Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272969(3) FINAL. LAKE WASH INGTON/CEDAR/SAMMAMISH WATERSHED (WRIA 8) CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN VOLUME 111 JULY 2005 4 w4 s. r 404 Oro low ram,• � •� �K. +��, �AMISK � ""' t How the Final Plan Differs From the Steering Committee Proposed Plan ' The WRIA 8 Steering Committee Proposed Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation 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 (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The July 2005 Final Plan differs from the February 2005 Proposed Plan as follows: ' • No text in the February25, 2005 Ian has been changed p g 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 t 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 ll, 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 WRIA 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 III 1 ' July 2005 1 t t 1 1 Quick Road Map Through This Plan If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information: See how the plan is This road map and the Volume I contains chapters 1- organized Table of Contents, 9 located volue in each plan Volume II contains chapters ' 10 — 13, the comprehensive action lists Volume III contains the appendices of information that support the plan Note how the Final Plan How the Final Plan Volume I, Chapter 1 explains ' approved by the WRIA 8 Differs from the Proposed how the plan was developed Forum and ratified by the Plan, located at the participating Jurisdictions beginning of each volume differs from the 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, Chapter 1: Volume III, Appendix A lists benefits, and context of the Purpose and Goal of the key decisions made by the plan and how it has been Plan WRIA 8 Steering Committee developed that directed development of the draft plan ' Review how the plan will be Volume I, Chapter 2: Plan Volume III, 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, Chapter 3: Volume III, Appendix C foundation was developed Science Foundation outlines the technical ' and what needs to be done Volume I, Chapter 4: information and analyses in to protect and restore Chinook Conservation more detail salmon 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 III, Appendix D project or landscape-level Actions Start List explains the methodology for land use or public Volume If: how actions and rough cost ' outreach action to protect Comprehensive Actions estimates were developed or restore salmon habitat List ' Conduct research and Volume I, Chapter 6: monitoring to measure Measuring and progress Monitoring for Gauging Progress ' Review recommendations Volume I, Chapter 7: Volume III, Appendix B: Case for level of effort needed to Funding Strategy for Plan Studies from Other implement the plan and Implementation Watersheds. ' funding source options If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information: ' Consider what type and Volume I, Chapter 8: Volume III, Appendix E level of commitments 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: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/c ' hinook-conservation-plan htm Review rough estimates for Volume I, Chapter 2: Plan Volume III, 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 Responsibilities for Plan Implementation ' 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 III, Appendix A public comments received on the draft plan and how ' they were addressed Review who participated in Volume I, Chapter 1 contains a the development of the plan Acknowledgements discussion of the planning 'View maps of WRIA 8 Go to process streams reaches used for http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wri the Ecosystem Diagnosis as/8 ' and Treatment modeling effort Learn about potential Volume I, Chapter 4: ' biological goats and Chinook Conservation objectives for 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 ' guidance developed by NOAA Fisheries. See the resolutions passed Check the web at: A CD can be made available ' b�jurisdictions ratifying the htt ://dnr.metrokc. ov/wria upon request pan s/8 chinook-conservation- an.htm The website address for the watershed-based salmon conservation t planning effort in the Lake Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8. ' TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME III Quick Road Map for the Plan Appendix A Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions A-1 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #1 A-1 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #2 A-4 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #3 A-6 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #4 A-9 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #5 A-12 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #6 A-17 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #7 A-20 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #8 A-23 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session # 9 A-26 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Session #10 A-37 Summary of public comments and responses A-52 ' Appendix B Case Studies from Other Watersheds B-1 WRIA 8 Adaptive Management Work Group DRAFT Watershed Case B-1 ' Studies Organizational Structure B-1 Commitments B-2 Funding plan implementation B-3 Adaptive management and measures of success B-4 Why watershed efforts fail B-4 Selected Bibliography B-6 Appendix C Technical Appendix C-1 Use of the VSP Concept in WRIA 8 Salmonid Conservation Planning C-1 Watershed Evaluation and Identification of Chinook Salmon Tier 1, 2, and 3 C-2 Subbasins Supporting Salmon Conservation Planning in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Modeling C-3 WRIA 8 EDT Customization: Derivation of EDT Rules and Habitat C-4 Information for Large Lakes, Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, and Estuarine/Nearshore Marine Areas WRIA 8 Habitat and Hatchery Scenarios: Potential Implications of C-5 Alternative Population Structures for Chinook Conservation and Recovery in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Habitat Model Stream C-6 Reach Description for Chinook Tier 1 and 2 Subareas ' Appendix D Appendix for Chapter 5: Actions and Chapter 9: Start-list D-1 Part 1: Criteria to Develop the Actions Lists in the WRIA 8 Draft Chinook D-1 Plan Part 2: Process and Criteria for Identifying and Prioritizing Potential Site- D-3 Specific Projects Part 3: Preliminary Cost Estimates for WRIA 8's Action Start-list— D-3 Methodology "Ballpark" Cost Estimates for Cedar River Population D-2 "Ballpark" Cost Estimates for North Lake Washington Population D-2 "Ballpark" Cost Estimates for Issaquah Creek Population D-2 "Ballpark" Cost Estimates for Migratory Areas D-2 Part 4: King/Snohomish Co. 20-year Population Estimates D-14 , Part 5/6: Introduction to Menu and References D-16 Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions D-18 ' Part 6: References for Land Use Actions D-25 Appendix E Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act E-1 ' Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act E-1 , APPENDIX A: KEY DECISIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions The WRIA 8 Steering Committee held eight six-hour work sessions from February through ' October 2004 during which they reviewed the WRIA 8 Draft Plan Framework and Preliminary Actions List (December 31, 2003 notebook) and the June 30r" Work Product on the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The Steering Committee provided direction on how to: ' • Translate science into policy • Propose site-specific habitat projects and landscape-level actions (land use and public outreach) to conserve salmon habitat ' • Use adaptive management to create an implementation framework that includes a collaborative organization structure, a funding strategy, a monitoring and measures program, and recommendations for commitments from implementers and expectations for ' regulatory agencies. The decisions that came out of these work sessions were used to develop the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Public Review Draft. Two additional work sessions were held in January 2005 to review public comments and provide guidance on plan revisions. Below are the ' key decisions recorded for each of the ten work sessions. ' KeyDecisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #1 g February 10, 2004 Decisions are listed for the following topics: • Process for facilitated work sessions ' Overarching question: How Will the Conservation Plan Be Used? • Process for prioritizing site-specific habitat projects • Next steps/issues to be addressed PROCESS FOR FACILITATED WORK SESSIONS • Steering Committee members reaffirmed commitment to ground rules agreed to at the ' January 261h meeting. These include: strive for consensus, but some issues may require a vote; members can send substitutes. • New ground rules agreed to on Feb. 10: ' o Steering Committee members will respect the need to be able to discuss freely during the work sessions. o Key decisions made and next steps will be written up by the Service Provider Team and circulated among Steering Committee members within 48 hours of the work ' session. This will be done instead of minutes or detailed work session notes. o Recognizing that the issues being discussed at these work sessions are interrelated, the group agreed that policy decisions made at early work sessions may be revisited ' at later work sessions. • At the end of the day, those attending felt that the facilitated work session was an effective way to work through the issues, and committed to additional sessions. ' • It was agreed that the next work session will be March 10`h, and the agenda will include discussion on land use actions. • The Forum needs to be updated on draft plan progress, key decisions made by the Steering Committee, and potential controversial issues early in the process. We should not wait until draft plan submittal to bring these issues to the Forum. ' OVERARCHING QUESTION: HOW WILL THE CONSERVATION PLAN BE USED? Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 1 Question: Do you want to use the plan to negotiate with Shared Strategy and NOAA , Fisheries (i.e., strive to meet the Shared Strategy Guidelines)? Decision: • Plan development should be consistent with Shared Strategy guidance, to the extent that ' guidance is specified. • However, while one goal of the WRIA 8 plan is delisting of chinook, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee Mission and Goals set the bar higher: "... to preserve, protect and restore habitat ' with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally-spawning chinook salmon" in WRIA 8. We need to do what we need to support recovery of WRIA 8 salmon, regardless of whether Shared , Strategy says our salmon are a priority. • Throughout the work session, a number of new questions about the draft plan were prompted by the discussion of the key questions. A few of these questions are noted below; other questions will be brought to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. , o Can the draft plan be informally submitted to Shared Strategy upon completion? o What information and analysis need to be included in the draft plan in order for it to be complete? When is the draft plan done enough? ' o Shared Strategy is a driver for the draft plan schedule; what are other drivers for the plan schedule? o Should the Technical Committee run the treatment phase of the EDT model as a ' means of evaluating how far actions will get them? If so, when and with what resources? Question: Do you want to use the plan to achieve quantifiable interim (e.g., 10- and 20- , year) goals (e.g., habitat improvement, fish response, project implementation, other)? Decision: ' • Yes, the plan should set measurable outcomes so that the public and NOAA can see progress. • Multiple indicators will be needed, including measures of habitat change, fish response to habitat change, and fish population. Local stakeholders should be held accountable for , habitat outcomes (where they have authority and some control), but it will be necessary to measure fish outcomes to know if the plan is succeeding and to gain public support. • Specific ways to measure these outcomes (and who measures them over what time frame) , are yet to be determined. The Technical Committee will need to recommend indicators. • A related question that was not yet resolved is the time frame for plan actions and implementation (e.g., 5-10 years, 10-20, etc.). ' Question: Should the plan include specific commitments to actions and an implementation process? ' Decision: • Yes, it has to have commitments and priorities. • Longer term actions (such as those in the 10- to 20-year time frame) might not have ' commitments, but a process will be needed to identify them. • There should be a defined process for regional coordination to continue to prioritize and implement actions over time, subject to resource availability. The process needs to include ' identifying regional priorities and those actions that should be implemented through regional collaboration. Question: Should the plan include a menu of possible actions to use as guidance, or a ' set of targeted, prioritized actions, or somewhere in-between (i.e., what level of detail on the actions)? Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 2 ' Decision: • The plan should be as specific as possible where there is scientific certainty to guide it. Specific actions should be identified and prioritized, particularly for the short term, using best ' available science and best available data. • The desired outcome for an action should be specific. Where we know of more than one way to achieve the desired outcome, options should be provided to offer flexibility. • Where available, examples and prescriptive checklists should be provided to help smaller jurisdictions in implementing land use and public outreach actions. The plan should provide sufficient level of detail about the actions to allow those jurisdictions without specialized staff ' to effectively implement the actions. However, it may be difficult to provide that specificity by June. • To the extent possible, the plan should show benefits of taking an action and consequences ' of not taking an action. Question: Should the plan describe a framework for funding priority actions? Decision: ' • Yes, it must have a funding framework that includes existing funding sources and new, sustainable funding sources that would provide more certainty. (This does not imply a need for an elaborate accounting system.) ' • Specific funding mechanisms should be identified for specific actions or types of actions, when possible, and otherwise provide general guidance on funding sources. • Non-monetary mechanisms such as awards and incentives (e.g., density credits, tax ' benefits) should also be included. • It was agreed that there will be a need to fund some projects regionally (regional funding for regionally important projects). Question: Should there be continued regional collaboration during the implementation process to: implement regional priorities, track progress, evaluate actions, and/or make ' course adjustments? Decision: Clarification was made that "regional" could mean among WRIA 8 partners or between WRIA 8 partners and others. Collaboration will be necessary at both levels. First priority is for coordination among WRIA 8 partners, but acknowledge need to coordinate with others to secure funding. The preference is to keep WRIA 8 dollars funding WRIA 8 projects. ' SITE-SPECIFIC HABITAT PROJECTS: The Steering Committee consensus was that the process proposed by Jean White, WRIA 8 Early Actions Coordinator, to prioritize site-specific habitat projects was acceptable. The group accepted the draft qualitative criteria (technical criteria on benefits to chinook, and policy criteria on feasibility), and the use of the criteria to create short-term and long-term habitat project lists. The Steering Committee gave the following additional guidance: 1) Keep all of the projects on the list, so that the Steering Committee can see the whole list ' and how the criteria were applied to prioritize the list (i.e., keep the process transparent). 2) The Service Provider Team will work with the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to develop a proposal using the conservation strategy to rank reaches for site-specific habitat ' protection projects. 3) Members expressed a preference for integration of the different types of actions (site- specific projects, land use, and public outreach) into a unified package. Staff will develop a proposal for integration and clarify how each is being evaluated by similar criteria. Integrating actions into a single package should help alleviate the concern that only site- specific habitat projects get considered for funding. Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 3 NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: ' • At the February 261h Steering Committee meeting, we will review decisions for those Steering Committee members who were not present at the February 10th work session. The committee will also discuss whether the approach is working and whether it is realistic ' to hold one or two work sessions in March. • March 10 is the next scheduled work session. The Steering Committee also has an option to hold a work session on March 241h ' • A number of issues and questions were raised during the work session. While a few of these were included in the notes above, many others were raised. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. ' Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #2 March 10, 2004 , Decisions/Informational Items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. ' • Forum update • Science conservation strategy • Relation of science to policy (decision items) , • Land use actions (decision items) • Integration of types of actions (decision items) • Next steps/issues to be addressed ' FORUM UPDATE • Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, the WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator, reviewed what was ' discussed with the WRIA 8 Forum. A parallel process cannot be done (insufficient time, insufficient staff resources, creates an unending tape loop). The process described in the interlocal agreement will be used, i.e., the Steering Committee will continue to develop the , plan that will then be presented to the Forum. However, the Service Provider Team will begin providing information to the Forum such as highlights of the science conservation strategy and of the recommendations for land use so that the Forum can start to become ' familiar with the draft plan. There are also numerous opportunities for local government involvement in the development of the plan, including through working committees, participation on the Steering Committee, and during the public review process. ' • The Forum gave permission for the draft plan to be informally submitted to Shared Strategy as long as the plan is clearly noted to be a draft that has not gone through either public review or review by the Forum and city and county councils. The informal submission to Shared Strategy is expected to provide a reading on what federal agencies are looking for. ' • REPORT BACK ON OTHER ITEMS: A refined proposal will be available later next week to address the concerns about the EDT gaps in rating protection projects. It will be shared with Steering Committee members joan burlingame and Michelle Connor at a minimum. If ' you would also like to see the details, please contact Jean White, WRIA 8 Early Actions Projects Coordinator. SCIENCE CONSERVATION STRATEGY • Genetics study and related analysis will be undertaken to better determine how many independent populations exist in WRIA 8. Results are expected in the fall. ' • Please send comments or questions on the Science Foundation and the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy (Chapters 4 and 5 of the Draft Plan Framework notebook) to Brian Murray, WRIA 8 Technical Committee Staff Support (King County staff). ' Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 4 RELATION OF SCIENCE TO POLICY • To deal with difficult political issues, the process needs to be transparent, the rationale for decisions and trade-offs clearly shown. ' • Decision: The Actions chapter will include protection and restoration projects for the Issaquah population, but state that more scientific data is being collected and analyzed to ensure better understanding of level of risk before the restoration projects will be prioritized. • Decision: Need to prioritize actions; geographic distribution of some kinds of projects will be important. • Decision: Tier 2 projects may sometimes be used ahead of Tier 1 projects depending on criteria beyond benefits to chinook—e.g., community support, geographic distribution, feasibility. ' LAND USE • Decision: Yes, Steering Committee members want land use actions included in the plan. While the recommendations for specific actions in Tier 1 and 2 subareas should not be ' required, the risk to the resource of not implementing them should be shown. Jurisdictions should be invited to propose creative alternative actions that can also meet stated outcomes. ' Decision: Use the two-pronged approach, which offers specific recommendations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 subareas and a menu of land use tools that jurisdictions can implement. • Tier 1 land use actions, including recommendations for migratory corridors, nearshore, and Issaquah, will be included in the June 301h draft, with a note that Tier 2 actions will be ' included in the full plan. • Decision: Following discussion of the practicality of incorporating WRIA 8 science during comprehensive plan updates by 12/04, it was decided that the specific dates (12/04) should be deleted and replaced by more general language, e.g., "Jurisdictions should use WRIA 8 science during future comprehensive plan revisions, timing to be determined by individual jurisdictions." ' Other specific clarifications and additions were noted and will be made by the Service Provider Team in the next edition of the draft. Please send any further comments or questions on land use actions to Sally King, WRIA 8 Land Use Coordinator. ' INTEGRATION OF ACTIONS • Decision: Yes, the proposed method of integrating the various types of actions (land use, ' site-specific protection and restoration projects, and public outreach) is a useful tool. • Decision: Use less technical language in the integration matrix (as shown in the example). • Decision: Consider incorporating possible funding sources to the extent possible. • Decision: If possible, include processes in place to implement actions. NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: • April 14th and 28th are the next scheduled work sessions. o On April 14th, the expected topics are part of implementation through adaptive management, specifically measures and organization (Chapters 7 and 8 of the ' Draft Plan Framework notebook). In addition, a proposal will be made on how we can address the Shared Strategy questions by June 30tn o On April 28th, the implementation discussion will continue and will include the topic of funding (Chapter 9 of the Draft Plan Framework notebook). In addition, ' we will discuss the public review proposal for the plan. • A number of issues, questions, and suggestions were raised during the work session. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work ' sessions. (Some may require additional time and resources to follow through on.) ' Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 5 Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #3 April 14, 2004 , Decisions/Informational Items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. ' • How to note consensus decisions (head-nod) • Context for today's discussion • Monitoring, measures, and goals (decisions) ' • June 30`h work product and beyond • Examples of other watershed implementation efforts • Next steps/issues to be addressed ' HOW TO NOTE CONSENSUS DECISIONS • The facilitator proposed that the language for each decision be reviewed and verified by the ' Steering Committee on the spot so that agreement on decisions will be clearer. Steering Committee members nodded in approval of this modification to the ground rules. CONTEXT FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION , • Adaptive management is the framework for implementation of the plan and consists of four interwoven topics — monitoring, measures, and goals; organization and decisionmaking structure; funding; and commitments —that will be addressed today and at the next two work ' sessions. MONITORING, MEASURES, AND GOALS ' 1. Question: What should be emphasized for evaluating success? Response: The Steering Committee was polled regarding which of the already established plan goals they want to focus on to measure and monitor success of the plan. ' • Increased chinook and bull trout populations — 8 high, 5 medium, 2 low • Increased salmonid use of habitat— 12 high, 2 medium, 0 low • Improved and restored aquatic habitat— 14 high, 2 medium, 0 low ' • Increased populations of other salmonids — 0 high, 11 medium, 3 low • Improved regional actions for fish — 6 high, 8 medium, 1 low 2. Question: What is sufficient progress to achieve through this plan? ' Decision: For the mid-term goal of increased chinook populations, use these objectives: • Reduce risk of extinction ' • Productivity of Cedar and North Lake Washington chinook populations is lambda, i.e., greater than or equal to 1 (one spawner produces one spawner in the next generation) • Conserve genetic diversity • Caveat: will need to define "mid-term". Decision: For the goal of increased salmonid use of habitat, use these objectives: ' • Increased use of spawning habitat (not location specific) • Increased spawning habitat areas, i.e., increase existing areas and provide new ' areas (not location specific) • Cedar—greater number of reaches used for spawning • NLW—core areas spawning reaches maintained and satellite area shows , improvement to consistent annual chinook use of spawning areas Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 6 • Increased percentage of late vs early migrant juvenile chinook on Cedar River (for life history diversity) • Juvenile survival through lakes and migratory areas is improved. Clarify that migratory ' includes Lakes Washington and Sammamish, Sammamish River, Ship Canal and Locks, and Puget Sound Nearshore. t Decision: For the goal of improved and restored aquatic habitat, use these objectives: • No further degradation of habitat is a net goal for WRIA 8. The preference is for improvement of aquatic habitat, but no further degradation would be a minimum standard. • Set goals for improved riparian condition, forest cover, large woody debris, etc. (could vary by sub-basin) Decision: For the goal of improved regional actions for fish, use these objectives: • Increased number of actions taken ' • Increased number of regional projects • Increased funding spent • Increased number of people involved in programs ' • Caveat: will need to define "regional projects" 3. Question: What will we measure to show progress? Decisions for Implementation Monitoring ("Are we doing what we said we'd do?") • Appropriate staff will work together to develop recommendations on how to track and measure land use actions taken, taking into account changes to regulations driven by ' desire to protect salmon. This exercise should recognize and acknowledge that many protective regulations and other protective land use programs are already in place. ' • Implementation measures for other types of actions were not explicitly discussed. Decisions for Direct Effectiveness Monitoring ("Does the action do what we thought it ' would?") • Habitat Projects: • Audit/sample/spot check projects with relatively certain outcomes. ' • Link to and learn from other processes where monitoring is being developed for projects with uncertain outcomes. • Monitor where most uncertainty or in uncertain environments, which mean higher ' risk. • Education Actions: • Measurement of education is important. ' • Monitoring methods should be cost-effective. (Possible techniques to measure were discussed and suggestions included market trends, surveys, observing behavioral changes, and others.) ' • Use what is measured through other means and for other purposes where possible. Suggestions included drawing correlations to types of permits applied for, types of citations issued, TMDLs, and other means. t • Land Use Actions: • Monitor by jurisdiction the percent change in riparian conditions, the percent change in forest cover, and the percent change in impervious surface compared ' to percent change anticipated by growth projections. • Conduct this monitoring cost-effectively by jurisdiction. Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 7 Decisions for Cumulative Effectiveness Monitoring ("Are things improving?") • Monitor beyond just projects. • To determine trend in basin, include also non-project actions and predation. ' Decisions for Validation Monitoring ("Are chinook populations getting healthier?") • Adaptive Management Work Group, WRIA 8 Technical Committee, and the Service ' Provider Team will work together to develop a proposal to answer this question. Decisions for Overall Level of Effort on Monitoring ' • Figure out total costs, cut back as necessary based on priorities. • Cumulative effectiveness is key. • For June 30th Tier 1 draft, focus on developing a proposal to conduct cumulative , effectiveness monitoring and some direct effectiveness monitoring as well as collaborating to identify data gaps. • Link direct effectiveness of projects to cumulative effectiveness. ' 4. Question: When will we assess progress and evaluate needs for adjusting actions? ' Appropriate staff will work together to develop a proposal to answer this question. 5. Question: How should we collect and manage information? , Appropriate staff will work together to develop a proposal to answer this question. Parking lot: When will we address other species and do we need to add an additional goal to avoid future listings? ' JUNE 30TH WORK PRODUCT AND BEYOND This topic was for discussion today and will be brought back at the April 28" work session for a ' decision. The Steering Committee expressed an initial preference for the following two options: • Option B -- Final Phase I plan contains prioritized actions list for Tier 1 AND non-prioritized list of actions for Tiers 2 and 3 (i.e., use Near-Term Action Agenda for the interim). No site- ' specific actions for Tier 3. Prioritization for Tier 2 will be added in the next phase. • Option D -- Final Phase I plan contains prioritized actions list for Tiers 1 and 2. No site- specific actions for Tier 3. , • The Steering Committee also expressed a preference for submitting the final Steering Committee proposed draft plan to the WRIA 8 Forum in January 2005 (meaning the formal 90-day clock for Forum review and approval or remand would start in January). ' The Conservation Plan Manager will develop schedules and tasks for these options and present them for Steering Committee decision on April 28th. These proposals will look at what schedule and resources will be necessary and what level of detail is realistic in order to complete these ' two options. EXAMPLES OF OTHER WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS ' • There was a presentation on watershed efforts around the country that have made the transition from planning to implementation. In particular, the presentation looked at how other similar efforts have organized and sought funding. NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: ' • April 28th and May 27th are the next scheduled work sessions. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 8 ' 1 o On April 28", the implementation discussion will continue and will cover the topics of organization (Chapter 8 of the Draft Plan Framework notebook) and funding (Chapter 9). In addition, the Steering Committee will approve the schedule to finalize the draft plan for formal submittal to the WRIA 8 Forum. o On May 27th, the implementation discussion will finish with the topic of commitments (Chapter 10). The Steering Committee will also review and rank recommendations for project proposals to be submitted to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. • A number of issues, questions, and suggestions were raised during the work session. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. (Some may require additional time and resources to follow through on.) Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #4 April 28, 2004 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. • Getting to the final draft plan (decisions) • Organizational and decisionmaking framework for plan implementation (decisions) • Funding strategy for plan implementation GETTING TO THE FINAL DRAFT PLAN • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the "Plan Manager Option" for the schedule to complete the final draft plan. Under this schedule, the plan will be delivered to the WRIA 8 Forum in late February 2005. Public review will occur in fall 2004. See attached for the approved schedule and resource assumptions. • The Steering Committee discussed the importance of informing the public, local jurisdictions, and interested groups about the issues and the plan. The service provider team and the Public Outreach Committee will develop a communications plan to present to the Steering Committee. • The discussion on cost estimates was postponed until the May 27th work session, when it will be part of the discussion on commitments. 1 • Steering Committee members expressed interest in hearing more about what it would mean to conduct the "treatment" phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model. This will be provided at a later date. ORGANIZATIONAL AND DECISIONMAKING FRAMEWORK FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The following six questions were responded to through a discussion of seven functions necessary to implement the plan. Note: the WRIA 8 Service Provider Team left during this part of the work session so that committee members could feel free to offer ideas that differed from current organization. t. How should we accomplish the different functions that are critical to successful plan implementation? 2. Which should be accomplished through regional collaboration, and which should be accomplished by separate plan implementers? 3. What type and level of organizational structure is necessary to achieve regional collaboration where you've indicated you want it? Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 9 4. Should there be an oversight body or bodies? If so, who should participate? How should the work of this body or bodies be coordinated? 5. Is there a need for shared technical resources? Should there be a technical committee? 6. Do the functions that need to be accomplished suggest a need for staff support? If so, how should that staff support be provided? The Steering Committee discussed the following seven functions in order to answer the preceding questions. For each function, three options were provided that ranged along a spectrum from separate individual jurisdictional responsibility to collective regional actions. • Function #1: Tracking and Guiding Plan Implementation (Collecting and sharing information about completion of plan actions) — Decision: The third option best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. The third option calls for ". . . a defined process for tracking implementation (e.g., agreed-upon measures and a commitment to gather the data). Information is to be shared (e.g., on a web site). An oversight body is to meet on some schedule (annually?) to discuss implementation progress. Information on implementation is to be synthesized to support discussion among members of the oversight body." • Function #2: Making Technical Assessments about Effectiveness (Compiling and analyzing information describing the results of actions) — Decision: The third option best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. The third option calls for ". . . WRIA partners [to] work together to select and prioritize measures. Each WRIA partner is responsible for managing data collection, but agreed-upon guidelines ensure data can be compared. There is a defined process for `rolling up' the data at the WRIA level. Some of the highest priority monitoring is funded and managed by the WRIA. For that, the information could be collected by WRIA staff, a federal agency, a university or consultant. Potential role for a technical committee." • Function #3: Evaluating Progress and Making Decisions About Priorities (Receiving technical findings and using them to decide to maintain current strategy or make changes to the strategy and its priorities) — Decision: The third option best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure ' successful implementation of the plan. The third option calls for". . . formal evaluation and review of the plan, [including] performance measures and a predictable and pre- determined review process for trends and possible strategy shifts." • Function #4: Communicating Progress (Developing messages and information to describe effectiveness and progress toward goals/mission and share with funders/citizens/regulators) — Decision: The third option best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. The third option calls for"a regional communication strategy [to be developed through] . . . a WRIA-level process, [regional] support for . . . shared messages about progress . . . [implementing] plan actions, and shared communication tools (press releases, web page, etc.). Information is to be made available to partners and interested parties through brief reports at acceptable intervals." • Function #5: Managing Data that Describes Plan Effectiveness and Progress (Establish technical standards, identify roles and responsibilities, and build/maintain capacity and tools for sharing data) — Decision: A hybrid of the Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 10 second and third options best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. "WRIA partners adopt common protocols for data sharing. [There is a] possible technical committee role in setting technical standards. Data [can be] shared per [common] protocols via accepted tools (e.g., links to web pages) and venues (e.g., conferences)." A data clearinghouse for ease of access and analysis may be desirable, depending on costs, feasibility, and ' monitoring strategy. Such a clearinghouse would be used to store "data essential for keeping the Ecosystem Data and Treatment (EDT) habitat model and other tools current. The clearinghouse could be managed by shared staff, jurisdiction, consultant, or [other entity], including a possible role for a technical committee." • Function #6: Implementing Habitat Actions (Marshalling the capacity to implement plan actions, including site-specific projects, public outreach and land use actions) — Decision: A hybrid of all three options best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. "Actions are carried out separately by stakeholders and/or by local jurisdictions [where] the actions [occur]. [In addition,] WRIA partners [can] develop partnerships on an ad hoc basis where collaboration will aid implementation (e.g., a joint pesticide education campaign, an annual workshop to exchange lessons learned from levee setback projects, etc.). Regional programs [may be considered] to support action implementation (e.g., WRIA basin stewards, a project SWAT team to aid jurisdictions with project design or construction, or regional training on various land use management tools such as transferable development rights)." However, further discussion is needed to determine which specific programmatic actions should be a basis for collaboration. • Function #7: Securing Funds to Support Plan Implementation Functions (Identify, maintain, increase, and/or pursue funding for high priority actions) — Decision: A hybrid of all three options best approximates what the Steering Committee determined will be needed to ensure successful implementation of the plan. "WRIA partners individually raise funds to complete [their respective] high priority actions (capital improvement projects, research, outreach, regulations, etc.) [WRIA] partners agree to ongoing prioritization of actions for the watershed and for specified funding sources. Partners [are] kept informed about funding opportunities by a shared communication tool (e.g., web page, newsletter) [WRIA] partners collaborate to identify and pursue funding for plan implementation. Shared activities could include 1) fostering relationships with funders, 2) aggressively pursuing funding for high priority actions, or 3) organizing WRIA- scale lobbying." FUNDING STRATEGY FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Specific decisions were not sought in the discussion on funding. Rather, the Steering Committee provided direction for the funding strategy being developed for the June 30t" draft that will be further refined at future work sessions of the Steering Committee. 1. Questions: How much money would you like to try to raise and spend on recovery actions? Is the current level too high, too low, or about right? Response Summary: This cannot be resolved in isolation, but involves a give-and-take 1 between the expected biological outcomes and the costs of actions. The Steering Committee is comfortable with the current level of spending or a little more, but not less. The amount to ramp up will depend on the benefits achieved. We will need to better prioritize actions and to work even more effectively with the amounts we have. 2. Questions: Who should provide the funding? Are state and federal levels too low or about right? Is the amount from regional sources too much, too little, or about right? Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 11 Response Summary: It would be good to raise the funding coming from the federal and state governments, but twice the current level is difficult to expect. We need to consider that other states may be more successful at receiving federal funds because they are able to show multiple needs; in addition, in many cases, habitat conditions may be more severely degraded than in Washington state. When Congress receives the Shared Strategy recovery plan, it may be a good opportunity to lobby more actively for funds from the federal and state governments. While it may prove difficult to lobby for more money ' for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, there is other federal funding available, particularly for one-time capital expenditures, that we need to pursue. The current amount from regional and local sources are appropriate to continue. The King Conservation District fee needs to be renewed and there may be opportunities to work with the KCD board and the state to increase the per-parcel fee. We also need to remember non-monetary tools such as transferable development rights. , 3. Questions: When will the funding be needed? Steady stream or front-loading? Response Summary: The Steering Committee preferred a steady stream of funding. , Educational and marketing efforts are needed to sustain public and political interest over the long term. NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED The next scheduled work sessions are May 27tn, July 28tn, September 22"d, and October 6cn • On May 27th, the implementation discussion will finish with the topic of commitments (Chapter 10). The Steering Committee will also review and rank recommendations for project proposals to be submitted to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. • On July 28th, the Steering Committee will review Tier 1 actions, prioritization framework, and integration/tradeoff analysis. • On September 22"d and October 6th, the Steering Committee will review and approve actions lists and new analyses; review input from the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team; and finalize implementation (adaptive management) framework. • Per request of some Steering Committee members, at a future meeting or work session there will be a discussion on how the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model (EDT) can be used to support Steering Committee decision-making about alternatives, and the resources and time that will be necessary to complete this phase. • There will be an opportunity at a future meeting to hear about recommendations for harvest and hatcheries from the co-managers. • A number of issues, questions, and suggestions were raised during the work session. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. (Some may require additional time and resources to follow through on.) Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #5 May 27, 2004 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee , members. Implementation timeline (decisions) • Commitments and benefits for implementing the plan (decisions) Recommendations for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (decisions) Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 12 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE The following six questions were responded to through a series of proposals that are noted by corresponding decisions below. 1. What is the plan implementation horizon? 2. When will we check on efforts to implement the plan? 3. When will we begin to formally assess plan effectiveness? 4. When will plan progress and priorities be evaluated? 5. When will leaders convene to review plan status? 6. When does the plan implementation clock start ticking? Three options: • When Steering Committee approves the plan • When Forum approves and transmits the plan to local jurisdictions • When a critical mass of jurisdictions ratifies the plan as per the interlocal agreement 1. Decision: The Steering Committee approved a 10-year horizon for plan implementation. • There are multiple relevant processes, particularly on water quality and water quantity, that we may want to link to. One example is the water resource planning process described in HB 1338. • Determining which of these to link to and how formally or directly is a choice decision- makers can make in the future, considering available resources. • Although every jurisdiction differs, generally speaking capital improvement project (CIP) lists can be influenced more frequently than every six years as those lists are usually revised on a two-year basis that is linked to budgeting. CIP bonds are usually passed/ issued on a longer (e.g., 20-year) timeframe. • Monitoring should not be limited to the year class that spawns immediately after plan implementation starts because that would provide only two life cycles in ten years. To have more data to compare, the four year classes that exist over the ten years should be tracked. 2. Decision: The Steering Committee approved annual formal reporting of implementation progress. (Implementation monitoring measures whether implementers are doing what they said they would.) • It is important to communicate progress to the public. • The breadth and depth of the annual report will need to be determined and will depend on available resources. • Formal annual reporting can be supplemented by informal sharing more frequently among implementers. • It may be appropriate to develop a countywide planning policy on benchmarking plan implementation, so that progress would be included in the growth management annual benchmark report. 3. Decision: The Steering Committee approved that direct effectiveness be assessed starting in year 3 of plan implementation and be done every three years. (Direct effectiveness monitoring measures whether actions are doing what was expected.) • Effectiveness data should be collected annually but reports on findings should be made when sufficient analysis can be done to draw conclusions, such as every 3 to 5 years. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 13 • It is unrealistic and not cost-effective to make and implement major changes in priorities more frequently than every several years. • However, there needs to be some mechanism to raise a red flag if habitat is being lost or actions are proving to not be effective in improving habitat. • We need to communicate to public that it will take more than 10 years to see increased salmon runs and that change will be incremental. But we need to reassure the public that will make improvements if necessary. ' 4. Decision: The Steering Committee approved that plan priorities and results will be evaluated in year 5 of plan implementation. • Consider expanding the annual report in appropriate years to accommodate cumulative effectiveness information. (Cumulative effectiveness monitoring measures whether things are improving.) ' 5. Decision: The Steering Committee approved that an oversight body will convene at least annually and that a "summit' body will convene less frequently to review plan status. • The membership of these bodies is to be determined. Overlapping membership is a good idea, similar to the current overlap between Steering Committee and Forum. • The groups should meet frequently enough to maintain knowledge and familiarity with the process. • There needs to be a function to communicate to and educate the public to evolve towards a culture whose actions support salmon recovery (similar to the evolution in behavior on recycling). • If monitoring shows the need for course corrections, the oversight body would review and provide guidance. The oversight body would also link to the summit group (decision makers) on changes. • Oversight and "summit" bodies can meet more frequently, if needed, on other issues such as organization and operations. • Convening and maintaining these groups will require staff resources and operations dollars. 6. Decision: The Steering Committee approved starting the implementation clock when a critical mass of local jurisdictions has ratified the plan. (Note: The interlocal agreement defines ratification as "by at least nine jursidictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the total population of WRIA 8.") • Starting the implementation clock means when to initiate the reporting and evaulation cycle. • The baseline for monitoring can start earlier. The massive amount of data that was collected from reports and experts to build the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model could be used as the baseline for monitoring and reporting. • Implementation of actions can start sooner than ratification by the critical mass. • Implementation of actions is already under way through the Near-Term Action Agenda. COMMITMENTS AND BENEFITS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN The Steering Committee discussed four questions. Where decisions were made, these are expressly noted. Other items are points to consider as the issue paper from the Draft Plan Framework is developed into a proposal for the June 30'h work product. Commitment is a topic that will need to be revisited once the full slate of recommended actions is available. The WRIA 8 Forum and local jurisdictions will need to weigh in as well. Decisions on this topic will evolve through an iterative process. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 14 1. What benefits do implementers want? * 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; quality of life, including cultural heritage ' • Options preserved for the future • Change in culture, behavior, and thinking —a paradigm shift • Funding and assistance • Cleaner, colder water • Common priorities • Assurances for meeting various federal and state laws and requirements beyond the Endangered Species Act, such as the Clean Water Act, the Growth Management Act, NPDES permits • Regional cooperation and success on a difficult issue — Managing growth effectively — Public ownership of the problem/Holding ourselves and others accountable — Efficient use of resources and investments — Certainty and predictability for jurisdictions, private sector, and the public — Streamlined permitting — Distributed responsibility — Shared science — Public access • An informal poll found that the most important benefits to Steering Committee members were healthy salmon populations and habitat, ecosystem health, and legacy for future generations/quality of life. • The following also received recognition in the informal straw poll, although fewer votes: options preserved for the future; cultural heritage (part of legacy/quality of life); change in culture/behavior/thinking; funding/assistance; clearner, colder water; common prioirities; federal and state assurances; and regional cooperation/success. • Shared Strategy will need to acknowledge that the federal government needs to provide some sort of assurances in exchange for implementation of the plan. • Assurances and grants may be appropriate through other federal and state laws and programs in return for commitments to implement the conservation plan, e.g., under the Clean Water Act and through NPDES stormwater permits. 2. What Endangered Species Act assurances do implementers expect? • The Steering Committee does not expect to execute an Incidental Take Permit (Section 10 of ESA) that would require a formal contract with the federal government for specific actions spelled out in a Habitat Conservation Plan. • However, the federal government should reward commitments from local jurisdictions to implement the conservation plan through incentives such as moving implementers to the head of the permitting line on plan actions and more timely responses from permitting agencies for review of plan actions. • Implementers should tell Shared Strategy what they expect in return for their commitments, i.e., take the first step and not wait for the federal government to make an offer. • If local jurisdictions commit to implementing the conservation plan, then the federal government should endorse the plan actions and stand with the local jurisdictions should ' there be legal challenges. • The federal government needs to endorse the science that is the foundation of the plan. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 15 3. What type/level of commitments are appropriate? • Five options along a continuum of level of commitments were presented The first two options at the low end of the continuum (no formal commitments and coordinated regional process) were considered to be insufficient. • Either of the last two options along the continuum -- local government councils commit to implement particular actions or ratify/adopt the entire plan -- were favored. , • The middle option of local government councils passing resolutions to formally consider the plan as guidance was seen as a minimum commitment to participate. • The more assurances desired from the federal government, the more stringent the commitment will need to be. • The more stringent commitments implementers are willing to make, the more benefits and rewards they should accrue. 4. What accountability will implementers have? • Carrots should be used rather than sticks. Implementers will report progress, those who choose not to implement will not have progress to report. • Funding should still be available for implementation of plan actions to those who do not formally commit. However, perhaps they may lose some points. The Steering Committee posed an additional question: What types of commitments can entities and organizations besides local governments contribute to this effort? • There need to be mechanisms for non-governmental entities to sign on. • Examples could include public-private partnerships, funding and assistance from foundations, plan endorsement at public review sessions, helping in public outreach, providing political support. • Junior taxing districts need to be in compliance with local governments, so water and sewer districts will come on board through contract relationships with utilities. • State agencies may be able to provide grants through related programs, e.g., grants for improving water quality. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD • A report was provided on the status of previously approved projects. Please contact Jean White, Early Action Projects Coordinator, at 206-296-1479, if you would like a copy. • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the ranking recommended by the Project SubCommittee. For a report on the ranked projects, please contact Jean White, Early Action Projects Coordinator, at 206-296-1479. • In addition, Steering Committee members requested that the following points be noted: • All the proposed projects were deemed to be worthy of funding and the announcement of the rankings should state that. • Jurisdictions/sponsors should not be penalized for supplying a large match. • Benefit to salmon should be higher criteria than cost. • Redmond should be encouraged to pursue the Bear Creek project with the Corps even though the project did not rank number one. • Linda Smith from the Corps agreed to convene a meeting of Steering Committee members (Frank Urabeck, Terry Lavender, Geoff Clayton) who said they would offer support to Redmond if that would help get the project fully funded and implemented. • Bob Everitt from WA Department of Fish and Wildlife noted that proponents should consider submitting projects to the urban wildlife habitat section of the state's Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program because there are often not enough good proposals. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 16 NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED • There will be a regular 2-hour meeting of the Steering Committee on June 24th at which the co-managers will discuss recommendations for harvest and hatchery management and a representative from U.S. Fish and Wildlife will discuss expectations for bull trout, the other listed fish in WRIA 8. • The next scheduled work sessions are July 28tn, September 22nd, and October 6'n • On July 28th, the Steering Committee will review the communications/marketing strategy, Tier 1 actions, prioritization framework, and integration/tradeoff analysis. • On September 22"d and October 6th, the Steering Committee will review and approve actions lists and new analyses; review input from the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team; and finalize implementation (adaptive management)framework. • A number of issues, questions, and suggestions were raised during the work session. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. (Some may require additional time and resources to follow through on.) Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #6 July 28, 2004 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee members. • Action recommendations (decisions) • Marketing plan and public review (decisions) • Public comment • Updates ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the creation of an integrated start list of approximately 50 actions for each of the three Chinook populations. Land use, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach will be integrated into a single strategic start list to focus watershed priorities. Actions for the nearshore and migratory corridors will be included as part of the start list. • The integrated start list could serve multiple purposes. It could provide a manageable context for future discussions on regional collaboration, funding sources, regional versus local implementation, and ratification (i.e., what are we asking local governments to ratify?). The start list could also offer interim guidance to implementers until more information is available to increase certainty of benefits of proposed actions to Chinook. In addition, the start list could provide a manageable list for public and Forum review as well as for developing cost estimates, starting up the monitoring program, sharing resources for any collaborative organizational structure, and evaluating actions in the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model. The Steering Committee may want to revisit the purpose of the start list through discussions on funding, commitments, or other related topics at future work sessions. • Actions recommended on the start list are based on the science conservation strategy but have not undergone technical review. The start list comes out of the comprehensive lists for each action type and subarea that have been developed collaboratively with area experts and stakeholders. The intent is to include the highest priority actions on the start list, but the driver is to have a manageable number. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 17 • Beyond being included on the start list, actions will not be further ranked for each population, across populations, by type of action, nor across types of action. • While the Service Provider Team proposed a rough division of 25 site-specific habitat projects to 12-13 each of land use and public outreach actions per population, the Steering Committee directed that the specific needs of each population and area should drive the mix of actions. The service provider team will document the rationale used to develop the actions on the start list. • Decision: The start list needs to include actions at the landscape scale as well as the reach scale to ensure geographic equity and opportunities for implementation by all jurisdictions. • Actions that are high priority but challenging to implement need to be included as well as high priority actions that are easier to implement or ready to go. • The Steering Committee will be able to review the start list before it goes out to the ' public for review as part of the draft plan. • Decision: Up to five actions may be added to the start list through the public review process. Recommendations will be brought back to the Steering Committee to consider. • Decision: The separate comprehensive lists of land use, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach actions for Tier 1 subareas and migratory corridors will remain in the plan, and comprehensive lists for Tier 2 subareas will be added. Watershed-wide or basinwide land use and public outreach actions will address Tier 3 subareas. • For the public review draft, there will be no site-specific habitat projects in Tier 3 subareas, although the Steering Committee and the Forum could decide to address these in the future by directing development of actions for coho and kokanee. • Within each comprehensive list, actions have been or will be prioritized or evaluated through a collaborative process of area experts and stakeholders using qualitative criteria based on the science conservation strategy and other factors such as feasibility/ implementability and community/local support. These factors vary somewhat according to the type of action. • Comprehensive lists for Tier 1 subareas, migratory corridors, and nearshore are in the June 30`h Work Product that all Steering Committee members received. Comprehensive lists for Tier 2 subareas will be emailed to Steering Committee , members for review prior to the next work session on September 22"d • Decision: Following a presentation on how the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model could be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of conservation actions, the Steering Committee approved the request for the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to begin lining up resources that would start the Treatment phase in 2005 of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model. The T phase will allow alternative suites of actions to be compared on a relative scale. The Technical Committee expects to submit a King Conservation District grant application for this work. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife has also offered some staff support. In addition, the continued availability of Technical Committee members will be critical. • The start list and the comprehensive lists could be modified based on the results of the Treatment evaluation through an adaptive management process. Development of these lists, particularly the start list, is to be an iterative process. • Decision: Cost estimates will be done only for actions on the integrated start list. Where readily available, cost estimates will be included for actions on the comprehensive lists. Costs for land use actions will be difficult to estimate; the method developed by Evergreen Consultants for Shared Strategy will most likely be used. • Decision: Referring to the integrated map graphic for the North Lake Washington population that is in the June 301h Work Product, the Steering Committee directed that Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 18 similar integrated map graphics be developed for the other two Chinook populations and for the migratory corridors (total 4 maps). It was recommended that the language be less "jargon-y" and simplified for electeds and the public. • Decision: Referring to the matrix summary of all actions proposed for the North Lake Washington tributaries subarea, the Steering Committee approved the development of similar summary lists for the other two Chinook populations and the migratory corridors. The matrix columns may not be needed, but the summarized list of all actions by population is requested. MARKETING PLAN AND PUBLIC REVIEW • Decision: Following a brief review of public involvement in the conservation planning process to date, the Steering Committee reviewed and approved the proposed Marketing Plan for Public Involvement in the Chinook Conservation Plan. • There are two phases to the Marketing Plan. Phase 1 addresses the need to regenerate interest in salmon. Phase 2 will advertise plan release and means to review and comment. The two phases are not necessarily consecutive—some actions may be concurrent and overlap. • As a baseline, the following deliverables can be expected: • The key messages will be refined to reflect the science conservation strategy and draft plan and brought to the Steering Committee for review on September 22nd • Press releases and brief articles will be written for distribution to the media and newsletters of interested groups. • A plan summary will be created to help the public and electeds understand the key messages and main points of the plan. The summary (or highlights) will be distributed through various means, including community newspapers. • The plan will be made available on the WRIA 8 website and at city halls and libraries. • Notice of plan availability will be sent to the WRIA 8 electronic network of interested parties. • A presentation will be developed that Steering Committee members and others can present to their respective groups. • Four public open houses will be hosted throughout the watershed. • There are many entities who are already interested in or should be interested in the ' plan. These include existing salmon outreach programs, other related but less salmon-oriented outreach programs, special interest groups, those most directly affected by the plan, academic programs, and other salmon planning efforts and related programs. The various marketing tools listed above can be used to inform and coordinate with these groups by Steering Committee members, local jurisdiction partners, and service provider team staff as time and resources permit. • Other items such as working with the print and radio media to encourage articles and interviews will be undertaken as time and resources allow. • Some Steering Committee members also expressed interest in either having a video created or seeing what other salmon-focused efforts have available. [FOLLOW-UP: After the work session, the Watershed Coordinator was able to view the 13-minute video that the Tri-County Salmon Coalition has just completed and plans to distribute widely. WRIA 8 partners are welcome to use this video as well. It contains common messages and background on the salmon problem as well as what is being done and needs to be done to resolve it. Besides enticing footage of fish and streams, the video features interviews with county executives, Sam Anderson of the Master Builders, our own Terry Lavender, Al Barrie from Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group, two members of the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team, and natural resource directors of the Tulalip and Nisqually Tribes. The video highlights the importance of working together to leave a legacy of viable salmon for future generations.] Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 19 • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the following locations for the four public review open houses: • Renton, preferably east of 1-405. Carco Theater or the adjacent community center were suggested. • Seattle • Redmond. Clise Mansion at Marymoor Park was suggested as an easily accessible location. Other possibilities mentioned were the Redmond City Hall and the Senior Center. • Bothell. The Cascadia Community College was suggested. In addition, committee members recommended that Snohomish County, City of Woodinville, City of Mill Creek, and the Woodinville Water District be invited to co-host with City of Bothell. • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the following dates for the four public review open houses: • Tuesday, November 16tn • Either Wednesday, December 1st or Thursday, December 2"a • Wednesday, December 81n • Thursday, December 91n PUBLIC COMMENT • Three residents of the City of Sammamish — Ilene Stahl, President of Friends of Pine Lake, Marianne Wilkens, and Wally Pereyra —spoke at the start of the work session about kokanee and the need to protect Ebright Creek in the City of Sammamish. UPDATES • Terry Lavender reviewed the list of projects recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee for funding through the King County Conservation Futures. Terry and Ruth Norwood also gave a brief report on the success of Redmond Derby Days, which had a salmon theme this year for the Kids Parade. • Roger Tabor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, summarized results of his study of habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in nearshore areas of lakes. The primary nursery area for rearing Chinook is in the southern part of Lake Washington. Roger also made recommendations on types and locations of habitat restoration projects along the t lakeshore. NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED • The next scheduled work sessions are September 22"a and October 6tn • Expected agenda items: the Steering Committee will review and approve the start list, review input from the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team, and finalize the implementation (adaptive management) framework. • A number of issues, questions, and suggestions were raised during the work session. The Service Provider Team will bring these back to the Steering Committee at future work sessions. (Some may require additional time and resources to follow through on.) Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #7 September 22, 2004 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee members. • Collaborative/regional organizational structure Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 20 Measures and monitoring (decisions) • Action lists (decisions) • Funding strategy and level of effort (decisions) • Feedback from NOAA Fisheries and Shared Strategy COLLABORATIVE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE • The Steering Committee directed staff to revise the proposal for an organizational structure to implement the plan. The revised staffing structure should be headed by an executive director-type position, to bring high profile leadership to the implementation effort. This means the duties may need to be re-distributed among that position and two to three other staff. Also, the proposal should consider how to link this organization across WRIAs, possibly to or through Tri-County, and to Shared Strategy/Puget Sound- level effort. • In the new proposal, the connection between the proposed project committee and staff structure should be outlined to show who on the staff will make sure that habitat projects get done. In addition, more detail is needed about the role of the project committee. Planning function, e.g., for coho and other salmonids, is not currently included in expected responsibilities of implementation staff. This may need to be addressed at a later date. • Implementing the plan will involve at least as much commitment from jurisdictional staff on proposed working committees. • It may be appropriate to propose a list of tasks that the oversight body and executive director would want to address, such as whether and how to do additional planning (e.g., for coho), how and when to modify the action start lists and comprehensive lists based on adaptive management, and how to allocate regional funding as it ramps up ' over time. MEASURES AND MONITORING • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to present to the public the full-scale monitoring proposal that would cost about $1.85 million annually. • Monitoring results define success and are important for adaptive management. • The monitoring recommendation should describe related monitoring that other entities are doing and show how redundancies will be avoided in the WRIA 8 work. The recommendation should also explain why current levels of funding for monitoring by some government agencies will no longer be available due to changing requirements and priorities, budget cuts, etc. • One option to be considered, perhaps through commitments, is to offer combined regional monitoring that could be "sold" back to individual jurisdictions for their particular needs. ACTIONS START LISTS AND COMPREHENSIVE LISTS • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the purposes of the comprehensive action lists: • Use anytime throughout the process to identify and implement actions • Provide details about needed actions to implementers • Offer priorities for stakeholders and jurisdictions to implement locally • Provide source for additional input to start-list over time (the start-list is a subset of the comprehensive list.) • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the purposes of the action start lists: • Facilitate input from public and Forum by providing a manageable context for discussion Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 21 • Immediate implementation of actions — use to generate and approve Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District grant submittals and other regional funding opportunities for first ten years • Adaptive management tool — use to run the treatment phase of the ' Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model and to revise the action start lists based on results from running the model and from monitoring • Following the public review process, the Steering Committee may choose to add five wild card actions to the start list. • Once the plan is approved and ratified, the oversight body may want to develop a process to modify the action start lists and the comprehensive lists based on adaptive management. FUNDING STRATEGY AND RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF EFFORT • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to recommend a goal of ramping up funding over several years to base level plus 50 percent, about $17 million annually. • The Steering Committee requested more detailed options on how to reach base plus 50 percent, acknowledging that it will take time to ramp up to full funding and capacity. • It cannot be assumed that base level (equivalent to current funding) will automatically continue. Lobbying efforts for state and federal funding will need to be increased and coordinated among a wider group of jurisdictions than just in WRIA 8. New funding sources will also need to be created. FEEDBACK FROM NOAA FISHERIES AND SHARED STRATEGY • In August, the NOAA Fisheries Technical Recovery Team and Puget Sound Shared Strategy met with the WRIA 8 Technical Committee and the service provider team to , discuss the June 30th Work Product. General comments were favorable about the quality of the analysis and the recommendations. It was also an opportunity to clarify questions about particular items. (The Steering Committee was emailed the written comments from NOAA and Shared Strategy a few weeks ago.) • Since neither NOAA nor the co-managers supplied numeric ranges and targets for WRIA 8 Chinook stocks, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee is working with Anchor Environmental Consultants to use NOAA's methodology to determine the risk of extinction over different time periods for various abundance levels. This analysis does not answer the fundamental question of population levels that are sustainable and harvestable, but does serve as a milestone along the way to those objectives. This analysis is expected to be available for the public review draft. • City of Seattle will respond to NOAA's request for additional information on sockeye- Chinook interactions, Cedar flow operations, and the Ballard Locks based on the city's work under its habitat conservation plan and with the Army Corps of Engineers. • The genetics study that the WRIA 8 Technical Committee has commissioned from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is expected to evaluate the level of genetic variation that exists in WRIA 8 to see how much straying has affected independent populations. The Chinook surveys have shown how much hatchery strays contribute to the spawning population; based on last year's survey (the first year large numbers of clipped hatchery fish returned to the spawning grounds), the WRIA average is about 48 percent of all spawners, and 22 percent of spawners in the mainstem Cedar. Initial results of the study are expected to be available in November 2004, and a final report is due in February 2005. • The co-managers are responsible for determining hatchery and harvest management. NOAA Fisheries has asked how hatchery and harvest management might impact WRIA 8 habitat recommendations. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 22 j • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee is working through Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to find out from the co-managers how hatchery management proposals might impact the WRIA 8 habitat strategy for actions. This will be brought to the October 61h ' work session for the Steering Committee to review. • Elizabeth Babcock, NOAA Fisheries policy lead for Puget Sound, stated that Bob Lohn, Regional Director, is willing to talk with tribal commissioners to seek input from the tribes ' on hatchery and harvest management issues. NEXT STEPS/ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED The next scheduled work session is October 6cn • Expected agenda items: • Revised proposals based on Steering Committee input for regional/collaborative organizational structure • Additional information on the funding strategy and options to reach the Steering Committee's recommended goal of base plus 50 percent. Also, costing methodology for actions on the start lists and an example • Expectations from state and federal agencies and others for their role in implementation of the plan along with level and type of commitments recommended for local governments Review of the habitat/hatchery integration analysis the Steering Committee requested of the WRIA 8 Technical Committee that includes input from the co- managers, at least WDFW • Is the Steering Committee ready to submit the draft plan to public review? DRAFT Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #8 October 6, 2004 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee members. • Wrap-up of implementation framework: collaborative/regional organizational structure (decisions) • Costing actions — methodology and an example (decisions) • Wrap-up of implementation framework: funding (decisions) • Expectations of non-local-government implementers (decisions) • Habitat/Hatchery integration analysis (decisions) • Release of the Steering Committee draft proposal for public review (decision) • Public review open houses • Public comment WRAP-UP OF IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK: COLLABORATIVE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the revised proposal for an organizational structure to implement the plan from the regional perspective. The proposal includes an oversight body, an advisory summit body, several working committees, and shared staff headed by a high-profile executive director-type position. The shared staff will support the committees, advocate for funding, and coordinate implementation of actions in the plan. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 23 • Decision: The Steering Committee preferred that the focus of the shared staff be on WRIA 8, although links to and coordination with neighboring WRIAs and the Puget Sound-level body (such as Shared Strategy) is also important. • Steering Committee members requested that a recommendation for internships be ' added to the shared staff. Appropriate duties for interns could include technical work, assistance on public outreach, and working with volunteers or creating a resource list for volunteers organized by others such as basin stewards, Mid-Sound Fisheries ' Enhancement Group, etc. • As part of the collaboration at the regional level, local jurisdictions will be asked to continue at a similar level of effort as during the planning stage in order to participate actively on the oversight and summit bodies and the working committees and to work with the shared staff. • Planning for additional species or other issues is not included in the proposal at this time. The oversight body and appropriate staff may want to address this in the future. • A role for a body comparable to the WRIA 8 Forum may need to be included to oversee shared budgets and to continue the collaborative relationship built through the Forum. The WRIA 8 Forum may choose to address this issue during its review of the draft plan. COSTING ACTIONS — METHODOLOGY AND AN EXAMPLE • Decision: The Steering Committee approved including the ballpark cost estimates for , the Tier 1 actions from the start lists, noting that cost estimates for migratory corridors should be added to the version to be presented to the Forum in February 2005. • Decision: The Steering Committee directed that the site-specific and the programmatic costs be shown separately and not added into a single figure. • The cost estimates are planning level tools that will be superseded over time as the actions are refined and revised. • The cost estimates are a first draft roll-up and the mix of high and low reliability provides a rough average. Cost estimates will be refined as the action start lists are refined through adaptive management. • Cost estimates will be rolled up across the watershed in the main text of the draft plan. In the appendix, cost estimates by population basin will also be shown. • Costs for the programmatic actions (land use and public outreach) should be shown for 10 years to better correspond to the plan horizon. • Although the plan has a ten-year horizon, the start lists are not equivalent to what can or needs to be done in those ten years. Rather, the start lists are meant to show a manageable number (approximately 50 per population basin) of high-priority actions for funding and discussion purposes. • Completion of the Treatment phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model in 2005 should be used to modify the start lists to give a better sense of what will need to be done get the most "bang" for salmon. Then revising the cost estimates accordingly should help determine what will actions will provide the most "bang for the buck". • Cost estimates do not include maintenance of habitat restoration and protection projects. , Habitat restoration and protection projects are one-time costs. Programmatic actions may be one time or on-going. However, the cost estimates do not differentiate. • Cost estimates for the action start lists do not include costs for either monitoring or shared staff to advocate for plan implementation. Those are discussed in other chapters in the plan. WRAP-UP OF IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK: FUNDING • Decision: The Steering Committee approved recommending that the goal for level of effort to implement the plan be set at base (current) level plus 50 percent, which is $17.3 million per year. Appendix A February 25, 2005 , Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 24 • Decision: The Steering Committee recognized that extra work will be necessary to maintain current level of funding and to raise the additional funding. • The Steering Committee expects that funding will ramp up over the first few years of implementation as new funding sources are developed and approved. • The Steering Committee discussed possible new funding sources at the regional level. Regional could mean WRIA 8, multi-WRIA, or ESU (Puget Sound) level. ' • New state sources means money would be outsourced from WRIA 8 jurisdictions and taxpayers. However, Chinook salmon recovery needs to occur at the ESU (Puget Sound) level, not in WRIA 8 alone. EXPECTATIONS OF NON-LOCAL-GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTERS • Decision: The Steering Committee approved the lists of benefits of implementing the plan. • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to move one more item to the list of top benefits of implementing the plan. The additional top benefit is legal assurances from federal and state governments to local governments in exchange for commitments to implement the plan. • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to include in the draft plan actions that non- local-government entities could choose to implement. • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to propose as a starting point a list of possible benefits and assurances that could be considered for negotiations with the federal and state governments in exchange for varying levels of commitment by local governments to implement plan actions and the adaptive management framework. • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to offer a menu of mechanisms that could be used seek support from potential non-local-government implementers. • Information was provided to the Steering Committee on the possibility of"conditional delisting" as an incentive from NOAA Fisheries for local governments and other entities to commit to implementing actions in the recovery plan at the Puget Sound ESU level. This concept is currently under discussion at Shared Strategy; however, there is some question as to whether it would be a viable legal option under the Endangered Species Act. • Some Steering Committee members requested that language be added regarding the impacts the state and federal governments have had on habitat; e.g., federal and state roads have increased the amount of impervious surface, the federal government helped straighten rivers and build levees that disconnected rivers from their floodplains. Such language could be used in discussions with federal and state governments on the relevance of their role and need for their resources in restoring habitat in WRIA 8. tHABITAT/HATCHERY INTEGRATION ANALYSIS • Decision: The Steering Committee approved using the precautionary approach of planning for three Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 8 until the results of the genetics study are available and reviewed by NOAA-Fisheries and the co-managers. • Decision: The Steering Committee directed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to be clear in the plan that NOAA-Fisheries determines how many populations of Chinook salmon are in WRIA 8. • Decision: The Steering Committee directed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to be clear that hatchery operations are the purview of the co-managers. • Decision: The Steering Committee directed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to explain the question of the number of populations and to include the matrix on implications of population scenarios for the WRIA 8 habitat strategy and related hatchery issues in the rdraft plan. Appendix A February 25, 2005 1 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 25 • Decision: The Steering Committee directed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to provide the matrix to the NOAA-Fisheries Technical Recovery Team and the co-managers and to participate in future discussions on this and related topics as NOAA and the co-managers request. , • Habitat improvements are needed whether there turn out to be three, two, or one distinct population(s) in WRIA 8. Habitat improvements are necessary for hatchery populations to support recovery in WRIA 8. , • Steering Committee members requested the opportunity to review the revised language in the draft plan chapters on the science foundation and the conservation strategy before the plan is published for public review. RELEASE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW • Decision: The Steering Committee approved release of the draft Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan for public review. • Decision: The Steering Committee meetings scheduled for October 28t" and December 9t— h�been cancelled to encourage participation at the open houses. PUBLIC REVIEW OPEN HOUSES Steering Committee members are invited to attend any or all of the four public review open ' houses listed below. These will run from 6:30 to 9:00 PM: RENTON BOTHELL Tuesday, November 16 Wednesday, December 1 Maplewood Golf Course Club House Northshore Senior Center 4050 Maple Valley Hwy 10201 E. Riverside Dr REDMOND SEATTLE Wednesday, December 8 Thursday, December 9 Redmond Junior High Commons REI Flagship Store, South Meeting Rm 10055 - 166t" Ave NE 222 Yale Ave N PUBLIC COMMENT Terry Lavender, citizen, presented freshwater mussel identification cards that were produced ' by volunteers in Water Tenders through a grant from King County. The cards have been distributed to Salmon Watchers and county road crews. Freshwater mussels are important for filtering water. They start out as a parasite on salmon and live to be 120 years old. However, in Bear Creek, there are now none younger than 15 years old, probably because of the decline of salmon populations. Key Decisions from WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #9 January 12, 2005 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee members. • Proposed Critical Habitat Re-Designation • Overview of Public Review • Responding to Public Comments • Response to NOAA Technical Recovery Team's Comments on Plan • Start List Changes related to Site-Specific Actions • Start List Changes related to Land Use Actions Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 26 • Comprehensive List Changes related to Site-Specific Actions • Next Steps ' Proposed Critical Habitat Re-Designation • NOAA Fisheries is seeking comments on their recent Critical Habitat Re-designation. Comments are due by February 14, 2005. Donna Darm, Assistant Regional 1 Administrator, NOAA Fisheries, gave a presentation to the Steering Committee. • The proposal appears to exclude the North Lake Washington tributaries Chinook salmon population and the Puget Sound nearshore from being designated as critical habitat. ' However, Donna noted that the ESA Section 7 jeopardy standard is still expected to apply everywhere, including outside the critical habitat designation as well. But it is not clear whether this is the same level of protection as under the adverse modification ' clause in ESA Section 4 that applies to designated critical habitat. • The Steering Committee will discuss whether or not they wanted to provide comments at their January 19th work session. • Copies of Donna Darm's presentation will be provided at the January 19th work session. Donna will get information from NOAA as requested by committee members on number of stream miles in WRIA 8. Other information on the proposal can be found at NOAA Fisheries website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lsalmon/saimesa/crithab/CHsite.htm ' Overview of Public Review • Debbie Natelson, WRIA 8 Outreach and Stewardship Coordinator, gave a presentation on the public review process. The process was built on the two phases directed last summer by the Steering Committee. These were (1) need to regenerate interest in salmon and (2) advertise plan release and means to review and comment. • Initial public outreach started with groups that have already been involved in the WRIA 8 process, including: Water Tenders, Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, Cedar River Council, Friends of the Cedar River Watershed, American Rivers Council, and Puget Sound Anglers. Also coordinated with existing salmon outreach programs, including: Salmon Watchers, Cedar River Naturalists, Beach Naturalists, Stream Team, and Fall for Salmon. • Expanded outreach on the plan to other less salmon-oriented outreach programs, including: Natural Yard Care Neighborhoods Program, Master Gardeners, Heron Helpers, Native Plant Salvage Program, and EnviroStars. • Notices were sent to special interest groups including: Fishing Clubs, Mountains-to- Sound Greenway, Cascade Land Conservancy, Washington Native Plant Society, Sierra Club, the Mountaineers, People for Puget Sound, and other non-profits. • Coordinated with the business community, including: the ESA Business Coalition, the ' North Seattle Industrial Area Businesses, and the Marine Business Coalition. • Connected with academic programs including: high school classes, science/eco clubs, and at the college level: Fisheries/Watershed Studies, Center for Urban Horticulture/Ecological Restoration Program, School of Marine Affairs, Forestry, College of Architecture & Urban Planning/Building Construction, Public Policy & Administration/Government Affairs. • Press releases were sent to the media. The following newspapers did articles: The Seattle Times, King County Journal (twice), Renton Reporter, Valley Voice, Bothell Bylines, Beacon Hill Press, and there is an upcoming article in the Daily Journal of Commerce. There was a radio interview on KUOW, and KVI Home Improvement Show has offered to do a future interview about salmon-friendly building practices. • There has also been good TV and video coverage: the Tri-County video is available and airs on many local government channels, the public review announcement and Open Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 27 r House schedule aired on many local government cable channels, and the Seattle Salmon ' Recovery Forums were televised on the Seattle cable channel. • The following marketing tools were developed for the public comment process: We're Fishing for Your Comments flyer— almost 10,000 were distributed; Our Kings: Legend or ' Legacy? brochure summarizing the plan; and the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Plan Executive Summary. • The plan was available: on WRIA 8 website, at 23 city halls, permit centers, and county , buildings, and at 34 city and county libraries. • Presentations were given to the following groups: 9 city councils (there are requests from 9 more governments for presentations upcoming), 4 business groups, the Watershed Stewardship Fair, and to groups represented by Steering Committee members. • Four Plan Review Open Houses were hosted in Renton, Bothell, Redmond and Seattle. Open Houses were attended by 125 citizens, 8 Steering Committee/Forum members, 11 Steering Committee (non-Forum) members, and 4 Forum members (non-Steering Committee). Responding to Public Comments • Cyrilla Cook, WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Manager, gave an overview of the comments received on the plan and proposed how public comments could be processed to facilitate Steering Committee review given the tight timeline. , • In order to have a transparent process, the final plan will include a spreadsheet containing a summary of all public comments and how they are being addressed. • The proposal was to formally bring to the Steering Committee comments requiring Steering Committee review and decision and/or needing policy discussion and decisions. Comments where changes would not impact salmon or implementers (e.g., clarifying chapter text, clarifying details of an action) would not be formally presented. Also comments where no action is needed because they support what is already in the plan, or are outside the scope of the plan would not be brought forward. Where there is any doubt, comments will be brought to the Steering Committee for review. • Decision: The Steering Committee wants to see a summary of all the comments received. The chart does not have to include the proposed response to the comment at this time. The service provider team will attempt to send a rough summary of the comments before the January 19th work session. Response to NOAA Technical Recovery Team's Comments on Plan • Brian Murray, King County, WRIA 8 Technical Committee Staff Support, reviewed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee's proposed response to the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team's (TRT) comments on June Draft WRIA 8 Plan (they did not review the ' November 121h Draft). • The TRT's comments to increase the certainty of the plan recommended clarifying our assumptions in ways that will strengthen/enhance the science chapters without changing the substance and called for additional analysis in both the short and long term. r r r Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 28 1 rTRT Comments: WRIA 8 Technical Com. Steering Recommendation for Feb. 2005 Committee Draft Decision Clarify and Document Assumptions: 1. Highlight where multiple lines of Change. In EDT appendix, add brief Agree evidence are used to link land use, overview of consistency of EDT habitat forming processes and habitat diagnosis with existing studies such condition to Chinook population as basin plans, Lake Washington response; Present any habitat or research, etc population data that supports the hypotheses independent of the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment Model (EDT) results 2. Create a logic-driven qualitative model Change. Document how watershed Agree between the land use conditions in both evaluation was used as a check on watersheds and the habitat-forming the validity of EDT inputs and processes that could be used to bridge outputs the conceptual gap between watershed condition and EDT 3. Include a discussion of the flow: habitat Change. Additional materials have Agree. Will also assumptions from the Cedar River been provided by City of Seattle and reference City of Habitat Conservation Plan were sent to the TRT in August Kent HCP currently 2004. Descriptive information only— in development. no recommendations. 4. Examine and discuss the implications of Change. Additional materials have Agree the sockeye hatchery program for the been provided by City of Seattle and habitat strategy in the Cedar River. were sent to the TRT in August 2004. Descriptive information only— no recommendations. 5. If there is direct evidence linking land Change. Provide references— Agree use intensity and changes in habitat Booth, Karr, Konrard, et al, many of condition to any or all Viable Salmonid which are documented in King Populations (VSP) parameters, it should County's Best Available Science be brought into the plan and report documented; 6. Without investing in the EDT treatment Change. Add matrix explicitly Agree phase, use the diagnostic information to documenting hypotheses in Chapter derive some life stage-specific 4, linking VSP to life stages to key hypotheses for VSP parameters and in-stream habitat attributes to habitat conditions; landscape factors 7. Provide empirical evidence of the Change. Add peer-reviewed Agree actions' effectiveness for improving literature citations to support habitat conditions and VSP attributes. hypotheses about technical recommendations 8. Include the evaluation of the regulatory No Change. Part of adaptive Agree and non-regulatory actions in the management ' adaptive management plan. r Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 29 9. Obtain the harvest and hatchery No Change. Implications of Agree assumptions for the populations and hatchery management program other hatchery programs that affect assumptions discussed in those populations and clarify the November draft. PREVIOUSLY assumptions for effects on the VSP REVIEWED BY STEERING parameters. Use these assumptions to COMMITTEE. evaluate the interaction of the habitat strategy with the other H strategies Additional Analyses Recommended for the Near and Long-Term 1. Discuss the assumptions for current path Change. For February, include Agree, but WRIA 8 land use on the protection of existing watershed evaluation analysis of Technical Com. habitat conditions and VSP parameters 10 years into the future based should be sure to on the growth in the previous 10 include the years, identify sub-basins at appropriate caveats hi/med/lo risk about the • No Change. During 2005 — limitations of using ' Evaluate impacts of land cover past land cover change (from Puget Sound change analysis to Regional Council) using predict future land hydrologic models as an input to cover conditions. EDT In particular, land • No Change. In the long-term, cover change over enhance analysis using growth the past ten years and land cover projections from does not reflect the the Puget Sound Regional impacts of Council and UrbanSim regulatory changes implemented in the 1990s. 2. Use EDT to evaluate the restoration No Change— Key task of WRIA 8 Agree actions proposed in the plan. Document the Technical Com. 2005 work program. assumptions used to set the input parameters for this work and compare with the projects derived from the diagnostic phase 3. Conduct a sensitivity analysis of the EDT No Change —Addressed during Agree model so that the relative importance of the 2005. Consultant developing tool to assumptions and inputs can be understood. conduct sensitivity analysis by spring 2005 for all EDT users. 4. Begin collecting juvenile survival data for No Change — included in monitoring Agree different habitat types used by the and evaluation chapter (chapter 6), populations tied to goals and objectives ' identified in chapter 4. 5. Using the watershed evaluation as a No Change— long term Agree start, develop and apply an evaluation recommendation. Land use and model to monitor and evaluate suspected flow process models developed in mechanisms between land use, processes 2005 with subsequent refinements and habitat conditions to reflect Puget Sound Regional , Council growth projections. r Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 30 6. Develop the monitoring and evaluation No Change — 2005 work program Agree elements for the adaptive management ' program. These elements should be included: decision model, criteria for decision points, metrics, monitoring protocols, data required, management alternatives at decision points. 7. A thorough analysis of the regulatory No Change. Partially addressed in Agree framework that reveals gaps in protection 2005 work program through and evaluates effectiveness should be Treatment phase evaluation of carried out for these watersheds. future land cover conditions. 8. Develop recovery goals—even interim No Change. Outside of WRIA 8 See text below this ones—for both populations scope. Interim Recovery Goals chart for details. may be discussed by WA Dept. Add description of of Fish and Wildlife at the various methods 1/19/04 Steering Committee used to work session approximate • Change. Range of possible abundance ' abundance numbers coming objectives and from extinction risk analysis. results, along with Note that these numbers are for work program for extinction and NOT bringing this ' sustainable/harvestable, and information to the that they will not constitute Steering capital R `Recovery Goals'. Committee for These numbers are intended to discussion of long- be used along with other term goals. Include estimates to help the WRIA 8 information from Technical Com. identify WA Dept. of Fish reasonable long-term objectives and Wildlife if that can be used to put habitat available. ' actions in the appropriate Proposed text context (NOTE— analysis is on- should be sent to going and not yet reviewed by the Steering Com. WRIA 8 Technical Com. as of via email for their 1/6/04) approval before including in February draft. November comment letter, the TRT states that no recovery actions were Other: In their Nove rY identified in the WRIA 8 plan. Based on additional discussions with the TRT, it is now apparent that the TRT does not consider an action to be a recovery action until the relative effectiveness at improving VSP attributes has been evaluated. Under this definition, WRIA 8 will not have `recovery actions' until the Treatment phase (and attendant watershed evaluation of future conditions) is complete in 2005. The TRT committed to providing a letter clarifying this assumption. • Decision: Brian Murray asked the Steering Committee if they would be comfortable including long-term abundance measures from the WRIA 8 Technical Committee if they aren't available for review on 1/19/05. The Steering Committee was not comfortable with including tong-term abundance measures in the plan without an opportunity to review and discuss the policy implications of these numbers. They decided to include in the plan: Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 31 • a description of the methodologies that will be used by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to develop a range of potential abundance numbers; • a description of what the results of these methodologies might look like; • the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's abundance numbers (if these are available in time); • a work program for developing the potential abundance numbers and presenting this information to the Steering Committee; and • caveats stating that the abundance objectives are intended to be used to help WRIA 8 gage progress, and do not constitute Recovery Goals as the establishment of Recovery Goals is the purview of the Co-Managers. , Start List Changes related to Site-Specific Actions • There were requests to add 22 site-specific actions to the Start List including 3 new Lake Sammamish projects primarily benefiting Kokanee, 9 Cedar River projects, 1 Nearshore project, 3 North Creek projects, and 6 Little Bear projects. Except for the Lake Sammamish projects, the others were all already on the Comprehensive List. The Steering Committee had previously decided that they could add up to five additional actions from public comment to the Start List as "wild cards". • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to add the following site-specific projects as "wild cards" to the Start List: 1. Daylight Zacusse Creek and enhance mouth (Lake Sammamish kokanee project) 2. Enhance mouth and lower reaches of Ebright Creek (Lake Sammamish kokanee project) 3. C252, C256 Cedar River Dorre Don Meanders Reach Acquisition 4. N379 Work with landowners in reach 5 of North Creek to restore creek. • Decision: There were two requests to remove site-specific projects from the Start List (N367 Floodplain Restoration in reach 2 of North Creek; C216 Study options to protect habitat in reach 4 of the Cedar River and reduce flooding/erosion in Ron Regis Park). The Steering Committee decided not to remove site-specific projects from the Start List. , Start List Changes related to Land Use Actions • There was 1 request to remove a land use recommendation from the Start List: Land Use Actions to be Context Additional Information Steering ' Deleted Committee Decision 1. Delete actions that NLW Existing actions Keep in start include local jurisdictions as Population, supported by local list as written part of solution to instream Tiers 1 and authority over stormwater (see NLW flows, based on premise that 2; not management, exempt start list, pg. only the state has authority supported by wells, water 8, 41h bullet) and responsibility to address Conservation conservation, HCPs, etc. instream flows. (e.g., N102, Strategy N25 • There were 9 requests to change land use recommendations in the Start List. All of these recommended changes provide detail or clarification to existing actions on the Start List; they do not alter the intent of the existing action. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 32 Land Use Actions to be Context Additional Steering Changed Information Committee Decision 2. Add specific language to Applies to Tier Clarifies/details Agreed to change. flow-related actions: 1 in all 3 existing actions Determine where illegal population surface water withdrawals areas; are happening and enforce consistent with the law ....Follow-up on Conservation enforcement to ensure Strategy withdrawals do not continue. 3. Add to several actions: Applies to Tier Clarifies/details Agreed to change. additional references to 1 in all 3 existing actions King County Agricultural population and Forestry Programs areas; consistent with Conservation ' Strategy 4. Add to water quality Applies to Tier Clarifies/details Deferred to actions: retrofit stormwater 1 in all 3 existing actions January 19th work ' facilities that have been population session. rendered ineffective over areas; time and/or that do not consistent with ' meet current SWM Manual Conservation standards. Strategy 5. Add to N731 (and add Applies to Tier Clarifies/details Add to addendum similar action to all 3 1 in all 3 existing action in plan of potential ' populations): procedure to population projects raised follow up on complaints areas; during public filed about alleged consistent with comment process violations. Conservation for future analysis. Strategy 6. For actions about water Applies to Tier Clarifies/details Agreed to change. ' quality, stormwater, and 1 in all 3 existing actions; forest cover: place more population add language in emphasis on low impact areas; Chaps. 2 and 5 development and its consistent with benefits (note Snohomish Conservation County Sustainable Strategy Development Task Force as model). 7. Change "prohibit new NLW Weakens existing For consistency, development in floodplains" Population, language; change use Cedar Tier to "discourage new Tier 1; not already made to 1 language for all 3 development in supported by Cedar populations: "Limit floodplains." (N15) Conservation new development ' Strategy in floodplains and channel migration zones . . . ; develop and apply standards which ' Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 33 Land Use Actions to be Context Additional Steering Changed Information Committee Decision minimize impacts to salmon." 8. Add to action about Cedar River Clarifies/details Agreed to change. protecting tree cover in Population, existing action urban areas: In developed Tier 1; (language changes urban areas protect consistent with clarify what tools remaining trees ands Conservation best apply in ' encourage reforestation Strategy developed vs. through street tree undeveloped programs, tree protection urban areas) , regulations, etc. In new developments and plats support replanting and replacement as well as cluster development, recognizing that urban densities require significant tree removal. Add reference to protection of vegetation in sensitive areas through CAO. C3 9. Add language to Cedar River Clarifies/details Agreed to change, stormwater actions that Population, existing actions include in all , jurisdictions should adopt Tier 1; populations. and enforce stormwater consistent with regulations or programs as Conservation part of NPDES Phase 1 Strategy and Phase 2 permit requirements. 10. Add language to action Cedar River Clarifies/details Agreed to change. on protecting riparian Population, existing action vegetation in urban areas: Tier 1; to encourage planting consistent with through incentives rather Conservation than through prescriptive Strategy codes. (C5) Comprehensive List Changes related to Site-Specific Actions • There were 11 request to add site-specific actions to the Comprehensive List: ' Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 34 Site-Specific Projects to be Added Context Additional Steering Com. Information Decision ' Tier 1, Requests to Add New Projects to Com rehensive List Add 2 restoration projects to Cedar 1st primarily benefits Has not been Deferred until River: Sockeye, but also reviewed by January 19th for provides rearing and Cedar River policy discussion 1. Spawning and rearing channel in refuge habitat for experts or WRIA on whether or not reach 3 primarily providing spawning Cedar River 8 Technical projects that are habitat for sockeye salmon, but also Chinook Population; Committee. already being ' rearing and refuge habitat for 2nd Multi-species done by Chinook. benefit; jurisdictions Tier 1 subarea (particularly for 2. Landsburg gravel supplementation mitigation) should project— place up to 1,000 cubic be included in the yards of spawning gravel per year in Comprehensive reach 18 for 10 years (or 10,000 List. cubic yards). 3. Concerns expressed about Issaquah Population Has not been Do not add. potential impacts to salmon from the primarily; Tier 1 reviewed by (Would need to Lake Sammamish Rowing Club on migratory Sammamish address the Sammamish River, Reach 6. River experts or motorboats, Could add restoration project to WRIA 8 Technical tubing, etc. to be investigate and mitigate negative Committee. fair.) potential impacts from Lake Sammamish Rowing Club. Tier 2, Requests to Add New Projects to the Comprehensive List Add 5 restoration projects to North North Lake Has not been Add to addendum Creek reach 7: Washington reviewed by in plan of ' Population; Tier 2 North Creek potential projects 4. Pond 6, installation of Subarea; Not experts or WRIA raised during settlement ponds/basins (H Benefit inconsistent with 8 Technical public comment ' to Chinook, H Feasibility) Conservation Committee. process for future Strategy, but most analysis. 5. Penny Creek culvert not high priority for H, M, L ratings replacement (M/L Benefit to Chinook provided by Chinook, H Feasibility) commenter. No additional 6. Nickel Creek culvert information. replacement (L Benefit to Chinook, H Feasibility) 7. Add conifers along Penny Creek at Mill Creek golf course and install LID rain gardens to reduce erosion (L Benefit to Chinook, H Feasibility) ' 8. Add conifers along Penny Creek between Huckleberry and Cottonwood Divisions ' (L Benefit to Chinook, H Feasibility Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 35 r New Projects Related to Noxious Weed Infestations r 9. The Sammamish River is a North Lake Has not been Do not include in regional center for infestation for Washington and reviewed by plan. Noxious , garden loosestrife (a Class B noxious Issaquah Sammamish weeds already weed). Any areas disturbed during Populations; Tier 1 River experts or addressed project implementation will be at risk migratory WRIA 8 Technical adequately in the of invasion. Add basinwide Committee. plan and through recommendation for eradication effort other processes. on garden loosestrife throughout ' Sammamish River. 10. Kelsey/Richard Creeks harbor the North Lake Has not been most extensive infestation of Washington reviewed by policeman's helmet (a Class B Population; Tier 2 Kelsey Creek ' noxious weed). Add basinwide experts or WRIA recommendation for eradication of 8 Technical policeman's helmet throughout Committee. Kelsey Creek. 11. The lower Cedar River is heavily Cedar Population; Has not been infested with Japanese knotweed. Tier 1 and 2 reviewed by Add basinwide recommendation that Cedar River large knotweed patches adjacent to experts or WRIA habitat protection and restoration 8 Technical projects be controlled (complete Committee. eradication is impractical). Eradicate the approximately 10 acres of , Japanese knotweed in the Upper Cedar. • Decision: The Steering Committee decided to also add the third Lake Sammamish , Kokanee project, which is to enhance mouth and lower reaches of George Davis Creek, in an addendum to the Comprehensive List for future analysis (project was initially proposed as a wild card addition to the Start List but not included by the Steering , Committee). • There were 2 requests to remove site-specific actions from the Comprehensive List: Site-Specific Projects to be Context Additional Steering Com. r Removed Information Decision 1. Remove Cedar River restoration Cedar River Project rated as H/M Remove from project C213 Explore additional Population; Benefit to Chinook Comprehensive List. modification of Elliot levee Tier 1 and L Feasibility. (lowering) to allow greater flow into subarea Concerns about constructed side channel. proposed project Commenter opposed due to mitigation reflected in notes in obligations (built as mitigation project) Comp. list. and concern that increasing flow behind levee will increase property damage. Question ecological benefit of project. , 1 Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 36 ' 2. Remove Cedar River restoration Cedar River Project rated as M Defer to Jan. 19th project C202 Remove Bridges at Population; Benefit to Chinook; when a Boeing Mouth of Cedar River and South Tier 1 L Feasibility. representative could Boeing Bridge (explore possibility if subarea Concerns about be present for area is redeveloped). Use of bridges proposed project discussion. ' expected to continue beyond first 10- reflected in notes in year implementation stage of plan. Comp. list. Next Steps • Decision: Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator, requested guidance from the Steering Committee on how to prioritize work products for the January 19th work session. The Steering Committee prioritized the service provider team's tasks as follows: 1. Prepare policy issues for discussion by the Steering Committee at the January 19" work session. ' 2. Write up and circulate the January 12th Steering Committee decisions. 3. Prepare and send out to the Steering Committee a summary of all the comments received on the plan. ' • The service provider team will strive to get all of these items done prior to the January 19th work session, but will prioritize their work per the Steering Committee's guidance. ' Key Decisions WRIA 8 Steering Committee Work Session #10 January 19, 2005 Decisions/Informational items are listed for the following topics. Decision items are shown as Decision. Other items were points to consider from Steering Committee members. ' • Land Use Policy Decisions • Changes to Commitments of Local Governments and Expectations of Non-Local Government Entities • Changes to Comprehensive Lists of Actions • Changes to Organizational Structure and Funding • Changes to Measures and Monitoring ' Other Changes to Draft Plan • Role of Steering Committee during Forum Review • Response to NOAA Fisheries' Proposed Critical Habitat Designation • Plan Ready to Submit to the Forum? Most of the day's focus was to determine whether and how the Steering Committee wanted to respond to changes proposed to different chapters and sections of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan through the public review process. Land Use Policy Decisions Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 37 Requested Change, Addition, or Deletion Steering Committee Decision ' from Public Comment Add to existing actions: Nominate high quality Add this action with additional introductory language: headwaters and spawning habitat as "Jurisdictions should coordinate with appropriate Outstanding Resource Waters (all 3 entities to nominate... populations) , Add to existing actions: Clarify reference to best Add this clarification as proposed. available science —WRIA 8 conservation strategy is one of many available BAS resources Cedar, applies to all 3 Add to existing actions: specific references to Make sure existing actions identify need to address SR-520, 1-405, and new SR-520 bridge in water stormwater impacts from major transportation and other quality actions (Cedar, North Lake Washington projects (including new and expanded roads) proposed ' [NLW] tributaries, Migratory) during 10-year time frame; do not add references to specific roads. Note impacts are from existing and future road runoff. Add to existing actions: Support update of 1993 Add this clarification as proposed. North Creek Watershed Plan and 2002 Drainage Needs Report to address groundwater , detention and recharge (NLW Tier 2 Add to existing actions: Address application of Do not add this clarification to existing action; add to herbicides on aquatic weeds, involve State existing action: "coordinate with relevant agencies." Depts. of Ecology and Agriculture (Migratory) Add details to actions about altered hydrology Do not make this clarification. and oil spills (Nearshore Requested Change, Addition, or Deletion Steering Committee Decision from Public Comment , Add new action: Snohomish and King Counties Put this action on addendum for further analysis. Word should prohibit mining operations that damage the action as: "Counties should adopt regulations to Chinook habitat (not sure where applies). provide for: (1) a more comprehensive review of proposed gravel mining developments adjacent to or near waterways affecting salmonid streams; and (2) an increase in enforcement activity for clearing and grading and erosion control violations, especially in ' sensitive areas and near waterways affecting salmonid streams." Add new action: Require septic tanks to be Do not add this action; it is sufficiently covered by pumped and inspected every five years (could existing laws. apply to all 3 populations) Add to existing actions: retrofit stormwater Do not add this language. Do add action from Issaquah facilities that have been rendered ineffective start list to other start lists, but amend it as follows: over time (all 3 populations) "Identify water quality problems and address through stormwater management programs (including low impact development best management practices), current and future TMDLs, and livestock management programs, and upgrade stormwater facilities, where possible, to improve water quality and flows." I Change existing actions: Change "should not Word this action as: "jurisdictions should not move move urban growth area (UGA)" to "consider urban growth area boundary in Bear and Little Bear impacts to salmon ... habitat when considering subareas, unless such change is beneficial to salmon." ' whether to move UGX (NLW Tiers 1 and 2 Appendix A February 25, 2005 , Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 38 Delete or change existing actions: on forest Do not change existing actions. cover, transferable development rights, non- conforming uses, and low impact development (NLW Tier 2 Delete existing actions about coordinating with Do not delete existing action. South King County Groundwater Management ' Committee (Cedar Tiers 1 and 2) Delete existing action about considering impacts Do not delete existing action; add "coordinate with of climate change on flows (Cedar Tier 1) Shared Strategy's chapter on climate change." Changes to Commitments of Local Governments and Expectations of Non-Local Government Entities Public Comment/Issue Steering Committee Response Options Steering Direction to Date Cmte. Decision ' 1. Level of commitments Steering Committee NO CHANGE -- Plan offers a Agreed. requested of local governments. recommended as a range for local governments There was a range of comments minimum commitment from to choose among. Topic for at both ends of the spectrum, local governments: Forum to discuss further. although more called for firmer "city/county councils pass commitments: resolutions to formally ' Require local governments to consider plan as implement plan by: guidance and best - codifying plan available science for ' recommendations capital improvement - setting a minimum bar to projects, critical areas be eligible for funding ordinances, adopting regulations, comprehensive plan iincentives, outreach updates, NPDES [pollution before seeking more discharge] permits, funding required under state law". - signing formal interlocal Steering Committee also agreements offered two additional other - directing funding priorities options for local ' for open space to plan governments choosing implementation to make a higher level of - requiring clear structure to commitment. These are show how implementation local councils commit to and enforcement will occur implement particular - creating basin actions or local concurrency levels as for governments ratify/adopt drinking water, traffic the entire plan as policy). Local governments should See Chapter 8. set their own priorities, have flexibility on how to implement plan Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 39 2. Expectations of non-local Steering Committee ADD CLARIFYING DETAIL -- Agreed. ' governmental entities. recommended that Plan offers recommendations Also add Comments seek firmer requests "recovery of salmon be for support and participation language i of federal and state govt.: undertaken by a broad by others. Could add more that • Specify that future partnership that reaches details to list of examples of implement transportation and beyond local what is requested from state -ing juris- , infrastructure planning governments to include and federal government and dictions incorporate WRIA 8 plan and citizens, homeowners, how to request it. and stake- reflect salmon habitat needs community groups, non- Plan offers examples, holders • Get agreements and profit agencies, particularly in public outreach should ' specificity from federal and businesses, developers, actions, of opportunities for coordinate state governments on items public agencies, and the non-governmental entities. lobbying such as: co-managers." The plan efforts. - harvest and hatcheries offers examples of what Note that - delisting criteria these entities can federal - legal assurances implement. The plan also govt has ' - rewards/incentives for includes tools for non-local long-term implementation governments to show obligation • Collaborate on lobbying and support of plan to help other means to seek federal implementation as well as because and state assurances and various means to request their funding this support. See Chapter earlier , • Comments request role for 8' actions private lands. impacted watershed overlong , term. 3. Local governments should get Steering Committee has SEPARATE PROPOSAL- In Approved. credit for implementing habitat not discussed this issue. the interests of meeting the The restoration actions, including plan schedule, a proposal is progress past projects done voluntarily coming to the Steering report will Committee to recommend be scoped ' scoping a progress report that after the could include current and plan goes past actions. The scoping to the , process would allow more Forum for time to discuss the question review as well as contents, such as and types of actions to be approval. included and appropriate time period. i 1 1 Appendix A February 25, 2005 , Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 40 ' 4. Use mitigation as a vehicle for The Steering Committee ADD CLARIFYING Agreed to plan implementation has recommended that LANGUAGE in Chapter 8, both parts. ' other efforts such as state Commitments and Examples transportation projects Expectations, to give of state (e.g., rebuilding Hwy 520, examples of state projects projects widening 1-405) implement that should implement or fund should be or fund actions in the WRIA 8 plan actions as listed with WRIA 8 plan for their mitigation. statement mitigation. However, the that as Steering Committee has A proposal will be made at future not discussed whether to the January 19th work session projects give credit to actions local to scope a progress report on come up, governments are required current actions local those to do as mitigation under governments and others are should other laws. already taking that benefit also be ' salmon. As part of that included. scoping, there could be discussion on whether or how ' to give credit for mitigation already required under laws or permits. Changes to Comprehensive Lists of Actions Decisions Related to Site Specific Project Actions on Comprehensive Lists: ' • Requests to Add Site-Specific Projects to the Comprehensive Lists Site-Specific Projects to be Context/ Past Additional Potential Steering ' ADDED Steering Committee Information Response Committee Direction Decision Add 2 restoration projects to #1 primarily benefits Deferred from SEPARATE Projects will Cedar River: Sockeye, but also January 12th PROPOSAL: be considered 1. Spawning and rearing provides rearing and until January See "Proposal in proposed channel in reach 3 primarily refuge habitat for 19" for policy to Scope a Report on ' providing spawning habitat for Cedar River Chinook discussion on Report on Current sockeye salmon, but also Population; #2 has whether or Current Actions Under rearing and refuge habitat for Multi-species benefit; not projects Actions Under Way to Chinook. Tier 1 subarea. that are Way to Benefit Benefit already being Chinook Chinook 2. Landsburg gravel Has not been reviewed done by Salmon Salmon supplementation project— by Cedar River experts jurisdictions Habitat". A Habitat to be place up to 1,000 cubic yards or WRIA 8 Technical (particularly separate report scoped after of spawning gravel per year in Committee. The for mitigation) could be the plan is reach 18 for 10 years (or Steering Committee should be scoped as an finalized. 10,000 cubic yards). approved the process included in early progress for development of the the Compre- report on the Comprehensive List. hensive List. plan. • Requests to Remove Site-Specific Projects from the Comprehensive Lists Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 41 Site-Specific Projects Context/ Past Additional Potential Response Steering ' to be REMOVED Steering Information Cmte. Committee Decision Direction , 3. Remove C202 Cedar River Project rated KEEP ON LIST OR REMOVE: Remove Remove Bridges at Population; as Medium Decision deferred from January project Mouth of Cedar River Tier 1 subarea Benefit to 12th until Jan. 19th when Boeing C202 from and South Boeing Chinook; Low representative could be present Compre- Bridge (explore The Steering Feasibility. for discussion. Could keep on hensive possibility if area is Committee Concerns Comprehensive List given that List. redeveloped and approved the about proposed project came out of therefore bridges are process for proposed WRIA 8 process and the project no longer needed). Use development project description reflects the of bridges expected to of the reflected in uncertainty of situation and the continue beyond first 10- Comprehen- notes in concerns that have been raised year implementation sive List. Comprehen- OR could remove from list stage of plan. sive list. given the relatively low rating , this project received. • Requested Changes to Comprehensive Lists Related to Site-Specific Projects ' Requested CHANGES to Context/ Additional Potential Response Steering Site-Specific Projects Past Infor- Committee ' Steering mation Decision Committee Direction 1. 6 commenters were Cedar and ADD CAVEAT: Could add Agreed. concerned about North Lake language about needing to recommendations to add Washington reduce potential hazard of large woody debris to Cedar Populations; large woody debris River and Sammamish River Tier 1 placement to river users due to potential hazard posed with recommendations for to river users such as boaters Steering how it should be done to and swimmers. They had Committee Introduction to Chapter 9 specific recommendations to has Start List and Chapter 10 minimize the danger such as recognized Comprehensive List. ' wood being placed only by that the licensed engineer, and Conservation project teams consulting with Strategy organized river groups in highlights the project design. importance of LWD for , salmon, but also the need for public safety. , Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 42 2. Had 2 potentially conflicting North Lake FUTURE ANALYSIS: Agreed. comments about beavers. Washington Could add to addendum • One was concerned that Population; for future analysis. beavers have caused fish Tiers 1 and 2 barriers on Bear Creek ' that should be removed. Steering • The other said that Little Committee Bear and North Creek has not need more beavers and discussed. recommended changing land use adjacent to prime beaver habitat to permit greatest extent of beaver usa e. 3. Commenter requests edit Cedar Rated ADD TO COMMENTS OR Keep project ' to Cedar River C201 Explore Population; Medium ACCEPT EDIT: Could add description as it Opportunities to Improve Tier 1 Benefit to notes to the Comment is currently. Habitat in Reach 1. "If Chinook, section stating that Add to notes for existing land uses change in The Steering Low reducing channel project about the future, explore Committee Feasibility confinement in urban the difficulty of opportunities to fedWGe approved the center would be very reducing , process for difficult OR accept channel increase riparian function and development proposed edit. confinement in increase LWD." Says that of the Comp. urban setting reducing channel List. and the need to ' confinement is impractical in consult with the urban center. Corps of Engineers on any project in this reach of the Cedar River. 4. Commenter comments on Cedar C209 rated ADD CLARIFYING Agreed. C209 Maplewood Population; High LANGUAGE: Could add to Neighborhood flood Tier 1 Benefit to notes for Cedar River flood buyouts and floodplain Chinook, buyout and floodplain restoration and other Cedar Low recommendations River flood buyouts. Buyouts Feasibility. acknowledging that ' by themselves provide no buyouts alone do not benefit to fish. Buyouts only provide significant benefits have benefit in coordination to Chinook. They are only ' with comprehensive habitat a first phase of a future restoration in area of buyout. restoration effort. Hard to justify spending regional funding on flood buyouts when caused by one jurisdiction's past land use decisions and piece-meal ' nature of buying homes only from willing sellers makes it difficult to amass enough ' buyouts for habitat restoration to occur. Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 43 5. Public commenter Cedar ADD TO COMMENT No action. ' expressed hope that planned Population; SECTION OR NO Lakeshore Landing Tier 1 ACTION: Could add as Development could extend Migratory opportunity in notes for ' wildlife habitat that Gene Lake Washington project Coulon Park provides to the C270 Shoreline North along Lake Washington Restoration OR could ' shoreline and incorporate low take no action because not impact development enough is known about elements. this development. ' Changes to Organizational Structure Public Steering Committee Response Options Additional Steering Comment/Issue Direction to Date Information Cmte. Decision 1. Continued Chapter 2 proposes that NO CHANGE. By far Agreed. , collaboration, jurisdictions and the majority of including shared staff. stakeholders continue to comments on this A spectrum,of collaborate on topic were supportive comments ranged monitoring, reporting of the Steering from support to progress to the public Committee's proposal. questioning the need and electeds, and for shared staff and seeking funding collaboration 2. Role of the Forum Organizational structure OPTIONS TO If there is Agreed ' in implementation includes an oversight ADDRESS: another to body and a summit body; 1) Forum to discuss interlocal options 1 membership not yet 2) Propose joint agreement, and 2. specified session or conference local ' committee of Steering governments Committee and Forum as funders 3) Specify may want a membership of Forum-type oversight and summit body to bodies oversee , 4) Postpone due date budget of plan for additional discussion 3. Communicating Progress reports will be ADD CLARIFYING Agreed. progress should developed and widely DETAILS in Chapter 2 include landowners shared. to share progress ' reports with landowners 4. Consider executive Executive director NO CHANGE at this WRIA 8 is Agreed. ' director position to be position was time until the other ahead of the shared across all King recommended to keep King County WRIAs other King County WRIAs, have focus in WRIA 8 on are ready to discuss County WRIA-specific implementing plan their organizational WRIAs in , coordinators to ensure actions, lobbying for structures for discussions watershed interests funding. implementation. on organizational ' structure. Appendix A February 25, 2005 , Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 44 ' Public Steering Committee Response Options Additional Steering Comment/issue Direction to Date Information Cmte. Decision ' 5. Keep WRIA 8 Organizational structure NO CHANGE — Agreed. Technical Committee includes WRIA 8 Already included in Technical Committee Chapter 2 Changes to Funding Public Steering Committee Response Options Additional Steering Comment/Issue Direction to Date Infor- Cmte. mation Decision 1. Funding ADD CLARIFYING Agreed. ' implementation. DETAILS to include Comments offered a appropriate new range, many of which examples of funding are tied to and covered sources and in the commitments incentives that discussion. Included commenters offered. ' were comments to: Also, see response • keep current funding under commitments in place topic. ' • prioritize local programs to fund plan implementation ' • reduce property taxes as incentive to landowners to implement actions • accept charitable contributions 2. Joint funding of Organizational structure NO CHANGE — Plan Many Agreed. stewards discussion said do not cost- offers option of jurisdiction share public outreach, but funding stewards as s staff ' Table 7-1 on Capacity to regional action. these Implement the WRIA 8 Plan at functions in Various Funding Levels says different stewards could be funded ways. ' regionally as an action. 3. Surface water Local utility fees are used in ADD CLARIFYING Agreed. management fees part to fund habitat actions. LANGUAGE — In the should be applied only See Chapter 7. funding chapter to drainage issues and (Chapter 7), add not habitat actions language that ' clarifies that each funding source is applied as per the legal restrictions, authority, and choices of the ' funding agency. Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 45 4. Relate funding to Funding strategy is based on NO CHANGE -- Agreed. ' recovery objectives current spending plus Further explanation additional percentage Steering can be found in ' Committee believes necessary Chapter 7. to change the decline in Chinook population to a gain. ' In addition, the Steering Committee has directed the WRIA 8 Technical Committee to undertake the Treatment ' phase of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model along with other , analysis to better understand how far suites of proposed actions will move towards ' habitat improvements that benefit Chinook salmon. This work is expected to take about ' 10 months. 5. Add economic The land use actions include NO CHANGE — Agreed. benefits of sustainable recommendations on Appendix D-3-2 lists , stormwater stormwater management and several references management and low low impact development on these topics. impact development Changes to Measures and Monitoring ' Comment (Summarized) Proposed Response Steering Cmte. Decision 1. When monitoring, collect Direction was to focus on habitat and chinook, but Agreed. information for multiple incorporate multispecies where possible. Some of the species, not just Chinook. monitoring elements are already multispecies where would not incur additional costs. ' CHANGE: Note in the text those monitoring components that are multispecies, such as smolt trapping or watershed ' evaluation EMAP . 2. The WRIA should monitor Direction was to focus on areas of greatest uncertainty and Agreed. Low Impact Development "audit"other types of projects. The Plan states that specific ' (LID) projects. project implementation monitoring plans will not be developed until after ratification of the plan. CHANGE: Could insert text stating that developing specific ' implementation monitoring plan would be on the 2005 work plan for the Technical Committee. Appendix A February 25, 2005 , Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 46 3. The WRIA should focus on Direction was to focus on cumulative (system) monitoring for Agreed. quantifiable, system level both habitat and chinook. The Plan includes the ' measures to gauge the recommended monitoring, but as many aspects of the Plan, success of the Plan. The does not currently have a funding mechanism or designated Plan should "market" the lead entity. benefits of system level monitoring for politicians and CHANGE: Recommend inserting a paragraph at the other decision-makers. beginning of the chapter describing the Steering Committee priority for cumulative monitoring and why. ' 4. The Plan should Language regarding population parameters for use in Agreed. emphasize that the WRIA delisting is already in the draft under Validation monitoring. does not set population thresholds or delisting criteria. CHANGE: Need to clarify that this is not A) Insert similar population threshold language in the project level monitoring. cumulative monitoring section. B) Insert sentence in to state that the implementation (project) monitoring will not require chinook population response monitoring. 5. Add riparian index as part The cumulative monitoring includes a generic evaluation of Agreed. of the evaluation of riparian riparian condition, but does not include specific areas. recommendation for riparian index. ' CHANGE: insert riparian index as a potential option under cumulative monitoring. 6. Need to have thresholds Cannot include thresholds or "triggers" until commitments Agreed. ' for performance identified in and funding are understood. the monitoring, with pre- determined responses if CHANGE: Insert language that states additional work on performance does not meet decision-making processes will need to be conducted in ' targets. There is little 2005, after ratification. opportunity for the public to evaluate or challenge compliance with the adaptive management commitments. ' Other Changes to Draft Plan • Public comments related to schedule and process: ' Comment/Issue Steering Committee Direction to Date Steering Committee Decision ' 1. Not enough time to review Decisions 7/22/03 on schedule for plan NO CHANGE document/ extend the delivery to Forum comment period Use adaptive Decisions 4/28/04 on public comment management ' Delay action on plan until genetics period process process to study completed incorporate new Decision 10/06/04 to continue with plan; guidance Move plan quickly through Forum address genetic study results when and jurisdictions to keep momentum available through adaptive management for action implementation going Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 47 2. Delete recommendation that Decision on 4/10/04; keep plan actions NO CHANGE Issaquah restoration be put on hold consistent with precautionary approach recommended by conservation strategy Stay with ' precautionary Decision on 10/06/04; hold on changes approach; use addressing plan priorities until genetic study adaptive ' results completed and reviewed by Steering management Committee, NOAA Fisheries Technical processes to make Recovery Team changes 3. Plan should include multi-species Ecosystem-based, with Chinook focus. NO CHANGE ' approach Habitat modeling includes coho • Will monitor habitat for multi-species Move forward with • Can run Chinook actions through model submittal to Forum to see if benefit to coho • Additional analysis needed to develop conservation strategy and actions • Public comments requesting additional analyses: Comment/Issue Steering Committee Direction to Steering Committee Date Decision 4. Needs cost-benefit analysis Decision has been to move forward NO CHANGE , so prioritization is based on with plan without this analysis; outcome and dollars spent incorporate results of Treatment (Cost estimates already efficiently phase of Ecosystem Diagnosis and included in plan. Incorporate ' Treatment model and other new new information about relative information as part of adaptive benefits of actions through management adaptive management , rocess 5. Include impacts of major Take advantage of other planning NO CHANGE. See decisions transportation and other efforts under land use regarding how ' projects proposed during 10 to address impacts year time frame. Both 1-405 Be coordinated with responses to the and SR-520 lack water Clean water act detention//treatment facilities, , and are proposing to add The land use actions currently acres of new pavement that address the need for water quality will not be addressed. improvements. ' Appendix A February 25, 2005 ' Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 48 • Public comments requesting major format changes: Comment/Issue Steering Committee Steering Committee Decision Direction to Date 6. Include reach maps NO CHANGE ' . Technical Committee will make maps available on web site. • Web site location will be printed in plan 7. Move background Be presented as multiple CHANGE information to volumes or chapters that can Service Provider (ILA) Team proposes to appendices to improve be understood by and divide plan into three volumes: readability directed to different • Volume I : Chapters 1-9 (includes start list) audiences. • Volume II (comprehensive list, including methodology) • Volume III —all other supporting information (technical appendices and other appendices) • Introductory language will be provided in each volume describing where to find things • Requests to Add Public Outreach Actions to the Comprehensive Lists Proposed Addition to Context Additional Steering Comprehensive Lists Information Committee Decision 1. Add Cedar River Naturalist Cedar Population, all Omission was CHANGE Program to outreach actions tiers. Program addresses oversight; program many elements of mentioned in funding Add action to Conservation Strategy. section of plan, but not public outreach listed as an action in section of Cedar Comprehensive List. Comprehensive List • Requested Changes to Comprehensive Lists Related to Public Outreach Proposed Changes to Context Additional Steering Comprehensive Lists Information Committee Decision 2. Sammamish River Trail North Lake Washington Action list currently NO CHANGE should be the main site for Tributaries Population; recommends ' interpretation. Tier 1 Production interpretive signs, but (Do not add site- Subarea, Sammamish the public outreach specific locations River Sub-basin. actions do not list to the public Supports Conservation specific locations outreach actions Strategy. list Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 49 3. Change Site Specific action Cedar River Population, Augment actions with CHANGE C10 to a public outreach Tier 1. Consistent with clarifying details. action...effort to better educate conservation strategy. Add clarifying ' the public about the habitat language about benefits of having large woody large woody debris in streams and rivers will debris and , reduce the demand from the boaters public to remove it. • Include targeting The pamphlet on river safety education of ' ...cited in ...plan should youth reference to the danger of large woody debris and other objects that act as strainers. ...ensure that future printings include this very serious issue. ' Other Plan-Related Items ' • The November 12th Draft WRIA 8 Plan included "ballpark" cost estimates for Tier 1 actions on the Action Start List. Similar estimates for migratory and Tier 2 actions on the Start List were not able to be developed in time to meet the publication deadline . As promised by the Service Provider Team, migratory and Tier 2 "ballpark" estimates have been developed using the same methodology as presented at the October work session of the Steering Committee. A summary was handed out at the January 19th work session. These estimates will be included in the next draft plan for Forum review. • At the January 12th work session, Steering Committee members asked to see a summary of all the public comments received. A summary of all the public comments was sent out via email and also handed out at the work session. Role of Steering Committee during Forum Review , • The interlocal agreement (ILA) among local governments cost-sharing the development of ' the Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan calls for the Steering Committee to submit the plan to the WRIA 8 Forum for review and either approval or remand back for changes. Under the ILA, the Forum has 90 days to do this. , • There is overlapping membership between the two groups. About one-third of the Forum members are regular members of the Steering Committee, including the Steering Committee co-chairs and the Forum chair. When Forum members who serve as alternates to Steering ' Committee members are included, about half the Forum is represented on the Steering Committee. • Assuming there is a Salmon Recovery Funding Board process in 2005, the Steering Committee will be convened to rank and select projects as in previous years. ' • Decision: The Steering Committee discussed options for their role during the Forum's review of the draft plan. Steering Committee members agreed to the following: 1. Service Provider Team will provide regular email updates to the Steering Committee and distribute a calendar of Forum agenda topics related to the Forum's plan review (once it is developed). All Steering Committee members will ' receive emails sent to Forum members on the plan review. Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 50 ' ' 2. Non-electeds who are members of the Steering Committee can provide input through electeds. 3. Non-elected members of the Steering Committee can attend Forum meetings and provide input on particular agenda topics. • If necessary, the Steering Committee could ask the Forum if they would be interested in a ' "conference committee" consisting of Steering Committee representatives and Forum representatives who could propose options on areas of concern or disagreement. The Steering Committee did not want to set up a "conference committee" at this time, but do want to keep this idea as an option. Response to NOAA Fisheries' Proposed Critical Habitat Designation? ' • Decision: Based on the Steering Committee's discussion, the Service Provider Team will draft a letter to NOAA Fisheries regarding the proposed critical habitat designation and circulate it via email for Steering Committee review. Plan Ready to Submit to the Forum? • Decision: The Steering Committee agreed that the draft WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan is ready to go the Forum for review with the changes approved in response to public comment. 1 Appendix A February 25, 2005 Key Decisions from Steering Committee Work Sessions Page 51 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. identifier subject summary of comment Response to Comments use formal interlocal agreements,include adoption of SWIM manual, make clear legal 13.6 commitment assurances and agency requirements No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 8. 21.3 commitment need le islation to implement plan,CAOs No revisions already in plan. See Chapter 8. support stakeholders working together,use of Adaptive Managment,hope to see 25.1 commitment implementation not just sit on shelf No revisions requested-supports plan supports increased funding recommendations and sources,contingent on government's use 25.2 commitment of regulatory tools Revised Chapter 8 26.1 commitment support plan,hope have political will to implement No revisions requested-supports plan negotiations with feds needed for effective agreements on h's,delisting criteria.Avoid one Revised Chapter 8,see section on benefits to negotiate with regulating 31.4 commitment size fits all agencies No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 8. In addition,Chapters 10-14 in Volume II list hundreds of actions,some of which can be undertaken on 33.07 commitment make clearer the role that private lands should have on recovery private lands. No revisions--already in plan. See chapters 7 and 8.Will need further 39.4 commitment need memos of understanding/agreement for the financial basis of this plan discussion and negotiation among local governments. 42.2 commitment recommendations for commitments No revisions supports plan. No revisions Chapter 8 offers a range of commitment levels. Further plan hasn't gone far enough to require jurisidictions to improve habitat condition(voluntary discussion is needed among local governments to determine how and 44.5 commitment process) whether to ratify. unclear how proposed WRIA 8 actions will be interpreted by NOAA Fisheries,and how we No revisions--Chapter 8 includes items that could be negotiated with 45.2 commitment can ever find this information out federal a encies by local governments. plan needs to have mechanisms to get WSDOT and DOE to take action.Should it lobby,or Revised Chapter 8 to clarify opportunities for state agencies to act and to 45.3 commitment what other methods? recommend collaboration on lobbying. strongly support fed and state rewards/incentives for ESA compliance.Like middle option of 47.1 commitment local govt.commitments Revised Chapter 8 to include this suggestion. 11.5 commitments increase public outreach messages that everyone should pay for protection No revisions. See chapters 7 and 8. local governments should get credit for implementing habitat restoration activities,including No revisions. See Steering Committee key decisions from 1/19/05 about 53.03 commitments past projects done voluntarily. scoping early ro ress report on actions under way. parks staff supports ratification option that allows the city to make its own decisions about 53.331 commitments land use policies,future economic development and growth,and projects within city parks No revisions--already in plan as option for commitments in Chapter 8. clarify whether funding strategy would commit utility and other funding jurisdictions have 53.47 commitments autonomy over to the WRIA organization and staffing. Revised Chapter 7 to clarify this. 39.1 format move back-up data to appendices Revised 39.2 format add Table of Contents to this chapter Revised 42.1 format keep the quick road map Revised-added new information to road map 52.04 format can't see Urban Growth Area coverage well on map No revisions-can't improve due to scale of ma Revised-added clarifying language for technical recommendations for Tier 52.26 format Basinwides should be added for Tier 2 in NLW 2 and Steering Committee direction to limit Tier2 actiions on the startlist to 5 52.33 format basinwides mixed up with site-specific recs.Separate. No revisions-consistent with form of plan Revised-Chapter 10 moved to Volume II;page numbers corrected;table of 52.41 format concur with actions;good PO audiences;chap 10 pagination confusing contents added format/provide more move appendices to separate document.Clarify whether Appendix D recommendations are 47.141 information consistent with GMA Revised-menu of actions revised,now located in Volume I February 25,2005 Page 52 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. burden of paying for protection will unfairly fall on minority of population--to be fair,need to purchase these properties rather than regulate(buffers),using funds paid for by full 11.1 funding population Revised Chapter 8 on commitments to show this concern. 11.8 funding increase lobbying to raise funds for purchase of lands to be protected Revised Chapter 8 to include collaborative lobbying. 12.2 funding swm fees are supposed to be spent on drainage control not fish restoration Revised Chapter 7 to clarify this. 21.2 funding supports more funding;new fees and taxes ok if needed No decision requested-supports more funding 22.3 funding fund basin stewards for all tier 1 s's No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 7. 24.1 funding support funding at 50%more No decision requested-supports more funding 24.2 funding reinstate basin stewards No revisions already in plan. See Chapter 7. 25.3 funding fund basin stewards for all tier 1s's No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 7. unknown whether funding increase is what is needed,since not tied to goals.need No revisions--already in plan. See chapters 7 and 8. See also discussion 32.03 funding contingency for if SRFB goes away of developing goals in Chapter 4. 33.09 funding plan funding should address keeping existing programs going,such as PBRS No revisions supports plan. No revisions--already in plan. See chapters 7 and 8. Up to local 33.14 funding set priorities for existing KC funds governments to direct internal implementation. 39.3 funding how will dollars be spent? No revisions-options forspending already in plan property tax reductions should be on list of funding options list.Include process for 45.8 funding charitable groups to participate by providing funds. Revised Chapter 7 to include this option. not clear whether local government funding(p 2)would include the same level of interlocal This is an issue for the Forum to discuss as they will determine whether to 47.09 funding a reement cost share assessments have another interlocal agreement funding needs to discuss benefits derived from existing base,and does not relate to recovery objectives,and does not discuss using mitigation as vehicle for plan 52.24 funding implementation No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 8 54.1 funding su ports increased funding strategy no decision requested-no further action needed basinwides could be implemented on voluntary basis by jurisdictions as alternative to No revisions--will need further discussion among local governments on 53.04 funding basinwide stewards.land trust organizations should be organized to facilitate the actions commitments and implementation. funding/commit 9.2 ments KC should dedicate more open space monies to acquiring riparian urban land No revisions--up to local governments to direct internal implementation. funding/commit supports increased funding recommendations and sources,contingent on government's use 22.2 ments of regulatory tools Comment noted in chapter on commitments 4.1 general action habitatProtection/restoration is imperative No revisions requested by commenter 4.2 general action impose harvest moratorium for next 10 years No revisions-outside the scope of plan 4.3 general action what is plan for Coal Creek? No revisions-tier 3 creeks don't have specific plans 7.1 general action 1well done product,like action list in chap 9 No revisions-already in plan 8.1 general action hats off to everyone;agree with need to restore/protect salmon No revisions-already in plan must act now to protect forest,riparian areas in the long term,e.g., Boeing redevelopment 8.2 general action area,rural habitat areas(e.g.,buy Cedar riparian area,allow flooding) No revisions-already in plan 12.1 qeneral action plan is costly and these actions are not needed,especially in Sammamish River No revisions-inconsistent with conservation strategy 22.4,25.4 general action support cold creek study/concern about water withdrawals,sammamish river as tier 1 No revisions-already in plan 33.08 general action use landowners instead of"homeowners"in referring to actions Revised throughout document where appropriate 49.6 general action Jallocate funds for weed control as part of project costs, No revisions--already in plan. See Steering Committee decisions 1/12/05. need clear strategies to implement regulatory and policy recommendations. Need structure 32.02 commitments to implement and obtain commitments.Benchmarks and triggers Comment noted in chapter on commitments 3.1 land use require enforcement of existing regulations before enacting new ones No revisions-already in Ian;comment noted Chap 5 5.1 land use defend the exempt well state law No revisions-outside scope of plan address SR-520 and 1-405 watershed impacts including stormwater,increased impervious 7.21 land use area,and culverts Revised Chapter 9,Cedar, NLW,migratory February 25,2005 Page 53 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. 8.3 land use restrict and stop urban growth No revisions-outside scope of plan;comment noted Chap 5 9.1 land use require septic tanks be pumped and inspected every 5 years No revisions-see SC decision 1/19/05 density transfer doesn't always work;encourage clustering with bonuses;don't eliminate 11.2 land use density with Low Impact Development No revisions-already in plan 11.3 land use Need to decrease road widths No revisions-already in plan 11.4 land use Increase densities to support mass transit No revisions-already in plan 13.1 land use link the plan to GMA and the overall vision for accommodating growth No revisions-already in plan 13.2 land use comprehensive detention needed No revisions-already in plan Use CAO's to accommodate growing community and protect environment,by full approach 13.3 land use of solutions No revisions-already in plan 13.4 land use North Creek must be lab for recovery--use DOE management plan Revised comprehensive list,action N71 supports reach 14 actions,but action needs support of CAO enforcement,and financial 16.3 land use support for Adaptive Management No revisions-already in Ian;comment noted Chap 5 jurisdictions need to use plan to influence all government decisions at landscape scale-- 22.6,25.6 land use transportation,drinking water,development Comment noted in chapter on commitments 24.5 land use enforce LU rules strictly for schools/churches No revisions-already in Ian;comment noted Chap 5 25.4 land use support cold creek study/concern about water withdrawals,sammamish river as tier 1 No revisions-supports plan jurisdictions need to change LU regulations--spending more dollars on projects won't save 30.1 land use salmon No revisions-already in plan;comment noted Chap 5 32.04 land use CAO important tool-SC should advocate for regulations watershedwide No revisions-already in plan;comment noted Chap 5 32.1,43.02 land use pursue designation of Outstanding National Resource Water for high quality waters in w/s Revised comprehensive list,actions C4,N1 (already in 118) 32.12,43.3 land use plan should prohibit gravel mining Revised com rehensive list,added to"actions for future analysis" develop procedure and strategy requiring local governments to weigh impacts of large-scale 33.04 land use development and road projects on plan goal Comment noted in commitments chapter 33.06 land use plan should support forest stewardship and KC programs Revised comp list and Chap 9 33.17 land use incor orate various ag and forestry program techniques into action list Revised coR list and Chap 9 33.18 land use retrofit swm facilities that have been rendered ineffective.. No revisions-see SC decision 1119/05 33.19 land use follow up on complaint process Revised comprehensive list,added to"actions for future analysis" 33.2 land use better enforcement of water withdrawals Revised Chapter 9,Cedar,NLW,Issaquah 36.4 land use don't encourage overlapping and duplicative stormwater re s Revised Chapter 9,all populations;comment noted Chap 5 No revisions-proposed actions are linked to life history stages in 36.5 land use land use regs should be tailored to actual salmon life-cycle functions Conservation Strategy 38.2 land use use incentives instead of regulations No revisions-already in plan make sure DOE and DOA are involved in this plan--they are allowing application of Revised comprehensive list,actions C41 and N66(see 1/19/05 SC 40 land use herbicides that are inconsistent with plan decisions) 43.3 land use adopt regulations that provide for comprehensive review of proposed gravel mining Revised comprehensive list,added to"actions for future analysis" No revisions-WBTC determined this was not appropriate[see chap 5,App 44.4 land use requests recommendations for specific buffer widths D-6 45.5 land use plan needs to address whether treatment of runoff from 520 will be addressed Revised Chapter 9,Cedar, NLW,migratory No revisions-WBTC determined this was not appropriate[see chap 5,App 45.7 land use clarify discussion about buffers D-6] 47.03 land use describe impact of GMA and SMP implementation on habitat No revisions-cannot describe impacts until commitments known 47.08,47.11 land use indicate 520 impacts on p 11 of Chapter 9. Revised Chapter 9,Cedar,NLW,migratory 47.12 public outreach Chapter 10,page 5,reference impacts of proposed actions on lakefront property owners No revisions--addressed in existing actions. No revisions-depends in what jurisdiction landowner is located;comment 50.6 land use not clear what landowners can do with their properties now that CAOs in place I noted Chap 5 February 25,2005 Page 54 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. mention need for future development to be low impact.Describe how low impact can be 52.01 land use beneficial to developer and public Revised Chapter 9,NLW. Revised Executive Summary Sno Cty Sustainable development task force should be mentioned as a model(comments 52.02,52.12 land use are for chapter 1 mission and goals,but can't amend those) Revised Chapter 9,NLW 52.06 land use reference Ecology Stormwater manual No revisions-already in plan North Creek will likely become Tier 3 due to urban development.Actions on tier 3 list should No revisions all Tier 3 actions are also included in Tiers 1 and 2 52.13 land use be linked to other tiers... watershed wide recommendations should rise to a higher level in order to stem further 52.15 land use decline due to urban development No revisions-comment noted Chap 5 various land use recommendations in chapter 10 are beyond the scope of current policy alternatives being considered by Snohomish County--please delete or revise(there are See SC decisions for 1/12/05 and 1/19/05 for details(some revisions made, 52.16 land use examples) others were not) Renton regulations already strict on floodplain development,but in urban area can't prohibit 53.05 land use new development outright.Not clear what coordination with KC flood plan means Revised comp lists and Chap 9 53.06 land use more flexible language desired regarding retrofits of existing roads for stormwater runoff No revisions-land use actions are voluntary protecting trees beyond required for CAOs conflicts with density targets.Benefits of having 53.07 land use street tree program is questionable. Revised action C3-see SC decision 1/12/05 what does strive for regulatory consistency mean?Renton and KC each developed CAO based on BAS. change c9 to be basinwide action---all jurisdictions should develop CAOs 53.08 land use based on... Revised action C9 and throughout comp list-see SC decision 1/19/05 c12 should apply to all jurisdictions.all areas should have equivalent standards to protect 53.1 land use wq and runoff. Adopt and enfores sw re s as part of NPDES permit requirements Revised Chapter 9 and comp lists,all populations 53.11 land use c14-retrofitting of roadways can happen only when funding available No revisions-already in plan c15-Renton supports this action--Public Works has adopted the regional road maintenance 53.12 land use ESA program guidelines No revisions-supports plan delete c 21 -very little area in S.KC Groundwater management area. Not helpful towards 53.13 land use managing resources No revisions-see SC decision 1/19/05 c24 and App d,page 5.clarify what is meant by promote water conservation through 53.14 land use permitting processes Revised action C24 and App D 53.15 land use c25-delete,goes beyond scope of what jurisdictions can do No revisions-see SC decision 1/19/05 53.21 land use what is justification for larger buffers than Best Available Science in tier 1 urban areas? No revisions-actions are voluntary in menu 53.22 land use change prohibit floodplain development to limit or minimize Revisions made to Chapter 9,Chapter 10,App.D recognize high density neighborhoods may not be able to be retrofitted with natural drainage 53.23 land use systems Revised App D 53.24 land use what does improve data on water rights mean?Outside the scope of local authority No revisions-see SC decision 1/12/05 53.25 land use exempt wells-need legislature to change the law,otherwise prohibiting them is a take No revisions-see SC decision 1/12/05 water suppliers should look into working together to shift supply from one source to another 53.26 land use to protect instream flows--not accepted by DOE,so outside scope of local authority Revised App D work with local groundwater protection committees--what are benefits?Renton has not received assistance from these in the past,has developed substantial groundwater aquifer 53.27 land use proqram on its own. No revisions-see SC decision 1/19/05 53.28 land use use more flexible word in lieu of prohibit any variances No revisions-actions are voluntary in menu since each jurisdiction should develop CAO based on its own Best Available Science,why 53.29 land use lare KC standards mentioned? Revisions made to Appendix D,part 6 focus on KC's land use code as model strengthens perception that shared staff more intent 53.31 land use on KC needs than WRIA needs Revisions made to Appendix D,part 6 February 25,2005 Page 55 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. check our text on page 2 against Steering Committee guidance provided spring 2004 for 53.32 land use accuracy No revisions- the text is accurate 53.38 land use table d-3-1.-modify various text to be less strong, Revisions made to Appendix D,part 5 53.39 land use land use policies in plan should not be required if one size fits all No revisions-land use actions are voluntary incentives for riparian vegetation may be more successful than regulations. Concern no 53.4 land use commitment for funding for any of the actions Revised Chapter 9,Cedar 53.41 land use c26-BAS issue-also mentioned in chapter 8. Revised comp lists,actions C9,C26,N49, 151 53.42 land use c27-Renton already doing this No revision-supports plan 53.48 land use commitments shouldn't prohibit Renton from implementing their growth targets. No revision Ian calls for GMA growth targets to be implemented 53.49 land use revise c 1 and c 3 Revised C1 (editorial);revised C3-see SC decision 1/12/05 53.5 land use c38 is unrealistic No revision-see C3 revision 54.2 funding supports basin stewards for each tier 1 area No revisions--see Chapter 7. 54.6 land use forest cover loss and groundwater withdrawals should be stopped No revisions-already in plan make more actions for business and homeowners mandatory and then enforce(e.g.,car 8.4 land use,po washes,land use laws) Comment noted in Chap 5 no decision requested-outside the scope of plan;Steering Cmte could 22.5.25.5 monitoring supports multi-species effort/data collection recommend on future workprogram;monitoring does cover ecosystem need clear strategies to implement regulatory and policy recommendations.Need structure Revised Chapter 6,see intro in particular. No change in Chapter 8--local 32.021 monitoring to implement and obtain commitments. Benchmarks and triggers governments need to discuss and decide how to ratify. 33.1 monitoring implement basin-wide monitoring program of WQ;include nontraditional data No revisions--already in plan. See Chapter 6 and Appendix C-3. 35.3 monitoring monitoring program needs re-determined suite of responses,thresholds,etc Revised Chapter 6. figure out how to track volunteer hours to show the real costs of projects.Include annually No revisions. Annual progress report discussed in Chapter 2 will need to be 45.9 monitoring on web site and annual report scoped once plan is ratified. monitoring should include success at involving development community in Low Impact Revised Chapter 6--specific implementation monitoring plan is expected to 52.07 monitoring Development be sco ed in 2005-06. no action requested-Outside scope of plan-habitat information will be from 54.41monitoring need to collect data on otherspecies throughout WRIA 8,but population data will focus on Chinook Need to"market"the need for system scale monitoring-primarily tangible,quantifiable measures of chinook survival-adult spawner surveys,outmigrant traps,and lock counts Revised Chapter 6 to insert riparian index as potential option under (improved,if possible). evaluations of flows and habitat,too. predation in the lake-wants cumulative monitoring. Chapter 6 also includes specific measures of 56.1 monitoring measures that evaluate the success of fish leaving WRIA 8 Chinook survival. organizational 33.13 structure communicating progress function should include landowners Revision made. organizational is it more appropriate to have one executive director for all wrias and keep coordinators for 33.16 structure each wria? No revisions--see Steering Committee key decisions for 1/19/05. organizational 45.1 structure need shared staff to provide assistance to implement the plan No revisions--already in plan. organizational concur with proposed org structure--but since current SC,Forum and WBTC are working 47.05 structure effectively,why change it? No revisions see Steering Committee key decisions for 1/19/05. organizational new bureaucracy being created-concern jurisdictions won't have enough representation- 53.46 structure other requests for clarification No revisions will need further discussion among local governments on com organizational 54.5 structure supports Adaptive Management timeline No revision-already in plan No revisions:Development community represented on Steering Committee and particpate on all working committees.Master Builders was invited to 13.5 process Include participation of development community participate 21.1 Process fully endorses plan,particularly Adaptive Management process No revisions--supports plan. 22.1 process move plan through Forum and to jurisdictions quickly to keep momentum going No revisions 23.1 process pleased with overallquality/quantity of plan lNo revisions -supports plan. February 25,2005 Page 56 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. 24.4 process broaden plan to all species No revisions-may address otherspecies through adaptive management 24.6 process support plan overall,and Adaptive Management approach No revisions--supports plan. 31.1 process need clean waters and fish friendly streams No revisions-already in plan No revisions-cost estimates alraady in plan;relative benefits of actions to be analyzed in 2005;use adaptive management process to incorporate new 31.21process need cost-benefit analysis to make sure dollars spent efficiently information 31.3 process implementation must be science-based and include stakeholder input No revisions-already in plan No revisions-Steering Committee approved staying on current schedule. 31.5 process need more time to comment New information will be incorporated through ada tive management No revisions-plan takes ecosystem approach;additional species may be 32.05 process scope of plan should be ecosystem based,multi-species approach addressed in future 33.01 process supports science,Adaptive Management,other No revisions -supports plan 33.11 process extinction of Kokonee could be used to underscore vulnerability of Chinook on the Cedar Revised chapter 1 33.15 process include landowners w/restoration experience in action committees Revised chapter 2 33.21 process include reach maps No revisions-reach maps provided in electronic form on web site 35.2 process no faith that shared strategy process will work No revisions-outside scope of plan No revisions-Steering Committee approved staying on current schedule. 36.1 process extend comment period 30 days New information will be incorporated through adaptive management 44.1 process plan approval should be delayed until genetics study completed No revisions-see 1/19/05 Steering Committee decisions 47.01 process strongly support efforts to restore/improve salmon habitat No revisions-commenter is not requesting any changes No revisions-Steering Committee approved staying on current schedule. 50.11 process not enough time to review this document New information will be incorporated through adaptive management No revisions-Steering Committee approved staying on current schedule. 51.1 process delay the plan until genetics study completed New information will be incorporated through adaptive management chinook centric plan is ignoring value of many smaller streams.Prefer a multi-species No revisions-plan is ecosystem-based with Chinook focus.Habitat 51.3 process approach modeling includes coho. Propose to monitor habitat for multiple species. 52.34 process plan is well organized. In general,clearly addresses marine nearshore habitat. No revisions-supports plan Revised Chapter 3 to include targets proposed by Washington State Fish 35.1 process plan lacks measurable goals for protection and restoration,and timetables for compliance and Wildlife 53.45 process recommendation to change mission statement No revisions-outside scope of plan provide more plan should better clarify difference between plan goals of plan(restore harvestable pops) 36.2 information and ESA(do no harm) No revisions-outside scope of plan No revisions-Steering Committee sent letter to NOAA describing concerns provide more assess how critical habitat policy redefines critical habitat and thus our policy related to proposed policy. Once policy is finalized,can address need for 36.3 information recommendations course corrections through adaptive management provide more wolf creek is spelled wolfe;not sure if correct category;clarify description of project;clarify 39.6 information feasibility,since seattle is in favor; Revised-made corrections and clarifications to M250 provide more add the following bullet on Chapter 5,page 6,under ship canal:"restore riparian vegetation 39.7,39.81 information land freshwater mixing zone to provide cover and refuge to Chinook downstream of Locks" no decision requested-can add clarifying text provide more No revision-Wolfe Creek is in a Tier 3 sub-area,while the mouth of the 39.9 information where does wolfe creek fit in Appendix c-4? creek is considered part of the Tier 1 nearshore/estuary sub-area. February 25,2005 Page 57 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. No revisions-cost estimates alraady in plan;relative benefits of actions to provide more fatal flaw in plan is that no cost-benefit analysis of actions done---means prioritization is not be analyzed in 2005;use adaptive management process to incorporate new 46.1,46.2 information based outcome information provide more include impacts of major transportation and other projects anticipated in the 10 year time 47.02 information frame: no decision requested-can describe potential impacts generically provide more 52.08 information include benefits of sustainable stormwater management in funding chapter No revision-is already in plan(D-3-2) provide more sustainable development task force could be mentioned as example to highlight quality of 52.09 information life and economic benefits of Low Impact Development No revision--see Appendix D,Part 6. provide more 52.21 information add reference to snohomish county stewards in chapter 5 no decision requested-can add clarifying text provide more 52.31 information unclear will King Co.beach bluff study extend into Sno Cty? Revised text-answer is yes provide more 52.37 information construction of the railroad and its impacts is not listed anywhere in the document. No revision-already in Chapter 3 of plan No revision-use of trails already referred to for outreach potential.,but no site should Ibe listed as"main site for public outreach actions.See SC 15.1 public outreach Sammamish River Trail should be main site for public outreach. decision on 1/19/05 better coordination w/in jurisdictions and between jurisdictions and noxious weed control 15.2 public outreach agencies needed No revision--already in plan,more funding issus continue salmon education programs for younger students--explore alternatives to hatchery 20 public outreach plantings No revision-already in plan 33.12 public outreach need more landowner support and engagement No revision-supports plan Revision-oversight amended and action added as per SC approval 33.29 public outreach add cedar river naturalist program 1/19/2005 No decision requested-the word"builders"added to sentence in Ch 5,p. 52.05 public outreach prioritization of outreach actions could include opportunities to reach out to builders 14,under prioritization education and outreach most effectively coordinated through Sno Cty outreach and 52.11 public outreach stewards No revision-already in plan 52.14 public outreach public outreach actions should mention task force;stewards No decision requested-clarifying text added good list of outreach actions--unlikely to implement all.Consider asking locals to implement those that would give most benefit,such as those that support continued expenditure of 53.2 public outreach public funds for restoration and protection actions and linke between land use and habitat No decision requested-consistent with plan request for Revised Chapters 1,3 and Executive Summary--northern limits is in 52.35 clarification description of northern boundary of WRIA 8 is wrong Mukilteo request for 52.36 clarification be explicit that 50%of marine shoreline is in Sno Cty Revised Executive Summary and Chapter 1 request for 52.17 clarificition change reference to habitat objectives,since we don't have them Revised Chapter 1 request for 52.18 clarificition various text changes recommended to chapter 3,.(10 examples) no decision requested-can add clarifying text request for 52.19 clarificition various text changes recommended to chapter 4.(16 examples) no decision requested-can add clarifying text No revisions-the migratory and Rearing areas maps depicts examples of request for recommends changes to integration map to show project opportunities in nearshore for opportunities for nearshore projects in Snohomish County. Map scale does 52.2 clarificition Snohomish Counties not allow identification of every project opportunity February 25,2005 Page 58 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. 1.1 site-specific concern about impacts to salmon of Sammamish Rowing Club in Marymoor West No revision-see SC decision Jan. 12th. 2.1 site-specific provide wildlife habitat at Lakeshore Landing Development,connect to Gene Coulon Park No revision-see SC decision Jan. 19 2.2 site-specific City of Renton should preserve last natural shoreline on Lk Wash and streams entering it No revision-covered by plan already No revision-Outside scope of plan-focus is on habitat.Forward comment 6.1 site-specific address remote site salmon incubators to Co-Managers No revision-bird habitat is outside scope and wetland recommendations 8.5 site-specific protect old Black River,birds apply to Black River Revised text-added caveat about using LWD safely to intro Chap.9, 10; 11.6 site-specific don't put logs in Sammamish River because it is used for transportation purposes see SC decision Jan. 19 Revised text-added caveat about using LWD safely to intro Chap.9, 10; 12.3 site-specific LWD and rock additions to Sammamish River are hazardous,not needed see SC decision Jan. 19 No revision-Sammamish River experts considered but did not recommend 12.4 site-specific redo the weir and pump cold water to fix the Sammamish River temperature problem this action. 17.1, 18.1, Revised text-added caveat about using LWD safely to intro Chap.9, 10; 19.1 site-specific Placement of LWD needs to ensure boater safety(with specific recommendations for how) see SC decision Jan. 19 See SC decision for Jan. 12th,added projects to addendum for future 23.2 site-specific add five projects to North Creek analysis 24.3 site-specific support Cold Creek aquifer study and Samm R restoration actions No revision-supports plan Revised text-added caveat about using LWD safely to intro Chap.9, 10; 27.1 site-specific don't put logs in Sammamish River because it is used for transportation purposes see SC decision Jan. 19 28.1 site-specific alter fish ladders for more gradual salinity change No revision-already in plan Revision:added review of database of dams to addendum for future 32.11 site-specific remove blockages--American Rivers can help with funding,tech assistance,etc. analysis Revision-added caveat about most projects needing feasibility and design 33.22 site-specific add disclaimer that no engineering done for the projects to intro.Chap.9, 10 33.23 site-specific move bucks curve out of UGA Revision-made correction See SC decision Jan. 12th,added protection project to Cedar start list, 33.24 site-specific add 3 Cedar River protection projects to start list Dome Don Meanders(now C250,.C253) Revision-changed Cedar start list to reference both projects C215,C216 33.25 site-specific C216(now C214)is two separate actions (now C213,C214) 33.26 site-specific scope of C215(now C213)unclear Revision-added clarifying language 33.27 site-specific take C216(now C214)off start list See SC decision Jan. 12th,kept on start list 33.28 site-specific add 9 Cedar River restoration actions to startlist See SC decision Jan. 12th,not added to start list. plan should address need to continue and expand parks and open space,promote public no revision-add to list for future analysis,since would need to research 37 site-specific access to gain plan support public access policies of jurisidictions Revised text-see SC decision Jan. 19:added caveat about using LWD 38.1 site-specific make sure LWD is safe safely to intro Chap.9, 10 See SC decision Jan. 12th,added 2 projects to start list-mouth of Zacusse 41.1 site-specific 3 wild card projects in Lake Sammamish and Ebright Creeks restoration 48.1 site-specific specific text corrections to site-specific migratory list Revision-made corrections to migratory project descriptions Areas disturbed during project implementation on the Sammamish River are at high risk of loosestrife invasion. Need to bolster eradification efforts using coordinated approach No revision-See SC decision Jan. 12th,already in plan and covered by 49.1 site-specific involving all landowners other programs Kelsey Creek/Richards Creek harbors largest infestation of policeman's helmet in KC. Need No revision-See SC decision Jan. 12th,already in plan and covered by 49.2 site-specific to bolster eradification in coordinated manner other programs Japanese knotweed infestation on lower Cedar. Patches next to proposed restoration No revision-See SC decision Jan. 12th,already in plan and covered by 49.3 site-specific projects should be included in plans.Also problem in headwaters other programs February 25,2005 Page 59 M M m m m m M M M M M M. M M M M M M M WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. See SC decision Jan. 19th,beaver issue added to addendum for future 52.1 site-specific Little Bear needs more beavers and LWD analysis;LWD for Little Bear is already in plan make clear that nearshore project proposals are not based on the modeling efforts, 52.25,52.3 site-specific therefore there is no consistency in terms of technical documentation... Revision-added clarifying text in Chap.9 N367-question as to whether really furthering plan benefits?Should other North Creek 52.27 site-specific actions be added? See SC decision Jan. 12th,no change N367,added N379 to start list 52.28 site-specific why no Little Bear reach 1 projects on start list?Suggestions for additions See SC decision Jan. 12th,no addition to start list 52.29 site-specific action n377 is the same as n373 Revision-reference both on start list 52.32 site-specific Take m222 off list,add culvert replacement at Lund's Gulch Creek See SC decision Jan. 12th,no change 53.02 site-specific note that opportunities in Cedar River reach 1 and 2 are very limited Revision-added clarifying text to project notes in Reach 1,2 c10 applies to more than just KC and Renton.Renton doesn't actively remove LWD from river,only under safety situations.Change to a public outreach action to educate 53.091 public outreach recreational boaters to reduce demand from public to remove it. Revision made. c209(now C208)-floodplain buyouts on their own,without restoration,do not have significant to salmon.Question using regional funds for piecemeal buyout.Should be part of See SC decision Jan. 19th,added clarifying text to site specific Cedar River 53.16 site-specific a comprehensive restoration of an area projects including flood buyouts 53.17 site-s ecific c213-does not support modifications to Elliott levee lease remove See SC decision Jan. 12th,removed c213 from Comprehensive List 53.18 site-specific please add newspawning and rearing channel project in reach 3 See SteeringCommittee decision Jan. 19,not added to Comp List 53.19 site-specific please add new landsburg gravel supplementation project in reach 18 See Steering Committee decision Jan. 19,not added to Comp List 53.34 site-specific c204(now C203)-note Cedar River Trail is in this section of river Revision-added clarifying text to project notes c216(now C214)-inconsistency with project description in 9 and 10-city wants setback Revision-added clarifying text to project description in Chap. 10,prioritized 53.35 site-specific levee language included list of Cedar Site Specific Restoration projects 53.36 site-specific c269(now C266)-supports project is meets design intent for recreational opportunities No revision-already in plan 53.37 site-specific c268(now C266)-concern may reduce recreational opportunities Revision-added clarifying language to project notes 53.43 site-specific prioritization of actions table-varied levels of feasibility No revision,no change requested-seemed to be an observation 53.44 site-specific Ilikes notes,key uncertainties statements-reference elsewhere? No revision-inconsistent with format of the plan requests C202 to be removed from Comprehensive List and C201 to be revised to not call See SC decision Jan. 19th-C202 removed from list;C201 not revised as 53.51 site-specific for reduction of channel confinement requested,but clarifying text added to project notes 54.3 site-specific supports projects to increase forage and refuge on Sammamish River No revision-supports plan 55 site-specific remove beaver dams that obstruct fish passage See SC decision Jan. 19th,added to addendum for future analysis acknowledge expectation that jurisdictions will not want recreational opportunities in parks 53.3 site-s ecific diminished due to habitat improvements Revisions made--clarifying text added to site-specific projects.. Locks is a bottle-neck due to increased competition and for space and food.Direct resources to other rivers and streams in the region where there is potential for significant 10.1 technical improvements. No revision-recent studies do not support this hypothesis. 10.2 technical replace flap gates No revision-does not apply to WRIA 8 11.7 technical do heavy metal contaminants in the Sammamish need to be dredged? No revision-Sammamish sediment study concluded is not needed 14.1 technical why isn't Mcaleer Creek rated higher? No revision- responded by email to commenter supports conservation hypotheses and prioritization of NLW based on 16.1 technical restoration/preservation potential No revision-supports plan 16.2 technical supports concern over hatchery influences No revision-supports plan No revision-plan currently recommends that increases in fishing limits be 29.1 technical use fishing regulations to reduce preclatore populations considered by appropriate agencies. 30.2 technical fish enter Greenes Stream when May Creek floods-check it out No revision-checked factual information Revised-options for long-term abundance objectives included in Chapter 32.01 technical plan lacks measurable goals for protection and restoration 4. 32.06 technical Istudy p2tential interactions of sockeye hatchery releases on attacting predators to Chinook 11/12-add language from City of Seattle February 25,2005 Page 60 WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. include analysis Cedar HCP to ensure it is meeting salmon passage requirements and 32.07 technical adequate instream flow levels 1/12-add Ian ua e from City of Seattle No revision.Outside scope of plan-focus is on habitat.Comment should go to Co-Managers. Potential hatchery operation scenarios are included in 32.08 technical consider connection of hatchery/harvest to ESA recovery mandate. current draft. No revision-evaluation of actions and potential flow objectives will be 32.09 technical include measures to set and achieve ecologically based stream flows evaluated during 2005. needs to include language reflecting need for analysis of future flows and strategy to No decision requested-evaluation of actions and potential flow objectives 33.02 technical address will be evaluated during 2005. requests calculation and inclusion of benchmark habitat conditions for lowland trib. No decision requested-general habitat objectives are described in Ch 4 33.03 technical Subbasins as part of multi-species approach and will be refined during 2005. lack of restoration projects in Issaquah will result in adverse impacts on habitat forming 33.05 technical processes for coho and Kokanee 1/12, 1/19-outside Chinook-focused scope,but addressed thru'wildcards' No decision requested-technical recommendations include aquatic weed 34.1 technical consequences of aquatic weed eradication programs eradication No revision-Outside scope of plan-focus is on habitat.Forward comment to Co-Managers. Potential hatchery operation scenarios are included in 35.4 technical conservation measures need to be coordinated with h's. current draft. No decision requested-current draft includes recommendations to reduce abundance and efficacy of predators,these actions will be evaluated during 36.6 technical identify how reduction in predation by non-native fish can be part of restoration 2005 36.7 technical do escapement index estimates for 2004 No decision requested-will revise No decision requested-commenter's strategy is consistent with the WBTC's'Scenario C'where there is one population in WRIA 8. Until the genetics report is received the SC has recommended the current 39.5 technical funnel strategy for prioritizaion conservative approach to populations in WRIA 8 43.1 technical describe steps needed to achieve adequate instream flows No decision requested-addressed thru 2005 work program 44.2 technical delete recommendation that Issaquah restoration be on hold;re prioritization needed No revisions--see Steering Committee key decisions for 1/19/05. 44.3 technical model should be updated to include recent streamside studies sponsored by Issaquah No decision requested-part of adaptive management process 45.4 technical Plan should point out cases where bulkheads may be beneficial in reducing fine sediment No decision requested-could be addressed during treatment phase of T 45.6 technical plan should address whether invasive aquatic weeds pose threat to salmon fry No decision requested-could be addressed during treatment phase of T No action requested-potential positive and negative impacts of incubators 47.04 technical recognize work of community groups that have installed incubators should be evaluated and described by Co-Managers clarify what we know about migratory patterns between canal to east LK WA shoreline- 47.06 technical Medina to Kirkland No decision requested-will revise habitat restoration hypotheses for NLW chinook do not include impact of 520.Should 47.07 technical construction constraints be imposed during migration? no decision requested-can describe potential impacts generically describe link between invasive species control and healthier salmon habitat.Recognize as 49.4 technical source of degradation, No decision requested-could be addressed during treatment phase of T No decision requested-disease addressed as part of EDT model, IHN from 50.2 technical questions prioritization by population and tier--relation to hatchery infections,other issues sockeye is not communicable to Chinook,per WDFW No decision requested-Habitat is key responsibility of local governments and has been shown thru technical work to date to be significant factor limiting Chinook. Habitat actions can reduce predator abundance and 50.3 technical Ifour h's not relevant in this wria.Predation is bigger factor lefficac . No decision requested by SC-much of this is in monitoring chapter; 50.4 technical I need summary of ongoing research projects and agency responsible research agenda will come of adaptive management process February 25,2005 Page 61 ri rr rr rr rr �r r rr rr rr rr rr rr r� rr rr r rr rr WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN:SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Actual comments were used when recommendations were made on how to incorporate the comments into the plan. 50.5 technical other miscellaneous issues related to technical chapters No decision requested-will provide clarifying text supports changes to hatchery operations to reduce competition,HSRG efforts and federal 51.2 technical agencies looking at this issue No revisions-supports plan No revisions-Technical Committee is committed to updating EDT to reflect Issaquah information,and plans to update the model on a regular basis as 51.4 technical information left out of EDT model.What assurances will be incorporated in next plan draft? new habitat information is available clarify reference to Swamp Creek having moderate probability of spawning, north creek not 52.03 technical mentioned much No decision requested-will add clarifying text 52.22 technical insert reference for index of riparian integrity No decision requested-will add clarifying text 52.23 technical change text on validation monitoring No decision requested-will add clarifying text 52.38 technical 6 recommendations for changes to text--limiting factors,etc. No decision requested-will add clarifying text 52.39 technical role of dun eness crab larvae No decision requested-outside scope of plan table 4-4 cedar recommendations is an excellent menu for nearshore actions,other 52.4 technical comments of support No decision requested-will add clarifying text 53.01 technical I better description of system is needed No decision requested-already in plan February 25,2005 Page 62 APPENDIX B: WATERSHED CASE STUDIES WRIA 8 Adaptive Management Work Group DRAFT Watershed Case Studies: Key Findings ' The Adaptive Management Work Group selected 15 watershed and regional environmental initiatives around the country to serve as case studies for developing implementation plans and organizing for adaptive management (for a list of case studies, ' see p. 5). Each effort had at least one important similarity to the WRIA 8 effort, such as a large urban population, congruous size or geography, a sophisticated planning effort, strong local government involvement in planning and implementation, or an ambitious plan for adaptive management. Work Group members also reviewed an extensive literature of comparative assessments of watershed programs and governance, most of which included some analysis of key qualities that made efforts successful or ' unsuccessful. Because there are hundreds of watershed efforts around the country, this type of analysis is by nature more anecdotal than comprehensive. Nevertheless, several important observations can be made. The findings are loosely grouped according to the four adaptive management framework chapters of the public review ' draft (organizational structure, measures and monitoring, funding strategies, and commitments-see chapters 2, 7 and 8). ' Organizational structure: Every watershed effort has some level of organization among stakeholders to coordinate the implementation of watershed plans. There are as many organizational structures around the country as there are watersheds, and the ' case studies and literature suggest that the most effective arrangements vary according the issue being addressed, the nature and number of stakeholders, and the physical characteristics of the watershed. A few useful generalizations can be drawn from the ' surveyed efforts: A. Management through a series of committees: Regardless of how formally or ' informally watershed efforts are bound and organized, most accomplish their decision-making through a series of committees. These arrangement can be as simple as a single "watershed council" committee of stakeholders, or as complicated ' as a regional agency with multiple tiers of committees and subcommittees (e.g. the CalFed Bay-Delta Initiative looks like a small state agency). WRIA 8's planning structure of the Forum, Steering Committee, Technical Committee, and several work groups is comparable to the implementation structure of many of the organizations ' surveyed. (Most watershed efforts maintained a similar committee structure as they transitioned from planning to implementation.) Because these committees are often made up of volunteer representatives from stakeholder groups, they usually require ' some level of staff support to keep players working together, track implementation, and report on progress. B. Support staffing for watershed coordination: Almost all successful watersheds have ' some level of watershed-wide staffing to support collaborative efforts. In most efforts, staff serve as a "support structure" to provide coordination and keep the diverse elements of implementation (stakeholders, meetings, projects, monitoring results) moving smoothly. Staff support ranges from a single part-time coordinator working for one of the stakeholders (such as the Lead Entity coordinators in many of Washington's smaller watersheds) to an independent agency or non-profit. Most of ' the comparative studies on watershed management identify staff support as an important ingredient for successful organization. The level of staffing of each watershed organization typically reflects a balance between the services desired by the stakeholders and the availability of funding to support the recovery effort. There are several levels of watershed-wide staffing: Appendix B February 25, 2005 Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 1 1. At the simplest level, a council of stakeholders employ a single watershed ' coordinator. This is common among watersheds that are smaller, have fewer stakeholders, or whose stakeholders are pursuing implementation of their plan independently. (At least half of Oregon's watershed councils have a ' single coordinator.) 