, to prioritize potential, site-specific habitat protection projects Steering Committee Guidance for Public Outreach/Education Actions The Steering Committee mission and goal statements say the plan shall: ./ Provide multiple opportunities during plan development for two-way dialog with the public and affected constituencies because the plan cannot succeed without their understanding and support ./ Recognize that long-term salmon conservation requires that the public understands and appreciates how everyday actions affect salmon ./ Emphasize education and public involvement, including the widespread use of volunteers to protect and restore habitat At their work sessions. the Steering Committee provided additional guidance on the role of public involvement in developing the plan, and the importance of education actions: ./ A marketing plan is needed to build interest in and support for the conservation plan, prior to its release to the public. Support for the plan will be needed from the general public as well as special interest groups. Outreach efforts need to be extended to elected officials, city staff. special interest groups, and the media, as well as various sectors of the public ./ Before we can expect the public to take any interest in helping to develop a salmon conservation plan they need to be made aware that a problem exists, upon which they have a direct effect. People are less motivated to take action on things they feel they have no control over than ones they can influence. We need to convey the issues and why the public should care ./ One of most important roles of public outreach is heightening awareness about the fact that everyone within the watershed has a role in the health of salmon and water quality. Our job in the outreach and education arena is largely to reinforce the "we all live downstream" mantra -and translate it into individual messages through easily digestible sound bites Summary of Technical Guidance As stated above, the conservation strategy provides the framework for development of actions for this plan. The conservation strategy is founded on basic ecosystem objectives, such as the following: • Protect and restore habitat Chinook salmon use during all of the life stages that are spent in the WRIA 8 watershed, from egg to fry to smolt to adult • Protect and restore the natural processes that create this habitat, such as natural flow regimes and the movement of sediments and spawning gravels • Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality habitat to serve as centers for the population • Provide safe connections between those habitat centers to allow for future expansion. February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals The conservation strategy also provides guidance that infers how actions should be prioritized overall-where actions should be focused first. The technical framework was developed in part using NOAA Fisheries documents developed for the purpose of establishing ESA delisting goals, and assessing what is needed for viable Chinook populations so that watersheds can ensure the availability of enough habitat to sustain salmonids through a variety of environmental and other changes. The framework, which assesses the relative risk to the long-term viability of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon, determined that all three Chinook salmon populations are at extremely high risk of extinction. Consequently, habitat actions are needed to address all three populations. However, the Technical Committee has hypothesized that the Cedar population is at the highest relative risk, followed by the NLW population, then Issaquah. This risk assessment can provide guidance for priorities for WRIA 8 Chinook populations and corresponding geographic areas. Overall, the conservation strategy recommends that conservation actions focus on areas used by the Cedar Chinook population as first priority, followed by the NLW population, and then Issaquah, due to the potential for changes in the evaluation of risks faced by each population. (This strategy could change pending results of the genetics study now in progress, due to the potential for changes in the evaluation of risks faced by each population.) The watershed evaluation tool used for the conservation strategy aids in identification of actions for the geographic subareas within each population. The analysis divided areas used by each of the three populations into tiers, based on relative watershed condition and Chinook abundance and use. In general, Tier 1 areas have the relatively highest quality habitat and highest fish abundance and/or use, while Tier 3 areas have the relatively most degraded habitat and infrequent Chinook use. From a priority standpoint, actions in Tier 1 subareas generally are higher priority than Tier 2, but Tier 2 actions are needed in many subareas to increase spatial structure or diversity. The technical recommendations emphasize the imporlance of spatially expanding the populations into Tier 2 areas over the long-term to reduce the risk posed by having key life stages such as spawning and rearing occur in only one stream or stream segment. However, because actions are needed at the landscape scale to protect and restore watershed processes that create and maintain Chinook habitat for all life stages, it is essential that land use and public outreach actions are implemented in all three Tiers. In general, actions recommended for the Tier 1 subareas aim to protect and restore existing high quality habitat, and the landscape processes that create and sustain that habitat. Actions recommended for Tier 2 subareas focus on protecting what's left as well as restoring habitat to Tier 1 conditions. Actions recommended in Tier 3 focus on improving and restoring water quality and natural hydrological processes (stormwater and instream flows). Lastly, the modeling phase of the technical.work resulted in restoration and protection priorities at both the landscape scale and reach scale. The reach scale information was used for prioritizing individual site-specific actions, as described later in this chapter. The conservation strategy identified for WRIA 8 Chinook salmon habitat can be summarized as follows: February 25, 2005 Page 4 - Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Cedar Population Objectives of actions: • Protect and restore habitat to increase numbers of Chinook salmon • Improve mainstem river habitat so that it is better able to support juvenile rearing • Increase opportunities for Chinook to spawn and rear in Tier 2 subareas, such as the Upper Cedar River and tributaries to the Lower and Middle Cedar subareas • Actions need to be taken in both the Lower Cedar River and Middle Cedar River o The Middle Cedar River is an area of higher habitat function than the Lower Cedar River o Actions in the Lower Cedar River help to increase the abundance and productivity (numbers and reproduction rate) of the Cedar River Chinook population and actions in the Middle Cedar River help to increase their spatial diversity. Focus of actions • Protect water quality • Protect and restore instream flows • Protect and restore riparian habitat • Remove or setback levees and revetments to restore connections with off-channel habitat • Restore sources of large, woody debris (LWD) and install new LWD to restore pool habitat areas North Lake Washington Population Objectives of actions: • Protect and restore habitat to increase the productivity of Chinook salmon spawning in Bear and Cottage Creeks • Expand distribution of Chinook salmon into Tier 2 subareas and reduce risk of relying solely on Bear Creek for spawning • Actions need to be taken in Lower Bear Creek, Upper Bear Creek and Cottage/Cold Creeks o Upper Bear Creek and Cottage/Cold Creeks are areas of higher habitat function than Lower Bear Creek. Focus of actions: • Protect and restore water quality (reduce sediments and high water temperature) • Protect natural hydrological processes (protect forest cover and headwaters) • Protect and restore riparian habitats • Reduce bed and bank scour from high stormwater runoff flows • Reduce confinement of the channel • Restore sources of LWD and install new LWD to provide juveniles with refuge from predators Issaquah Population Objectives of actions: • Protect existing habitat and ecosystem processes • Reduce risks of hatchery strays to other populations • Issaquah Creek and its Tier I tributaries have been divided into Lower Issaquah Creek, Middle Issaquah Creek, Carey/Holder Creeks, North Fork, East Fork and Fifteenmile Creek February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals o Actions need to be taken in all of these areas. o Carey/Holder Creeks, Middle Issaquah, Fifteenmile Creek and North Fork are areas of higher habitat function than Lower Issaquah and East Fork Issaquah. Focus of actions: • Protect existing habitat and processes, such as water quality, forest cover, riparian cover, large woody debris, and channel connectivity • Hold on restoration actions until additional guidance from NOAA and others as to how would affect other populations due to hatchery strays Migratory and Rearing Corridors Objectives of actions: • Reduce predation on juvenile migrants in Lake Washington by providing increased rearing and refuge opportunities • Protect and restore natural estuary and nearshore processes Focus of Actions: Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish • Restore shallow water habitats and creek mouths for juvenile rearing and migration Sammamish River • Restore floodplain connections, channel connectivity, and channel meanders • Restore backwater pools, large woody debris, and riparian vegetation Ship Canal/Locks • Reduce high temperatures and restore shallow water habitats • Continue to improve fish passage through Locks and Ship Canal Nearshore!Estuary • Restore feeder bluffs • Restore stream "pocket" estuaries • Remove armoring • Restore marine riparian vegetation • Restore riparian vegetation and freshwater mixing zone to provide cover and refuge to Chinook downstream of the Locks · Table 1 on the following pages describes the Technical Committee's assumptions about the linkages between habitat conservation recommendations, proposed actions, and the viable salmonid population guidance developed by NOAA Fisheries. This table is intended to help answer the following questions posed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team: What is the basis for the proposed set of habitat actions? How do proposed actions address the population parameters? The table provides examples for three geographic areas; these linkages apply to similar actions in other geographic areas. The graphics at the end of this chapter illustrate some of the natural processes that need to be protected and restored and offer examples of the landscape scale and site-specific actions needed to protect or restore these natural processes. There are graphics for each of the three populations and for the migrating/rearing areas. February 25, 2005 Page6 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Table 1. Assumptions about linkages between Technical Committee habitat conservation hypotheses, proposed actions, and Viable Salmonid Population t r:arame·-·- Sample Action Area. Draft Conservation Hypothesis from Start list (see Chapter 9 for more information} Restore riparian vegetation to provide sources of C5-C7, C229, LWD that can contribute to the creation of pool C701-C702 habitat. Restore floodplain connectivity through setback or C17-C18, C208. removal of dikes and levees, the addition of LWD C213-C214, C222. to create pools, and planting riparian vegetation. C228, C715 E -Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts to C12-C16, C710, (1) -key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in C713 "' C: sediments and in water}, and high temeeratures. ·;; :;; Minimize occurrence of road crossings to maintain C17-C18 ~ floodplain connectivity (1) > ii: ~ "' 'tJ Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream C19-C24, C708 (1) u migration and spawning by establishing in-stream flow levels, enforcing water right compliance, and providing for hydrological continuity. Protect forest cover throughout each of the sub-C1-C3, C703, areas to maintain watershed function and C706. C707, C720- hydrologic integrity (especially maintenance of C721 sufficient base flows), and protect water aualitv. Protect pool habitat and habitat features that C213-C215, C260, support the creation of pools (LWD, riparian C601, C716 function, and channel connectivitvt Viable Salmonid Population Parameters Abundance Productivity ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ February 25, 2005 Page 7 ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ I i Diversity 1, Spatial I ; Distribution ,/ ,/ ,/ ' I ' ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ Comments Enhanced food supply and habitat complexity support higher productivity and diversity_ Enhanced habitat complexity and capacity associated with levee and dike removal enhances spatial distribution. diversity and productivity Clean water and sediments contribute to enhanced productivity and survival Floodplain connectivity enhances water quality and quantity which enhance productivity ....... Enhanced base flows are a key to expanding spawning and rearing habitat, and increasing spatial distribution and diversity Cool, clean water is a prerequisite for high productivity Enhanced pool habitat and habitat complexity enhance nroductivitv and diversity Area I C: 0 -"' C: :c "' "' ?; " ...: "' -' .s:: -:, 0 "' " C: "' ...: 0 " m...., ·- .J ~ :u .c ·-...... t: .s:: :, "' .,, 0 CU "i: z ,?;I- Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Sample Action Draft Conservation Hypothesis [ from Start list (see Chapter 9 for · more Information) Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads I C27-C29, C275- and riprap with gently sloped, sandy beaches. C276, C729-C730 Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as I C39, C267-C268, rearing areas. C719, C721 Restore overhanging riparian vegetation. C27-C29, C269- C270, C272, C729- C730, C736, C738 Reduce impact of docks to promote safe juvenile _ C27-C29, C32- salmon migration and deter the aggregation of C33, C734-C735 redators Address predation effects at the mouth of the C38, C269-C270 Cedar River and backwater area in lower Cedar River Reduce pollution and contamination inputs from C39, C729-C730 marinas and industrial areas. Reduce pollution and contaminant inputs. N18, N21-N23, N202, N236, N289, N702, N713, N720- N721 Reduce sediment inputs from bed scouring high N18, N23, N208, flows. N211, N235, N242, N702, N704, N731 I Viable Salrnonid Population Parameter.; .Abu.ndarice Produc(ivity ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ February 25, 2005 Page 8 ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ Spatial Diversity I Distrltiution ,/ ,/ ,/ ----·-·-· ·-··- Comments Unprotected banks allow natural processes which create habitat complexity and enhanced productivity Opening up new spawning and rearing habitat is a key to enhancing spatial distribution and diversity, leading to increased productivity Enhanced overhanging vegetation enhances food supply and cools water, both important to enhanced productivity Reduced predation increases early life stage S_L,J_rvival and p_roductivity Reduced predation increases early life stage .!5.~ryival .. a~~ _productivity Clean sediments and water contribute to enhanced productivity and survival Controlling bed scouring flows prevents destruction of spawning habitat and enhances productivity Area - Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Sample Action Draft Conservation Hypothesis from Start list (see Chapter 9 for more Information) Restore riparian areas to provide future sources of N12, N206, N276, LWD that can improve channel stability and N703, N707-N709, contribute to pool habitat creation, and reduce peak N714, N721 water temperatures. Protect groundwater recharge sources to Cold N1, N6-N7, N10, Creek and their connection to Cottage Lake Creek N91-N93, N224, and Lower Bear Creek. N256, N277, N719- N724 Address channel confinement in Cottage Lake N15, N201, N208, Creek and Lower Bear Creek. N211, N268, N272, N708 Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts to N18-N19, N21- key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in N23, N202, N702, sediments and in water), and high temperatures. N713, N720-N721, N731 Viable Salmonid Population Parameters Abundance ! Productivity ./ ./ ./ ./ . February 25, 2005 Page 9 ;,/ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ I Spatial i Diversity i Distribution Comments Enhanced food supply and habitat complexity support high productivity .. Clean, cold water and adequate flow support enhanced productivity Unrestrained channels allow natural processes which create habitat complexity and enhanced productivity Clean sediments and water contribute to enhanced productivity and survival Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals The Comprehensive Action Lists and the Start-list Using the Steering Committee guidance and Conservation Strategy described earlier in this chapter, working committees identified approximately 1,200 actions for Chinook salmon. These are referred to as "comprehensive lists" and are provided in Chapters 10 through 15 (See Appendix D for detailed methods). Chapters 10 through 13 include the comprehensive lists for each of the three Chinook population areas and the migratory/rearing corridors. The comprehensive lists include site specific projects only for Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas. The comprehensive lists for land use and public outreach actions include detailed actions for Tier 1 and 2 subareas, and a broad list of actions for Tier 3 subareas (Chapter 14). As a result of the public review process, several actions were added to the comprehensive lists for further analysis in the future; these are located in Chapter 15. The comprehensive lists provide information about relative priority between the actions. Information about how these actions were prioritized is provided in the next section. As the comprehensive lists were being finalized, the need for a different type of list became clear for several reasons: • Need for a manageable list of top priorities to facilitate input from the public and the Forum on action lists and plan implementation • Need for a list that shows the relationship between the three types of actions (land use, site-specific, and public outreach and education) and how they need to be integrated to address each technical hypothesis • Need for a reasonable size list of priorities to begin implementing immediately The Steering Committee approved criteria for development of the start-list; these criteria are provided in Appendix D. The start-list attempts to compile the land use, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach and education recommendations into a single strategy list which focuses watershed priorities yet also provides a manageable number of actions. The Start-list consists of 170 actions, and focuses primarily on Tier 1 subareas, with a small number of actions in Tier 2 subareas. There are about 30-60 actions for each of the three Chinook populations, and an additional 38 for the nearshore and migratory corridors. Except for four actions added to the start-list by the Steering Committee in response to the public review process, the Service Provider Team generated the start-list by applying the criteria approved by the Steering Committee to the comprehensive lists. Thus, while the original actions on the comprehensive lists were generated through the stakeholder input process described above, the start-list was not cycled back for subsequent review by these working committees. The Steering Committee recommends that the action lists generated by the process be used as follows: Comprehensive Lists • Use throughout the process to identify and implement actions • Offer priorities for stakeholders and jurisdictions to implement locally • Provide action details to implementers • Provide source for input to start-list over time February 25, 2005 Page 10 • I Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Start-list • Provide manageable list to facilitate input from public and Forum on action lists and plan implementation • Provide manageable list for immediate implementation of actions o Use to generate and approve SRFB and KCD grants and other regional funding for first ten years • Use as adaptive management tool o Run actions through the treatment phase of the EDT model to provide information on the relative effectiveness of recommended actions c Provide start-list for adaptive management that can be revised based on new information from the EDT model, monitoring results, etc. To aid the reader, the actions on each list have been numbered. The comprehensive lists in Chapters 10 through 13 were used as the basis for the numbering system. To differentiate action recommendations between populations, the following alphanumberic system was established: Actions for Cedar population are denoted by C#. Example: C105 Actions for the NLW population are denoted by N#. Example: N104 Actions for Issaquah population are denoted by 1#. Example: 1118 Actions for Migratory/rearing Corridor are denoted by M#. Example: M150 To differentiate between types of actions (land use, site-specific, or public outreach) within geographic subareas, the actions are differentiated as follows: • Land use actions are numbered from 1-160 • Site-specific actions are numbered from 200-599 c Basinwide recommendations are numbered from 600-699 • Public outreach and education are numbered from 700-750 Example: • C18 denotes land use action for the Cedar population • C250 denotes site-specific action for the Cedar population • C730 denotes public outreach and education action for the Cedar population The actions in the start-list use the same numbering system, so the reader can find more information for an action on the start-list by using the reference number to find it on the comprehensive lists in Chapters 10 through 13. How Individual Actions on the Comprehensive Lists were Prioritized As noted above, the conservation strategy provides guidance for the type of habitat actions and where actions are needed. This guidance was used for the prioritization of actions at a more detailed level by the working committees, who evaluated and/or prioritized identified actions using the following additional criteria approved by the Steering Committee: • Extent to which furthers the conservation strategy (benefits to Chinook) • Feasibility/implementability (technical, community and local support) Due to the nature of the three types of actions (land use, site-specific, public outreach and education), the results of the prioritization process vary. For example, public February 25. 2005 Page 11 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals outreach and site-specific actions have been ranked as high, medium, or low (see Appendix D for full description of methodology). The site-specific actions have been prioritized at the greatest level of detail. Prioritization of Land Use Actions Land use actions were developed by local planners and other stakeholders based on the technical hypotheses identified in the conservation strategy. The actions reflect local knowledge and experience about types of land use tools that are likely to be adopted and implemented, but the actions were not prioritized While individual actions were not prioritized, the Technical Committee gave general guidance on the relative importance of land use actions based on subarea condition. The Technical Committee said that while protecting forest cover, riparian cover, and water quality are all important, where forest cover is intact the most important action is. to maintain that forest cover so that hydrologic processes are maintained and the potential for adverse water quality impacts is minimized. However, in situations where there is degraded forest cover there is less opportunity to restore via landscape processes -in these situations riparian buffers become especially important. Similarly, if forest cover and riparian cover are both degraded, stormwater management actions to maintain water quality and quantity become critical. As noted above, the Steering Committee asked for land use actions for Tier 1 and 2 subareas that could be applied by jurisdictions on a voluntary basis, and a menu of land use actions for jurisdictions to consider, that could be applied WRIA-wide. The Tier 1 and 2 land use actions are part of the comprehensive lists (and start-list) found in Chapters 9 through 13. Chapter 14 provides general land use recommendations for Tier 3 subareas. The menu of land use tools, located in Appendix D (Part 5), is organized by scientific outcome, and describes actions by implementation and feasibility criteria. Part 6 of Appendix D provides references about critical areas, stormwater management, low impact development (including BMPs, demonstration projects, and example ordinances), and Shoreline Master Programs. These references are provided for informational purposes only, because many stakeholders requested examples and resources on land use topics. While the Chinook conservation strategy provides detailed information about salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities, and examples of buffer standards are provided in the references, the Plan does not set specific buffer standards. The Steering Committee and WRIA 8 Technical Committee did not want the Plan to provide specific buffer recommendations, nor was it feasible to do so, given the broad range of landscapes and development conditions across the watershed. Rather, it was acknowledged that individual jurisdictions should develop their own best available science (using the conservation strategy as one of a number of resources) and then develop their own buffer standards based on their BAS. Prioritization of Site-specific Projects Protection and restoration projects were prioritized using the conservation strategy described in Chapter 4, the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling results, and professional opinion of subarea experts about the benefit and feasibility of potential projects. Protection and restoration projects were identified and listed separately because they are treated differently by the EDT model. The protection and restoration projects were also prioritized using similar, but different criteria. February 25, 2005 Page 12 • Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals The prioritization of potential protection projects is based on: • The tier of the subarea • The EDT results for the subarea reaches (the habitat index) AND/OR whether or not the project/reach has been identified as a priority by an existing science-based habitat protection program, such as Waterways or Cedar River Legacy • How the proposed habitat protection projects are rated by subarea experts and WR/A 8 Technical Committee members on their benefit to Chinook and feasibility or ease of implementation. The prioritization of potential restoration projects is based on: • The tier of the subarea • The EDT restoration potential of the subarea reaches • How the proposed habitat protection projects are rated by subarea experts and WR/A 8 Technical Committee members on their benefit to Chinook and feasibility or ease of implementation. To aid implementers, the site-specific action lists are provided in Chapters 10 -13 using two methods: the first site-specific list shows the actions in order of priority based on the priority of the stream or lake reach, benefit to Chinook and feasibility. The second site- specific list lists the actions in order of geographic location, e.g., from the lower reaches of a stream up to the upper reaches of the stream. In both cases, the actions are the same. Prioritization of Public Outreach Actions Public outreach actions were developed by the Public Outreach Committee based on the technical hypotheses in the conservation strategy. Actions were also evaluated according to a set of criteria, and actions for some Chinook populations have been generally prioritized based on these criteria (see comprehensive lists). The following criteria were used to qualitatively evaluate public outreach actions: • Desired scientific outcome based on an identified habitat condition: recommended outreach actions focus on those conditions that can be modified through outreach and education • Target audience: those who have the most control over a particular habitat condition and those who could make changes that would have the greatest impact on restoration and/or protection efforts (e.g., shoreline property owners) • Proven track record or model: outreach strategies that have been tried before or are based on existing models may have a higher success rate or may be easier to implement than newly hatched ideas • Level of financial commitment: based on a relative scale of resource investment (high, medium, low) • Implementation at local or WR/A-wide level: "Local" actions could be carried out by individual jurisdictions as soon as they are willing and able; they do not require coordination of all the partners to put info effect. However, for some outreach efforts that require large financial commitment or ones that might necessitate major behavioral changes, the leveraging effects of a "WRIA-wide" effort might prove more effective. Public Review Comments on Action Lists Numerous comments during the public review process addressed actions, including support for specific actions, proposed additions or deletions, and comments on the February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals general approach taken to develop and prioritize actions. Specific action changes made as a result of Steering Committee review of public comment are described in Appendix A. Comments on land use actions addressed a range of policy issues. A number of commenters expressed concern for the following issues: • The plan should promote low impact development to minimize the impacts of population growth on salmon habitat • The plan should emphasize enforcement of existing and/or proposed actions • Land use actions should be eligible for regional funding • Land use actions should not create a new bureaucracy, rather they should build on existing initiatives Several issues for which commenters expressed a range of opinions on land use include: • The plan should have stronger regulations ... There should be less emphasis on a regulatory approach • The plan should not inhibit urban growth .... The plan should limit urban growth The Steering Committee decided that the range of comments supported the overall approach to land use which provides a wide of range of actions (incentives, regulations, etc.). As noted, specific changes approved by the Steering Committee are found in Appendix A. Context and Relationship to Other Programs/Processes Many programs, projects, and laws are already in place to protect or restore salmon habitat in WRIA 8, and were considered in development of this plan. These initiatives are implemented in the context of a heavily urbanized and densely populated watershed. Approximately 55% of the land area of the WRIA lies inside the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The WRIA's population in 2002 was approximately 1.3 million people; the projected population for 2022 is 1.6 million. (See appendix D, Part 4 for population data for all WRIA jurisdictions, in 2002 and projected for 2022). Salmon habitat is directly and indirectly affected by the Growth Management Act (GMA), stormwater programs, water rights, and other state, local and federal initiatives. The land use actions in the draft plan build on these initiatives and recommend changes and additions where existing efforts do not go far enough in protecting or restoring salmon habitat. Several regulatory and programmatic efforts already under way, which will have a significant impact on habitat, include: • Comprehensive plans are being updated to incorporate revised 20 year growth targets, as required by GMA -by December '04 • Critical (or sensitive) areas ordinances are being reviewed and revised based on Best Available Science (BAS), as required by GMA -many jurisdictions will complete by December '04 • Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) are being updated to incorporate Washington Dept. of Ecology's revised guidance, based on the schedule adopted by 2003 State Legislature: Snohomish County by 2005; King Co. and cities over 10,000 by 2009 (although a number of jurisdictions are revising their SMPs now); all other cities linked to GMA compliance cycle between 2011 -2014 February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals • NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 municipal stormwater permits -Washington Department of Ecology expects to develop Phase 1 and 2 permits by spring 2005; jurisdictions will need to adopt permits during 2005 The lists of site specific habitat and restoration proiects in the plan's comprehensive lists draw on many years of watershed planning in WRIA 8. Watershed plans have been completed for many parts of the watershed including the Cedar River (lower and upper), Bear Creek, Issaquah Creek, Lake Sammamish, and the Sammamish River. There are also habitat protection programs that have been identifying and protecting best remaining habitat in many parts of the watershed, including Bear Creek Waterways, Issaquah and Lake Sammamish Waterways, and Cedar River Legacy. Many of the potential habitat protection projects included in this draft plan were first identified by one of these programs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Washington/Ship Canal General Investigation Study has also been a source of potential projects and will ultimately be a source of potential funding for design and construction of habitat restoration projects in the future. WRIA 8 has a strong history of salmon-related outreach and education programs at the federal, state, and local levels. Local examples include: King County and Snohomish County basin stewardship programs, Seattle Urban Creeks program, and the Bellevue Stream Team. The proposed public outreach actions build on and reinforce key messages of these and other programs that have common goals. Important messages that will be conveyed by WRIA 8, which are consistent with other local and regional messages, include: • Water conservation promoted by natural yard care programs and the utilities (power, water, wastewate'r treatment) and re.lation to salmon conservation • Pesticide reduction promoted by King Co. Local Hazardous Waste Management, Natural Yard Care, health care industry, vets (for pet health), fishing industry, restaurant industry and relation to salmon conservation • Increased use of native plants by stream teams, community outreach programs, natural yard care, native plant salvage, noxious weed programs and relation to .salmon. The Steering Committee mission and goal statements state that while the Plan should focus on habitat, it should also encourage appropriate reforms in harvest and hatchery practices, management of non-native species, and other activities outside of its direct control, which may be necessary for successful conservation of salmon. This Plan recommends actions that would need to be carried out by agencies other than participating jurisdictions, such as actions that address harvest and hatchery practices, and actions that would be implemented by Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington Department of Ecology. Harvest and hatcheries will be integrated with habitat actions by Puget Sound Shared Strategy through the regional, larger ESU-scale recovery plan. Because local governments do not have the means nor the authority to implement all the actions necessary to protect and restore salmon habitat in WRIA 8, the Steering Committee recommends that recovery of salmon be undertaken by a broad partnership that reaches beyond local governments to include citizens, homeowners, community groups, non-profit agencies, businesses, developers, public agencies, and the co-managers. Recommendations regarding who can help implement the action recommendations are provided in Chapter 8. Options for funding implementation of the actions are discussed in Chapter 7. February 25. 2005 Page 15 Chapter 5: Actions to Achieve Our Goals Additional Opportunities for Collaborative Partnerships In addition to the actions on the comprehensive and start lists, there are a number of opportunities for local jurisdictions to collaborate on actions and for public/private partnerships within and across WRIAs. A preliminary list of collaborative land use actions includes: • Promote regional (cross-jurisdictional) stormwater planning and facilities construction • Work with Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to explore the feasibility of a WRIA-wide NPDES permit in the future. King County has initiated discussions on th_is idea. The city of Seattle is encouraging jurisdictions to work together on their stormwater and drainage code amendments to reduce costs for local agencies, resolve similar stormwater management issues, and negotiate together on similar issues with Ecology on NPDES permits. • Promote demonstration projects of low impact development (LID) features, monitoring of such projects, and cross-jurisdiction training for planners, developers, and others on technical, financial, and marketing aspects of LID projects • Promote salmon-friendly bulkhead, shoreline, and dock demonstration projects on public property in most jurisdictions around Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Such projects will gather practical experience and demonstrate how these altered dock and bulkhead designs can actually work. Use findings from these projects to promote proposals for expedited permitting for local, state, federal permits related to shoreline structures. • Collaborate on Shoreline Master Program updates, and other regulatory and policy revisions, using the WRIA 8 conservation strategy as part of Best Available Science. Seattle's "Restore our Waters" strategy includes coordination among twelve city departments to establish priorities to address habitat, water quality, and flows in an urban setting, and illustrates the potential for similar priority setting and coordination across jurisdictions and between public and private partners. • Encourage jurisdictions to cooperate on flexible development tools such as mitigation banking and transferable development rights (TDRs). Such tools require cooperation between subareas and jurisdictions to benefit both developed and undeveloped areas. • Develop consistent guidelines for landscaping certification programs • Share lessons learned about enforcement, and related education about laws and their purposes, to improve enforcement across jurisdictions • Fund and provide technical support for maintenance of public and private lands which have been set aside for protection of natural functions. As the number of protected lands increases, the need increases for sharing information and staff, based on models which work efficiently and over long time periods to steward and monitor these lands to insure that their ecological functions remain in tact (e.g., Cascade Land Conservancy in Redmond Ridge). • Research extent and impact of withdrawals, including exempt wells and illegal withdrawals. This will require collaboration among Ecology, local health and permitting agencies, water suppliers, developers, and homeowner associations. February 25, 2005 Page 16 Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function & Structure in Lower Cedar River (Includes Lake Washington Recommendations) Process: Small creek mouths with sandy deltas and wetlands provide habitat for juvenile rearing and refugia from predators. Functions Prov ided: Habitat Shelter fro m Predation Land Use: Provide r egulatory flexibil ity tha t encourages r est o r ation of these areas. Address impacts from upland development thr ough stormwater management and incentive programs. Public Outreach: Encourage participation of citizen-based s t ewardshi p efforts fo r creek mouth r estoration and water quality protection. Process: Forests, wetlands, and riparian buffers prevent high flows and erosion, maintain adequate stream flows, protect water quality and temperature, and provide sources of large woody d ebris that support salmon habitat. Functions Provided: Water Quantity Water Quality Habitat-fo rming Process Land Use: Encourage urban d esigns that incorporate e xisting trees and native landscaping, low impact d evelo pment, and o the r techniques that protect water quality and minimize impacts o f stormwater runoff. . Site-Specific: Acquire good quality riparian ·. and forest habitat and revegetate degraded · · -~parian areas and forests. Proces s: Natural processes deliver clean gravels to spawning areas, as well as create pools and riffles that are important to salmon. Fun ction s Prov ided: Water Q ual ity Habitat-forming Process Process: Gently sloped shorelines with shallow water habitats and overhanging vegetation provide juvenile salmon with rearing habitat and safe haven from predators. Fun ctions Provided: Habitat Shelter from Preda tion Lan d Use: Offer expedited permitting to encourage salmon- friendly shoreline design and redevel opment. 0 , • Process: Floodplains prov ide off-channel habitat for juvenile salmon to rear and find refuge from fast-moving waters and predators . Floodplains reduce water tempera tures, ma i ntain adequate stream flows, and provide sources of large woody debris that slow fast- moving water, create channel stability, and create pool habitat. Fu nctions Pro v ided: Wat er Quantity Water Qualitt; Ha bitat-form ing Process Land Use: Limit new bank armoring and flood p lain development. Local and state transportation departments should limit new road crossings and address water quality im p a cts of road runoff. Public Outreach: Construct a demo nstratio n project with riverfront property owners t o repl ace stream-bank anno ring w ith salmo n-frie ndly design. Docu ment a nd publicite results. t ~~,f Public Outreach: Encourage community groups whic h build public s uppo rt for protecti o n a nd acquis iti o n. Enli s t he lp of bui lders to encourage green dc\'C lop ment prnc tices. Land Use: Adopt stormwater management practices that reduce sed iment inputs fro m b ed-scouring high fl ows, and from n on-point sources, including roads and new d evelopment. This graphk illustrates a representative sample of actions . It does not include all proposed acti ons . Public Outreach: Promot c b ette r unders tandi ng o f how everyday acti o ns like driving cars (with metal p:ms tha t wear away): washi ng cars o n the s treet : ,md landscapin g practices c an a ll affec:L water q uali t y. Ke y tu Action Tvpcs D Green d en otes land u se actio ns across the wate rshed or in the immed iate v icini ty of water o r key habitats (e.g ., wetland s) where regula tions/incentives co u p le d w ith public education can protec t or re s to re water quali ty or quantity, an d habitat conditions. In the s ho rt-and lo ng-te rm, land u se ac tions in these areas ha ve a major effe ct o n aquatic habitat cond itions and the p ro cesses that crea te and maintain that habitat. Blue denotes areas along water bo d ies where si te-specific action s are proposed to protect or resto re specifi c stream reaches. Such actions may rrotect or restore h a bitat functio ns, o r ad dress symptoms o d egra ded habi tat fun ctions . These actions a re suppor ted by land use and public educati on actions that protPct h abi tat pro ce sses and function s througho u t th e wate rshed. D Gray deno tes areas w he re broader public outreach actions arc pro posed throughout the watershed. Respons ib le land s tewardsh ip an~ lo w im pact d evelorment p rotect and maintain natural fl ow regimes an d water quality. ~ ::, 0 "' ti <.J ::, "- Vicinity M a p 1--:-->~~~,1 ~f ~--..., ., -·, ... c,., Examples of Site-Sp ecific Project Re commendations Restoration by Re ach 0 Add LWD a s O ppo rtunities Arise (j Ad d Setback Levee (D Restore and Replant Ri parian Vegetation Pro tec tion by Reach ® Pro te ct Rip arian H abita t through Acq u isition (0 Protect H ead waters a nd Springs ® Protect Large/Public Parcel of Land 8 Prote ct In-Stre am Habitat Proces s : Adequate s tream flo w s allow upstream migration and spawning. Fun ctio n s Prov ided: Water Quantitt; Water Quali ty Habi tat-fo rm in g Process Land Use: Ca rry o u t p r ograms that protect aquifer r echarge areas, enact stormwater regulations that encourage infiltratio n and low impact d evelopment, and address ill eg al withdrawals. Public Outreach: Promote and extend availab ility of wat er co nservation educatio n and incentive programs. Study Reaches (EDT) .. Wate r Bo d y -U rban Growth Boundary l. ... Wetland Merged Buffer N + ® King County Depa r tment of Natur a l Resources and Pa r k s W ater a nd Land R esources D ivision 0 ~0 2ha barnons(ED_N.ai :c 51 wgab Integration of Habitat Actions to Address Process, Function, & Structure in Middle Cedar River Process: Forests, wetlands, and riparian buffers prevent high flows and erosion, maintain adequate stream flows, protect water quality and temperature, and provide sources of large woody debris that support salmon habitat. Function s Provided : Water Quality Water Quantity Habitat -for ming Process land Use: Adopt and enforce forest protection standards and riparian buffers; promote low impact development through regulations and incentives. ,.. .... -, .. ~~ --...