2. Many regional efforts and individual watersheds dealing with complex conservation issues employ a handful of staff to fulfill critical coordination, technical, or outreach responsibilities. A typical organization of this type ' employs between three to five people, who are housed by one of the stakeholders (such as WRIA 8's ILA staff) or at an independent non-profit. Examples: Lower Columbia Estuary Restoration Partnership, Applegate River Watershed Council, Clark Fork—Pend Oreille Water Quality Action Council. Among the case studies, the most common roles filled by watershed staff include: ' i. manager or coordinator (coordinating efforts of partners, funding, etc.) ii. outreach (outreach and education to public, reporting on progress to stakeholders and external funders) , iii. scientists (monitoring, technical assistance, studies) iv. project managers, planners (project prioritization, tracking plan progress, coordinating specific key projects or sub-basin plans) , v. general administrative assistance (bookkeeping, scheduling, etc.) 3. Larger regional initiatives sometimes establish a branch of an agency or an independent agency to provide staff support, e.g., EPA's Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Offices, CalFed, Tahoe Regional Planning Authority. , Many watersheds the size of WRIA 8 have only a coordinator and possibly one administrative staff person. However, WRIA 8 has a larger population, more , stakeholders, and better scientific capacity than most watersheds its size. In the watersheds with a plan as technically complex and ambitious as WRIA 8's (which tend to be larger watersheds or estuaries in the National Estuary Program), staff ' support often includes some scientific capacity for coordinating monitoring efforts, tracking implementation, and sharing data; also capacity for conducting outreach to the public and providing administrative support for fundraising. ' Commitments: When watersheds develop implementation plans, stakeholders have several options about how to commit to the actions outlined in the plans (see the issue ' paper on Commitments). Most of the watershed case studies and examples from the literature fall into one of three levels of commitment among watershed partners: A. No commitments, individual implementation: At the lowest level of commitment, individual jurisdictions resolve to follow through with implementation of the plan ' individually, using the plan only as guidance, with periodic meetings or check-ins with other stakeholders. None of the watershed efforts of a scope or scale similar to WRIA 8's follow this model. (Although it appears to be effective in smaller ' watersheds where there are few active stakeholders and a strong level of trust, such as the Dungeness River). B. Partners jointly endorse plan goals, strong collaboration: A much more common ' arrangement is for project partners to endorse the goals of the plan, sign an MOA, and in many cases, acknowledge responsibility for specific activities in a way that is not legally binding. Partners will often commit to contributing funding to a shared ' resource (e.g., creating monitoring consortia like the Regional Monitoring Program for the San Francisco Estuary and the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, or staffing watershed coordination such as through the Rouge River's ILA or , Appendix B February 25, 2005 Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 2 ' WRIA 8's ILA). For practical reasons, these funding arrangements are often made outside the implementation plan. C. Partners make binding commitments to implement plan actions: Very few watershed ' implementation plans have legally binding commitments between stakeholders to fund specific elements of implementation or specific recovery actions. Exceptions include some large regional efforts with significant federal and state agency involvement such as the Everglades and CalFed program, and the rare individual watershed such as in the Yakima Basin. Programs with a strong federal contribution through direct appropriations usually require documented match from local or state governments (e.g., all plans where the Army Corps of Engineers has significant implementation responsibilities, from the Everglades and CalFed to the Lake Washington General Investigation). Several reports in the literature on watershed government (Imperial and Hennessey; Kenney et al) have made the important observation that watershed efforts without a binding process or legal commitments can nevertheless generate a strong sense of group momentum and "peer pressure" from regular meetings, development of joint work ' plans, and frequent reporting on shared efforts and accomplishments. Funding plan implementation: Most watershed planning processes have received ' significant financial support from state and/or federal agencies (e.g. Washington's 2514 watersheds, all National Estuary Programs), usually for a period of several years. However, most watersheds transitioning from planning to implementation have had to come to terms with the fact that sustainable funding for implementation and coordination will require a substantial and creative component of local funding, and that it will be difficult to rely on state and federal funding for long term implementation. In this respect, WRIA 8 has a head start on many similar watershed efforts. (WRIA 8 has had a greater ' degree of local funding than most, probably because most of the important salmon resources fall within the jurisdiction of a well-organized group of local governments.) Several options for local funding and financing that the surveyed watersheds have utilized include (see the issue paper on Funding for more detail): A. Local financinq through bonds: This has been a popular means of raising state match to federal programs, e.g., in California and Florida. (Politically, this is an ' unlikely prospect in Washington, but there may be stronger options at the county level.) B. Non-profit status: Many watershed councils have incorporated as non-profits to ' access donations from individuals, corporations, and foundations. Most of Oregon's watershed councils are non-profits, as are many of California's. A few examples include the Tri-State Water Quality Council, the Applegate Partnership, and the Coquille Watershed Association. As a twist on this strategy, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership established an unstaffed non-profit foundation to serve as a bank account for charitable donations from foundations and individuals. C. Establishing a special purpose district: Special purpose districts are state authorized ' areas that can generate funding for restoration activities from a tax assessed on local property value. For example, Tampa Bay receives funds from the South Florida Water Management District, and restoration projects in the Green River are funded in part by the Green River Flood Control Zone District. D. Assessments to local governments: Local governments sign an ILA to fund activities such as monitoring or watershed coordination, e.g., Rouge River, Tampa Bay, Anacostia's metropolitan council of governments, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. E. Directed mitigation funding: North Carolina has an well-organized system of directing mitigation funds from roads projects and smaller Army Corps of Engineers permits to ' riparian and wetland restoration in areas identified as high priorities in watershed Appendix B February 25, 2005 ' Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 3 plans. Several smaller watersheds in California and Texas have established local ' mitigation funds from fines and permits, although the dollar amounts are relatively small. Adaptive management and measures of success: Few efforts the size of WRIA 8 , have written a detailed and thorough adaptive management component into their implementation plan, but many have established some means for evaluating, updating, and revising the plan (Chehalis, Yakima, Mackenzie, Columbia, etc.). Several characteristics of the surveyed efforts are worth mentioning: A. Timeline: Most plans with a schedule for evaluation are on a timeline to be assessed or evaluated every year or 5 years. A common cycle is to track progress, compile ' technical data, and report on implementation on a yearly basis, and perform a full plan evaluation or update every 5 years. A good example of how the evaluation process led to adaptive management is the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority ' (TRPA). TRPA's second 5-year plan evaluation for the basin showed that key measures of.success were not improving, and this triggered a broad-based effort to revamp the plan and generate a $900 million federal, state, and local funding ' package. Evaluation cycles rarely seem to be tied to other local planning processes such as the Growth Management Act or Shoreline Management Act, although in theory these could provide a powerful driver for the plan evaluation process. ' B. Measures of success: Most efforts with a process for evaluating and updating their plans (and therefore "adaptive" in some sense) have goals to measure their progress against. These goals range widely, depending on the primary issues being addressed (water quality, salmon recovery, wetland function, economic ' development), scientific capacity of the watershed partners, and the level of motivation and involvement of the stakeholders. Goals can range from broad visions of future conditions to specific numerical targets or thresholds. A few examples: ' a. The Mackenzie Watershed Council has a set of five general goals and desired future conditions, and measures progress against them every five years; ' b. The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee has a report-card style scoring system every few years for 50 different watershed parameters; c. CalFed's Watershed Program Monitoring and Performance Measurements ' establish measures of success but not numerical targets; d. Tampa Bay has specific numerical targets for nutrient reduction and habitat restoration. , C. Monitoring plans: Almost all implementation plans have a monitoring component. Few plans go so far as to categorize activities by implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring. Monitoring is one area of implementation where groups often rely on partner staff to carry out collective responsibilities, because it can be difficult to get external funds to support independent monitoring activities. One alternative that several watersheds have pursued is to pool resources and form a monitoring consortium (e.g. Tampa Bay, San Francisco Estuary). Many watersheds unable or ' unwilling to hire full time staff will hire consultants (e.g., Oregon's North Coast Watershed Association), and many smaller watersheds also rely on volunteer monitoring programs to help achieve their objectives. Many of the watershed efforts , establish monitoring committees to oversee and coordinate monitoring activities among stakeholders, similar in composition to WRIA 8's technical committee (e.g., the Coquille Watershed Association). Why watershed efforts fail: The literature comparing watershed organizations observes that efforts which fail to meet their goals generally fail for one of three reasons: , A. They splinter over a contentious issue that stakeholders cannot reach consensus on. Appendix B February 25, 2005 Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 4 ' B. They aim too low, leaving action and implementation as entirely discretionary, and do not generate enough momentum among stakeholders. C. They aim too high, tackle problems beyond their capacities, and fail to achieve the ' ambitious goals that are set. Alternatively, they may make progress toward the goals but fail to characterize the progress as positive enough to satisfy stakeholders or external funders. ' Watershed Case Studies Tampa Bay Estuary Program Mackenzie Watershed Council ' Lower Columbia Estuary Restoration Chesapeake Bay Program Chehalis Basin Partnership Lower Columbia River Estuary Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Partnership ' Dungeness River Management Team EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Coquille Watershed Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Flathead Basin Commission CALFED Bay-Delta Program Applegate River Watershed Council Anacostia Watershed Restoration Clark Fork— Pend Oreille Tri-State Water Committee Quality Action Council Conesauga Watershed Alliance Appendix B February 25, 2005 ' Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 5 Selected Bibliography of Comparative Studies of Watershed Management ' Born, S.M. and K.D. Genskow. 1999. Exploring the Watershed Approach: Critical ' Dimensions of State-Local Partnerships. The Four Corners Watershed Innovators Initiative Final Report. River Network, Portland OR. Brush, M., et al. 2000. Recent Trends in Ecosystem Management. University of , Michigan. California Water Resources Agency State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Addressing The Need to Protect California's Watersheds: Working with Local ' Partnerships, Report to the Legislature. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Case Studies: Organizational Structures ' Relevant to Implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. Huntington, C.W. and S. Sommarstrom. 2000. An Evaluation of Selected Watershed Councils in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. (3 parts). Prepared for Trout Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council. Eugene, OR. , Imperial, M. and T. Hennessey, T. 2000. Environmental Governance in Watersheds: The Role of Collaboration. Presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN. Kenney, D.S., McAllister, S.T., Caile, W.H., and J.S. Peckham. 2000. The New Watershed Source Book: A Directory and Review of Watershed Initiatives in the Western ' United States. Natural Resources Law Center, Univ. of Colorado School of Law, Boulder, CO. Leach, W., Pelkey, N.W., and P. Sabatier. 2001. Keys to Success in Watershed , Management Partnerships: Approach and Initial Results. In: Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Watershed Management Council Conference. U.C. Center for Water Resources. Riverside, CA. ' Washington Department of Ecology. 2003. Assessment of Watershed Planning: A Report to the Legislature. Wondolleck, J. and S. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from , Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Appendix B February 25, 2005 Case Studies from Other Watersheds Page 6 ' APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL APPENDICES S TECHNICAL APPENDIX C-1 : USE OF THE VSP CONCEPT IN WRIA 8 SALMONID CONSERVATION PLANNING Prepared for WRIA 8 Technical Committee c/o King County Prepared by Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101 June 2004 Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................4 1.1 ESA listed species.........................................................................................................4 1.2 Evolutionary Significant Units........................................................................................5 1.3 Viable salmonid populations and recovery planning .....................................................5 2 VIABLE SALMON POPULATION PARAMETERS .................................................................6 t 2.1 Abundance....................................................................................................................7 2.2 Population growth rate ..................................................................................................8 ' 2.3 Genetic and life history diversity....................................................................................9 2.4 Geographic distribution ...............................................................................................10 2.5 Interdependence of VSP Parameters..........................................................................11 3 PUTATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HABITAT CONDITIONS AND VSP........................ 11 4 APPLICATION OF VSP TO WRIA 8..................................................................................... 12 4.1 WRIA 8 Chinook salmon population structure.............................................................12 4.2 VSP and conservation planning ..................................................................................15 5 THE STATUS OF WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON POPULATIONS RELATIVE TO VSP ....... 15 5.1 Cedar River.................................................................................................................15 5.1.1 Abundance ..............................................................................................................16 5.1.2 Productivity..............................................................................................................16 5.1.3 Diversity...................................................................................................................16 5.1.4 Spatial distribution...................................................................................................17 5.2 North Lake Washington...............................................................................................17 5.2.1 Abundance ..............................................................................................................18 5.2.2 Productivity..............................................................................................................18 5.2.3 Diversity...................................................................................................................18 5.2.4 Spatial Distribution ..................................................................................................19 5.3 Issaquah Creek...........................................................................................................19 6 RISKS TO VSP IN WRIA 8 AND ASSOCIATED CONSERVATION HYPOTHESES...........20 6.1 Cedar River.................................................................................................................20 6.2 North Lake Washington...............................................................................................21 6.3 Issaquah Creek...........................................................................................................21 7 LINKAGES AMONG WRIA 8 PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION HYPOTHESES, RISKSAND VSP ........................................................................................................................22 8 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................25 Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 , WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)Framework Page 2 List of Tables Table 1. Habitat changes that promote improvements in the VSP parameters Table 2. Summary of abundance and life cycle productivity of WRIA 8 populations relative to VSP Table 3. Generalized life histories of Chinook salmon in WRIA Table 4. Known spawning distribution of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8 Table 5. Viable salmonid population parameters influenced by the WRIA 8 restoration ' and protection recommendations 1 Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 3 Introduction This Technical Appendix describes the role of the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) concept in Pacific salmon conservation planning in WRIA 8. Following a brief introduction to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and listing units, this appendix ' includes the following sections: • Review of the VSP parameters, • Description of the application of the VSP guidelines in WRIA 8, • Summary of the status of the WRIA 8 Chinook populations relative to VSP, • Description of the identified risks to VSP, and • Summary of the putative relationships among WRIA 8 conservation hypotheses, VSP risks, and anticipated changes in the VSP parameters. 1.1 ESA listed species The ESA listings of 27 EvolutionarilySignificant Units of west coast salmonids have 9 catalyzed wide ranging efforts to restore degraded habitats, reform hatchery practices, and to more cautiously manage both commercial and recreational harvest. In the Puget Sound basin, listed salmonid species include Chinook salmon and bull trout throughout the watershed, and Hood Canal chum salmon. Given the largely urban character of ' Puget Sound, it was recognized early on that loss of habitat was a prominent cause of the decline of these salmonid species, and that habitat preservation and restoration would necessarily play a prominent role in conservation plans. It was also recognized that effecting changes in salmonid habitat in urban areas was best accomplished at the local level. The development of conservation plans in Washington State has been organized around Water Resources Inventory Areas (WRIAs). The WRIA structure involves the division of the state into 62 areas for water and aquatic resource management, of which 23 are within the Puget Sound basin. Of these 23, the WRIA 8 planning area, which includes Lake Washington, the Sammamish River, and Cedar River watersheds, is arguably one of the most urbanized of WRIAs, a distinction that makes conservation planning particularly challenging. Adding to the challenge in WRIA 8 is the geographic and political reality that the watershed touches some 33 local governments, all of whom have been welcomed to participate in planning activities, and will be asked to take leadership in the implementation of conservation actions. Attenuating these challenges is the Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 4 fortuitous fact that most of the urban development WRIA 8 is concentrated in the lower areas of the watershed and the three main salmon-producing streams (Cedar River and Bear and Issaquah creeks) have headwaters that are either protected through public ownership (Cedar River and Issaquah Creek) or, in the case of Bear Creek, in a combination of public ownership and relatively low density development. Additionally, the majority of the Chinook salmon spawning occurs in rural rather than urban reaches. g 1.2 Evolutionary Significant Units The ESA is the regulatory framework for listing, protecting, and delisting threatened or endangered species. For the purposes of the ESA, the listing unit can be either a biologically recognized species or subspecies, or a distinct population segment (DIPS). The latter category was created by Congress in 1978 to protect unique genetic resources that would otherwise be lost if a particular population, groups of populations or segment of a population with a biological species were lost. Since Congress was largely silent on what constitutes a distinct population segment, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) faced a dilemma in the early 1990s when it began receiving partitions to list geographically-defined populations or groups of populations of Pacific salmon. NMFS responded by developing a science-based policy equating a DIPS to an "Evolutionarily Significant Unit (NMFS 1991). Based largely on the work of Robin Waples (1991), the NMFS policy stipulated that a salmon population would be 1� considered "distinct" for purposes of the Act if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. To qualify as an ESU, a population (or group of populations) must be a) reproductively isolated from conspecific populations and b) represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. Types of information that can be useful in determining the degree of reproductive isolation include incidence of straying, rates of recolonization, degree of genetic differentiation, and the existence of barriers to migration. Insight into evolutionary significance can be provided by data on phenotype, protein, or DNA characters; life history characteristics; habitat differences; and the effects of stock transfers or supplementation efforts. 1.3 Viable salmonid populations and recovery planning The Viable Salmonid Population concept was introduced by the National Marine Fisheries Service (McElhany et al. 2000) as guidance for determining the conservation status of populations and larger-scale groupings of Pacific salmon. While the concepts were described as a general framework for performing salmonid conservation Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 5 i assessments, they were also put forth as important considerations in the establishment of Endangered Species Act delisting goals. As defined by McElhany et al., a viable salmonid population is an "independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus)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." They further defined an independent population as "any collection of one or more local breeding units whose population dynamics or extinction risk over a 100-year time period are not substantially altered by exchanges." A more complete description of the properties of a population that are contemplated in the VSP concept is described in detail in the following section. 2 VIABLE SALMON POPULATION PARAMETERS Conserving and rebuilding sustainable salmonid populations is more complicated than simply meeting an arbitrary abundance goal over an equally arbitrary time period. Acknowledging this fact early in the recovery planning process, NMFS developed what they refer to as a Viable Salmonid Population, or VSP. By definition, a VSP has a negligible risk (over a time scale of 100 years) of going extinct as result of genetic change, demographic stochasticity, or normal levels of environmental variability. In developing the VSP construct and guidelines, NMFS used Ricker's (1972) definition of a stock as the basis for defining an independent population. According to Ricker, "an independent population is a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial r degree, does not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a different season.." Based on the current understanding of population attributes that lead to sustainability, the VSP construct is the guidance for, and goal of, ESA recovery. McElhany et al. (2000) identify four key population characteristics or parameters for evaluating population viability status: abundance, population growth rate or entire life cycle productivity, population spatial structure, and diversity. Although NOAA Fisheries has chosen not to provide quantitative criteria for each of the parameters at this time, these parameters are measurable and ultimately will have to be defined for WRIA 8. Moreover, they should not be thought of as boxes to be checked on a data sheet with easily defined pass/fail criteria. They are, in fact, critical factors influencing extinction risk. The reason that certain other parameters, such as habitat characteristics and Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 6 ecological interactions, were not included among the key parameters is that their effects on populations are implicitly expressed in the four key parameters. 2.1 Abundance Population size is perhaps the most straightforward of the VSP parameters, and is an important consideration in estimating extinction risk: all other factors being equal, a population at low abundance is intrinsically at greater risk of extinction than is a larger one. The primary drivers of this increased risk are the many processes that regulate population dynamics—particularly those that operate differently on small populations. Examples include environmental variation and catastrophes, demographic stochasticity, selected genetic processes (e.g., inbreeding depression), and deterministic density effects. Although the negative interaction between abundance and productivity may protect some small populations, there is obviously a point below which a population is unlikely to persist. Based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, McElhany et al. (2000) provided the following guidelines for assessing the adequacy of an independent populations' abundance. The first set of guidelines describes characteristics of a viable population, while the second set identifies characteristics of populations that are considered critically low in abundance. In both cases, the authors' emphasize that "population status evaluations should take uncertainty regarding abundance into account" (i.e., abundance estimates often overestimate the numbers of fish in a 1 population and hence a risk-averse approach should be the default in conservation planning). A viable population... 1) ... should be large enough to have a high probability of surviving environmental variation of the patterns and magnitudes observed in the past and expected future. 2) ... should have sufficient abundance for compensatory processes' to provide resilience to environmental and anthropogenic perturbation. Compensatory processes are those in which an increase in productivity occurs with decreasing density. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 7 3) ... should be sufficiently large to maintain its genetic diversity over the long term. 4) ... should be sufficiently abundant to provide important ecological functions throughout its life cycle. A critically low population is 1)...a population that depensatory2 processes are likely to reduce below replacement. 2)...a population that is at risk from inbreeding depression or fixation of deleterious mutations. 3)...a population in which productivity variation due to demographic stochasticity ' becomes a substantial source of risk. 2.2 Population growth rate ivit over the entire life cycle is a key measure of Population growth rate (1\) or productivity y y population performance in a species' ecological setting. In simple terms, it describes the degree to which a population is replacing itself. A X = 1.0 means that a population is exactly replacing itself (one spawner produces one spawner in the next generation); whereas a A = 0.9 means that the population is declining at a rate of 10 percent annually—a trend that is not sustainable in the long term. Conversely, a A = 1.1 � indicates a population is increasing 10 percent, a circumstance that likewise cannot continue ad infinitum since all habitats have an upper limit or carrying capacity. Since life cycle productivity naturally varies over broad periods of time, \ values estimated using data from long time series are highly desirable (i.e., 20+ year or more). McElhany et al. (2000) provided the following guidelines for assessing the adequacy of a population's productivity. As was the case with abundance, the authors emphasize that, "Population status evaluations should take into account uncertainty in estimates of population growth rate and productivity-related parameters." 2 Depensatory processes are those in which a decrease in productivity occurs with decreasing density. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 8 A viable salmonid population... 1) ... should exhibit natural productivity that is sufficient to maintain its abundance above the viable level. 2) ... that includes naturally spawning hatchery fish should exhibit sufficient productivity from naturally-produced spawners to maintain population abundance ' at or above viability thresholds in the absence of hatchery subsidy. 3) ... should exhibit sufficient productivity during freshwater life history stages to maintain its abundance at or above viable thresholds— even during poor ocean conditions. 4) ... should not exhibit sustained declines in abundance that span multiple generations and affect multiple broodyear-cycles. 5) ... should not exhibit trends or shifts that portend declines in population growth rates. 2.3 Genetic and life history diversity Biological diversity within and among populations of salmon is generally considered important for three reasons. First, diversity of life histories patterns is associated with a use of a wider array of habitats. Second, diversity protects a species against short-term spatial and temporal changes in the environment. And third, genetic diversity is the so- called raw material for adapting to long-term environmental change. The latter two are often described as nature's way of hedging its bets—a mechanism for dealing with the inevitable fluctuations in environmental conditions — long- and short-term. With respect to diversity, more is better from an extinction-risk perspective. McElhany et al. proposed the following diversity guidelines. 1) Human-caused factors such as habitat changes, harvest pressures, artificial propagation, and exotic species introduction should not substantially alter variation in traits such as run timing, age structure, size, fecundity, morphology, behavior, and molecular genetic characteristics. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)Framework Page 9 2) Natural processes of dispersal should be maintained. Human-caused factors should not substantially alter the rate of gene flow among populations. 3) Natural processes that cause ecological variation should be maintained. 4) Population status evaluations should take uncertainty about requisite levels of diversity into account. 2.4 Geographic distribution Spatial structure, as the term suggests, refers to the geographic distribution of individuals in a population unit and the processes that generate that distribution. Distributed populations that interact genetically are often referred to as meta populations. Although the spatial distribution of a population, and thus its metapopulation structure, is influenced by many factors, none are perhaps as important as the quantity, quality, and accessibility of habitat. One way to think about the importance or value of a broad geospatial distribution is that a population is less likely to go extinct from a localized catastrophic event or localized environmental perturbations. McElhany et al. proposed the following guidelines for spatial structure. 1) Habitat patches should not be destroyed faster than they are naturally created. 2) Natural rates of straying among sub populations should not be substantially increased or decreased by human actions. maintained that 3) Some habitat patches should be appear to be suitable or marginally suitable, but currently contain no fish. 4) Source sub populations should be maintained. n 5) Analyses of population spatial processes should take uncertainty into account. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 10 2.5 Interdependence of VSP Parameters Although it is instructive to dissect the VSP concept into its component parts, it is equally important to recognize that the parts are not completely independent. Taken together, life history diversity, genetic diversity, and metapopulations organization are ways that salmonids adapt to their complex and connected habitats, and are the basis of salmonid productivity and adaptability and ultimately, sustainability. Moreover, the range of "acceptable" values for life cycle productivity, diversity, and spatial distribution depend on the size of the population. Alternatively, productivity, diversity, and spatial distribution interact to determine abundance. Acknowledging the interdependence of the VSP parameters is an important consideration developing conservation actions. Actions should not and cannot be viewed in the narrow context of"fixing" or changing a single VSP parameter. Rather, the estimated benefit of a single habitat action (e.g., restoration of the connectivity of the mainstem to side-channel habitat)would likely affect all four parameters. Obviously, placing the highest priority on actions that influence multiple VSP parameters makes the most sense from both a biological and economic perspective. 3 PUTATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HABITAT CONDITIONS AND VSP Sustained salmonid productivity requires a network of complex, diverse, and interconnected habitats that are created, altered, and maintained by natural physical , chemical, and biological processes in freshwater, estuarine and ocean environments. In freshwater, a mosaic of heterogeneous habitats supports species diversity and spatial distribution, while a variety of channel and floodplain structures creates a mosaic of habitats for the myriad plants and animals that make up the riverine food web that drives ' productivity and abundance. A major consequence of land management practices and development in the riparian zone, floodplain and land margins has been the disruption of habitat-forming processes, and simplification and fragmentation of salmon habitat (Reeves and Sedell 1992). Simplification is a reduction in the number and kinds of habitat types, a decrease in structural materials that make up salmon habitat (such as large wood), and alterations of physical parameters (such as temperature). Habitat simplification reduces the number of habitat types, and fragmentation disrupts connectivity and species' ability to migrate at the appropriate time between links in the habitat chain (Lichatowich 1995). Similarly, urban development has reduced native Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 11 species diversity and increased inputs of toxic chemicals (e.g., PCBs, pesticides) while altering the natural balance of other important chemical and physical qualities of water (i.e., dissolved oxygen, proportion of fine sediments, and nutrients). Stepping down from this generalized description of the habitat requirements of salmon and the impacts of past land management practices to the pragmatic connection of specific habitat attributes and actions and expected improvement to VSP is an imperfect science. Nonetheless, it is a useful step in making a more direct connection among the VSP parameters, salmon life stage, and habitat. An example of a matrix making these kinds of specific connections is shown in Table 1. While not directly used in the WRIA 8 process to identify conservations actions, these linkages provide considerable insight into the interplay between specific habitat features and environmental attributes and species response. It is anticipated that as the understanding of these linkages will increases with feedback from monitoring and evaluation. 4 APPLICATION OF VSP TO WRIA 8 4.1 WRIA 8 Chinook salmon population structure The first application of the VSP concept to the WRIA 8 planning area was the identification of two demographically independent populations of Chinook salmon by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT 2001). These populations included the Cedar River and the Sammamish River...with the latter including the Sammamish River, North Lake Washington tributaries (Swamp, North, Bear, and Little Bear creeks) and Issaquah Creek. The TRT based their determination on multiple factors that they viewed as proxies for reproductive isolation. These included information on geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, life history patterns and phenotypic characteristics, population dynamics, and environmental and habitat characteristics. While it was concluded that Chinook spawning in the North Lake Washington tributaries (including Issaquah Creek and Sammamish River drainages) and the Cedar River are separate populations, it was considered uncertain whether the North Lake Washington tributaries historically supported an independent population. These tributaries are considered small Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 12 relative to other Chinook-bearing streams, and their use today may be the result of a 1 decline in body size that enables them to access and reproduce in smaller tributaries. Unquestionably, the wholesale alterations that occurred in the drainage patterns of the WRIA 8, 9, and 10 planning areas have greatly confounded any sort of straight forward ianalyses of population structure. These alterations include the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Locks, the rerouting of the Cedar River into Lake Washington, the rerouting of the White River into the Puyallup River, and the widespread use of Green River fall Chinook in Puget Sound hatcheries (both in and outside the Green River). The WRIA 8 Technical Committee accepted the TRT conclusion that the Cedar River and Sammamish River were independent populations, but for conservation planning purposes took an addition step and added the naturally spawning Chinook in Issaquah Creek as a separate population to consider in developing conservation hypotheses. Among the other population structures considered was one to combine the naturally- spawning Chinook in Issaquah Creek with the North Lake Washington Tributaries and define a two population structure (Cedar River and North Lake Washington Tributaries); and another was combining all populations (Cedar River, North Lake Washington Tributaries, and Issaquah Creek) into a single "Lake Washington" population. The rdecision was made with full recognition that the naturally spawning fish in the Issaquah Creek were predominantly returning hatchery fish that were excess to brood stock requirements at the hatchery that were released back to the river to spawn. The WRIA 8 decision was based on a precautionary approach and the importance of this population to the local community. It is noteworthy, however, that as information becomes available on the high proportion of hatchery fish that stray into the North Lake Washington tributaries and the Cedar River, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee may reconsider this choice. With hatchery strays (many suspected to be of Issaquah Creek origin) making up in some cases over 50% of the spawners in the Cedar River and North Lake Washington tributaries, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee is considering whether the current use of Green River-origin Chinook by the Issaquah Creek Hatchery program is perhaps more appropriately viewed as a major threat to the structure and diversity of the independent Chinook populations. Moreover, if genetic analyses indicates that the Issaquah Creek population is the same as the Green River Chinook population from Appendix C-1 . February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 13 which it was founded almost 6 decades ago, then the rationale for protecting this stock in this location (at least under the ESA) is of dubious value. ' In considering population structure of WRIA 8, it is important to recognize the extraordinary changes that occurred in the drainage pattern of Puget Sound watersheds i in the early 20th century. As noted above, historically the White, Green, and Black Rivers came together and joined the Duwamish River for discharge into Elliott Bay. The Cedar River discharged into the Black River. In 1916, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers diverted the course of the Cedar River into Lake Washington from its original discharge into the Duwamish River, and created a new outlet to the lake when it constructed Ballard Locks and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The effects of these major drainage changes no doubt had equally major effects on population structure of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. With a low level of"nearest neighbor" straying and genetic exchange a common feature of salmon population biology, historic relationships among these populations were forever changed. For example, whereas historically a White River spring Chinook might easily have found its way into the Green or Cedar River, the likelihood of this would be far less today. Likewise Chinook salmon returning to the Cedar River was historically more likely to stray and spawn in the Green or White rivers than the North Lake Washington tributaries ' such as Bear Creek. At the same time if the North Lake Washington tributary population was present historically, it already adapted to the lake environment and was , minimally affected by the drainage change. The effects of these changes are impossible to predict. Acknowledging this, the Puget Sound TRT did not consider reconstruction or complete recovery of historical population structure as a realistic goal, and accepted the WRIA 8 Technical Committee assumption that WRIA 8 independent populations were recoverable (and hence potentially viable) without reconnecting Lake Washington to the Green River. At the same time that drainage changes were altering nearest-neighbor relationships among Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations, humans were superimposing the additional complexity of industrial-scale hatchery production in the Green River and later in Issaquah Creek -- using the same Green River brood stock for both programs. While the consequences of these transfers and nearest-neighbor shifts have been the subject Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 , WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 14 of considerable speculation, there is no way to know with any certainty what the long- term consequences were or will be in future. Adding to the uncertainty have been ' changes in average age and size at return that have been attributed to selective harvest. 4.2 VSP and conservation planning The WRIA 8 Technical Committee utilized three analytical tools to identify conservation strategies for Chinook salmon habitat protection and restoration. These tools included the VSP guidelines, a Watershed Rating and Screening Matrix, and the habitat-based Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model. The VSP concept and parameters were used in several ways: First as a framework for organizing and summarizing population data; and second as a perspective from which to identify threats or risks. That is, what are the factors or risks that represent the greatest obstacles to achieving VSP status? Subsequent sections of this technical appendix summarize the status of the WRIA 8 populations relative to VSP, identify threats to VSP, and draw some preliminary conclusions about the types of actions are most likely to improve the status of the three Lake Washington populations in WRIA 8. 5 THE STATUS OF WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON POPULATIONS RELATIVE TO VSP The current abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial distribution of the three WRIA 8 populations are summarized in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Although comparisons to historic status are not particularly meaningful due to the drainage changes in the watershed, there are several observations that can be made. All of the populations are dangerously small, they are not replacing themselves, they are spatially restricted, and they exhibit limited life history diversity. 5.1 Cedar River In the Cedar River Watershed, Chinook salmon utilize the mainstem Cedar as well as several tributaries, including Taylor, Peterson, lower Rock, Madsen, and Molasses icreeks, and Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)Framework Page 15 5.1.1 Abundance Based on the return years 1997 — 2001, the NMFS Biological Review Team (NMFS BRT 2003) reported a 5-year geometric mean abundance of natural spawning Chinook salmon in the Cedar River of 244. A recent calculation based on the return years 1998— , 2002 yields a geometric mean abundance of 327. While this suggests a modest increase in abundance in recent years, even the larger number is low enough to , represent a significant risk to the population. Moreover, compared to returns in the 1970s which ranged from 3,000 to 14,000 naturally spawning fish, these recent estimates suggest a population that is in steep decline. 5.1.2 Productivity The NMFS BRT (2003) reported geometric mean natural spawner counts (most recent 5 years; 1997-2001) median population growth rates (A) for selected naturally spawning populations of Chinook in Puget Sound. Among these was the Cedar River. Short-term A was defined as calculated from data from 1990 to the most recent year of data, with a minimum of 10 data points in the 13-year span. Long-term A was defined as that calculated from all existing data. Both long-and short-term A were estimated under two ' scenarios: one assuming that the reproductive success of naturally-spawning hatchery fish was 0 (HO) and one that it was equivalent to that of wild fish. As shown in the Table 2, all four estimates of A for Cedar River Chinook indicate they have not been replacing ' themselves. Long- and short-term median population growth rates under the scenario where reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish was negligible were ' 0.966 and 0.933, respectively; long- and short-term median population growth rates under the scenario where reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish was 100% were 0.966 and 0.933, respectively. A population trajectory in which the spawners are not replacing themselves must be reverse or the populations will become extinct. 5.1.3 Diversity Cedar River Chinook salmon exhibit an ocean-type life history, spending less than a year in freshwater before migrating to the ocean for one to fours years (average two to three years) before returning to spawn. The major form of life history diversity involves what are called fry versus fingerling migrants. Fry migrants emerge from the gravel from January through April, and within days move downstream to Lake Washington, where Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 16 they rear in shoreline and small creek mouth habitats until about June. In contrast, fingerling migrants emerge between January and April, but continue to rear in riverine habitat until they migrate to Lake Washington in late spring and early summer. For the purposes of Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model runs, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee assumed 75% fry migrants and 25% fingerling or smolt migrants Although it is highly likely that loss and modification of habitat has altered the expression of more diverse life histories of ocean-type Chinook salmon in the Cedar River, there are virtually no data to either support or refute this. Moreover, whether the Cedar River ever supported a stream-type spring Chinook population has been the subject of considerable speculation, and again there is only anecdotal historical information from which to work. 5.1.4 Spatial distribution Adult spawning in the Cedar River peaks in October and is concentrated in the mainstem between RM 14-18; few fish spawn below RM 5 (Burton 2003). However, with the modification of Landsburg Dam to allow fish passage beginning in the fall of 2003, the spawning distribution is expected to expand along the mainstem of the Cedar River. It should be noted, however, that while the habitat above Landsburg Dam is in good condition, it is also steeper and higher in elevation (and hence cooler) and may not be as productive as the lower river. The habitats used by juvenile Chinook salmon vary depending on the overall life history strategy. Fry migrants use shallow shoreline areas and creek mouths in Lake Washington; whereas, fingerling migrants use edge habitat in the mainstem Cedar River. The fingerling migrants tend to occupy lower gradient, side channels of the lower reaches of the mainstem and tributaries. The protection and restoration of these habitats, along with recolonization of the upper subwatershed should reverse the tdownward trend habitat availability and increase the life history and genetic diversity, as well as spatial distribution. 5.2 North Lake Washington The North Lake Washington Tributaries watershed includes Bear, Cottage, Little Bear, North, Swamp, Kelsey, Evans, McAleer, Juanita, Thornton, May, and Coal creeks. Based on limited spawner surveys, about 90% of the Chinook salmon spawning in the Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 17 NLW tributaries spawn in Bear Creek. 5.2.1 Abundance Based on the return years 1997 —2001, the NMFS BRT (2003) reported a 5-year geometric mean abundance of natural spawning Chinook salmon in the NLW tributaries of 251. A recent calculation based on the return years 1998 —2002 yields a geometric mean abundance of 331. While this suggests an increase in abundance, even the larger number is low enough to represent a significant risk to the population. i 5.2.2 Productivity The NMFS BRT (2003) reported geometric mean natural spawner counts (most recent 5 r years; 1997-2001) median population growth rates (A) for selected naturally spawning populations of Chinook in Puget Sound. Among these was the North Lake Washington Tributaries. Short-term A was defined as calculated from data from 1990 to the most recent year of data, with a minimum of 10 data points in the 13-year span. Long-term A was defined as that calculated from all existing data. Both long-and short-term \ were estimated under two scenarios: one assuming that the reproductive success of naturally- spawning hatchery fish was 0 (HO) and one that it was equivalent to that of wild fish. As shown in the Table 2, all four estimates of \ for North Lake Washington Chinook indicate they are barely replacing themselves. Long- and short-term median population growth ' rates under the scenario where reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish was negligible were 0.995 and 1.077, respectively; long- and short-term median population growth rates under the scenario where reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish was 100% were 0.995 and 1.077, respectively. Although not in as steep a decline as the Cedar River population, the life cycle productivity of the North ' Lake Washington population needs to increase for the abundance to grow and the recolonization the many vacant habitats in this watershed. 1 5.2.3 Diversity It is believed that historically at least two life histories were present in the NLW tributaries Chinook population: an early fry migrant and a later fingerling or smolt migrant. Both forms exist today, and the proportion varies substantially for year-to-year. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 18 f ' Based smolt trapping studies in Bear Creek (Seiler per comm.) reported fry and smolt migrant percentages as follows: Broodyear Percentage fry migrants Percentage smolt migrants ' 1998 12 88 1999 44 56 2000 5 95 2001 26 74 2002 4 96 5.2.4 Spatial Distribution The spatial distribution of NLW tributary Chinook salmon is considerably reduced compared what historically existed. Approximately 90% of the returning Chinook spawn ' in Bear Creek, whereas historically they may have been more evenly distributed in Bear, North, Little Bear, and Swamp creeks. While this has been at least partially attributable to loss of spawning habitat, it is also a reflection of an overall reduction in productivity and the low numbers of returning adults. Improving productivity would likely make a rmajor contribution to reversing this limited distribution of production in the North Lake Washington tributaries. 5.3 Issaquah Creek The Issaquah Creek watershed includes, in addition to Issaquah Creek, tributaries to Lake Sammamish including Fifteenmile, McDonald, East Fork Issaquah, Lewis, Laughing, and Jacobs creeks. Chinook salmon currently spawn in Issaquah Creek in the vicinity of the hatchery and the East Fork of Issaquah Creek. As noted above the Issaquah Creek population is a special case that is problematic when viewed through the ESA and VSP lenses. This is due to the fact that the Issaquah Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 19 Creek population is a hatchery population that originated with Green River Chinook salmon stock in 1937, with egg transfers as recent as 1992 (HSRG 2004). The natural spawning portion of this population is composed of fish returning to Issaquah Creek that are considered excess to hatchery needs (typically about 1600 fish are needed as broodstock), some of which are returned to the river to spawn upstream of the hatchery weir (others are sold as excess pet food processors, used in stream nutrient enhancement projects, or disposed of in a landfill). In the past five years the numbers , released to spawn were in the thousands. 6 RISKS TO VSP IN WRIA 8 AND ASSOCIATED CONSERVATION HYPOTHESES 6.1 Cedar River , Based on a review of the status of Cedar River Chinook salmon relative to the four VSP parameters, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee characterized VSP risks as follows: Abundance Productivity Diversity Spatial Distribution , Relative Risk High High Moderate Low These conclusions were based on the fact that abundance is in steep decline, driven primarily by a reduction in habitat productivity and loss of life history diversity. Moreover, recent empirical data indicate a large proportion of the fish on the spawning grounds are of hatchery origin. The degradation of habitat has not only marked reduced productivity, but has greatly limited in-stream rearing capacity and reduced the proportion of juvenile ' using the fingerling migration trajectory. Based on these findings, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee concluded that 1) all population attributes require restoration if the Cedar River Chinook population is to be viable; and 2) that of the four population attributes, the greatest risk comes from reduction in habitat productivity and potential loss of the in-stream juvenile rearing life history. , Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 20 6.2 North Lake Washington Based on a review of the status of the NLW tributary Chinook population relative to the four VSP parameters, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee characterized VSP risks as ' follows: Abundance Productivity iversit t Risk atial Distribution Relative High High Moderate-High High These conclusions were based on an exceeding small population size, driven primarily by reduced productivity and contraction of spatial distribution. The reduced productivity is attributed to habitat degradation throughout the basin. While it was believed that relatively equal sized spawning aggregations were regularly found in 4 or more tributaries, today 90% of the returning fish spawn in Bear Creek. Here, as in the Cedar River, a high proportion of the returning fish are hatchery strays. 6.3 Issaquah Creek ' As noted above, it is meaningless to apply VSP guidelines to a hatchery population or to attempt to identify risks. Abundance is to a large extent "adjustable" based on numbers of smolts produced; early life history survival and productivity is (by design) very high; genetic diversity will always be limited by hatchery broodstock management practices; and spatial distribution is, of course, limited to the hatchery rearing facilities. Perhaps more appropriate is a brief summary of the risks that hatcheries stocks pose to naturally- spawning stocks. To the extent that Issaquah Creek hatchery fish are straying and spawning with naturally reproducing population in WRIA 8 and elsewhere these risks would be relevant. Although there have been many summary documents written on the genetic and ecological interactions of hatchery and natural salmon, one of the more concise was published by Myers et al. (2004). Very briefly, hatchery bred salmonids are subject to domestication effects and quickly become adapted to the hatchery environment— and maladapted to the natural environment. When released they tend survival at a lower ' rate than their naturally-produced counterparts, but still compete for food and space. Moreover, there is the potential for transmission of disease organisms that are common in hatchery environments to naturally-produced fish. In addition, returning hatchery fish tend to stray at a higher rate than naturally-produced fish and when they do stray and Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 21 spawn naturally (either with other strays or with naturally-produced fish) the survival of the progeny is typically depressed. Finally, returning hatchery fish that stray onto natural spawning grounds and intermingle with natural stocks can mask the decline naturally- , spawning populations. These problems are by no means limited to the Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program, nor is there any direct evidence that each and every one of these problems is associated with this program. However, it is known that straying of hatchery fish throughout WRIA 8 ' is common and is a rapidly expanding phenomenon. Recent estimates are that greater than 50% of the returning Chinook salmon found in spawning ground surveys are of hatchery origin. This is obviously a situation that deserves serious attention, and will need to be addressed on a Puget Sound basin-wide scale. 7 LINKAGES AMONG WRIA 8 PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION HYPOTHESES, RISKS AND VSP Making an explicit connection between the protection and restoration measures identified using EDT and potential changes in the VSP parameters (and hence reduced extinction risk), is a potentially important step in recovery planning. While it is one thing ' to use a scientific model such as EDT to diagnose "what's wrong" and use the same tool to evaluate different "treatment options" (i.e., restoration actions), it is a more powerful strategy to use a different (and hence less- or differently-biased) approach to accomplish this function. Recognizing the importance of making this connection as a means of "closing-the-loop" the WRIA 8 Technical Committee developed a matrix linking the EDT derived actions to putative changes in the VSP parameters. The matrix is shown in , Table 5. Although such an approach is qualitative and arguably subjective, it is perhaps no less subjective than the application of"rules" in a scientific model that derived by expert opinion. It too is the product of expert opinion. Moreover, the value of this type of qualitative analyses is as much a mechanism for forcing the conservation planner to explicitly consider several key questions: What are the greatest risks to a population? , What is the expected effect of the proposed conservation actions? And lastly, do the proposed actions target those risks? While this may see obvious, it is often not explicitly addressed. After all is said and done, the ability to decrease risk— risk that is associated Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 22 i with low abundance, reduced life-cycle productivity, low genetic diversity and limited spatial distribution — is the ultimate test of an effective recovery and conservation plan. Inspection of Table 5 reveals that a large proportion of the proposed restoration and recovery actions are expected to affect productivity and abundance, while a much smaller proportion are expected to effect changes in diversity or spatial distribution. This is not surprising in that actions that target abundance and productivity typically are more directly influence by a broad array of activities that enhance quality of existing habitat -- including those targeting riparian health, water quality, food supply, sediment processes, refugia, abundance of predators, etc. This contrasts with the linked population ' parameters of genetic diversity and spatial structure which are typically affected most by those that open up new habitat, reconnect existing habitats that have been blocked or lost, and create new niches within existing habitat. In urbanized settings such as WRIA 8 much of conservation opportunity focuses on protecting and restoring habitat quality. Categorizing actions in the way (although obviously not quantitative or precision), affords ' the opportunity to evaluate whether the actions selected will in fact address the population parameters judged to be contributing most to extinction risk. In the case of the Cedar River, where risks associated with abundance and productivity was judged by ' the Technical Committee to be high, the actions line up well. Every one of the conservation hypotheses identified would be expected to improve productivity, and hence abundance. In addition, several of the conservation hypotheses would be expected to affect diversity and spatial distribution, which were judged to be moderate and low risk parameters, respectively. It is also interesting to note that perhaps one of the most robust conservation hypotheses -- one that is expected to most profoundly affect all four VSP parameters — involves stream flows and hydrological continuity to enhance upstream migration and spawning. In an urban planning environment this will t� be perhaps one of the greatest challenges. I In the case of the North Lake Washington tributaries, the risks to abundance, productivity, and spatial distribution were judged by the Technical Committee to be high; and the risk to diversity was judged moderate-high. As was the case with the conservation hypotheses identified for the Cedar River, the North Lake Washington actions are heavy focused on abundance and productivity. Few, if any are expected to rAppendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 23 directly affect diversity and spatial distribution. While this at first might seem problematic, it may only be a limitation of the simplifying assumptions used to link actions and their probably effects in these watersheds. It is generally held that adult ' salmon tend to occupy the best (i.e., highest quality) habitats first, and begin to expand into adjacent habitat when the preferred areas are "full." To the extent that the exceptionally low numbers of adults returning to the Northlake Washington Tributaries are a factor in the concentration of spawning in Bear Creek, virtually all the measures , that target increasing productivity and abundance would also be expected to extend spawning to the remaining tributaries. Such an expansion of spawning distribution would have a profound effect on spatial distribution and diversity. i 1 Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 24 ' 8 REFERENCES McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. HSRG (Hatchery and Scientific Review Group). 2004. Hatchery reform: Principles and recommendations of the hatchery and scientific review group, April 2004. (Available at: http://www.longIivethekings.org/publications.htm1) Lichatowich, J., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 20: 10-18. Levin, P.S. and M.H. Schiewe. 2001. Preserving salmon biodiversity. Am. Sci. 89: 220- ' 227. Myer, R.A., S.A. Levin, R. Lande, F.C. James, W.W. Murdock, and R.T. Paine. 2002. Hatcheries and endangered salmon. Science 303: 1980. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. Notice of policy: Policy on applying the definition of species under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific salmon. Federal ' Register [Docket 910248-1255, 20 November 1991] 56(224); 58612-58618 NMFS BRT (National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Review Team). 2003. Draft ' report of updated status of listed ESUs of salmon and steelhead. (Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/brtrpt.htm). ' Reeves, G.H. and J.R. Sedell. 1992. An ecosystem approach to the conservation and management of freshwater habitat for anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 408—415. Transcript of the 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington. Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations. In R.C. Simon and P.A. Larkin (eds.). The Stock Concept in Pacific ' Salmon. pp. 27-160. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ' Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of species under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53: 11-21. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 25 Table 1. Habitat changes that promote improvements in the VSP parameters Population Size Population Growth Rate(Productivity) Spatial Structure Diversity Abundance Overall Goal Produce more Improve survival rates among one or more life stages in order to lead to Expand areas of salmon distributions in Increase genetic and life fish higher overall population productivity watershed history diversity Specific More spawning Keys to promoting egg incubation survival Keys to promoting expanded spawning . expanded spatial Habitat area • no siltation areas structure which can Attribute More rearing • no burial • remove full barriers(e.g., dams) extend time in river Changes area . no scour • remove ecological barriers(e.g., • accessibility of rearing Improved • no desiccation inadequate flows, high temperatures, habitat(see features spawning habitat . favorable water flow/oxygenation conditions low dissolved oxygen in population growth quality • reduce/minimize egg predation • minimize anthropogenic increases to rate section)that may Improved rearing Keys to promoting freshwater rearing survival migration energy demands, such as promote fish staying in habitat quality partial barriers the river longer • predator refuge habitat . suitable spawning flows providing absence of sweepin • abundant prey resources p g p g g • high flow refuge habitat to avoid being swept out appropriate depth and velocity flows that send fish • competition refuge habitat • provide suitable spawning material out to estuary(or out • favorable temperatures Keys to promoting expanded rearing of areas with decent Keys to promoting overwintering survival areas habitat) before • access to off-channel habitat • suitable flows for access and exit(no intentional/directed stranding) movement by fish • access to low energy habitat • reduce/minimize"predation survival • availability of refuge bottlenecks" • adequate flows—no stranding, not swept out (i.e., areas of high habitat to avoid • available prey resources vulnerability to predators that lead to sweeping flows • predator refuge habitat reduced recruitment from portions of • favorable conditions Keys to promoting outmigration/smoltification survival the watershed) for very early, peak, • extended salinity transition zone suitable rearing flows providing and very late fish in • flow and habitat access to move between higher and lower salinity appropriate depth and velocity each life stage to areas promote extended • predator refuge habitat periodicities • abundant prey resources Keys to promoting nearshore survival • predator refuge habitat • abundant prey resources • extended salinity transition zone • access to suitable habitat along migration corridor • refuge from high energy conditions Keys to promoting marine/ocean survival • abundant prey resources Keys to promoting adult spawning migration survival • suitable temperatures • suitable flows for migration • expanded spawning habitat(quantity and quality) • minimize pre-spawn mortality • minimize anthropogenic increases to migration energy demands, such as partial barriers reduce predation risks Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 26 = = r = M M = M M M M M apt M M M = M M M MMM r i m M M M M � � � � � r• Table 2. Summary of abundance and life cycle productivity of WRIA 8 populations relative to VSP Geometric mean natural LT A (HO) (Cl) LTA (H1) (CI) ST A (HO) (CI) ST A (H1) (Cl) spawners (recent 5 years) Cedar River 244 0.966 0.964 0.933 0.933 (0.861-1.085) (0.870-1.067) (0.843-1.058) (0.828-1.051) North Lake 251 0.995 0.995 1.077 1.077 Washington (0.854-1.159) (0.874-1.08) (0.831-1.048) (0..92-1.1.259) Tributaries Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 27 Table 3. Generalized life histories of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8' Fry Mi rants I Fingerling Migrants Smolts Adult Returns and Spawning North Lake Outmigrate either as fry or fingerling/smolts to Lake Move offshore and enter Spawn in northern Lake Washington Washington from February to June, rearing during saltwater between May and Washington Tributaries Tributaries migration, and entering lake larger than Cedar River July andbetween September and f migrants. November. Cedar River Emerge between Emerge between Move offshore and enter Return from June- September; January and April, January and April and saltwater between May and spawn in Cedar River and outmigrate within days rear in the river; July. tributaries between August of emergence to Lake outmigrate to Lake and November Washington from Washington in late February to June, spring, early summer rearing in shallow habitats and small creek mouths Issaquah Migrate from tributaries to Lake Sammamish to the Move offshore and enter Composed of both naturally- Creek lake as fry or fingerlings, rearing as they migrate saltwater between May and spawned and hatchery fish. toward Lake Washington and enter the lake at a July. Spawn in tributaries to Lake large size and quickly moving offshore. Sammamish, hatchery spawning between September and November 'information from WRIA 8 Draft Framework and Preliminary Actions List Document Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 28 r r r r r r r r rl r r rr r r r r r � r Table 4. Known Spawning Distribution of Chinook Salmon in WRIA 8* North Lake Location: Bear, Cottage, Little Bear, North, Swamp, Kelsey, Evans, McAleer, Juanita, Thornton, May, and Coal Creeks. Washington Notes: Spawning occurs primarily in Bear Creek (90%) Tributaries Cedar River Location: Mainstem Cedar River, Taylor/Downs Creek, Peterson Creek, lower Rock Creek, and Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch; Madsen and Molasses Creeks Notes: Spawning peaks in October. Highest abundance in river miles (RM) 14-18. Few fish spawn below RM 5 (Burton 2003). Issaquah Location: Tributaries to Lake Sammamish, Issaquah Creek, Fifteenmile, McDonald, East Fork Issaquah, North Fork Creek Issaquah, Lewis, and Laughing Jacobs Creeks. Notes: Natural and artificial spawning occurs at the Issaquah hatchery. *information from WRIA 8 Draft Framework and Preliminary Actions List Document Appendix C-1 February 25,2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 29 Table 5. Viable salmonid population parameters influenced by the WRIA 8 restoration and protection recommendations Viable Salmonid Popu4#'Pn Parameters Area Draft Conservation Hypothesis Spatial Abundance rod uctivity, orsity Distribution Comments Restore riparian vegetation to provide sources of Enhanced food supply and habitat LWD that can contribute to the creation of pool V/ V/V/ V/ complexity support higher productivity and diversity Restore floodplain connectivity through setback i Enhanced habitat complexity and or removal of dikes and levees, the addition of capacity associated with levee and dike removal enhances spatial LWD to create pools, and planting riparian V/ vegetation. distribution, diversity and productivity Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts Clean water and sediments E to key life stages from fine sediments, metals V/V/ contribute to enhanced productivity (both in sediments and in water), and high and survival Floodplain connectivity enhances Minimize occurrence of road crossings to water quality and quantity which > enhance productivity Provide adequate stream flow to allow upstream Enhanced base flows are a key to migration and spawning by establishing in- 4) expanding spawning and rearing L) stream flow levels, enforcing water right V/ V/V/ habitat, and increasing spatial compliance, and providing for hydrological distribution and diversity Protect forest cover throughout each of the sub- areas to maintain watershed function and Cool, clean water is a prerequisite hydrologic integrity(especially maintenance of for high productivity sufficient base flows), and protect water quality. Protect pool habitat and habitat features that Enhanced pool habitat and habitat complexity enhance productivity support the creation of pools(LWD, riparian V/ V/IV/ V/ function, and channel connectivity). and diversity Reduce bank hardening by replacing bulkheads Unprotected banks allow natural 0 and riprap with gently sloped, sandy beaches. processes which create habitat complexity and enhanced AppendixC-1 February 25. 2005 YVRIA8 Viable Sa|monid Population (VSP) Framework Pmgo3O rr rr rr r rr r � r i r r r r r � r r r r Viable Salmonid Population Parameters Area Draft Conservation Hypothesis Spatial Abundance Productivity Diversity Distribution Comments Reconnect and enhance small creek mouths as Opening up new spawning and rearing areas. rearing habitat is a key to enhancing spatial distribution and diversity, leading to increase .................................... ........... _............................................ .......... productivity Restore overhanging riparian vegetation. ; Enhanced overhanging vegetation ✓ ✓✓ enhances food supply and cools water, both important to enhanced l productivity Reduce impact of docks to promote safe juvenile Reduced predation increases early salmon migration and deter the aggregation of life stage survival and productivity predators __..._ -........................._:. __._......._ _.... ........................... .. _....... ................. . Address predation effects at the mouth of the Cedar River and backwater area in lower Cedar Reduced predation increases early River life stage survival and productivity __._.-............._. ...-.......... .....--.._�__.-- ------------- Reduce pollution and contamination inputs from Clean water and sediments marinas and industrial areas. contribute to enhanced productivity and survival Reduce pollution and contaminant inputs. Clean water and sediments y contribute to enhanced productivity m and survival ---. ----- _ _.._ ........ _ Reduce sediment inputs from bed scouring high Controlling bed scouring flows .2 flows. prevents destruction of spawning _ __ __ __...... _................................... habitat and enhances productivity......__......... .. ....... .. .......... o Restore riparian areas to provide future sources Enhanced food supply and habitat of LWD that can improve channel stability and contribute to pool habitat creation, and reduce complexity support high peak water temperatures. productivity uct Protect groundwater recharge sources to Cold Clean water and adequate flow Creek and their connection to Cottage Lake support enhanced productivity Creekand Lo . . ....._........ ..................... ... ............ ...... ... ._.. .........._................. c Address channel confinement in Cottage Lake Unrestrained channels allow z Creek and Lower Bear Creek. ✓ ✓✓ natural processes which create habitat complexity and enhanced ... _ ....__..__.. ............................ productivity Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 31 Viable Salmonid Population Parameters Area ' draft Conservation Hypothesis Spada{ Abundance, Productivity Diversity Distribution Comments Protect water quality to prevent adverse impacts Clean water and sediments to key life stages from fine sediments, metals (both in sediments and in water), and high contribute to enhanced productivity and survival temperatures. Appendix C-1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Framework Page 32 TECHNICAL APPENDIX C-2 ' WATERSHED EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF CHINOOK SALMON TIER 1, 2, AND 3 SUBBASINS SUPPORTING SALMON CONSERVATION PLANNING IN WRIA 8 Prepared for: ' WRIA 8 Technical Committee Authors: Frank E. Leonetti', Kit Paulsen 2, and Brian Murray3 1 - Snohomish County Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, 2731 Wetmore Ave., Suite 300, Everett WA 98201-3581 2 - City of Bellevue Utilities, P.O. Box 90012, Bellevue WA 98009-9012 3 - King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, 201 S. Jackson St., Suite 600, Seattle WA 98104-3855 Introduction The goal of the watershed evaluation, as part of the WRIA 8 technical committee's Strategic ' Assessment, is to develop an hypothesis for relative watershed function based on an evaluation of the differences that exist among WRIA 8 tributary subbasins for select landscape level indicators. Landscape scale indicators have been shown to be associated with watershed processes affecting aquatic habitat conditions in streams and rivers (e.g. May et al. 1997) of the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion. For example, in urbanizing areas the amount of impervious surfaces in a watershed has been used as a predictor of the extent to which instream flow ' (frequency, duration, magnitude, and/or timing) has changed (e.g., Skagit Watershed Council 2000). Altered hydrology and the characterization of those changes has been tied more explicitly to changes in stream morphology (Booth 1990), instream habitat conditions (e.g. May et al. 1997), and fish populations (Lucchetti and Fuerstenberg 1993, Moscrip and Montgomery 1997), but this level of detail and biological investigation is not within the scope of this watershed evaluation. Instead, an hypothesis of watershed condition based on landscape indicators is proposed and tested (to develop a model) with stream habitat and biological data ' from independent investigations and tributary stream reach specific habitat attributes coded in the WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model. Additionally, as part of this evaluation, the level of use (principally for spawning) by Chinook salmon is used to develop ' subbasin tiers in order to propose and apply strategies for subbasin tiers and priorities for actions among tributary subbasins for each of the Chinook salmon populations bearing in mind potential future risk within this conservation geography. An objective of the watershed evaluation is to develop an index of landscape- and riparian-scale indicators reflective of factors that contribute to the degradation of aquatic habitat conditions (Impact factors) and those indicators that can mitigate or buffer impacts (Mitigative factors) ' (Horner et al. 2002). Land development (e.g., houses, landscaping, clearing, agricultural activity, roads, piers, gravel mining, bridge building, filling, bank armoring, bulk-heading) can significantly alter the natural watershed processes and habitat structures to which salmonids are Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 1 adapted. Depending on the type of habitat affected, biological consequences may result from ' changes in the quantity and quality of spawning, rearing, migration, and refuge habitats, availability and quality of food, greater exposure to predators and increased competitive ' interactions. Development in riparian areas and floodplains affects aquatic areas when it removes or ' modifies native forest vegetation, or when it alters rates and patterns of bank and channel erosion, migration, surface, and groundwater flow. Riparian areas provide a variety of functions including shade, temperature control, water purification, woody debris recruitment, sediment ' delivery, terrestrial-based food supply, and channel, bank and beach erosion (Gregory et al. 1991; Naiman and Bilby 1998; Spence et al.1996). These are potentially affected when riparian and floodplain development occurs (Waters 1995; Stewart et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2001). Bolton and Shellberg (2001) provide an extensive discussion of the effects of riparian and floodplain , development on aquatic habitats and species. Effects include: • A reduction in amount, complexity, and connectivity of habitat within floodplain and riparian corridors from clearing, utilities, and increasing road crossings (May et al. 1997; ' Alberti et al. in press); • Increased scouring of channels due to channel and floodplain confinement (May et al. 1997) that further isolates the river from its floodplain; ' • A reduction or loss of channel migration, natural vegetation (an increase in invasive species), sediment supply; and • A reduction or loss of woody debris recruitment (Maser et al. 1988; Bilby and Ward, ' 1991). Human activities in riparian and floodplain areas have adverse impacts on LWD abundance, ' distribution, and function (Maser et al. 1988; Bilby and Ward, 1991). Even if LWD is not directly removed from streams in conjunction with forestry, agricultural, transportation or urbanization activities, for example, the quantity and quality of LWD diminishes over time because impacted ' or urbanized riparian zones can not provide LWD at normative levels (Maser et al. 1988; May et al. 1997). Recovery of LWD recruitment potential to natural levels can take many decades (Maser et al. 1988; Bisson et al, 1987; Bilby and Ward, 1989). The fragmentation of riparian corridor continuity also impacts the functional quality of riparian ' and floodplain areas and has direct consequences for the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats (May et al. 1997). Road and utility crossings, land clearing, filling and encroachment , from urban development in floodplain and riparian corridors effectively reduce buffer functions, alter hydrologic pathways, often directly discharge pollutants from drainage networks and fragment high quality patches of habitat (May et al. 1997; Alberti et al. in press). Importantly, ' these conditions in floodplains and riparian corridors have been strongly correlated with measures of ecological health, such as the B-IBI (Morley and Karr 2002; Alberti et al. in press; ). Taken together, riparian corridor width, connectivity, riparian forest maturity, natural forest and , wetland land cover, floodplain interactions, and vegetation type have been used to describe riparian integrity for streams in the Puget Sound region (Horner et al. 2002). Based on this approach, an index of riparian integrity has been developed that may be useful for ' characterizing existing conditions based on impacts from land development, identifying targets for restoration, establishing a monitoring context for riparian and floodplain areas, and for incorporating into modeling efforts such that the variability in indicators of ecological health (such as the B-IBI) can be evaluated based on riparian and floodplain conditions and functions. ' An extension of this approach is to evaluate how development that occurs at the landscape scale may affect aquatic areas. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 2 ' Development that occurs at the landscape scale has the potential to affect aquatic habitats primarily by modifying water storage and runoff patterns and sediment erosion and delivery rates (Harr et al. 1975; Hicks et al. 1991; Booth 1990; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Booth and Jackson 1997; Booth and Henshaw 2001; Booth et al. 2002). Booth and Reinelt (1993) ' suggested that at a level of 10 percent effective impervious area, demonstrable, and probably irreversible, loss of aquatic system function occurs in western Washington streams. They and May et al. (1997) also noted that detrimental effects on channel conditions or habitat quality ' were evident well before 10 percent was reached and that no "threshold of effect" attributable to impervious area was observed. However, this likely has as much to do with a dramatic decrease in forested land cover at the watershed scale and within riparian corridors as it does with the increase in impervious area up to 10 percent (Figure 1 showing subbasin values from WRIAs ' 57, and 8 from data by Purser et al. (2003)). In fact, the relationship between impervious area and forest cover is strikingly discontinuous up to and above approximately 10 percent impervious area. Thus the change in TIA up to 10% represents a poor surrogate for the stronger agent of change, loss in forest cover. Given this conclusion, models developed to explain the variability in aquatic habitat conditions or biological response (e.g., B-IBI) should incorporate both forest cover and impervious area among other factors (Horner et al. 2002). For example, Alberti et al. (in press) reported significant positive correlation between percent subbasin forest cover and instream biotic integrity. 90 - Total Forest, Riparian only 80 -- Total Forest where TIA 70 <10% 0 so Total Forest where TIA N 50 WT " >10% c , a 40 r. 30 �n e 20 10 0 _._ ' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Subbasin TIA% Figure 1. The relationship between subbasin total impervious area (TIA) and subbasin and riparian total forested land covers in WRIAs 5,7, and 8. In developing an index to quantitatively stratify subbasins by impact and mitigative factors, and ' bin subbasins within impact or mitigative classes, an hypothesis of habitat function as determined by watershed condition is proposed. This assessment is detailed below in individual steps of this approach. Finally, in addition to assessing relative differences that exist among watershed indicators and Chinook salmon use, the subbasin- and near-stream (=275 ft) extent of change in estimated total impervious area (TIA) and total forested land cover between 1991 and 2001 is reported in order to document the rate of change associated with these key land ' cover conditions and thereby frame a discussion on the potential risk of future changes that may affect individual subbasins, the population response, and thereby the conservation geography within WRIA 8. This watershed evaluation does not apply to lake habitats in WRIA 8. Strategy ' development and prioritization for actions based on geography and action type for lake habitats Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 3 (i.e., Lakes Washington, Sammamish and Union, and the Ship Canal) is addressed primarily with the customized portion of the WRIA 8 EDT model. Other limitations and caveats associated with this watershed evaluation are covered below. ' Methods and Results Step 1. Selection of watershed indicators ' The selection of watershed indicators is driven in part by the appropriateness of the indicator to ' scale of investigation (subbasins 7-40 km2; Upper Cedar River is an outlier at approximately 330 km2) and available data that is consistent across the WRIA. Additionally, the watershed indicators selected were ones that were considered primary drivers of watershed processes related to hydrologic change or indicators (such as gradient) that would interact with changes in , hydrology to produce limiting habitat conditions or mitigate for those changes. The following information resources were used to select watershed indicators; ' • 1991 and 2001 land cover classification of LandsatTM imagery (Purser et al. 2003) for Total Impervious Area (TIA) estimate and total forested land cover. • SSHIAP (Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project) WRIA 8 stream gradient/confinement/channel type classification (httl2://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sshiap//gisdata.htm). This spatial dataset for streams was also used to buffer (by 3, 28-meter pixels) land cover grid data to determine subbasin percent ' near-stream (approximately 275 feet) riparian forest composition for the stream reaches overlapping with the spatial distribution of Chinook and coho salmon based on WRIA 8 fish distribution mapping (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/8/fish-maps/distmap.htm). In the ' upper Cedar River, the distribution of cutthroat trout was used. TRI-County Biological Review database (unpublished database, pers. comm. Gino Lucchetti 1/31/2003) and database summary tables in ' (http://salmoninfo.org/tricounty/documents/bioappen Iices.pdf). • Screening Level Analysis Of 3rd Order And Higher WRIA-8 Streams For Change In Hydrologic Regime-A Report of the WRIA-8 Technical Subcommittee on Flow Regime (as published in Kerwin 2001). The change in flow volume index was used for whole ' subbasin areas. In many cases these were 3rd order streams; In other cases these values were based on multiple tributary drainages. Because of their unique location in the middle of the watershed drainage network, the mainstem Sammamish River flow , volume index is reported for the entire drainage area upstream (160 and 240 mil) and not for the smaller contributing tributaries within these subbasins (12.1 and 13.8 mi2). All data used were summarized by the subbasin delineation (Figure 2) from Screening Level ' Analysis Of 3rd Order And Higher WRIA-8 Streams For Change In Hydrologic Regime-A Report of the WRIA-8 Technical Subcommittee on Flow Regime (as published in Kerwin 2001). This ' subbasin delineation in some cases has problems with accurate subbasin boundaries (such as for Kelsey Creek), and in those cases the subbasin values were pooled and weighted by subbasin area. , Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 4 , f; a wamp Nears are Uppe orth ' Litt Bear er art r am ' c Cot Lake r U er Bear Is om �, anita a ear Gr n ak _ ,, ' Lake ni t Kel s E t a ke ' West L e k8a` amish Washing m I b GIII ast '' rk Issaquah ay how aquah nmile Ce Mid Is ah South Uppe Urban ayl Cedar r Upper Cedar fr ' Figure 2. Subbasin delineation based on Screening Level Analysis Of 3rd Order And Higher Wria-8 Streams For Change In Hydrologic Regime-A Report of the WRIA-8 Technical Subcommittee on Flow Regime (in Kerwin 2001). ' Table 1 lists the watershed indicators selected for this analysis, assumptions regarding their applicability, whether the indicator is associated with habitat impacts or is mitigative of impacts and conditions, and data source. Table 1. Selected WRIA 8 watershed indicators. ' Indicator Factor Assumption Data Source % Total Impacting Channel morphology, habitat conditions and Purser et al. 2003 impervious biological responses have been negatively area correlated with increasing amounts of TIA Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 5 (e.g., Booth 1990, May et al. 1997). ' % Total Mitigative Retention of hydrologically mature forest Purser et al. 2003 forest area cover limits hydrologic alteration (Horner and , May 1999). % Wetland Mitigative A greater proportion of wetland cover is Tri-County area reflective of hydrologic retention, groundwater database, Gino , recharge and discharge and contributes to Lucchetti, Pers. limit hydrologic alteration as non-structural Comm. (based on stormwater BMPs (NRC 1995; Horner et al. USFWS, NWI) ' 2002). % Riparian Mitigative Intact riparian forests retain hydrologically Purser et al. 2003 forest area connected wetlands and side channels, contribute large and small organic material, and regulate temperature and nutrient cycling, among other functions (reviewed in Spence et al 1996; Pollack and Kennard ' 1998). Road Impacting Road crossings directly impact riparian, Tri-County crossing wetland, and instream conditions as a result database ' frequency of vegetation removal, streambank armoring, (#/km) bankfull width and hydraulic alteration and directly increase watershed drainage density ' (May et al. 1997). Storm Impacting This index is proposed to account for the Kerwin 2001 volume differing contributions of surface, interflow, change and groundwater discharge to elevated index stream flows during and following storm events. Value contributes to stream power ' when interpreted with gradient. % Stream Impacting Stream gradient affects stream power in SSHIAP, data reaches combination with flow volume. A greater accessed >4% proportion of high gradient reaches is 7/24/2001 from ' gradient indicative of risk to altered sediment supply http://www.wdfw.wa and channel degradation. gov % Stream Mitigative Low gradient unconfined reaches are SSHIAP , reaches correlated with suitable conditions from <2%, pool:riffle and forced pool:riffle habitat unconfined sequences (Montgomery et al. 1999). ' Step 1: Selection of Habitat Indicators Six instream and riparian habitat attributes were selected from the more than 40 stream reach specific environmental attribute input parameters required for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model. EDT requires that input data, whether qualitative or quantitative, be coded ' (0,1,2,3,4) reflective of condition based on definitions ascribed to each level. Thus EDT offers a ready made organizational framework for developing a continuous habitat index applicable at the reach scale that can be used in its own right separate from (but still linked to) the EDT , model. For the creation of an Environmental Attribute Index (EAI), some criteria were considered: Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 6 ' ' • Attribute codes ranging from 0-4 must describe the continuum from natural conditions (code 0) to most degraded (code 4), • Attribute values must be variable and vary across a continuum of land use/ land cover conditions, • Attributes will represent those with demonstrated significant effect on fish abundance, productivity, life history diversity or spatial distribution in freshwater, Attributes will represent those for which empirically derived observations exist, at best, and for which data input for target reaches is complete and has been reviewed ' satisfactorily by the WRIA 8 technical committee. Based on the consideration of these criteria EAI constituents were Woody Debris, Temperature- maximum, Riparian condition, Fine sediment, Primary pool habitat area, and Bed Scour. EDT reaches selected for model testing at the subbasin scale included those reaches in consideration of the following criteria; ' . Reaches considered from a geomorphological stand point to be response reaches (<2% gradient with confined, moderately confined or confined floodplain morphology or 24% gradient with unconfined valley morphology); ' • Reaches overlapping with (at a minimum) chinook salmon distribution • Reaches for which contributing subbasin area was already delineated and land cover composition quantified. In consideration of these criteria, 295 reaches among 595 total EDT reaches in WRIA 8 were used. Significant areas excluded from this analysis included all of Issaquah Creek and its contributing subbasins based on input data quality control and assurance, Lower Cedar River subbasins as total contributing land cover characteristics and other watershed indicators were not summarized at this larger scale, and direct drainages to Puget Sound, Lakes Washington ' and Sammamish including the Sammamish River proper and its contributing sidewall tributaries. Among the 42 subbasins present in WRIA 8, 26 were included in this analysis. For all reaches, and index score was calculated based on the sum of the unweighted input codes. At the subbasin scale, reach index scores were multiplied by the reach length and the sum of all reach length weighted scores were divided by the total subbasin reach length to derive a reach length weighted index value. Of course, this approach reduces some of the range and variability in index scores associated with individual reaches that potentially could be evaluated using other scales of investigation (such as the contributing area upstream from each EDT reach), but which is beyond the scope of this analysis. Step 2: Selection of Biological Indicators ' The benthic index of biotic integrity was selected as the sole biological response for this analysis in order to test the watershed evaluation hypothesis of watershed function. For this study no new B-IBI were generated in order to specifically test the watershed evaluation hypothesis. Thus, existing B-IBI values from a range of published and unpublished sources were used. These included Morley (2000), Snohomish County (2004), and King County (Brian Murray, pers. communication, 2004). In all, B-IBI values were collected for 30 of 42 subbasins in WRIA 8. For this analysis, Issaquah Creek subbasins were included, except Lower and Middle ' Issaquah for which no total contributing land cover summary was available. B-IBI values selected for this analysis covered the years 1995-2003. Although the land cover data is based on a snapshot in time (August, 2001), the lack of trend detection (as an analytical exercise) in B- Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 7 IBI studies over subsequent sampling years suggest selection of data points outside of the year ' 2001 assumes changes are insignificant and non-detectable so as not to warrant their exclusion. For this analysis all subbasin B-IBI values regardless of year or sampling location ' were given equal weight. Data were summarized in terms of highest, average and lowest B-IBI score for each subbasin. In addition to the selected watershed, habitat and biological indicators, other indicators were ' considered but not included in the analysis at this time due to inadequacies of data coverage, uncertainty of applicability and interpretation at the subbasin scale, or due to constraints related , to hypothesis testing. These include: • Base flow change index -from Screening Level Analysis Of 3`d Order And Higher Wria-8 Streams For Change In Hydrologic Regime. Within the WRIA 8 technical committee there was not unanimous support for using this indicator of flow change. It was suggested that surface- and ground-water exchange (recharge/discharge) contributing to base flow support be better reviewed before any applicable subbasin metric is selected. • Road density (mi/mi) - not used because it is strongly correlated with subbasin TIA (May ' et al. 1997) and at higher density reduces the difference between effective and total impervious area because much of the drainage network is linked via roads and ditches. In rural and forested subbasins, it would be more applicable as an indicator of surficial , erosion. • Flow control BMPs - quantified as area or acre-ft retained/detained with structural BMPs (after May 1996; Horner et al. 2002) ' • Hydromodifications - human-placed bank and floodplain artificial structures (such as riprap, revetments, levees, bridge crossings/footing, rail/road grades, other) disrupting floodplain, riparian and in-channel processes and habitat. Data sources are inconsistent , and not available across WRIA 8. • Patterns of fragmentation, clustering or adjacency of land cover classes within subbasins were beyond the analytical scope of this effort but may yield useful metrics for subbasin ' analysis. • Direct measures of sediment supply and transport and/or landscape scale indicators of sediment supply and transport were not included. Although there are good examples of these processes being considered in less urban, forest and forestry dominated ' watersheds Step 3: Identifying subbasin metric ranks for selected indicators , For this step, subbasin data for each indicator were plotted from lowest to highest value. Because each metric has its own range of potential values, each metric is given a score before it is incorporated into the final subbasin rating. Three rating criteria within the data distribution were identified based both on literature values and range and variability within the dataset so the ranks assigned would be meaningful. Next, three ranks of condition were assigned (1, 3, 5) for each indicator (Table 2) with 5 representing highest level of impact and highest level of mitigative value by indicator. Table 2. WRIA 8 watershed evaluation rating criteria and associated index rating value for select watershed-scale indicators. Also included is the direct source for rating criteria or supporting literature. , Indicator Rating criteria for indicator ranks Source for rating criteria Rating value 1 3 5 % Total <10% 10-30% >30% Based on May 1996. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 8 ' ' impervious area % Total forest <20% 20-40% >40% Based on data distribution. May (1996) ' area suggests 30%/50% break points. • Wetland area <3% 3-5% >5% Based on data distribution. This rating criteria is different from loss of wetlands ' % Riparian <20% 20-40% >40% Note: this is based on 90 m buffer width. forest area May (1996) sampled at 30 m width, and proposed 70% cover intact riparian forest. Road crossing <2 2-3 >3 Based on May 1996, NOAA 2003. frequency,#/km ' Storm volume <20 20-50 >50 Based on data distribution and results change index presented in Kerwin (2001). % Stream <30 % 30-50% >50 % Based on data distribution and reaches >_4% assumption higher proportion of high ' gradient gradient reaches contributes to increased stream power. % Stream <30 % 30-50 >50 % Based on data distribution and ' reaches <_2%, assumption higher proportion of low unconfined gradient, unconfined reaches contributes to favorable habitat and, in part, ' mitigates increased peak flows and volume. For example, Figure 3 shows metric break points (10% and 30%) for 2001 subbasin %TIA for WRIA 8. Metric break points identified based on 1991 subbasin TIA were also 10% and 30%. All impact and mitigative factor break points and figures are included as supplemental figures S1- ' S8. M 60.0 ' 50.0 - -- — - - -- -- 40.0 — - — - - -- - - - - I l � 30.0 - 0 ' 20.0 10.0 0.0 & V- `�r�aG`oJ G'<';(zj G Q9�J Qa��°��°�J�J� a�a�0e ar c Z`re�a�a oc�G�`°°e5a 5°JQoa�G�eQ°oea�aa�a G0G�?a�Gce°�eaG`�`\ecOaaF O G�c°Gace��ala�FGG`yc�J Ga�Oe�aFo\�aoJ aeaa�c`°�a`�a��o�0�aey5onccoo yac'a��aa�c.ea�� oOc&emsa a�a� oc o� `o rC3�.c) GJQ 0< G �a�Ga0 \.a�e Go\y�ao. \rya �,a GaF Gae�\ ` ^yr" Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 9 Figure 3. Example of rating criteria thresholds (10% and 30%) for subbasin %TIA and WRIA 8 subbasin distribution based on year 2001 land cover classification. Subbasin data and metric ratings are included in Table 3. The subbasin data and metric ratings ' were grouped by impact factors and mitigative factors. For each group of impact and mitigative factors, metric ratings were summed. It is hypothesized that the higher the impact score the less ' suitable habitat conditions are expected. As well, the higher the mitigative score the more likely favorable habitat conditions can be maintained in a subbasin. Step 4: Identifying watershed evaluation subbasin ratings. A final subbasin rating was established by subtracting the impact sum value from the mitigative sum value. Where impact sum values are high, it is less likely mitigative attributes are , widespread or effective. Where mitigative sum values are high it is more likely that impacts are isolated and mitigative factors predominate. In some cases, higher impact sum values are balanced by high mitigative sum values. These include low gradient, wetland rich subbasins ' with better protected riparian buffers and fewer road crossings than expected given the level of subbasin development (e.g., Upper North Creek, Evans Creek, East Lake Sammamish, Lower Kelsey Creek, Forbes Creek, and Upper Swamp Creek). These subbasins would be considered ' impacted and very at-risk from future degradation. Based on this approach of debiting impact factors from mitigative factors, a final subbasin score is calculated and watershed evaluation rating is proposed (Table 3). At this time, neither the impact or mitigative sum scores nor their ' constituent indicator metrics are weighted and the final watershed evaluation rating is based on selecting two point demarcations within the continuous distribution of subbasin scores. For the higher watershed condition, the impact sum score was < 10 and mitigative score was >12. For ' the lower watershed condition, the impact sum score was >14 and mitigative score was < 12. The one outlier based on this scheme is Evans Creek. There are many mitigative attributes present, but were its rating based on %TIA, Evans Creek would have a moderate watershed rating. , Step 5: Watershed Evaluation hypothesis testing. Simply put, the watershed evaluation hypothesis is that the distribution of watershed scores and ' proposed ratings based on the condition of landscape level watershed indicators explains some meaningful level of habitat condition or biological response. It is further hypothesized that ' proposed strategies and actions for individual subbasins or tiers of subbasins can be identified based on these tested relationships between conditions and response. The first null hypothesis tested was that watershed conditions represented by the watershed ' evaluation score were not correlated with habitat quality. Using regression analysis on 2 independent and continuously variable data sets, this hypothesis was rejected. Watershed ' condition explains approximately 67% of the observed variability in weighted subbasin habitat condition as shown in Figure 4 (where r=0.82, r2=0.67, p<0.0001). The model itself appears to be satisfactory as well in terms of error variance and explanatory power along the continuum of watershed condition. The greatest outlier (x,y = 16,6) is the Walsh Lake diversion ditch, which ' even given its relatively intact headwaters is described as a "high gradient, high-velocity chute" (Kerwin 2001). It may be that additional explanatory value would be attained by either including additional habitat metrics or additional watershed indicators as part of the watershed evaluation such that outlier points like Walsh Lake ditch were accounted for better in the model. Additionally Lower Bear Creek is evaluated in terms of a watershed score and habitat index value weighted by the contributing subbasin areas and respective watershed scores from those ' Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 10 ' ' areas. A more rigorous approach would have been to include the total contributing area and develop a watershed score based on this area rather than using an additive weighted approach ' as described. Potentially the most important factor to add would be confinement from artificial hydromodifications. Unfortunately it was determined during the course of limiting factors analysis (Kerwin 2001)for WRIA 8 that hydromodifications and streambank condition were not ' well documented across the watershed. The second null hypothesis tested was that watershed conditions represented by the watershed ' evaluation score were not correlated with biological integrity. This hypothesis is rejected but the results were unsatisfactory (Figure 5, Full score, r=0.75, r2=0.56, p<0.0001), given that the variability in average B-IBI was explained more completely by percent total impervious area alone (r=0.89, r =0.78, p=0). Upon further examination, both gradient and wetlands were ' temporarily removed from the watershed score as individually they contributed no explanatory value. The remaining watershed indicators formed an abbreviated watershed score (Table 3) and the variability in averaged B-IBI values was satisfactorily explained by this model (Figure 5, ' r=0.9, r2=0.82, p=0). _ m Ail44 �=x -0.2$27x + 13.$32 Y �w -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Watershed Score ' Figure 4. Environmental Attribute Index rating scores regressed against watershed evaluation scores. A higher watershed score is hypothesized to correlate with better habitat condition. ' Increasing EN is reflective of increasing habitat degradation. Outlier (circled) is Walsh ditch. t Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 11 Abbreviated model -- - -- -- ----- _ , y = 1.0203x+ 31.22--6 .� • R2 = 0.8171 • Full score m - -- -- --- — - • R2 _ 0.5634 m 25 • • ♦ s 20 ♦Full watershed score 1 • i 15 Abbreviated watershed score ------ io -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Watershed score ' Figure 5. Subbasin averaged B-IBI scores regressed against the full watershed evaluation , scores and an abbreviated version as presented in Table 3. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 12 ' M vim M M m m m WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 3.Watershed evaluation subbasin impact and mitigative factor data,ratings and combined final score along with suggested relative watershed condition ratings split into three cate odes of function. Watershed c-{ Subareas Impact Factors Mitigative Factors Evaluation EDT m � N D 'O x Flow Flow N i N.. OI � volume volume Gradient Road zing Road zing c�Netland Wetland Gradient Forest %Riparian Riparian - rn O I d Spawning basins only %TIA, %TIA change change Gradient >4% freq(#/km)freq(#/km a - area %, area,%, <2%,data, Gradient %Forest cover, forest cover, forest cover - C p'� d !q -C u chinookfcoh0 2001 rating data rating >4%data rating data rating E a NWl,data rating SSHIAP <2%rating cover,data rating data rating it et W Cp Cedar Rock Creek 4.95 1 12 1 9 1 1.15 1 4 Low 3.5 3 76 5 45 5 58 5 18 High 14 High 74 38 7 Cedar Main Rural 9.45 1 40 3 2 1 1.15 1 6 Low 3.6 3 65 5 46 5 54 5 18 High 12 High 5 Bear Creek Cottage 9.9 1 49 3 2 1 1.89 1 6 Low 6.5 5 98 5 28 3 27 3 16 High 10 High 10.3 33 1 Bear Creek Upper 4.5 1 34 3 51 3 1.89 1 8 Low 7.9 5 46 3 43 5 49 5 18 High 10 High 12.2 33 5 Cedar Peterson Creek 4.95 1 14 1 25 1 1.15 1 4 Low 3.6 3 68 5 39 3 34 3 14 Mod 10 High 10.4 26 3 Bear Creek Evans 13.5 3 45 3 44 3 1.89 1 10 Mod 8.9 5 56 5 29 3 31 3 1&High 6 High/Mod 12.2 31 -1 Cedar Upper Watershed 0 1 14 1 82 5 1.06 1 8 Low 3.5 3 13 1 78 5 93 5 14 Mod 6 High 12.0 44 7 Cedar Walsh 0.45 1 15 1 65 5 1.15 1 8 Low 3.6 3 23 1 76 5 79 5 14 Mod 6 High 16.1 38 7 Cedar North Rural 4.05 1 39 3 46 3 1.15 1 8 Low 3.6 3 49 3 31 3 24 3 12 Mod 4 High 13.5 35 1 Issaquah Creek Lower 8.55 1 30 3 70 5 1.70 1 10 Mod 2.1 1 30 3 52 5 41 5 14 Mod 4 Mod 5 Issaquah Creek North 22.05 3 62 5 22 1 1.76 1 10 Mod 3.7 3 62 5 31 3 40 3 14 Mod 4 Mod 37 -3 Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek 1.35 1 15 1 98 5 0.87 1 8 Low 2.1 1 2 1 61 5 64 5 12 Mod 4 High 37 7 Issaquah Middle 2.25 1 28 3 47 3 1.50 1 8 Low 2.1 1 49 3 42 5 39 3 12 Mod 4 High 3 Issaquah Upper 1.35 1 16 1 81 5 0.87 1 8 Low 2.1 1 7 1 49 5 52 5 12 Mod 4 High 39 7 Lake Sammamish-East 16.2 3 45 3 32 3 2.55 3 12 Mod 6.8 5 68 5 26 3 31 3 16 High 4 Mod -3 Bear Creek Lower 18.9 3 71 5 33 3 1.89 1 12 Mod ` 5.2 5 67 5 19 1 20 3 14 Mod 2 Mod 10.7 28 -5 Cedar Main Urban 21.6 3 70 5 19 1 1.15 1 10 Mod 3.6 3 81 5 21 1 24 3 12 Mod '+ 2 Mod -5 Issaquah Creek East 6.3 1 25 3 80 5 1.78 1 10 Mod 0.3 1 17 1 64 5 42 5 12 Low 2 Mod 41 5 Issaquah McDonald Creek 4.5 1 33 3 60 5 0.87 1 10 Mod 2.1 1 34 3 36 3 50 5 12 Mod 2 Mod 3 May Creek 15.75 3 43 3 49 3 1.65 1 10 Mod ` 3.2 3 49 3 28 3 24 3 12 Mod 2 Mod 15.9 28 -1 Sammamish Valley Lower 26.1 3 48 3 36 3 1.87 1 10 Mod 6.3 5 62 5 17 1 11 1 12 Mod': 2 Mod -5 Sammamish Valley Upper 32.85 5 41 3 26 1 1.87 1 10 Mod 6.3 5 74 5 8 1 6 1 12 Mod 2 Mod -7 North Lower 27.9 3 72 5 25 1 2.25 3 12 Mod 8.2 5 71 5 15 1 16 1 12 Mod 0 Mod 13.1 21 -9 North Upper 37.35 5 84 5 25 1 2.25 3 14 Mod 8.2 5 5 10 1 24 3 14 Mod 0 Mod 13.9 22 -9 Little Bear Creek 15.75 3 61 5 41 3 2.76 3 14 Mod 2.5 1 56 5 26 3 24 3 12 Mod -2 Mod 12.5 28 -5 Tibbetts Creek 1115 3 25 3 74 5 2.02 3 14 Mod 1.5 1 25 1 42 5 46 5 12 Mod -2 Mod 15.9 29 1 Forbes Creek 37.35 5 77 5 14 1 3.62 5 16 High 3.6 3 86 5 10 1 20 3 12 Mad -4' 15.8 18 -11 Kelsey Lower 47.25 5 84 5 20 1 3.47 5 16 High 6.1 5 80 5 7 1 17 1 12 Mod -4�' � 15.5 17 -13 Swamp Upper 35.55 5 76 5 11 1 3.01 5 16 High 4.4 3 5 10 1 21 3 12 Mod 4 c 14.4 19 -11 Cedar South Urban 34.65 5 58 5 55 5 1.15 1 16 High 3.6 3 36 3 16 1 26 3 10 Low -6 14.8 19 -7 Coal Creek 21.6 3 46 3 71 5 1.92 1 12 Mod 0.4 1 14 1 21 1 35 3 6 Low -6> 14.2 25 -3 Swamp Lower 39.15 5 87 5 11 1 3.01 5 16 High 4.4 3 65 5 8 1 17 1 10 Low -6i 14.0 22 -13 Cedar North Urban 31.95 5 71 5 83 5 1.15 1 16 iHigh 3.6 3 17 1 11 1 31 3 8 Low 8 T: 15.2 23 -7 Kelsey Upper 37.273 5 70 5 26 1 3.47 5 16 High 2.2 1 74 5 13.1313 1 9 1 8s Low 8 � 16.1 15 -13 McAleer Creek 49.05 5 83 5 5 1 3.61 5 16 High 2.5 1 61 5 6 1 17 1 8 Low 8 18.3 23 -13 Juanita Creek 46.8 5 83 5 40 3 5.24 5 18 High 1.7 1 60 5 6 1 13 1 8 Low -10i1 ` 14.8 17 -13 Lake Washington-East 38.25 5 41 3 64 5 4.66 5 18 High 4.2 3 36 3 12 1 16 1 8 Low -to, -11 Marine Drainages 44.1 5 80 5 85 5 1.20 1 16 High 1.8 1 12 1 11 1 34 3 6 Low -10 -7 Thornton Creek 56.25 5 59 5 49 3 4.71 5 18 High 0.3 1 33 3 3 1 7 1 6 Low -12 � �� 16.6 14 -13 Lake Sammamish-West(i 33.75 5 63 5 82 5 3.88 5 20 High 1.8 1 16 1 15 1 29 3 6 Low 14 -11 Lake Washington-West 56.7 5 49 3 100 5 3.91 5 98 High 2.3 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 Low 14 L� � `' -11 Lyon Creek 36.9 5 59 5 46 3 3.54 5 18 High 1 1 22 1 12 1 17 1 4 Low 14 �, 19.4 23 13 Subbasin rating is estimated Appendix C-2 February 25,2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 13 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan t Limitations and Uncertainties There are a number of limitations and uncertainties regarding hypothesis testing at this time. As indicated above, this evaluation applies only to subbasins that are tributary to larger rivers, lake ' habitats and the Puget Sound nearshore. It is not an approach or tool that captures the entire geography of the WRIA, nor does it do so at a finer spatial scale. This evaluation also includes only those subbasins that provide spawning habitat for Chinook and or coho salmon. Therefore, the Mercer Island, Green Lake, North Lake Washington, and the Lake Union subbasins were not included in this evaluation. For these subbasins, however, 1991 and 2001 land cover data are included in Tables 9 and 10. For this evaluation of watershed condition, all metrics are reported by whole basin and near- stream (approximately 275 ft) riparian area and do not account for spatial variability in land cover or development pattern, such as clustering, fragmentation or adjacency of land cover ' classes. The near-stream (approximately 275 ft) riparian area used is not intended to be regarded as a "buffer" in the regulatory sense. From a spatial perspective, it made the most sense to evaluate land cover at a distance of three 28-meter pixel widths from stream locations. ' Because, at the same time, stream locations are rarely depicted accurately, a wider near-stream area will maximize the likelihood of describing near stream conditions without being so wide that the result tends toward the overall subbasin land cover composition. For this evaluation of watershed condition, all metrics were treated with equal weight in terms of their contribution to determining watershed condition. In general, impact factors were selected which primarily affect the hydrologic regime and/or interact with altered hydrology to alter stream hydraulics. An alternative would be to add weight (e.g. x2) to %TIA and road crossing frequency metric ranks or to apply a weight (e.g. x2) to the final impact score (based on an assumption that impact factors associated with urbanization will overwhelm remaining subbasin mitigative factors). Weighting metric ratings may prove useful when performing alternative model fitting and parameter. In its current form, the watershed evaluation portrays relative subbasin conditions using appropriate and relevant indicators based on the watershed data distribution and criteria for metric ratings based on best available science. Step 6. Identifying Chinook salmon use among subbasins ' In addition to the watershed evaluation exercise described above, a Chinook salmon population matrix was developed in order to segregate subbasins by population use in addition to watershed condition. This approach was taken in order to develop subbasin strategies for Chinook salmon populations but still remain independent from the habitat-based EDT salmon performance model. ' Population information assembled for this exercise was based on the NOAA-Fisheries Viable Salmonid Population attributes for populations; Abundance, Productivity, Spatial Distribution and Diversity (McElhany et al. 2000) and Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) (WDF et al. 1993). For each of the three Chinook salmon populations (Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah) considered for this evaluation, the level of fish use (spawning and early rearing) within subbasins was characterized as belonging to a core group, satellite group, or episodic group. Table 4 displays the underlying data used to develop the level of fish use proposed. Definitions of core, satellite, or episodic fish use are provided in the table footnotes and information regarding the spatial distribution of populations comes from a spatial dataset (i.e. GIS) based on species observation (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/8/fish- maps/distmap.htm). These results were also reported and used in the WRIA 8 Near-Term Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 14 ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Action Agenda and are summarized in Table 5, which also includes a migratory/rearing use designation assigned to some non-spawning areas (e.g., Lake Washington). r Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 15 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 4.2003 WRIA 8 Chinook salmon population analysis matrix. Diversity Abundance Distribution Productivity OBSERVATIONS(since production/ PROFESSIONAL SURVEYS 1996,except Kelsey female Mean survival ratios Number of Low < L2:1 Length tributaries gradient WCM o 8 Chinook o Known Incidence of BFW, of used/ un- u°v o o w salmon Chinook Population - minimum Mean chinook per Basin min stream length confined ° ° a , affiliation life history ° o -5 o _ population salmon a Y Mean adult adults years of Area (from used, used, reaches o 0 o Total ¢m affiliation subareas origin' 2 Status' trajectories' abundance Years of record observed observation (mi2) EDT) miles miles (%)/miles Fry Smolts LL E CL 4) % a d Cedar Cedar Native Wild Depressed 2 746 64-66,sass n/a n/a 65 70-100 f 24.9 4/3.0 22/833 489 136 12.2 3.4 14.4 Cedar Core Upper Cedai Mixed Comp. Unk 79 2003 128 70-100 f unk unk 18/54 Cedar Sat Taylor Native Wild Depressed 2 12 98-2003 7.5 1.2 0 54/5.5 Cedar Sat Peterson Native Wild Depressed 2 1 98-2003 6.4 8 ft 0.2 0 75/3.4 Cedar Epi Rock Native Wild Depressed 2 3 1960-2003 14.8 17-35 ft 1.3 0 76/4.1 Cedar Epi Walsh Native Wild Depressed 2 1 98-2003 6.6 8 ft 0.3 0 35/5.6 Cedar Epi N.Lk.Wash.Bear Native Wild Unk 2 404 85-99 n/a n/a 50 10-27ft 17.1 2/7.2 61/44 21 72 0.5 1.8 2.3 NLW Core Little Bear Native Wild Unk 1 11 71-89,94,96 1 1 out of 5 15 12-18 ft 7.6 1/0.8 56/12 NLW Sat North a Native Wild Unk 1 25 74,76,81,84,86-98,01 8 3 out of 5 29 10-24 ft 10.8 1/0.5 71/22 NLW Sat Swamp' Native Wild Unk 1 6 75-77,80-81,84-88,90 0 0 out of 5 25 10-24 ft 12.2 1/2.0 65/14 NLW Sat Thornton Native Wild Unk 1 3 99-00 1 2 out of 5 11.6 12-15 ft 1.7 1/0.2 33/4 NLW Epi McAleer Native Wild Unk 1 n/a a 11 2 out of 5 3.6 10 ft 2.6 0 61/4 NLW Epi Issaquah Issaquah Non-native Comp. Healthy 2 2,796 86-99 n/a n/a 60 8-30 ft 26 5/13.4 23134 Iss Core Lewis Non-native Comp. Healthy 1 n/a nla 9 4 out of 5 1.9 0.6 0 5/0.2 Iss Epi Laughing Jacobs Non-native Comp. Healthy 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 16 0.5 1/0.5 68/0.5 Iss Epi Unaffiliated Kelsey Native Wild Unk 1 138 99-00 70 11 out of 11 17 5-19 ft 13 3/5.9 76/17 NLW Sat based on Coal Native Wild Unk 1 n/a n/a 0 1 out of 5 9 7-9 ft 2.1 0 14/2 NLW Epi SASSI and May Native Wild Unk 1 2 82,98-99 2 2 out of 4 14 9-15 ft 3.2 0 49114 NLW Epi TRT Juanita Native Wild Unk 1 1 88 0 0 out of 3 6.6 2 ft 2.2 0 60/5 NLW Epi Pipers Unk Unk Unk 1 n/a nla n/a n/a 2.9 0.4 0 12/1 est. Unaffiliated Epi from SASSI 2 Minimum fife history trajectories currently represents the number of observed juvenile life history strategies 3 Includes Upper Cedar River Watershed 4 Core/Satellite/Episodic: 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 dames 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 that 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. 10 Issaquah Subbasin includes North Fork,East Fork,Lower Issaquah,Middle Issaquah,Upper Issaquah,Fifteenmile,and McDonald subareas. Appendix C-2 February 25,2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 16 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 5. WRIA 8 Chinook salmon use designation by population affiliation based on Table 4 and including migratory areas. Chinook salmon use Population(s) Moderate (Satellite Low (Episodic spawning) spawning, Non- . contributing) ALL Lake Washington, Lake Union/Ship Canal, Locks, Nearshore, Cedar Cedar River Main Urban, Upper Cedar Rock Creek, Peterson Cedar River Main Rural, (assumed), Taylor Creek, Walsh Creek, Creek, Cedar River North Urban, Cedar River South Urban, NLW Bear Creek (Cottage, Bear Creek Evans, McAleer Creek, Upper, Lower), Little Bear Creek, Juanita Creek, Sammamish River North Creek, Thornton Creek, May (Upper, Lower), Swamp Creek, Creek, Coal Creek, Kelsey Creek, Issaquah Issaquah Creek (Lower, McDonald Creek, North, East, Middle, Lewis Creek, East Fifteen Mile, Upper), Lake Sammamish Lake Sammamish, tributaries, Sammamish River (Upper, Lower), Step 7: Intersection of watershed evaluation and fish use results. Table 6 depicts the intersection of subbasins within bins representing levels of fish use and watershed condition based on the results of Steps 4 and 6 reported above. In order to include all WRIA 8 subbasins, including slow water habitats, the Locks, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Lake Union/Ship Canal are included (italicized) in Table 6. Their watershed condition is assumed to be degraded based on the highly altered environment, as is described in the WRIA 8 Limiting Factors Report (Kerwin 2001). Based on the relative watershed condition and level of fish use, three tiers of subbasins are distinguished (Table 7). They are summarized as follows: Tier 1 —These subbasins include core spawning and obligatory rearing and migratory areas for Chinook salmon without which the WRIA 8 populations could not complete their life cycle. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 17 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan These are designated Tier 1 regardless of watershed condition for this reason and are areas supporting all VSP attributes for each population. Given basinwide variability among Tier 1 subbasins and their representative habitats, protection and restoration strategies will vary by , watershed condition and by life history requirements. These Tier 1 subbasins all contribute significantly to existing productivity and broad subbasin strategies can be developed for each Tier 1 bin (Table 7). For example, subbasins with high fish use representing the spawning core of a population within areas of higher watershed function should be protected (see Table 8 for example subbasin strategies). For these subbasins, specific watershed or habitat strategies and objectives should be developed considering the population objectives derived from the VSP analysis (Appendix C-1). In order to support the VSP objectives (including higher levels of fish use supporting conservation goals), these subbasins should not move toward a moderate level of watershed function. Table 6. Intersection of watershed evaluation and relative level of current fish use. Watershed Evaluation Rating Fish Use Higher Watershed Moderate Watershed LowerWatershed Function Function Functi Cedar Main Rural, Cedar River Main Urban, Lake Washington, Lake Bear Creek Upper, Bear Creek Lower, Union/Ship Canal, Locks, Bear Creek Cottage, Issaquah Creek Lower, Lake Sammamish Issaquah Middle Issaquah Creek East, Issaquah Upper Sammamish Valley Issaquah Fifteenmile Upper, Sammamish Creek Valley Lower, Issaquah Creek North Fork Moderate Bear Creek Evans, Little Bear Creek, North Swamp Creek Upper, (Satellite) Cedar Taylor, Cedar Creek Upper, North Swamp Creek Lower, River Upper Creek Lower Kelsey Creek, Mercer Watershed Slough Low Rock Creek, May Creek, Tibbetts Marine Drainages, Cedar (Episodic/ Peterson Creek, Creek, Lake South Urban, Cedar North None) Walsh Creek Sammamish-East, Urban, McAleer Creek, Issaquah McDonald Juanita Creek, Thornton Creek Creek, Coal Creek, Lake Sammamish-West, Lyons Creek, Forbes Creek, Lake Washington - East and West Table 7. Shaded cells (darkest to lightest) represent Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 priority subbasins for EDT treatment selection. Watershed Evaluation Rating Fish Use Higher Watershed Moderate Watershed lo ��ftertrd Function Function uncial Elm, TIER 1 TIER 1 TIER 1 (Satellite) TIER 2 TIER 2 TIER 3 (Episodic/ TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 3 None) Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 18 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Tier 2 —These subbasins are composed of satellite spawning areas (11-138 mean annual adult Chinook salmon) with moderate to higher relative watershed condition and are crucial for maintaining and improving the spatial structure, in particular, of the populations. Tier 2 subbasins also include episodic production areas that contain limited favorable habitat for Chinook salmon but which could be productive for this species in the future given an overall greater population abundance and protection of the higher watershed condition. These subbasins are designated as satellite and episodic production areas because 1) production is ' naturally limited or 2) production is limited by unfavorable subbasin and habitat conditions (all things being equal for the rest of their life history). Based on this difference among Tier 2 subbasins, improving spatial structure, which is dependent upon spatially distributed abundance, will only be accomplished by protecting existing limited production where higher watershed conditions prevail or by improving the productivity of habitat limiting subbasins. The largest benefit will likely be associated with subbasins with the largest size and moderate to higher watershed condition. However, in WRIA 8, Kelsey Creek maintains a larger than expected Chinook salmon spawner abundance given its lower watershed condition rating. At this time Kelsey Creek is grouped with Tier 2 subbasins. Not withstanding the abundance observed in Kelsey Creek, ideally subbasins with moderate levels of fish use and a moderate watershed condition can be improved such that watershed condition improves and a satellite area becomes part of the core of a population. Tier 3 — These subbasins have either lower watershed condition and significantly impaired watershed processes and degraded aquatic habitat and/or naturally limit production and abundance of Chinook salmon based on subbasin size, channel width, gradient, or length of suitable habitat area. In some cases, in historically significant production areas (e.g., Swamp Creek), Chinook salmon presently are rarely observed and production of other species appears to be limited as well. In other cases, even given the lower watershed condition, these subbasins likely would not contribute directly to significant Chinook salmon production (e.g. Lyons Creek). Instead, these areas remain important to Chinook salmon indirectly for the protection of water quality including temperature, water quantity, and maintenance of downstream habitats such as alluvial deltas in Lakes Washington and Sammamish and the Puget Sound nearshore. As described for Tier 1 and Tier 2 subbasins, appropriate strategies exist for Tier 3 subbasins to assist with recovery of Chinook salmon. In a schematic sense, recovery will likely be associated with moving subbasins toward the upper left of Table 6 and Table 7, while limiting the movement of subbasin condition toward the bottom right. Over longer time periods this can be monitored based on changes in the watershed indicators and levels of fish use. Table 8 depicts some examples of broad protection or restoration strategies that would target conditions limiting the function of watershed processes, instream habitat and downstream receiving waterbodies and might be applicable to subbasins within subbasin groups. Table 8. Example of broad subbasin specific strategies for actions applicable to each of the subbasin groups represented within each cell. Watershed Evaluation Rating Fish Use Higher Watershed Moderate Watershed Lower Watershed Function Function irt+ction IMProtection of watershed Watershed and Habitat Target focus areas and processes and restoration Protection/ Restoration; key life history stages of key limiting factors Enhance key life history understanding altered , limiting factors. Focus processes and biological Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 19 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan r' may be on life histories communities may not be most affected and treated across a larger habitats associated with area of the subbasin these life stages (Satellite) Watershed processes Habitat protection and Target focus areas and protection/restoration and restoration; focus limiting life history stage restoration of key limiting mitigation to enhance requirements factors (which may be out major limiting factors of basin) ' (Episodic/ Watershed processes Habitat protection and NPDES-related or other None) protection/restoration if restoration if major water quality objectives; contributing to limiting factors can be Maintain support for life downstream quality; treated; Otherwise history functions during lower priority if naturally assume BMPs will sustain periods of moderate fish limiting; Enhance access watershed condition to use or as subbasin if limiting to shift support other water affects downstream water production toward quality and species quality satellite level objectives Limitations and Uncertainties A key limitation of this analysis is the use of a single salmonid species (Chinook) and the assumption that restoration of watershed processes can and should lead to increased frequency and abundance of Chinook. This assumption is reasonable for most of the Satellite areas that are thought to have historically contributed significantly to population viability such as Swamp and North Creeks, but more tenuous for Satellite and Episodic areas that due to basin size or geomorphology are not likely to support significant or sustainable Chinook use, such as Evans Creek or smaller Lake Washington tributary streams. While the broad strategic recommendations in response to watershed condition would be unlikely to change, the inclusion of additional species may result in different binning of sub-areas. This evaluation could be improved with the addition of a fish use or biological condition metric that includes multiple species, allowing sub-area strategies to be linked to broader ecosystem health objectives rather than the status of an individual species. Step 7 Estimating land cover change and future risk to watershed condition. For the watershed evaluation, % TIA and % forested land cover from 2001 were two of the eight watershed indicators used. Based on the same land cover classification scheme, Simmonds et al. (2004) analyzed a 1991 LandsatTM image to compare land cover change from 1991 to 2001 in WRIAs 5,7, and 8 at the subbasin and near-stream (riparian) scales. The WRIA 8 data are summarized by Tier group in Table 9 and reported by individual subbasin for %TIA and % forested land cover in Tables 10-12 (based on Simmonds et al. 2004). 2001 land cover ratings and change are depicted in Figures 6 and 7. Based on the change in percent area (e.g., Table 10, column 5), a rate of change for subbasins for the 10-year period can be quantified. When both the amount of gain in TIA and loss in percent forest cover are combined, an additive difference can be calculated (e.g., Table 10, column 8) representing the within area directional and magnitude change in these landscape indicators (Figure 8). From 1991 to 2001, percent TIA increased in all (45 out of 47 subbasins) but two subbasins ' (Upper Cedar River and Walsh Lake), and the subbasin average increase in TIA was 7% of land area (Table 9). Forested land cover increased or remained the same in area in 4 out of 47 subbasins (8.5%), declining in 91% of all subbasins. Among all subbasins the additive Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 20 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan 1 difference of land cover conversion representing forest loss and gain in TIA averaged 13% of land area (Table 9). The change in TIA and forested land cover were also estimated within the near stream riparian area (within approximately 90 m either side of type 1-3 fish bearing streams, Table 12). Within this near stream riparian area, the additive difference of land cover conversion representing forest loss and gain in TIA was 8% (Table 9). Riparian forested land cover increased or remained the same in area in 14 out of 44 subbasins (32%). TIA in the riparian area decreased in 6 out of 44 subbasins. However the subbasin average was a gain of 5% TIA in the riparian area. Table 9. WRIA 8 average change in forest, TIA, and combined additive change by subbasin Tiers and watershed wide. Subbasin area is inclusive of riparian area. Forest change, % TIA change, % Additive change, % Tier Subbasin Riparian Subbasin Riparian Subbasin Riparian M1 -5 -2 5 5 10 7 2 -6 -3 6 4 12 7 3 -6 -4 9 5 15 9 ' All -5 -3 7 5 13 8 Additive change is gain in % TIA minus % forest loss Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 21 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 10. 1991, 2001, and 2011 (projected based on 1991-2001 rate of change) subbasin %TIA by area including rate of change (% change over 10 years), additive change and watershed evaluation condition rating. o 2011 1991 2001 1991 2001 �' DIFF DIFF Total ;' Subbasin Tier TIA (%) TIA (%) E TIA TIA (%) Forest (%) TIA TIA (%)* Q c> rating rating North Fork Issaquah 1 7.7 22.1 188 36 14 -13 27 1 3 Lower Sammamish Valley 1 16.7 26.1 57 36 9 -3 12 3 3 Upper Sammamish 1 23.4 32.9 40 42 9 -4 13 3 5 , Lower Bear 1 12.2 18.9 56 26 7 -5 12 3 3 Cedar Main Urban 1 15.3 21.6 41 28 6 -6 12 3 3 Cedar Main Rural 1 3.6 9.5 163 15 6 -9 15 1 1 Lower Issaquah 1 5.0 8.6 73 12 4 -1 5 1 1 Cottage Lake 1 7.2 9.9 38 13 3 -8 11 1 1 East Fork Issaquah 1 4.1 6.3 56 9 2 -2 4 1 1 Middle Issaquah 1 0.9 2.3 150 4 1 -6 7 1 1 Fifteenmile 1 0.5 1.4 200 2 1 -8 9 1 1 Upper Bear 1 3.6 4.5 25 5 1 -7 8 1 1 Upper Issaquah 1 0.5 1.4 200 2 1 -4 5 1 1 Upper Cedar 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 6 -6 1 1 Mercer Slough 2 23.0 36.9 61 51 14 -11 25 3 5 Upper North 2 24.3 37.4 54 50 13 -9 22 3 5 Lower North 2 15.8 27.9 77 40 12 -8 20 3 3 South Kelsey 2 37.8 47.3 25 57 9 -7 16 5 5 Little Bear 2 8.1 15.8 94 23 8 -9 17 1 3 Evans 2 6.8 13.5 100 20 7 -9 16 1 3 Peterson 2 1.4 5.0 267 9 4 -3 7 1 1 Rock 2 1.8 5.0 175 8 3 -1 4 1 1 Kelsey 2 34.2 37.3 9 40 3 -6 9 5 5 Cedar North Rural 2 2.7 4.1 50 5 1 -7 8 1 1 McDonald 2 3.2 4.5 43 6 1 -2 3 1 1 Walsh 2 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 1 -1 1 1 Nearshore 3 26.1 43.2 65 60 17 -10 27 3 5 Upper Swamp 3 18.9 35.6 88 52 17 -7 24 3 5 Cedar North Urban 3 17.6 32.0 82 46 14 -13 27 3 5 Lower Swamp 3 27.9 39.2 40 50 11 -7 18 3 5 West Lake Washington 3 45.5 56.7 25 68 11 0 11 5 5 Cedar South Urban 3 23.9 34.7 45 45 11 -3 14 3 5 East Lake Sammamish 3 6.3 16.2 157 26 10 -13 23 1 3 McAleer 3 39.2 49.1 25 59 10 -6 16 5 5 Mercer Island 3 22.7 32.3 42 42 10 -9 19 3 5 Coal 3 12.2 21.6 78 31 9 -8 17 3 3 East Lake Washington 3 28.8 38.3 33 48 9 -6 15 3 5 West Lake Sammamish 3 24.3 33.8 39 43 9 -7 16 3 5 Forbes 3 28.8 37.4 30 46 9 -6 15 3 5 Green Lake 3 51.8 59.0 14 66 7 -2 9 5 5 Juanita 3 39.6 46.8 18 54 7 -5 12 5 5 May 3 8.6 15.8 84 23 7 -6 13 1 3 Lake Union 3 61.2 68.4 12 76 7 -1 8 5 5 Lyons 3 30.2 36.9 22 44 7 -6 13 5 5 Thornton 3 50.4 56.3 12 62 6 -3 9 5 5 ' North Lake Washington 3 34.2 39.6 16 45 5 1 4 5 5 Tibbetts 3 7.7 11.3 47 15 4 -1 5 1 3 Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 22 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' Table 11. 1991, 2001, and 2011 (projected based on 1991-2001 rate of change) Subbasin % Forest by area including rate of change (% change over 10 years), additive change and watershed evaluation condition rating. a� a� 1991 2001 m oa DIFF Total DIFF .2: 0) 1991 2001 Subbasin Tier Forest Forest - C 2011 0 o a � Forest Forest Forest(/o) TIA (/o) Q 0 rating rating North Fork Issaquah 1 44 31 -30 22 -13 14 27 5 3 Cedar Main Rural 1 55 46 -16 38 -9 6 15 5 5 Fifteenmile 1 69 61 -12 54 -8 1 9 5 5 Cottage Lake 1 36 28 -22 22 -8 3 11 3 3 Upper Bear 1 50 43 -14 37 -7 1 8 5 5 Middle Issaquah 1 48 42 -13 37 -6 1 7 5 5 Cedar Main Urban 1 27 21 -22 16 -6 6 12 3 3 Lower Bear 1 24 19 -21 15 -5 7 12 3 1 Upper Issaquah 1 53 49 -8 45 -4 1 5 5 5 ' Upper Sammamish 1 12 8 -33 5 -4 9 13 1 1 Lower Sammamish 1 20 17 -15 14 -3 9 12 1 1 East Fork Issaquah 1 66 64 -3 62 -2 2 4 5 5 Lower Issaquah 1 53 52 -2 51 -1 4 5 5 5 Upper Cedar 1 72 78 9 85 6 0 -6 5 5 Mercer Slough 2 18 7 -61 3 -11 14 25 1 1 Evans 2 38 29 -24 22 -9 7 16 3 3 Little Bear 2 35 26 -26 19 -9 8 17 3 3 Upper North 2 19 10 -47 5 -9 13 22 1 1 Lower North 2 23 15 -35 10 -8 12 20 3 1 Cedar North Rural 2 38 31 -18 25 -7 1 8 3 3 South Kelsey 2 14 7 -50 4 -7 9 16 1 1 Kelsey 2 19 13 -31 9 -6 3 9 1 1 Peterson 2 42 39 -7 36 -3 4 7 5 3 McDonald 2 38 36 -5 34 -2 1 3 3 3 Rock 2 46 45 -2 44 -1 3 4 5 5 Walsh 2 75 76 1 77 1 0 -1 5 5 East Lake Sammamish 3 39 26 -33 17 -13 10 23 3 3 Cedar North Urban 3 24 11 -54 5 -13 14 27 3 1 Nearshore 3 21 11 -47 6 -10 17 27 3 1 Mercer Island 3 18 9 -50 5 -9 10 19 1 1 Coal 3 29 21 -28 15 -8 9 17 3 3 West Lake Sammamish 3 22 15 -32 10 -7 9 16 3 1 Lower Swamp 3 15 8 -47 4 -7 11 18 1 1 Upper Swamp 3 17 10 -41 6 -7 17 24 1 1 Lyons 3 18 12 -33 8 -6 7 13 1 1 May 3 34 28 18 23 -6 7 13 3 3 Forbes 3 16 10 -38 6 -6 9 15 1 1 East Lake Washington 3 18 12 -33 8 -6 9 15 1 1 McAleer 3 12 6 -50 3 -6 10 16 1 1 Juanita 3 11 6 -45 3 -5 7 12 1 1 Thornton 3 6 3 -50 2 -3 6 9 1 1 Cedar South Urban 3 19 16 -16 13 -3 11 14 1 1 Green Lake 3 3 1 -67 1 -2 7 9 1 1 Tibbetts 3 43 42 -2 41 -1 4 5 5 5 Lake Union 3 2 1 -50 1 -1 7 8 1 1 West Lake Washington 3 4 4 0 4 0 11 11 1 1 North Lake Washington 3 5 6 20 7 1 5 4 1 1 Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 23 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 12. 1991, 2001 and 2011 (projected based on 1991-2001 rate of change) near-stream (within 275 feet) % forest and %TIA land cover composition by area including rate of change (% change over 10 years), additive change and riparian condition rating from the watershed ' evaluation matrix (Table 3). Riparian rating Riparian TIA, (%) Forest and TIA ' Subbasin 1991 2001 Forest % rate of 2011 1991 2001 1991 2001 TIA Additive change change Rip. % change change Lower Samm Valley 15 11 -4 -25 8.40 1 1 17 34 17 21 Cedar Main Urban 33 24 -9 -27 17.45 3 3 12 16 5 14 Upper Sammamish 9 6 -3 -33 4.00 1 1 11 21 10 13 Lower Bear 23 20 -3 -13 17.39 3 3 6 14 8 11 North Fork Issaquah 43 40 -3 -6 37.96 5 5 7 13 6 9 Cedar Main Rural 59 54 -5 -8 49.42 5 5 2 4 2 7 East Fork Issaquah 42 42 0 0 42.00 5 5 13 20 7 7 Cottage Lake 31 27 -4 -13 23.52 3 3 5 6 2 6 , Lake Sammamish 22 15 -7 -32 10.23 3 1 4 9 6 13 Fifteenmile 67 64 -3 -4 61.13 5 5 1 3 2 5 Middle Issaquah 42 39 -3 -7 36.21 5 3 1 1 0 3 Lower Issaquah 39 41 2 5 43.10 3 5 5 9 4 2 Upper Bear 49 49 0 0 49.00 5 5 2 4 2 2 Upper Issaquah 52 52 0 0 52.00 5 5 0 1 1 1 Upper Cedar 90 93 3 3 96.10 5 5 0 0 0 -3 Lower North 22 16 -6 -27 11.64 3 1 12 26 14 20 Upper North 33 24 -9 -27 17.45 3 3 10 18 7 16 Cedar North Rural 31 24 -7 -23 18.58 3 3 5 8 3 10 Little Bear 30 24 -6 -20 19.20 3 3 13 16 3 9 Evans 35 31 -4 -11 27.46 3 3 4 8 5 9 Kelsey 14 9 -5 -36 5.79 1 1 26 27 2 7 Peterson 39 34 -5 -12 30.24 3 3 2 4 2 6 South Kelsey 20 17 -3 -15 14.45 3 1 25 28 3 6 McDonald 49 50 1 2 51.02 5 5 2 3 0 -1 Walsh 79 80 1 1 80.60 5 5 0 0 0 -1 Rock 52 58 6 12 64.69 5 5 1 2 1 -5 Nearshore 47 36 -11 -23 27.84 5 3 9 22 13 24 Upper Swamp 33 21 -12 -36 13.36 3 3 9 19 10 22 May 32 24 -8 -25 18.00 3 3 5 13 8 16 Forbes 24 20 -4 -17 16.67 3 3 12 21 9 13 West Lake Sammamish 34 29 -5 -15 24.74 3 3 13 19 6 11 McAleer 24 17 -7 -29 12.04 3 1 15 18 4 11 East Lake Sammamish 36 31 -5 -14 26.69 3 3 5 10 5 10 Lower Swamp 21 17 -4 -19 13.76 3 1 15 22 6 10 East Lake Washington 24 16 -8 -33 10.67 3 1 28 30 2 10 Lyons 24 17 -7 -29 12.04 3 1 20 23 3 10 Cedar South Urban 26 26 0 0 26.00 3 3 11 20 9 9 Cedar North Urban 34 31 -3 -9 28.26 3 3 18 23 5 8 Thornton 7 7 0 0 7.00 1 1 36 42 6 6 Coal 33 35 2 6 37.12 3 3 11 15 5 3 Mercer Slough 17 17 0 0 17.00 1 1 35 35 0 0 Juanita 12 13 1 8 14.08 1 1 36 36 1 0 Tibbetts 42 46 4 10 50.38 5 5 4 6 2 -2 North Lake Washington 4 2 -2 -49 1.04 1 1 40 36 -4 -2 Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 24 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan 1 Assuming land cover change will continue to occur, it is reasonable to expect that the watershed indicators will change rating values as new impervious surfaces are added or remaining forested land cover is lost. Tracking this cumulative change and identifying future areas at risk of additional growth is potentially instructive for a conservation strategy in light of how land cover classification was used to determine input ratings for the watershed evaluation. Based on the rate of land cover change, and TIA and forest rating criteria, subbasin ratings in 1991, 2001 and 2011 (or some future date) can be estimated based on potential future growth. It is expected that in some of the most developed subbasins (e.g., Thornton Creek) the future rating ' value will not change. This is also true in subbasins without development (e.g., Upper Cedar River). However in those subbasins where significant change has occurred, the TIA or forest cover rating may shift from one threshold or tier of watershed condition into another, thereby crossing significant demarcations associated with the watershed and habitat degradation. An estimate of future risk can be part of the conservation strategy development for action prioritization based on geography and treatment for the populations in question. ii n I 1991 2001 8 l 1 Figure 6. 1991 and 2001 %TIA land cover rating b subbasin. From lightest to darkest shading, gu 9 Y 9 %TIA rating criteria categories are; <10 %, 10-30%, and >30% (see Table 2). Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 25 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' j 1991 2001 r�, I I Figure 7. 1991 and 2001 % forested land cover rating by subbasin. From lightest to darkest shading, % forest rating criteria categories are; <20 %, 20-40%, and >40% (see Table 2). Based on the change in subbasin TIA and forested land cover, as well as the estimated change in riparian forested land cover among Tier 1, 2 and 3 subbasins (Tables 9, 10 and 11), the most "at-risk" subbasins are listed below by Tier and by broad protection or restoration objectives. For example, Upper Bear, Cedar Main Rural and Cottage Lake have exhibited a high rate of forest loss in combination with increases in TIA within these core areas of Chinook salmon production. Based on the populations affected, level of Chinook salmon use and potential for success of a preservation and restoration strategy within these core areas, these subbasins are identified as being at high risk of future change and various protection and restoration emphases are noted: Tier 1 - • Upper Bear- Forest cover and TIA protection • Cottage Lake - Forest cover and TIA protection • Lower Bear- Riparian protection and restoration • Cedar Main Urban - Riparian restoration • Cedar Main Rural - Forest cover and TIA protection • Middle Issaquah - No VSP objectives • North Fork Issaquah - No VSP objectives • East Fork Issaquah - No VSP objectives , • Lower Issaquah - No VSP objectives Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 26 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' Within this select list of subbasins, additional prioritization for actions may be appropriate (especially in light of the lack of VSP objectives for Issaquah Creek at this time). r i Additive Change, % -6 - 5 6 - 12 a 13 -20 21 - 27 Figure 8. WRIA 8 subbasin additive land cover change by area. Additive land cover represents the gain in %TIA minus the loss in %forest cover. Among Tier 2 subbasins the most at-risk subbasins, based on the watershed condition, level of fish use within these satellite areas and existing rates of change are: Peterson Creek - Forest cover and TIA protection • Rock Creek - Forest cover and TIA protection • Evans Creek - Forest cover and TIA protection; Riparian and floodplain protection and restoration • Little Bear Creek - Forest cover and TIA protection; Riparian and floodplain protection ' and restoration • Cedar North Rural - Forest cover and TIA protection; Riparian protection and restoration • Upper North Creek - Riparian and floodplain protection and restoration Lower North Creek - Riparian and floodplain protection and restoration Among these subbasins, only Evans, Little Bear and Lower North have shifted from one rating level to the next highest for TIA. Rock and Peterson exhibit the highest rate of increase in TIA (based on 1991 to 2001 land cover conversion). These are areas where land use planning, management through land use regulations and application of non-structural and structural BMPs could be successful. Lower North, Evans and Little Bear are most at-risk but also likely retain Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 27 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan the greatest restoration potential among Tier 2 subbasins given the level of fish use present and spawner capacity (i.e., Sanderson et al. 2003). At the same time, if fish use continues to decline to a level of episodic use, then these subbasins could change from Tier 2 status to Tier 3. Among Tier 3 subbasins, 12 of 21 subbasins shifted from one TIA category to a higher TIA category from 1991 to 2001 (Figure 6). In general, the rate of land cover change has been less ' than the rate of change in Tier 1 and 2 subbasins (see Table 9), in part because these subbasins were already developed or developing within urban growth areas. At this time there are no data specific to UGA boundaries to evaluate the rate and extent of change within and outside of urban growth areas. Among Tier 3 subbasins, these are most at-risk of being removed from the conservation geography of Chinook salmon in WRIA 8 due to episodic abundance and lower watershed condition coupled with preceding and potential future land cover changes: ' • May Creek • Coal Creek ' • Upper Swamp Creek • Lower Swamp Creek • McAleer Creek • East Lake Sammamish Estimates of future land cover change can be made to further refine the identification of at-risk sub-basins. Table 13 shows the projected 2011 watershed ratings for TIA, forest cover, and riparian forest cover based on the assumption that 1991-2001 land cover change rates continue at the same rate until 2011. This simplistic assumption about future conditions results in several , subbasins shifting downward in overall watershed condition, as a result of increased TIA and decreased riparian or subbasin forest cover. In addition, several more subbasins were at risk of being recategorized in a lower tier. As shown in Table 13, changes in individual watershed indicator ratings are projected for the following subbasins in 2011: Increased TIA Impact Factor: , • Cedar Main Rural (Tier 1) • Bear Cottage (Tier 1) • Issaquah Lower (Tier 1) • North Lower (Tier 2) • Sammamish Valley Lower (Tier 3) Decreased Forest Cover Mitigative Factor • Cedar Main Rural (Tier 1) • Issaquah Lower (Tier 1) • Issaquah North (Tier 1)— some of the past change is due to construction of 1-90 ramps ' • North Lower (Tier 2) • Sammamish Valley Lower (Tier 3) Decreased Riparian Forest Cover Mitigative Factor: • Bear Lower (Tier 1) • Issaquah North (Tier 1)— some of the past change is due to construction of 1-90 ramps • Cedar Main Urban (Tier 1) • Cedar North Rural (Tier 2) Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 28 ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' . North Upper (Tier 2) Little Bear (Tier 2) ' • May (Tier 3) • Forbes (Tier 3) • Swamp Upper (Tier 3) As a result of these projected changes in watershed impact and mitigative factors due to land cover changes, subbasins that would be reclassified from a relatively high level of watershed condition to a moderate condition are: • Cedar North Rural (Tier 2) Subbasins that would be reclassified from a relatively moderate level of watershed condition to a low condition due to projected changes in future land cover are: • Little Bear Creek (Tier 2) Based on this analysis, subbasins projected to be at risk of being reclassified from one level of watershed condition to another are: • Cedar Main Urban (Tier 1, Moderate to Low) North Creek (Tier 2, Moderate to Low) Finally, subbasins with the largest change in overall watershed score are: • Cedar Main Rural (Tier 1, -4) Issaquah North (Tier 1, -4) - some of the past change is due to construction of 1-90 ramps ' . Cedar Main Urban (Tier 1, -4) Little Bear (Tier 2, -4) • Coal Creek (Tier 3, -4) ' While the projected land cover change for 2011 is speculative given the simplistic assumption that future land cover change will occur at the same rate as 1991-2001, it does serve to highlight the ongoing risks to habitat condition and biotic integrity due to land cover change (see Step 4 above) if current trends continue. These changes would be expected to affect the conservation geography for Chinook salmon in WRIA 8. For example, a critical VSP objective for the North Lake'Washington Chinook population is to expand the spatial distribution of the ' population so that it is not focused solely on the Bear/Cottage Lake Creek system. This objective will be more difficult to achieve if overall watershed condition in North and Little Bear Creeks declines from moderate to low condition. Similarly, a key VSP objective for the Cedar ' Chinook population is to increase productivity in the mainstem Cedar River below Landsburg Dam. Declining watershed condition in the Cedar Main Urban subbasin combined with increased TIA and decreased forest cover in the Cedar Main Rural subbasin could put these objectives at risk if current land cover trends continue. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 29 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Table 13. 2011 Projected Watershed Rating based on 1991-2001 Rate of Change in Riparian Forest %, Basin Forest Cover %, and TIA %. Indicator Riparian rating Forest Cover% TIA% 2001 vs 2011 Watershed Condtion ' Subbasin 1991 2001 2011 1991 2001 2011 1991 2001 2011 2001 2001 2011 2011 Score I Rating Score Rating Cedar Lower Rock 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 14 High 14 High Cedar Peterson 3 3 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 10 High 10 High Cedar Main Rural 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 3 12 High 8 High Bear Cottage Lake 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 10 High 8 High Bear Upper 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 10 High 8 High Bear Evans 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 6 High/Mod 6 High/Mod Cedar Upper 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 6 High 6 High , Cedar Walsh 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 6 High 6 High Issaquah Fifteenmile 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 4 Mod 4 Mod ' Issaquah McDonald 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 High 4 High Issaquah Upper 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 4 High 4 High Cedar North Rural 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 High 2 Mod ' Issaquah Lower 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 4 Mod 2 Mod Lake Samm. East 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 4 Mod 2 Mod Issaquah East 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 Mod 2 Mod Samm.Valley Upper 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 2 Mod 2 Mod Issaquah North 5 5 3 5 3 3 1 3 5 4 High 0 Mod Bear Lower 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 Mod 0 Mod Issaquah Middle 5 3 3 5 5 3 1 1 1 2 Mod 0 Mod May 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 Mod 0 Mod Samm.Valley Lower 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 2 Mod 0 Mod , Cedar Main Urban 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 Mod -2 Mod North Lower 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 5 0 Mod -2 Mod North Upper 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 0 Mod -2 Mod Tibbetts 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 -2 Mod -2 Mod Kelsey Lower 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -4 0 4-010 -4 LIow Little Bear 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 -2 Mod -6 Low , Forbes 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 -4 ' -6 Low Swamp Upper 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 -4 6 Low Cedar South Urban 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 5 5 -6 6 Lrw Swamp Lower 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 -6 -6 Cedar North Urban 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 5 5 -8 -8 Kelsey Upper 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -8 -8 Lour 6 w„ McAleer 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -8�©w -8 Coal 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 5 -6 ,, -10 W* Juanita 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -10 -10 W i Lake Wa. East 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 -10 -10 ;lw, Marine Drainages 5 3 3 3 1 1 3 5 5 -10 -10 Gw y Thornton 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -12 Lb"' -12 w Lake Samm.West 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 5 5 14 Lt�wl �_'�0 -14 Lake Wa.West 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 -14 1ow -14 Lyon 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 5 5 5 -14-Low -14 ��R Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 30 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' The results shown here related to watershed indicators, habitat condition and land cover change and the interpretation offered here regarding risk associated with land cover change to the conservation geography in WRIA 8 is supported by others. May et al. (1997) and Booth et al. (in press) have shown that at low levels of watershed development (i.e. <10 % impervious area) the observed high variability in biotic integrity or habitat conditions is governed by a strong response to forest cover reduction. Given the high level of sensitivity to impacts and documented value these areas strong protection is warranted. At the very highest levels of development, the observed variability in biotic integrity is low as are the measures of biotic integrity or habitat conditions presumably because impacts associated with land development, hydrologic alteration, and riparian degradation overwhelm remaining mitigative factors. In these areas successful restoration of natural conditions is unlikely, thus management approaches based on doing no further harm (especially through critical areas regulation and treatment of ' stormwater quantity and quality) and stewardship activities are beneficial. Where land development is intermediate, there appears to be high variability in both habitat conditions in aquatic areas (May et al. 1997) and measures of biotic integrity even given usually lower levels of remaining forest cover and alteration of hydrologic regime (Booth et al. in press). In numerous studies, it has been demonstrated that the mitigative value of higher quality or ' intact riparian and floodplain corridors contributes substantially to the retention and even improvement of biotic integrity and habitat conditions (May et al. 1997; Morley and Karr 2002; Booth et al. in press). For example, this has been documented in Snohomish County in Little Bear Creek (Morley and Karr 2002). As well, Booth et al. (in press) demonstrated that Biotic integrity as measured by B-IBI, was higher in subbasins where riparian areas had less urban land cover. Hence it is in these areas where rehabilitation is likely to succeed, dependent upon the correct identification of factors affecting aquatic areas and treatment of causes as well as effects. Limitations and Uncertainties The most significant limitation of this step is the prediction of future rates of land cover change. The assumption that the next 10 years of land cover change will be the same as the last 10 years is highly speculative, but can be informative if applied cautiously to highlight areas that may see significant change in land cover if recent trends continue. Examples where this assumption is most obviously erroneous are those areas that are nearing build-out and therefore are not capable of supporting the same rate of land cover change (e.g. Thornton 1 Creek), and those areas where land use planning and regulations have changed significantly since the 1990s, (ie subbasins where regulations and incentive programs were developed in the 1990s such as the Cedar Main Rural sub-area). Estimates of likely future land cover change will be revised as more refined analytical tools become available. In the near term, this analysis could be strengthened using zoning information from local government Comprehensive Plans along with an analysis of regulatory changes. This information would help to refine future land cover change estimates in areas where land use zoning and regulations may alter recent rates of development. In the longer term, future land cover change predictions could be improved with analyses from the UrbanSim model being used by the Puget Sound Regional Council, which generates future land cover change predictions using multiple factors such as local government zoning, transportation planning, and economic indicators. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 1 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 31 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan References , Alberti, M., D. Booth, K. Hill, B. Coburn, C. Avolio, S. Coe and D Spirandelli. In press. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland subbasins. Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 368-378. Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 2499-2508. ' Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, et al. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-190 in. O. E. Salo and T. W. Cundy, Eds. Streamside management: forestry and fish interactions College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 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. Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream channel incision following drainage basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3): 407-417. Booth, D.B. and C. J. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic ecosystems-degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation. Water Resources Bulletin 33: 1077-1090. Booth, D.B. and eight other authors. 2001. Urban Stream Rehabilitation in the Pacific ' Northwest. Final Report of EPA Grant R82-5284-010. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Booth, D.B., and L. E. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization aquatic systems— measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. ' Booth, D.B., and P.C. Henshaw. 2001. Rates of channel erosion in small urban streams. Pages 17-38 in M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges, editors. Land Use and Watersheds: human influences on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forestry areas. Water and Science Application Volume 2. Amer. Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, impervious surface area, and the , mitigation of stormwater impacts. J. Amer. Water Res. Assoc. 38(3): 835-845. Booth, D.B., J.R. Karr, S. Schauman, C.P. Konrad, S.A. Morley, M.G. Larson, and S.J. Burges. In press. Reviving urban streams: land use, hydrology, biology, and human behavior. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 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. 41(8): 540- 551. Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, and J.T. Kygier. 1975. Changes in hydrographs after road building and ' clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources research 11(3): 436-444. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 32 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan ' Hicks, B.J., R.L. Beschta and R. D. Harr, 1991. Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources ' Bulletin27(2): 217-226. Horner, R.R. and C.W. May. 1999. Regional study supports natural land cover protection as leading best management practice for maintaining stream ecological integrity. Proceedings of the Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, February 1999, pp. 233-247. Horner, R.R., May, C.W., Livingston, E., Blaha, D., Scoggins, M., Tims, J., and J. Maxted. 2002. ' Structural and non-structural BMPs for protecting streams. ASCE Watershed Conference Proceedings. ' Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-Sammamish basin (Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8). Washing ton Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. King County. 2004. Brian Murray, personal communication of Sammamish-Washington Ambient Monitoring Project B-IBI data. Lee, K.E., R.M. Goldstein, and P.E. Hanson, 2001. Relation between fish communities and ' riparian zone conditions at two spatial scales. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 37(6): 1465-1473. Lucchetti, G. and R. Fuerstenberg. 1993. Relative fish use in urban and non-urban streams. ' Proceedings of the Conference on Wild Salmon, Vancouver, BC. Lucchetti, G. Personal Communication. 1/31/2003. TRI-County Biological Review database (unpublished database) and database summary tables located at: (http://saImoninfo.org/tricounty/documents/bioappendices.pdf). Maser, C., R. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, and J. F. Franklin, 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story ' of fallen trees. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-299. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR May, C.W., Horner, R.R., Karr, J.R., Mar, B.W. and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on ' small streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2:483- 494. 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. Montgomery, D.R, Beamer, E.M., Pess, G.R., and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 377-387. Morley, S. A. and J. R. Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound Basin. Conservation Biology 16: 1498-1509. ' Morley, S.A. 2000. Effects of urbanization on the biological integrity of Puget Sound lowland streams: Restoration with a biological focus. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 33 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Moscrip, A.L. and D.R. Montgomery. 1997. Urbanization, flood frequency and salmon abundance in Puget Sound lowland streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 33: 1289-1297. ' Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby, Eds. 1998. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands Characteristics and Boundaries. National Academy S Press, Washington. D.C. NOAA 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance ESA Guidance for Analyzing Stormwater ' Effects. Habitat Conservation Division. NOAA-Fisheries Northwest Region. March 2003. Pollock, Michael M. and Paul M. Kennard. 1998. A Low-risk Strategy for Preserving Riparian Buffers Needed to Protect and Restore Salmonid Habitat in Forested Watersheds of ' Washington State: Version 1.1. 10,000 Years Institute: Bainbridge Island, Washington. Purser, M.D., R. Simmonds, S. Brunzell and D.D. Wilcox. 2003. Classification and Analysis of August 2001 Land Cover: Snohomish County, WA. Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/swm/publications/2003- 02 Land CoverAsOfAug2001/2FuIIReport.pdf ' 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. , Simmonds, R., M.D. Purser, S. Brunzell, and D.D. Wilcox. 2004. 1991 and 2001 Land Cover in Watershed Resource Inventory Areas 5 (Stillaguamish), 7 (Snohomish), and 8 (Cedar- Sammamish). Snohomish County. Everett, WA. ' Skagit Watershed Council. 2000. Application of the Skagit Watershed Council's strategy. River basin analysis of the Skagit and Samish basins: Tools for salmon habitat restoration and protection. Prepared by Habitat Restoration and Protection Committee of the Skagit Watershed Council. Snohomish County. 2004. http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/swm/WQ/StreamWQ.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. SSHIAP (Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project): 2003. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sshiap Stewart, J.S., L. Wang, J. Lyons, J.A. Horwatich, and R. Bannerman, 2001. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 37(6): 1475-1487. ' Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife and Western Washington treaty Indian Tribes (WDF et al.) 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI). Olympia, WA. March 1993. , Washington State Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1997. Watershed Analysis Manual, v. 4.0. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 34 t WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American fisheries Monograph 7, American fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 251 pp. Appendix C-2 February 25, 2005 ' Watershed Evaluation and Population Matrix Page 35 D �? _0 8 N W ? (J1 O v W CO O ([] '..-d O O O O O O O O O O O CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n Q O O O O O O OCn Q X N O O O O O O O n m Cedar Upper Watershed %TIA iN N —' Cedar Walsh o v Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek 3 -� 00 Issaquah Upper 0 Issaquah Middle _ a) Cedar North Rural D a Bear Creek Upper - O_ Issaquah McDonald Creek a Cedar Peterson Creek c Cedar Rock Creek v I � Issaquah Creek East Issaquah Creek Lower Cedar Main Rural w cfl Bear Creek Cottage I X O Tibbetts Creek 3 Bear Creek Evans Little Bear Creek May Creek Lake Sammamish-East Bear Creek Lower Cedar Main Urban Coal Creek Issaquah Creek North Sammamish Valley Lower North Lower Cedar North Urban Sammamish Valley Upper Lake Sammamish-West Cedar South Urban Swamp Upper T Lyon Creek Cr Kelsey Upper � 7771 Forbes Creek D v North Upper eD 'Mi a- Lake Washington-East p cNn Swamp Lower uaCD CDN Marine Drainages w o Juanita Creek rn (.n Kelsey Lower o McAleer Creek Thornton Creek Lake Washington-West - =3 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M a T! Co coo Crossings/km N W T Cn M � CO (D o W 3 cD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD (D Z3 a O N W U7 O Cn - - Cn Q. X W Lake < N Issaquah Creek m a) v Upper Cedar River Q a Boeing Creek : � v Lower Cedar River (D v : U) Puget Sound Z3o 00 Lake Union v May Creek D — o North Fk.Issaquah Creek (D East Fork Issaquah Creek — v Evans Creek — x Sammamish River Big Bear Creek " Coal Creek(Cedar) Tibbetts Creek North Creek — i-- � Mercer Island Middle Puget Sound East Lake Sammamish — Little Bear Creek Swamp Creek Kelsey Creek ❑ Lyon Creek 0 McAleer Creek Forbes Creek � !— : West Lake Sammamish �_ o- o 1< West Lake Washington o N CD 7 a) cn East Lake WashingtonCD (D No Thornton Creek o o < W CD Juanita Creek - R. o iv gv T v _0 N W A CT O v Oo CD O O C 0 CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � /oWetlands ZY t? Lake Washington-West X (f) O N W T U, M V W 'D O n N Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek _ — o Thornton Creek C� q 0') CTI M ZLewis Creek —7 Issaquah Creek East ' o v Issaquah Upper o ZNorth Lake Washington Coal Creek r-. Marine Drainages � � �� . — """ Lyons Cedar Upper Watershed -- I Q Tibbetts Creek 2) Juanita Creek tZ I Coal Creek Q i L Lake Sammamish-West(includes Lewis v Lake Sammamish-West(includes s 7 Cp 0 OCedar North Urban Marine Drainages -� .. Issaquah Creek Lower c Issaquah Creek East � Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek v Lyon Creek n Issaquah McDonald Creek 0 Cedar Walsh "' 0 Issaquah Middle Tibbetts Creek .....= Issaquah Upper v Issaquah Creek Lower (CD Kelsey Upper x Thornton Creek C L Lake Washington-West Issaquah McDonald Creek Little Bear Creek Lake Washington-East ■ ■ CD McAleer Cedar South Urban 2 o M May E Cedar Rock Creek - Bear Creek Upper Cedar Upper Watershed May Creek o n v Cedar Main Rural Issaquah Middle y Cedar Main Urban771 Cedar North Rural a o Cedar North Rural Little Bear Creek o Cedar North Urban Bear Creek Evans Cedar Peterson Creek Juanita Creek Cedar South Urban McAleer Creek Cedar Walsh Forbes Issaquah Creek North Sammamish Valley Lower Issaquah Creek North Cedar Main Rural � �\\ I Lake Washington-East Swamp Lower 71 Swamp Lower Swamp Upper QBear Creek Lower Bear Creek Lower Cedar Peterson Creek Kelsey Lower D 00 Lake Sammamish-East 7 Sammamish Valley Lower -U N North Lower Sammamish Valley Upper p v Sammamish Valley Upper Bear Creek Cottage � Cep No Kelsey Upper Lake Sammamish-East cD W O Cedar Rock Creek Bear Creek Upper - Cb Cn North Lower Kelsey Lower O North Upper D Cedar Main Urban Bear Creek Evans 7 n> r r r r r r r rr rr rr r r r r r r r r r CD (D — N W A Ul O J W (0 CDO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D s n Thornton Creek (D x Lake Washington-West Lake Washington-West a 0 Sammamish Valley Upper Juanita Creek m ry Thornton Creek o < o McAleer Creek o Kelsey Upper j ! Kelsey Lower m Sammamish Valley Lower p Sammamish Valley Upper ZM p Juanita Creek Swamp Lower M Z3 Lake Washington-East I U) 9 v Forbes Creek 3 North Lower 0- North Upper Kelsey Lower Swamp Upper v o Lyon Creek CD _0 ( Cedar North Urban McAleer Creek -� Marine Drainages Swamp Lower Lake Washington-East CD o Bear Creek Lower v Lyon Creek Forbes Creek Kelsey Upper v Swamp Upper 1 Lake Sammamish-West Cedar Main Urban x North Lower Q Cedar North.Rural I Cedar South Urban Little Bear Creek May Creek I I ' Sammamish Valley Lower Bear Creek Lower North Upper r1 Cedar South Urban Cedar Main Urban O Bear Creek Cottage Coal Creek 9 CD Lake Sammamish-East Cn Lake Sammamish-West(includes Lewis -- i Little Bear Creek o Bear Creek Evans o Cedar North Urban Bear Creek Cottage .� Lake Sammamish-East May Creek Cedar Peterson Creek = Bear Creek Evans Marine Drainages Cedar North Rural Coal Creek Issaquah Creek North Issaquah Middle Issaquah McDonald Creek Issaquah Creek North Cedar Peterson Creek Issaquah Creek Lower Issaquah Middle CDIssaquah Creek East Tibbetts Creek CT Tibbetts Creek Bear Creek Upper D w Bear Creek Upper Cedar Rock Creek 00 < Cedar Main Rural n Issaquah McDonald Creek • o a) cNn Issaquah Upper Issaquah Upper � cQ _ „:,, Issaquah Creek Lower cD Cedar Main Rura tv l w CD o Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek = < Cedar Rock Creek v cn Issaquah Fifteenmile Creek Issaquah Creek East o Cedar Walsh Cedar Walsh :3 Cedar Upper Watershed Cedar Upper Watershed 71 i Appendix C-3 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Habitat Modeling i1 Introduction and Purpose The WRIA 8 Conservation Plan is the product of the multi-jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder watershed planning process for the Greater Lake Washington watershed—Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8). The intent of this plan is to protect and enhance habitat conditions that support viable Chinook salmon populations in WRIA 8. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee (W8TC) has developed a technical foundation and documentation to support the development of this plan. One element of this foundation is a strategic assessment of salmon populations and habitat conditions within WRIA 8. As part of this assessment the W8TC determined that an analytical tool was needed to relate salmonid survival to habitat conditions so that habitat conservation actions could be developed and evaluated. The W8TC determined that a modified version of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model would be a useful habitat ' assessment model for WRIA 8. The modified WRIA 8 version of EDT described in this appendix was developed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee in collaboration with Mobrand Biometrics Inc. (MBI). The EDT habitat assessment model project was initiated in September of 2002. The project had several objectives: (a) customization of the EDT model for the WRIA 8 watershed; (b) gather, ' organize and input habitat and salmon (Chinook and coho) population data for the model; (c) run the model and use the diagnosis results as a component of the Conservation Strategy; (d) identify data gaps and research needs; and (e) train the Technical Committee in the use of the ' model. These objectives support the overall purpose of creating a tool that can diagnose the relative contribution of various habitat factors for salmon performance across the WRIA, and evaluate the relative effectiveness of proposed conservation actions. The evaluation of alternative conservation actions through the `Treatment' phase of EDT was not included in this istage of the strategic assessment, but is anticipated to be initiated following completion of the WRIA 8 Conservation Plan in January 2005. ' In discussing the development, application, and results of the WRIA 8 EDT habitat model, it is important to keep in mind the context in which this model has been applied. The WRIA 8 EDT habitat model is nested within other analytical tools (VSP and Watershed Evaluation) that provide the strategic direction for WRIA 8's conservation efforts. EDT is applied within this context to develop hypotheses about habitat actions that will achieve the larger objective of creating and maintaining habitat conditions that support Chinook viability. Various reviewers ' (ISAB 2001, RSRP 2000) have provided guidance on the appropriate application of habitat models such as EDT, emphasizing the importance of `hedging your bets' due to the inevitability of uncertainty and model bias. These critiques and guidance have informed the development of the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy and the application of EDT within the Strategy. Key questions to consider when using any habitat or population model are as follows: 1. What data went into the model? Are model inputs based on observed data or expert i opinion? Are there biases in the input data? How are errors propagated? 2. What is the basis for the equations on which the model is built? How certain are these relationships? What potential interactions exist within the sequence of modeled ' equations that might yield unintended effects? 3. What are critical physical and biological assumptions for the model? What biases are likely given these assumptions? Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 1 i 4. How sensitive is the model output to errors in input data? How sensitive is the model output to misspecifications of model parameters? 5. How have modeled predictions been field verified? Can some of the modeled outcomes , be independently tested? How does the output from this model compare to that of other models, analyses, or other empirical data? Finally, due to the varying purposes to which habitat models such as EDT have been applied ' throughout the Pacific Northwest, the W8TC believes that it is important to explicitly note the following: , • EDT is not used to estimate salmon population abundance or to generate salmon population goals or planning targets. While the EDT model outputs of productivity, abundance, and diversity have led to its use in identifying recovery targets in some river ' systems, it is important to recognize that the EDT population outputs are used by the model solely for the purpose of making relative comparisons about habitat actions and are not intended to be used as absolute numbers indicative of ' realistic salmon population outcomes. While EDT outputs may be useful for estimating relative changes in population attributes, the EDT output values are not intended and should not be used as population goals. ' • EDT is not the principal analytical tool driving the Conservation Strategy. The VSP Framework (based on guidance from NOAA Fisheries and described in Appendix C-1) provides the organizing structure and objectives for the Conservation Strategy. The , watershed evaluation screen and EDT habitat model are used to generate hypotheses about habitat protection and restoration actions necessary to create and maintain habitat conditions that support viable Chinook populations in WRIA 8. In WRIA 8, EDT is ' nested within other analyses that help us understand the status of WRIA 8's populations, the risks faced by those populations, and identify habitat actions likely to reduce that risk. ' 2 Methods The EDT habitat model relates habitat conditions to species performance (a combination of the productivity, abundance, and life history diversity of the species) via a set of biological rules. ' The biological rules are mathematical relationships between habitat variables and the `performance' of the focal species (Chinook and coho were the focal species in WRIA 8). These hypothetical biological rules are primarily based from peer-reviewed literature. The EDT method ' and the biological rules have been documented and critiqued elsewhere by the model developer (http:llwww.edthome.orgldocumentation.htm), other watersheds employing EDT, and scientific panels reviewing the EDT method (RSRP Dec 2000; ISAB 2000, Governors Salmon Office , ISRP). Because of existing documentation this section will focus on the method WRIA 8 used to customize and apply the EDT model. 2.1 Customization of the EDT model for WRIA 8 The biological rules linking habitat conditions to species performance in river systems are described elsewhere, as noted above. However, the EDT model has not been applied ' extensively in lakes or saltwater environments. As part of WRIA 8's application of EDT, the model was customized for these environments and integrated with the river and stream model elements. This customization process for Lakes Washington, Union, Sammamish, the Ship Canal and Locks was completed by convening technical experts that have researched salmonid ' habitat use, behavior and survival in these areas. In the nearshore and estuary, the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) (Pentec, 2000)was revised based on input from a panel of scientists involved with nearshore and estuarine research and used to evaluate habitat conditions. The ' Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 2 ' THM model applies to juvenile Chinook only; adult relative survival determinations were based on previous EDT analyses across Puget Sound completed for the Washington Department of ' Fish and Wildlife. The lake and nearshore components are new portions of EDT and have therefore not had as rigorous a scientific review as the riverine portions of the model. The customization process and the resulting biological rules for the lakes, Ballard Locks, estuary, ' and nearshore are described in detail in Appendix C-4. Lakes Washington, Sammamish, and Union were segmented for the EDT model by defining a set of polygons in a GIS coverage of the lakes. These polygons were defined by a qualitative shoreline assessment to identify the shoreline length of individual polygons, and extending the boundaries of the polygons from the shoreline to 1 meter in depth and from 1 meter to 12 meters in depth. The EDT lake model used these depth zones to delineate the primary habitats ' of immediate shallow nearshore and nearshore littoral utilized by chinook fry during the early lake phase. Life history trajectories were routed through the polygons and the Chinook fry exposed to the lake environmental attributes defined for each of the polygons. ' The pelagic zones defined in Figure 1 are estimated areas of the lake used by Cedar River Chinook as they move off-shore in mid to late spring. The southern end of Lake Washington was given the highest ranks based on the proximity of this area of the lake to the mouth of the Cedar River. The area around Union Bay and Montlake Cut were high in priority because all fish use this area as the only migration route, both as smolts and returning fry. The areas around the mouth of the Sammamish River are lower in priority because of the prioritization of the North Washington tributary and Issaquah runs, and because the fish that enter Lake Washington in this area tend to be older and spend less time in the immediate nearshore area ' of the lake. In Lake Sammamish, no comparable study on nearshore landuse existed, so segmentation was done using aerial photographs and substrate data collected by King County. In Lake Washington, the shoreline delineation was based on an assessment of upland habitat ' near the lake, and a qualitative evaluation of bottom substrate type (Toft 2001). For both lakes, depth contours for 1 m and 12 m were based on bathymetric data collected by King County (unpublished King CountyGIS data). This data was collected by boat-towed hydroacoustics, ' and is least accurate at the immediate shoreline. The area of the 0-1 meter polygons is probably overestimated, but on a lake wide scale, this error is insignificant. ' 2.2 Life History Trajectories - Population Structure and Timing Information about life history trajectories within WRIA 8 were developed based on several reports describing juvenile and adult Chinook habitat use and timing (see, for example, Seiler et ' al, 2003; Burton et al, 2002). Smolt trapping studies, PIT tagging, and snorkel surveys were the main source of information about juveniles, while the spawner surveys provided information about the timing and distribution of returning adults. ' Trajectories in the limnetic and littoral areas of the Ship Canal, Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish were determined based on studies of juvenile fish distribution conducted by the University of Washington, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and WDFW (see, for example, Tabor and Piaskowski, 2002; Fresh et al 2001). Based on these studies and input from technical experts, it was hypothesized that 75% of Cedar River Chinook enter the lake as fry, while 25% remain in the river and migrate as smolts. The fry migrant life history trajectory uses the south end of Lake Washington for rearing, and then migrates out of the system through the Ballard Locks by mid-June. The template condition is believed to be approximately an equal allocation of lake-rearing and in-stream rearing in the Cedar River. However, the EDT model ' does not accommodate separate life history trajectory assumptions for template versus current Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 3 conditions in the same model run. Due to time and budget constraints the template life history trajectory for the Cedar population was assumed to the be same as the current trajectory, with 75% rearing in the lake and 25% rearing in the Cedar River. Chinook fry rearing in the lake ' remain along the shorelines of the south end of the lake from approximately February through May. Out-migrants then travel along the shallow shoreline and limnetic areas (>1 meter depth) during May and June as they move north toward the Montlake Cut and Ballard Locks. , In the North Lake Washington tributaries, smolt trapping information indicates greater than 90% of juveniles migrate out of their natal streams as smolts and enter the north end of Lake ' Washington between May and June (Seiler et al, 2004). NLW Chinook enter Lake Washington as smolts rather than fry, and spend less time in the lake than Cedar River juveniles. The relative use of limnetic and littoral habitat use by NLW juvenile outmigrants is uncertain, but assumed that there is relatively greater use of limnetic habitat compared with Cedar River ' juveniles. Both groups exit through the Ballard Locks, with outmigration peaking during May and June and completed by the end of July. Figure 1: Lake Washington Model Trajectories for Cedar Chinook Out-Migrants t modeled chinook densitiy 1-50 51 -100 101 -150 151 -200 201-250 1 -300 30 301-400 401 -500 500-700 701 -800 801-1000 ,f a F` Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 4 The highly modified nature of the Sammamish River channel ' and the high summer temperatures results in the need to tailor the life history trajectories based on smolt trapping and PIT tagging at the Ballard Locks. Juvenile outmigration from Bear ' Creek to the Ballard Locks was modeled based on observed data (Jeanes 2002), with earlier March migrants taking longer to reach the Locks (6 weeks) than later May migrants (15 days). Returning adults wait at the Locks for temperatures below 20 degrees C and then move quickly (2 weeks on average, with some taking as long as 4 weeks) through the system to reach the Bear Creek spawning grounds by the end of September and the Issaquah spawning grounds by the first week in October. Life history trajectories in the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks were modeled based on PIT tagging ' (DeVries, 2002) of juvenile fish and observations of adult returns at the Locks. More information about the potential trajectories used by salmon maneuvering through the Ballard Locks facilities is available in Appendix C-4 of this report. 2.3 Template or "Historic" Habitat Conditions Template conditions are used to establish baseline conditions against which current conditions ' can be compared. In most cases historic conditions (approximately 1850 or pre-European settlement) are used to establish a useful baseline condition for comparison. In WRIA 8, the extensive hydrologic `re-plumbing' of the system exacerbates the already challenging task of describing historic pre-European settlement conditions. As described in Chapter 3, WRIA 8 was historically connected to the Green River (which was also historically connected to the White River) via the Black River at the south end of Lake Washington. The current outlet at the Ballard ' Locks was historically a small intermittent drainage from Lake Union to the mudflats of Salmon Bay, with no connection to the Lake Washington system. After the construction of the Locks, the Cedar River was re-directed through a one-mile long channelized segment into Lake Washington, and the level of Lake Washington dropped approximately 9-11 feet. In addition, multiple drainage `improvement' projects between 1918 and the 1960s have extensively straightened, channelized, and disconnected the Sammamish River from wetland complexes in the Sammamish Valley between Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. Given all of these ' alterations, the template condition modeled in EDT could be best summarized as historic habitat conditions with current hydrologic routing. That is, we assumed a template condition with the Cedar River flowing into Lake Washington and out to Puget Sound via the Ship Canal to the ' Salmon Bay estuary, lake levels approximately 9-11 feet below true historic levels, and a shortened Sammamish River. The assumption that the current hydrologic routing of the system (and the resulting disconnection of WRIA 8 salmon populations from the Green River and White ' River populations) is sufficient to support the viability of WRIA 8 Chinook populations is consistent with the PSTRT's independent population document (PSTRT 2001), and has been shared with the PSTRT and NOAA Fisheries in 2003. ' 2.4 Current Habitat Conditions Documentation of current habitat conditions (1 Figure 2. Lake Washington Segmentation J in the EDT Method (Mobrand, 2001 and Mob, and Prioritization Areas ' reports and studies that were reviewed by the inputs and a summary of data sources were provided to a panel of technical experts for each sub-area of WRIA 8. During 2002 and 2003, over 100 local experts from 35 entities (agencies, Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 5 jurisdictions, consultants, non-profits) were invited to participate in a workshop to review the habitat data as well as the segmentation of stream reaches. At these workshops participants provided new data sources, refined the ratings based on best professional judgment and field ' experience in the stream, or estimated habitat ratings based on similarities to other systems. As a result of this process each habitat rating was assigned a level of confidence rating ranging from 1 (published study) to 5 (educated guess). In the few situations where there was strong , disagreement about habitat ratings, the consultant conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of using different ratings. Data uncertainties, the results of sensitivity analyses, and additional sensitivity analyses that are necessary will be discussed as part of the discussions , section of this report. Model inputs for the Issaquah and May Creek systems were not thoroughly peer reviewed as part of this process due to time constraints and were reviewed in October 2004. Updates to the ' model outputs based on this review are underway. 2.5 WRIA 8 Modifications to EDT Model Outputs , In addition to the customization of the EDT model for lake, estuarine, and nearshore environments, the W8TC modified standard EDT outputs to increase our confidence in the results, as well as the applicability of the information to the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy. , 2.5.1 Modifications to Geographic Priorities As described in the Conservation Strategy (Chapter 4) and in Appendix C-2, the Watershed , Evaluation combines information about relative Chinook use (abundance and frequency of use) with an assessment of relative watershed condition to develop tiers of sub-areas used by each of the three Chinook populations in WRIA 8. The results of the EDT diagnosis phase were used within each of these Tier 1 and Tier 2 sub-areas to identify key life stages and habitat attributes that should be protected or restored. This lead to protection and restoration priorities within each Tier 1 and 2 sub-area, rather than a focus on only the high potential reaches identified by the EDT model. For example, the EDT results for the Bear Creek system identify the highest ' protection potential in the lower reaches of Bear Creek, with relatively lower potential for Cottage Lake Creek (a tributary of Bear Creek). However, because both the Bear Creek and Cottage Lake Creek sub-areas are considered to be Tier 1 areas protection priorities were , developed within each sub-area. Although Tier 3 sub-areas were modeled using EDT, the Technical Committee did not use the ' EDT diagnosis results to develop reach-level protection and restoration recommendations for these systems because of the infrequent use of these systems by Chinook. As described in the Conservation Strategy, basin-wide recommendations focused on maintaining water quality and , hydrologic processes were generated due to the downstream impact of these tributary systems on Tier 1 and Tier 2 sub-areas. 2.5.2 Modifications to Protection and Restoration Potential for each Reach , The EDT habitat model provides estimates of the relative potential of each reach (normalized by length) to protect or restore Chinook performance. Salmon `performance' in EDT combines productivity, abundance, and life history diversity model outputs. However, the standard EDT ' reach prioritization combines the rank of each reach for each of the three model outputs. The W8TC felt this approach obscured strategically important differences in relative potential between reaches—that is, two hypothetical reaches could be ranked 1 and 2, but reach 1 could , have three times the potential for each of the model outputs. To remedy this situation, the W8TC normalized the results for each model output (abundance, productivity, and life history diversity) on a scale of 0 to 1 so that the model outputs could be combined and the relative ' Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 6 ' potential between reaches could be evaluated. This modification resulted in slightly different rankings of stream reaches in some stream systems. 2.5.3 Protection of In-stream Habitat Attributes ' The W8TC adapted the EDT protection priorities so that high quality instream habitat conditions could be identified and protected at the reach scale. Adaptations to the model results were necessary because the protection potentials in EDT are driven primarily by key life stages such ' as egg incubation that are most impacted by water quality and flow attributes. These survival attributes result more from upstream landscape-level conditions than from conditions within the high-priority reach. The Technical Committee identified landscape-level protection hypotheses in response to these findings, and these recommendations are a fundamental part of the ' Conservation Strategy. However, WRIA 8 is also looking to use these EDT results to prioritize potential preservation actions within reaches, and the direct application of the EDT Chinook protection potentials does not provide a clear 'diagnosis' of reaches that should be protected due to the prevailing influence of water quality and flow factors that result from watershed-wide conditions. In order to address this issue, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee made basin-wide recommendations based on the EDT diagnosis, but used EDT in a limited role to organize and ' compare reach-specific information about riparian habitat diversity factors (riparian function, LWD, and channel connectivity) that are relatively intact (compared to template conditions) and should be protected. These habitat-forming factors were selected based on their importance for ' multiple salmonid species, and are more consistent with WRIA 8's objective of protecting and maintaining high-quality functioning habitat independent of its use by a particular species. ' 2.6 Interpreting the EDT Diagnosis Results In addition to the prioritization of reaches according to protection and restoration potential, EDT produces what is commonly referred to as a 'consumer reports diagram' that diagnoses the relative impacts of restoring various survival attributes for salmon life stages. As described in the EDT method documentation and summarized in Figure 3, each of these 'Level 3' survival factors (ie habitat diversity, sediment load, flows) represents interactions of individual habitat attributes (referred to in the EDT model as Level 2 habitat attributes). The W8TC used the ' following steps to 'drill-down' into the model results in order to develop specific hypotheses about protection and restoration priorities. As shown on Figure 4, this drill-down process essentially reverses the steps used to characterize habitat conditions and diagnose habitat ' restoration priorities. Restoration 'Drill-Down' (see Figure 3): 1. Prioritize reaches based on normalized EDT model restoration outputs 2. For each reach, look at key (the top 2 or 3) life stages by using the life stage ranking. The life stage ranking results from multiplying the productivity change percentage by the percentage of life history trajectories affected. 3. For each key life stage, identify level 3 survival attributes with the largest relative impact on the life stage 4. Using the EDT rules, identify the primary and modifying level 2 attributes for each key life stage 5. Using the model input data in the Stream Reach Editor, identify the relative alteration of the level 2 attributes from template conditions ' 6. Compare the EDT attributes with the Watershed Evaluation assessment of watershed condition (described in Appendix C-2) to determine if the EDT diagnosis of in-stream conditions reasonably reflects landscape conditions. ' Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 7 7. Develop hypotheses about landscape- and reach-level attributes that should be restored to improve key Level 2 habitat attributes. t 1 Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 , WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 8 Step 2: Identify key Step 4: For each survival attribute Step 5: Refer to life stages using `life identified in Step 3, review Level 2 Stream Reach Step 1: Prioritize stage rank' that Step 3: Identify attributes to identify key habitat attributes Editor to see reaches based on survival attributes normalized EDT combines potential that drive survival for the life stage (e.g. current vs productivity change that have the the impact of habitat diversity on fry template habitat outputs (see with % life history colonization is a combination of LWD, ratings for Section 2.5.2) greatest impact on trajectories that are the life stage channel connectivity, and riparian attributes affected function) identified in Step A fSp rlrs>J biraf isn2rl t. F�Ir,;;IIIrC�k, I•lrV ralic•nh taallrl.l..z.0 tat- . rrllru :,rv.J>a11151.a1�LrAa1l.11 N-;1 lalicu Ell Naa.ls. I uon a I rl dirt_rt:r1coin1 urr II1-it C,�ldar.Piver-Faff C`7imiok Step6: Compare EDT diagnosis r nJlai; `At,.- llodat 1 ,l`ean'_ a darRrrer with watershed e�kar Rl.,or Ircnl SR 1ss9 NA�ka,0411 d_'j I r.+aor ofLsaOrJlie+f fA Re r_h Lehglh lnh: 1 a! Irl Rkr 1i .r;rr: r1a evaluation Rest(rattan Lich fit t..alc+;l?rp`: C PI otluc nail Ik:1` :?1 r1lMi le In pI,0u.11 11y: ,' 1011, Jver:all W'S1,lah,11 R.kn111,11 Rnrlk: , 20 .it..ra-1 ,Ab;u Itdancn 111a(11 Hank. 31 ptdctatlal" hand'In It Z' ,I.F:;:rslrank .arssIbR,-will)llesllt .1 1 IN,111-lcr;D1*,,msIIyRank:tt 14 P.t nlltil",diali !Incll Rnas+i anon R_.n lit alo J rt:1t 41odIACI Ih Rauk:t^ .- kss hl I I 1ncVtf Ith 1t9;lrrrt.attr n�' Y_t : C.._lallllt.l,atl�aul�ank:1' rd wm,,igP,2;bundancPart_rpP..ank'1= YI °.,I�;ti,IliNeyxllh lelr-I(dV -n.1,� r.� Step7: Develop [I� }:al lahk e'rs511de-:�'Inl lle•sli: -1 I Ito IAlydoN sit"Rank:1 ar;; .,his in 1.R'sk hypotheses for Chang i11 11 (ItP irnfaactOnSLIIViVat restoring the reach-level - habitat attributes � c of iite " identified in EDT E c c hi Stoll} Pic U tlblty � Z 2 � r0 � � — 4 y Lifa ste,�a NIevant rmnlh, tv„ — r 2 4 and the tlafect.;rie'!= r_laara aW.Ct0.1 � � � % t � _ a �, � � � � � watershed -`ai�a+srYlxt I:ar:hrJr; 1�,iz:, _ r� r + + . . r: factors that FW 111rataallon wake-tkf t s�-. i ',. • create these Vueclonl2olian Apt fddy FIz0 -0S;°: 1 • ♦ • + attributes r?-a rtlfan�.�rlrw� hlara,X4 1;•,11 • • • • U,aple ningt3lt 0 aq,Ira%71ta'e d�ac}I IacA1�F*:+'rat lrp� Ir3114"A ImlF1q 2 ate-IraIhIN'1realing Figure 3: How to I 02 4 • • • • • • � Interpret the EDT Pic-, 61,11rig h rarEa 1.6 0 • • • • • Diagnosis Al�SWa:- r.?am[1IIr t 91 r° 'Consumer 1;Rankhagh9w:ArnrA'IK-1rwerelilreTrgrnphic.nrea, df`v`alr SMAVII1-laarOV2AAlpr-Jmlatlrslp0"onnance, KEY t=#ine Reports' Dfaaram rJoICA i..hanq!sin pmrobllat.rn hersrnve+9 trn•either.adrarploIn pra+:uTI hitAkil orIli slream wMth U1%r ai aprAlrjW 5ruII • I'kllt)nti,a ,•,ch,alxle fl1 poVartunc,,.im asur�,Far r-al.rk ur1dh133111 al(1Arnw--Sa~n?wnlre.Larl AM fill passapa klaalrrare± albor,A1Idams;IlaLugIre se.utlrNlr-ts9r1Inpa_,a, Ili II Ezlr�ne Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 9 Figure 4: Process Used to "Drill-Down" into EDT model to ' identify restoration actions Organizing Information to Use 'Diagnosis' of Priority ' g g g Y `Diagnose' Problems and Reaches to Develop Actions.... Develop Priorities.... What are the key life stages in , the reach? Priority Reaches Survival Attributes Impact What survival ' Salmon Life Stages (e.g. attributes habitat quantity is adversely influence the Apply EDT "Biological impacting fry and pre-spawn life stage? Rules" via model holdinq `Umbrella' Survival Attributes affecting survival of What attributes ' fish (e.g. Pools, Glides, Large Cobbles, Small make u survival make those Translate Cobbles, etc are seen as `Habitat Quantity") factors? , environmental conditions into `Survival Factors' ' Characterize Current and Template Environmental Conditions ' (e.g., Pools, Glides, Large Cobbles, Small Cobbles, Off-Channel Habitat) Compile data, reports, and Recommend actions to protect or ' expert opinion restore habitat process and structure 1 Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 10 ' Protection `Drill-Down': 1. Prioritize reaches based on normalized EDT model protection potentials 2. Identify the life history stages that are most affected in each reach 3. For each key life stage, review the EDT rules to identify level 3 attributes that significantly impact the life stage 4. Using the EDT rules, identify the primary and modifying level 2 attributes for each level 3 survival factor 5. Identify basin-wide recommendations based on the key level 2 attributes 6. For reach-specific protection recommendations, compare current versus template habitat ratings for the habitat diversity factors: large woody debris, hydromodifications (channel connectivity), and riparian function (riparian vegetation, overbank flows, and groundwater interactions). 7. Rank reaches with the least altered habitat-forming factors for protection. ' 3 Results The application of the EDT habitat model diagnosis phase to WRIA 8 produced the following information: • Relative sub-area restoration potentials across populations (ie Lake Washington vs Sammamish River vs Cedar River) • Relative basin-level restoration potentials within each population • Relative reach-level protection and restoration potentials within each population • Diagnosis of key life stages and the relative importance of habitat attributes in achieving the protection or restoration potential. The geographic restoration potentials and a summary of the diagnosis results in each sub-area are presented in the Chapter 4. ' As noted in the Methods section, EDT was applied to the Tier 3 streams but the diagnosis results were not included in the Technical Committee's analysis. 3.4 Areas Used by Multiple Populations As noted in the Methods section, the customized EDT lake habitat model is built based on the hypothesis that predation on juveniles is the key factor impacting salmonid survival in the lake environment, and the effectiveness of predators is driven by habitat factors. Although the key predators vary over the juvenile Chinook migration period (ie primarily cutthroat in Lake Washington during February-May, switching over to bass in the Ship Canal during May-June when bass metabolism increases in response to higher water temperatures, the key habitat factors that modify predator efficiency are the same. Restoration of lake shoreline (referred to in the model as `bank type') from hardened (bulkheaded or rip-rapped) to exposed beach or softened bank conditions is hypothesized to be the most effective means of reducing predation on juvenile Chinook and coho in the lake environment. Predation would also be Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 11 vegetation that provide cover for juvenile reduced through increased LWD and shoreline g p � Chinook. Based on lake modeling results it is hypothesized that restoration of lake segments adjacent to stream mouths will have higher benefit to Chinook. Because NLW juvenile Chinook enter the lake as smolts and use the lake primarily for migration rather than rearing, overall lake restoration potentials tend to be weighted toward benefits to the Cedar River population. Areas with the highest restoration potential for WRIA 8 Chinook are (listed in priority order): ' • Section 1- Near Mouth of Cedar • Section 2— South end of Mercer Island, mouths of Mapes and May Creeks • Section 5— Montlake Cut & Union Bay • Section 7— North End of Lake Washington at the mouth of Sammamish River, mouths of McAleer and Lyon Creeks • Section 3— South of 1-90, East and West Mercer Island channels, Seward Park and Mercer Slough • Section 4—Area between 520 and I-90 bridges • Section 6—North of 520 bridge, includes Sand Point, Thornton Creek, Yarrow Creek, ' and Juanita Creek The customized EDT results for the nearshore and estuary lead to the hypothesis that the greatest restoration potential is for the Salmon Bay estuary. Removing all mortality at the Ballard Locks resulted in a relatively slight increase in population abundance, as the model assumes high juvenile survival at the Locks based on recent passage improvements. Restoring nearshore areas resulted in a similarly low increase in modeled population abundance for WRIA 8 Chinook populations. Within the nearshore area, restoration of creek mouths is hypothesized to have a high restoration potential. 