•·:··. --·, I "o-· ... -,..:·, ... ,,l-,~41.':" ; Site-Specific: Acquire good quality riparian ,. ,~a'n<! ,for~t habi~t and_ revegetate degra~e~~~ !riparian areas and forests: ' ' .. , ~·:) r .... ·~ ._ .. _ .. _ --. . ~ -, • ._.. -.... .... .• , , ~ -~ --• ...-- Public Education ; Encourag e community groups w hich build public s upport for prot ectio n a nd a cquisition . Enlis t he l p o f builders w e ncourage g reen deve lo pment practices. Process: Floodplains provide off- channel habitat for juvenile salmon to rear and find refuge from fast-moving waters and predators. Floodplains reduce water te mperatures, maintain adequate stream flows, and provide sources of large woody debris that s low fast-moving water, create channel s tability, and create pool habitat. Fun ctions Provided: Wat er Quality Water Quantity Habitat-forming Proces s land Use: Limit new bank armor ing and floodplain d evelopment. Local and s ta te transportation departments should limit new r o ad crossings and address water quality impacts of road runoff. Site-specific Purchase iioodplain?°and -... ~-;.:J flood-prone structures, remove levees':"~ci ~ _!~V~!Jnents, and f~~-lil!ge~opdy,_~!~ris.:L ;~ Public Education: Cons truct a dcrnonsm1tion project with riverfront p roperty owners to replace s tream-bank armoring with salmo n-friendly desig n. Docume nt a nd publi c iLe result s. Process: Natural processes deliver clean gravels to spawning areas, as well as create pools and riffles that are important to salmon. Fun ctions Prov ided : Water Quality Habitatjorming Pro cess land Use: Adopt stormwater management practices that reduce sediment inputs from bed-scouring high flows, and from non- point sources, including roads and farm practices, and new development. !s1i~i~eciti ~cons~~L r-'i . -;. ~j t }-f~~ ,!h'ategi~ !o~!!ons !o reduce er~~~:ift~t ~ 1 ~~t!ve ·riparian vegetation to restore ....:: ~r.~-uJ:., .; ~parian c~!rind~t ~d ~9'~~~¥ .l?ank, · ~-· ·.,,,~ 'Stability. _. -~-"'~:~~~/-~··'<;;,., .i.._' .. · . .-_ .. ,,,~1.",_~ ~ .... ,.,_.,....__.._.L •.. _ ......... ~ ..... ~.---... ,..,,_ -4C,:'~ Public Education: Promme better unders tanding of h ow e veryday actions l ike driving cars (with meta l parL5 th a t wear away): wash in g c a rs on the s tree t: and landscaping prac ti ces can all affect water qua lit y. • Process: Adequate stream flows allow upstream migration and spawning. Fu nction s Provided : Water Quality Water Quantity 1-lab ita t-form ing Process Land Use: Ca rry out p rograms that protect aquifer recharge areas, enact s tormwater r egulations that encourage infiltration and low impact develo pment, and address illegal withdrawals. Site-~pecifi~ Work ~tl{ Seattle Pub~c· I Utilities, Cedar River Instream Flow · Commission, and other stakeholders on policies, procedures, and research relate~ to effects of flow O!'\ habitat restoratio~. . m Public Education: Promote and extend availability of wate r con servation e ducation and incentive programs. This graphi c illu st rates a representative sample of ac ti ons. It d oes not include a ll proposed acti ons. Cl ~ Sl f-"' ~ '"' -. Vicinity M<1P-I ·y ~,: ~-~ j ,,.-. Examples of Site-Specific Project Recommendations Restoration b y Reach © Add LWD as Opportunities Arise Q Provide Enhanced Flows I @ Res tore and Re plant Riparian Vegetatio n ---_ _J Protection by Rea c h ® Pro tect Ripari an Habita t throu gh Acquisition C) Protect Headwate rs and Springs ® Protect Large/P ublic Parce l of Land ~ 0 .. ~ S tudy Reaches (EDT) Water Bo d y Urban Growth Boundary .l. • Wetland Merged Buffer + !51 • .:.·~ 11"1 •/>-•'"'!;'"''~ Key to Action Types D Green denotes adjacent land use action s ac ross the waters hed o r in the immediate vicinity of water or key habitats (e.g., wet la nds) where regulations/incen ti ves cou p led with p u blic education ca n protect or res tore wa ler qualit y o r quantity, and habitat co nditions. 1n the short-an d long-term, land us e actions in these areas have a major eff ect on aq uatic habitat conditions and the processes th at crea te and maintain that h a bitat. Blue d enotes areas a long water bodies where s ite- s pecifi c actio ns are proposed to protect o r res to re s pec ific stream reaches . Such actions may protect or res tore habitat functions, or address sym ptoms of degraded habitat functions. These actions are suppo rted by land use and public educati on action s that protect habitat processes and func ti o n s throughout the watershed. D G ray denotes areas where broader and p ubli c outreach acti ons a re proposed throughout the wate rshed . Responsible land stewa rdship and low imfact deve lopment protect and maintain natura flow regimes and water quality. {!) King County D epartment o f Natural Resources a n d Park s W a t er and l a nd Resources Division o,Olholbdc!IOns CE D_S.a, /C S) wqa b LJ J : I g OL __ f ___ 1t_ ...... 1c .... " .... LS .. v A--... e~.:, .1 rCJ\.:t:;jS, r untuun, & Structure in North Lake Washington Tributaries Process: Forests, wetlands, floodplains, and riparian buffers provide critical hydrologic processes that temper high flows, flashiness, and erosion; maintain base flows; and protect water quality and water temperature. Functions Provided: Water Quality Wa ter Qu antity Hab itat Land U s e: P rotect fo re st cover, minimize in crease s in impervio us surfaces and road crossings through incentive s and regulatio ns (in c ludin g stormwater and c riti cal areas ordinanc es), encourage low impact development. f S:it~~Specific Ac:tions:'Purchase··property ·or easements to protect ·; iR <if<?Cls that includ~ forest~, floodp~_a_ins, ~d riparian buffers. I . Public Outreach: Promote p ublic awaren ess of alternatives to imperviou s m aterials and effect o f impe rviou s surfaces on water q uality and wa ter q u an tity. Process: Spawning areas in the North Lake Washington subarea are focused in Bear Creek and should be protected . Fun ction s Prov ided: Wa ter Quality Wa ter Q uantity Habi tat Land Us e: Continue to enforce c learin g re str ic t ions and aquatic bu ffe rs . a nd otht:r everyday ac ri vities that be ne fit salmon (s uc h as reduc ed pestici de use a nd washi ng your car on grass). lnc re.ise pub lic awareness o f li nk ages between ho me water use. s to rm water n m-off. and st rea m condi ti ons. Process: Adequate stream flows allow upstream migration and spawning. function Provided: Wa ter Quantity Land U s e: Pr ovide long-term prote cti on of a dequate fl ows by addressin g impact o f wate r withdrawals (ill ega l, legal, exempt) on fl ows. ,. ' Public Outreach: Promote awareness o f th e link be tween wate r conservation and stream flows . _, • -._ ' ""~ ~( Process: Headwater areas, wetlands, and sources of groundwater (e .g., seeps and springs) maintain temperature and hydrologic integrity. Function s Provided: Wa ter Q uality Water Quan tity Land Us e: Protect o r res to re h eadwa te r areas su ch as Cold Creek natural area, fo rest cove r, wetl ands, and g roundwa te r so urces through incen tives and regula tio ns to p rovid e long-te rm p rotection and improve me nts. Public Outreach: Incre ase public awaren ess of importance of these key a reas in salmon production throu ghou t subwatershed. . Process: Natural processes deliver clean gravels to spawning areas, as well as create pools and riffles that are important to salmon. Func t ion Prov ided: Water Qu ality Land Us e: Ado p t stormwater manageme n t practices that reduce sedime nt inputs from bed- scou ri ng h igh fl ows and fr om non-p oint sources, incl udin sand on roads and fa rm radices. ... • Public Outreach: Promo te unders tanding of lin k be tween fi ne sediments, metal s (particu la rl y those in h ou sehold items), and water qu a li ty fo r salmon. Process : Floodplains provide off- channel habitat for juvenile salmon to rear and find refuge from fast- moving waters and predators . Floodplains reduce water temperatures, maintain adequate stream flows, and provide sources of large woody debris that slow fast - moving water, create channel stability, and create pool habitat. Functio ns Provided: Wa ter Quality Habitat Land U se: Ma intain and effectively en fo rce current aquatic-area buffers to restore the lon g-te rm na tural sources of LWD . L4rM.4 .rss r:-F!i.'f3'fi .,. rs:.t.ta?MS11 Public Outreach: Promote understanding of link b e tween trees tod ay, fis h h abita t tomorrow, and salmon recovery. ~ ~ .... I t5 ::, Q,, n lLl Yici nity Map Th is graphic illustrates a representative sa mple of action s . ft does no t in cl u de a ll proposed actio ns . Key to Action Types D G reen denotes ad jacent la n d u se action s across th e watershed o r in the im mediate v ici ni ty of wa te r or key hab it ats (e .g., wetlands) where rei:,,u l ation s /incentives coupled with public education can p rotect or res tore wa te r qua lity o r q u a nti ty, a nd habi tat cond itions. In th e short-an d lon g -te rm, land u se ac ti ons in these areas have a major e ff ect on aquati c habitat condition s and the processes that c rea te a nd mainta in th a t habitat. Blu e denotes areas along wate r bo d ies whe re site -s p eci fi c actio n s a re pro posed to p ro tect or res tore s pecific stream re ach es . Such action s m ay rrotect or restore h abitat func tio ns, or addr ess sympto ms o degrad e d habitat functi on s. These acti o ns a re supported by lan d use a n d p ublic edu cation action s that pro tect habitat p roce sses an d fu nctions th roughout the watershed . D Gray d en otes a reas w h e re broader and public o utreach ac tion s a rc proposed throughou t th e wa tershed. Respon si bl e land steward sh ip a n~ low im pact devel op ment prote ct ancf maintain natural flow regimes and water quali ty. Examples of Site-Specific Project Recommendations Resto ration by Reach @ Add LW D as Opportu n ities Ar ise Q P rovi d e Enha n ced Flows @ Res to re and Replant Ri pari an Vegetation @ Re fo rest Clea red A reas Pro tecti on by Reach ® Pro tect Ri parian H abitat throu gh Acquis itio n C) P rotect H ead wa te rs and Springs ® Prote ct Large/Publi c Parce l o f Land ~ Study Reach es (E DT) Wa te r Bod y tJ,'° ~ ~ ... U rban Gr owth Bound a ry We tl an d Me r ged Buffe r N ' ( \ . " + H c ~ .,1,.J1,.1.1 U1. ® King County De partm ent of Natur al Resou rces an d Parks Water and Land Resources Division 0~0 2habawonsN_LK_WA .al K S) wgab Integra tio n o f H ab i tat A ct i o n s to Address Pro cess, Fun ct ion, & Stru ct ure in Mig ratory and Rearin g Corridors o f WRIA 8 Marine Nearshore: Prote ct a nd restore s m a ll strea m mouths, backs hore areas, and p oc ket e s tuaries to increas e s ucc e s s of ju venile rearing and m igratio n . S tudies: Es tablish historic bluff locations and sediment supply r ates and evalu ate feasibility of restoring sediment supply and beach nouris hment. Lan d Use : Pro tect remai ning feeder bluffs and reduce armoring through loca l ordinances, Shore line Ma s ter Programs, and r egu latory fl ex ibi lity for remov ing armo ring, fill , and overwater structur es. Prohibit new fi ll except for res toration o r essential public facili ties . Site Specific: Acquire active feeder bluff areas. Remove armoring to restore sediment supplies. Restore eelgrass beds. Public Outre ach: Devt!lop o ul rl!ach aho ut 1he hendits that sandy beaches and nai ive sho reli ne vege tati on can provid e! to both sho re line propert y ow ner ~ and the ea rshore e nv ironmen t. \'/,i/,lwl U,,, / .t. ·1,1u,,.,~ ';""'' .. S h ip Canal and Ba llard Locks: Reduce w a ter te mpe ra tures tha t ar e s tressful fo r o u tmig r ating juve ni l e Chinook and may a ls o increas e predation ra t es on outmi g ra tin g juveniles. S tudies : Evaluate habitat characteristics that pro vi d e refuge from predators in the Ship Canal. Land Use: Reduce water quality poUution (es pecially from commercial and indus trial areas) through NPDES p e rmits, low- impact development e ff o rts such as SEA Streets, and s torm water Bes t Manag e me nt Practices. Site Specific: Restore riparian vegetation to provide cover and refuge for juvenile outmigrants. Public Outreach: Prov id e ou1reach 10 comml!rcial and industrial land U!lt!S abou t so urce contro l Be st Man age me111 Pract ices and the Ship Canal revege ta tion ca mpaig n. I / i l'l <,I I \01 \ IJ I fltull /Su) ~lt: ... t::e: ! ~ I ,\ I ,, I r I I I I I-. ) "-Bolhell t<en, ,ore i , Kirkland 1 ...J":~ I 11Ar H,n/111t::1ou I I I I \I JP. t \ ) / .. '': ·. ~/ ·, 'j I ,,A ")·' ". 0-,.:._ I ~ l \ r \.,_ i Samma mis h Rive r : Res to re channe l meande rs, flood benches, and ripa rian vegetation to res tore groundwate r connections, red uce te mperatures, a nd e nhance juven ile rearing habitat. S tudies: Evalu ate feasibility of re-meande ri ng of channel to restore connections with cool groundwater supplies. Evaluate impact of surface and groundwater withdrawals on flow conditions and temperatures for migrating Chinook . Land U s e : Encou rage bank re- g rading an d revegetation of riparian buffers during new cons truction an d redevelopm en t. Reduce u nauthorized wate r withdrawals due to adve rse impact o n base fl o ws and temperatures. Public Outreach: Prom o te water conservati o n to re duce groundwater withdrawals in the Sa m mamish Vall ey. Support volunteer effor ts to restore riparian ve getation alon g the Sa mmamish River. Lake Wa s h i ngton and La ke Sammamis h : Restore s andy beaches with gentle s lopes th at ._,, · maximize s hallow water ha b it ats fo r juvenile rearin g and migratio n . Re co nnect tri butary cre e k mouths tha t s erve as juvenile re aring areas . S tudies: Evalu ate feas ibility of re moving bulkheads and rip-r ap to restore sand y s h allow wate r h ab itats. Land Use: Encou ra ge salmon- friend ly des ign dur ing ne w development or redevelopm ent. Offer incentives for voluntary removal of bulkheads and discourage cons tructio n of new bulkheads. Site Specific: Replace bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches and rL•storc overhanging riparian vegetation. Public Outreach: Outreach to s horeline landowne rs abou t fish - fr iendly lands caping p r actices and a lterna tives to shoreline armoring . This graphic illustrates a re prese nta ti ve sa mp le of actio ns. It d ocs not incl ude a ll p roposed ac ti ons. D Lig ht Blue d enotes area s whe re ad d iti ona l resea rch is needed to better unders tand the impacts of speci fi c threats to ha bit at quali ty or to u nde rstand th e po tentia l effecti ve ness of s pecifi c re s to ra ti on actions. Ad di t ional info r ma tion w il l ins ure that re storation effo rt s a re successful and cos t eff ective. D Green denotes land use actions across the wa tershed o r in th e immediate vicinity of wate r or key habi tats (e .g ., we tlan d s) where regu lations/in centives cou p led with pub lic education ca n protect o r re s tore wate r q uality o r quantity, and habita t conditions. ln the short-and lo ng-term, la nd use ac tions in these a reas h ave a maj or effect on aquatic h abitat conditi ons and the processes that crea te and m aintain that ha bi ta t. Blue d enote s areas a long water bod ies wher e si te-specific actions are propose d to pro te ct o r res tore specific s tr ea m reaches. Such actions may protect or restore h abitat functi ons, o r ad d ress sy mp to ms of degrad ed hab ita t fu n ctions. These acti ons are suppo rted by land use and p u blic edu cation ac ti ons th at protect habitat processes and fun cti ons throughout the w ate rshed . D Gray d enotes areas w here broad e r public outre ach actions are p roposed throughout the wa tershed. Respo nsible lan d ste ward shi p and low imp ac t de ve lopment protect ancf mamtam natural flow regi mes and wa ter quality. /'v WRIA 8 Boundary ..-• , Mig ration Ro u tes Ma jor Trans porta tio n Rou tes Water Body + @ King County D epa rt ment of Nat u r al Resour ces a nd Pa rks W ater and La nd Resources Division OS0 2haudCIIOnsMIGR ATI ON.al ((5) w yab -111te 0 1.atiun or nab1tat Actions to Address Process, Function & Structure in Issaquah Creek and its Tributaries (Includes Lake Sammamish Recommendati ons) P ro cess: Gently sloped lake s hore lines w ith s hallow water h a bitats and ov erhanging veg etation p rovi d e j u v enile salmon with rearing habita t and s afe refuge from predators. Tunction Provided: Habitat Slielter from predation Land Use: Provide incentives and regulatory fle xibility that encourage salmon-friendly sh oreline des ign and redevelopment. i Site::,Spedfic: Ensure that .-the · final t ake . [Sammamish State Park development plan ., :~dequately protects floodplain/riparian . ;" iP.rc;icesses and mouth of Issaquah Creek. . "'"A.j ~;.. ~ . . . --• . . Pu b lic Outreach: Prom ote mutual value of light-permeable docks, smaller piling sizes, and community docks to both s almon and p r operty owner s by direct mailings to lakeshore p roper ty owners or registered boat owners. Proc ess: Ad e quate s tr eam flow s allow ups tream migration and s pawning. Func ti ons Pro v ide d: Wat er Quantity Habitat Land Use: Car ry o ut programs that protect aquifer recharge areas, and e ncourage low impact d evelopme nt. Work with Department of Eco logy, local health departmen ts, and water suppliers to address impact of municipal withdrawals, illegal withdrawals, and exempt wells throughou t basin. Promote and extend availability of water con servation incentive program s, outreach on rainwater harvesting, and graywater capture for reuse in landscape irrigation. Su ppo rt conservation efforts within the Cascade Water Alliance. Process: Unarmored, v egetated s treambanks provide s hade tha t keep tempera tures cool, protect water qua lity, prevent erosion, and prov ide conne ction s to b ackwater pools and s ide channels use d b y s almon. Fun ctions Pro v ided: Wal er Quality Habitat l an d Use : Protect aquatic buffers through CAOs, offer incentives (PBRS, easements) for private property owner s to protect buffers and/or re vegetate and remove channel confinement. • " • " • • • Process: Small cre ek mouths with sandy d e ltas and w e tlands provide h a bitat for juvenile r earing and h a ven from predators. Fun ction Provided : l labital Shelter from Predation La n d Use: Address impacts from upland development through stonnwater management and low-impact d evelopment, protecting forest cover and riparian buffer s throu gh regulations and incentives, and technical assistance. Pub lic Outreach: Offer educational opportunities to la n dsca p e designers/contractors on riparian design/installation, alternatives to invas ive s pecies, and use of compost. Thi s graphic illustrates a rep res entative sample of actions. Tt does not include all proposed acti ons. Yilinity Map Key to Actio n Types D Green denotes adjacent land u se actio ns across the watershed or in the immediate vicinity of water or key h a bitats (e.g ., wetlands) where regu lations/ince n tives coupled with public education can p rote ct or restore water quality or quantity, a nd habitat conditions. In the short-and long-term, land use actio ns in th ese a reas have a major effec t on aquatic habitat conditions and th e proces ses that create and mainta in tha t habita t. Blue denotes areas alon g water bodies where si te-specific actions are proposed to protect or restore specific stream reaches. Such ac tions ma y protect o r restore h abita t functions, o r address symptoms uf degraded habitat functions. These actions are supported by land u se and public educa tion actions th at protect h abi tat processes an d fun ctions th rou ghout the wa te rshea. D G ray denotes areas where broader and public outreach action s arc proposed th rou ghout the watershed. Respons ible land stewardship ancf low impa ct deve lopmen t protect and maintain natural flow reg imes and water quali ty. mm.pi es o f Site-Specific Pro ject Re commendation s Restoration by Reach @ Add LWD as Opportuni t ies Arise 1 (!) Res tore and Replant Riparian Vegetation ..._ __________________ ___J Protection b y Reach @ Reforest C leared Ar eas ® P r otect Riparian Habita t through Acqui sition C) Protect Head waters a n d Springs ® Protect Large/Public Parcel of Land Proce s s: Forest cover, wetlands, and floodplai ns preven t high flows and ero s ion, maintain adequate s tream flows, protect water quality and te mperature, and provide s ources of large woody debri s that prov ide salmon habitat. Function s Pro vided: Water Quality Wal er Quan lily Habitat land Use: Prohibit new development and roads in floodplains . Planning for n ew roads, and maintenance and retrofitting o f existing roads, should minimiz e n ew road crossings, and impacts on floodplains and water quality. Public Outreach: Continue and expand Creek s ide La n downer Assistance Program including classes, te chnical and fi n ancial assistance in s horeline la n d sca pe design, maintenance, and streambank armoring alternatives. Proces s: Headwaters and s ource s of groundwater maintain cold water temperatures and natural hydrological processes. Carey and Holder Creeks are important cold water sourc es . Functions Pro vi ded : Waler Quality Wat er Quantity La nd Use: Protect h eadwaters and groundwater through protection of wetland buffers, critica.l aquifer recharge areas, and programs that en courage low impact development. Implement of the 2003 Taylor Mountain Forest Stewardship Plan .. t s1terSpecific:: Acquire,forestproperty, ;-~ l?eyelo~ment rights/.conservation (;/asemei:1~] ID .th.t T!ger Mountatn State Forest and ;!~~;~~ Taylor Mountain County Forest vicinity,,.. · · .:: and other headwater areas :~.:~· t=:.. :~~:i. ~' Public Outreach: Run Natural Yardcare Neighb o r hoods Program and other landscaping e ducation opportunities in co mmunities in the Issaquah Basin. Increase visi tation of basin r esidents t o Pickering Farm Community Teaching Garden . Study Reaches (EDT) ~ Wate r Bod y Urban Growth B0w1da ry We tl an d Mer ged Buffer + @) King County Department of Natural Reso u r ces an d Parks Wate r and Lan d Res o urces D i vision 050 211a bactions1S~.ai (CSI wga b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 6: MEASURES AND MONITORING FOR GAUGING PROGRESS Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress The WRIA 8 Steering Committee strongly endorsed measuring Chinook and habitat health at the watershed level as a foundational element of this plan to: 1) Gauge progress toward recovering salmon populations and restoring habitat, 2) Assure money is spent on actions that truly make a difference, 3) Evaluate resources for meeting interim improvement goals, and 4) Document progress, showing when de-listing criteria have been met. All information should be collected, analyzed, and reported specifically to support the Oversight Committee and Summit Advisory Body in their decision-making processes. (See Chapter 2, which recommends that future decisions about action priorities and resources be accomplished by two separate policy bodies: the Oversight Committee and Summit Advisory Body). Projects should be audited for performance, to improve designs and assure that expected outcomes are being achieved. The monitoring information should also be summarized in plain language and used as a report card to the public for documenting progress and showing how well limited funds are being used. Monitoring, tightly linked to decision-making, is an essential element for the success of the Plan. It is only through monitoring data that federal agencies will be able to come to a de-listing decision. However, the region has never before engaged in this level of monitoring and decision-making. Funding for this component of the plan is currently uncertain. Strong leadership will be required at both policy and technical levels to implement this foundational element of adaptive management. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee has not yet finished the monitoring and adaptive management work plan. It is anticipated that in 2005-2006, the Steering Committee/Oversight Committee will be working with the Technical Committee, as well as state and regional efforts, to establish specific, hypothesis-based monitoring plans. Monitoring plans should be linked to the expected outcomes from recovery actions. As a result, decision-makers should be able to easily evaluate whether efforts are directed at the most effective places and whether improvements in habitat and Chinook health are meeting watershed expectations. These evaluations should directly link to future actions and level of effort. Why do we need monitoring? "Monitoring" is commonly considered an "extra" or unnecessary expense. This is often because the information is not generated to provide specific information to inform decisions based on management questions or hypothesis testing, nor collected and analyzed in a timely manner for use by decision-makers. In fact, monitoring is a basic need when working on complex problems, like salmon conservation, where there are limited resources and a high degree of accountability, but where uncertainty remains either in terms of a basic understanding of conditions present or in terms of the effectiveness of proposed or implemented actions. Linking monitoring to actions of highest importance or related to greatest uncertainty provides decision- makers with data that can 1) help provide certainty that money is spent on the most critical actions, 2) show that the actions are achieving objectives, and 3) describe progress towards goals. The monitoring framework described in the following text, in combination with the reporting and evaluation process described in Chapter 2 is intended to ensure that information February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress collection informs and is driven by anticipated decisions regarding priorities and resource allocation. This monitoring framework generally follows the definitions of monitoring as described in the "Statewide Strategy to Recovery Salmon" (Washington State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, September 21, 1999). These include: 1) Implementation Monitoring: Are actions being implemented as planned? 2) Direct Effectiveness Monitoring: Are actions having the anticipated outcomes? 3) Cumulative Effectiveness Monitoring: Is the sum of all actions within a basin or across the watershed improving habitat and salmon population conditions? 4) Validation Monitoring: Are Chinook salmon populations increasing in productivity, abundance, distribution, and diversity? What are the cause and effect relationships between actions and fish population changes? Information gathered in a systematic and meaningful manner provides the basis for showing progress toward achieving Plan goals through the implementation of actions. There are different types of monitoring that can help show progress and support future decisions that will ensure additional progress. 1) Documenting which actions were implemented and which were not will allow decision-makers to know who, what, how, how much, and where actions have been taken and whether those are representative of the plan strategy and to know where additional funding, clarification, or other work is needed io completely implement the Plan. 2) Evaluating the success of projects in meeting specific objectives will allow application of information from individual projects to general types of projects. Further, this will help decision-makers know the types of actions that produce results and allows decision-makers to reduce the funding towards projects that do not produce good results. 3) Monitoring changes in habitat and in survival of various life stages of Chinook will allow regional decision-makers to make adjustments to improve the effectiveness of specific types of actions It will reduce the risk of funding unsuccessful projects. Ultimately, it will allow decision-makers to evaluate the success of the Plan actions in restoring healthy ecosystems and Chinook populations. Monitoring the status and trends of watershed conditions and aquatic habitat in a randomized approach will allow a subset of the watershed to represent trends in the overall health of the watershed. This will require less funding than monitoring the same factors in more places around the watershed in a less systematic or strategic manner. Who else is working on monitoring? The WRIA currently does not fund a comprehensive monitoring program. The WRIA has partially funded, through grants, some of the Chinook spawning and juvenile studies. The majority of the technical data used in the Plan has been generated through individual jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies. The graph shown below provides a general illustration of the relative contributions from some of the individual monitoring programs for cumulative effectiveness monitoring. This graph does not incorporate all the individual data sources and costs, but illustrates a sampling of available Chinook and habitat cumulative monitoring costs by local jurisdictions and agencies for data commonly used in the planning process. This graph includes local costs for juvenile Chinook monitoring, spawner surveys, February 25, 2005 Page2 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress migration studies, multi-spectral analyses, new flow gauging, and some habitat assessments. Additional information about the types of local monitoring programs incorporated into this graph is provided below and in Table 6-1. ACOE USFW $20,000 Snohor111sl1. $94,000 KmgCou11:y $130 000 B~ile~ue S49 000 Sea1tle $275.000 Figure 6-l Sample of Local Cumulative Monitoring Costs Used in WRlA Plan Individual Entities -WRIA 8 Monitoring and Research Local monitoring programs conducted by individual entities in WRIA 8 focusing on salmon populations, habitat utilization, predation pressures, food web interactions, thermal migration barriers, lakeshore habitat utilization by juvenile Chinook, juvenile migration timing, and other biological and ecological processes have been invaluable in developing the scientific strategy for WRIA 8. These programs include the City of Seattle monitoring programs for the Upper Cedar Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and shoreline studies: the Army Corp of Engineers General Investigations for the Lake Washington Watershed and Ballard Locks studies; the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and locally sponsored Sockeye Studies; NOAA Fisheries, USGS, and Seattle coho prespawn mortality investigations; Snohomish County ambient water quality and benthic invertebrate (BIBI) monitoring, habitat survey, stream gauging, and salmon watchers programs as well as the natural and built drainage inventory program, fish passage barrier inventory and assessment program and land cover classification (1991 and 2001) for all of WRIA 8, and King County Chinook and habitat monitoring programs through the Wastewater and Natural Resources programs. The Cities of Seattle and Bellevue conduct weekly spawner surveys in the urban streams. These surveys augment information from the co-managers and regional efforts in the core spawning areas, the Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and Bear/Cottage Lake Creek along with other North Lake Washington tributaries. Other local programs, such as flow gauging and habitat assessment work, being conducted by the City of Kent for their Rock Creek HCP, was incorporated into the technical reach assessments for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model and Chinook distribution mapping. These local monitoring programs have provided foundational data for the Plan. However, the current funding source for these programs is based on the individual entity's project or program needs and continued funding is uncertain beyond 2004-2005. The Steering Committee strongly endorses the continuation and financial support of smolt traps, spawner surveys, PIT tags, snorkel surveys, and salmonid migration studies. The proposed Oversight Body will need to work with local, state, and federal entities to identify partnerships and assist agencies to February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress obtain funding for continuation or enhancement of existing critical monitoring programs (Table 6- 1 ). Regional and State Monitoring Efforts Many factors (harvest, hatcheries, habitat, hydropower, and ocean conditions) influence Chinook salmon population characteristics (diversity, abundance, productivity, and distribution). However, the WRIA 8 plan is focused on protecting and restoring freshwater and nearshore marine habitats. Since the desired outcome is healthy, harvestable Chinook populations rather than merely improving aquatic habitat, WRIA 8 efforts to monitor habitat and Chinook survival improvements will need to be linked with monitoring the effects of other actions at the state and federal level, e.g., harvest and hatchery management, to restore Chinook populations. There have been a number of efforts to improve monitoring efforts at the regional and state levels. It will require staff and policy level discussions to determine who should take the lead and fund various e.lements that are common to multiple groups. Some of these efforts with potential overlap or coordination opportunities with WRIA 8 have been summarized below. Validation Monitoring Panel -Chinook population monitoring recommendations The Validation Monitoring Panel, assembled by the Olympic Natural Resources Center of the University of Washington, conducted an interdisciplinary review of the various scientific issues and problems associated with monitoring Chinook salmon populations. The international panel of recognized scientific leaders reviewed various approaches to monitoring salmon populations. The focus of this effort was to evaluate the statistical design of programs monitoring genetics of salmon populations, fish productivity, and habitat requirements at various spatial and temporal scales. The panel provided recommendations for a consistent scientific framework for validation monitoring for salmon conservation efforts to federal, state, and tribal governments in the Pacific Northwest (College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. December 1, 2000). These recommendations and considerations should be followed by WRIA 8 when conducting validation monitoring for Chinook population response to be sure the information collected can be utilized at various spatial scales. Washington State Monitoring Strategy At the direction of the Washington State Legislature in 2001 (SSB 5637), the Governor's Salmon Recovery Team led an interjurisdictional effort to improve State monitoring efforts to develop a comprehensive monitoring strategy to evaluate the success of salmon and habitat recovery actions. Reports, including "The Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy and Action Plan," are available at http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/monitoring.htm. The State is starting to implement the recommendations for monitoring the effectiveness of Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) projects this year. The State has not yet implemented a program for intensively monitoring one or more watersheds for evaluating the influence of specific habitat improvements on fish population parameters. The recommendation for using an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP, http://www.epa.gov/emap/) randomized sampling protocol for tracking the status and trends of watershed health at a WRIA level has also not yet been implemented. WRIA 8 monitoring efforts should utilize the protocols recommended by the State Monitoring Oversight Committee, coordinate with the SRFB project monitoring efforts where possible, and use the EPA EMAP protocols for evaluating the status and trends in watershed condition. The proposed WRIA 8 Oversight Body should approach the Governor's Salmon Team and SRFB to incorporate WRIA 8 into the State program. February 25, 2005 Page4 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Co-managers Monitoring Program The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Muckleshoot Tribe, and the Suquamish Tribe, as the state co-managers of fisheries resources in WRIA 8, conduct a variety of monitoring programs in the watershed (http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/sshiap2/index.asp). These programs include, but are not limited to, weekly salmon spawning index surveys in the Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and Bear/Cottage Creek, adipose clipping and coded wire tagging (CWT) programs to evaluate harvest impacts and straying of hatchery fish, genetic sampling of Bear/Cottage Creek for genetic impacts from hatchery strays, adult salmon counts at the Ballard Locks, fish pathology monitoring of hatchery fish and waters, and scale analysis for aging spawning salmon. Many of these monitoring efforts are already coordinated with local efforts: some of the monitoring is even augmented with local and WRIA funds. The Steering Committee recommends the existing programs be continued and increased to complete entire spawning periods for all salmon populations within the watershed. The State has identified additional monitoring recommendations for WRIA 8 based on the Hatchery Scientific Review Group recommendations (HSRG 2004 ). These research and monitoring recommendations have not yet been discussed or approved by the co-managers, but are consistent with WRIA 8 recommendations. Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) The Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) coordinates monitoring efforts by federal, state, and local agencies through the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) to assess the trends in the environmental health of Puget Sound and evaluate the success of the Puget Sound Management Plan (http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/PSAMP.htm). The PSAT also provides stall support for the Nearshore Policy Group, which is identifying hypotheses and recovery recommendations for the Puget Sound nearshore and marine waters for the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. The Steering Committee recommends coordinating and augmenting efforts through the PSAMP program for evaluating the status and trends for WRIA 8 marine areas. Coordination Requirements The monitoring programs described above have been established for specific purposes, with the local programs often not related to salmon conservation planning needs. Policy level interaction · from the proposed Oversight Body and proposed Executive Director will be needed to encourage those agencies and jurisdictions to join monitoring efforts with WRIA 8. Assistance from the proposed Oversight Body and local jurisdictions may be needed to secure funds for federal or state agencies to maintain their current level of effort and to coordinate with WRIA 8 technical staff The Technical Committee will need to coordinate and develop scientifically valid protocols for collecting, analyzing, and storing data that can be shared between jurisdictions and agency for use at local, WRIA, or larger scales of interest. Recommended Parameters and Monitoring Timeframes Recommendations identified in this section have been identified as important for monitoring plan effectiveness and progress towards salmon recovery. This does not suggest that WRIA 8 jurisdictions implement and fund each recommendation, but it does imply that if WRIA 8 jurisdictions do not implement and fund them some other entity must/should. Additional work at the proposed Oversight Body and Technical Committee levels is needed to establish monitoring responsibilities between local entities and other regional, State, or Federal agencies. The Steering Committee provided direction to staff as follows: • Find ways to effectively and efficiently measure progress on habitat conditions and Chinook response February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress • Find ways to evaluate our efforts for continually improving key actions • Utilize existing programs or efforts where available -avoid duplication of efforts. • Utilize results and coordinate with similar monitoring efforts to improve understanding of projects with uncertain outcomes. • Monitoring methods should be cost-effective. Use what is measured through other means and for other purposes, where possible. • Evaluate areas of major uncertainty • Identify endpoints and provide enough information to know when we have achieved our goals • Information should be used to communicate progress to the public and others • Monitoring should focus on both habitat and salmon population measures. • Watershed conditions should be evaluated at the watershed, rather than basin level. • Direct effectiveness monitoring should be focused on those actions with the most uncertainty or in uncertain environments, which mean higher risk. • Direct effectiveness measurement of educational outcomes is important. • Direct effectiveness monitoring of land use actions should be correlated to growth. • Cumulative effectiveness is the priority monitoring concern. It is important that cumulative monitoring be comprehensive and encompass non-project actions and predation. • Link direct effectiveness monitoring efforts to cumulative monitoring efforts, if possible. Implementation Monitoring It is necessary to understand which actions were implemented, where the actions occurred, and the anticipated outcomes of the actions (e.g., based on the limiting factor treated) to evaluate the success of the Plan. The implementation monitoring program will be developed after the final action elements and goals have been adopted by the Steering Committee and the Forum. Implementation monitoring is anticipated to be a relatively simple checklist summary that would include the type of action, the reach or basin of impact, specific objectives the action was supposed to address, the area treated (i.e., length of stream or streambanks restored, area of riparian vegetation enhanced, or amount of stream or off-channel area made accessible), anticipated benefits of the action, and cost. Implementation information will be essential for establishing effectiveness monitoring, described below. Information will be collected by individual jurisdictions based on common definitions and standard forms. The type of information might include things such as: Projects: Number of levee setbacks in reach 4 of the Cedar River, length of river affected, area of additional floodplain interaction, and amount of newly created off- channel juvenile Chinook rearing habitat. Education: Number of lakeshore homeowner programs in Lake Washington, Section 1 (near mouth of Cedar River) on the importance of lakeshore vegetation, number of lakeshore property owners attending, hours of follow-up technical assistance, change in homeowner perspective of native vegetation along shorelines. Land Use: Number and acreage of good riparian habitat in Reach 3 (Waterways Reach E) of Bear Creek placed into protected status through native growth protection easements or other incentive programs (identified by type) or by acquisition. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress The exact parameters will be established by the Technical Committee after ratification of the Plan. Implementation data will be compiled and summarized annually. This information will be communicated with the participating jurisdictions and the public. In the third year after plan ratification, the proposed Oversight Committee will use implementation monitoring information to identify action types that are proceeding well and those action types experiencing barriers to implementation. Direct Effectiveness Direct effectiveness monitoring provides the basis for documenting the degree of effectiveness achieved and for improving the design and execution of actions, where needed. Monitoring of actions will also identify unanticipated effects and evaluate whether the actions were achieving the anticipated results. Monitoring plans cannot be developed for direct effectiveness monitoring until the Plan is complete.and actions have been firmly slated for implementation However, monitoring objectives, approaches, and protocols related to monitoring specific project types have been developed by the State, which will allow more rapid progress once implementation of the projects begin. Timelines for direct effectiveness monitoring may vary, .but annual reviews of available information will be compiled and shared among the Technical Committee and proposed Oversight/Summit Advisory Bodies. The Technical Committee will have the responsibility for improving the implementation of the projects, while the proposed Oversight Body will have the responsibility for deciding whether specific types of actions should continue to be funded and whether some types of projects or programs should have greater priority over others. Direct and cumulative effectiveness monitoring recommendations are summarized in Table 6-1. This table includes information about the scale of the monitoring effort (reach, basin, and watershed), current funding sources, cost estimates, and opportunities for cooperation with other entities. The cost estimates do not include costs for standardizing protocols, database development, or other data management needs to easily share data between jurisdictions at local, regional, or state levels. Projects Once the Plan is ratified and commitments are understood, the Technical Committee will develop a specific 2005 project monitoring plan for evaluating the effectiveness of specific types of projects. Chinook population response will be evaluated through cumulative monitoring efforts, so Chinook response will not necessarily be required for each project. However, in- stream projects that are implemented for specific life stage habitat will likely include monitoring some level of Chinook use of the newly created habitat. The State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) has recently implemented direct effectiveness monitoring for State funded projects such as fish passage improvement, in-stream habitat, acquisition, riparian vegetation restoration, and in-stream diversions (http://www.governor.wa.gov/qsro/monitorinq.htm ). The WRIA 8 Technical Committee will work with the SRFB to obtain information on the effectiveness of those types of projects and determine its relevance and usefulness in WRIA 8. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee recommended focusing project effectiveness monitoring on: • lnstream habitat enhancement (based on placement of structures such as Large woody debris, boulders, other hydraulic or cover elements): • Vegetation restoration/ invasive species vegetation control (along all shoreline types); • Bank armoring removal (Including bioengineered bank stabilization and erosion control); • Shoreline restoration (specifically lacustrine and marine nearshore beach augmentation or bank restoration); • Over-water structures (including dock modifications) February 25, 2005 Page 7 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress • Floodplain reconnection (Including river levee setbacks and specifically the effectiveness of off-channel habitats); • Restoration projects to reduce fine sediment reduction in spawning streams • Water quality enhancement (e.g., effectiveness of project or outreach BMPs, stormwater retrofits for quality control, temperature and dissolved oxygen control, and other treatment targeting reduction in metals, nutrients, and other constituents); • Management of exotic species of fiora and fauna These projects have been identified by the Technical Committee as having less certain outcomes, either because accepted and tested standard engineering designs are not yet developed or because of greater uncertainty of implementation or direct effectiveness in the urban environment. Upland projects, such as low impact development projects for stormwater, may also be included for project specific monitoring. For projects that have more reliable outcomes, performance may be evaluated based on EDT modeling, using the model's project effectiveness library, or through the design criteria and as-built information. WRIA 8 will utilize specific protocols and monitoring designs from the SRFB project monitoring program where applicable. Monitoring protocols and statistical designs will have to be developed for project types not covered by the SRFB program, after the projects to be implemented have been identified. In addition to the direct effectiveness monitoring recommendation for lakeshore habitat, juvenile Chinook use of lakeshore habitat has been identified as a key uncertainty in the scientific framework. The Steering Committee recommends that evaluation of juvenile use of habitat and modified habitat be conducted annually. The current efforts for lake habitat utilization, using snorkel surveys, have been conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Seattle. It is recommended that the snorkel surveys be conducted for lakeshore restoration project using the established protocols and be reported on an annual basis to coordinate with the cumulative monitoring program Outreach Educational programs also need to be monitored to determine if the programs cause a change in the perceptions of the participants and if that changed perception results in the participants making voluntary habitat improvements on their properties. There are already a number of programs in WRIA 8, such as the Natural Yard Care Program, that conduct evaluations of the impact of their programs in changing the behaviors of individuals. The WRIA 8 Outreach Committee will utilize regional and local programs such as these whenever possible to evaluate the educational program's ability to change habitat degrading behaviors. In addition, the status and trends of the public's general awareness and perception of salmon habitat needs and salmon recovery efforts will be monitored through a professional survey every five years in conjunction with the major plan reviews. Specific hypotheses and statistical design for the Outreach monitoring plan have not yet been developed. Land Use Land use actions will need to be monitored for their effectiveness in protecting riparian vegetation, reducing stormwater runoff, and protecting upland forests. There is currently great diversity of land-use protections among the jurisdictions within the watershed and variability in how regulations are implemented and enforced. Careful monitoring design and protocols will be needed to develop a cross-jurisdictional evaluation of regulatory protections' effectiveness. Specific hypotheses to be tested and the statistical design of the analyses have not yet been developed. Because local jurisdictions can choose among a menu of options to achieve the February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress desired landscape conditions, the Technical Committee recommends that the cumulative effect of the various options for riparian vegetation and upland forest protection be evaluated through sub-meter multi-spectral image analysis for vegetation and impervious surfaces. Direct effectiveness monitoring for Stormwater management effectiveness is usually conducted through research into the effectiveness of individual best management practices (BMPs). Much of this work is already being conducted on a collaborative basis through the University of Washington. WRIA 8 will not generally engage at that level of effectiveness monitoring, but will evaluate the effectiveness of all the stormwater management techniques and land-use actions in addressing changes to peak flows, low flows, and stream flashiness using data from flow gauging stations corrected for rainfall conditions. The flow information will be compared to WRIA 8 flow model results, as published in the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). The areas with the best and least success in protecting forest cover, riparian forests, and natural flow characteristics can be evaluated against the suite of implementation options used and development pressures on each area. Both the land-use and stormwater monitoring direct effectiveness monitoring elements are more similar to cumulative monitoring efforts, due to the complexity of conducting effectiveness monitoring for the full range of management options available to each jurisdiction. Direct effectiveness monitoring for projects, outreach, and land-use will be conducted annually, but results will be analyzed and reported according to the statistical design for the project. For example, it is anticipated that some projects, such as fish passage improvement projects, will produce results within one year. Others, such as levee setbacks or large woody debris projects may be monitored for up to 10 years with monitoring conducted annually based on project objectives and stated performance criteria appropriate for measuring at different times (for example, large, woody debris placed in the first year of a project can be monitored with respect to stability and movement depending on flows, but it may take longer for aquatic habitats to fully form (Beechie et al. 2003). The WRIA 8 Technical Committee will work with WDFW to coordinate permit monitoring requirements with WRIA direct effectiveness monitoring designs and protocols. Cumulative Effectiveness Monitoring Habitat Monitoring Cumulative effectiveness monitoring will be used to evaluate how multiple actions are affecting habitat condition and fish populations, and what kinds of overall adjustments in conservation priorities may be needed. This monitoring integrates the corrective actions of the Plan with all the other actions in the watershed that may influence progress toward the desired habitat and salmon population conditions. At this time, the Steering Committee has not set specific interim goals for habitat or Chinook condition. It is anticipated that the Steering Committee/Oversight Committee will work to establish "targets" of habitat condition or population condition in 2005- 2006. These interim goals will allow decision-makers to determine whether specific areas (spawning streams, migratory areas) are improving as anticipated and whether the cumulative actions are achieving the anticipated rate of improvements. Having interim goals assists with developing monitoring plans, clarifies critical decision points, and assists with communicating progress to the public. The scientific basis for the Plan utilized existing multi-spectral and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis to determine large-scale landscape and local scale habitat conditions February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress that are known to influence ecological processes that affect aquatic habitat structure and function within the watershed (see chapter 3). This effort utilized LandSat technolopv (30 meter resolution), which is very useful and inexpensive for cumulative effectiveness analysis and monitoring over long time periods (potentially back to the 1970's) and larger geographic areas (individual subbasins) but which limited small scale analyses. The Technical Committee recommends sub-meter level resolution multi-spectral analyses be utilized to determine riparian conditions of total forest cover, forest maturity, riparian width, impervious area within riparian, road crossings, along streams, lakes, and marine shorelines in order to develop an Index of Riparian Integrity for EDT reaches, itself to be used for riparian monitoring. The sub-meter resolution would provide the ability to detect changes in areas smaller than 30 meters, which may be necessary, especially in developed areas where land cover is extremely fragmented. This information will be used for both direct effectiveness monitoring at the jurisdiction level for land-use action effectiveness and for cumulative effectiveness monitoring at the basin scale. Multi-spectral analyses should be conducted on a five year basis to correlate with major reviews of the WRIA Plan and to provide information to support local Growth Management Plan reviews and other local land-use plan updates. To detect the status and future trends in aquatic condition, it is recommended that WRIA 8 implement the recommendations of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Team to implement an EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) reconnaissance of the watershed, linked to previous stream assessment monitoring information and watershed information needs. The EMAP protocol includes diverse indicators of aquatic health, including habitat, basic water quality, macroinvertebrates, algae, and multi-species fish assemblages. EMAP protocols employ a randomized approach to sampling locations often linked with critical annual monitoring stations. The EMAP strategy would need to be employed in a way answer to the adaptive management questions and hypotheses for WRIA 8, which may involve slight modifications to the standard sampling plan for general evaluation of trends in watershed conditions. Using EMAP would have multiple benefits, such as 1) allowing WRIA 8 information to be "rolled up" into regional, state, and federal evaluations, 2) avoiding the necessity of monitoring every mile of stream within the watershed to determine the watershed condition, 3) providing a statistically valid method of evaluating trends in a highly variable environment, and 4) allowing the use of new risk assessment analytical tools for stressors to biological communities. This monitoring would allow comparisons of actions between watersheds, provide reliable information about habitat trends over time, and would provide habitat information on all types and sizes of stream within the watershed. The EMAP program would provide information necessary for a multi-species approach to habitat improvement, rather than focus on only Chinook streams, without increasing monitoring costs. Over time, EMAP monitoring would allow the evaluation of some of the key uncertainties in the stream habitat and biological data used in the EDT model and provide opportunities to continue to improve the capability of the model to accurately prioritize actions that will provide the greatest benefits. The information on habitat change in the watershed will also be needed when interpreting fish population changes. EMAP assessments should occur on an annual basis or utilized for a trend assessment every five years to coordinate with the major Plan review periods. Marine shorelines are critical habitat for salmonids from many watersheds, so evaluating habitat conditions within WRIA nearshore marine habitats is considered critical for the both the WRIA and Environmentally Significant Unit conservation efforts. This assessment should include distance, type and location of bank armoring; number, location, and area of over-water structures; location and area of gravel recruitment sites; condition, area, and location of stream deltas and wetlands. This monitoring should be coordinated with the Puget Sound Nearshore Program, PSAMP, and other Puget Sound marine shoreline recovery efforts. February 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Stream flow is a critical element for salmon recovery efforts. Flow gauging is currently conducted by local jurisdictions and USGS in rivers and streams across the watershed. A cursory review of flow gauging stations by the Technical Committee indicated that additional flow gauging stations would not likely be needed. However, a final review will be needed when developing the statistical design for the monitoring program. It is critical, however, that local jurisdictions or USGS maintain existing permanent flow gauging stations. Specific protocols and data management tools for sharing data from these gauges are needed. Rain gauges are also maintained by local governments and additional gauges are not likely to be needed. Flow and rain data will need to be collected and analyzed according to standard protocols on an annual basis. Annual flow reports should be prepared with a trend assessment and model comparison every five years to coordinate with the Conservation Plan major review periods. The cumulative monitoring information will be used to determine trends in basin flow conditions as compared to the baseline established in the WRIA 8 flow report included in the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for ihe Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). The proposed Technical and Oversight Committees will use cumulative monitoring information by basin to determine whether additional investigations of land-use actions for stormwater management, groundwater recharge protection, and water withdrawals are needed. Chinook Monitoring The Steering Committee strongly endorses monitoring Chinook response to habitat actions. The Technical Committee has also stated that monitoring various life stages of Chinook is imperative to reduce some of the key uncertainties in the scientific foundation of the Plan. It is necessary to monitor more than one Chinook life history stage to determine whether freshwater habitat improvements from plan actions are improving the health of Chinook populations and to isolate influences within the watershed. The primary life stages of Chinook to be monitored are spawners, juvenile migrants from streams, juvenile migrants through the lakes and migratory corridors, and smelt use of nearshore marine areas. Monitoring population responses and setting population de-listing criteria is a state and federal responsibility. However, the Technical Committee recommends working collaboratively with these entities so that local monitoring information can "roll up" to larger monitoring and evaluation programs. Weekly Chinook spawner surveys are currently conducted by WDFW, The Muckleshoot Tribe, and local jurisdictions. The surveys are considered critical, but currently do not always span the complete salmon migration season, nor survey all salmon bearing streams. It is recommended that professional surveys be conducted based on WDFW protocols for all core and satellite streams for the full migratory season. Spawning surveys should be designed to include the full fall anadromous spawning period, so all species of fall spawning salmon are included. However, additional sampling would be needed to fully evaluation coho and steelhea_d population conditions. It is also recommended that scale samples be taken to identify the ages of returning Chinook. Professional spawner survey information and juvenile outmigrants from streams will be used to evaluate trends in the egg to outmigrant survival and distribution of spawning populations. While spawner surveys provide information on the abundance of Chinook, it is a synthesis of all freshwater and saltwater factors influencing the population. Using a combination of spawner surveys and smelt trapping effectively eliminates the influence of ocean conditions, harvest, and other outside influences on the Chinook population. Professional spawner survey information is currently augmented by spot observations by trained volunteers through the WRIA 8 Salmon Watcher Program (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/salmon/index.htm). It is recommended that this volunteer monitoring program be continued. Spot observations are useful to determine the incidence of spawner use of satellite and episodic basins. Annual spawning survey reports will need to be February 25, 2005 Page 11 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress compiled by basin with comprehensive reviews by population every five years in time for the major Plan review. The five year reviews will provide current information by population, but Chinook population response information will take the full ten year plan implementation period and beyond. Trapping Chinook migrating from the Cedar River and Bear Creek ("smolt trapping") is considered critical for evaluating core spawning areas for the Cedar River Chinook population and the North Lake Washington Chinook population. These trapping locations are also linked with monitoring survival through migratory areas. If it is determined that there are only two Chinook populations or the Issaquah Hatchery Chinook population becomes considered essential for recovery by NOAA Fisheries, it is recommended that Chinook migrating from Issaquah Creek be monitored. It is also desired to monitor the migrating Chinook from Kelsey Creek, a satellite basin for the North Lake Washington Chinook population. Juvenile outmigrant surveys should be designed to include the full migration period, so all species of fall spawning salmon are intercepted. This information will be used in conjunction with spawning survey information to determine the trends of Chinook production in a satellite stream and the capacity of urbanized streams to contribute to salmon recovery. Smolt trapping information will be collected annually and used in conjunction with spawning survey information to evaluate egg to outmigrant survival, as well as trends in juvenile production, spawner to outmigrant production, and the proportions of river rearing and lake rearing juveniles. While more comprehensive reviews of smolt trapping data can be conducted every five years in conjunction with the major plan reviews, as mentioned previously, longer periods of record are necessary for statistical analysis of population parameters. Another critical element to monitor is Chinook survival in the lakes and migratory areas. Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags are one technique used to evaluate juvenile migration routes and timing in Lake Washington, the Sammamish River, and the Ship Canal. They can also be used to evaluate survival rates through various migratory areas of the watershed, as long as additional samples are collected beyond the locks to evaluate sampling efficiency. This information is considered critical for determining whether actions are improving survival of lake rearing and migrating juveniles, isolating spawning habitat impacts from rearing and migratory impacts, and reducing key uncertainties in the scientific framework. PIT tags are implanted in outmigrating juvenile Chinook, which is most efficiently done in conjunction with smolt trapping. The PIT tagging work that has been done previously has been funded and managed by the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) and the City of Seattle (http://www.nws.u,;ace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/PitTagReport 2002data.pdf). This work has been a combination of intensive monitoring, which is necessary for determining migratory routes and survival, and less intensive monitoring, which primarily evaluates timing from the streams to the locks. PIT tag results should be summarized annually, with trend assessment conducted in concert with the major five year plan review. Steering Committee recommends continuing snorkel surveys in Lake Washington to determine abundance of fry in different index reaches of the lake. This information will be used to determine trends in habitat use, migration trajectories, juvenile abundance, and lake migration timing. Effectiveness monitoring efforts for lake habitat modifications could be used to offset or augment index surveys (Tabor, 2002). Another key uncertainty in the scientific framework is changes in lake food web dynamics. There have been numerous efforts to evaluate components of the Lake Washington food web dynamics through the Lake Washington Sockeye Studies, University of Washington research, and WDFW warm water fish studies. A warm water species survey of Lake Washington would February 25, 2005 Page 12 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress be invaluable in determining population status of resident native and exotic species. This type of full lake survey should be done on a periodic basis to evaluate trends in predator and prey species as habitat conditions are changed. The frequency and design of this trend assessment has not yet been established. Validation Monitoring Identifying trends in population parameters for use in delisting Chinook from the Endangered Species Act is considered by the Technical Committee to be beyond the scope of WRIA 8. However, the cumulative monitoring efforts should be accomplished in a manner that would assist other entities in validation monitoring. A method for coordinating monitoring efforts at the Puget Sound scale should be developed. It is possible that the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound may be able to assist with this function. Coordination of Monitoring Efforts Given the diverse group of entities monitoring elements of habitat and salmon recovery, it will be imperative to develop a plan to coordinate actions across jurisdictions. It will require both political and technical communications to determine who is the appropriate entity to conduct protocol development and training, field work and equipment maintenance, quality assurance and control, data management and analyses, coordination and scheduling, and reporting. Table 6-1 summarizes recommendations for WRIA 8 monitoring and entities currently or potentially involved in these monitoring activities. The Steering Committee recommends working towards a comprehensive data management system that would be accessible by all local jurisdictions and citizens. However, it is recognized that the monitoring programs need to be more fully developed and stabilized before this recommendation can be implemented. Draft Interim Goals In order for monitoring to be most useful for adaptive management, the information has to be linked to management decisions. As identified in chapter 3, the Technical Team has suggested a number of interim goals based on the Viable Salmon Population (VSP) guidance from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries formerly known as National Marine Fisheries Service (McElhany et al, June 2000). NOAA Fisheries has identified four parameters that will be used to evaluate population viability status. These are diversity, abundance, productivity, and distribution. During the major review periods, the Technical Committee will review the information collected through the cumulative monitoring program and compare results to the interim goals to see whether the habitat improvements are having the anticipated effects and are occurring at the desired rate _of improvement. The proposed Oversight Body will review this information from the Technical Committee to determine whether an alteration to the focus or funding of the Plan is warranted. Next Steps Once the Plan is ratified, the proposed Oversight and Technical Committees will need to approach other entities involved in monitoring, such as the Shared Strategy, federal and state agencies, local jurisdictions, SRFB, and ACOE to secure their commitment to perform monitoring activities. A strategy to determine responsibilities for various elements of monitoring habitat and salmon recovery will need to be developed for both technical and policy issues (See table 6-1 ). A stable, consistent funding mechanism will need to be identified and approved for the monitoring program. February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Once the plan is ratified, the Technical Committee will need to develop specific hypotheses to be tested and design statistically valid monitoring plans for each monitoring element included in the Plan. They will also need to develop common protocols, training, equipment, database, data management, data analysis, and data sharing techniques across jurisdictions. These issues are currently substantial barriers to a WRIA monitoring program, especially if conducted through individual jurisdiction efforts. If the monitoring is to be conducted by a combination of individual jurisdiction efforts and outside entities, the difficulties will be increased. This effort will require a focused work program and local jurisdiction commitment to developing a regional monitoring agreement and support structure once the Plan is ratified. There is no common database available in which to compile WRIA 8 monitoring data. Any interjurisdictional sharing of monitoring data either within the WRIA or across WRIAs will require additional technical resources to define the needs and costs of database development and data management. References and Additional Information Army Corp of Engineers. 2002 presentation on Lake Washington Ship Canal General Investigations studies. http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/LindaSmith pres.pd! Beechie, T.J., E.A. Steel, P. Roni, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. US Dept of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-58, 183 p. Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm58/tm58.pdf Botkin, D.B., D.L. Peterson, and J.M. Calhoun (technical editors). 2000. The Scientific Basis for Validation Monitoring of Salmon for Conservation and Restoration Plans. Olympic Natural Resources Center Technical Report. University of Washington, Olympic Natural Resources Center, Forks, Washington, USA. City of Seattle, Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan. http://www.seattle.gov/util/About SPU/Water System/Habitat Conservation Plan-- HCP/index.asp Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/about.html Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG)-Lars Mobrand (chair), John Barr, Lee Blankenship, Don Campton, Trevor Evelyn, Tom Flagg, Conrad Mahnken, Robert Piper, Paul Seidel, Lisa Seeb and Bill Smoker. April 2004. Hatchery Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Long Live the Kings, 1305 Fourth Avenue, Suite 810, Seattle, WA 98101 (available from www.hatcheryreform.org). Monitoring recommendations and timing for hatcheries across the northwest, Lake Washington specific hatchery and monitoring information is located on pp 179-196 at http://www.lltk.org/pdf/HSRG Recommendations Central Sound.pd! February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar- Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Lazorchak JM, Hill BH, Averill DK, Peck DV, Klemm DJ, editors. 2000. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters: Field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition of non-wadeable rivers and streams. Cincinnati (OH): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report nr EPA/620/R-00/007. 204 p. McElhany, Paul; Mary H. Ruckelshaus, Michael J. ford; Thomas C. Wainwright, and Eric P. Bjorkstedt. June 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionary Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC 42. Monitoring Oversight Committee. December 2002. The Washington Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy and Action Plan for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Salmon Steelhead habitat Inventory and Assessment Program (SSHIAP). http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/sshiap2/index.asp Paul JF, Holland AF, Summers JK, Schimmel SC, Scott KJ. 1991. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: An ecological status and trends program. In: Volume 1774, Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Report nr EPA/600/A- 94/003. 80-99 p. Tabor, Roger, Julie A Scheurer, Howard A. Gearns, and Eric P. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salmonscape GIS information. https:/ /fortress. wa .gov/dfw/salmonscape/ Washington Department of Ecology. Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/psamp/ February 25, 2005 Page 15 I I CHAPTER 7: FUNDING STRATEGY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 6-1: WRIA 8 Technical Committee Monitoring Recommendations, Total cost: $1,853,000 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Type of Monitoring Recommended Monitoring How are projects being funded currently? How much will it cost? Committee Tasks for Coordination (Plannina estimates, onlvl During Plan lmolementation Direct Key project types to monitor -• There is currently no consistent monitoring program • Sample by project type -per • In 2004, the Salmon Recovery Funding Effectiveness* necessary: to evaluate the effectiveness of projects or to SRFB, costs range from Board (SRFB) initiated a contract for a • Did the habitat 1. Levee setbacks/floodplain improve designs. The limited monitoring that is $4,000 (rip-rap removal) to direct effectiveness monitoring strategy action(s) reconnection currently conducted at the project scale is usually a $175,000 (off-channel for types of projects funded by the achieve the 2. lakeshore modification permit condition or qualitative/semi-quantitative habitats and wetlands) SRFB. WRIA 8 Oversight Committee desired habitat 3. Large Woody Debris (LWD) assessment of individual projects by the should request that urban projects be condition? 4. Pool habitat creation implementing entity. If assume approx. 15% of project included in that program. WRIA 8 5. Reducing fine sediment costs, total $600,000 Technical Committee should coordinate • Are fish present 6. Riparian restoration monitoring protocols and results with the and how are 7. Improving water quality • This will depend on plan SRFB staff. they using the 8. Management of exotic species • Educational programs are being evaluated on a actions reach? project basis. One of the more comprehensive • The Outreach Committee should Educational actions evaluation programs is with the Natural Yard Care • Current King County sub-encourage local stewardship programs To be determined based on action program. meter multi-spectral surveys to conduct these project evaluations. plan cost approximately $320,000 (cost covered in cumulative • The Oversight and Technical • It is unknown of any land-use actions currently effectiveness) Committees should contact local Land-use actions being monitored in any comprehensive fashion. governments and universities conducting Sub-meter Multi-spectral analyses Total Direct Effectiveness Cost multi-spectral analyses to jointly conduct -necessary $600,000 these analvses. Cumulative 1. Smalt trapping: $100,000 annually each for Bear and • Smalt Traps & Spawner surveys Effectiveness:* Cedar ($200,000 annual total). Past and current funding Oversight Com work with co-managers and from King County and Seattle primarily. For this year federal entities for stock assessment by Chinook (2004), King County gave $100K for Bear, while Seattle individual populations. Work to stabilize 1) Smolt trapping: gave $41,300 from the Cedar HCP and $60K of otber • Smalt traps -state/fed funding for smolt traps and • Is freshwater • Cedar River, Bear Creek -funds for the Cedar trap. Currently, in 2005, King County $200,000-$300,000 annually spawner surveys by populations. Technical survival necessary plans to provide approx $40-$50K, pending budget. NOTE: funding needed for 2005 Committee work with co-managers to improving for • Kelsey Creek -desired Seattle (Cedar HCP funds) plans to provide another coordinate local monitoring protocols and $41,300. That means that WDFW will need funding for at each • Issaquah Creek -least half the cost of operations of the traps in 2005. efforts. independent recommended depends on role Seattle, through the HCP, will continue funding about $41-chinook salmon of Issaquah hatchery fish in 42K until 2008, then funding of the trap will be reduced for population? recovery some years and not funded at all in others. So, basically funding of the traps will become uncertain in 2005 and beyond, as only limited funds exist 2005-2008, and funding will become even more uncertain past 2008. 2) Juvenile migration survival • Bear/lss/Cedar to locks-2. juvenile migration -PIT tagging. A less intensive effort, • Juvenile migration - • Have changes to necessary tagging only at the mouth of Bear and the Cedar, costs • Juvenile migration -Oversight and Tech. request continued habitat • Intermediate locations approximately $30,000. That includes about $30,000 for $30,000 -215,000 annually monitoring by USACOE, NOAA Fisheries, improved egg to (lake/ship canal) -7,000 tags, PIT readers, and reporting. The Corps and NOTE: funding needed for 2006 and WDFW. Currently funded by US Army outmigrant recommended Seattle are planning to ensure that this minimal PIT tag Corp and individual WRIA partners. survival? effort occurs in 2005; however, funding for this effort will not occur under the Lake Washington GI (west) beyond Oversight Com should request continued 2005. Obviously the $30K figure relies upon WDFW support from USFW for juvenile surveys. operating the small traps. A more intensive effort in 2003 was about $215K, on top of the smolt trapping. There is currently no local funding for this effort. *At all levels of monitoring and evaluation, data management resources will be necessary for the following tasks: statistical design of habitat and population monitoring, regional data sharing, consistent protocols, QA/QC of data collection and analysis. Costs do NOT include regional data management costs. February 25, 2005 Page I6 Table 6-1: WRIA 8 Technical Committee Monitoring Recommendations, Total cost: $1,853,000 Chapter 6: Measures and Monitoring for Gauging Progress Type of Monitoring • Is the distribution of spawning chinook by population increasing into other reaches or satellite basins? Cumulative Effectiveness: Habitat Are basin level habitat attributes, such as forest cover, impervious surfaces, riparian forests, etc. improving as anticipated by implementation of the actions within the plan? Recommended Monitoring 3) Juvenile snorkel index reaches index reaches in various locations around Lake Washington - recommended 4) Salmon spawner surveys Cedar mainstem, Bear, Cottage Lk Cr. -necessary Lower Rock, Issaquah, North, Little Bear, Kelsey, Evans, E. Fork Issaquah -recommended 5) Salmonwatcher Observations all streams -recommended • Multi-spectral analysis -high altitude preferred over landsat for both basin and jurisdictional level analyses -necessary a. Forest cover b. Impervious Area c. Riparian forest cover • Field assessment -EMAP - necessary a. Habitat b. Macroinvertebrates c. Algae d. Water quality e. Fish assemblages • Flow gauges a. peak flows b. low flows c. flashiness maintain existing permanent gauges -necessary How are projects being funded currently? 3. Snorkel Surveys -USFish & Wildlife (USFW) and the Cities of Seattle and Mercer Island have been sponsoring snorkel surveys for index reaches in Lake Washington. Annual cost estimates, using agency and jurisdiction staff, is approximately $35,000. · 4. Adult spawning surveys. Roughly $120-150K per year, with exact costs depending on the run size. This covers Seattle and WDFW work on the mainstem Cedar, King County and WDFW on the Cedar !ribs, and King County and WDFW on the north lake washington !ribs and Bellevue for Kelsey. In the past, the Cedar River HCP lnstream Flow Commission and Anadromous Fish Committee have given about $20K (in 2001 ), with remaining funds from King County and KCD in that year. WRIA KCD and King County have been the primary funders since 2002. In late 2003, WRIA 8 approved KCD funds $108,394 for the 2004 Chinook surveys. Future funding is looking rather tenuous. Additional surveys are needed in satellite streams and tributaries. 5.The Salmonwatcher Program is currently funded by a combination of individual jurisdictions providing staff and materials and a WRIA Kinq Conservation DistrictJI_rant. The 2004 watershed assessment utilized existing Tri- County landsat data (Original landsat analysis costs for King County were $245,670) with Snohomish County providing technical staff for GIS analysis and oversight. Estimated cost for landsat analysis without reports was $30,000 Snohomish County staff time. King County recently completed a high altitude multispectral flight (as compared to landsat) for approximately $320,000. Field assessments -field assessments are being conducted by individual jurisdictions using various protocols and analysis tools. The macroinvertebrate indicators, using B-1 Bl, uses a standard protocol and analysis technique. Otherwise, there is currently no consistent baseline information for in-stream habitat or riparian condition across basins. An example of costs for B-IBI is approximately $15,000 for 13 sites, including taxonomy, analysis, and reporting (Bellevue). Flows are currently being measured by USGS gauging stations and individual jurisdictions. Protocols for installation, operations, and reporting vary. USGS has a standard data and reporting format and data are available and transparent. Estimated annual operation costs for USGS stations are $14,000. Installation of telemetry for real-time data is approximately $13,000. How much will it cost? JPlannjn_g_ estimates,_only) • Juvenile index snorkel surveys - $35,000 for field work and limited data processing • Spawning Surveys - $200,000 annually NOTE: Funding needed for 2005 • Salmonwatcher Volunteer Program -$75,000 Total Annual Chinook Cumulative Monitoring Costs $540,000-$825,000 Multi-spectral every 5 years $246,000 -$320,000 (averaged at $49,200-64,000 per year) EMAP costs based on Oregon Dept. Environmental Quality (ODEQ) estimate $350,000 per watershed for full EMAP protocols, including data compilation and staff costs. Without the fish assemblage section of EMAP, estimates are approximately $200,000 per watershed. Flows --USGS costs estimate flow gauging stations cost $14,000 per gauge annually. There are no new permanent gauges recommended at this time. Total Annual Cumulative Habitat Monitoring Costs $413,200-4211,000 Committee Tasks for Coordination During Pl_;m Implementation Spawning surveys -see above The Technical Committee and local stewardship programs should coordinate protocols, data, and volunteer efforts for the Salmonwatcher program • WRIA 8 Oversight Com. should request that WRIA 8 be included as an urban example for the Governor's Salmon Team recommendations for a comprehensive watershed monitoring strategy. This included a recommendation for intensive monitoring of target watersheds for cumulative effects for habitat. • Oversight Committee should encourage local governments to continue funding existing permanent flow gauging stations. *At all levels of monitoring and evaluation, data management resources will be necessary for the following tasks: statistical design of habitat and population monitoring, regional data sharing, consistent protocols, QA/QC of data collection and analysis. Costs do NOT include regional data management costs. February 25, 2005 Page 17 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Introduction This chapter discusses a funding strategy for supporting the initial ten years of implementation of the Plan. The chapter begins with a discussion of current governmental spending by federal, state, and local agencies on salmon recovery projects and programs, identifying $11 million per year in current spending through these sources. A brief discussion of costs follows; as noted elsewhere in this chapter, total costs to implement the WRIA 8 plan in its first ten years may exceed $100 million. Fund raising options are then presented at a variety of funding levels, including the continuation of status quo or "base" levels, an increase of thirty percent (to $15.6 million/yr), and an increase of fifty percent (to $17.3 million), the option preferred by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. The chapter continues with an analysis of the capacity to fund implementation of the plan at the three funding levels. Only the base plus 50 percent option meets the Steering Committee's desired level of effort for plan implementation. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the challenges and actions needed to reach the preferred funding level, identifying strategies for maintaining and increasing funding from all levels of government. The strategy includes consideration of new funding sources at the regional and statewide levels. This chapter was drafted by Evergreen Funding Consultants on contract to WRIA 8 governments. The content was developed in close coordination with the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and the Adaptive Management Work Group. Current Spending on Salmon Recovery in WRIA 8 The most direct indicator of the capacity to fund the salmon recovery plan in WRIA 8 may be the level of current spending, provided there is a clear understanding of the uncertain durability of specific current sources of funding. An assessment of current spending on salmon recovery projects and programs in WRIA 8 was conducted in preparation of this chapter. A number of caveats are appropriate in understanding the findings of this effort: • The analysis is intended to capture spending that is focused on and has direct benefits to salmon • Spending on projects and programs with indirect benefits to salmon, such as water quality facilities for new roads, was not included • Spending that is required as a condition of permitting, either as mitigation for an environmental impact or as part of an approved Habitat Conservation Plan, is not included • The assessment captures spending by local governments only • The assessment of capital funding is more inclusive and comprehensive than that for non-capital purposes such as watershed coordination and monitoring • Spending levels are imprecise due to the brief nature of the analysis and the difficulty of distinguishing salmon benefits from other environmental benefits. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy While this analysis therefore captures only a subset of spending that has some benefit to salmon, it is a reasonable indicator of the current funding capacity of WRIA 8 jurisdictions and serves as an appropriate reference point for the analysis of options for future funding. To summarize the major findings of this assessment 1. Current spending levels in WRIA 8 from all sources are estimated at $11.6 million per year; 2. Spending on capital salmon recovery projects is provided principally from local and regional sources that comprise approximately 71 % of total funding, with the remainder from federal (19%) and state (10%) sources. 3. Most local/regional funding is being raised from utility revenues in King County, Seattle, Bellevue, Snohomish County, and suburban cities as well as regional conservation taxes and fees (King County Conservation Futures Tax, King Conservation District assessment). Current expense and other local sources are used less frequently. 4. Principal state and federal sources include the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (state and federal), Army Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration programs (federal), Section Six funding through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (federal), Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account funding (state), and Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program funding (state). A more detailed description of local, federal, and state spending on salmon recovery activities in WRIA 8 follows. Tribal governments are also working to improve Chinook population health in WRIA 8; however, their expenditures were not included in this analysis. Local Government Funding • Local government public works and capital projects: Local jurisdictions in King and Snohomish Counties spend approximately $4-6 million per year from their capital budgets on projects such as fish passage, riparian restoration, instream and off- channel improvements, and estuary and nearshore restoration. The largest share comes from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, and Renton. • King County Conservation Futures: This component of King County property taxes provides annual funding for open space conservation. For the past few years, an average of approximately $2.5 million has been spent on salmon-related projects in WRIA 8. (Includes Cedar River Legacy directed funds.) • King Conservation District: This property tax source generates approximately $630,000 for King County jurisdictions in WRIA 8. • WR/A 8 lnterlocal Agreement: Revenues from this agreement among WRIA 8 local governments provide $500,000 annually to fund watershed planning for salmon conservation. • Locally-funded grant programs: King County's Community Salmon Fund partnership, Waterworks program, and several other small grant programs provide $1-200,000 annually to fund smaller projects in WRIA 8. February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy • Local operating funds for ongoing watershed activities: Local jurisdictions fund staff through operating budgets for ongoing projects and programs including research and monitoring (e.g., normative flows and coho pre-spawn mortality studies, ongoing water quality and fish monitoring), outreach and education (e.g., outreach publications, basin and watershed stewards, volunteer coordination), regulation and permitting, and planning. This funding totals more than $1 million per year but is difficult to calculate more precisely given that most staff have a mix of WRIA and non-WRIA responsibilities. Federal Funding • Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB): The SRFB provides $500,000-$1 million a year for habitat projects in WRIA 8 (approximately 2/3 of SRFB funds are from federal sources, 1 /3 from state sources). • Other federal grant and incentive programs: North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants (NAWCA), Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, etc. occasionally fund projects in the WRIA, but program funders do not allocate dollars strategically to WRIA 8 priorities. In all, these programs may contribute several hundred thousand to $1 million (e.g., $1.5 million to Seattle Public Utilities last year for Cedar acquisitions through the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund). This figure does not include federal Forest Legacy dollars in WRIA 8, which is a significant and reliable sum but is focused on headwaters areas rather than WRIA mainstem priorities. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps provides study funding for the Lake Washington/Ship Canal General Investigation and project funding through 206 and 1135 continuing authorities. This represents about $300-500,000 per year. • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: $100-200,000 each year for Community Salmon Fund projects and Washington Salmon grants. • Technical assistance, monitoring from federal agencies: National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Army Corps of Engineers. This is difficult to quantify. State Funding • Salmon Recovery Funding Board: The state provides up to a third of the SRFB funds mentioned above (most WRIA 8 SRFB projects have been implemented using federal funds). • Other state grant programs: Washington's Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP), Public Involvement and Education fund, and the Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) all fund occasional projects in the WRIA. Between ALEA, WWRP, and CCWF, about $500,000-$1 million a year go to salmon projects in WRIA 8, but these are not always for WRIA priorities. • Lead Entity and RFEG funding: State agencies provide $60,000 for the WRIA 8 lead entity and $100k in funding for the Mid-Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, the majority of whose projects take place in WRIA 9. February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy • Hatchery retrofits: Occasional funding for hatchery repairs and upgrades. In the last biennium, for example, the state spent several million on the Issaquah hatchery. • Technical assistance, monitoring, watershed stewards from state agencies like Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Ecology. Fig 7-1 illustrates the major sources of local, federal, and state funding for salmon recovery in WRIA 8, a total of about $11-13 million. The chart does not include staffing and technical assistance at the local, state, or federal levels, which is difficult to quantify but may represent an additional $1-2 million. It also does not include state hatchery funding. Fig 7-1: Funding sources in WRIA 8 LE and RFEG Funding Misc State Grants SRFB (Fed and State) Army Corps Misc Federal Grants Local Grants-- WRIA 8 ILA- Local GIP Conservation Futures February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Costs of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Plan The Steering Committee is recommending that local governments and other entities participate in plan implementation in three areas: continued regional collaboration, implementation of site-specific and landscape-level actions, and monitoring the results of actions to gauge progress. Each of these areas is discussed in great detail in other chapters where cost estimates are also provided. Continued collaboration at the regional level is discussed in Chapter 2; expectations for monitoring costs are outlined in Chapter 6; and preliminary cost estimates for actions in the Start-list are provided in Chapter 9. At this stage of the process, estimated costs are based on a conceptual level of understanding of actions. This conceptual level of understanding will evolve over time to a more precise reality as public comment and local government feedback are incorporated into the plan and the results of the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model further refine priorities. Then cost estimates will need to be further refined as well to provide more accurate information. The purpose of the preliminary cost estimates of the start-list is to provide "ballpark" costs, not actual costs, for implementation of a subset of the actions. These estimated costs are a starting point for planning numbers that could be used by decision makers within the context of overall funding plans. The cost estimates are subject to further - potentially substantial -revision as additional information regarding project scope, design and other factors becomes available. Due to information and time constraints, reconciliation of start-list financial needs with levels of funding recommended in this chapter has not been initiated. The Steering Committee has recommended a ten-year timeframe for implementation. However, at this time no recommendations or decisions have been made about specific annual priorities regarding which Start-list actions should be implemented each year, or exactly how many actions should be accomplished in the next ten years. This information gap limits efforts to develop precise annual cost estimates for the ten-year plan implementation timeframe. It should be noted that the desired level of effort is not based on the number and type of actions that would need to be implemented annually to achieve a specific level of salmon response. Additional information about needed level of effort to achieve a specific level of salmon response may become available through the adaptive management process and the treatment phase of EDT. Options for Future Funding Levels Steering Committee Direction on Funding The WRIA 8 Steering Committee discussed funding levels at several meetings from April to September 2004 and advised staff of their preferences in several key areas: Funding level: At the April meeting, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee expressed strong support for continued funding of salmon recovery actions at or above current funding levels, estimated at $8 million per year from local and regional sources and an additional February 25. 2005 Page 5 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy $2-3 million in state and federal sources. Three alternatives were developed and presented to the committee for their consideration, with funding levels equal to the current level ("base"), at thirty percent above this level ("base plus 30%"), and at fifty percent above this level ("base plus 50%"). After further analysis and discussion at subsequent meetings, the committee agreed to endorse the "base plus 50%" option, an alternative that equates to an annual funding target of $17.3 million for salmon recovery activities in WRIA 8. Funding sources: The Steering Committee has emphasized two priorities related to the sources of funding: protect the sources that are currently used for salmon recovery and increase the state and federal contribution of funding. With regard to the continuation of existing local and regional funding, the Steering Committee expressed concerns about the vulnerability of existing regional sources (in this context, those sources collected and distributed at a countywide or WRIA level). The most commonly used regional sources for capital projects in King County are the King County Conservation Futures Tax and the King Conservation District assessment. Regarding state and federal funding, the Steering Committee expressed strong support for increasing the level and sustainability of funding sources. The committee expressed particular interest in increasing WRIA competitiveness for state and federal grants and Corps of Engineers cost-sharing programs. While the Steering Committee discussion focused principally on the sources and levels of funding in current use for salmon recovery activities, several members expressed interest in broadening the analysis to include new and largely untried funding sources. One oft-cited example is the redirection of mitigation funds to high priority salmon projects through a "trading" or "banking" scenario. Distribution: With regard to the role of these or other regional sources in the fundraising strategy, the committee expressed support for an approach that allowed the funding of regionally beneficial projects regardless of jurisdiction. Members acknowledged that some jurisdictions, particularly the smaller cities and unincorporated King County, might have difficulty paying for capital projects in their areas. Timing: The Steering Committee has expressed strong support for a constant level of funding for the initial implementation phase (assumed at ten years), as contrasted with a strategy that provides more funding early in the implementation process. Members expressed particular interest in the dependability of a constant stream of funding, although some acknowledged the difficulties of predicting the funding decisions of future legislative bodies. It was also suggested that there be some bonding capacity built into the constant-stream strategy to address immediate needs, but that this be accommodated with a minor share of the total annual funding. In addition, committee members understood that there may be a ramp-up phase in the first few years as new funding sources are developed. In-kind Contributions: As reflected in the discussion of Organizational Structure and Staffing in chapter 2, the Steering Committee is recommending and assuming that the current level of in-kind support provided by participants in the Plan development process will be maintained during the Plan implementation phase. This in-kind support has been critical during the Plan development phase, and would be a cost-effective resource to help meet the Steering Committee's desired level of effort for implementation and to augment the capacity of work that can be supported by shared staff. In order to sustain a desired level of effort, a reduction in such in-kind support would have to be made up by an increase in funding. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Comments Received During Public Review of the Plan: Comments related to funding offered a range of ideas, many of wh_ich are tied to and covered in Chapter 8 on commitments of local governments. Other suggestions were to keep current funding in place, prioritize local programs to fund Plan implementation, reduce property taxes as an incentive to landowners to implement actions, and to accept charitable contributions. Funding Options Based on the interests expressed by the Steering Committee members and research on funding alternatives, three options have been identified for further consideration. While organized by funding level -the primary driver in a fundraising strategy -they also differ in the sources used and the efforts to secure these sources. The funding level options are intended to roughly correspond to different levels of effort supporting implementation, with the increases in resources available from one option to the next roughly equating to an increased capacity for and pace of implementation. Note that the amounts by source are hypothetical and would vary annually and throughout the ten- year initial implementation period. It is possible that the funding levels identified in the options could be reached in other scenarios with different funding levels for individual sources. Implications for fund raising and financing are described in detail later in this chapter. It should be noted that each anticipated funding source would be applied as per the legal restrictions, authority, and discretion of the funding agency. Option One: Base Level Characteristics: The focus of funding in this option is to maintain funding at current levels, although not necessarily with the current mix of sources. This option will appeal to those who feel that current levels of funding -and therefore effort -are either sufficient to meet needs or challenging enough to maintain into the future. Potential funding sources and amounts: Federal (assumed at $2.2 million/yr, 19% of total): • Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund at $700K/yr • Corps of Engineers 1135/206 funding at $SOOK/yr • Misc. federal grants at $1 million/yr State: (assumed at $1.2 million/yr, 10% of total): • State share of SRFB funding at $700Klyr • Misc. state grants at $SOOK/yr Local/regional (assumed at $8.2 million/yr, 71 % of total): • King Conservation District at $660K/yr • King County Conservation Futures Tax at $2.5 million/yr • Misc. regional grants at $SOOK/yr • Local surface water/drainage fees at $3 million/yr • Other utility fees and charges at $1 million/yr • Local current expense funds at $SOOK/yr Total funding level: $11.6 million/yr February 25, 2005 Page 7 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Option Two: Base Level Plus 30% Characteristics: The focus of this option is to ensure sufficient funding for a substantial increase in capacity to implement the recovery plan. Existing funding sources continue to be available, are used to their capacity, and are supplemented through a more ambitious effort to raise state and federal funding and a new regional funding source. This option will be appealing to those who feel that a more ambitious pace of implementing the plan is desirable or necessary. Potential funding sources and amounts: Federal (assumed at $3.2 million/yr, 21 % of total): • Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund at $700K/yr • Corps of Engineers 1135/206 funding at $1.5 million/yr (significant increase from current levels) • Misc. federal grants at $1 million/yr State: (assumed at $1.2 million/yr, 8% of total): • State share of SRFB funding at $700K/yr • Misc. state grants at $500K/yr Local/regional (assumed at $10.7 million/yr, 71 % of total): • King Conservation District at $660K/yr • King County Conservation Futures Tax at $2.5 million/yr • Misc. regional grants at $500K/yr • New regional source or sources at $2.5 million/yr (new source) • Local surface water/drainage fees at $3 million/yr • Other utility fees and charges at $1 million/yr • Local current expense funds at $500K/yr Total funding level: $15.1 million/yr Option Three: Base Level Plus 50% (STEERING COMMITTEE PREFERRED) Characteristics: The focus of this option is to provide funding to allow a very significant increase in the capacity to implement the recovery plan across a wide range of capital and non-capital actions. Funding needs in this scenario greatly exceed the capabilities of existing and augmented sources and new and somewhat experimental sources must be evaluated as potential additions. This option will appeal to the most ardent supporters of salmon recovery. Potential funding sources and amounts: Federal (assumed at $4.2 million/yr, 24% of total): • Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund at $700K/yr • Corps of Engineers 1135/206 funding at $2.0 million/yr (significant increase from current levels) • Misc. federal grants at $1.5 million/yr (significant increase from base and option two) February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy State: (assumed at $1.5 million/yr, 9% of total): • State share of SRFB funding at $700K/yr • Misc. state grants at $BOOK/yr (significant increase from base and option two) Local/regional (assumed at $11.6 million/yr, 67% of total): • King Conservation District at $660K/yr • King County Conservation Futures Tax at $2.5 million/yr • Misc. regional grants at $500K/yr • New regional source or sources at $3.5 million/yr (new source at higher level than option two) • Local surface water/drainage fees at $3 million/yr • Other utility fees and charges at $1 million/yr • Local current expense funds at $500K/yr Total funding level: $17.3 million/yr Summary Table The following table summarizes the three options for funding and compares potential funding levels by source for each. Option Source Base Pacific Coastal Salmon 5700,000 Corps of Engineers $500,000 Federal Grants $1,000,000 TOTAL FEDERAL 52,200,000 19.0% SRFB $700,000 State Grants $500,000 TOTAL STATE $1,200,000 10.4% King Conservation District $660,000 KC Conservation Futures $2,500,000 Regiona I Grants $500,000 New Regional Sources $0 Local SWM Fees $3,000,000 Other Local Utility Fees $1,000,000 Local Current Expense $500,000 TOTAL LOCAL/REGIONAL $8,160,000 70.6% GRAND TOTAL $11,560,000 Base+ 30°/o $700,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 53,200,000 $700,000 $500,000 $1,200,000 $660,000 52,500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $10,660,000 $15,060,000 Base + 500/o $700,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 21.2% 54,200,000 $700,000 $800,000 8.0% $1,500,000 $660,000 $2,500,000 ssoo,ooo $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 70.8% $11,660,000 $17,360,000 February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Options Considered but Not Fully Developed The following options were considered but did not seem promising enough to warrant further consideration. Funding at substantially less than the current base level: This alternative, while attractive in terms of fundraising, would be inconsistent with the direction of the Steering Committee to maintain the level of recovery activity at no less than the status quo. Funding at more than 50% greater than current levels: While this option would be attractive to those wanting a more ambitious scope or pace to the recovery program, the level of funding and diversity of funding sources needed to sustain fundraising at this level appear to be infeasible in the current political and economic climate. Capacity to Implement the WRIA 8 Plan at Various Funding Levels A key consideration for the WRIA 8 Steering Committee has been whether there is sufficient capacity to implement the recovery plan at the three funding levels under consideration. In order to evaluate the consequences of the funding levels on capacity, the following table was prepared. The table looks at three areas where local governments and other entities will be asked to consider commitments -continuing regional collaboration to implement the plan, monitoring for progress, and implementation of actions at both site-specific and landscape level. Note that the distribution of funding among activities is hypothetical only and should not be construed as a specific spending proposal. February 25, 2005 Page 10 TABLE 7 -1: Capacity to Implement the WRIA 8 Plan at Various Funding Levels 1 Current: @$11.SM 5 FTE (funded bylLA) @$SOOK (including overhead) lnckind P~rtlci~~io tj,}; ;ti'ii'i:;J( [Forum, Steering Cmte, Staff Cmte, Synth Cmte, Tech Cmte, AMWG, PO Cmte, LU Cmte, member staffing] 2 I Base: 13 FTE I [Summit @ $11.SM (6/30 Body, proposal) Oversight Body, Tech @$300K Cmte, PO + Cmte, Staff negotiate Cmte, d member overhead staffinql I h,e: . :Mohif·. g)ii(,: @$80K/yr KCD @$553KI yr Seattle, King County, USFWS, Bellevue, Mercer Island, Sno County, ACOE, WDFW, Others? @969K/yr Distribution between regional and local funding TBD I •Cpllaborative>H.;ibitatActlons ••.• includes @4+ SRFB projs/yr (ave: $=214k/proj) @8+ KCD projects/yr (ave: $74k/proj) Sources: KCD, SRFB, CFT, ACOE, State programs, ACOE, others i @$500- • 750K/yr Toward Education and Stewardshi p projects, · e.g., Salmon , Watchers, Cedar River Naturalists Various fund sources @$6.2M/yr'* Assumed ratio of site-specific to programmatic (public education and land use)*** TBD by Oversight Body Contributions from specific sources TBD February 25, 2005 Page 11 @$4M/yr Toward site specific actions whose costs are internalized, e.g., drainage CIPs, open space acquisitions Cost not quantified Toward broad acti.ons whose costs are internalized, e.g., , adoption and i enforcement of CAO/ Comp Plan, NPDES, Shoreline Plans, etc., I Maintained at I Maintained at current current level level TABLE 7-1: Capacity to Implement the WRIA 8 Plan at Various Funding Levels 3 I Base • r FTE [Summit @$9.BM/yr** I Maintained at I Maintained at current 30%: Body, @969K/yr current level level @$15.1 @$300K + Oversight Assumed ratio of site-specific M negotiated Body, Tech Distribution between to programmatic (publi_c overhead Comm, PO regional and local funding education and land use)*** Comm, Staff TBD TBD by Oversight Body Comm, member Contributions from specific staffinol sources TBD I I 4 I Base+ 3.5 FTE [Summit @$11.1 M/yr** Maintained at Maintained at current 50%: (Steering Body, @1.853M/yr (Steering current level level @$17.3 Committee Oversight Committee recommended Assumed ratio of site-specific M 9/22 Body, Tech level) to programmatic (public proposal) Comm, PO education and land use)*** Comm, Staff Distribution between TBD by Oversight Body @ $350K+ I Comm, regional and local funding negotiated member TBD I Contributions from specific overhead staffinq] sources TBD ** -Figures do not reflect any match provided from local sources, including O&M. Some fund sources (e.g., SRFB-15%) require local match, some (e.g., KCD) do not. Local expenditures for some projects may exceed match requirements and therefore cover a larger share of overall project costs. *** -Future "Other" collaborative actions could include those currently in place and others, e.g., watershed stewards, regional stormwater planning, training on low impact development techniques. February 25, 2005 Page 12 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Several conclusions can be reached based on this analysis: The "base" funding level does not provide the capacity to fund plan needs at the desired level within the ten-year implementation period: The "base" level of funding would not provide adequate funding to meet the Steering Committee's desired level of effort with respect to collaborative organizational structure (see Chapter 2), monitoring program (see Chapter 6), and start-list actions. "Base plus 30%" is a significant improvement but still falls somewhat short: Similar to the base scenario, above, the base plus 30% scenario would not fund the Steering Committee's desired level of effort with respect to a collaborative organizational structure, monitoring program, and collaborative implementation of start-list actions. The "base plus 50%" level (the Steering Committee's preferred option) appears to provide funding at the Steering Committee's desired level of effort: As indicated in the table, this level would allow full funding of the monitoring program (see Chapter 6), shared staff at the level recommended by the Steering Committee in Chapter 2, and the most funding for carrying out collaborative habitat actions on the start-list. Funding Challenges and Actions at the Preferred Funding Level ($17.3 million per year) Execution of the funding strategy at a fifty percent increase over current levels will be very challenging for the WRIA 8 partners. As previously indicated, many of the sources in current use for salmon recovery activities are annually budgeted from discretionary sources, making them quite vulnerable to shifting government priorities and economic downturns. The challenge will be to execute a strategy that not only bolsters current sources but delivers new money from every level of government to the implementation of the recovery plan. The following discussion addresses the challenges and potential solutions at each level of government. Federal Funding Proposed Funding Level: At the preferred funding level of $17.3 million annually, the funding scenario discussed in this chapter projects an increase in federal funding from the current level of approximately $2.2 million per year to $4.2 million per year, a 90 percent increase. Challenges: Maintaining Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funding in the face of some congressional opposition and "salmon fatigue": This five-state program is the dominant source of federal funding to Washington State salmon recovery efforts, contributing $25-30 million annually (statewide) to habitat restoration and protection via grants through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. As the largest account of its size in the relevant section of the federal budget, it has attracted some opposition from influential members of Congress. In addition, there is sentiment in Congress that after six years of funding the salmon problem should be wrapped up. February 25. 2005 Page 13 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Increasing and adding new federal sources: Although there have been attempts -some successful -to broaden the number of federal agencies that fund salmon recovery efforts in WRIA 8, particularly through EPA and US Fish and Wildlife Service grants and Corps of Engineers' restoration programs, these sources have been modest contributors to the overall funding effort thus far. Moving the Corps of Engineers Lake Washington/Ship Canal study to completion and project construction: This protracted study will theoretically result in cost-sharing of a large group of restoration projects in the watershed at very favorable terms. The study has been repeatedly delayed by insufficient federal funding. Even with adequate funding, it will be a challenge to get the project authorized and begin construction funding for identified projects. Proposed Actions Increase commitments to lobbying for federal funding Coordinate and strengthen lobbying activities among WRIA 8 governments: Several of the governments in WRIA 8 -King County, Seattle, perhaps others - already have representation in Washington, DC and actively lobby Congress and the administration on salmon funding issues. The effectiveness of these efforts will be increased if the participating governments cooperate on a common pro- salmon funding message to be delivered by all of the lobbyists and elected officials. The shared staff proposal described in Chapter 2 includes support to coordinate such lobbying efforts. Participate in regional and statewide lobbying coalitions: The Governor's office and statewide organizations such as the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission are likely to play a prominent role in developing a common federal funding agenda and a coordinated lobbying strategy. Members of the Washington Congressional delegation are indicating that they will look more kindly on a coordinated budget request than on many individual pleas. WRIA 8 leaders should reach out to statewide advocates to identify areas of common interest and opportunities for cooperation on a federal funding strategy. In particular, it may be possible to offer additional support for statewide initiatives, such as continued funding of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant program, in return for state support for initiatives of particular interest to the WRIA 8 governments, such as completion and funding of the Lake Washington/Ship Canal study. Increase the use of media and events to publicize successes: Publicity of salmon successes has been sporadic to date. Elected officials respond very favorably to recognition events and mass media and it would be useful to have a more systematic approach to publicizing the completion of projects and other favorable events. This could be accomplished through the development and execution of a common public relations program among the public affairs staffs of the larger WRIA 8 governments. February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Improve WRIA-wide grantwriting capacity Develop grantwriting capacity that can be focused on WRIA priorities: There are a wide range of federal grant programs that are suitable for funding of WRIA initiatives and an important ingredient for the success of the WRIA 8 funding strategy is increasing the number and success rate of grant applications. This will require additional grantwriting capacity, for example in the form of shared staff as suggested in the preceding discussion of staffing and organizational structure for Plan implementation. Develop a mechanism to prioritize WRIA projects for use in WRIA grantwriting capacity: Once the WRIA capacity is increased, it will be necessary to develop a process to select which projects will be the focus of grantwriting efforts. Assuming that there are more ideas for what could be funded than there is funding capacity, WRIA leaders will need to develop criteria for ranking projects and a queue of projects awaiting attention. The rpeceding staffing proposal contemplates addressing this need through the Assistant to the Executive Director position and the Funding Coordinator position. State Funding Proposed Funding Level: At the preferred funding level of $17.3 million annually, the funding scenario discussed in this chapter projects an increase in state funding from the current level of approximately $1.2 million per year to $1.5 million per year, a 25 percent increase. As an alternative, creation of a new dedicated state funding source for salmon may allow an increase in the state share up to $2.5 million 1 , more than double current levels, allowing a smaller increase in the local/regional share. Challenges: Addressing the declining state share of total salmon funding, particularly for capital project grants: As federal and state contributions to salmon recovery have remained stable or increased in the last five years, state funding has decreased, particularly for grants to salmon projects. For instance, state funding for grants allocated through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board was cut 56% in th.e 2003-05 budget from 2001-2003 levels. Further cuts could endanger federal funding if Congress perceives a retreat at the state level in willingness to fund salmon recovery actions. If cuts are unavoidable, reducing funding for local project grants should be the last resort in cutbacks. Maintaining a high level of capital funding is vital in demonstrating progress on salmon recovery to the public and to other funding agencies. Getting more state money to WRIA 8 projects and programs: As watershed plans are completed throughout the state, including throughout the Columbia Basin, competition for state project money is likely to increase. Due to early technical work and a strong interlocal partnership, the WRIA 8 governments have been quite successful in securing funds from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. In order to increase the overall state 1 Assuming $2 million per year from a new statewide salmon account and $500,000 from current competitive sources. February 25, 2005 Page 15 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy share of funding, the partners will need to seek and secure new state grant sources as well as continue their success with SRFB funds. Proposed Actions Increase commitments to lobbying for state funding sources Coordinate and strengthen lobbying activities, as described under federal funding: Just as with federal funding, the prospects for state funding will be much improved by: • Coordinating the work of WRIA 8 lobbyists; • Developing a coordinated WRIA 8 budget request; • Participating in lobbying coalitions with a salmon focus; • . Publicizing successful results. Support new dedicated state sources of funding for salmon recovery Work with other salmon advocates to develop a proposal for a new statewide revenue source: New state funding will probably require new state funding sources for salmon. The forces that have resulted in long-term erosion in state funding for salmon recovery -competing priorities, "salmon fatigue" among legislators, and state budget deficits -are likely to continue and make it very difficult to raise additional state money on a sustained basis from existing sources. While the WRIA 8 governments may be able to implement a watershed recovery plan without additional state funding, most of the local governments in the Puget Sound region and statewide cannot due to limited local resources. Achieving recovery across the region and the state will probably require a new statewide salmon funding source. In all likelihood, this source would be voter approved, focused on salmon and other environmental needs, supported by tax revenues, and would need to be supported by key agencies, organizations, and business interests. WRIA 8 governments have a special role to play in establishment of a new source. With so much of the state's population and tax base within WRIA 8 jurisdictions, leadership from WRIA 8 officials will be important and may be essential to the passage of a new funding source in the legislature and at the polls. Next steps include forming a WRIA 8 delegation to meet with other regional and state leaders to discuss the amount on money to be raised, revenue sources, procedures for enactment of the sources, and distribution of funds. It seems likely that the Shared Strategy will support and provide a venue for these discussions. Assist with the implementation of the strategy: Passage of a new statewide funding source would be a complex political process and may involve an initiative to the legislature, a signature-gathering effort, a campaign to develop support from the legislature, and a public campaign should the legislature fail to enact the proposed measure. It would be vital to have WRIA 8 support for many of these activities. February 25, 2005 Page 16 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Increase grant-writing capacity Improve grantwriting capacity, as describe under federal funding Seek grants from a wider range of state sources: There are a wide variety of state grant programs that may be appropriate for implementing portions of the WRIA 8 plan, including the Public Works Trust Fund and Centennial Clean Water Fund programs, that are not directly salmon focused but may be appropriate for habitat and water quality improvements identified in the plan. Diversifying the pursuit of grant funding beyond the typical salmon sources is likely to improve dependability as well as the amount raised because it will smooth out the cyclical rise and fall of program funding levels that is common among state funding sources. Local/Regional Funding Proposed Funding Level: At the preferred funding level of $17.3 million annually, the funding scenario discussed in this chapter projects an increase in local/regional funding from the current level of approximately $8.2 million per year to $11. 7 million per year, a 43 percent increase. As an alternative, creation of a new dedicated state funding source for salmon may allow an increase in the state share to $2.5 million per year. Assuming a corresponding offset in local/regional funding, the future local/regional share would be projected at $10.6 million, an increase of 29% from current levels. Challenges: Improving the dependability of local and regional salmon funding: As with state and federal funding, the majority of local and regional funding available for salmon projects and programs in WRIA 8 in recent years has come from annual budget appropriations from broadly focused environmental sources and not dedicated salmon funding. As a consequence, local and regional funding is subject to the variability in revenue streams, competing environmental and other priorities, and shifts in political support that are common to local government programs. Several sources are particularly vulnerable: the King Conservation District assessment that will sunset in 2005, the Conservation Futures Tax program that is increasingly in demand for forest conservation and urban land protection needs, and city and county current expense budgets that are under very tight pressures. Increasing the amount of funding available for salmon projects and programs: As indicated above, the initial assumption about how the "base plus 50%" level is achieved assumes an increase of 43% in local and regional funding. Performance at this funding level for the ten-year initial period of plan implementation will require a very high level of success with existing funding sources (general funds, utility fees, Conservation Futures, KCD) as well as new sources yet to be identified, all sought and supported through an organized, disciplined fundraising strategy. Supporting WRIA 8 coordination and projects while new sources are in development: It is likely that any long-term fundraising strategy for WRIA 8 will take time to implement, particularly if there are new funding sources that require legislative or voter approval. In the meantime, some of the sources that have been particularly helpful in supporting the February 25, 2005 Page 17 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy development of the WRIA 8 plan -the interlocal agreement and KCD assessment -are scheduled to sunset. An interim funding strategy is needed to maintain momentum in the first couple of years of plan implementation. Proposed Actions Increase the amount and dependability of local and regional funding Establish policies and agreements to dedicate existing local and regional sources to WRIA 8 priorities on a continuing basis: While it is difficult for local governments to make multi-year funding commitments within the constraints of annual or biannual budget processes, it may be possible to negotiate non-binding agreements and policy statements for sources such as the Conservation Futures Tax or utility tax revenues that would serve as a statement of intent to spend these funds in the future. Presuming that there will be some level of federal assurances associated with approval of the Puget Sound recovery plan, these policy commitments, while not as persuasive as cash commitments, would help build the case on the certainty of funding. Policy statements are within the purview of the government administering the funding source (the King County Council for the CFT) while interlocal agreements would require the approval of multiple governments, a more complex process that is probably only warranted when trying to commit a variety of local agencies to apply their own funding to a collective goal. Evaluate new regional sources of funding for salmon projects and programs across multiple WRIA's: The surest fix to shortcomings in the amount and dependability of existing local and regional funding sources for salmon is to enact a new dedicated source expressly for salmon recovery purposes. Unfortunately, this is far easier said than done. At the moment, state authority for multi-jurisdictional actions is sharply constrained to a variety of utility and service districts, none of which are a good fit with salmon recovery actions. A customized "salmon recovery district" authority would require approval of the authority in the legislature followed by a local tax vote, almost certainly a public vote on a ballot measure. While this is a daunting prospect politically, a "salmon recovery district" offers the potential of a large dedicated revenue stream, flexible geographic scope, and customized funding criteria that would make it ideal for implementation of the local responsibilities in the recovery plan. If pursued at a substantial funding level, it could supplant many of the existing local sources and greatly improve the dependability of local implementation. If a new regional tax measure is determined to be a priority for the WRIA 8 governments, there are important strategic considerations about whether it should be pursued in addition to or as a substitute for a new state tax measure. It is unlikely that a state source would provide a dependable yield of more than $2-3 million annually, meaning that the ideal situation would be to have a base level of current sources, a new statewide funding source, plus a new regional source. However, this scenario assumes two tax votes in the central Puget Sound area when even one seems ambitious. The alternative of a regional tax measure without a statewide measure does little for salmon recovery beyond the bounds of the new district, a drawback in terms of ESA coverage and assurances and delisting, which can only happen at the Puget Sound region scale. February 25, 2005 Page 18 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy The next step in consideration of this issue should be to engage in discussions with officials from other WRIA's within the central Puget Sound area to determine if there are similar interests and needs among their leadership. Implement an interim strategy for funding of WRIA 8 efforts Reauthorize the KCD assessment as an interim source: The King Conservation District assessment sunsets in 2005. It is one of the few sources available to support interjurisdictional activities in WRIA 8 and has been useful in supporting coordination and projects on behalf of the WRIA 8 partners. The KCD assessment is a per-parcel property tax that is approved by the King County Council. It is important that this source be renewed for at least three years to ensure that a basic level of capacity is retained while a new set of sources are in development. Renew the interlocal agreement (ILA) to ensure continuity in WRIA coordination and implementation of the plan: In 2000, King County, Snohomish County, and 25 cities in the counties negotiated and signed an interlocal agreement to cost-share the development of the WRIA 8 recovery strategy. Funding under the agreement has been used to support the development of the recovery plan, coordination and staffing of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and Forum, scientific analyses, and public outreach. The five-year term of the original agreement is scheduled to expire at the end of 2005. In order to fund projects and programs until new funding sources are in place, it would be sensible to renew the ILA under the same terms for at least two years. Next Steps The implementation of the funding strategy identified in this chapter will require that WRIA 8 leaders and staff proceed immediately on two tracks, one internal to WRIA 8 and the second with other watershed leaders around Puget Sound. Actions within WRIA 8 1. Confirm the costs of implementing capital and non-capital actions for the start-list 2. Begin discussions about renewal of the interlocal agreement with particular attention on the first few years of plan implementation. 3. Support salmon funding in local government budget processes. 4. Increase staff-level capacity for developing and pursuing funding sources, e.g., building grantwriting capacity. 5. Develop a coordinated lobbying strategy, including WRIA 8 priorities for state and federal funding. Actions with Other Watersheds 1. Continue discussions with neighboring WRIAs about the desirability and feasibility of a new regional funding source for salmon. 2. Continue discussions with Shared Strategy and other regional and statewide salmon advocates about a new statewide source of salmon funding. 3. Develop policy language that will commit funding from current sources (CFT, utility fees, KCD) to salmon recovery on a continuing basis for all King County WRIAs. February 25, 2005 Page 19 Chapter 7: Funding Strategy Attachment A: Possible Characteristics and Schedule for a New Regional Funding Source Characteristics • Likely to require new state authority • Could be established at a variety of scales (WRIA, multi-WRIA, ESU) • Could authorize a variety of tax and fee sources • Would probably require a public vote to enact funding • Political support likely to vary by scale • Would require a campaign Fast-Track Schedule • January-April 2005: Introduction and passage (possible but not probable) of local option funding source in WA Legislature • April-December 2005: Media and lobbying campaign to build legislative support • January-April 2006: Introduction and passage of local option funding source • April-June 2006: Regional discussions on size and shape of local package • July-November 2006: Campaign on ballot measure for general election • Early 2007: Collection and distribution of revenue (if measure passes) Attachment B: Possible Characteristics and Schedule for a New State Source Characteristics • Likely to require a public vote • Could be jump-started by an initiative • Could use various taxes for revenue • Likely to be bigger than salmon -water, land conservation, nearshore/marine? • Would require a campaign Fast-Track Schedule • December 2004 -April 2005: Development of coalition in support of measure • April-November 2005: Signature-gathering (assuming initiative to the legislature) • January-April 2006: Legislature considers and fails to pass funding measure, refers to general election • November 2006: General election vote on ballot measure • Early 2007: Collection and distribution of revenue (if measure passes) February 25, 2005 Page 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER 8: EXPECTATIONS Al\D COMMITMEI\TS FOR PLAI\ IMPLEMENTATION Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation What expectations are requested of federal and state governments and other non- local government entities in exchange for implementation of the plan by local governments? What type and level of commitments are recommended for local governments to implement the plan? Introduction Implementation of the Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan will offer many benefits to both fish and humans. (See Chapter 1 for a full discussion of benefits.) But to ensure implementation, local governments will need to offer some level of commitment. In exchange for these commitments, local governments will have expectations for other entities. In particular, local governments hope to negotiate potential benefits and assurances with the federal and state governments. In addition, there are potential actions that federal and state agencies, the co-managers of the fisheries resource, and other non-local-government entities can choose to implement that will help benefit salmon and people in WRIA 8. Clearly, these benefits, expectations, and commitments are all intertwined and interconnected. There will need to be a dialog among appropriate parties to define and refine the final commitments and expectations that will benefit salmon recovery. In this proposed plan, the Steering Committee offers recommendations in both areas to kick-start the discussion. Local jurisdictions and stakeholders in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish· Watershed (WRIA 8) have a strong history of working together to conserve salmon habitat. The broad level of commitment that already exists can be shown in the following three examples. First, 27 local governments in the watershed are finishing their fourth year of a five-year interlocal agreement to jointly fund planning for protection and restoration of salmon habitat across the watershed. Second, local jurisdictions and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have undertaken studies that have resulted in dramatic improvements for salmon passage through the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and are conducting a feasibility study for projects that will improve habitat along the Sammamish River, the Cedar River, and other key river and creek corridors. Third, local governments have designated King Conservation District grants to fund shared watershed priorities through habitat projects, technical studies, and stewardship opportunities. But the WRIA 8 partners know there is more to be done to help support salmon recovery and that the participation of other entities can help this is to occur. For the WRIA 8 salmon plan to come to life, the Steering Committee recommends that local governments and participating stakeholders make some type of commitment to implement actions proposed in the plan. Commitment can come in several forms and at varying levels. Before making any commitment, potential implementers will need to evaluate the actions to which they are committing. Potential implementers will want to know what benefits they will receive if they do make a commitment and what federal and state agencies can offer to support such commitments. This will continue to be an iterative discussion among the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, WRIA 8 Forum, local governments, regulating agencies, citizens, businesses, Puget Sound Shared Strategy, and other interested partners leading up to plan approval and ratification. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation Benefits to Salmon and the Public for Implementing the Plan There are many types of benefits that will and can accrue from implementation of the plan, from supporting Chinook salmon recovery to cleaner water for public health to possible legal assurances from the regulating agencies, Before asking WRIA 8 partners to make commitments to take action and to spend resources, it makes sense to review briefly what benefits can come from implementing this plan. A later section of this chapter (Expectations for Potential Benefits that Could Be Negotiated with Regulating Agencies) offers a more focused consideration of expectations that the Steering Committee has suggested could be negotiated with regulating agencies in exchange for commitments from local governments. The Steering Committee recognized many benefits in their original Mission and Goals Statement (see Chapter 1 ). During the development of the draft plan, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee has had further discussions on the benefits they would like to see for salmon, the public, and implementing entities. Foremost among these are: • Healthy salmon populations and habitat • Ecosystem health, including species diversity, maintenance of native species, and water quality • Legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport fishing and quality of life, which includes cultural heritage • Legal assurances from federal and state governments to local governments in exchange for commitments to implement plan. A fuller discussion can be found in Chapter 1 on benefits of plan implementation. What expectations are requested of federal and state governments and other non- local government entities in exchange for implementation of the plan by local governments? The Steering Committee suggests that in exchange for making commitments to implement the plan, local governments may want to seek to negotiate benefits and legal assurances with federal and state regulating agencies. One avenue to start that discussion is through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy. The Puget Sound Shared Strategy is a collaboration among several levels of government, including federal agencies responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act, the state, and the tribes, as well as other stakeholders. Shared Strategy intends to develop a recovery plan at the Puget Sound scale that incorporates the WRIA 8 plan, similar efforts from groups in other watersheds, and plans for harvest and hatchery management from the co-managers of the fisheries resource (i.e., the tribes and the state). This intergovernmental collaborative development of the recovery plan for a listed species is unique in the country. Shared Strategy appears to be the venue through which the regulating agencies will engage in plan review and discussion of legal and other assurances and benefits for local governments. Because local governments are participating in the planning, the Steering Committee recommends that they set forth requests and expectations for what might be appropriate assurances and benefits in exchange for supporting the recovery plan that the Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to develop. In addition, local governments alone will not have the resources nor the opportunity to fully protect and restore Chinook salmon habitat in WRIA 8. Therefore, the Steering Committee recommends that the implementation partnership will need to extend throughout the public sector to the private and non-profit sectors as well in order to reach February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation the ultimate goal of salmon recovery. The comprehensive action lists and the action start-lists (see Chapters 9 in this volume and 10-14 in Volume II} and the recommendations on monitoring and measures (see Chapter 6) propose actions to benefit salmon habitat that could be implemented by federal and state agencies, the co- managers, non-profit organizations, developers, businesses, landowners, and citizens. Expectations for Potential Benefits that Could Be Negotiated with Regulating Agencies It is not clear at this time exactly what assurances --whether legal, funding, regulatory, or other --the federal government could or will provide for implementation of salmon conservation plans at the watershed level. During the last several years, NOAA- Fisheries has expressed a general interest in providing some form of legal assurance in return for an "approved" watershed plan, but it is still unclear at this time what such assurances would be. In the event that NOAA-Fisheries is able, the Steering Committee is proposing here some assurances that WRIA 8 partners would like to see. (See Appendix E titled "Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act" for background on legal assurances available from the federal government.) Because the federal and state regulating agencies and the co-managers are participating in the Puget Sound Shared Strategy, this may be the appropriate forum where the discussion on these proposed assurances can start. The Steering Committee does not expect WRIA 8 partners to execute an Incidental Take Permit (Section 1 O(a} of the Endangered Species Act) that would require a formal contract with the federal government for specific actions spelled out in a Habitat Conservation Plan. However, the Steering Committee recommends several ways the federal and state governments could reward commitments from local jurisdictions and others to implement the plan. These include: • Incentives such as more timely responses from permitting agencies for review of plan actions • Endorsement by the federal and/or state government of the plan actions • Standing of the federal government with the local jurisdictions should there be legal challenges • Acceptance of the science that is the foundation of the plan. The Steering Committee recognizes that there may also be new types of legal assurances that the federal government could develop and offer as well. In addition, it would be useful to get agreements and specificity from federal and state governments on items such as management of harvest and hatcheries, delisting criteria, and rewards and incentives for implementation. The Steering Committee proposes that assurances and grants in return for commitments to implement the plan may be appropriate through federal and state laws and programs other than the Endangered Species Act, e.g., under the Clean Water Act and through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater permits. The state could take into account the tangible results of plan implementation that support meeting the requirements of other laws and regulations such as through updates of critical areas ordinances, comprehensive plans, and zoning ordinances required under the Growth Management Act and through shoreline master plans required under the Shoreline Management Act. Future federal and state transportation and infrastructure planning and projects should also reflect salmon habitat needs and incorporate actions and guidance from the WRIA 8 plan. In fact, the state could implement or fund actions recommended in this plan as mitigation for projects such as the widening of Interstate 405, the February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation rebuilding of Highway 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, and other transportation improvements that will arise in the next 10 to 20 years. In addition, the Steering Committee recommends that opportunities to receive federal and state grants through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board process could be linked to plan implementation, and that other grants such as the Centennial Clean Water Fund and the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program could offer bonus points for projects that implement the plan. Prior to the current requirement to develop the Puget Sound-level recovery plan, the federal and state governments have worked closely with local governments to shape and develop land use and promote changes historically in land cover in the WRIA 8. For example, as discussed in Chapter 3, the hydrology of the watershed was severely altered through projects supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Cedar River, in Lake Washington, on the Sammamish River, and in building the Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. Federal and state agencies have encouraged and responded to local development by criss-crossing the watershed with highways, bridges, and railroads that have had a major impact on salmon habitat. Therefore, Steering Committee members suggest that as a result, the federal and state governments also have a long-term role to play and resources to provide to help recover salmon habitat in WRIA 8. The Steering Committee proposes that these could be offered through funding, mitigation, assistance, or other appropriate means and could be included in discussions and negotiations on expectations for plan implementation. Potential Actions to Be Implemented by Non-Local-Government Entities Local governments do not have the means nor the authority to implement all the actions necessary to protect and restore salmon habitat in WRIA 8. The Steering Committee recommends that recovery of salmon be undertaken by a broad partnership that reaches beyond local governments to include citizens, landowners, community groups, non-profit agencies, businesses, developers, public agencies, and the co-managers. The comprehensive action lists and the action start list as well as the proposal on monitoring and measures provide a wide range of recommendations that look to a wide range of implementers. The Steering Committee lists several examples: NOAA-Fisheries and the co-managers could conduct validation monitoring (i.e., are Chinook recovering at expected levels across the Puget Sound region?). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could continue its efforts at improving conditions and passage for salmon at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. The Washington Department of Transportation could further its work to minimize impacts of road widening and bridge building on salmon habitat. Non- governmental organizations could implement particular habitat improvement and stewardship projects. More developers could design and build low-impact developments. See Chapters 9 and 10-14 for more specifics. Seeking Support from Non-Local Government Entities for Plan Implementation To acknowledge the need for participation by public agencies, businesses, and non- governmental organizations in implementation of particular actions and monitoring tasks, the Steering Committee has suggested that it may be appropriate to seek a show of support from these entities such as through collaboration on lobbying Congress and the state legislature for funding, public-private partnerships, funding and assistance from foundations, plan endorsement at public review sessions, assistance with public outreach, and political support. Steering Committee members have noted that since junior taxing districts need to be in compliance with local governments, it can be February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation expected that water and sewer districts would implement the plan through contract relationships with utilities operated by local jurisdictions. The Steering Committee has listed other possible tools to demonstrate support of plan implementation: • Letters or memoranda of understanding from agency heads or program managers to formally consider the WRIA 8 plan as guidance when fulfilling their related responsibilities • Commitments from agencies and other partners to implement particular actions or monitoring tasks • Legislative or regulatory changes as requested in specific plan actions • Budget and work program line items to fulfill specific plan actions. A show of support and participation by public agencies and other non-local-government entities could be sought through various means such as: • Listing the actions and monitoring tasks requested in the draft plan • Letters to appropriate potential partners from the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and Forum • Negotiations with appropriate parties through the Puget Sound Shared Strategy process that includes federal and state regulating agencies, co-managers, local governments, and other partners • Working with state legislators and members of Congress • Requests from citizens, community groups, business, and other non-government partners to appropriate potential partners. The Steering Committee does not mean either of these lists to be definitive; rather, the purpose is to generate ideas to build support for a broader WRIA 8 partnership necessary to protect and restore salmon habitat in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed. What type and level of commitments are recommended for local governments to implement the plan? As discussed in earlier chapters, the WRIA 8 plan has been developed through a collaborative effort among 25 cities, two counties, scientists, citizens, representatives from business and community groups, and public agencies. The planning work has been funded by 27 local governments, and the Steering Committee anticipates that local governments will have a key role in implementation of the plan as well. The Steering Committee expects local jurisdictions and other WRIA 8 partners to make commitments to implement actions and monitoring over the 10-year plan horizon (discussed in Chapter 2). In addition, longer term actions (10-20 years out) may not have commitments now, but there needs to be a process to line up commitments in the future. In Chapter 2, the Steering Committee has proposed an organizational structure that would continue inter-governmental collaboration on plan implementation and allow WRJA 8 partners to work together to address future commitments. Before commitments can be finalized, this plan will continue to evolve through the following stages: input and feedback received during the current public review process; discussion and approval by the WRIA 8 Forum in spring 2005; and review and ratification by local jurisdictions. As discussed earlier in this chapter, conversations and February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation negotiations with regulating agencies (possibly through Puget Sound Shared Strategy) for potential negotiated benefits and assurances will be critical to determining the type and level of commitments acceptable to local governments. What Is Meant By Commitments Puget Sound Shared Strategy has defined commitment as "a statement of the willingness of an entity or person to implement an action or set of actions within a designated timeframe ... Examples of ways to demonstrate commitments include: • Past history of commitments --what has already been done on behalf of salmon recovery? • Clear action plan describing how and by whom selected projects will be implemented • Budgeting for specific actions or projects • Incorporating salmon recovery actions into local capital improvement projects • Passing a formal resolution pledging to pursue salmon recovery goals • Passing regulations that are consistent with local salmon recovery goals."1 In this plan, the Steering Committee has set forth three main areas in which individual local governments will need to determine what role and commitment they want to make towards implementation. These three areas are: • Continued regional collaboration on tracking, assessing, evaluating, and communicating implementation progress and securing funding (see Chapter 2) • Implementation of actions at the landscape and site-specific levels proposed in the comprehensive and start lists (see Chapters 5, 9, and 10-14). • Monitoring of individual actions and contributing data and resources to the evaluation at the larger scale (see Chapter 6). The specifics of possible local government roles in each area are discussed in greater detail in the chapters cited. Examples from Other Similar Planning Efforts It is useful to review briefly how other watershed and basin protection and restoration groups have chosen to structure commitments. The level and type of commitments cover a continuum from no formal commitments to signed concurrence plans. Starting at the low end of the continuum, implementation is informal and left to the discretion of individual implementers. At a step up on the continuum, implementers made commitments to coordinate with other agencies where needed to carry out actions. The next step shows allocation of existing funding, staff, and other resources through budgets and work programs. This demonstrates commitment without necessitating formal agreements. One step more formal is written implementation plans in which implementers individually or together specified how they would implement their actions. The high end of the commitment continuum lists signed or adopted concurrence plans in which implementers agreed to execute specified actions in their area or under their authority. Because the plans reviewed here are in varying stages of ratification and implementation and because accountability has not always been considered, it has been difficult to do an analysis of which type of commitment has been most successful. Generally speaking, when no formal commitments followed plan commitment, implementation has been difficult to track and less successful, while the more formal or stronger the commitment, the more likely the plan is to be carried out. 1 Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, April 2004. Commitments and Conditions. Seattle, WA February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation Expectations from Puget Sound Shared Strategy Because Shared Strategy is the venue through which the regulating agencies are engaged in plan review, it makes sense to review what specifically they are seeking as commitments. Shared Strategy is looking for a description of "recommended actions for at least the next ten years, the likely entities carrying them out, and what it would take to make the commitment to implement them."2 Shared Strategy expects "statements of commitment ... from local decision-makers by June 2005. These can be in the form of resolutions to pursue the broader, long-term goal of sustainable, harvestable runs (e.g., 'We want salmon here and commit to search for creative solutions to achieve recovery goals.') or in more specific form. For the 5-10 year timeframe, the [Shared Strategy] Development Committee will look for statements that describe specific actions, projects and funding (e.g., projects as part of capital improvement plans; habitat protection/ restoration as part of growth management)."3 Commitments from Local Governments The Steering Committee looked at the following five options along a continuum of level of commitment. These are not mutually exclusive options. 1. Local 2. Local 3. City/county 4. City/county 5. City/county governments governments councils pass councils formally councils ratify or implement plan continue resolutions to commit to adopt entire plan as they choose; coordinated formally consider implementing as policy and no formal regional process, plan as guidance particular actions implement commitments to possibly through and the science by signing through local actions or an interlocal conservation concurrence plan ordinances and regional process agreement. strategy (Chapter or interlocal capital 4) as one agreement. improvement resource for best Actions could be projects available undertaken: science for capital --By individual improvement jurisdiction (e.g., projects, critical specific habitat areas ordinances, projects) comprehensive --Cooperatively by plan updates. sub-basin (e.g., joint NPDES pollution hiring of basin discharge steward) permits, --Watershed-wide shoreline (e.g., collaborative management analysis of plans, required effectiveness under state law monitoring) The Steering Committee determined that the first two options at the lower end of the continuum (no formal commitments and coordinated regional process) were insufficient. The Steering Committee saw the middle option of local government councils passing 'Ibid. 3 Ruckelshaus, Bill. for the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Development Committee, December 18, 2003. Attachment to letter to Larry Phillips, King County Council member and Co-Chair of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. Seattle, WA February 25, 2005 Page 7 ' Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation resolutions to formally consider the plan as guidance (3, above) as a minimum commitment to participate. Either of the last two options along the continuum -local government councils commit to implement ps1rticular actions or ratify/adopt the entire plan as policy --were also favored. In addition, the Steering Committee strongly recommended that jurisdictions collaborate with each other and with stakeholders to lobby the federal and state governments for funding and assurances. In general, the Steering Committee understood that the more assurances desired from the federal government, the stronger the commitments will need to be. As a corollary, the stronger the commitments implementers are willing to make, the more benefits and rewards they should accrue. The Steering Committee has suggested that level of commitment could vary by type of action, e.g., specific capital improvement projects could merit formal concurrence commitment while land use policies might be considered as guidance for implementation of policies and programs required under other laws. The Steering Committee also discussed what accountability implementers should have and indicated a clear preference for using positive reinforcement rather than punishment, or as the saying goes, using carrots rather than sticks. After all, the Steering Committee noted, implementers will report progress, and those who choose not to implement will not have progress to report. In addition, the Steering Committee recommended that funding should still be available for implementation of plan actions to those who do not formally commit. However, it might be appropriate for there to be some bonus points available in grant opportunities to those who do formally commit. Comments received during public review of the plan covered both ends of the spectrum, although more called for firmer commitments. These included requiring local governments to implement the plan by: • codifying plan recommendations • setting a minimum bar to be eligible for funding • adopting regulations, incentives, and/or outreach before seeking more funding • ensuring that local decisions regarding roads and development projects are consistent with the Plan • signing formal interlocal agreements • directing funding priorities for open space to plan implementation • requiring a clear structure to show how implementation and enforcement will occur • creating basin concurrency levels as for drinking water, traffic At the other end of the spectrum, a few comments called for local governments to set their own priorities and have flexibility on how to implement plan. Next Steps As stated earlier, this is just the beginning of the discussion of expectations and commitments. The discussion will continue as the WRIA 8 Forum and local governments formally review the plan prior to approval and ratification. In addition, conversations will need to progress with the Puget Sound Shared Strategy, federal and state agencies, the co-managers, and other partners. February 25, 2005 Page 8 References Chapter 8: Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, April 2004. Commitments and Conditions. Seattle, WA Ruckelshaus, Bill, for the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Development Committee, December 18, 2003. Attachment to letter to Larry Phillips, King County Councilmember and Co-Chair of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. Seattle, WA February 25, 2005 Page 9 I I CHAPTER 9: ACTION ST ARTLIST I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 9: Action Start-list Chapter 9: Action Start-list Introduction to Action Start-list This chapter provides the action start-list for Chinook conservation in the WRIA 8 watershed, followed by cost estimates for these actions. The start-list attempts to compile the land use, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach and education recommendations into a single strategy list which focuses watershed priorities yet also provides a manageable number of actions. With the exception of the four actions added in response to the public review process, the Service Provider Team generated the start-list by applying the criteria approved by the Steering Committee to the comprehensive lists. The comprehensive lists are provided in Chapters 10 through 15. The criteria used to develop both lists are provided in Appendix D-1. The start-list consists of 170 actions, and focuses primarily on Tier 1 subareas, with a small number of Tier 2 subareas. Land use, site-specific, and public outreach and education actions are grouped under the technical hypotheses for each geographic subarea. Caveats related to land use actions summarized in this chapter: ;.. Land use actions are voluntary -jurisdictions can choose whether or not to apply them ;. Additional analysis of land use actions by criteria, and suggested references about low impact development, critical areas and other land use topics are in Appendix D, Parts 5 and 6. Caveats related to site specific habitat protection and restoration projects summarized in this chapter: , Please note that most of the potential site specific habitat protection and restoration projects described in this chapter still need feasibility analysis and detailed design work before implementation can begin. , For potential habitat restoration projects calling for addition of large woody debris, particularly in the Cedar and Sammamish Rivers, placement of the wood should be done in a way that minimizes any risk to river users such as boaters and swimmers. Placement of large woody debris should be planned and supervised by a licensed engineer. The location of large woody debris should be chosen so that river users are not inadvertently swept into the wood. Consultation with river user groups will bring insight into the affect of water and obstacles on river users. The action start-list and cost estimate information are provided in the following order: ACTION START-LIST Cedar River Population • Tier 1 subareas (mainstem -Lower and Middle Cedar River) • Tier 2 subareas (Upper Cedar River, Rock Creek, and Taylor Creek) North Lake Washington Population • Tier 1 subareas: (Bear, Cottage Lake/Cold Creeks) • Tier 1 migratory: (Sammamish River) • Tier 2 subareas (Little Bear Creek and North Creek) February 25. 2005 Page 1 Chapter 9: Action Start-list Issaquah • Tier 1 subareas: (Lower, Middle, East Fork, North Fork Issaquah Creek; Carey and Holder Creeks; Fifteen Mile Creek) Migratory and Rearing Corridors (used by all three populations) • Lake Washington (including Union Bay) and Lake Sammamish • Lake Union, Ship Canal and Locks • Estuary and nearshore (starts west of Locks) (Note: Sammamish River is located with the North Lake Washington population) COST ESTIMATES Preliminary Cost Estimates of Site-specific projects and Programmatic actions Table 9-1-Ballpark Cost Estimates February 25, 2005 Page 2 Chapter 9: Action Start-list ACTION START-LIST FOR CEDAR RIVER CHINOOK POPULATION Technical priorities from WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy are listed in bold. Land use, public outreach, and site specific actions are listed for each technical priority. Technical priorities are interrelated, and many actions address multiple technical priorities. CEDAR MAINSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS (TIER 1) Protect and restore forest cover and soil infiltrative capacity, and minimize increases in impervious surfaces, to maintain watershed function and hydrologic integrity and protect water quality. Basinwide recommendations: • Enlist help of builders practicing sustainable development to promote benefits of forest cover in protecting water quality. (C706, C707, C720, C722) • Employ basinwide stewards to work with property owners, land trusts, and agencies in order to identify and secure forested, wetland, and riparian areas, and to encourage the best management practices for those held in private ownership. Encourage neighborhood and community protection associations to foster the ethic of voluntary stewardship and build bridges between property owners, agencies, and local governments. (C703, C716, C720, C721) Within Urban Growth Area: • Consistent with Growth Management Act, Renton and potential annexation areas should absorb most growth so that rural habitat resources can be protected; growth should be managed to minimize impacts on forest cover, water quality, and flows. (Cl) • In urban areas, protect remaining trees and encourage reforestation through street tree and urban forestry programs, tree protection regulations, landscaping incentives, and redevelopment. ( C3) Outside Urban Growth Area: • Protection of forest cover in Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas is a high priority land use action, so that existing levels of forest cover are not further degraded. King County should strictly enforce the clearing restrictions for rural areas adopted in 10104 as part of the critical areas ordinance update, pursue acquisition and incentives, and provide forest stewardship plans. Forest cover protections should account for site geology, soils, topography, and vegetation to maximize retention and infiltration. (C2) Protect and restore riparian vegetation to provide sources of large woody debris that can contribute to creation of pools. Basinwide: • Offer regulatory flexibility and incentives to encourage property owners to restore riparian function and remove impervious areas during redevelopment of public or private properties. (C6, C7) • Expand outreach to streamside property owners about shoreline landscape design, maintenance, and streambank armoring alternatives. Convey through direct mailing of brochures (e.g., Streamside Savvy, Going Native); videos (Natural Lawn Care); shoreline homeowners kits given when home purchased; or, through workshops, including expansion of Natural Yard Care Program to include guidelines specific to shoreline residents. (C701, C702, C709,C714,C716,C722) Cedar February 25, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Offer educational opportunities to landscape designers/contractors on riparian design/installation, alternatives to invasive species, and use of compost. (C705, C706, C707) • Encourage neighborhood garden tours of salmon-friendly gardens to help residents visualize alternatives to traditional, less eco-friendly landscape treatments. Offer neighborhood organizers assistance with publicity, signage, and volunteer docents. (C722, C707) Within Urban Growth Area: • Protection of remaining riparian vegetation within Urban Growth Area is high priority; encourage replanting of riparian vegetation through incentives, and strictly enforce aquatic buffers and limit variances where vegetation still exists in sensitive areas. (C5) • Much of the riparian land in lower reaches of the Cedar River is publicly owned. Emphasize restoration such as conifer underplanting and long-term maintenance of these properties. (C213, C209) • Reach 2 of the Cedar River has very little riparian vegetation. Restore riparian vegetation where possible in Reach 2. (C204) Outside Urban Growth Area: • Protect intact riparian buffers in Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas through strict enforcement of buffer regulations, and offer incentives to restore degraded habitat buffers, recognizing that majority of riparian corridor is privately owned. Support King County forestry and agriculture programs including technical and financial assistance to landowners. Protection and restoration of riparian buffer on publicly owned lands is also a priority. (C5, C7) • In particular, protect riparian buffer behind Scott-Indian Grove levee in Reach 8. (C229) Protect floodplain connectivity by limiting road crossings and bank armoring. Restore floodplain connectivity by removing structures from the floodplain, setting back or removing dikes and levees. Protect channel complexity and add large woody debris to create pools and riffles. Basinwide: • Limit new development in floodplains and channel migration zones; develop and apply standards which minimize impacts to salmon. State and local transportation plans should minimize new road crossings. (Cl?, C18) • Do a demonstration project in publicly accessible area with riverfront property owner(s) willing to replace bulkheads, levees, or stream bank armoring with more ecologically friendly design. Project should contain elements doable by average property owner and illustrate costs and benefits. (C715) • Conduct study to identify locations where large woody debris should be added to Cedar mainstem and to explore feasibility of passing large woody debris over the Landsburg dam. (C601, C260) • Increase public awareness about the value of large woody debris and native vegetation for flood protection, salmon habitat, and healthy streams. Convey through media (e.g., local papers, community newsletters); signage along publicly accessible "model" shoreline; brochures such as King County's Large Woody Debris and River Safety; and other outreach venues such as festivals, local cable channels, and the Cedar River Naturalists program. (C716) Within Urban Growth Area: • Explore redevelopment and restoration options in Reach 2 and 3, particularly in area of industrial use in Reach 3 that is likely to be redeveloped in the near future. Jurisdictions could Cedar February 25, 2005 Page 4 Chapter 9: Action Start-list offer regulatory flexibility or other incentives to encourage buffer and floodplain improvements during redevelopment. ( C204, C206) • Study options to protect in-stream habitat in Reach 4 (which has extensive large woody debris) and reduce flooding and erosion in Ron Regis Park (such as adding setback levee and large woody debris for bank stability). (C213, C214) • Explore opportunities to remove impervious surface area and bank hardening, and restore riparian buffer in area of multi-family residential use in Reach 3. (C207) • Explore opportunities for flood buyout in the Maplewood neighborhood in Reach 3 and restore floodplain. (C208) Outside Urban Growth Area: • Continue Cedar River Legacy Program to.protect best remaining habitat: , Protect Jones Reach -29 acres, 16 parcels targeted in Reach 8. (C228) , Protect Belmondo Reach -71 acres, 10 parcels with no levees, numerous side-channels, braided channel in Reach 9. (C232) , Protect 5-acre parcel including 218th Place side-channel across from Taylor Creek confluence in Reach 11. (C244) , Protect Mouth of Taylor Creek Reach -acquire -40 acres of forested riparian floodplain associated with both the Cedar mainstem and the lower Taylor Creek in Reach 11. (C245) , Protect Landsburg Reach -87 acres, including forested floodplain and areas of unarmored, steep bank in Reach 18. (C263) , Protect Royal Bend -protect -7 parcels, riverfront and floodplain (spans Reach 12-13). (C247, C249) , Cedar Rapids Reach -acquire -15 acres, remove levee and restore floodplain in Reach 7. (C222, C224) • Continue Bucks Curve buyouts and restore floodplain in Reach 5. (C215) • Restore side-channel on Renton Lions Club in Reach 10. (C233) • Carry out Dorre Don area flood buyouts and floodplain restoration in Reach 14. (C252) Protect and restore water quality from fine sediments, metals, low dissolved oxygen, and high temperatures. Basinwide: • Jurisdictions should adopt and enforce stormw.ater regulations and best management practices, consistent with Washington Department of Ecology's 2001 Storm water Management Manual (or beyond), as part of the NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit requirements. These regulations and BMPs should reduce sediment inputs from bed-scouring high flows and from non-point sources, including roads, development, agriculture, and other activities. Water quality problems should be addressed through stormwater programs (including low impact development BMPs), current and future TMDLs, livestock programs, and upgrade of stormwater facilities (where possible). (C12) • Explore options to improve stormwater management in developed areas, e.g., through development of regional stormwater facilities and natural drainage systems (e.g., SEA Streets). Promote stormwater best management practices related to parking lot cleaning, storm drain maintenance and road cleaning. (C13) • State/local transportation departments should address runoff from all roads and retrofit existing roads as part of major maintenance, expansion or upgrade projects; road maintenance actions should be consistent with Tri-County guidelines. Stormwater impacts from major transportation projects (for new and expanded roadways proposed during the next ten years) should be Cedar February 25, 2005 Page 5 Chapter 9: Action Start-list addressed. Washington Department of Transportation should improve stormwater management on SR 169. (C14, C15, C16) • Coordinate with local business community and non-profits to encourage the use of commercial car washes and carwash kits. Reprint and distribute water quality poster series depicting impacts of everyday practices: washing car, driving car without maintenance, leaving pet wastes unattended, and improperly using lawn chemicals. ( C710) • Publicize emergency call numbers for public to report water quality and quantity problems, non- permitted vegetation clearing, and non-permitted in-stream grading and wood removal incidents. (C713) Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning. Basinwide: • Work with Washington Department of Ecology and local health departments on regulations, incentives, and education related to impact of surface and groundwater withdrawals, including illegal withdrawals and exempt wells. Determine where illegal surface water withdrawals are occurring and follow-up with enforcement to ensure withdrawals do not continue. (C22) · • Work with City of Seattle, Cedar River lnstream Flow Commission, and other stakeholders on policies, procedures and research related to effects of flow on habitat restoration. (C23) • Address flow issues through other regulations/programs including: critical aquifer recharge area protections, land use regulations, groundwater management plans, stormwater regulations, and best management practices for infiltration, low impact development, etc. (C19, C21, C20) • Promote availability of water conservation education and incentive programs (e.g., rebates for efficient toilets, free landscape irrigation audits) to decrease household, commercial, and landscaping irrigation water consumption throughout WRIA 8. (C24, C708) Additional action approved by the Steering Committee in response to public comment: • Protect Dorre Don Meanders Reach -acquire -71 acres in Reach 13 and 14 (C250, C253). NOTE: South Lake Washington actions have been identified as important to the Cedar population. Please see the Action Start-List for Migratory Areas. TIER 2 SUBAREAS Availability of high-quality habitat in Tier 2 subareas is necessary to reduce the risk of natural disturbances that could impact spawning areas in the mainstem Cedar. In addition, the Upper Cedar provides increased spatial distribution for spawners. Upper Cedar River: • Study where and how to add large woody debris to upper Cedar River mainstem and implement program. Must address dam safety in large woody debris placement. (C607) Rock Creek: • Provide enhanced flows for pre-spawning migrants -Work with the City of Kent to establish instream flows that are protective of Chinook through their Habitat Conservation Plan process. Investigate and address other impacts to flows through stormwater management (e.g., low impact development), education and enforcement (e.g., for illegal and exempt withdrawals), etc. (C73, C75, C76, C80, C351) Cedar February 25, 2005 Page 6 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Floodplain restoration near mouth -Buy out house on right bank, remove bank hardening, add large woody debris, and restore riparian vegetation (remove non-native plants and replant with native vegetation). (C341) Taylor Creek: • Adopt and enforce stormwater regulations and best management practices to reduce stormwater flows that have increased bed scour and deposition of fine sediments. Flashy flows should be addressed through forest cover retention, low impact development techniques, erosion control during construction, improved stormwater management on new and existing roads. ( C64) • Lower Taylor Creek floodplain restoration (Reach 2) -Relocate 800 feet of stream away from Maxwell Road, restore floodplain wetlands and off-channel habitat, place large woody debris, and restore riparian vegetation. (C333) Cedar February 25. 2005 Page 7 Chapter 9: Action Start-list ACTION START-LIST FOR NORTH LAKE WASHINGTON CHINOOK POPULATION (INCLUDES SAMMAMISH RIVER) Technical priorities from WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy are listed in bold. Land use, public outreach, and site specific actions are listed for each technical priority. Technical priorities are interrelated, and many actions address multiple technical priorities. BEAR/COTTAGE LAKE/COLD CREEKS RECOMMENDATIONS (TIER 1) Identify and protect headwater areas, wetlands, and sources of groundwater to maintain natural hydrologic processes and temperatures that support Chinook. Basinwide recommendations: • Protect headwater wetlands, seeps, and groundwater recharge areas through critical areas ordinances, critical aquifer recharge area protections (CARAs), incentives, and acquisition. Support with appropriate public outreach to convey reasons behind regulations to protect groundwater sources, consequences of not employing them, and ultimate benefits to environment and people. (Nl, N722, N723) • Determine source of the Cold Creek groundwater springs in Cottage Lake Creek and develop protective measures to adequately protect them. Cold Creek headwaters cross the Urban Growth Boundary; growth within Woodinville should be managed to minimize impacts. (N4) • Expand groundwater protection outreach messages to include the relationship between ground and surface water and inter-connectedness of all hydrologic systems. Include messages in water utility billings, newspaper articles, and school curricula; explore opportunities to partner with business such as local bottled water company. (N722, N723, N724) Protect and restore forest cover, soil infiltrative capacity and wetlands, and minimize increases in impervious surfaces, to maintain watershed function and hydrologic integrity. Basinwide recommendations: • Continue approach taken in King County during past decade to protect forest cover and riparian buffers, including: enforcing existing regulations, providing a range of incentives and a basin steward working with streamside landowners, and providing forest stewardship plans. Support Snohomish County's incentive programs such as Transfer of Development Rights for farmlands and Reduced Drainage Discharge Demonstration Program. Properties protected through acquisition, easements, etc. must be maintained over long term. (N7, N701, N702, N704) • Promote low impact development throughout Tier 1 and 2 subareas, to accommodate additional growth in urban and rural areas, while protecting ecological functions. Enlist help of builders practicing sustainable development to promote benefits of forest cover in protecting water quality. Provide recognition through media and professional awards to those using pervious paving, grass/green roofs, and other low impact development techniques. Work with the Snohomish Sustainable Development Task Force and other public and private stakeholders to plan and implement low impact development techniques. (N6, N91-93, N719, N720, N721) • Increase outreach concerning the benefits of trees and basinwide forest coverage to protect water quality and maintain instream flows. Coordinate with nurseries, home improvement centers, and arborists to develop a marketing campaign promoting the benefit of trees to salmon and watershed health. • Employ basinwide stewards to work with property owners, land trusts, and agencies in order to identify and secure forested, wetland, and riparian areas. Encourage neighborhood and North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 8 Chapter 9: Action Start-list community protection associations that foster the ethic of voluntary stewardship, enlist community support to purchase forest tracts and build bridges between property owners, agencies, and local governments. (N702, N704) Within Urban Growth Areas: • Continue to absorb majority of growth in urban areas, while protecting and restoring forest and promoting low impact development, to maintain and improve water quality and flows. (N5) • Protect undeveloped forested parcels in Bear Reach 6. (N216) Outside Urban Growth Areas: • There is considerable growth pressure in Bear/Cottage Lake creeks outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA), as urban-type development and related infrastructure continue to expand (e.g., Maltby UGA, Redmond Ridge UPD, city parks). Jurisdictions should not move the UGA boundary unless such change is beneficial to salmon; they should encourage low impact development, clustering, low density livestock or garden enterprises with appropriate best management practices, and other measures to protect environmental functions in rural areas. It may be necessary to acquire high quality rural properties to insure their long-term protection. (N6) • Adopt and strictly enforce stream/wetland buffers and forest cover protections through King and Snohomish counties' critical areas ordinance updates. Forest cover protections should account for site geology, soils, topography, and vegetation to maximize retention and infiltration. (N10) • Protect and restore forest cover throughout unincorporated area. In particular, protect large, undeveloped forested parcels in Lower Bear Reach 7 and Upper Bear Reaches 15/16 and 12. Restore forest cover on cleared, undeveloped properties in Lower Bear Reach 7 and Upper Bear Reaches 9 and 8. (Note: Reaches listed in EDT priority order). (N224, N277, N256, N220, N235, N228) Protect and restore riparian vegetation to improve channel stability, provide sources of large woody debris that can contribute to creation of pools, and reduce peak water temperatures that favor non-native species. Basinwide: • Implement regulations and incentives to protect and restore riparian buffers, through critical areas ordinances and Shoreline Master Program updates; limit impacts of trails and other facilities in buffers. Implement riparian restoration by streamside landowners through King County Livestock Program, farm plans, and cost share. (N12) • Expand outreach to streamside property owners about shoreline landscape design, maintenance, and streambank armoring alternatives, through direct mail brochures, videos, shoreline homeowners kits (including expansion of "Streamside Living Welcome Wagon"}, and workshops (including expansion of Natural Yard Care Program). (N703, N707, N708, N709, N725) • Offer educational opportunities to landscape designers/contractors on riparian design/installation, alternative to invasive species, and promote use of compost. (N714, N721) Within Urban Growth Areas: • Carry out riparian restoration of publicly owned properties in Bear Creek Reach 3. (N206) Outside Urban Growth Areas: • Remove invasive plants and plant riparian buffers along Bear Creek throughout Paradise Valley Conservation Area (Reach 16). (N276) North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 9 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Work with private property owners upstream of Native Growth Protection Easements in Cottage Lake Creek Reach 3 to restore riparian buffers. (N298) Protect and restore floodplain connectivity and increase off-channel habitat by minimizing road crossings, reducing channel confinement, and removing floodplain structures. Protect and increase channel complexity, including large, woody debris, which contribute to channel stability and development of pools, trap sediment, and reduce water temperature. Basinwide: • Limit new development in floodplains; develop and apply standards which minimize impacts to salmon. Minimize number and width of new roads through transportation planning and implementation. (N15) • Increase public awareness about the value of large woody debris and native vegetation for flood protection, salmon habitat, and healthy streams. Convey through media (e.g., local papers, community newsletters); signage along publicly accessible "model" shoreline; brochures such as King County's Large Woody Debris and River Safety; and other outreach venues such as festivals and local cable channels. (N708) Within Urban Growth Areas: • Protect former dairy farm in Bear Creek Reaches 4 and 5, and restore riparian conditions, instream channel complexity and increase off-channel habitat. Also reduce inputs of fine sediments into these reaches of Bear Creek. (N211, N208) • Restore meanders, instream channel complexity, off-channel habitat, and riparian vegetation in lower 3000 feet of Bear Creek (Reach 1 ), which is currently straightened with armored banks. Enhance mouth of Bear Creek to create cool refuge pool for migrating adults. Work with media to record process and share results with the public. (N201) • Protect undeveloped, forested properties in Bear Reach 6. (N218) Outside Urban Growth Areas: • Continue protection of best remaining habitat through Bear Creek Waterways Program (includes Cottage Lake/Cold creeks). Priority reaches for protection identified through the Waterways program include: ~ Reach A (EDT Reaches in priority order: Bear 15-16, 14) (particularly Stevens, Dolittle parcels) (N272, N268); , Reach B (EDT Reaches in priority order: Bear 14, 13, 10, 11, 12) (N264, N246, N253, N257); ~ Reach C (EDT Reaches in priority order: Cottage Lake 4, 5/6) (particularly forested parcels south of NE Woodinville Rd) (N311, N320); , Reach D (EDT Reaches in priority order: Bear 7, 8, 9) (particularly parcel near Classic Nursery, Grandstand, Swanson Horse Farm) (N222, N232, N239); and ~ Reach E (EDT Reaches in priority order: Cottage Lake 3, 2, 1) (particularly Nickels Farm) (N303, N293, N286). • Add large woody debris throughout watershed, but particularly in Bear Creek Reaches 10, 9 and 8 (in EDT priority order). (N242, N235, N226) • Explore opportunities to improve floodplain connection in Reach 1 of Cottage Creek by removing riprap or artificial constrictions. (N282) Protect and restore water quality from fine sediments, metals, high temperatures, and bed- scouring high flows. North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 10 Chapter 9: Action Start-list Basinwide: • Identify sources and adopt source control of fine sediments and metals in mainstems and tributaries (e.g., from new construction, sand on roads, farms) through stormwater management and clearing and grading ordinances. Jurisdictions should adopt and enforce • regulations and best management practices consistent with Washington Department of Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual (or beyond), as part of the NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit requirements. Water quality problems should be addressed through stormwater programs (including low impact development BMPs), current and future TMDLs, livestock management programs, and upgrade of stormwater facilities (where possible}. (Nl8) • Work with Washington Department of Transportation and local jurisdictions to pursue opportunities to retrofit existing roadways with stormwater best management practices to improve water quality and flows. Stormwater impacts from major transportation projects (for new and expanded roadways proposed during the next ten years) should also be addressed. (N21-22) • Coordinate with local business community and non-profits to encourage the use of commercial car washes and carwash kits. Reprint and distribute water quality poster series depicting impacts of everyday practices: washing car, driving car without maintenance, leaving pet wastes unattended, and improperly using lawn chemicals. Promote stormwater best management practices related to parking lot cleaning, storm drain maintenance, and road cleaning. (N726, N727, N729, N731) • Promote through design competitions and media coverage the use of "rain gardens" and other low impact development practices that mimic natural hydrology. Combine a home/garden tour or "Street of Dreams" type event featuring these landscape /engineering treatments. (N720, N721) • Publicize emergency call numbers for public to report water quality and quantity problems, non- permitted vegetation clearing, and non-permitted in-stream grading, and wood removal incidents. (N731) Within Urban Growth Areas: • Commercial/industrial areas should be investigated for water quality and runoff issues and potential stormwater facilities planned and built. (N23) • Add water quality treatment for stormwater runoff from freeway in Bear Creek Reach 1. (N202) Outside Urban Growth Areas: • Jurisdictions should implement and enforce livestock ordinances, making highest priority those areas that are most susceptible due to fine soils. Work with farmers to adopt and implement farm plans to address water quality and habitat management. Coordinate with ot_her stewardship and education programs, (e.g., Horses for Clean Water). (Nl9, N702, N713) • In particular, Swanson Horse Farm property on NE 140th St. in Bear Creek Reach 8 and the Nickels Farm in Cottage Lake Creek Reach 2 need to reduce fine sediment inputs and restore riparian areas. Both farms are targeted for protection under the Bear Creek Waterways program as well. (N236, N289) Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning. Basinwide: • Adopt stormwater provisions to address high flows, flashiness, and protection of base flows, including forest retention and low impact development best management practices, to improve infiltration. (N20, N27) North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 11 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Work with Washington Department of Ecology, local health departments, and water suppliers on regulations, incentives, and education related to impact of surface and groundwater withdrawals, including municipal water withdrawals (e.g., City of Redmond), illegal withdrawals, and exempt wells on flow conditions throughout basin. Determine where illegal surface water withdrawals are occurring and follow-up with enforcement to ensure withdrawals do not continue. (N25-26) • Increase outreach about illegal water withdrawals, including information about exempt wells (who and what purposes qualify), and maximum quantities that may be withdrawn per day. Clarify distinction between withdrawals taken from wells and diversions taken from the river without a water rights permit. Create citizen-based watchdog groups to watch for people drawing directly from creeks and streams. • Promote availability of water conservation education and incentive programs (e.g., rebates for efficient toilets, free landscape irrigation audits) to decrease household, commercial, and landscaping irrigation water consumption throughout WRIA 8. (N28, N723) SAMMAMISH RIVER RECOMMENDATIONS (TIER 1) Protect and restore cool clean water sources and inflows to the Sammamish River by protecting and restoring large and small tributaries to the Sammamish River, and protecting sources of groundwater. Basinwide (entire subarea is located within Urban Growth Area): • Address water quality issues, including temperature and pesticides/herbicides, through stormwater regulations (including NPDES permits), best management practices (including low impact development), education, and incentives targeted at agricultural, commercial, industrial, and residential landowners. (N34-37) • Work with Washington Department of Ecology, local health departments, and water suppliers to address municipal water withdrawals, illegal withdrawals, exempt wells that impact Sammamish River flows and related high temperatures. Research potential for reclaimed water facilities, shifting of municipal water supply sources to maximize summer flows, and extent of impacts from agricultural, commercial, and industrial sectors. (N29-30, N33) • Bolster water conservation outreach in Sammamish watershed to increase and maintain summer base flows and reduce summer water temperatures. Carry out through incentive programs (e.g., rebates for efficient appliances, toilets, free landscape irrigation audits); classes on native drought-tolerant landscaping; and waterless carwash promotions. (N733, N734) In reaches 3 through 6, restore floodplain connections and increase meandering of river by regrading river banks back, creating flood benches at or below ordinary high water mark. (This will concentrate low flows in narrower channel to increase water level and increase shallow habitat for juvenile rearing.) Increasing river meanders will also intercept more sources of groundwater flow. Basinwide (entire subarea is located with Urban Growth Area): • Encourage bank regrading and revegetation of riparian buffers (on mainstem and tributaries) during new construction and redevelopment in exchange for regulatory flexibility and incentives, such as providing expertise, expediting permitting, and tax breaks. (N42-43) • Pursue opportunities to regrade banks, create flood benches at or below high-water mark, and remove non-native plants and plant banks and benches with native vegetation in Reach 5 from NE 90th to NE 100th and Reach 3. Also consider lowering benches from earlier restoration projects in Reach 5 (e.g., Mammoth Sammamish north of Willows Creek on west side and Willows Creek outfall). (N356, N343) North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 12 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Restore Transition Zone in Marymoor Park -Restore the left meander below the weir in Reach 6. Restoration elements could include: excavation of new channel, creation of pools, and an overflow bench with wetland vegetation; placement of gravel substrate in new channel; connection to capture hyporehic flows; and revegetation of riparian and wetland areas with native plants. (N358) • Given the high public use of the Sammamish River trail, restoration projects on the Sammamish River are highly visible and provide good public outreach opportunities. Enhance interpretive efforts on projects and encourage media coverage. Continue to use citizen volunteers to assist in restoration and maintenance of project sites. (N710, N711) Increase off-channel habitats, enhance and reconnect riparian wetlands to the river, add large woody debris as cover for juvenile fish and to create backwater pools particularly in reaches 1 and 2 in order to improve habitat for juvenile rearing. Basinwide (entire subarea is located within Urban Growth Area): • Enhance and connect wetlands and remnant side channels to the river in Reach 2 adjacent to the 102'd Avenue bridge on both on the right and left banks. (N337, N338) • Sammamish River mouth wetland restoration in Reach 1 -restore wetlands on King County property near mouth and on island. (N332) • Enhance and reconnect riparian wetlands to river at Wildcliff Shores in Reach 1, across from Swamp Creek. Restore riparian vegetation. (N334) • Restore large, publicly owned wetland complex at the confluence of Swamp Creek and the Sammamish River, creating a diversity of wetland elevations and habitats in the floodplain. Purchase parcel to the east of Swamp Creek Regional Park for inclusion in restoration project in Reach 1. (N335, N336) Protect and restore riparian vegetation along the mainstem and tributaries to the Sammamish River to provide shade and reduce water temperatures as well as future source of large woody debris. Should be coordinated with restoration projects to regrade the river banks and restore floodplain. Basinwide (entire subarea is located with Urban Growth Area): • Restore shoreline as part of redevelopment of Lake Pointe Property in Reach 1, · a 45-acre property on Lake Washington at right bank of Sammamish River mouth that is targeted for cleanup. (N45, N333) • Continue and expand projects such as Sammamish Re-Leaf and Redmond River Walk to plant early successional riparian vegetation that provide shade, particularly in Reaches 4 and 6. Support riparian restoration in agricultural areas through King County's agriculture programs. Riparian vegetation restoration projects must be sequenced and coordinated with projects to regrade river banks and create flood benches. (N37, N351, N362, N361) • Encourage neighborhood garden tours of salmon friendly gardens to help residents visualize alternatives to traditional, less eco-friendly landscape treatments. Integrate native plant salvage opportunities into Naturescaping classes, allowing class participants to take home native plants for immediate use both within and surrounding sensitive areas. (N716) Increase refuge areas for adult migration. Add large woody debris to enhance existing pools and create new pools, particularly in areas of groundwater upwelling. Enhance mouths of small tributaries to create cool refuge pools (add large woody debris, riparian vegetation). Basinwide (entire subarea is located with Urban Growth Area): North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 13 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Enhance the mouths of small tributaries to create refuge areas. Projects should include as appropriate correction of fish passage barriers, riparian restoration, placement of large woody debris, and creation of cool-water refuge pool. Opportunities exist in Reach 2 (Tributaries 0057A, 0068, 0069); Reach 5 (Willows, Peters): Reach 3 (Derby, Gold and Woodin Creeks): and Reach 4 (Tributary 0095A, 0095 and 0096). (Note: Reaches listed in EDT priority order). (N339, N357, N342, N346) NOTE: See also the Action Start-List for Migratory Areas. NLW TIER 2 SUBAREA RECOMMENDATIONS Restore and enhance spatial diversity of the NLW Chinook population through actions that protect and restore Tier 2 streams. In North and Little Bear Creeks, protect forest cover, wetland areas and minimize impervious surfaces to maintain watershed function and hydrologic integrity and protect water quality. Due to more limited protection opportunities in North Creek, restoration to reduce sedimentation and increase floodplain connectivity is also a priority. LITTLE BEAR • Tremendous growth pressure exists in Little Bear subarea. Jurisdictions should not move the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary, unless such change is beneficial to salmon. Jurisdictions should protect remaining watershed function by managing any additional growth in rural areas through incentives and regulations for forest retention, low impact development, clustering to protect natural areas, transferable development rights, etc. and acquisition where regulation and incentives do not provide sufficient protection. (N6 7) • Protect headwaters, wetlands and forest cover through acquisitions or conservation easements, particularly in Reaches 10, 11, 12 and 9. (Note: Reai:;hes listed in EDT priority order). ;... Protect undeveloped, forested wetlands (second-growth forest) in Reach 10 covering approximately 110 acres and 10 parcels owned by two landowners. (N424) ;... Protect 88 acres of mature second-growth forest on right bank of Little Bear Creek in Reach 11. Includes 5 parcels. (N427) , Protect forested, headwater wetlands north of 180th to 156th, an approximately 2-mile stretch of Little Bear Creek (Reach 12). Includes 3 wetland complexes totaling over 200 acres. (N429) ;... Protect large, undeveloped forested wetland on both Little Bear (Reach 9) and Great Dane (Reach 1) Creeks. Approximately 100 acres including 10 parcels. (N422) NORTH CREEK • Inadequate base flows, flooding, and flashy hydrology pose serious problems in North Creek. Address these through stormwater management (e.g., improved retention of high flows and increased infiltration), improved information about and enforcement of surface and groundwater withdrawals, TMDL implementation, more aggressive water conservation, etc. (N107) • Protect remaining forest cover and wetlands through critical areas ordinances, stormwater regulations and best management practices, incentives (e.g., tax breaks, expedited permitting), and acquisition where regulation and incentives are not sufficient protection. There are undeveloped forested areas and wetlands in the following reaches: Lower North reaches 4, 3, 2 North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 14 Chapter 9: Action Start-list and Upper North reaches 10, 9, 6, 7. (Note: Reaches listed in EDT priority order). (N71, N376, N372, N370, N371, N396, N393, N385, N389) • Implement restoration projects to reduce sedimentation and increase floodplain connectivity, particularly in Reaches 2, 4 and 5 (Note: Reaches listed in EDT priority order): > Explore possible floodplain restoration on unused baseball diamond and privately owned property between 195th and 1-405 in Reach 2. Setback levee, increase flood storage, restore off-channel habitat and add large woody debris. (N36 7) > Enhance incised stream channel in Thrashers Corner area in Reach 4, restore riparian vegetation, plant conifers, and add large woody debris. (N375) r Expand existing restoration project upstream and downstream of existing area just upstream of 2081h in Reach 5. Restore riparian vegetation, add large woody debris, and enhance side channel habitat. (N377, N373) Additional action approved by the Steering Committee in response to public comment: • Work with landowners in Reach 5 of North Creek to restore riparian vegetation and to do stream enhancements (N379). North Lake Washington Tributaries February 25, 2005 Page 15 Chapter 9: Action Start-list ACTION START-LIST FOR ISSAQUAH CHINOOK POPULATION Technical priorities from WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy are listed in bold. Land use, public outreach, and site specific actions are listed for each technical priority. Technical priorities are interrelated, and many actions address multiple technical priorities. ISSAQUAH CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES RECOMMENDATIONS (TIER 1) Identify and protect headwaters and sources of groundwater to maintain cold water temperatures and hydrological integrity. Carey and Holder Creeks are believed to be important cold water sources and should be protected. Within Urban Growth Area: • Support lssaquah's proposed critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) provisions that incorporate groundwater quality protections in well head capture zones and a broader protection area where infiltration will be required for groundwater recharge. (Il9) • Protect the headwater wetlands of North Fork (Reach 2). (I281) Outside Urban Growth Area: • Protect headwaters and groundwater through variety of tools: wetland buffers, CARA protections, stormwater infiltration regulations (including low impact development), forest clearing restrictions, recommendations in King County's 2003 Taylor Mountain Forest Stewardship Plan and forest stewardship plans. (I16-17) • Protect existing natural flow regime in the headwaters areas of Carey and Holder creeks, which are in the Tiger Mountain State Forest and Taylor Mountain County Forest vicinity, by acquiring forest property, development rights/conservation easements. Provide enhanced incentives to retain and plant forest area environments (Carey Creek Reaches 3, 4 and Holder Creek Reach 3). (I5-7) Protect forest cover, soil infiltrative capacity and wetlands, and minimize increases in impervious surfaces, to maintain watershed function and hydrologic integrity. Basinwide recommendations: • Encourage low impact development (including low density livestock or garden enterprises) through regulations, incentives, and education/training. Support basin liaison position to set up training and information sharing among planners, developers, and scientists about hands-on aspects of low impact development best management practices, including marketing, permitting, and technical issues. (I3, I715,I719,I720,I722) • Offer existing and new incentives to continue to protect and restore conditions beyond those which are protected through regulations. Incentives include current use taxation programs (e.g., King County's Public Benefit Rating System and Timberland Program), transferable development rights programs. (I5, I701) • Sponsor design competitions for innovative low impact development features, including clustered development, greater forest cover, reduced impervious pavement, green roofs. Combine a home/garden tour or "Street of Dreams" type event featuring these landscape/engineering treatments. (I720, I722) • Employ basinwide stewards and farm planners/livestock stewards to work with property owners, land trusts, and agencies in order to identify and secure forested, wetland, and riparian areas, and to encourage the best management practices for those held in private ownership. (I701, I702) • Encourage neighborhood and community protection associations that foster the ethic of voluntary stewardship; gain community support for forest land acquisition; and build bridges between property owners, agencies, and local governments. Continue the Issaquah Action Basin Action Team and expand to include more community representation from East Fork communities and the Upper Issaquah Basin. (I711, I716, I717) Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 16 Chapter 9: Action Start-list Within Urban Growth Areas: • Consistent with the Growth Management Act, Issaquah will continue to absorb most new residential, commercial, industrial growth. Control new development to minimize impacts on water quality, instream flows, and riparian buffers by encouraging low impact development through 3-tiered approach: 1) revise existing codes; 2) provide technical information to developers; 3) promote demonstration projects through incentives, technical assistance. (I12-13) Outside Urban Growth Areas: • Promote comprehensive approach taken in Bear Creek basin during past decade to include: strictly enforced regulations (e.g., clearing restrictions, riparian buffers, and stewardship plans in King County's updated critical areas ordinance), King County basin steward doing targeted outreach to streamside landowners, and a range of incentives (i.e., acquisition, PBRS program, conservation easements). Forest cover protections should account for site geology, soils, topography, and vegetation to maximize retention and infiltration. (I2, I4, I727) Protect riparian vegetatio·n to provide sources of large woody debris that can contribute to creation of pools. Basinwide: • Protect riparian buffers through critical areas ordinances, offer incentives (Public Benefit Rating System, easements) for-private property owners to protect buffers and/or revegetate and remove channel confinement. Protect and restore riparian corridors by implementing required fencing/set asides and options for planting and cost share provided by the King County Livestock Program. (I28, I30) • Continue and expand Creekside Landowner Assistance Program including classes, technical and financial assistance in shoreline landscape design, maintenance, and streambank armoring alternatives. In addition to workshops, convey through direct mailing of brochures, videos, and expansion of "Streamside Living Welcome Wagon" where residents welcome new home owners and provide information concerning salmon-friendly yard care, etc. (I702, I704, I709) • Offer educational opportunities to landscape designers/contractors on riparian design/installation, alternatives to invasive species, and use of compost. (I713) Within Urban Growth Area: • Continue to tighten regulations affecting riparian buffers, including more restricted application of buffer averaging, fewer allowable uses in buffers. However, nonconforming uses will continue to be a great challenge; in order to decrease level of nonconformity over the long term, jurisdictions should encourage/require that development come into conformity, depending on degree of redevelopment. (I25-26) Protect floodplain connectivity, instream channel complexity and habitat forming features to protect key life stages by limiting road crossings and bank armoring. Basinwide: • Limit new development and roads in floodplains; develop and apply standards which minimize impacts to salmon. Planning for new roads, and maintenance and retrofitting of existing roads, should minimize impacts on floodplains and water quality. (I38-40, I49) • Increase public awareness of the value of large woody debris and vegetated areas for flood protection, salmon protection and healthy streams in print (e.g., local papers, community newsletters, signage) and other means (e.g., Issaquah Salmon Days, Sammamish Watershed Festival activities, local cable channels, hatchery docent presentations). (I705) Within Urban Growth Area: • Consider flexibility in prescriptive buffer width standards in exchange for stream habitat and buffer enhancement during redevelopment. However, limit buffer width reductions for new development because a key issue for Issaquah Creek is encroachment into floodplain and channel confinement, and revegetation does not improve this riparian function. (I29) Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 17 I Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Continue Issaquah Waterways Program to protect best remaining habitat within urban growth area: -, Continue South Issaquah Creek Greenway acquisitions in Reach 7 of Issaquah Creek including Fowler Site, Mohl Property and other properties. (I225) , Acquire Bush Lane Properties, 12.5 acres of floodplain lying between Issaquah Creek (Reach 2) and North Fork Issaquah Creek (Reach 1 ). Includes 1200 feet of east bank of Issaquah Creek and 900 feet of North Fork Issaquah Creek. (I208, I274) , Protect corridor along Wildwood Blvd Trail, located on west bank of Issaquah Creek in Reach 6 near hatchery intake dam. (I222) ,., Acquire "Guano Acres," one of the few remaining large undeveloped parcels (8 acres) on lower Issaquah Creek in Reach 6. (I223) , Acquire 5 acres for future restoration downstream of Juniper Street on Issaquah Creek in Reach 3. (I210) ,., Acquire one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels (2 acres) on lower Issaquah Creek upstream of Juniper Street in Reach 4. (I214) ,., Acquire Anderson Property, located at confluence of Issaquah Creek Reach 4 and East Fork Issaquah Creek Reach 1. (I215, I285) Outside Urban Growth Area: • Continue Issaquah Waterways Program to protect best remaining habitat outside Urban Growth Area: ,., Complete Issaquah Creek/Log Cabin Reach (RM 8.4-10, 155 acres) acquisition in Issaquah Reach 11 and expand to include adjacent undeveloped large parcels in Reach 12 (SE 156th Street to 252nd Avenue SE). (I244, I249) , Carey/Holder/Issaquah Creek Confluence Project: 120-acre site proposed for a conservation easement. Plan includes increased fenced buffers (Issaquah Reach 12, Carey Reach 1, and Holder Reach 1). (I250, I252, I259) ,., Protect best remaining habitat in Holder Creek including inholdings on Taylor and Tiger mountains (Holder Reaches 2 and 3). (I263, I261) , Protect best remaining habitat in Carey Creek from the confluence with Issaquah Creek to Taylor Mountain in Carey Reaches 1, 2 and 3. (I253, I254, I255) • Issaquah Reach 9 and 10: Work with private property owners specifically in this reach to develop Public Benefit Rating System or easement to increase stream buffer protection. (I233, I238) Protect water quality from fine sediments, metals, high temperatures, and bed- scouring high flows: Basinwide recommendations: • Identify water quality problems and address through stormwater management programs (including low impact development best management practices), current and future TMDLs, livestock management programs, upgrade of stormwater facilities (where possible), and retrofit of existing roadways to improve water quality and flows (e.g., SR-18, 1-90). Jurisdictions should adopt and enforce regulations and best management practices consistent with Washington Department of Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual (or beyond), as part of the NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit requirements. (I31-32, I36, I41) • King County should implement and enforce livestock ordinance, making highest priority those areas that are most susceptible due to fine soils. Work with farmers to adopt and implement farm plans which address water quality and fish and wildlife habitat management and restoration. Coordinate with other stewardship and education programs, e.g., Horses for Clean Water and Backcountry Horsemen. (I24, I712) • Run Natural Yard Care Neighborhoods Program and other landscaping education opportunities in communities in the Issaquah Basin. Increase visitation of basin residents to Pickering Farm Community Teaching Garden. (I723) • Publicize emergency call numbers for public to report water quality and quantity problems, non-permitted vegetation clearing, and non-permitted instream grading and wood removal incidents. (I729) Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 18 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Coordinate with local business community and non-profits to encourage the use of commercial car washes and carwash kits. Reprint and distribute water quality poster series depicting impacts of everyday practices: washing car, driving car without maintenance, leaving pet wastes unattended, and improperly using lawn chemicals. (I724) • Educate and support businesses, property management companies and homeowners associations on stormwater best management practices, specifically related to parking lot cleaning, storm drain maintenance, and road cleaning. (I725) Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream migration and spawning. Basinwide: • Work with Washington Department of Ecology, local health departments, and water suppliers on regulations, incentives, and education related to impact of municipal water withdrawals, illegal withdrawals, exempt wells on flow conditions throughout basin. Determine where illegal surface water withdrawals are occurring and follow-up with enforcement to ensure withdrawals do not continue. Develop public information about exempt wells, differences between water drawn from wells versus water diverted from streams without water rights permits, and support enforcement through development of citizen-based watchdog groups. (I44-46) • Adopt and enforce stormwater provisions to address high flows and protection of base flows, including forest retention and low impact development best management practices. Encourage rainwater harvesting and graywater capturing for reuse in landscaping irrigation through demonstration projects, workshops and educational materials. (I47, I723, I728) • Continue and/or extend availability of water conservation incentive programs (such as rebates for efficient toilets, appliances, free indoor conservation kits, free landscape irrigation audits); outreach on rainwater harvesting, and graywater capturing for reuse in landscape irrigation. Support conservation efforts within the Cascade Water Alliance and work to coordinate the various water policy and decision makers. (I721, !728) NOTE: See also the Action Start-List for Migratory Areas. Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 19 I Chapter 9: Action Start-list ACTION START-LIST FOR MIGRATORY AREAS (INCLUDES LAKES, SHIP CANAL, LOCKS, ESTUARY/NEARSHORE) (ALL TIER 1) Technical priorities from WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy are listed in bold. Land use, public outreach, and site specific actions are listed for each technical priority. Technical priorities are interrelated, and many actions address multiple technical priorities. NOTE: Actions for Sammamish River are located in the North Lake Washington Tributaries Action Start-List. LAKE WASHINGTON (INCLUDING UNION BAY) AND LAKE SAMMAMISH RECOMMENDATIONS Reduce predation to outmigrating juvenile Chinook by: reducing bank hardening, restoring overhanging riparian vegetation, replacing bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with gentle slopes, and use of mesh dock surfaces and/or community docks. Basinwide recommendations (entire subarea is located with Urban Growth Area): • Encourage salmon friendly shoreline design during new construction or redevelopment by offering incentives and regulatory flexibility to improve bulkhead and dock design and revegetate shorelines. Increase enforcement and address nonconforming structures over long run by requiring that major redevelopment projects meet current standards. (C27-29, N50, N52- 53, 154-56) . • Discourage construction of new bulkheads; offer incentives (e.g., provide expertise, expedite permitting) for voluntary removal of bulkheads, beach improvement, riparian revegetation. (C30, N51, 152) • Support joint effort by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies to develop dock/pier specifications to streamline federal/state/local permitting; encourage similar effort for bulkhead specifications. (C32-33, N55-56, 157, 166) • Promote value of light-permeable docks, smaller piling sizes, and community docks to both salmon and landowners through direct mailings to lakeshore landowners or regi_stered boat owners sent with property tax notice or boat registration tab renewal. Offer finaneial incentives for community docks in terms of reduced permit fees, loan fees/percentage rates, taxes, and • permitting time, in addition to construction cost savings. (C734, C735) • Develop workshop series specifically for lakeshore property owners on lakeside living: natural yard care, alternatives to vertical wall bulkheads, fish friendly dock design, best management practices for aquatic weed control, porous paving, and environmentally friendly methods of maintaining boats, docks, and decks. Related efforts include creation of a website to convey workshop material, an awareness campaign, "Build a Beach," to illuminate impact of bulkheads on development of sandy beaches. (C729, C730, C736) • Restore shoreline in Lake Washington Section 1: restore Washington Department of Natural Resources property as part of shoreline trail project; work with private property owners to restore shoreline in Section 1. Use interpretive signage where possible to explain restoration efforts. (C269, C270, C272, C738) • Restore shoreline in Lake Washington Section 2: remove marina and bulkhead at Rainer Beach Lake Park, create shallow-water habitat and restore native overhanging vegetation; remove concrete bulkhead in northern portion of Pritchard Island Beach, create shallow-water habitat and restore native overhanging vegetation. (C275, C276) • Lake Sammamish State Park Protection: Several proposals exist pertaining to planned park development. Ensure that final park development plan adequately protects floodplain/riparian Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 20 Chapter 9: Action Start-list processes and mouth of Issaquah Creek. (Issaquah Reach 1, Lake Sammamish Section 1) (1204, 1292) Protect and restore water quality in tributaries and along shoreline. Restore coho runs in smaller tributaries as control mechanism to reduce the cutthroat population. Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as juvenile rearing areas. Basinwide recommendations: • Address water quality and high flow impacts from creeks and shoreline development through NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 permit updates, consistent with Washington Department of Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, including low impact development techniques, on-site stormwater detention for new and redevelbped projects, and control of point sources that discharge directly into the lakes. Stormwater impacts from major transportation projects (for new and expanded roadways proposed during the next ten years) should be addressed. Encourage low impact development through regulations, incentives, education/training, and demonstration projects throughout subarea. (C39, N63, 172, 174) • Protect and restore water quality and other ecological functions in tributaries to reduce effects of urbanization and reduce conditions which encourage cutthroat. Protect and restore forest cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths by revising and enforcing critical areas ordinances and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools. (C38, N64, 175 C747, C748) • Promote through design competitions and media coverage the use of "rain gardens" and other low impact development practices that mimic natural hydrology. Combine a home/garden tour or "Street of Dreams" type event featuring these landscape /engineering treatments. (C748) • Enhance small creek mouths in Lake Washington Segment 1: enhance Mouth of Kennydale Creek in Gene Coulon Park; enhance mouth and lower reaches of Johns Creek. Encourage participation of citizen-based stewardship efforts in these restoration projects (such as Stream Teams). (C268, C267, C719, C721, N716) Additional actions approved by the Steering Committee in response to public comment: • Daylight Zacusse Creek and enhance mouth on East shore of Lake Sammamish to benefit Kokanee, juvenile Chinook and other fish species. • Enhance mouth and protect lower reaches of Ebright Creek on East shore of Lake Sammamish to benefit Kokanee, juvenile Chinook and other fish species. If property in lower reaches of creek is acquired there could be educational outreach opportunities on the site. LAKE UNION, SHIP CANAL AND LOCKS RECOMMENDATIONS High water temperatures impede juvenile Chinook outmigration during summer in Ship Canal and lead to increased activity by predators (primarily bass). Options to reduce water temperatures in Ship Canal should be evaluated. In addition, adult migration is affected by high temperatures and low dissolved oxygen at the Locks. Basinwide recommendations (entire subarea is located within Urban Growth Area): • Continue to work on improving conditions at the Locks to improve juvenile Chinook outmigration. Actions could include: , Add/replace strobe lights to locks to deter smalls and prevent entrainment. (M204) >-Improve estuary conditions upstream of Locks: Modify the salt water barrier to let salt water in through the Locks to cool water above Locks or move the salt water drain upstream to the west end of the Fremont Cut. (M206) Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 21 I Chapter 9: Action Start-list ,.. Locks Natural Estuary: Construct a more natural, fairly wide and long channel at the Locks facility that would allow fish to move back and forth between warmer lake outflow and cooler tidal water, and allow tidal change to inundate areas designed into the channel where fish could find refuge to hold and choose their preferred salinity. (M205) r Take advantage of enormous outreach potential at the Locks by working with the Corp of Engineers to expand or enhance educational displays. Include information about ongoing and proposed WRIA 8 conservation efforts being both taken at the Locks and throughout the watershed, as well as actions that citizens can take to improve salmon habitat at home. Additional investigations are needed to determine habitat characteristics that could provide Chinook with refuge from predators in Ship Canal, including impacts of docks. Riparian vegetation should be restored to provide cover for juvenile migrants. Basinwide recommendations: • Explore ways to reduce predation in Portage Bay, Lake Union and Ship Canal. Conduct pilot projects to reduce predator habitat (such as reducing number of docks or removing in-water structures) or increase refuge for juvenile Chinook and apply lessons learned to future actions regarding docks and riparian vegetation. (M216, M214) • Coordinate with local businesses to sponsor a shoreline revegetation campaign, incorporating environmental stewardship as part of redevelopment occurring within Ship Canal area. Extend message (and sponsorship) through signage along shore, in-store promotions (at business's discretion), and media recognition. (M707) ESTUARY AND NEARSHORE RECOMMENDATIONS (STARTS WEST OF LOCKS) Please note: There is scientific uncertainty about Nearshore habitat and Chinook use of that habitat. Due to these uncertainties the Nearshore reaches were not prioritized using the EDT model. Experimental approaches to the protection of functioning habitat and the restoration of ecosystem processes should be implemented. Protect remaining feeder bluff(s) that supply sediment and support littoral habitat creation. Undertake sediment source study to establish where feeder bluffs were prior to railroad and quantify rates of erosion. Based on study results, work with known feeder bluff locations to open up slide prone areas so that slides make it into nearshore, or start a beach nourishment program. Basinwide recommendations (entire subarea is located within Urban Growth Area): • Bluffs on Magnolia and Discovery Park in Seattle are only ones in WRIA 8 that are not armored by the railroad and have some unarmored locations (publicly and privately owned). Prohibit bulkheads or any other form of armoring and development at these locations through Seattle's critical areas ordinance and Shoreline Master Program. (M1) • Support King County-funded sediment source study to: 1) establish where feeder bluffs were prior to the railroad, and 2) qualitatively assess rates of erosion and sediment contribution of those bluffs. Expect study completion by 3/05. Based on study results: r Map those bluffs that are most critical to protect (to preserve future opportunities to restore them to natural function), and protect them from future development through critical areas ordinance and/or Shoreline Master Program updates or acquisition. Note that steep slopes that are already developed need to be protected from erosion as a health and safety issue. r Do pilot projects to open up certain slide prone areas (e.g., by building trestles under railroad), so that slides make it into the nearshore and/or investigate appropriateness of a beach nourishment program. The experimental nature of a beach nourishment program requires a comprehensive and robust adaptive management and monitoring system. (M2, M3) Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 22 Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Create an education campaign for property owners along bluff as well as general public: Have you fed your beach today? Define feeder bluffs, challenge the notion that~ erosion is a bad thing. (M724) Reduce bank hardening, especially in areas where armoring falls within tidal zone and/or separates a sediment source from nearshore environment, to restore natural shoreline accretion and depletion processes and support littoral habitat creation. Protect and restore Marine Riparian Vegetation (MRV), to maintain overhanging cover and terrestrial inputs for juvenile Chinook and their prey. Basinwide recommendations: • Protect remaining nearshore vegetation (on low or high bluffs) through regulation and/or acquisition. Regulatory tools to protect vegetation and prevent further development on and near top of bluffs, include: steep slope ordinances, bald eagle protection ordinances, critical areas ordinances, and clearing ordinances. (M7) • Offer incentives to encourage bulkhead removal and revegetation along shoreline, including: allow regulatory flexibility during redevelopment, provide expertise (e.g., templates for shoreline planting plan, bulkhead design); expedite permitting at local, state and federal levels. (MB) • For areas with existing residential, commercial, and industrial development west of the railroad (e.g. Nakeeta Beach, Point Wells, Richmond Beach): ,.. Prohibit new development, at least in areas designated as conservancy. ,.. During redevelopment, reduce overall impacts to nearshore, e.g., limit additional riprap to that required to protect structures, require riparian revegetation. avoid construction in intertidal zone, use smallest feasible footprint for structures, redevelop industrial sites into less intensive uses. , Promote pilot projects to better understand impacts of bank hardening in estuary and nearshore. As site specific projects are pursued "to remove structures, fill, and bulkheads" through fee simple purchase of parcels, address any regulatory or programmatic actions in order to expedite these projects. (M4) • Commodore Park and Wolfe Creek Restoration: Explore feasibility of habitat restoration at Commodore Park, located immediately downstream of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks on the south bank. Armored seawall should be removed and restored to a gentler vegetated slope. Project could be combined with daylighting of Wolf Creeke to create a pocket estuary downstream of the locks. (M250) • Offer shoreline property owners a series of shoreline design workshops on: shoreline planting design/ noxious weed management; slope stabilization and erosion control using vegetation; natural yard care; porous paving options; alternatives to vertical wall bulkheads; salmon friendly dock design; and environmentally friendly methods of maintaining boats, docks, and decks. Offer professional workshops to marine contractors and design professionals on more environmentally friendly shoreline design. (M714, M716, M718, M719) Reduce the number and coverage of overwater structures (e.g., docks, piers) as a way to reduce segmentation of the shoreline and the effects on both habitat forming processes and juvenile Chinook behavior. Basinwide recommendations: • Prohibit new residential overwater structures. For new public facilities (e.g., ferry docks), incorporate salmon-friendly design features and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Retrofit existing overwater structures with salmon friendly design features. Where applicant meets guidelines for marine overwater structures, offer expedited local/state/federal permitting (similar to concept being promoted for Lake Washington overwater structures by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies). (M10, M11, M13) Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 23 I I Chapter 9: Action Start-list • Remove overwater structures and pilings when possible; increase interpretive signage and media exposure at areas where structures are removed such as at Edmonds parks. Offer incentives to build community docks to replace individual docks in Salmon Bay. (M11) • Expand outreach about value of eelgrass beds as juvenile source of food and habitat -and the negative effects that docks, overwater structures, and bulkheads have on the eelgrass. Encourage combined docks or more salmon friendly designs that impede less sediment and let more light into water; involve community and youth in eelgrass replantings and monitoring studies. (M714, M716, M721) Reconnect and enhance small stream mouths to create pocket estuaries for smaller juvenile Chinook; for WRIA 8 fish, pocket estuaries may have most benefit near the Locks by providing an increased estuary area. Reconnect backshore areas (e.g., marshes, wetlands) to contribute to shoreline habitat diversity and terrestrial inputs. More information is needed about marine nearshore habitat processes and connections to juvenile Chinook salmon habitat, and how railroad design could be altered to restore access to pocket estuaries and backshore areas . . Basinwide recommendations: • Protect stream mouths and wetlands from further degradation through Shoreline Master Programs and critical areas ordinances. Once stream mouths and wetlands are restored, protect from impacts from development through buffer requirements and stormwater management programs (M14, M17, M18) • Implement pilot projects to replace culverts with open bottom culverts or bridges/trestles wherever possible to allow for sand and gravel, large woody debris, and terrestrial inputs to contribute to the nearshore. • Big Gulch Culvert Replacement: Replacement of the undersized culvert under the railroad with a trestle system to restore system connectivity and improve sediment transport into the nearshore. (M222) • Implement projects to reconnect backshore areas, including: , Willow Creek Daylighting: Daylighting creek through existing fuel pier (using box culverts) will improve connectivity with Willow Creek Marsh. Proposed· mitigation project for nearby "Edmonds Crossing" development. (M233) ,-Woodway Tidal Lagoon North: Potential culvert improvement project at an inter-tidal lagoon and mud flat where railroad was built offshore south of Willow Creek. (M235) ,-Deer Creek Culvert Replacement: Enhance the connectivity of Deer Creek and the associated estuarine wetland with the nearshore by replacing two concrete culverts with an oversized culvert or a trestle bridge. Potential Sound Transit mitigation project. (M236) • Combine above restoration efforts with increased interpretive signage and video documentation for airing on government cable TV; make copies available to neighborhood and stewardship associations and encourage their participation in hands-on projects. • Work with real estate community to help promote value of creek mouths to both property owners, environment, and shoreline community; encourage property owners to help restore them. Enlist help of neighborhood stewardship associations and Seattle Public Utility's Creek Stewardship program. (M720) Protect sediment and water quality, especially near commercial and industrial areas (e.g., fuel spills, discharge of pollutants, etc.). Basinwide recommendations: • Address stormwater impacts (water quality and flows) throughout sub-area and from development near tops of bluffs, by: revising Phase 1 and 2 NPDES permits (consistent with Washington Department of Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual), requiring or Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 24 Chapter 9: Action Start-list encouraging low impact development, retrofitting existing developments using natural drainage systems (e.g., SEAStreets). (M19) • Determine extent to which residential structures along nearshore are on septic systems; determine if these systems are operating properly and if not require that they be fixed. Require that septic systems be inspected at time of sale. (M20) • Discourage or prohibit any further filling and dredging in nearshore except for essential public facilities, and where associated with shoreline restoration projects. (M21) • Promote boater/sea plane education campaign in order to improve and protect water quality compromised by fuel or toxic compounds from boat repairs, boat and sea plane maintenance. I Carry out through signage at marinas, sea plane docks, boat yards, as well as messaging sent with boat/plane license registration. (M728) • Educate and support businesses, property management companies, and homeowners associations on stormwater best management practices, specifically related to parking lot cleaning, storm drain maintenance and road cleaning. (M730) • Train groundskeepers and property management companies about water polluting effects of landscape practices. Employ the "pride in workmanship" strategy, by placing signs that list who maintains the landscapes and parking lots along shorelines and the maintenance practices that they employ. (M729) Migratory Areas February 25, 2005 Page 25 • I Chapter 9: Action Start-list Chapter 9: Part 2 Preliminary Cost Estimate of Site Specific Projects and Programmatic Actions Introduction The purpose of the preliminary cost estimate is to provide "ballpark" costs, not actual costs, of the WRIA 8 action start-list. The WRIA 8 action start-list consists of high priority site specific projects and programmatic actions selected from the comprehensive lists of projects and actions. During 2003 and 2004, the comprehensive lists were developed through extensive participation of local stakeholders, jurisdictional staff, environmental and business representatives, project experts, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. These comprehensive lists were developed without attaching costs, as their objective was to identify projects and actions that have the highest benefit to Chinook salmon. The action start-lists were then selected by the Service Provider Team by applying the Steering Committee's approved criteria to the comprehensive lists. Upon completion of the action start-list an effort was undertaken to estimate costs for the projects and actions. These estimated costs give planning numbers to be used by decision makers within the context of overall funding plans. This is a preliminary costing exercise. At this stage of the process, estimated costs are based on concepts, as well as specific projects. The concepts will be fleshed out over time as public and local government comments are incorporated into the plan and the results of the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model further refine priorities. Then cost estimates will need to be further refined as well to provide more accurate information. The cost estimates are subject to further - potentially substantial -revision as additional information regarding project scope, design and other factors becomes available. Costs will also change over the timeframe of the start-list, which varies from projects that are ready to be implemented to undefined projects that may or may not be undertaken in the future. Programmatic actions are also variable; for example, some actions may need high levels of effort in the near term or others may need lower levels of effort sustained over a longer term. Chapter 7 considers funding options to implement the first ten years of the planning horizon. This cost estimate is a component of that plan but is not a consistent annual cost over a ten-year period. Rather, site specific project costing gives an estimate for the action start-list projects that may change as other projects are identified as higher priority, or if projects are removed from, or modified on, the list due to feasibility constraints. Another variable that affects the implementation of the projects is when the funds are available, which also may vary significantly depending on the nature of the projects moving forward in any given year. The second component of this preliminary cost estimate is for programmatic action costs. It is important to note that the full-time equivalent (FTEs) staffing could be an additional level of effort, and thus cost, to that identified under shared staff (Chapter 2) and local jurisdictional efforts. This will depend on potential efficiencies that might be derived through collaborative implementation and whether local governments are already staffing identified or similar actions. Overview of Methodology The action start-list contains 166 actions, with many having several components. The first step was to group and code these actions so that costs could be viewed by various categories and types. Two main categories were formed -site specific projects and programmatic actions. Site specific projects are those actions that will occur on an identified location in the watershed. The two types of site specific projects Cost Estimates for Start-list February 25. 2005 Page 26 Chapter 9: Action Start-list are protection and restoration. Programmatic actions include three types: land use actions, public outreach, and studies. These actions generally occur over a broader area of the watershed. The actions were also coded for where they occurred within the watershed into three groups: basin wide, within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and outside the UGA. Research or studies associated with the proposed monitoring program were not included here (See Chapter 6). Sources of Information Information on costs for the site specific projects was gathered from a variety of sources. For some projects there were detailed estimates available from project managers who had developed costs as part of a pre-design costing estimate or as a grant funding request. Another source for detailed information was the Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Washington/Ship Canal General Investigation Study. If detailed project cost estimates were not available, then A Primer on Habitat Project Costs (Primer, Evergreen 2003) was used as follows to estimate types of projects that have similar components or characteristics. First, components were selected from the Primer to define an Acquisition, Riverine or Streambank restoration group (see Appendix 0.2 for descriptions). Second, the projects were given a cost estimate based on the appropriate group's cost range. For projects that have a partial or older cost estimate from programs such as Waterways 2000 or the Cedar River Legacy, the method included refinement either through project managers or by comparing with a cost estimate using the Primer. One excellent example of comparable estimates was Costing of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan (2004, Evergreen) that used the Primer to group and cost projects. Finally, costs were brought up to 2004 costs by using a three percent per year inflation rate. Sources of cost information on programmatic actions came primarily from the Service Provider Team for the land use actions and the public outreach actions. Estimates were developed by using similar programs or actions and then determining the amount of effort the action would need. Then this level of effort was evaluated by the Service Provider Team to estimate if it was already included in work being done by local jurisdictions or whether it constituted an additional level of effort. If it was an additional level of work, it was assigned a value for full time equivalent (FTE) staff time. Due to limited time the Service Provider Team did not consult with stakeholder jurisdictions on whether they have these programs, and if so the staffing level. Collaboration at a later date may identify efficiencies for implementing these actions. A Primer on Habitat Project Costs (Primer, Evergreen 2003) included an addendum, Estimated Non-capital Costs of Watershed Salmon Recovery Plans that gave a general FTE cost value ($100,000/FTE) that was used throughout this preliminary cost estimate for staff costs. If materials would be needed, these costs were estimated as well. For example, one public outreach proposal recommends producing and distributing copies of a video on habitat for Chinook for shoreline property owners. This is a new action and was included in material cost estimates. Reliability of Information The mix of high and low reliability in the cost estimates in this lumped-sum preliminary estimate gives an overall average that should be noted as a rough estimate. This is acceptable for planning cost estimates and future refinement of the actions and their estimates will strengthen their reliability. For site specific projects, pre-design estimates and known acquisition costs increased the overall reliability. Projects that are still conceptual, with undefined scopes or stream miles or acreage unknown had the opposite effect and decreased the reliability. Cost Estimates for Start-list February 25, 2005 Page 27 I I Chapter 9: Action Start-list The reliability of information for programmatic actions results in a very rough cost estimate at this time. Costs were kept generic to capture all jurisdictions because limited consultation occurred with local jurisdictions to tailor costs. There was also limited research on actual program costs to use as com parables with the estimates. Most of the programmatic actions had the scope defined at only a preliminary level. In addition, the FTE staff estimates associated with start-list programmatic action implementation did not at this time adjust costs for efficiencies that might later be realized through jurisdictional collaboration or jurisdictional staff already implementing identified or similar actions. Additional discussion with stakeholders is needed to identify other, potentially more efficient, methods to implement these programmatic actions. The total programmatic FTE counts may be covered in part in the future by identifying existing levels of effort not accounted for, or a change in work programs to accomplish this work. Overall Summary of Costs This overall summary cost estimate (see Table 9-1) used the September 2004 action start-list Tier I site specific projects and programmatic actions. Individual cost estimates were developed for the three Chinook populations: Cedar River, North Lake Washington Tributaries, Issaquah and Migratory Areas (see Appendix D-2). Migratory areas include Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Ship Canal, Locks, and Estuary and Nearshore Areas. The total cost estimate for the three Chinook populations included 92 site specific projects that range in overall cost of $143 million to $170 million with an average project cost of $1.5 million to $1.8 million. Programmatic actions included 103 public outreach and land use actions that have an average annual cost range of $785.000 to $2.1 million. This annual estimate was multiplied by ten to reflect the overall planning goal. The total cost range is $9.9 million to $23.7 million, which includes North Lake Washington and Cedar River studies that cost approximately $1.6 million. The range for staffing for the three Chinook populations is 7.8 to 21 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. These programmatic staff estimates are an additional level of effort to the shared staff identified in Chapter 2 and to the current level of effort by local jurisdictions. However, it must be noted as stated earlier that the programmatic staff estimates represent only one method of implementing these types of actions. Cost estimates were also "rolled-up" for the three Chinook populations by where the start-list actions occurred, such as basinwide, within the Urban Growth Area (UGA), or outside of the UGA. The site specific projects were distributed with 28 projects within the UGA and 50 outside of the UGA. The majority of programmatic actions, 54 of the 103 total actions, were basinwide, with 5 actions within the UGA and 7 actions outside the UGA. Migratory Area actions account for 29 actions, while the Tier II subareas have 5 actions. The preliminary cost estimate sub-divided the 166 start-list actions into 217 actions for the cost estimate purposes only. The cost estimate includes 195 of these 217 actions. For eleven site specific actions, the projects have not been scoped to the point where enough details are available, or details were not readily available, to develop accurate cost estimates. In addition, eleven programmatic actions did not have an associated cost if the staff level was accounted for in another action, or was included in existing efforts by local jurisdictions. Thus, these 22 actions were not included in the cost calculations. Cost Estimates for Start-list February 25, 2005 Page 28 Chapter 9: Action Start-list Next Steps While the Steering Committee has reviewed the methodology for cost development, and individual stakeholders provided information on project actions, individual costs for start-list actions have not been reviewed and approved by working committees or the Steering Committee. If actions on the start-list are modified through upcoming public and Forum review processes, costs could be revised and then submitted for additional review. However, due to the conceptual stage of the site-specific actions and the uncertainty about how programmatic actions would be implemented, the cost estimates_for both site- specific and programmatic actions cannot be improved until the start-list is approved by the Forum and other decisions about plan implementation become finalized. Cost Estimates for Start-list February 25, 2005 Page 29 Chapter 9: Action Startlist Table 9.1 -WRIA 8 Action Start-List -"Ballpark" Cost Estimates For Cedar, North Lake Washington, Issaquah, Migratory Areas, And Tier II Subareas Site Specific Actions Low High Tier I -Within UGA 28 Proiects $47.6M S50.9M Tier I -Outside UGA 50 Projects $70.4M $87.6M Migratory Areas 6 Proiects $5.1M $7.1M Tier II 8 Proiects $19.?M $24M Average Cost per project (92) $1.SM $1.8M Total Cost -Site Specific Projects $143M $170M ProQrammatic Actions Low High Tier I -Basinwide 54 Actions $454,000 S1.1M Tier I -Within UGA 5 Actions S20,000 S100,000 Tier I -Outside UGA 7 Actions $50,000 $250,000 Tier II -5 Actions $10,000 $70,000 Mioratorv Areas -29 Actions $251,000 $590,000 Annual number of FTEs / Staff 7.85 21 Annual Cost for 103 Actions $785,000 $2.1M Average Annual Cost per Action (103) $7,600 $20,400 NLW and Cedar Studies $1 6M $1.6M Material Costs -workshop handouts, videos, brochures, mailinqs $420,000 $1M Total Cost -Programmatic $9.9M $23.?M Notes: 1) Migratory Areas include Lakes Washington and Sammamish, Ship Canal, Locks, and Estuary/ Nearshore; 2) M=million. Cost Estimates for Start-list February 25, 2005 Page 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ACOE BAS BIBI BMPs CAO CARA CFT CIP CMZ Co Comp Plan CPPs Corps DNRP DOE Ecology EDT EIS EMAP EPA ESA ESU FEMA FTE GIS GMA H HCP ILA KC KCD L LEED LID Locks LUSC LWD M MRCI MRV Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Best Available Science Benthic Index of Biological Integrity Best Management Practices Critical Areas Ordinance Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Conservation Future Tax Fund Capital Improvement Project Channel Migration Zone County Comprehensive Plan Countywide Planning Policies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Ecology Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Evolutionarily Significant Unit Federal Emergency Management Act Full-Time Equivalent employee Geographic Information Systems Growth Management Act High Habitat Conservation Plan lnterlocal Agreement King County King Conservation District Low Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Low Impact Development Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Land Use Subcommittee Large Woody Debris Medium Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development and Redevelopment Marine Riparian Vegetation February 25, 2005 Page 1 MUGA NEPA NGO NLW NMFS NOAA NPDES NTAA OHWM PAA PBRS PFCs PIT tagging PSAMP PSAT PSTRT QA/QC RFEG RK RM SASSI SEPA Shared Strategy SSHIAP SnoCo SMA SMP SPU SR SRFB TDRs TMDL TIA TriCo TRT UGA UGB USGS USFWS uw VSP Acronyms and Abbreviations Municipal Urban Growth Area National Environmental Policy Act Non-Governmental Organization North Lake Washington Tributaries National Marine Fisheries Service (same agency as NOAA Fisheries) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation Ordinary High Water Mark Potential Annexation Area Public Benefit Rating System Properly Functioning Conditions Passive Integrated Transponder tags Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Puget Sound Action Team Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team Quality Assurance/Quality Control Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group River Kilometer River Mile Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory State Environmental Policy Act Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Information and Assessment Project Snohomish County Shoreline Management Act Shoreline Management Plan Seattle Public Utilities State Route Salmon Recovery Funding Board Transfer of Development Rights Total Maximum Daily Load Total Impervious Area Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition Puget Sound Techincal Recovery Team Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Boundary U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Washington Viable Salmonid Population parameters February 25, 2005 Page 2 WA WDFW WDOT/WSDOT WRIA8 WSU WBTC 65-10 Acronyms and Abbreviations Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Transportation Water Resources Inventory Area 8 (also known formally as the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed) Washington State University WRIA 8 Technical Committee Land use standard that requires 65% forest retention and limits impervious area to 10% February 25, 2005 Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Steering·Committee proposed Plan is the result of a collaborative effort among participants in the salmon conservation planning process for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). See Chapter 1 for a description of this process. The following individuals participated in the planning process for some or all of the period beginning January 2002. For a list of those who participated earlier, please see the Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee, which is composed of elected officials, representatives from business and environmental interests·, water and sewer districts, concerned citizens, scientists, and federal and state agencies, is overseeing the salmon conservation planning effort in WRIA8. WRIA 8 Steering Committee members (current and past): Councilmember Jim Compton, Committee Co-Chair, Seattle City Council (started '04) Councilmember Larry Phillips, Committee Co-Chair, Metropolitan King County Steve Bell, Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (through '02) Joanna Buehler, Save Lake Sammamish (through '02) joan burlingame, Friends of Rock Creek Valley, Cedar River Council Walt Canter, Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts Councilmember Dan Clawson, City of Renton Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Michelle Connor, Seattle Citizen, Cascade Land Conservancy Councilmember Randy Corman, City of Renton (through '03) Councilmember Don Davidson, City of Bellevue Troy Fields, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (started '04) Mayor Ava Frisinger, City of Issaquah David Garland, Washington Department of Ecology Councilmember Dave Gossett, Snohomish County Councilmember Rich Gustafson, City of Shoreline Mayor Rosemarie Ives, City of Redmond Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Terry Lavender, Citizen (through '03) Doug McClelland, Washington Department of Natural Resources Louise Miller, Citizen (started '04) Willy O'Neil, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (through '03) Margaret Pageler, former Co-Chair, former member, Seattle City Council (through '03) Ray Power, The Boeing Company Max Prinsen, King Conservation District Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cleve Steward, Sustainable Fisheries Foundation February 25, 2005 Page 1 Acknowledgements Frank Urabeck, Trout Unlimited Alternates: Mayor Bob Bandarra, City of Bothell; Richard Bonewits, Greater Maple Valley Area Council; John Crull, Boeing Company; Mayor Patrick Ewing, City of Bothell; Deputy Mayor Don Gerend, City of Sammamish; Councilmember Gareth Grube, City of Woodinville; Councilmember Pat Hawkins, City of Clyde Hill; Councilmember Kathleen Huckabay, City of Sammamish; Mayor Laure Iddings, City of Maple Valley; Councilmember Jim Lauinger, City of Kirkland; Terry Lavender, Citizen; Councilmember Steve Litzow, City of Mercer Island; Councilmember Jim Pearman, City of Mercer Island; Councilmember Andrea Perry, City of Bothell; Councilmember Larry Springer, City of Kirkland; Deputy Mayor Cathy Wiederhold VonWald, City of Woodinville Facilitator for 2004 work sessions: Tamie T. Kellogg, Consultant The WRIA 8 Forum consists of elected officials representing each of the 27 local governments that signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund salmon conservation planning in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. WRIA 8 Forum members (current and past): Councilmember Don Davidson, Committee Chair (started '04), City of Bellevue Councilmember Jean Garber, Committee Vice Chair (starting '04), City of Newcastle Councilmember Angela Amundson, City of Mountlake Terrace Mayor Bob Bandarra, City of Bothell (through '02) Mayor Jeanne Berry, Town of Yarrow Point Councilmember Tim Clark, City of Kent Councilmember Dan Clawson, City of Renton (started '04) Councilmember Jim Compton, City of Seattle (started '04) Councilmember Paul Demitriades. City of Medina (through '02) Mayor Donald Doran, City of Mukilteo Councilmember Tika Esler, City of Kenmore (through '03) Mayor Patrick Ewing, City of Bothell (in '03) Councilmember Ted Frantz, Town of Hunts Point Mayor Ava Frisinger. City of Issaquah Deputy Mayor Don Gerend, City of Sammamish (started '04) Councilmember Dave Gossett, Snohomish County Councilmember Gareth Grube, City of Woodinville (through '03) Councilmember Rich Gustafson, City of Shoreline Councilmember Pat Hawkins, City of Clyde Hill Councilmember Kathleen Huckabay, City of Sammamish (through '03) Mayor Laure Iddings, City of Maple Valley Mayor Rosemarie Ives, City of Redmond Councilmember James Lauinger, City of Kirkland (started '04) Councilmember Steve Litzow, City of Mercer Island (started '04) February 25, 2005 Page 2 Acknowledgements Mayor Charles Lowry, Town of Beaux Arts Village Mayor Mary Odermat, City of Medina (started '04) Councilmember Roger Olstad, City of Lake Forest Park Councilmember Margaret Pageler, City of Seattle (through '03) Councilmember King Parker, City of Renton (through '03) Councilmember Jim Pearman, City of Mercer Island (through '03) Councilmember Andrea Perry, City of Bothell (started '04) Councilmember Lora Petso, City of Edmonds (through '03) Councilmember Larry Phillips, King County Councilmember Michael Plunkett, City of Edmonds (started '04) Councilmember Marcia Schwendiman, City of Kenmore Mayor Larry Springer, City of Kirkland, former committee chair (through '03) Councilmember Jack Start, City of Mill Creek Deputy Mayor Cathy Weiderhold VonWald, City of Woodinville (started '04) Alternates: Councilmember Carolyn Armanini, Lake Forest Park; Councilmember Betty Heckendorn, Beaux Arts Village; Council member John Hendrickson, City of Kenmore; Councilmember John Hudgins, City of Mill Creek; Council member David Irons, King County; Councilmember Jim Lauinger, City of Kirkland; Councilmember Conrad Lee, City of Bellevue; Councilmember Richard Marin, Edmonds; Councilmember Greg Misenar, Redmond; Councilmember Bob Ranson, Shoreline; Councilmemqer Marcia Schwendiman, Kenmore; Councilmember Ben Varon, City of Newcastle; Councilmember Nancy Whitten, City of Sammamish The WRIA 8 Service Provider Team is housed in the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, and reports to the WRIA 8 Forum. The team was hired to provide watershed-based salmon conservation planning services under the interlocal cost-sharing agreement. WRIA 8 Service Provider Team: Cyrilla Cook, WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Ma_nager Hilary Culverwell, former WRIA 8 Issues/Outreach Coordinator (through 8/02) Linda Grob, WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator Mary Jorgensen, Lead Entity Grant Manager (starting 6/04) Sally King, WRIA 8 Land Use Coordinator Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator Debbie Natelson, WRIA 8 Outreach and Stewardship Coordinator DJ Sessner, former WRIA 8 Special Projects (through 12/03) Jean White, WRIA 8 Early Actions Project Coordinator Primary chapter authors: Cyrilla Cook, WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Manager Julie Hall, City of Seattle February 25, 2005 Page 3 Acknowledgements Mary Jorgensen, Lead Entity Grant Manager Sally King, WRIA 8 Land Use Coordinator Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator Sarah McKearnan, City of Seattle Brian Murray, King County Debbie Natelson, WRIA 8 Outreach and Stewardship Coordinator Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue David St. John, King County Jean White, WRIA 8 Early Actions Project Coordinator Dennis Canty, Evergreen Consultants Mike Schiewe, Anchor Environmental Graphics staff: Wendy Gable Collins, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Sandy Kraus, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks John Small, Anchor Environmental Cover photo: King County Water and Land Resources The following committees, subcommittees, and working groups contributed to developing portions of the draft plan. Each is described briefly. WRIA 8 Adaptive Management Work Group (an interjurisdictional working group which developed options for the draft plan for an implementation structure that includes organizational structure, monitoring and measures, funding strategies and commitments): Cyrilla Cook, WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Manager Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator Sarah McKearnan, City of Seattle Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue David St. John, King County WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee members and past participants (an interjurisdictional committee which developed the public outreach actions for the plan and which is promoting public involvement in the plan's review and implementation): Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds Rika Cecil, City of Shoreline Carol Dahl, Citizen and President, Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation Laurie Devereaux, City of Bellevue Melissa Frysztacki-Amrhein, University of Washington graduate program Scott Gonsar, City of Kirkland February 25, 2005 Page 4 Peter Holte, City of Redmond Sarah McKearnan, Seattle Public Utilities Kathy Minsch, Seattle Public Utilities Doug Rice, King County Dave Ward. Snohomish County Acknowledgements WRIA 8 Staff Committee members and past participants (staff representatives from the local governments that are cost-sharing the planning process, which keep their respective jurisdictions apprised on progress and issues related to the planning process): Christie Amrine, City of Mill Creek Alison Bennett, City of Bellevue Mary Beth Binns, City of Seattle Bruce Blackburn, City of Bothell Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds Carl Burris, formerly with City of Medina Rika Cecil, City of Shoreline Pam Cobley, Consultant to City of Medina Debra Crawford, City of Woodinville Jenny Gaus, City of Kirkland Margaret Glowacki, City of Seattle Will Hall, formerly with Snohomish County Richard Hart, City of Mercer Island Deborah Knight, City of Woodinville Keith Kurka, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pat Lambert, City of Bellevue Heather McCartney, City of Mukilteo Sarah McKearnan, City of Seattle Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Ann Root, Consultant to City of Kenmore Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah Mike Shaw, City of Mountake Terrace Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jon Spangler, City of Redmond David St John, King County Ron Straka, City of Renton Patrice Tovar, City of Kirkland WRIA 8 Synthesis Committee members and past participants (multi-stakeholder committee that synthesizes information and makes recommendations for Steering Committee consideration): Alison Bennett, City of Bellevue Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 5 Acknowledgements Bruce Blackburn, City of Bothell Glenn Boettcher, City of Mercer Island Scott Brewer, formerly with King County joan burlingame, Friends of Rock Creek Valley Representative, Cedar River Council Rika Cecil, City of Shoreline Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Pam Cobley, consultant to City of Medina Debra Crawford, City of Woodinville Jonathan Frodge, King County Dave Garland, Wash. Dept. of Ecology Jenny Gaus, City of Kirkland Maggie Glowacki, City of Seattle Julie Hall, City of Seattle Will Hall, formerly with Snohomish County Keith Kurka, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Terry Lavender, Citizen Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County John Lombard, Steward & Associates Miles Mayhew, City of Seattle Heather McCartney, City of Mukilteo Mike McDowell, formerly consultant for City of Kent Sarah McKearnan, City of Seattle Lisa Olson, Wash. Dept. of Ecology Ann Root, Adolfson & Associates (for City of Kenmore) Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David St. John, King County Ron Straka, City of Renton WRIA 8 Land Use Subcommittee (representatives of local and state jurisdictions, and business and environmental organizations, who were convened by subarea, to develop land use actions for each Chinook population): Kelly Anderson, City of Kent Cathy Beam, City of Redmond Heidi Bedwell, City of Bellevue Hans Berge, King County Anne Bikle, King County Bruce Blackburn, City of Bothell Richard Bonewits, Greater Maple Valley Area Council Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds Geoff Bradley, City of Bellevue joan burlingame, Friends of Rock Creek Valley, Cedar River Council Carol Cap, City of Bellevue Gil Cerise, formerly with City of Renton February 25, 2005 Page 6 Acknowledgements Luanne Coachman, King County Curt Crawford, King County Debra Crawford, City of Woodinville Kathy Creahan, King County John Crull, Boeing Co. and ESA Business Coalition Hilary Culverwell, Puget Sound Action Team Laurie Devereaux, City of Bellevue Dan Dewald, City of Bellevue Claire Dykeman, King County Chandler Felt, King County Jonathan Frodge, King County Dave Garland, Dept. of Ecology Don Gerend, City of Sammamish Maggie Glowacki, City of Seattle Julie Hall, City of Seattle Ray Heller, King County Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Terry Higashiyama, City of Bellevue Kallin Higgins, King County Jan Knudson, King County-Brightwater Glenn Kost, City of Bellevue Terry Lavender, Citizen Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County John Lombard, Steward & Associates (consultant to Bothell/Woodinville) Mary Maier, King County Miles Mayhew, City of Seattle Heather McCartney, City of Mukilteo Randy Middaugh, Snohomish County Jill Moe, King County Tom Murdoch, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation Brian Murray, King County Kitty Nelson, NOAA Fisheries Joe O'Leary, City of Bellevue Alan Olson, R2 Resource Consultants (for City of Kent) Lisa Olson, Dept. of Ecology Susan Oxholm, King County Michael Paine, City of Bellevue Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Harry Reinert, King County Paul Reitenbach, King County Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah Steve Roberge, City of Sammamish Ann Root, Adolfson & Associates (consultant to Kenmore) Peter Rosen, City of Issaquah Gabe Snedeker, City of Mercer Island Bob Sokol, City of Kenmore February 25, 2005 Page 7 Acknowledgements Ilene Stahl, Friends of Pine Lake Greg Stephens, Little Bear Creek Protective Association David St. John, King County Ron Straka, City of Renton Ralph Svrjcek, Dept. of Ecology Patrice Tovar, City of Kirkland Richard Tucker, King County Phyllis Varner, City of Bellevue Brian Ward, City of Bellevue Jeff Watling, City of Sammamish Nancy Whitten, City of Sammamish Craig Young, Snohomish County WRIA 8 Technical Committee members and past participants (an interjurisdictional, multi-stakeholder committee consisting of science professionals who developed the strategic technical assessment and science conservation strategy for the plan): Brian Murray, Facilitator and Staff Support for Technical Committee, King County Jonathan Frodge, Co-Chair, King County Kirk Lakey, Co-Chair, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Matt Bennett, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hans Berge, King County Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah Eric Bixler, formerly with City of Seattle Scott Brewer, former Co-Chair, formerly with King County Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Jeff Dillon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Eron Drew, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Maggie Glowacki, City of Seattle Fred Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Julie Hall, City of Seattle Ray Heller, King County Kallin Higgins, King County Doug Houck, King County Keith Kurka, City of Seattle Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County (former co-chair) Andy Loch, City of Shoreline John Lombard, Steward & Associates Keith MacDonald, City of Redmond Mike McDowell, MCS Environmental, Inc. Mary Maier, King County Alan Olson, R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue (former co-chair) Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah February 25, 2005 Page 8 Acknowledgements Mike Schiewe, Anchor Environmental Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tom Waller, Washington Dept. of Transportation Ad-hoc Site Specific Project Working Groups (groups of local jurisdiction staff and other experts convened, by subarea, to identify and evaluate site specific habitat protection and restoration projects for inclusion in the plan): Leslie Batten, Cascade Land Conservancy Heidi Bedwell, City of Bellevue Dave Beedle, City of Seattle Matt Bennett, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hans Berge, King County Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah Leslie Betlach, City of Renton Anne Bikle, King County Richard Bonewits, Citizen Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds Dave Boyd, Groundswell NW Geoff Bradley, City of Bellevue joan burlingame, Cedar River Council Terry Butler, King County Carol Cap, City of Bellevue Rike Cecil, City of Shoreline Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Michelle Connor, Cascade Land Conservancy Mike Crandell, King County Laurie Devereaux, City of Bellevue Paul DeVries, R2 Resource Consultants Dan Dewald, City of Bellevue Jeff Dillon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dan Eastman, King County Sean Edwards, Snohomish County Jim Erckmann, City of Seattle Nancy Faegenburg, King County Jonathan Frodge, King County Bob Fuerstenberg, King County Dave Garland, Wash. Dept. of Ecology Maggie Glowacki, City of Seattle Fred Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Julie Hall, City of Seattle Mistie Hammer, King County Tom Hardy, Adopt a Stream Foundation Ray Heller, King County Terry Higashiyama, City of Bellevue Kallin Higgins, King County February 25, 2005 Page 9 Acknowledgements Tim Hillard, Wash. Dept. of Transportation Peter Holte, City of Redmond Cyndy Holtz, City of Seattle Judy Jewell, Redmond-Bear Creek Groundwater Protection Committee, Chamber of Commerce Ken Johnson, King County Melinda Jones, City of Seattle Jan Knudson, King County Glenn Kost, City of Bellevue Keith Kurko, City of Seattle Amy LaBarge, City of Seattle Brent Lackey, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Terry Lavender, Water Tenders Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County John Lombard, Steward and Associates Jon Lowry, RH2 Engineering Keith MacDonald, City of Redmond Mary Maier, King County Lindsay Malone, Cascade Land Conservancy Dan Mathias, City of Everett Heather McCartney, City of Mukilteo Sarah McKearnan, City of Seattle Maureen Meehan, City of Bothell Sue Meyer, King County Tina Miller, King County Yoshihiro Monzaki, City of Woodinville Jon Morrow, City of Bothell Tom Murdoch, Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Snohomish Co. Brian Murray, King County Kitty Nelson, NOAA Fisheries Joe O'Leary, City of Bellevue Alan Olson, R2 Resource Consultants (representing City of Kent) Lisa Olson, Wash. Dept. of Ecology Dwayne Paige, City of Seattle Michael Paine, City of Bellevue Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Gene Petsson, RH2 Engineering Bill Priest, King County Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah Liz Ritzenthaler, King County Steve Roberge, City of Sammamish Ann Root, Adolfson & Associates (for City of Kenmore) Ruth Schaefer, King County Jon Spangler, City of Redmond Greg Stephens, Little Bear Creek Protective Association February 25, 2005 Page 10 Kevin Stoops, City of Seattle Ron Straka, City of Renton Ralph Svrjcek, Wash. Dept of Ecology Acknowledgements Paul Szewczykowski, Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group and RH2 Engineering Chris Townsend, Sound Transit Richard Tucker, King County Phyllis Varner, City of Bellevue Tom Waller, Wash. Dept. of Transportation Brian Ward, City of Bellevue Daryl Williams, Tulalip Indian Tribe Craig Young, Snohomish County February 25, 2005 Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Glossary Glossary Adaptive management: Monitoring or assessing the progress in achieving specific objectives and incorporating what is learned into future management plans. Adipose-clipped (ad-clipped): In order to distinguish hatchery origin fish, many hatchery managers remove the small fin on the back of hatchery raised fish. Allee effects: _Phenomenon wherein low population densities lead to further reduced fertility. In the presence of low population densities reduced fertility may result from, for example: (1) increased problems with locating mates in areas of low density, (2) increased inbreeding in areas of low population density, or (3) increased susceptibility to catastrophic events in low population densities. Altered trophic interactions: Any change, either natural or unnatural, that results in a change in the feeding relationship of species in a community. Altered hydrology: The influence of urbanization, and associated impervious surfaces, on infiltration of precipitation (rainfall) that increases the amount (volume) and rate (speed) that surface water runoff reaches aquatic areas. Anadromous fish: Species that hatch in freshwater, mature in saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn. Anaerobic conditions: When water has low dissolved oxygen. Anthropogenic modifications: Changes caused by humans. Bank armoring or hardening: The addition of material to a shoreline that is not natural to the site. Bank armoring or hardening structures range from vertical walls to sloped rock rubble, and are put in place to prevent the loss of property landward. Basef/ow: That component of streamflow derived from groundwater inflow or discharge. Can be presented in a variety of measurement units including cubic feet per second (cfs) and inches (in). Basin: The area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common point along a stream channel. Beach nourishment: Addition of sand to shorelines for recreational and shore protection benefits. Initiated by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s the projects continue to place millions of sand of shorelines. Biological monitoring studies are currently being conducted on potentially adverse impacts, which include: reduced abundance of animals that inhabit the sediment, altered animal community structure, increased turbidity, and altered feeding habits among fishes of commercial, recreational, or ecological importance. February 25, 2005 Page 1 Glossary Benthic: Of, or pertaining to, animals and plants living on or within the substrate of a water body. Benthic invertebrate (B-IBI) monitoring: Continuous assessment of the benthic environment to determine seasonal and annual variability and trends. B-IBI is a parameter or formula that describes in a single number the relative health of the benthic community. Invertebrates are animals without a backbone that lives on or below the surface of the sea bottom. Best management practices: Methods, measures, and practices selected to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts, such as the introduction of pollutants from diffuse sources into receiving waters. Usually applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. Bioengineering: Combining structural, biological, and ecological concepts to construct living structures for erosion, sediment, or flood control. Biofiltration: The process of reducing pollutant concentrations in water by filtering the polluted water through biological materials such as vegetation or bacteria in the soil column (e.g., water seeps through thick vegetation in a wetland buffer, through the wetland, and then into a stream). Biological diversity.(biodiversity): Variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur; encompasses different ecosystems, species, and genes. Buffer, riparian or wetland: A designated area adjacent a stream or wetland that is a integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. The critical functions of a buffer (associated with an aquatic systems) include shading, input or organic debris and coarse sediments, uptake of nutrients, stabilization of banks, interception of fine sediments, stormflow attenuation during high water events, protection from disturbance by humans and domestic animals, maintenance of wildlife habitat, and room for variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects. Channel: A surface feature that conveys surface water and is open to the air. Channels can either be artificially constructed or natural systems such as streams, creeks, or swales. Channel complexity: In streams, LWD increases the complexity of pool and riffle sequences and alters stream gradient on a local scale. The increase in channel complexity helps retain gravel as well as organic and inorganic particulate matter. Increased channel complexity is particularly important for fish species that use pools and gravel deposits for spawning and rearing. Channel confinement: Bank armoring or hardening by levees or rip rap confine the river or stream channel. This prevents interaction with the floodplain area. February 25, 2005 Page 2 Glossary Channel migration zone: Those areas subject to risk due to stream bank destabilization, rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and shifts in location of the channel. Channel incision: Downcutting of the stream or river channel below normal shoreline banks causing separation from floodplain and riparian areas. Channel stability: Tendency of a stream channel to stay within its existing location and confinement. Channelization: Straightening the meanders of a river; often accompanied by placing riprap or concrete along banks to stabilize the system. Channelized stream: A stream that has been straightened, runs through pipes or revetments, or is otherwise artificially altered from its natural meandering course. Coded wire tagging: Single tags are cut from rolls of wire by a device that hypodermically implants them into the snout of juvenile Chinook salmon. Connectivity: A measure of the extent that conditions between different areas of similar or related habitat provide for successful movements of fish or wildlife species, supporting populations on a landscape level. Conservation easement: A legal agreement between a landowner and a qualified conservation organization that permanently limits a property's uses in order to protect its conservation values. Core production subarea: Subarea where chinook salmon are present on an annual basis. The core production subarea represents the center of (highest) abundance for each population affiliation (for spawning, rearing, and migration areas). Cumulative effectiveness monitoring: Monitoring to determine if the sum of all actions within a basin or across the watershed are improving habitat and salmon population conditions. Deciduous vegetation: Trees or shrubs that shed leaves at the end of their growing season. Degradation: The lowering of the streambed or widening of the stream channel by erosion. The breakdown and removal of soil, rock and organic debris. Depensatory (a/lee) effects: By inoculating a significant proportion of potential hosts, programs seek to cause the extinction of the disease organism. When the density of disease organisms is low enough, a positive feedback between density reduction and the rate of population decline leads to eradication. A potential depensatory mechanism February 25, 2005 Page 3 Glossary in sturgeons and other broadcast spawners is the decline in egg fertilization rates as spawning aggregations become smaller. Direct effectiveness monitoring: monitoring to determine if actions are having the anticipated outcomes. Diversity: Variation that occurs in plant and animal taxa (i.e., species composition), habitats, or ecosystems. Ecosystem: A natural system composed of component organisms interacting with their environment. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Method: EDT includes a model that computes the relative survival of salmon populations along life history pathways and across habitat conditions. To do this, the model assesses the "biological performance" (including life history diversity, productivity, and capcity) of salmon in response to approximately 45 habitat attributes. Using these relationships between habitat and survival, EDT can be used to evaluate the relative effectiveness of actions proposed to meet watershed goals. EDT by itself does not provide population predictions -rather, it evaluates the potential of habitat to support the population. Effective impervious surface: A surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development; and/or a surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions. Egg incubation: Egg development in all five species of Pacific salmon is similar. At a constant temperature of 1 OC the incubation period among eggs of the five species of salmon ranges from about 47 -65 days. There are thirty stages of embryonic development from fertilization to hatching and characteristics identifying each stage. Endocrine: Refers to the system of glands that secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. These hormones regulate many body processes. Episodic: Chinook salmon are present infrequently and may not be present or observed during the typical 4-to 5-year life cycle. This indicates that when fish are observed, they are strays from another production area and not necessarily the progeny of natural production from the area in question. Escapement Index: The number of fish that have survived all causes of mortality and will make up the spawning populations. Estuary: A partly enclosed coastal body of water that has free connection to open sea, and within which seawater is measurably diluted by fresh river water. February 25, 2005 Page 4 Glossary Evapotranspiration: Soil evaporation is a direct pathway for water to move from soil to the atmosphere as water vapor. Plant transpiration is evaporation of water from leaf and plant surfaces. Transpiration is the last step in a continuous water pathway from soil, into plant roots, through plant stems and leaves, and out into the atmosphere. Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU): The geographic scale used by the National Marine Fisheries Service to distinguish salmon populations that share similar genetic, ecological, and life history traits, but differ in important ways from salmon in other ES Us. Factor of decline: Natural and anthropogenic factors that contribute to the decline of salmonids. These not only include climate and ocean conditions and natural predation but also the factors that are more commonly thought to be within human control such as habitat modification, harvest, hatchery practices, and introduction of non-native species. Fingerlings: a life-cycle stage when young salmonids are one pine-needle, or finger, in length. Some fingerlings begin their journey to the ocean, others mature in the rivers of lakes. Flashiness: The ratio of flow that is exceeded 90% of the time to the flow exceeded 10% of the time (90:10 ratio) is indicative of the flashiness of variability. Flow gauging: In stream mechanical or electronic equipment for measuring stream flow values: velocity measurements, backwater calculations, or high flows. Flow regime: Characteristics of stream discharge over time. Natural flow regime is the regime that occurred historically. Freshwater lens: The hydrographic structure of the surface water column used by juvenile salmon. A freshwater lens (water layer) over a colder, more saline (denser) layer may change to mixed structure throughout the period that juvenile salmon use the nearshore and strait habitats. Fry: A free-swimming, juvenile salmonid that has recently emerged from the gravel and has fully absorbed its yolk sac. Fry colonization: stocking programs using fry for salmon colonization of river or stream reaches. Geographic information systems (GIS): computer based mapping systems for spatial data. Geomorphology: Study of the form and origins of surface features of the Earth. Groundwater: underground water stored in aquifers. Groundwater is created by rain that soaks into the ground and flows down to a point where the ground in not permeable. Groundwater then usually flows laterally toward a river, lake, or other receiving water. February 25, 2005 Page 5 Glossary Groundwater inflow: The subsurface flow of water. Habitat: The specific area or environment in which a particular plant or animal species lives. An organism's habitat must provide all the basic requirements for life and should be protected from harmful contaminants. A species may require or use more than one type of habitat to complete its life cycle. Habitat assessments: the biological and physical inventory of a site that is evaluated for its habitat values. Habitat capacity: Maximum average number or biomass of organisms that can be sustained in a habitat over the long term. Usually refers to a particular species, but can be applied to more than one. Habitat complexity: The number of habitat components that work together to form habitat determine the complexity, such as pools, large woody debris, and riparian edge habitat. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): As defined under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act, a plan required for issuance of an incidental take permit for a listed species. HCPs can address multiple species, both listed and unlisted. HCPs provide for the conservation of the species addressed, and provide certainty for permit applicants through an implementation agreement between the Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Commerce, and a non-federal entity. Headwaters: The source of a stream or stream system. Hydrograph: Chart of water levels over time. Hydrology: Study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the Earth's surface, subsurface, and atmosphere. Hydromodification: The channelization and armoring of natural banks to prevent flooding or to protect stream-adjacent property and structures from erosion; navigation activities {ditching, dredging, and channel straightening); anthropogenic alterations in channel morphology (platform, cross-sectional area, bed and bank configuration); and anthropogenic changes in the amount of in-channel large woody debris. Hypothesis: A theory needing investigation; a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation. Impervious surface: Any surface that does not allow water to percolate naturally into the ground. Implementation monitoring: Monitoring to determine if actions are being implemented as planned. February 25, 2005 Page 6 Glossary Independent populations: Any collection of one or more local breeding units whose population dynamics or extinction risk over 1 DO-year time period are not substantially altered by exchanges of individuals with other populations. Infiltration: The process of a fluid permeating (passing through) a substance, such as soils, gravels, or vegetative matter. Integrated hatchery management: _A hatchery program is an integrated type if the intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild. Land-cover classification: The allocation of items to groups according to land-cover types, e.g., forest, rock, agricultural lands, wetlands, urbanized. Large woody debris (LWD): Large pieces of wood in or partially in stream channels, including logs, pieces of logs, rootwads of trees, and other large chunks of wood. LWD provides streambed and bank stability and habitat complexity. LWD is also referred to as coarse woody debris (CWD). Either term usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches (51 cm) in diameter. Levees: An artificially elevated portion of the riverbank, built to contain floodwaters. Lentic systems: Systems of standing waters, such as lakes, ponds, and some wetlands. Life history diversity: Patterns of variation seen among species that indicate the existence of very different life history strategies. Limiting factor: Single factor that limits a system or population from reaching its highest potential. Littoral zone: The shallow region of a Jake or pond, to a depth of about 3 feet, which may have highly productive emergent macrophytes (large plants) that utilize the resources of both the terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Lotic: Flowing water, such as streams and river systems. Low flows: Flow volume is below the natural flow regime, stream discharge over time, that occurred historically. Mass marking: see adipose-clipped. mg!L: milligrams per liter. For dissolved oxygen concentrations in water it may also be expressed as parts per million (ppm). Migratory corridors: Any area through which fish migrate on their way upstream or downstream. February 25, 2005 Page 7 Glossary Mitigation: Methods of reducing adverse impacts of a project. The use of any or all of the following actions (listed in descending order of preference (KCC 21.04)): (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; or (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; or (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected sensitive area; or (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation or maintenance operations during the life of the development proposal; or (5) compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute sensitive areas; or (6) monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigative factors: see above. Multi-spectral analyses: The spectral signatures (reflected light data for each pixel recorded in aerial imagery) of various vegetation and substrate types (for example, mud and sand) help identify areas to determine the composition of the plant community. High levels of spectral resolution (19 values or more) enable scientists to differentiate between key vegetative species, such as sedges and rushes, to distinguish potentially high-quality salmonid habitat. Native: Occurring naturally in a habitat or region; not introduced by humans. Natal stream: Stream of origin where salmon are hatched. Nearshore marine zone: Habitats that lie between the lower limit of the photic zone (approximately at minus 30 meters mean lower low water) and the upland-aquatic interface. Non-native species: A species that does not occur naturally in a habitat or region. Non-point source pollution: Polluted runoff from sources that cannot be defined as discrete points, such as areas of timber harvesting, surface mining, agriculture, and livestock grazing. Noxious weeds: Non-native plants that have been introduced accidentally or as ornamentals that spread quickly, displace desirable plant species, and are extremely difficult to control. Nutrients: Essential chemicals needed by plants or animals for growth or sustaining life. Excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to degradation of water quality and the growth of excessive numbers of algae. Some nutrients can be toxic at high concentrations. Phenotypic attributes: Phenotypic/genetic differences that characterize hatchery stocks and natural-origin fish. These attributes help determine if rearing environment (hatchery or wild) is the principal factor that directs early physiological and February 25, 2005 Page 8 Glossary immunological development -with respect to population viability -irrespective of population ancestry. Physiological transitions: See transition zone. PIT tags: PIT tags are tiny identification chips which are injected into specimens for permanent identification. The chip is read by means of a reader which provides a unique code read out of the chip implanted in the specimen. Planning targets: The planning target provides a specific measure within a range that is helpful for evaluating Chinook populations recovery actions in habitat, harvest, and hatcheries. The target predicts the abundance and productivity of a salmon population based on a fully functioning estuary, improved freshwater conditions, restored access to blocked habitats, and poor ocean conditions. Populations: The group of fish spawning in particular Jake(s) or stream(s) at a particular season that to a substantial degree do not interbreed with any group spawning in a different place, or in the same place at a different season Pre-spawn migrants: The life stage of a salmon when moving into freshwater areas to spawn. Pre-spawn holding:. The life stage of a salmon just prior to spawning when they have returned to spawning grounds. Properly functioning conditions (PFC): State of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of watershed ecosystems which will sustain a healthy salmonid population(s). Properly functioning condition defines a range of values for several measurable criteria rather than specific, absolute values. The range of these values may vary from watershed to watershed based upon a variety of factors, e.g., geology, hydrology, and stream geomorphology, and the improved understanding of how these factors shape ecosystem functions. Reach: see stream reach. Redds: Nests made in gravel (particularly by salmonids); consisting of a depression that is created and then covered. Refuge areas: Areas that provide protection to a species from predators. Resident fish: Fish species that complete their entire life cycle in freshwater. Retention/detention facilities: A type of drainage facility designed either to hold water for a considerable length of time and then release it by evaporation, plant transpiration, and/or infiltration into the ground, or to hold surface water and stormwater runoff for a February 25, 2005 Page 9 Glossary short period of time and then release it to the surface water and stormwater conveyance system. Revetments: An artificially protected or armored portion of the riverbank, typically a rock-lined face, that helps prevent erosion but does not provide protection from overtopping. Riparian: Type of wetland transition zone between aquatic habitats and upland areas. Typically, an area on or by land bordering a stream, lake, tidewater, or other body of water. Riprap: A facing layer or protective mound of stones placed to prevent erosion or sloughing of a structure or embankment due to the flow of surface water and stormwater runoff. Runoff: Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes, and wetlands as well as shallow ground water. Salmon: Includes all species of the salmonid family. Salmonid: Fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, char, and bull trout. Satellite streams: Chinook salmon are present most years (more than half the years of a typical 4-to 5-year life cycle) but are less abundant than in core areas. Records are more incomplete, conservation efforts are inconsistent among potential satellite areas, and methods of enumeration vary. Sediment toad: Material carried in suspension by water, which will eventually settle to the bottom. Sediment transport:: The act of transporting a load of sediment from a stationary source location through a channel by streamflow to a location of deposition. Segregated hatchery management: A segregated stock is intended to have minimal influence from and on surrounding natural stocks; interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish is minimized. Side channel: A portion of an active channel that does not carry the bulk of stream flow. Side channels may carry water only during high flows, but are still considered part of the total active channel. Shoreline accretion: The geologic process of filling and raising shoreline by depositon of material eroded and transported from other areas. February 25, 2005 Page 10 Glossary Shoreline softening: A nonstructural approach to preventing loss of upland property. Usually refers to the placement of beach material or vegetation management at the shore. Smalt: Juvenile salmon migrating seaward; a young anadromous trout, salmon, or char undergoing physiological changes that will allow it to change from life in freshwater to life in the sea. The smolt state follows the parr state. Smalt flumes: Fish passage facilities installed at the Ballard Locks to improve safe passage of juvenile salmon through the Locks area. Smalt traps: A smolt trap is a standardized method of quantifying how many fish are moving through a water system. Snorkel surveys: An in stream survey method using snorkel equipment to view fish use of habitat such as log jams. Source control best management practices: Water pollution control best management practices that address adverse impacts from point source (direct) and non- point source (diffuse) pollution. See also best management practice. Spawning aggregations: Geomorphic features (barriers, canyons, large tributary junctions and eroding cliffs) were strong determinants of the location of Chinook spawning areas. Strays: Non-native fish from hatchery escapements. Stock: Group of fish that is genetically self-sustaining and isolated geographically or temporally during reproduction. Generally, a local population of fish. More specifically, a local population -especially that of salmon, steelhead (rainbow trout), or other anadromous fish -that originates from specific watersheds as juveniles and generally returns to its birth streams to spawn as adults. Stream reach: A segment of a stream that has beginning and end points selected for some specific characteristic. Substrate: Refers to the class or type of material (for example, sand, gravel cobble) beneath the water column. Temperature stratification: Refers to the stratification of lakes and reservoirs into layers of water with different temperatures and densities. Usually occurs in spring and early summer when the combination of solar heating and mixing of near-surface water layers by the wind brings about the warming of the upper portion of the lake water column. February 25, 2005 Page 11 Glossary Thermal migration barriers: Impediments to fish migration caused by high water temperatures. Transition zone: Refers to an area in which species migrating between ecological zones undergo biological changes in order to adapt to another ecosystem. For Northwest salmon, the nearshore zone is known as a transition zone as salmon acclimate to more saline waters (if out-migrating) or non-saline waters (if in-migrating). Urban growth area: A political boundary in which urban growth is encouraged and concentrated via management plans. Validation monitoring: Monitoring to determine if the salmon population is increasing in productivity, abundance, distribution, and diversity; and what are the cause and effect relationships between actions and fish population changes. Viable Salmonid Population (VSP): An independent population of any Pacific salmonid that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year time frame. Watershed: Entire area that contributes both surface water and underground water to a particular lake or river. Watershed rehabilitation: Used primarily to indicate improvement of watershed condition or certain habitats within the watershed. Compare watershed restoration. Watershed restoration: Reestablishing the structure and function of an ecosystem, including its natural diversity; a comprehensive, long-term program to return watershed health, riparian ecosystems, and fish habitats to a close approximation of their condition prior to human disturbance. Weir: Device across a stream to divert fish into a trap or to raise the water level or divert its flow. Also a notch or depression in a dam or other water barrier through which the flow of water is measured or regulated. Wild stock: A stock that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat regardless of origin. February 25, 2005 Page 12 f ~ASllfyQ ~ . "' ~ fl,;,%~ <J> .$ ~~~~~~~~~~-~~4MJs\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Financial support for the coordination and development of the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan was provided by the following local governments: Town of . Beaux Arts Village OU OP LAKEFORl'Sf PARK A.. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CITY OF ~ CITVOF '.·k MUKILJEO -==-===:c~c ~ ® King County o"' '°t, • 0 • • ~ .I;, "-ofsff1N6"o+ Mt City of Seattle SHoia.JNE --.... ---~.- * Snohomish County Layout/ProducHon by: Visual Communications and Web Unit, Water & Land Resources Division, King County Department of Natural Resources FIie Name: 0507WRIA8BackCover.eps ulQZ111,1202M Additional copies of this document are available from: King County Department of Natural Resources Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-6519 Town of Yarrow Point Alternate Formats Available 206-296-6519 or 711 TIY