4 Discussion 4.1 Linking Habitat Changes to VSP ' As noted by McElhany et al (2000), "viable salmonid populations clearly require high quality habitat', but the VSP guidance from NOAA Fisheries "does not attempt to establish the relationship between particular habitat attributes and population viability." Suitable habitat conditions are necessary but not sufficient for population viability, due to the influence of external factors such as harvest and hatchery management. Because of these external influences on population viability, the habitat actions identified in the Conservation Strategy are ' intended to create and maintain habitat conditions that will support population viability. In order to develop recommendations about how habitat should be protected or restored to support Chinook viability, the Technical Committee developed Figures D-— and D-— to describe our hypotheses about the relationships between watershed factors, in-stream habitat conditions, Chinook life stages, and population attributes. The EDT diagnosis generates hypotheses about key life history stages that would benefit from the protection or restoration of key in-stream habitat attributes. These in-stream attributes are created and maintained by watershed level factors. The Technical Committee used the watershed evaluation to help identify,watershed processes and landscape conditions that should also be protected or restored. The Technical Committee focused on protecting and restoring Chinook productivity for key life stages identified through EDT. By developing recommendations intended to impact productivity in Tier 1 and Tier 2 sub-areas, the Technical Committee hypothesizes that abundance, spatial distribution, and diversity will be improved as well. For example, the EDT diagnosis Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 12 hypothesizes that the productivity of the Cedar Chinook population will increase if pool habitat areas on the mainstem Cedar River are restored for juvenile rearing (specifically the fry colonization life stage). By increasing habitat for juvenile rearing, it is also hypothesized that more juveniles will rear in the mainstem river rather than migrating as fry to Lake Washington. This would create habitat conditions that support improved life history diversity as well as increased productivity of Cedar Chinook. Similarly, actions that improve habitat conditions for Chinook fry and pre-spawning migrants in Bear Creek are hypothesized to increase the productivity of the Bear Creek system. This will likely indirectly result in increased spatial distribution of the population high-quality habitats in Bear Creek reach capacity and returning adults begin to use other NLW tributaries. At this time the Technical Committee has not evaluated the relative potential of specific habitat actions to protect or restore key habitat conditions that support viability. The Treatment phase of the EDT habitat model is intended to provide a relative evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation actions, and may be applied to support Steering Committee decisions regarding proposed actions. Additional discussion of habitat changes that promote improvements in population viability is included in Section 7 of the VSP Framework (Appendix C-1). Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 13 I Figure 5: Interaction of human activities with riverine/estuarine ecosystem. Human activities influence salmon populations indirectly through influences on biophysical processes and alterations of habitat patterns, and directly through influences on population production and diversity. Adapted from Martin, An Ecosystem Strategy For Restoring Threatened/Endangered Salmon In King County, June 10, 1999 ' Biophysical/Chemical Drives Processes Infhianrac ' Runoff Heat energy input Human Use of the Erosion/sediment transport Watershed , Geoclimatic Settinq Woody debris recruitment Housing Development Nutrient cycling Road Infrastructure Climate Tidal flux Agricultural Production Geology Chemical input Water Diversion Landform Timber Production Pollutant Discharge C;nn.strains Channel Patterns/Habitat Structure aitarc Channel morphology Unit complexity Hydrologic connectivity Flow regime Temperature regime Substrate composition Woody debris frequency/distribution Water quality Riparian vegetation composition [Others] J Estuarine complex J Contaminants via Nutrient transfer via J Altars Ecological Function via Habitat quantity & quality Sediment Trophic foodweb transport Biodiversity (micro) Human Interventions Other Species Salmonid Populations _ Tribal Harvest Infix anca Predation Productivity Influence Commercial Harvest Food Source Life history diversity Hatcheries Transport Genetic diversity Aquaculture (mussels) Abundance Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 14 ' Figure 6: Building Conservation Hypotheses Linking Habitat Changes to Population Attributes for Chinook Life Stages (Pre-spawning holding and minrnfinn fn hn aririnril Forest Cover NN-4 Protect these attributes.... Riparian Corer aterwalty ( ":a" T mr.A Chem roc Protect uc i�. Restore Fry Rioarian l earinq Riparian r�ctior� ;' #9 over i ChaLWD nnel Enhance and Restore these Confinement Attributes... Forest Cover oa Protect these eaaaar3rr �a attributes.... Water Quality bed Temp, L r^-var Riparian r hn , protect & Restore Egg ProductI y [:lC}W Inr,aa Minn --i stabilitV Ri aariaWater Quality Function � (sediment temp, etc) Riparian Enhance and Restore Cover these Attributes... Io Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 15 4.2 Sources of Uncertainty and Model Bias When using a model to support decisions it is critical to `hedge your bets' due to uncertainties ' and biases that are inherent in any attempt to model dynamic and complex natural systems. This section will describe how the Technical Committee addressed these uncertainties and biases in the application of EDT. 4 2 1 Model Inputs - What data went into the model? Are model inputs based on observed data or expert opinion? Are there biases in the input data? How are errors propagated? As part of the EDT habitat characterization effort, data inputs were ranked on a scale of 1 (observed data) to 5 (expert opinion). As is apparent from the information presented in Section 2, WRIA 8 is one of the more data-rich WRIAs in Puget Sound. The EDT process provided the opportunity to compile this information into one framework, and convene technical experts from various disciplines to discuss the data. In cases where observed habitat data was not available, the Technical Committee relied on the best professional judgment of the expert panels. The workshop format also enabled the panel members to question one another about underlying assumptions and their first-hand knowledge of the areas in question. This type of conversation provided some calibration among the experts, but the Technical Committee acknowledges that this type of expert-driven Delphi approach to habitat characterization is prone to subjective data inputs and interpretation of the habitat rating criteria that can bias the input data. In order to reduce bias in the input data, it is necessary to increase the amount of observed data in the model, focusing on the key habitat attributes in the model. As recommended by the Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP, December 2000), the models should focus on key relationships as well as the need to locate aspects of the model that are most likely to expand error in the results. Based on Technical Committee review of the model rules and outputs for WRIA 8, the key habitat attributes `driving' the model in the river and stream systems are: • Riparian function (overbank flows, vegetation, and off-channel area) • Large Woody Debris • Habitat area (total area by type, and the relative proportion of each type) • Channel connectivity (hydromodifications) • Flows (flashiness and low flows) • Sediment load (fine sediment and turbidity) • Water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and metals) Of the habitat attributes listed above, direct salmonid survival relationships are best described for temperature (maximum), bed scour, habitat types and area, and fine sediments. Key research needs are riparian function and sediment budgets and water quality , Specific habitat data needs for key sub-areas are listed in Table 1 below. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 16 Table 1: WRIA 8 EDT Habitat Characterization Data Gaps for Rivers and Streams Stream System Data Gap All Sub-Areas . Hyporheic flows - Distribution of groundwater springs and upwellings Riparian function • Bed Scour Hydromodifications • Flows • Sediment loading budgets (includes fine sediments and embeddedness as well as sediment sources and transport rates) • Water quality—toxicants in water column and sediments Cedar River . Bed scour Cedar River Tributaries . Habitat types and in-stream structure Bear Creek . Bed scour • Community effects — predation, hatchery influences, s ecies introductions Kelsey Creek . Bed scour Hydromodifications • Water quality (temperature and dissolved oxygen) • Community effects — predation, hatchery influences, s ecies introductions Issaquah Creek and May . Additional review of all habitat data ratings Creek . Bed scour In evaluating model inputs, there is a tendency in the EDT process to focus solely on the characterization of habitat conditions. While important, it must be kept in mind that the model produces results by `exposing' model fish to habitat conditions through the life history trajectories. Significant bias or errors could result from a hypothetical life history trajectory that inaccurately `exposes' fish, either spatially or temporally. Although WRIA 8 has smolt trapping data for the Cedar River, Bear Creek, and Issaquah Creek, along with some focused snorkel surveys of juvenile salmonids, there is uncertainty about the timing and distribution of juvenile Chinook within these systems, and this uncertainty could introduce errors in the model results. The effectiveness monitoring program described in Chapter 6 proposes continued smolt trapping, PIT tagging, and snorkel surveys that will reduce the uncertainty about life history 1 trajectory model inputs. Finally, there are uncertainties about data inputs for template conditions. While some historic information was available to inform assumptions about template conditions, this data could be improved based on historic habitat surveys such as those conducted by Collins et al (2003) for WRIAs 7 and 9, among others. The Technical Committee does not expect that this information will result in significant changes to the current recommendations —for example, increased habitat diversity and off-channel habitat areas for juvenile rearing would still emerge as a key restoration recommendation on the Cedar, and re-meandering of the Sammamish River would be a primary focus of the NLW restoration strategy. However, improved understanding of historic habitat conditions would be extremely helpful for the design of restoration projects in these areas. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 17 4 2 2 Model Equations -What is the basis for the equations on which the model is built? How certain are these relationships? What potential interactions exist within the sequence of modeled equations that might yield unintended effects? EDT uses hypotheses about the relationship between key environmental conditions and species performance based on peer-reviewed literature values (available at http://www.edthome.orq/). These species-specific hypotheses are captured in a series of mathematical equations referred to as 'biological rules' within the EDT habitat model. As noted by the RSRP (2001), many of the biological rules in EDT 'are simply not known and cannot be adequately known'. In response to the reality that some relationships are known to be important for salmon life stages but are not thoroughly understood and quantified, we have reduced our reliance on uncertain model relationships by (1) using EDT within a nested analytical framework and (2) focusing on the appropriate use of EDT as a scientific (rather than statistical) model to make relative comparisons rather than absolute determinations. Nested Analytical Framework The EDT diagnosis of habitat conditions is nested within the VSP Framework and the watershed evaluation framework. The WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy is primarily driven by the assessment of the status of each Chinook population in WRIA 8 and the risk posed to the population attributes of each population. In order to identify habitat protection and restoration priorities, the watershed evaluation was used to stratify sub-areas used by an individual population and identify potential protection and restoration strategies based on watershed conditions such as the level of forest cover and impervious surface. The EDT habitat model was then used within each sub-area to identify hypotheses about habitat attributes that should be protected or restored, and the geographic locations with the highest potentials for protection or restoration of key life stages. This nested analysis results in a Conservation Strategy that includes hypotheses about habitat-forming processes that are not explicitly included in the EDT diagnosis (ie maintaining hydrologic integrity by protecting forest cover and groundwater recharge areas), as well as the recognition of the importance of habitat areas that are not considered a high priority in the EDT model (for example, the importance of Little Bear, North, and Evans Creeks in expanding the spatial distribution of the North Lake Washington population to reduce the risk of having the population focused almost entirely in the Bear/ Cottage Creek system). EDT as a Scientific Model When evaluating the certainty of relationships in EDT, it is important to consider the intended use of the model. As noted by the Northwest Power Planning Council's Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB 2001), EDT has never been intended to judge absolute salmonid performance (as measured by abundance, productivity, and life history diversity). Rather, EDT is a scientific model to develop hypotheses about the relative impact of relationships that are known to be important for Chinook but not necessarily quantified or quantifiable. This hypothesis-driven approach requires a robust monitoring and evaluation program to test hypotheses about key relationships in the model. WRIA 8's approach to reducing uncertainties about these key relationships will be described in more detail in this section, as well as in the Monitoring and Evaluation Chapter (Chapter 6). Uncertain Model Relationships in the Customized Areas of WRIA 8 In areas such as the lakes and Ship Canal where the Technical Committee has developed biological rules to customize the EDT model, there is relatively greater uncertainty about model equations and the interactions of multiple habitat attributes and species. In keeping with the recommendations of the RSRP, the lakes experts focused their attention on key `driving variables' that are believed to be the essential descriptors of Chinook performance in the lake Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 18 i environment. An early conclusion by the lakes expert panel was that the predominant cause of mortality for juvenile salmon in the lakes is predation. It was also clear from recent studies in Lake Washington (Tabor, 2003) that both abundance of predators and the vulnerability of the prey are affected by factors such as bank type, substrate, and predator species composition. WRIA 8 partners continue to participate in research to improve WRIA 8's understanding of food web dynamics, the role of predators and exotic species, and salmonid behavior in these areas. In the nearshore and estuary there are uncertainties about habitat conditions, fish use of these habitats, species interactions, and the use of these areas by salmonids from other WRIAs. In light of these uncertainties the Technical Committee's recommendations focus on experimental actions that will expand WRIA 8's understanding of nearshore and estuary conditions while protecting and restoring ecosystem processes and structures such as sediment supply, water quality, overhanging vegetation, tributary mouths, and 'pocket' estuaries. Uncertainties about Species Interactions Interactions between species (both native and introduced) are a critical uncertainty in the EDT model framework. This results from the known high rates of juvenile mortality in the lakes, the fact that the nearshore and estuary are used by multiple fish species (including salmonids from other WRIAs), and the highly altered landscape in these areas. Food web dynamics and the impacts of non-native fish species is a focus of on-going research in the lakes by King County, the University of Washington, and others, and the linkages between predator populations such as cutthroat trout and habitat conditions in small tributary streams that are not frequently used by Chinook (ie McAleer, Lyon, Juanita) requires additional research. Population interactions in the river and stream EDT model are fairly simplistic and would benefit from additional research on food web dynamics in response to changing habitat and community conditions. ' Uncertainties about Pre-Spawning Mortality Symptomatic pre-spawning mortality has been documented in WRIA 8 coho populations beginning in the late 1990s. Pre-spawning mortality is likely to be occurring in Chinook as well (CITE — 2003 spawner surveys), although the symptomatic behaviors (ie disorientation) have not been documented to date. WRIA 8 stakeholders are participating in investigations of potential water quality causes to pre-spawning mortality being conducted by the Fish Neurobiology and Development Group at the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center. For examples of the symptomatic behaviors associated with pre-spawning mortality, see http://www nwfsc noaa gov/research/divisions/ec/ecotox/movies/cohoPSM.cfm. Given uncertainties about the cause of pre-spawning mortality and other potentially related chronic effects of degraded water quality on predator avoidance, the EDT model rules have not been updated to include pre-spawning mortality and sub-lethal effects, and the model results therefore cannot be expected to reflect the full extent of likely water quality impacts on salmonids. In the face of this uncertainty, the Technical Committee has recommended improved management of stormwater runoff throughout the WRIA, even though water quality problems are not considered severe in the EDT diagnosis for most streams. Finally, the impacts of global climate change on aquatic habitat conditions are a significant source of uncertainty that is not addressed in the EDT habitat model. Potential impacts of climate change include increased winter flooding, decreased summer and fall streamflows, and elevated in-stream and estuarine temperatures. The Technical Committee will continue to track research developments from the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 19 (http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/) and others, and will seek opportunities to link our analytical tools to larger scale climate models. Model Relationships with Relatively Higher Confidence Although there are multiple areas of model uncertainty that can and should be identified, it is worth noting areas of relatively high confidence. Figure 7 shows habitat attributes that drive key life stages in the EDT model, along with potential habitat actions that target habitat variables that are relatively certain to protect or restore Chinook life stages. Unintended Effects of Model Equations One potential unintended effect of using the EDT habitat model is to focus attention on in- stream conditions in specific reaches, since the model "views the ecosystem through the eyes of the species" (Mobrand, 1999), and does not attempt to explicitly model ecosystem processes. When reviewing the EDT diagnosis results, the Technical Committee focused on the landscape conditions and other driving factors that have created the in-stream habitat problems identified in the diagnosis. To help the Technical Committee `hedge their bets' when reviewing the diagnosis results, the Committee including an evaluation of watershed conditions using landscape attributes such as forest cover, impervious surface, flow volume change, riparian cover, road crossings and wetlands that reflect critical landscape factors that create and maintain instream habitat conditions. This evaluation is described in detail in Appendix C-2. Additional research is needed to improve WRIA 8 understanding of the relationship between habitat attributes described in EDT and landscape level indicators. As noted in Appendix C-2, the Technical Committee intends to enhance the watershed evaluation by including indicators of riparian connectivity (rather than just percent cover by basin) and emerging information from the University of Washington Center for Water and Watershed Studies (Spirandelli 2003) about the role of land cover adjacency. 4.2.3 Model Assumptions - What are critical physical and biological assumptions for the model? What biases are likely given these assumptions? A critical assumption of the EDT model is that the relative importance of reaches is determined by exposing the focal species to conditions in the reach under current and template conditions. This assumes that habitat conditions are only important during the time that a fish is exposed to them. One potential bias of this assumption is that the role of habitat-forming factors such as flow in creating and maintaining habitat conditions that support Chinook is overlooked. The Technical Committee used the Watershed Evaluation tool to identify the relative condition of key ' landscape process indicators and identify action recommendations intended to protect or restore these processes. The Technical Committee also evaluated coho using the EDT model, with the intent of using coho (given their greater use of and longer residence time in smaller stream systems) as a gauge of ecosystem condition. While coho results have been generated, these results have not been evaluated by the Technical Committee due to the timeline of the WRIA 8 conservation planning process. This information will be incorporated into the Conservation Strategy as part of the Adaptive Management process described in Chapter 6. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 20 Figure 7: Relating Confidence in Key EDT Habitat Variables to Conservation Actions From EDT chinook salmon modeling, survival is predominantly affected at these life stages: Pre-Spawn Holding Egg Incubation 1 Fry Colonization I 0-Age Active Rearing Survival at each life stage is predominantly affected by these EDT model 'Habitat Factors': Habitat Diversit Sediment Load Habitat Diversity Habitat Quantity Habitat Quantity Channel Stability Flow Habitat Diversity Predation Temperature These life-stage limiting 'Habitat Factors' are described b the followingEnvironmental Attributes: Environmental Attributes from EDT T Temperature Temperature - Max c; Flow Hi Flow Low Flow t° Channel Stability Wood Bed Scour Riparian Function Habitat Diversity Wood H dromodifications Riparian Function R Habitat Quantity PoolType Pool Area = Sediment Load Fine Sediments For the affected life stages, direct survival relationships are best described for these Environmental Attributes: Temperature - Max Bed Scour Pool Type/Pool Area Fine Sediments The Following Environmental Attributes affect survival relationships at reach and watershed scales and are Key Attributes to consider developing Actions to address: Riparian Function Hi Flow Low Flow Fine Sediments 0 Low Flow Hydromodifications H dromodifications H dromodifications Riparian Function Ri arian Function Riparian Function ' Wood Wood Land Cover Land Cover Land Cover Land Cover Groundwater Road Crossings Wetlands Bank Stability Recharge/ Infiltration Drainage Density Floodplain Connectivity Road Crossings Stormwater Water Withdrawl Site Controls Management In the Urbanizing landscape, actions that will likely be successful should, Promote suitable habitat conditions by Promote suitable habitat conditions by enhancingthe benefits from: minimizingthe impacts from: Watershed scale Reach scale Watershed scale Reach scale Forest Cover Riparian Function Impervious Area Low Flow S Wetland Area Wood Road Crossings H dromodifications Stormwater Floodplain Connectivit Water Withdrawl Hi Flow Management Bank Stabilit Drainage Density Fine Sediments Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 21 In addition, EDT assumes that habitat conditions are spatially and temporally static rather than dynamic. Stochastic variation plays a critical role in a functioning ecosystem, and the dynamic nature of river and stream habitat cannot be captured through EDT without multiple model iterations that are beyond the budget and timeline of the WRIA 8 planning process. This has the potential to introduce at least four biases in the model results: (1) undervaluing the importance of extreme events (2) assuming that certain habitat attributes are equally important and can be treated independently, (3) overvaluing the importance of maintaining instream habitat conditions in a particular reach and (4) ignoring the changing effectiveness of habitat actions over time. An example of the first type of bias is the impact of aseasonal flow events or extreme low flow events on benthic communities that provide a food source for juvenile Chinook, or high flow events that deliver and sort spawning gravels. By focusing on average flow conditions, EDT may devalue the importance of flow or other processes in creating habitat conditions that support Chinook life stages. An example of the second type of bias is the , potential that the habitat diversity factors (channel connectivity, large woody debris, and riparian function) can be 'treated' independently (or additively) rather than in a coordinated, synergistic fashion to achieve the restoration potential in the reach. The third type of bias is a misguided focus on 'locking' in-stream habitat conditions in place without considering naturally dynamic ecosystem processes. For example, protection of spawning areas by acquiring riparian areas in reaches with high spawning could be rendered ineffective if upstream gravel sources and the flows that convey spawning gravels are not maintained. The EDT Treatment phase assumes that for a given individual action technical experts can adequately describe (1) the impact of the action on habitat attributes (2) the reaches affected by the action and (3) the time required for the effect to occur. There are uncertainties associated with each of these three factors that will need to be addressed through a rigorous monitoring and evaluation program. Temporal changes in the impact of a hypothetical conservation action are especially problematic and difficult to identify using EDT. For example, a project to setback a levee, install large woody debris, and restore riparian vegetation could result in long term improvements for the juvenile rearing life stage but short term increases in sediment, temperature, and predation that have a negative impact on juvenile Chinook. Because the Treatment phase generally looks at a longer timeframe there is a potential that the action could be considered misjudged as unsuccessful because the short-term negative impacts were not properly anticipated. WRIA 8 has not yet initiated the Treatment phase, and the results of Treatment evaluations are not expected until fall 2005. The EDT model assumes that protection and restoration potential of a given reach is related to the exposure of each life stage to conditions in that reach. While time of exposure is not the only factor generating the reach potentials (the productivity change by life stage is also considered), the reach potential results tend to emphasize the downstream reaches that are used by a greater percentage of life history trajectories. In order to reduce the risk of a bias toward downstream reaches, the Conservation Strategy identifies priorities for protection and restoration within multiple sub-areas based on the Watershed Evaluation tool. The model assumes that life history trajectories that are exposed to certain adverse habitat conditions will not seek to avoid those conditions. In response to stressors, actual life history trajectories may re-allocate themselves in the stream, while the model fish face decreased performance. This may produce a higher restoration potential for some reaches, and undervalue the importance of refuge areas that are actually being used by Chinook in the presence of environmental stressors. A case in point is the Sammamish River, where life history trajectories distributed evenly along stream reaches produced excess mortality in the model in response to high temperatures. In the presence of high temperatures, adult Chinook Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 22 may respond by congregating at sources of cold water inflow such as stream confluences and areas of groundwater upwelling, quickly moving between cool water sources to limit their ' exposure to high temperatures. 4 2 4 Model Output Sensitivity - How sensitive is the model output to errors in input data? How sensitive is the model output to misspecifi cations of model parameters? As part of the characterization of habitat conditions in WRIA 8, two differences in opinion arose and were evaluated using a sensitivity analysis. The first was the appropriate rating for flow attributes in the regulated Cedar River downstream of Landsburg Dam. The second was the appropriate length of Lower Rock Creek used for spawning. In both cases, the sensitivity analysis showed differences of less than 5%. This could be accurate, but it could also result from the fact that EDT is a cumulative effects model and the impact of a slight change in a key attribute is clouded by what the RSRP calls "confounding statistical noise" from multiple habitat attributes. Additional sensitivity analyses are necessary for the key variables that drive the EDT results. These sensitivity analyses should include ranges of possible values for the most highly variable attributes such as flow. When conducting a sensitivity analysis on the EDT model, it is important to recall that the intent of the EDT model is to make relative comparisons about stream reaches and habitat attributes. The sensitivity analysis should focus less on changes to the model outputs and more on changes in the reach potentials and the relative importance of the level 3 survival attributes. Key habitat attributes to evaluate as part of the sensitivity analysis are: • Riparian function (overbank flows, vegetation, and off-channel area) • Large Woody Debris Habitat area (total area by type, and the relative proportion of each type) • Channel connectivity (hydromodifications) Flows (flashiness and low flows) • Sediment load (fine sediment and turbidity) • Water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and metals) 4 2 5 Model Verification - How have modeled predictions been field verified? Can some of the modeled outcomes be independently tested? How does the output from this model compare to 1 that of other models analyses, or other empirical data? Model outputs were compared with observed population data from the WRIA 8 spawner surveys. The purpose of this comparison was to evaluate the observed versus predicted relative proportion of fish in each stream, rather than absolute abundance number for each system. Assuming a harvest impact of 30% (a Puget Sound average, and one that is probably somewhat high for WRIA 8), the abundance predictions for the Cedar River below Landsburg were the closest to observed data for all modeled streams in WRIA 8. Modeled results for the Cedar were within the range of observed values (between 133 and 975 returning adults) for the 1999-2002 period, depending on the methodology and year. The predicted relative proportion of adults returning to the North Lake Washington tributaries is generally consistent with observed data (model results for Swamp Creek and May Creek exceed observed values). The model predictions for the NLW streams were initially incorrect (overall abundance was higher than observed, and model abundance for the NLW streams was not proportional to observed values), but the problem was resolved by improving the adult Chinook trajectories in the Sammamish River to reflect studies showing that adults move quickly between cold water Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 23 sources to avoid prolonged exposure to the high temperatures that exist in the Sammamish River. As noted in the beginning of this appendix, WRIA 8 is one of the more data-rich watersheds in , the Puget Sound region. This includes multiple assessments and plans for individual sub-areas and jurisdictions. As a result of the extensive studies that have been conducted in WRIA 8, it , was assumed by the Technical Committee that the EDT modeling effort would not result in the identification of habitat problems that had not been previously identified. The model's chief value for WRIA 8 lie in its ability to provide an organizing framework for habitat and population data, diagnose relative priorities for habitat restoration and protection across reaches and stream systems, and evaluate the relative effectiveness of proposed conservation actions. When the EDT results are compared with pre-existing studies and plans, this assumption is largely borne out. This should not come as a surprise, as the EDT habitat characterization and trajectories are based on these same pre-existing studies and plans. For example: • Cedar River Basin Plan and recent studies by USFWS (see Chinook workshop for citation) identify the Cedar River as rearing-limited rather than spawning-limited. This is borne out in the EDT model, where the key life stage for restoration is fry colonization. The inclusion of more accurate template life history trajectories in the EDT model would only strengthen the importance of juvenile rearing in the model results. • Bear Creek and NLW tributaries — habitat problems associated with urbanization are consistent with previous studies and reports. • Issaquah — channelized conditions in the lower creek, the importance of intact upstream habitat, and low flow problems in E. Fork are consistent with the Issaquah Basin Plan and subsequent studies. Key departures between EDT results and previous analyses are as follows: • Instream flows in the Cedar River were not diagnosed by EDT as being a moderate or severe habitat limiting factor, while the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (King County, 1993) notes that altered hydrologic processes may limit the ability of habitat to support key Chinook life stages. • Pre-spawning mortality— emerging issue that is not included in the EDT biological rules. Potential impacts of degraded water quality may be underestimated in the EDT model, particularly for the small urban streams. Several of the WRIA 8 partners are participating in work coordinated by NOAA Fisheries to understand the mechanism of pre-spawning mortality of coho and Chinook in urbanized stream systems. 4.3 WRIA 8 Work Program to Reduce Model Uncertainties The Technical Committee has not produced a prioritized research agenda at this time —this will be the subject of Technical Committee discussions during 2005. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 24 4.3.1 WRIA 8 Collaborative Research Needs and Priorities Research will be conducted by WRIA 8 stakeholders jointly and individually to reduce ' uncertainties in WRIA 8. Whenever possible monitoring and evaluation plans should be designed to reduce uncertainties as well as evaluate the effectiveness of conservation actions. Areas of uncertainty that should be targeted by WRIA 8 stakeholders includes: Habitat characterization and diagnosis for the Issaquah and May Creek systems should be reviewed and, if necessary, revised. • Current habitat characterization (see Table 1 in Section 4.2.2 for specific habitat data gaps)— riparian function and LWD are key EDT variables that are likely to impact model outputs. The Technical Committee proposes to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the `driving' EDT habitat variables along with any other variables identified as data gaps in Table 1 to help prioritize habitat characterization research. Template (historic) habitat conditions— improved historic habitat information will benefit restoration project design but is not likely to significantly alter EDT outputs. • Chinook and coho trajectories — see Section 4.3.2 Fish — habitat relationships and species interactions in the lakes — continue to work with the University of Washington, USFWS, and others to increase our understanding of how salmon use Lake Washington and interact with other species. Relationships between ecosystem process, structure, and function — Sediment load is identified in several streams as a key limiting factor. While it is assumed in most cases that the source of this fine sediment is urbanization, a sediment budget and analysis of sediment transport would help to increase the certainty that restoration actions are addressing the sources of the sediment problem. Relationships between ecosystem process, structure, and function — Flows are identified in several streams as important for restoration, and altered hydrology was identified in the WRIA 8 Limiting Factors Report as a key habitat limiting factor. In order to increase our understanding of the importance of flow-related conservation actions, WRIA 8 stakeholders should continue to study the relationships between flow, habitat, and biological response so that this information can be incorporated into the WRIA 8 analytical framework. In addition, research is needed on groundwater recharge areas and the impacts of groundwater on stream flows and temperature. Evaluation of actions —the EDT model should be used to its full capability to support decision-making about conservation actions. The Treatment phase of EDT is intended to provide a relative comparison of the impacts of protection and restoration actions on Chinook and coho. This information (along with evaluations of how proposed actions impact the watershed function ratings in the Watershed Evaluation) is essential for regional prioritization of conservation actions. 4.3.2 Regional Collaborative Research Needs and Priorities • Spawner surveys —spawner surveys throughout Puget Sound are currently conducted using a variety of methods. As part of regional recovery efforts the Technical Committee asks NOAA Fisheries to develop a standard protocol for conducting spawner surveys so that data can be compared throughout the Puget Sound ESU. • Spawner surveys—the scope of spawner surveys should be increased to include enhanced surveys of the NLW and Cedar River tributaries. Trajectories — information about life history trajectories and relative juvenile survival relies on smolt traps, PIT tags, and seining that are conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, WDFW, and other regional agencies in collaboration with the Technical Committee. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 25 • Nearshore and estuary— additional information is needed about salmonid trajectories, habitat use of the nearshore, and current habitat conditions. Research in these areas should be coordinated with the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration ' Program, the Puget Sound Action Team, and other Puget Sound-level efforts. • Pre-Spawning mortality— continue to support NOAA Fisheries studies into the causal mechanism of pre-spawn mortality in coho and Chinook. • Endocrine disrupting chemicals —support efforts to increase understanding of non- traditional water quality parameters such as pesticides and suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals. • Global warming —continue to monitor UW and other investigations into the impacts of climate change. r Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Page 26 , 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/techmemos/tm58/tm58.pdf Burton, K., L. Lowe, and H. Berge. 2002. Cedar River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd survey report, 2001: spatial and temporal distribution of redds, carcass age, sex and size frequency distributions, redd residency duration and the incidence of redd superimposition on incubating chinook redd mounds. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington. Collins, B. D., D. R. Montgomery, and A. J. Sheikh. 2003. Reconstructing the historical riverine landscape of the Puget Lowland. In: D. R. Montgomery, S. M. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall, eds. Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. pp. 79- 128. Available at: http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/ DeVries, P. 2002. PIT tagging of juvenile salmonsmolts in the Lake Washington Basin: second year (2001) pilot study results. Final Report. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller, and C. Waldbillig. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington. Review Draft. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. ISAB (Independent Science Advisory Board). 2001. Model Synthesis Report: An Analysis of Decision Support Tools Used in Columbia River Basin Salmon Management. ISAB 2001-1. Available at: http://www.nwppc.org/library/isab/isab2001-1.pdf Jeanes, E. D. and P. J. Hilgert. 2002. Juvenile salmonid use of created stream habitats Sammamish River, Washington 2001 data report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. ' King County. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by King County Surface Water Management Division. 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. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 2001. How the Rules Work: Translating Level 2 Environmental Correlates into Level 3 Life Stage Survival Factors for Chinook Salmon. Available at: http://www.edthome.org/documentation.htm Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. Undated. Sub-Basin Planning With EDT: A Primer. Available at: http://www.edthome.org/documentation.htm Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. August 1999. The EDT Method. Available at: http://www.edthome.org/documentation.htm Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 27 Pentec. 2000. Manual for Use and Application of Tidal Habitat Model (THM). Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT). April 2000. Public Review Draft: , Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound. Available at: http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/popid.pdf Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP). December 4-6, 2000 Meeting Notes. Available at: http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrpdoc2.pdf Spirandelli, D. February 2003. Patterns of urban development and their relationship to instream conditions. 2003 Proceedings of the Center for Water and Watershed Studies Annual Review of Research. , Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt and L. Fleischer. 2004. Evaluation of Downstream Migrant Salmon Production in 2001 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Kishimoto. 2003. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon , production in 1999 and 2000 from three Lake Washington tributaries: Cedar River, Bear Creek and Issaquah Creek. FPA 02-07. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Tabor, R.A. 2003. Synopsis of Predation on Juvenile Chinook Salmon by Predatory Fishes in the Cedar River, South Lake Washington, and the Ship Canal. Presentation to the 2004 Greater Lake Washington Chinook Workshop. Available at: http://www.cityofseattle.net/salmon/workshop2.htm Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report 2001. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington. Toft, J.D.. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared by the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences for King County Department of Natural Resources. Appendix C-3 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) Page 28 , t Appendix C-4 WRIA 8 EDT Customization: Derivation of EDT Rules and Habitat Information for Large Lakes, Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, and Estuarine/Nearshore Marine Areas 1 Prepared by Mobrand Biometrics For the WRIA 8 Technical Committee 1 December, 2003 1 February 25, 2005 Page 1 Table of Contents , INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 LAKES (WASHINGTON, SAMMAMISH, AND SHIP CANAL).......................................3 HIRAMM. CHITTENDEN LOCKS..................................................................................4 DataUncertainty........................................................................................................................... 5 ESTUARINE/NEARSHORE RULES............................................................................... 6 Characterization ........................................................................................................................... 7 Results............................................................................................................................................ 7 , r February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page ii List of Tables Table C-1. Level 2 lake environmental attribute definitions - Version 2 (December 18 update)..................................................................................................................................... 9 Table C-2. Level 2 lake environmental attributes and associated rating definitions................... 12 Table C-3. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); High Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume andlarge lock filling culverts. .............................................................................................. 62 Table C-4. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); High Water ' Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume and large lock .filling culverts. .............................................................................................. 63 Table C-5. Chinook and coho migration route(% fish using each route); Normal Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume ' and large lock filling culverts. .............................................................................................. 64 Table C-6. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); Low Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold ' columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume andlarge lock filling culverts. .............................................................................................. 65 Table C-7. Level of Proof codes used to characterize data quality for survival and% fish utilization by route at the Locks..................................................................................... 66 Table C-8. Level of proof ratings for survival assumption by migration route and % fish utilizing each route......................................................................................................... 66 Table C-9. Tidal Habitat Model (WRIA 8 EDT modification). Shaded questions address long-term process features and were excluded from the analysis. Question 35 was added to address the input of Dahnia to the Lake Washington estuaryfrom lakes................................................................................................................. 67 Table C-10. Nearshore Reaches (average scores rounded to nearest integer)............................. 71 Table C-11. Estuarine Reaches (average scores are rounded to nearest integer). ....................... 71 Table C-12. Assignment of Relative Survival (Productivity) values to THM scores. These are based on an assumption about the distribution of the THM score for each juvenile life stage, then interpolated between all intermediate scores with a relative survival of 1.0 for THM scores >85 for estuarine areas and>50 for nearshore units. ......... 72 Table C-13. Estimates of estuarine area for WRIA 8 streams..................................................... 73 1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page iii List of Figures Figure C-1. Results of expert panels rating of lake habitat scenarios...........................................21 Figure C-2. The first step in the construction of predation rules for the lake environment.......... 22 Figure C-3. The second step in the construction of predation rules for the lake environment..... 23 Figures C-4. Bass in limnetic areas..............................................................................................24 Figures C-5. Cutthroat in limnetic areas....................................................................................... 24 Figures C-6. Pikeminnow in limnetic areas..................................................................................25 Figures C-7. Perch in limnetic areas............................................................................................. 25 Figures C-8. Rainbow in limnetic areas........................................................................................26 Figures C-9. Residual Coho in limnetic areas. ............................................................................. 26 ' Figures C-10. Hatchery Coho in limnetic areas............................................................................ 27 Figures C-11. Cormorants in limnetic areas. ................................................................................ 27 Figures C-12. Grebes in limnetic areas......................................................................................... 28 , Figures C-13. Mergansers in limnetic areas. ................................................................................ 28 Figures C-14. Gulls in limnetic areas. ..........................................................................................29 Figures C-15. Cutthroat in base littoral......................................................................................... 30 , Figures C-16. Sculpin in base littoral. .......................................................................................... 31 Figures C-17. Pikeminnow in base littoral. .................................................................................. 32 Figures C-18. Rainbow in base littoral. ........................................................................................ 33 ' Figures C-19. Crayfish in base littoral.......................................................................................... 34 Figures C-20. Bass in base littoral................................................................................................ 35 Figures C-21. Perch in base littoral............................................................................................... 36 Figures C-22. Brown bullhead in base littoral.............................................................................. 37 Figures C-23. Residual coho in base littoral................................................................................. 38 Figures C-24. Hatchery coho in base littoral................................................................................ 39 Figures C-25. Grebes in base littoral. ........................................................................................... 40 Figures C-26. Cormorants in base littoral..................................................................................... 41 Figures C-27. Herons in base littoral............................................................................................ 42 ' Figures C-28. Mergansers in base littoral..................................................................................... 43 Figures C-29. Gulls in base littoral...............................................................................................44 , Figures C-30. Cutthroat in modifiers littoral. ............................................................................... 45 Figures C-31. Sculpin in modifiers littoral...................................................................................46 Figures C-32. Pikeminnow in modifiers littoral...........................................................................47 Figures C-33. Rainbow in modifiers littoral.................................................................................48 Figures C-34. Crayfish in modifiers littoral.................................................................................. 49 Figures C-35. Bass in modifiers littoral........................................................................................ 50 , Figures C-36. Perch in modifiers littoral. ..................................................................................... 51 Figures C-37. Brown bullhead in modifiers littoral...................................................................... 52 Figures C-38. Residual coho in modifiers littoral......................................................................... 53 Figures C-39. Hatchery coho in modifiers littoral........................................................................ 54 Figures C-40. Grebes in modifiers littoral.................................................................................... 55 Figures C-41. Cormorants in modifiers littoral............................................................................. 56 , Figures C-42. Herons in modifiers littoral.................................................................................... 57 Figures C-43. Mergansers in modifiers littoral............................................................................. 58 Figures C-44. Gulls in modifiers littoral....................................................................................... 59 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page iv Figure C-45. Conceptual model of observed(solid lines) and possible (dashed lines) juvenile fish routes through the Ship Canal Locks............................................................... 60 ' Figure C-46. Timing at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks for a representative group of life history trajectories generated by the Habitat Assessment Model. The diversity of life history patterns modeled for chinook resulted in a broader period ofoutmigration at the Locks................................................................................................. 61 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page v INTRODUCTION The EDT model, from which the WRIA 8 Habitat Assessment Model derives, , is a habitat model—where habitat conditions (ecological attributes) are translated into population survival expectations for salmon species. Two major steps needed to be completed before model analysis of Chinook and coho in WRIA 8 could begin: (a) describe the ecosystems in terms of the ecological attributes that form the input to the EDT model, and (b) develop translation rules for the unique environments present in WRIA 8, namely Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. This work was coordinated through the Technical Committee and involved several experts in addition to the MBI consultant team. In this section we describe the rules for converting habitat attributes for the lake environment into survival parameters for the model. A team of experts worked on the development of habitat-survival relationships for the environments that are unique to WRIA 8—namely Lake , Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, the Crittenden Locks, and the estuary and near-shore marine areas. We refer to these relationships as translation rules or simply "rules." These rules tell the model how to convert habitat inputs into survival values for chinook , and coho salmon. The following steps were followed: 1. A "lakes and ship-canal" team was formed of individuals with ' particular expertise in the ecology of the lakes and ship canal. 2. The team convened a two-day workshop to share information and , knowledge about ecological characteristics of the lake environment as they might affect salmonids. 3. A smaller work group held further workshops to refine the particular set of attributes that would be used to characterize the lake and ship canal ecosystem. 4. The group then created a procedure for developing draft , translation rules using the new lake attributes. First, a set of hypothetical scenarios was developed, expressed in terms of lake attributes. Then, team members were asked to independently rate , these scenarios with respect to the survival of Chinook and coho juveniles. 5. MBI developed a set of tools to conduct the survival rating ' exercise. The experts completed the ratings independently. 6. MBI synthesized the expert ratings and converted the results into , a set of lake rules, which were implemented in the model. 7. The team, with assistance from members of the Technical Committee (and King County staffl, next divided the lake and ship canal environments into ecologically homogeneous segments and characterized each segment (month by month) in terms of the model input attributes, including the new lake attributes. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 1 8. Concurrent with the development of lake rules, a different team held two workshops to discuss aspects of the locks and the ' estuary and nearshore marine areas as they affect salmon survival. A set of survival values was developed by the individuals most familiar with the locks. For the estuary and marine areas, the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) developed by PenTec was used as the basis for developing model rules and attributes for these environments. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 2 1 LAKES WASHINGTON, SAMMAMISH, AND SHIP CANAL) 1 An early conclusion by the lakes team was that the predominant cause of , mortality for juvenile salmon in the lakes is predation. It was also clear that both abundance of predators and the vulnerability of the prey are affected by factors such as bank type, substrate, and predator species composition. Workingwith the lakes experts, we defined attributes specific to the lake P � P environment to capture population status of important predator species and environmental attributes that modify predation effects (Table C-1). ' Most attributes were characterized using ratings on a scale of 0 to 4, spanning a range of possible conditions. Habitat composition attributes (bank type and percent inner and outer littoral) were characterized as a ' percent of littoral reach. Generally, there is a consistent direction to the attribute ratings, where lower values correspond with more pristine environmental conditions and higher values with more "managed' conditions. This pattern differs for predator status attributes. For these attributes, 0 to 4 ratings represent abundance of species, where 0 or low values represent lower abundance of that species. The system also allowed , the experts to indicate the precision of their ratings. Table C-2 summarizes the attribute rating definitions for the lakes. The opinions of the lakes experts was captured by constructing a series of , hypothetical scenarios, each of which described a littoral or limnetic lake segment in terms of a predefined set of attribute ratings. The experts then ' independently rated the survival conditions for the focal species for each scenario. The results of this exercise are shown in Figure C-1. Two general viewpoints emerged: those who saw a relatively weak relationship between habitat attributes and predator effect (lower charts), and those who saw a stronger relationship. There is, however, a relatively good agreement on the direction of the effect as shown in the lower charts. We elected to model the more habitat sensitive viewpoint represented by the upper charts of Figure C-1. Bank type and predator species composition emerged during the rule , building process as the most critical factors affecting survival of juvenile salmon in the lakes environment. A computational framework was constructed around a set of sensitivity curves as illustrated in Figure C-2 ' and C-3. The sensitivity curves are shown in figures C-4 through C-44. The rules have been coded and incorporated in the EDT model along with , the lake specific habitat attributes. 1 1 _ 1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 3 HIRAM M. CHITTENDEN LOCKS ' A workshop was convened in December 2002 with a larger group to review information relevant to the Locks. General concepts and key data sources were discussed at this workshop. Following the workshop Fred Goetz (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Bob Pfeiffer (consultant for City of Seattle) 1 were identified as key people who had information, or were knowledgeable about, the locks and would provide expert opinion when information was missing. Their inputs were the basis for developing survival rules at the Locks. A total of five major routes where identified for juvenile chinook and coho ' seaward migration through the Locks (Figure C-45). There are two possible routes through the large and small locks, either through the culvert intakes or through the miter gates (i.e., the lock itselfl. The saltwater drain can either route directly below the Locks ("Old" saltwater drain) or be routed into the fish ladder (Aux Fish supply). Altogether, eight potential routes were identified at the Locks. We asked the experts to provide information about conditions from March through the end of August to ensure that we had all of the time periods ' captured in the model. The Habitat Assessment model includes a life history model that routes Chinook and coho past the Locks during the appropriate time periods (see Figure C-46). The first step in modeling survival at the Locks was to determine juvenile survival by route. Survival for most routes exceeded 90 percent (Table C-3). The exception was the saltwater drain to the fish ladder. Survival for this ' route is 0 because of a screen at the outlet of the pipe. Once survival assumptions were determined, the next step was to perform an assessment of the percent of the juvenile migration utilizing each route, by week. A weekly time step was chosen because of the rapid change in Lock operations that can occur mid month (typically June —July). In ' addition, because Lock operations change from year to year based on water availability, we characterized three scenarios for fish passage: 1) low water year, 2) normal water year, and 3) high water year (Tables C-4, C-5, and C- ' 6). What distinguishes these scenarios from one another is how far into the summer the spillway flumes can operate. In a normal water year, the flumes were assumed to operate at maximum efficiency until the second ' week of June and at reduced efficiency until late June. During a high now year the maximum efficiency period was extended until the end of June and the reduced efficiency until mid-July. And, finally, in a low water year, the flumes were shut off completely by mid June. All results from the Habitat Assessment model are based on the normal water year condition. Total survival for a week was calculated as the percent of fish using each ' route multiplied by the route survival and summed across all routes. Note that although the salt water drain to the fish ladder has 0 survival, this February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 4 route has minimal effect on overall survival because few fish are entrained in this route. Data Uncertainty Data uncertainty was captured for both survival by route and percent fish using each route. The experts were asked to rate data uncertainty on a scale from 1 to 4 (Table C-7). Data uncertainty tended to be high for both types of assumptions. Table C-8 summarize the range of uncertainty ' reported by the experts for both survival and fish migration route. Note that in both cases, uncertainty increases later in the season. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 5 , ' ESTUARINE/NEARSHORE RULES ' A workshop was convened in early January of 2003 to review possible approaches to characterizing the estuarine and nearshore reaches for the Habitat Assessment model. At this workshop, we presented the idea of ' using the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) developed by PenTec Environmental to characterize these areas. MBI had already developed a provisional set of estuarine and nearshore survival data based on earlier work done on a Puget-Sound-wide EDT analysis for the Washington Department of Fish ' and Wildlife. We hired PenTec to summarize existing THM assessments and to complete a THM assessment for missing areas in WRIA 8. The THM scores were fed into our existing data framework for estuarine and nearshore survival assumptions. THM is a quick method of inventorying estuarine and nearshore habitat ' using aerial photos and a single visit during low tide. Using the Tidal Habitat Model protocols, discrete units of habitat were delineated based on physical changes in shoreline/nearshore habitat types. These habitat units ' are termed assessment units (AUs). AUs are nested within larger geographic units called Ecological Management Units (EMUs). These larger units were the geographic units applied in the WRIA 8 Habitat model for nearshore areas. The overall EMU score was calculated by taking the length-weighted average of the AUs. The THM asks a series of thirty-four "yes" or "no" questions about the hydrological, chemical, physical, geomorphologic, biological, and landscape features (indicators) present within the AU (Table C-9). Three questions were removed from the assessment because they addressed long-term ' process features of the AU. We were interested only in a characterization that represented conditions as currently experienced by juvenile salmonids or that were thought to exist in the template. The THM was modified to include a new question (Question 35) to address the fact that the Ship Canal and Lake Washington provide a source of Daphnia to the AU just seaward of the locks (AU 11.03, 11.04, 11.05, and 11.06). It was suggested that this be added as a habitat feature that greatly increases the value of this area for juvenile salmonids. This question was given a multiplier of 2 - i.e., 2 times the raw THM score. ' The model is focused only on indicators that are of direct relevance to anadromous salmonids, primarily juveniles. Values are based on the degree to which each indicator is judged to be associated with the positive aspects of each function: indicators strongly associated with the function being assessed are assigned a value of 3; those moderately associated are assigned a value of 2; those weakly associated with the function are assigned a value of 1 (Table C-9). Several questions include multiple sub- questions with only one sub-question to be answered under each question. Aspects of some indicators have been judged by the THM developers to be ' disproportionately beneficial (e.g., presence of a natural tidal channel wetted at mean lower low water (MLLW)) or adverse (e.g., presence of riprap or bulkheads below mean higher high water (MHHW)) to such a degree that February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 6 they are assigned positive or negative multipliers that are applied to the sum of the values from all the other indicators. Different multipliers for 0- age juvenile chinook salmon and 1-age juvenile coho salmon for certain ' indicators reflect differences in habitat reference/requirements for these species. A discussion of the underlying rationale and assumptions for each question is available from PenTec. , Characterization Starting from the north, EMU 8, from Mukilteo to Picnic Point, was ' completed for the City of Mukilteo (December, 2000) using the Ecology shoreline oblique photos (1993 version), topographic maps, and a passing ' familiarity with the nature of the shorelines involved. Lacking any better eelgrass data, we arbitrarily assigned a positive response to question 23b (eelgrass present over 10 to 25 percent of the length of the AU) to all AU. ' EMU 9 (Picnic Point to Edwards Point) was scored independently for the City of Edmonds (summer 2001) using ecology photos, topographic maps, frequent shore visits, and a shoreline survey from a skiff during low tide. ' Greater specificity was available to score the eelgrass (Question 23) from the skiff survey, but there were still no real eelgrass survey data available (pre- ShoreZone, Sound Transit, and MOSS). EMU 10 through EMU 12 (Edwards Point to West Point) were scored based on aerial photos, topographic maps, past familiarity, and a site walk from , Edwards Point to Point Wells in January this year. MOSS web eelgrass maps were used to answer Question 23. For the template condition ("as good as it can get") the shoreline of each t EMU was assigned a mix of the "pristine" habitats that matched our expectations of what the shoreline would look like absent all development. Thus, for example, we looked at each AU and decided which of the 5 pristine shoreline habitat types would be present in the absence of development. Thus, comparison of the existing versus the Template condition can be used as an indicator of how good the habitat quality is ' today relative to what it might have been in 1850. For the purposes of assuming the template conditions for the Ship Canal, we assumed that an essentially estuarine channel would exist from the base of the presumed ' cascades (our Template condition for the Locks) to the outer estuary boundary. We assumed daphnia were present in the template. Results r Average THM scores for each EMU are presented in Table C-10 for ' nearshore units. THM scores represent the weighted averages for all nearshore AUs in the EMU. Estuarine units typically were a single AU (Table C-11). In the case of the Lake Washington estuary, we calculated the ' unweighted average across all AUs. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 7 ' ' THM scores were converted to relative survival assumptions based on an assumption about the distribution of the THM score for each juvenile life stage, a minimum relative survival for the lowest scores (based on previous EDT modeling in Puget Sound streams). They were interpolated between all intermediate scores with a relative survival of 1.0 for THM scores greater than 85 for estuarine units and greater than 50 for nearshore units (Table C-12). THM scores are not applicable to the adult life stage. Conclusions for adult relative survival in nearshore and estuarine reaches were based on earlier work completed on a Puget-Sound-wide EDT analysis for the WDFW. Size of estuarine and nearshore units were calculated from topographic ' maps and field visits (Table C-13). The area of nearshore units was assumed to extend outwards 500 m from the shoreline. Length of the units was determined from USGS topographical maps. 1 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 8 Table C-1. Level 2 lake environmental attribute definitions - Version 2 (December 18 ' update). Attribute Attribute Definition , class Attribute Inner littoral -shallows The percentage of the water surface area within the ' geographic unit consisting of shallows, defined as areas with depths <=1 m. Depth zone Outer littoral The percentage of the water surface area within the ' geographic unit consisting of depths generally associated with the outer littoral area, defined here as areas with depths >1 m and <=12 m. Shoreline Bank type - Beach The percentage of shoreline comprised of largely featureless , features beach (generally exposed to some wave action). Bank type - Soft bank- The percentage of shoreline comprised of natural soft bank, protected which is generally in an area provided some type of protection , from wave action. Bank type - Hardened The percentage of shoreline comprised of hardened bank with interstices (e.g., rip composed of material containing interstitial voids. Bank ' rap) hardening under these conditions will be due to natural processes such as boulder slides or scree or due to human placement such as riprap. Such banks will generally be sloped. ' Bank type - Hardened The percentage of shoreline comprised of hardened bank without interstices (e.g., composed of material containing little or no interstitial voids. bulkhead) Bank hardening under these conditions will be due to natural outcrops or cliffs (comprised of rock or cemented till), or due to human placement of bulkheads. Such banks will generally have vertical or near) so faces. Bottom slope The slope of the lake bottom for a discrete area of shoreline from the shoreline to a depth of 1 m. Note: the slope from the shoreline out to the 5 m depth will generally be assumed to be com arable to the slope to 1 m depth. ' Daily lake fluctuation The average amount of diel fluctuation in lake level, measured as change in lake surface level. This condition is the result of h droelectric operations. Inlet stream deltas The relative abundance of perenial tributaries to the lake ' within the geographic unit, expressed as the number of tributaries per mile of shoreline. In-water LWD The relative amount of natural wood (both small and large) ' within the reach. Dimensions of what constitutes LWD are defined as pieces >0.1 m diameter and >2 m in length. Small wood would include aggregates of smaller pieces. , In-water man-made The abundance of anthropogenic structures which produce structures shade such as docks, walkways, piers, and boats. Substrate type - Silt The percentage of the lake bottom substrate within the littoral zone comprised of largely of silt(particle sizes < 1 mm). , Substrate type - Sand The percentage of the lake bottom substrate within the littoral zone comprised of largely of sand (particle sizes > 1 mm and < 6mm . , Substrate type - Gravel The percentage of the lake bottom substrate within the littoral zone comprised of largely of gravel (particle sizes > 6 mm and < 60mm . ' February 25, 2005 Page 9 , Attribute Attribute Attribute Definition ' class Substrate type - Mixed The percentage of the lake bottom substrate within the littoral coarse zone comprised of largely of mixed coarse material (particle sizes > 60). Dissolved oxygen A measure of the average dissolved oxygen within the water column for the specified time interval. (measured at 12 m, 12 m, 10 m, and 2 m depths in Lake Washington, Lake ' Sammamish, the Ship Canal, and the Sammamish Slough. Temperature - Maximum water temperatures within the geogrphic unit during Maximum a month (measured at 12 m, 12 m, 10 m, and 2 m depths in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Ship Canal, and the ' Sammamish Slough). (Note: depths agreed to by technical rou on December 4-5, 2002). Temperature - Minimum water temperatures within the geogrphic unit during Minimum a month (measured at 12 m, 12 m, 10 m, and 2 m depths in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, the Ship Canal, and the Sammamish Slough). (Note: depths agreed to by technical group on December 4-5, 2002). Water Temperature - Spatial Spatial variation of temperature within the geographic unit, quality variation either due to stream inlets, groundwater seeps, or depth within the geogra hic unit. Metals -Water column The extent of dissolved heavy metals within the water column. Metals/toxicants - The extent of heavy metals and miscellaneous toxic pollutants Sediments within the lake bottom sediments. Toxicants - Misc The extent of miscellaneous toxic pollantants (other than heavy metals)within the water column. ' Turbidity A measure of turbidity within the geographic area of interest in the lake, expressed in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Turbidity is an optical property of water where suspended fine ' particles such as clays and colloids, and some dissolved materials cause light to be scattered. Benthos The relative abundance of chironomidae during spring months. Biological Ranges of chironomid densities to be based on data in community Michele Koehler's research results --to be provided by Beauchamp. Fish pathogens The presence of pathogenic organisms (relative abundance ' and species present) having potential for affecting survival of salmonid fishes. Lakeshore vegetation The relative amount of overhanging vegetation, including ' trees, growing along the shoreline. Macrophytes The relative amount and density of rooted submerged and floating aquatic vegetation in the lake's littoral zone. ' Neuston A measure of the organisms existing on the surface film of water in a lake. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 10 Attribute class Attribute Attribute Definition Predation risk-fish Level of predation risk on focal species due to the presence ' species and relative abundance of specific predatory fish species within the lake (species or groups considered include sculpin, cutthroat trout, crayfish, pikeminnow, hatchery yearling sized ' coho or chinook, residual coho or chinook, bass (smallmouth and largemouth grouped), yellow perch, and brown bullhead) Note: this measure applied for each species or group. Predation risk- bird Level of predation risk on focal species due to the presence species and relative abundance of specific predatory bird species associated with the lake (species or groups considered include grebes, mergansers, cormorants, herons, and gulls). Note: this , measure applied for each species or group. Prey alternatives for Relative abundance or diversity of prey species that can key predators provide alternative food sources, other than the focal salmonid ' species, to the key predator species (identified under Predation Risk). An example of a alternative food source in Lake Washington is Ion fin smelt. ' Zooplankton The density of Daphnia. r t February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 11 , Table C-2. Level 2 lake environmental attributes and associated rating definitions. Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Depth zone Inner littoral - shallows Entered as a percent of littoral reach Outer littoral Entered as a percent of littoral reach Shoreline features Bank type- Beach Entered as a percent of littoral reach Bank type - Soft bank- Entered as a percent of littoral reach protected Bank type - Hardened with interstices (e.g., rip rap) Entered as a percent of littoral reach Bank type - Hardened without interstices (e.g., Entered as a percent of littoral reach bulkhead Bottom slope Average slope of Average slope of Average slope of Average slope of Average slope of lake bottom within lake bottom within lake bottom within lake bottom within lake bottom within the geographic the geographic the geographic the geographic the geographic unit is <3%. unit is >=3% and unit is >=6% and unit is >=9% and unit is >=12%. <6%. <9%. <12%. Daily lake fluctuation Diel fluctuation is Diel fluctuation >0 Diel fluctuation Diel fluctuation >1 Diel fluctuation >2 minimal, lake is m and <=0.3 m. >.3 m and <=1 m. and <= 2 m. and <10 m. not regulated. Inlet stream deltas >1.5 tributaries >0.9 and <=1.5 >0.3 and <=0.9 >0 and <=0.3 No tributaties per mile of tributaries per tributaries per tributaries per present shoreline mile of shoreline mile of shoreline mile of shoreline February 25, 2005 Page 12 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition In-water LWD Complex mixtures Complex mixtures Scattered clumps Aggregates of Aggregates of of wood present, of wood present, of aggregates of complex small small wood and consisting of a consisting of a small wood and wood (consisting LWD very rare or diversity of sizes, diversity of sizes, scattered pieces of branches) rare not present. decay classes, decay classes, of large wood of and few, isolated and species, and species, old decay classes pieces of large occurring in scattered at (therefore missing wood not frequent clumps infrequent branches); or associated with or massive jams locations along aggregates of smaller pieces. along the the shoreline; small wood rare shoreline. representive of a but accumulations situation where of logs associated some with log dumps management is and rafting. occurring to reduce frequency compared to index level 0, or where the pristine environment consists of a mixture of forest and ran eland. In-water man-made No structures Low density of Moderate density High density of Extremely high structures along shoreline or structures along of structures structures along density of structure are rare, shoreline, > 2 and along shoreline, > shoreline, > 30 structures along i.e. <= 2 <= 10 structures 10 and <= 30 and <= 75 shoreline, structures per per mile. structures per structures per exceeding 75 mile. mile. mile. structures per mile, or shoreline encompasses a boat marina value 4). Substrate type - Silt 0% to 20% of 20% to 40% of 40% to 60% of 60% to 80% of 80% to 100% of area area area area area Substrate type -Sand 0% to 20% of 20%to 40% of 40% to 60% of 60% to 80% of 80%to 100% of area area area area area February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 13 r r r r lilllr r liiiir r r liillr r M Ir = = liter rr liiir r Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Substrate type - Gravel 0%to 20% of 20%to 40% of 40% to 60% of 60% to 80% of 80% to 100% of area area area area area Substrate type- Mixed 0% to 20% of 20% to 40% of 40%to 60% of 60%to 80% of 80%to 100% of coarse area area area area area Dissolved oxygen > 8 mg/L (allows > 6 mg/L and < 8 > 4 and < 6 mg/L > 3 and < 4 mg/L < 3 mg/L for all biological mg/L (causes (stress increased, (growth, food functions for initial stress biological function conversion Water quality salmonids without symptoms for impaired) efficiency, impairment at some salmonids swimming temperatures at temperatures performance ranging from 0-25 ranging from 0-25 adversely C) C affected Temperature - Maximum Warmest day < 10 Warmest day>10 > 1 d with > 1 d with > 1 d with C C and <16 C warmest day 22- warmest day 25- warmest day 27.5 25Cor1-12d 27.5Cor > 4d Cor3d with >16 C (non-consecutive) (consecutive) >25 with warmest day C or>24 d with 22-25 C or>12 d >21 C with >16 C Temperature - Minimum Coldest day >4 C < 7 d with <4 C 1 to 7 d < 1 C 8 to 15 days < 1 C > 15 winter days < and minimum >1 1 C C Temperature - Spatial Numerous Many sources of Intermittent Infrequent Very little or no variation sources of temperature sources of sources of evidence of temperature variation due to temperature temperature variation due to variation due to inlets, seeps, or variation due to variation due to stream inlets, inlets, seeps, or depth, but not well inlets, seeps, or inlets, seeps, or seeps or depth. depth, well distributed within depth, and not depth, and not distributed within the geographic evenly distributed. evenly distributed. the geographic unit. unit. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 14 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Metals -Water column No toxicity May exert some Consistently Usually acutely Always acutely expected due to low level chronic chronic toxicity toxic to salmonids toxic to salmonids dissolved heavy toxicity to expected to (1 month (1 month metals to salmonids (1 salmonids( 1 exposure exposure salmonids under month exposure month exposure assumed). assumed). prolonged assumed). assumed). exposure (1 month exposure assumed). Metals/toxicants - Metals/pollutants Deposition of Stress symptoms Growth, food Metals/pollutants Sediments at natural metals/pollutants increased or conversion, concentrations in (background) in low biological reproduction, or sediments are levels with no or concentrations functions mobility of benthic lethal to large negligible effects such that some moderately organisms numbers of the on benthic stress symptoms impaired to severely affected; benthic species. dwelling occur to benthic benthic dwelling area occupied organisms (under dwelling organisms; area only by continual organisms (under occupied only by metals/pollutant- exposure). continual tolerant species. tolerant species. exposure). Toxicants - Misc No substances One substance More than one One or more One or more present that may present that may substance present substances substances periodically be at only periodically that may present > acute present with > 3X or near chronic rise to near periodically rise to toxicity threshold acute toxicity toxicity levels to chronic toxicity near chronic but < 3X acute (always acutely salmonids. levels (may exert toxicity levels or toxicity threshold toxic)to some chronic one substance (usually acutely salmonids. toxicity)to present > chronic toxic)to salmonids. threshold and < salmonids. acute threshold (consistently chronic toxicity)to salmonids. Turbidity <0.5 NTUs >= 0.5 and <1.5 >= 1.5 and <3 >= 3 and <7 NTUs >= 7 NTUs NTUs NTUs February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 15 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Benthos Density of Density of Density of Density of Density of dipterans dipterans dipterans dipterans dipterans (especially (especially (especially (especially (especially chironomids) is chironomids) is chironomids) is chironomids) is chironomids) is very high, >_ high, >_and < moderate, >_ low, >_and < very low, <_ organisms per _organisms per and <_ _organisms per organisms per square m; this square m; this organisms per square m; this square m; this density would density would square m; this density wou►d density would provide maximum produce slightly density would result in no net result in weight Biological ration to young reduced growth to provide a increase in weight loss for young community salmonids under young salmonids moderate ration to for young salmonids under suitable under suitable young salmonids salmonids under suitable temperatures temperatures under suitable suitable temperatures. producing high compared to that temperatures temperatures. growth rates. produced under producing maximum ration. positive, though significantly reduced growth than would occur with maximum ration. Fish pathogens No historic or Historic fish On-going periodic, Operating Known presence recent fish stocking, but no frequent, or hatchery within of whirling disease stocking in fish stocking annual fish the reach or in the or C. shasta within drainage and no records within the stocking in reach immediately the watershed. known incidences past decade, or drainage or downstream or of whirling sockeye known viral upstream disease, C. population incidents within shasta, IHN, or currently existing sockeye, chinook, IPN in drainage, or or steelhead known incidents populations in the of viruses among watershed. kokanee populations within the watershed. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 16 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Lakeshore vegetation Trees grow along Trees grow along Trees grow along Trees grow along Trees grow along >80% of the >50% and <=80% >20% and <=50% >20% and <=10% >=0% and10% of shoreline. of the shoreline. of the shoreline. of the shoreline. the shoreline value 4 is 0% . Macrophytes No rooted 0-25% of the 25-50% of the 50-75% of the 75-100% of the vegetation in the lake's littoral zone lake's littoral zone lake's littoral zone lake's littoral zone lake's littoral zone is occupied by is occupied by is occupied by is occupied by rooted vegetation rooted vegetation rooted vegetation rooted vegetation at densities at densities at at densities > 75% between 0% and between 25% densitiesbetween 50% and 75% 50% and 75% Neuston >50% of lake >25 and <50% of >10 and <25% of >1 and <10% of <1% of lake surface has lake surface has lake surface has lake surface has surface has neuston present neuston present neuston present neuston present neuston present February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 17 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Predation risk-fish species Predatory species Population of Population of Population of Population of of concern not predatory species predatory species predatory species predatory species present. at very low stable, though considered very robust and density, reflecting depressed healthy with all abundant, a population of compared to a age and size densities of all marginal healthy, robust classes of age and size sustainability. All population due to concern present, classes of sizes classes of reduced though concern present concern at low environmental abundance and at high levels. density. quality, moderate reduced from This status level to severe harvest maximum corresponds to an pressure, or potential capacity especially high strong competitive due to one or abundance due to interactions with more of the factors that favor other species. following: harvest, this species in the bottlenecks on Lake Washington habitat capacity at system due to one younger age or more of the classes, or following: low competition with harvest impact, one or more favorable habitat competing conditions, or low species. Note: competition this is the status interactions with that is assumed if other potentially the species were competing naturally occurring species. within a diverse assemblage of species. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 18 Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Predation risk - bird species Predatory species Population of Density of species Density of species Extremly high of concern not predatory species corresponds to a corresponds to a densities of the present. at very low stable, though healthy population species present density, reflecting depressed level for the species due to unusually a population of compared to the under average favorable marginal healthy average conditions that conditions or sustainability. level associated might have proximity to with pristine prevailed prior to reproductive condition due to watershed areas. watershed development. development. Prey alternatives for key Relative Intermediate Relative Intermediate Relative predators abundance or condition where abundance or condition where abundance or diversity of likelihood for diversity of likelihood for diversity of alternative food switching to alternative food switching to alternative food sources very high alternative prey is sources moderate alternative prey is sources for key providing relatively high but providing a well relatively low but predators is very significant still less than balanced still providing low, providing opportunities for would be provided opportunity for some ameliorating virtually no key predators to under maximum key predators to effect away from opportunity for switch from focal abundance or target other focal species. switching from species. diversity of species besides focal species. alternative prey the focal species. items. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 19 r r r r r rr r ■r r r rr r r r r r■ rr rr r Attribute class Attribute Index Value 0 Index Value 1 Index Value 2 Index Value 3 Index Value 4 Definition Definition Definition Definition Definition Zooplankton Density of Density of Density of Density of Density of Daphnia is very Daphnia is high, Daphnia is Daphnia is low, < Daphnia is very high, > 15 >5 and 15< moderate, >1 and 1 daphnia per liter low, 0 daphnia per daphnia per liter. daphnia per liter. 5< organisms per and <10 adult liter and <5 adult This density This density liter. This density copepods per copepods per liter. would provide would produce would provide a liter. This density This density would maximum ration to slightly reduced moderate ration to would result in no result in weight young salmonids growth to young young salmonids net increase in loss for young under suitable salmonids under under suitable weight for young salmonids under temperatures suitable temperatures salmonids under suitable producing high temperatures producing suitable temperatures. growth rates. compared to that positive, though temperatures. produced under significantly maximum ration. reduced growth than would occur with maximum ration. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 20 Limnetic-total survival by scenario Littoral -total survival by scenario ' 1.00 1.00 +++ +++ + X i M • 10 �o 0.60 Xx,.+xx + ++x±x+X+xX+X+ X — --- o.so -� p� ja!''�x Xii`` 6.° ° ex x X xxxxx Z •° x X �n 3 0.40 o - ° —+-+ --x�cx 0.40 -- X Xx xXX•n_io� � N 00 00 O O + + X X • ' O 00 O ° O + ++ X 0.20 0.20 °pp O +O+ 1 0.00 " 0.00 11 ti� 1�1 by La r �9 � NZ 39 to b' ' Scenario number Scenario number O Person A X Person D + I X Person A p Person D•Person F -- - Limnetic-total survival b scenario - Littora l al-total survival by scenario 1.00 ;XjtxxXXXXXXxxy(SC-X,X -X - 1.00 acu�2iX. X Kx� x X XX VA X O p X -A -,%"pXXXXX_A O O °dfl CO 0.80 ---- - ° - - -�ee �° ' �°4�° d' COa' 0.60 + A f N N 0.20 -- - - 0.20 - - - - - 0.00 0.00 ^0 lt, IO 1l^.1. 1O 3� ,50 �'1 r�`� 3ry NO N`l. 0 N ti0 � 0 11D ro ^O 10 tO 00 b1 pP Scenario number Scenario number 7K Person B A Person C x Person E , i O Person C X Person E+Person B Limnetic-total survival by scenario Littoral -total survival by scenario 40 ._.__.__ .___ __ 50 ___...__.._. _-... __.- ...........35 a-v 40 30 ♦ ♦• ii♦ ♦ 35 - -♦ -i� ♦i�♦♦ -♦ ♦�♦ 25 30 �♦ • _ _ 20 15 ! ♦ .-♦ -- 1010 !! !_- !♦�-Zip• ♦ -- - 15 ♦ ! 5 _ ♦ ♦ ♦ - -� 5 ♦ -..♦♦ — - -_ �i=♦♦♦ _ ♦♦ ♦ o • o ' ',. 9 b O `3 A 0 O 1 `5 `1. ` '6 `L ', `� � `LO `h^ `l� `Vb rO �9 O� b0 ^�o' p'� � L t ti ti O ^� ti ^� ^o O Scenario number Scenario number Figure C-1. Results of expert panels' rating of lake habitat scenarios. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 21 ' ' RULE STRUCTURE AND FORMULATIO.N 1 Base survival conclusions for scenarios(littoral) Person Average Bank type Beach Substrate type Sand 1 Species Cutthroat Status(Level 2) 1 3 4 Scenario Base mortality rate curve for reference conditions Attribute 5 -°B 4 BT-Beach 1 1 1 1 1 — -- _— ' BT-HardSloped 0 0 0 0.5 — ---- ------- — BT-HardVert 0 0 0 o.a BT-Soft 0 0 0 ST Gravel 0 0 0 os — — ST-Coarse 0 0 0 °"' c 0.2 X ST-Sand 1 1 t N ST-Silt 0 0 0 0.1 Benthos ---- Slope 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 a 1 DielLevel 0 0 0 Level2 Deltas 4 4 4 - LW D 4 4 4 a Team conclusion-i-Conputed Man Structures 0 0 0 ShoreVeg 0 0 0 Macro 0 0 0 Neuston t 1 1 PreyAlts 2 2 2 m Curve fitted SeasLevel 1 1 1 TempMax 1 1 1 Turb 0 0 0 Sensitivity Sensitivity=F x Level22 Zooplank 1 1 1 grams>.��ag Survival 0.98 0.82 0.63 . 1 Parameters estimated 1 Figure C-2. The first step in the construction of predation rules for the lake environment. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 22 Derivation of modifying effects of other attributes Survival conclusions for scenarios with modifiers Person Average Bank type Beach Base mortality rate Substrate type Sand Quotient residual mortality rates derived for all modifying Species Cutthroat ! 0.e ..___..._ _ _ attributes Status(Level 2) 2 2 oa Scenario 03 _ _. , ro,uua ...._.... w„aup. _.. ?..»...... Attribute 26 23i BT-Beach 1 1 0,2 0 0 BT HardSloped BT-HardVert 0 0 0 "' r BT-Soft 0 0 0 1 z a a v 3 ST-Gravel 1 1 LaW2 At Status of rating 2 o+e wxw wvsuxce. Sao tAM evrpnnaan to aarcy ikey�Manwr*+ ___ ST-Coarse 0 0. I ® Teamconclusion....g....c rrputetl ST-Sand 0 0 r: ST-Silt 0,.- 0 „ Benthos 1 1 Slope 0 0 �e DielLevel 0 0 >�e��R.:os� saR><......ffs�ff��ae��..... Deltas 4 4 Man ffi Modifying mortality=Total mortality/Base mortality { f g — F Shoreuctures 0 0 }horeVeg 0 0 a 0", 015 — -— - Macro 0 0 Neuston 1 1 PreyAlts 2 2 tt Z 0.05 - SeasLevel 1 1 a o --- Curve fitted TempMax 1 1 -oos Turb 1 0 1 0 a 0.1 Parameters estitnated Zooplank 1 1 - 3 Total survival 0.98 0.82 0 1 z 3 a (With modifying effect) 4 Team conclusion-Linear(Team conclusion) Figure C-3. The second step in the construction of predation rules for the lake environment. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 23 ' Bass 0.2 -_............__........................._._____.__.._.�_..._ OA n Q 2 3 -0.2 Attribute Ming ♦ Team conclusion-*-^CmNted Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives Z, 0.1 — --- D 0.1 D 0.1 - ---- -— o _ o - o -0.2 -0.2 ,, -0.2 0 1 2 3- 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Altr b te rating Attribute rating Aftnbuft,rating ra Team ca Jusi —Computed - ♦ Team conclusion Computed _._conclusion—Computetll Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 —._ —__ 2^ 0.1 ___ _- _ I 0.1 _D - 0a 0 -- - 0 C. -0'1 -02 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 III 0 1 2 3 4 Aaribute rating Attribute rating Abinbuta rating ♦ Team contusion—Camputed ♦ Team conclusion—Computed ® Team concusion�Compute0 Figure C-4. Sensitivity curves for Bass in limnetic areas. Cutthroat 0.e 0.4 -------- 0.3 oz 0 0 1 2 3 4 AtWbWe --* ♦.Team Innowswn -comwted Temperature Turbidity Prey altematives 2,0.2 --- 0.2 _._. 0.2 0 0 m m m -04 -0.4 -0.4 ....._..---.._______._—................._....__ > 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating AMributa rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conclusion—CmnWted ♦.-Team condusion Cowy tad_ ♦ Team conclusion—Computed Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 04 .,. .... 0.4 ._.._.._ 0402 0.2 ....—.v...._—.�____.w....1 0.2 n _ > 0 m o s 0 -04 -04 .4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Athibute rating ♦ Team c—lusion—Canpuled ♦ Team conclusion—ComWted 4, Team conclusi Computed Figure C-5. Sensitivity curves for Cutthroat in limnetic areas. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 24 Pikeminnow 0.5 _ — ._....... -- 0.4 r 0.3 - 0.2 N 0.1 - 0 0 1 2 3 4 Level �i, ♦ Team conclus on ^/^ComgRed Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives o.z 0.2 O.z o - — -.T ---— 0 0 A y Alt Dub rab g 2 Attribut n g—_Com [etl -0.2 0 ♦ Team condustonb�b Compued 4 Athibu �.--_ ♦ Team conU-_ Computed 9 Team conGusw _, _____ 0 1 2 3 4 0 i 2 3 4 r i Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.2 0.2 "---. -""-- 0.2 r 01 __... —--- r o.1 Z,0.1 o ♦ d € N N -0.1 - -0.1 ... -0.2 ..._.._.__...._ ..._....�..-.__ 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 AtbiWle ragrtp Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team 1 mn�C puled ♦ T conclu Comput� T". :con �Campuled Figure C-6. Sensitivity curves for Pikeminnow in limnetic areas. Perch ' 0.5 0.4 0,2 >03 R OA 0 0 1 2 3 4 Agributa sting ♦ Team conclusion-#-Computed Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives 015 0.15 OA5 ............... ._-.._..._..._�-___...._.......__ O1 -.._. _ 0.1 .. 2, - > z us o.os m -. --- --- 0,05 - r♦ : � N m 0 -_.__ - --�,—.. .. 1 N p 0 ff -005 _. ............._..._.._.............. .................. ...,.._ 4).05 -0.05 - ..........—__W___....._........i 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Agnbute at rg Mt ibute rating Attnbule rating ♦ Team concusion—Computed T.-:n n:nclU­ComPuletl ♦ Teem mndusion ComWted I '. Benthos Zooplankton Neuston ' r ( r01 -_- OA , 0,05 - - _ - 0,05 —_ „ 0.05 - o N o fj 0 .0.05 ..............._. _._........__...v..,.._...._.. -0.05 --......_.._.______"'_____ -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 AtbibW sling Attribute rating Aftbute ndirrg ♦ Team conclusi n—Compulatl r Team conclun—Com-- WIeO ♦ Team c d sion—Computed ' b Figure C-7. Sensitivity curves for Perch in limnetic areas. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 25 ' Rainbow 0s 0.3 - r 0.2 OA 0 0 2 3 4 Attribute sling ♦ Team wnclusion-*-Computed Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.3 0.3 0.3 >. 0.15 _ __-_ --__ __ b 0,15 -- r 0.15 .c0. m c e -0.15 -_ --"-- -- rn.0.15 '- --- w-0,15 ----- ----- -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 1 2 3 4 I 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating __ -_ 4 Team conclusion Computed ♦ Team pon.ualon�Computatl ♦ Team coW"W-Computed' Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.3 -------- 0.3 0.3 -- _ _ -._T- c 0.10 - 0.15 2 r 0.15 D 0 0 m m c m --03 - w-0.15 _............ ..__.................._........_................... -0. .......r .�......_..._..._._._._..._ _. -0.3 ....._..___.........................._._.._........_ -03 .. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 - 4 0 1 t - 3 4 Attribute rating Atbrb t _ring Attribute rating _ - i Team conclumn-Campuletl T- ncl n-Computed i Team coral �Coml'lutetl ' Figure C-8. Sensitivity curves for Rainbow in limnetic areas. Residual Coho 0.5 0 0..3 -- --- r ' y 0.2 0.1 - - _ 0 - _- 0 1 2 3 4 Atribute rating Team conclusion-$--Computed''. ' Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives oz _- ______ -____._._. o.z ......_..._...__......................................_ r os ....._ ._.___......_.......___....._..........__.._� I 0.1 r _ 0 = o = o --. ._- --..--__._.----- 4-0.1 m -0 1 J w .0.2 _............._._..- - _ -0 2 _ t -0.z - .3 ._-.........._._._........... _.__._. _......_: -0.3 -0 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating i Team oonclusion-Computed 'o Team cancusion-C Puled a Team ooncl on-Computed Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.z _....._____._________._ oz ... ... ._ -� - 0.2 1 01 --- r 0.1 - y r r > { m m-D.2 _- -__.__ __- ra-0.2 -0.2 -0,3 : -0.3l -0.3 0 1 2.__. 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute Wring Attribute rating Attribute rating ' - - Com Tam con 'on�Computetl 4 Taam conclus onComputed ® Team-1-cm� puled - Figure C-9. Sensitivity curves for Residual Coho in limnetic areas. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 26 Hatchery Coho ' 0.5 04 0.2 N 0 1 2 3 4 ' LeveAkribula rating q Team conclusion-0-Compuled Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives ' 0.15 0.15 0.15 y 0.1 - y 0.1 - - y 0.1 .5 .♦ 0.05 ___ -- __ _ 0.05 0.05 c in o w 0 1 a♦-0.O1 a-0.05 -0.0 5 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 .but.rating Aknbute rating Attribute rating Team wndusion-Carnpuled I ♦ T _concluson Computed C♦ T9em cone �Carnpulee� Benthos Zooplankton Neuston . 0.15 0.15 0.15 L. 0.1 - - - - 006 -- --- m0.05 --- -- a - - - h o H o o __-- -------------- -0.05 -0.05 - 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute Ming Attribute Ming Attribute rating _. ----.- r♦ -1-on ♦ Team conclusion Computed Team concluson-Computed ♦ Team --Computed Figure C-10. Sensitivity curves for hatchery Coho in limnetic areas. ' Cormorants 0.5 1 0.3 a 0.2 - 0.1 --_.--- --_ - 0 0 1 2 3 4 '. Attribute sting ♦ Team m dusion--$^Computed Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives , 0.2 0.2 0.2 __......._.......................... _._....__.............. OA 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Akrlbule rating L♦ T clusion-Computed i ♦ Team conclusion-Computed ♦ Team conclusion-Computed Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 02 ........................ .......... 0.2 _..___. _,..._. .,....__._.. .5 in 0 z 0 ° J, 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 D 1 2 3 6 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 I Attribute rating Attribute brig...._ Attribute Mirtg ♦ Team condusion-Computed ♦I I -T lusio Compuledl ♦ Team conclusion Computed Figures C-11. Sensitivity curves for Cormorants in limnetic areas. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 27 ' ' Grebes -0.5 -------- _ 0. r 0.3 y°2 01 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute Ming ♦ Team conclusion__I*_Computed ' Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.05 0.05 0.05 W 2. 0.025 0.025 ----- --- 0.025 -_ 0 - 0 0 e : c c -0.025-0.025 -----._-- -0,025 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute roti.g Attribute rating Attribute rating '., a Team contlusi -Computed Ii Team contusion C♦ Team contlusio -Computed Benthos' Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.05 0,05 ••^, 0.05 ,d °.ozs ----- 0.025o ----- --- �,0.025 oo a -0.025 -0.025 1,025 -0.05 .005 .0.05 I 0nrob=9C m_Wted 4 0 T1 Att^bl.t2 alin=.-ComWletl 4 0 �T'eam-cmd�n�g CanWtetll 4 Atbibule 1.1 Figure C-12. Sensitivity curves for Grebes in limnetic areas. Mergansers 0.5 0.4 ---------- 0.2 y 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 AHribule Ming # Team conclusion•-Y-Compuletl ' Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 0.1 p 0.05 - ---- --- a 0 .05 - - D 0.05 -- ------ -- > _ « ° - ---- - ° o_005 0.05 o - --r- - a 0 1 2 3 4 ° 1 Attribute rating 3 4 0 1 Attribute rating 3 4 Attribute Ming - ♦ Team oonciumon-computed E Tam contlu Computed a Team conclusio, Computed Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 0.1 _......_............. .. 0.1 - 0,05 Z' d 0.05-- D 0.05 0 �100 « 0 c o : c m : « f 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating v, Team conclusi �ComWletl Team conclusion-Computed a Team conclusion-C P ted Figure C-13. Sensitivity curves for Mergansers in limnetic areas. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 28 Gulls 0.5 14 x 0.3 — m 0 a — 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating ♦ Team�usion—F-Computed Temperature Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 .., 0.1 2.0.05 _.--- x 0.05 - - x 0.05 f 0 = o - o w -0.05 -0.05 0.1 -0.1 ...........__._._.._ -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute ragng Attribute rating I ♦ Tea I ion—Can Wted -� Team - -- --- ♦ Team conclusion —Computed ( inclusion —Campul� Benthos Zooplankton Neuston 01 i 005 05 .05 j.i 0 I e e d ' 4)05 - w-0 05 --_- - ---- -0.05 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 1. 0 1 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 22 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribut rating __-- ♦ Team uroriclusion—Compule0 r e Team conclusion—Canputetl �Team conclusion—Computed Figure C-14. Sensitivity curves for Gulls in limnetic areas. , g Y 1 1 1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 29 , 1 Cutthroat trout Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank06 i 0s 06 ---- 0s ........................................................................................__ _ Beach 2`0.4 0.4 0.4 04 - --- 'I 3 2 S 02 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1~ 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population.laWa P•P.ww.slat.. Pop. natatua P.Pul.tlon.talus ♦ Teem conclusion-O-CompWeO • Team mlcluabn tCwnWlaBj • Team conclusion-l-ComW1.tl C_Team condu.lon-i-ComWletl 06 0.8 0.6 - 4 0.6 --^ � Soft i .t04 04__.___.. 04 _ ._ 04 £ E o _--- 12 -_- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Populatlon.taus Population status POWlatlon status P p IaOon status 4 Team cpnclus on-i--C—WIW ♦ T♦am mnclusion l Compuletl n, Teamconclu.on -9 CanWletl ♦ T _. dusion-l-Computed J 1 0.8 06 0.8 Hard- k sloped [ 04 04 4 1 0 0 0 _ 0 ' 0 1~ 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POWla6on slat.. Population atnus Populatlon.hula Popula8on status ® T I 'i-CpmWletl ♦ Teammndusan-i--CmpuW ♦ W T.........lus - CwnWletl 0_ T......._. 08 ............... .. _ 06 .._............ .. ......_ ..... aa. 06......._ Hard- vertical 0.4 - 04 _.- - ---- 0.4 ---- _ - a.04 t 2 12 02 12 02 .S 01 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POWIaBon slat.. Population aMua Population status PopWa6on slat.. —. T... .Iwion tCanWleE ♦ Team conclusion-i-ComWWtl. ♦ Tmm conclusions Comp- ♦ Team conclusion-a--compuletl ' Figure C-15. Sensitivity curves for Cutthroat in base littoral. i February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 30 Sculpins ' Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank0,6 _ as .............. ................ ...................... 06 ..........._.... ......................y oa ...._.___............... _ Beach Ei 0 4 £0.4 - 04 - -—( 0.4 c � c 0.2 0.2 ..__ _�- no 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPula6on atetueII Population status POWIaOon at�ua 'i PoWlation ablua L•_T o.lusion l ComWteO • Team Team wndusion-M-ComWlatl • Team contlusion-3--Computed ' 06 0.6_ — 0.6 0.6 son 04 r 02 E 6s I12 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 P Wl+uon afar s P.P..-ataWa PPWtmbn staus Popu .a - _ �T nclus n-f-Compu� li ♦ Team cwclusim-f-Canpuletl ® seam wncluson- ComWIW A Team cwdiaon-l-CamputeE Hard- 68 .�.�_...� °s ..._____ _..,_..._.______.._.._........._i 06 _._... . ............................ °6 ... ........ ...... Hard- sloped 02 — ° 0 1 2 3 4 ° 0 0 PAWtatlon status 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 —1 2 3 4 PoW"—status POPulatlonstatue POWlatbn aban: • Team wncbabn-i-Compubtl FT 61on i Compuletl) A T us on tCanWled [• T ncluuon O--Cumpubdl 0,6 0. _, .6 0.8 Hard- vertical I oa _-- - -- I w 0.2 02 0 t 0 1 2 3 4 0 ...................`..........� 0 ............ ....__....._!_------------- 0 ...........+ ...............p._._... .p....��� Population status 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 - Population slaNa Population status Populatlon ataWa 0-Tw,wndu -i--Computed A Team corrlusini-♦t-CanWletl • Team wncluson W-CanWlatl • Team wriclusbn-�-CanWted �- --- Figure C-16. Sensitivity curves for Sculpin in base littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 31 ' Pikeminnow ' Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity, prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank04 ........................... ... 04 ................. 04 ................... 04 ........__...._ Beach 0.3 -_- € 03 __._-_ _... _ - 0.3 .. -- 0.30.2 LL 02 0.2 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 _._-_. _-. 0.1 3 o - - - — 0 o 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 POW Irtbn alatw Popuation atado Population atrtua Popuation abuts ♦ Team oondwionf-Compuletl ♦ Team contusion^-F-CanW1e0 ♦ Team wnclusron- -ComWletl 4 Team contusion--i-CanpuleC SOft 04 04 oa 04 -� I 0.3 0.3 0.3 -� 0.3 _ m0,2 _.-- --- 0.2 - -- - b 0.2 �--�--- �0.2 _�,- ter..- �,.--�— 0 a �� 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0� 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Popuatlon ebtw POPPbtlon rtrtua POPulatlon status Popubtbn sbba ' ♦ Team cgWusbn-itComWtetl ♦ T.., -Wu..- -i-CamWied ♦ Team concluson-gi-ComWteO E_♦._T mnd #-ComW�l__ Hard- 04 _.....`-- _ 04 _ ._... _ ..— 0.4 04 sloped 0.3 __ _ _ _ � 0.3 03 ' - m 0.2 0.2 'i� p 0.2 ' 02 J f X 0.1 -- -- 0.1 - 0.1 o ,........r strtua 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population POPulalen strtw PopubNon ablua ._,. POWlrtlon sblus ♦L_ cmclusbn- --ComWled ... ♦ Team caMusion-/1-Canpufe0. ♦ T conclusion T -i-^ComWletl-._ ♦ Team condos on Hard- 04 oa o4 04 - vertical 4 03 03 .._ __-_. 0.3 --_-_ _ 0.3 J 0z - --- n 0.2 -- 0.1 -__ 0.1 - °1 --Awl 01 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 �1 2 3 4 ' Popuation sbtw Pppulation saw POWbtlon saw Population ablua Team cglclysion-Y-Gompuleo or Team conclusion-i-'C mputetl a Tenn corcJusion-A-Compuietl ♦ Team conclusion-Y-CanWtetl Figure C-17. Sensitivity curves for Pikeminnow in base littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 32 Rainbow Base(reference)mortality rates ' Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank04 ....._......_____._......................--.- 04 .. 0.4 o4 ....... .........._.................... .._.._.................. Beach 4 y t D.3 03 D3 03 Y - -_- x 0 2 - ..___—._..— E 0.2 0.2 o.2 _-- _ H ._..__ _ -— .t Ili y a qAl 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPulatlon status Population status cWsgn-1 Popul W. -4s -_— P P latlon status— ♦ Term wnclusron-i-CwnWt� ♦ Team wnGus on-�i--ComWtd ♦ Team W.— a T cluaw tComWletl' $Oft 0.4 04 0.4 0.4 t t t 0.3 _.--. 0.3 _..-.--_- — yt 0.3 ---- - 0.3 - — w N o 1 o 1 ' 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 f 2 3 4 POWIaOon s-us POPuletlon aUtua Population slatua POPulatlo talus ♦ T A - Co P 1 tl A T 1 ^f-C Putetl �T conG ^/-ComWMtl, L♦ T -E-CanWlatl� Hard- -- ___ ._ — _.. 04 --_..__ _------- sloped l __.. . _ 0.3 �t 03 03 o3 1 £ _ 2 I ro o.t 0.1 f �� i ♦ i I o 0 0 o 1 r 2 3 4 0 1 r 2 3 4 o 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 PoWw—alalua Popul—status Populaton ahtus Populaton statue ♦ Team.ontluabn -F ComPutetl A Team—-i--Canpnee -s T antluaion- Ca putetl L♦ T nclus -\-CanWlerl Hard ..................................... ....................... ..................... . 04 04 04 04 vertical �.............._._.. f 0.31._ _. _ -- 03 .__. _— __.-__ 0.3 0.302 a f 0 1 2 3 4 o 1 2 3 4 o 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population—U. Populatto stel Populatlo to ♦ Team condus'on-A� G:rnutetl' ♦ Team contlusion-i-ComWteO ® I. .lusron-t CamPuietl 1-♦ T oonclus tCanWted '.. Figure C-18. Sensitivity curves for Rainbow in base littoral. , February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 33 ' ' Crayfish Base(reference)mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate ' Gravel Sand silt Mixed coarse Bank 0.15 015 0,15 �0.15 Beach it 0.1 L_. 0.1 -- - 0.1 -- ---- -- o., a q z l a x 005�—. ----- --- ------- 0.05 - -- I 0.05 -- -_.- -- 005 ° °to r :�e..._-_._"; ° 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 T 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 PoWlation status PopulMwn status P.W lation status Populaton ataW s -♦ T�mconclusbn-^E--Camputetl� ♦ Team..I.bn-l-ComWted ♦ Team-,duelon'i'C-Puw ♦ Teem condusion-i--C=Ned soft0.15 0.15 ........._...._.......__._-_.__....__......._.__---.1 0.,5 __.........._.._...._._ 0.15.._........_.__._-_...___...�.__.._. 0.1 0.1 -_-_- -- - d Oil - --- a = 0 - -_--- -- 2 e e a a a + c c y m 0.05 _- _- _.. 0.05 0.05 05 : 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population status Papulaton status POPulatlon status Popuaton status r,duwon Co i C." - T �T ndusa_-t-Gonrpuled. ♦ conclus, :i-�ComPut tl'. �, i. ♦ Team contWsim._.m...0 ♦ TanpNed Hard- _0.15 015 '""'""i ''�, 0.15 ..W_, 0.15 .._.... __._.........______......._......-......1 sloped �P 0.1 --- - 0.1 _- o., __ _- __ 0.1 ------ --- --. 0.05 �_- 0.05 O0 f' 0 0 0 1 2 Po IM,on stHua 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 _.__ 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Pap Itl on etrtu Population talus P Wlatb status '' Pu ♦ T ion tCamputed ♦ T ndusion-/--CamW� 'L T tanclusi tCompul� ♦ Team contlusion Y-CanWted __._ —. ...................... ............................................... .............................................................................................Hard- os .......................................................................................... ots .......... os 015 vertical 0.1 - -------- -- 0.1 � 2 + 0.05 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPalatiOn status POPulatim status Popuation atrtus �'j POWlatbn staWa ♦.T - ♦ Teem conclusion f--CanP elusio i-.CamPuled �♦ T.memclus -b-Conputedi ♦ T ndu -0-C-ipted ' Figure C-19. Sensitivity curves for Crayfish in base littoral. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 34 Bass ' Base(reference)mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate ' Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank 0.25 025 0.25 1 0.25 Beach 0.2 --- 0.2 ---- --"---- 07 ---- - -- 0.2 --- - 0.15 _- _- 0.15 - - k 0.15 -__ _ 0.15 - � i _._ y 0.1 0.1 yy'' 0.1 w .-- .,✓ 005 - --..-- - 0.05 0.05 0.05 --- �� 0 � 2 3 4 0 i 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 Population status Population sfaals Populatlon status Poptonlim status ♦ T elusion-0 Comwi;; Team wriclusion i-Camputetl # Teamconcluson--B--C-.- ♦ Team tmclusion-i-C-N- Soft Us __._...__.._.. _.�_ 0.25 .... .. ........_... ._...._..� -- 025 0.2s - -'-� i I 0.2. - -- 0.2 02 -_. _.___. 0.2 - 0.15 ---- "'-_ __ 0.15 £015 - z I 0.1 "" --- -__. - y 0t ___ -._._.-- -.- A 0'1 - - 0.05 - i 0.05 _.__- _. _____ 0.05 0 0 ✓ Oib 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Populatlon satus PopulHbn status populmlon status Populatlon status ♦ T m coxNsion-l-CanWlatlJ r 1..T lusion-®--ComWtetl Team conclusion ComPutetl Hard- 0.25 .............. . . ............................... ...... 0.25 ...... ........ ............ 025 ...... .. . . ............... .............. 025 __-__"""------..._.__ _._....__ ,_...€ sloped 4 i 0.15 - / -- 0.15 ---- - --- ' A,0.15 - gg 0'15 --'-'---- -.- 0.05 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 . x 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 - 1 2 3 d 1 Population status POPulatbn status Population status Population status k Team...n-6-ComWietl A Team caiGuvon--6-Conquletl i Team condusion-♦•-CamW1eE ♦ T mcontusion^f-C-"d 025 0.25 0.25 0.25 -- Hard - vertical ' vertical '', oz o.z '0.1s ------ s 0ns -- --- .- 0.1s 005 _-__ --__.-- 0.05 ...,...�'.� 005 - ' 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population status P♦Paletion'tatu' ftp. l♦n status POPalatlon statue ♦ T m Wtetl ♦ Tram wncluson-4-C-NW mcozlusiun ComputN� # Teamwnclusian-W-C-Wled , mnclusi �--�-Com _ Figure C-20. Sensitivity curves for Bass in base littoral. ' February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 35 Perch Base(reference) mortality rates ' Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank015T ......... 015 .......... 0.15 _....... ................ ...... 0.15 .....---- Beach 01 0., 01 Y1 0.05 -. _ O.05 _ �0,05 --.._. -_.._. _ 005 0( "1t o 0 0 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 2 3 4 O N 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 ' Popuatlon ataM POPulatbn atatua Population fetus POPulatlson shlua ♦ Team conclusion-41- am CMPUW ♦ Te miclusion-i--C—Wtetl i Team wmluso ^# PuleO-C F. Team anclu ron tC..WW Soft0.15 — 0.15 0.15 __— 015 ....... _ .. .,......._.- --------.._, 2RE � c c m m m a y m tl1 0.05 - —_ w 0.05 0.05 .-_— 005 0 1 2 3 4 D 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPPlrtlon status POWlrtlon a1841a Populatlon status Population status ♦ Tenn wnclusiw-i--ComW,etli. ♦ Team wmAuslonE-CanWtetl'. ♦ Team caaYtgion-Y--ComW,ed ♦ Team condusion-l--Computetl Hard- 0.15 -- 0.15 0.15 0.15 ---.-- sloped 0.1 _ - ------ 0., -- -- -- 0.1 -- 8 I " 0.05 0.0s - _ _---- -- -_ 5 .' 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Popu,atlon rtrtua Population atatua Populatlon status Populalon italua - _ IT wnclus'o -i ComWteOJ ♦ Teen concusicn i-Compute0 [:j T lusio i Computetll ♦ 7 cgrclusion-6-CotnW,e0 - 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Hard- vertical 0.1 2 � m a0s -- ---- `a oos __ _ o.os _- ---- -- ` 0,05 -- - 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPulrtbn atatua POWlrtlon status Populatlon status Populatlon scam ♦ Team cwcNsan tCanWle0 ♦ Teamwnduson---C—wo b seam cors9usiw f-Compulen b T onclusio -9-ComWtM Figure C-21. Sensitivity curves for Perch in base littoral. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 36 Brown Bullhead ' Base(reference)mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) ' Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank0.1 ......................_..................._........................_......_.................. 01 --....__.. .,,..__........ _.__....._ _ 01 _.._ _ ---.. _ o. Beach , k 2 3 ' _OO5__ -0.OS .: -0.05 I 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 -0,05 ._..._..._.__..............-..._.....,........._................._� Pop lotion statue Population ataWa PO lewnstatus POWWion ablus • Team luflwn tComWid� • Team conclusion-#F-C-NW d ♦ Team COnclus on-$-Compule0 -- ♦ Team oonclusbn-i Computed , Soft 0.1�._-............:...---- '"...Y._____ _ 0.1 _ 0.1 0.1 y 0.05+-..__ _. __ 0.05 0.05 -. __—__ 1 0.05 m ti a a 0 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 y 1 2 3 -005 .._.____._...__.._...._........................................._......i j -0� t .. -0.05 _..__._....._.._....................._,_,.......__..-_..�_i POW Won ablua POPUM"atetua PO Wim status Population status Teamconclwlon- Compuletl ♦ Teamc d-i--4-CanpW ♦ Team conclusb --f-Compule0 ♦ Team conGuabn- --C_Wt Hard- 0.1 0.1 0.1 01,..................... ................................................ sloped 005 0.05 0.05 -_._____-_ _._ _— 0.05 m m 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 } j 005 _OO5 -0.05 405 PopWatton a talus PoWlation atelus PopW ion aletus POWlation afaNs Team conclusan-F-ComWletl • Team contlusion-Y-CompuleG i, A Team conGwbn-9-CanWteo • TeamcaMusion-i-�ComW1eE .. - __................._.............: 0 1 ...- 0.1 0.1 .........................._.... ..........._....... Hard- vertical 0.05 _ _ ..__._.......__ _ 0.05 ---_.. -_ i 0.05 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 405 Fl 2 3 4 ---- -0.05 -001— P.P.I.I.. -0.05 tat s Pop leti n slat P p latbn status g Y P Wlali7­ �slo0 Ton-f Compule� ni-CamW1eE� Figure C-22. Sensitivity curves for Brown bullhead in base littoral. ' r February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 37 ' ' Residual Coho Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes'e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank03 ..... 0.3 0.3 03 ........................ ._............._._.... Beach o.z - - - � - o.z �0.2 02 E 0.1 ------ - ( 0.1 -_- ------ -- 0.1 _-- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Ptqulmi-status Population statue POWlaticm status Popwa,bn atalua '. Y Team wncImkm Cortp Al .—_-♦ Team conclusion-i^C-ww ♦ T lusion^i-CamWIM - ♦ Team concluson-i-ComWtetl Soft03 0.3 0.3 03 -"'"""" "" _......_.._...._....__..._............ -. 0.2 1 12 --- - -� 0.2 -- - a o Cl 04 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 , 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPuWkm aMus Population status POWlatbn abuts POPulation—U. ♦ Team canduaim-i-Compwetl ♦ Team wnclusron-41 cmnw ♦ Teamwnd on--i--Compul ♦ T mwndusbn-l-CanWtM ' Hard- 0.3 0.3 0.3 - 0.3 -. sloped f I 0.2 --- ---- --- 0.2 ---- ------ r 02 - -----i 02 - > P. * Y 0 1 P 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 --- P Wlati n taWs P Wlat taros P P latbn status ♦ T mwncluson @ Compuletl' E. T cluspn F-ComW1e0, ♦ T nclusa U ComWted Team .lusion�CanW1eE� _— -0.3 0.3 -� 0.3 -- 0.3 _...._..._...__ ....._............. Hard- vertical / 0 2 0 2 --- ---- a 0 z l • t I ot --_.__--__ ! '... �o., --.. --.._ of 0 1I' I 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Popw.i-a . Popwa ebbs Popuation status POPubtlon status ' N Team wnd—�C-Wt. Y Tam .lus'm Canpuletl Y T wndusiw-9-ComW,aC Y T lusion t CompRe� ' Figure C-23. Sensitivity curves for residual coho in base littoral. t February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 38 Hatchery Coho Base(reference)mortality rates ' Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank _-...._........__.__........._....__..,-...._.._._.... ...... , Beach t 003 __. 0.03 ---_ 003 - - - 0.03 -- tt w0.02 -- w 0.02 -- ! 002 _..-.- - P 002 - w 0.01 0.01 - ....___-- _ " 0.01 001 --__- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POWlatlan Wawa POWlatlon status POWlatio.statue PoPUWbn status Team contusion-f-ComWtetl m Team cawluaion^-i^Can_WtaE 6 Team contlusion-f^ComW1eG; • Team conclu--i-Computed ' soft 004 0.04 a 04 004 .. .... __....._ ----- 0,03{_._- -_-.._-.-_ 0.03 0.03 0,03 w 0.02 - a 0.02 002 0.02 001 0,01 001 0 I --a' 0 06 o 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 P p latl.stars P W lat tatua P-l"-status Population stet i ...--_..- On a ComPuled • Tam Conclusion a--Com� - ---__ _,Team conGusbn tCompuled_ , A T mcoel l • Team contlusion i--ComW1e0 Hard- 004 ---- -- 0.04 — 004 -- 004 sloped -3 a i N 002 __--.-_ --_- - i 002 ._-_._ ___ -__.-- w 0.02 _._ _.__ a 002 _- y 0.01 --_ _- -_ - 0.01 - - ____._..__-- - 001 .....-_ - # 001 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POWlatio.status Papulatb.Maw. P.Pulmlo.status Population status L• i -du- ComW edJ A T -ondus on b-C an gdetl • T us on a-ComPu eC A Team antlus on tCanW ed Hard- vertical 0.03 0.03 - _ 003002 0,02 --- --- 003 ---- 002 d m w i 001 001 0.011 001 . I o 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population status Population status Population status P p Iation abtus -- -—1 A Team conclusion- -Computed • Team fusion-i-Compule0' fl Team conclu--4Y rumWted • T conclusion tCanpuled Figure C-24. Sensitivity curves for hatchery coho in base littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 39 ' 1 Grebes Base(reference)mortality rates 1 Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank 0.1s ----- 0.15 ----- - 0.15 -- .. 0.15 Beach 1 0.1 --- 0.1 - 1 01 0.1 �__ 005 - 0.05 00 41 0*—1a 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPuwwn Popuation atatw stows PUWIatl°^at°M Population status 1 ♦ Teem co fusion^f--CamPuletl—_- -- ♦ Team cmc1—-9--ComWletl - ♦ Teem calclusion--f-CanPutetl-- �♦ T clusion -O-C mpulea- - SOtt 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 = x i �005 -_._ - f--__ 0.05 -. 0.05 -41 10 Ij 0 2 3 4 0 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 6 Popuation atalu6 Population status Population status POWlation sletua • Team conclusion-a-CompuWd 1 • Team concusion-i-ComWtetl N T-m conduction-M--C WbE ♦ Tavn calWusion tCanpuletl ' Hard- 0.15 ___..._______ 0.15 _..........................._------_.....__..,.............._................: 0.15 0.15 -----.""....__.._._._....-----._.._......________.. sloped o.t __ __ 0.1 -- - ----f 01 -- -- 0.1 -------- A f� fl 1 a - _ _ — — 0.05 ___-_ _._ _. ; 0.05 - - - -1 0.05 ---- m 005 1 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 0 2 3 4 0 2 op 3 4 PWatlan stinua Populadon awnls POPulWwn status Population atetus CTeem mnclus -Computetl ♦ Team concusion-f-CanWtetl) ♦ Team conduson-i-Compuktl - -- ♦ Teamc uaan-i-C-m I. Hard- 0.15 ................................___........................_.......-.......... 0.75 1 vertical � — — — 01 t o1 I J - = a f h f 0.05 005 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPWation sWua Population stews PopuIMWn status Population statue 1 _ — ♦ T fusion-Y-ComPuletl C♦ T. candusicn t CamWtetl ® T concuson-i-ComPutetl J e Teamcmtlusbn i Conq W 1 Figure C-25. Sensitivity curves for Grebes in base littoral. February 25, 2005 1 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 40 Cormorants Base(reference)mortality rates ' Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank0.02 ..__._ ...____......_.._.__....... 002 _..._. -...........—._'-'--------- 002 ........____.........................................._._... .1 0.02 -1 ' Beach # 0015 I 0015 - 0.015 - I 0015001 --- ` 001 I b m i -_-__.. 0.005 0.005 - _--__ i . 0 0 ONE 0 I 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 -~ 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 3 4 PPpWatloo staau Pap'latlo'atria' POWlatbn'talus Population stalls �♦-Team comlusion i-ComWletl� I ♦ Team conclusion-Y'Ca P w ♦ Team mrJuaian-i--C 11W ♦ Team condusion-i-C=WW Soft _-------------------------_ _ O.Oz I 0.015 ----------- 0015 .. - -- 0.015 - - 0.015 --J F0,01 0 00, � a o1 ` 0111 0.11 --..._---- - H �J 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2- 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population status POPulaWn't'tus Populaton stela' Population staus --_ ♦ T Gaston-l-ComW� '`Y T cancluab - -CamWtetl ♦ Team oondueian ^!•CanPutetl ♦ Team cdtcluaron-iCanpu,ed ' Hard- 002 — 0.02 — - — o.oz --- ooz sloped f _-_ .-�. 0.015----- --- o.o,s Jjrf 0.015 f • 01 a 7 __ -_... f 00p5 _.. 0.005 0.005 0.005 / J a�....._ .l ' 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 2 3 4 POPVlatlan staus Population stlN' Population status Population stalus Y Team conclusion -W-Computetl Y Team caWusion-f Computed • Teen condusion t Computed # Team contlusion-�Compuletl Hard- - vertical 0,02 002 0.02 ooz oms --- --- III a015 I — -- - -- - _._ -- 0.015 0015 a 0.01 « P 0.01 ------ ---- w 001 0.W5 -.- _-.------'-- 0005 _- - ----- ----- 0.005 - 0005 -- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Pop let scat Populaton ataWs P p lalt t tus PapulHbn atalva a i<on�lus i-Compuletl �Canpuletl I •• 1 m condus n ..a...computes l L e Team.pMuabn-�-Canpule0 Figure C-26. Sensitivity curves for Cormorants in base littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 41 , Herons Base(reference) mortality rates ' Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse BankON ._........._..............._.........._............................... 004 ... ON ................ ......... .. .. ooa .—----------_.-- ' Beach — t 0.03 0.03 0.03 £ _ E 002 0.02 w 0.01 -- i �I 'i, w 0.01 ..J 0,01 0 0 o a 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Populatlon status poWlWon atetua PopulWon status ' Populatlon status - _ _ . ♦ am ,luabn-$�ComWietl { T luswn-O-CanWled Te �Team comAue on-l--Compule0 A T cmtl elm�CanpuleE". Soft ON 0.04 ----..-..----.- 0.. 004 ......__..__. ......:_..._. _ J 003 0.03 - &03 -.._.___ _._— i 003 -- _ �f £ __- -- =OM - =o.Oz .__--_._® o.az - ® I o.a2 �. 0.01 - - -- 0.01 _- - _ 0.01 _- 001. _._�•--- 7 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POpula .status PopulWon status PopulWm status POWIWOn status e Teamc�nclusion-#-Compuletl a Team mlwluaion-4-ComWtetl A Team contlueim-'-CompuleE A Taem caMuvm-i-Compuletl Hard- 0.04 0.04 __. 0on — 0w 1 sloped 003 - -----'— 0.03 — 003 ._ ___ _-_ 003 n 0.02 002 0.02 c y � w 001 - -- 0.01 _--. ._yam 0.01 001 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 POpu.1-etWlp Po Iu .n-u. Population status POWIWOn status ♦ Team Team mncNson-l4-Compuletl Y Team Team wndueim...�...ComWletl -_ ON ON ._................................_................................................... Hard- 004 oa vertical 003 .--. 0.03 003 -__-._ __._-__ 003 D .� �o.oz 0.02 -__— =aoz --_ - _ 0.0z ------ —- w -- ---- r 001 001 0,01 001 o t 01 - o a 0 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 ' P P IWon wu. POP IWen PopulWon status P WI bon status _.' Team concluson--F-ComWleC s 1 nclusan-i--ComWletl � ♦_-T...—.u--l--ComWlatl A T lusim Figure C-27. Sensitivity Y^CamWtW Fi curves for Herons in base littoral. g Y February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 42 Mergansers ' Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse ' Bank 04 04 04 0.4 _....� Beach 0.3 02 r � / y 0.1 -_ -----. 0 o - 0 .._ 04 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Populatlon ataM Population status PaWlation atatua Population a U' ♦ Team wnclusim Team conclusion-O-CanWtetl ♦ Teem cor Ausion-11--Compuktll ♦ Team conclusion-✓ Compwlw sm __ 0.4 ...____-__._._. _--.- 0 d .... ....._......... 0.4 OA 0.303 0.3 _---_-- 03 02 - E 02 __ -___.___ - 0.2 mI 01 GA 0 0- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Population status Population aYtus PopulMb status Popuatlon afNua ' O Team contusion- -ComWled ♦ Team conclusion- --WteU O Teamcmdusion -CommW 1, ♦ Tear cmclusron'-O""Computetl Hard- 0.4 ................................................-........_............................., oa ........................................................................................... 04 .............._-.................................................................. oa�...................................................................................... sloped 1 03F 1 r 3 p I a0.2 -- _ 0.2 -- -- - a 0.P 6 0 0 - 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 , 2 3 4 Popuation aW- Population status Population atatua POWM_aLWs ♦ Team condusan--i--CanWletl. a T 1—- _Canpuled] CO-T dudon-i-Computed ♦ T carts - -f Canputetl Hard- 04 as on 04 ..... ... ......... .................. vertical ' 0.3 _.___.-_ _- _-_ 0.3 ___ --- 0.3.-- 0.3 - - f , .F w 02 m > h 3 � 0.1 _..-._ _ _-- ' 0.1 - _ —_r. _ 01 1 J� -- 0'1 - -_— 0 0 _ 0 4- 0 1 2 3 4 0 W 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 i 0 1 2 3 d Population status Population ahWs Populmtlon statue Population sates ♦ Team condusim-f-Canputed Tim condusion-0-comWled O Team condusion-l-CanWlad: '__O r Music Y Computetl Figure C-28. Sensitivity curves for Mergansers in base littoral. ' February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 43 ' Gulls ' Base(reference) mortality rates Reference conditions for all modifying attributes(e.g.,temperature,turbidity,prey alternatives) Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate ' Gravel Sand Silt Mixed coarse Bank __.__._ 0.05 __.-.- ..._ 0.05 Beach -r --- _.- ON ---- -- oaa - ! £0.03 ---- 0.03- --- ;0.03 002 - - OW __._ -_-y--- m 002 y0.02 00, ----- - � 001 -- --_ 0.01 - - 001 _ __ �► - 0 1 2 3 4 ° 1 �2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 2 3 4 ' Population stabts PaWW-qtu POP Iatlonab . POWlatlon status ♦ Team caitiuslon-Y-C-N. ♦ T lusiw i Compnetl ♦ T wntluww..f...l%otnWietl A T Gusiw-F-ComWi d i - J Soft .....1 0.05 .............. ............_........ 005 ......................................................................................... 005 0.05 £0.03 1 0.03 - - JJL1 10.03 -- gD 003 q 002 0.02 0.02 -- '.. .j' 001 001. -- - ----- 0.01 - -"-- - �6- -fi 0.01 --- ---- - -- - I / 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 ' -.. POWlnion sblua POPalanO status Papulatio sinus POWlatlon emu. ♦ Team cwclua on-4-Co N- ♦ Team mnGusian-Y Computed ♦ Tea Wusion-f- Ww ♦ Team cor,Guvm--W-C-Nw Hard- -... o05- 0.05 ..._.__._ ._.........._.._._._-----_____ 0.05 005 ..............._.......__..._.._____._....._._..__ sloped 0.oa- -- 0.04 --- 0.0a 004 -. ' k 003 --- ---- -y`- 0.03 ---- --- 0.03 - - "--- £0.03 p $ooz -._---"--.-_.-___�3 m'ooz --.. - - "� ''.. �0.02 - -- m o 02 I .__-- 0.01 0.01 - - 0.01 __.-_.- ___-- /- 001 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 6 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 POPOlnlon status Population natus Papulatlon stelae PaWlatlon status Team cwGusiw-t-Compuletl 0 Team wn fusion i ComWled A Team cwGuaw-4 ComW1aJ R Team conclusion-Y-Computetl c 0.05 '"-.._._...........__.......,,..__`__W_........._.._..-. 0.05 ....�_ .. 0.05 ........_.._.___ .. 005 ._._.-_..._.._...__.__...-____-..._.....-.._.. �i Hard- vertical ON - _ _ 004 - --- 0.on ----- -" ooa - -...---- ------ P 0.03 - -"__.- __. D 0.03 ..__..". - £0.03 -- £003.- _- 0 y�0.02 0.02 -----1-- oz a 1.02 �= 1 '. 0.01 --__.-- 0.00 ...._____ "-.. __ -- � 0.0 *" �.�.�- 000 - II ♦ -- 0 1 3 4 0 1 2 3 < 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 I P P W t Pop I son taN Pap latl tatu P Wlatlon sinus L..e T,am rAncluso i-Compuietl `♦ Twm wxlusvun-f- Wtetl Compu Team wnGuww-i letl 9 T wnduvon-l--ComWkH Figure C-29. Sensitivity curves for Gulls in base littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 44 Cutthroat , Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD ' 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.15 i,0.15 L 0.15 - --_- 0.15 --- > i a - 0 0 o 0 1.15 -__ - -0.15 -0.15 ul -0.15 I -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 --._._._...-_..._....__.____..�..__._-.___: -0.3 0 1 2 3 4 i 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute natin9 Attribute rating Altribub rating ♦ Team conclusion-CoTput!clj Team conclusio -Computed I Team conclusion-Computed ♦ Team conclusion-Computed ' Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.3 -._.........-....,.._..............__ 0.3 _ 0.3 .__.................._........____...-......_.._.._...,_.__..... 0.3 Z,0.15 0.15 0 0.15 _ ._ _..- .. -. L .15 --- __.___ _ - - t o oIt 0 0 -0.3 -0.3 ` -0.3 ._.. _ __..._. -0.3 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Altrlbule rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute Ming ♦ Team conGusian-Computed I b Team conclusion-Compuledl '�, ♦ Team conclusion _.T lusion-Computed Diet water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.3 0.3 0.3 2,015 -___.__.._-___- --_. L 0.15 -- t D 0.15 a 0 � 0 � 0 m m % -0.15. -. _- _ -_-_ _. -- -0.15 _____ --_--_. 1.15 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 0 t 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Att bate notingAttrib 1 rating Attribute rating ' ♦ T Iusion­Compuled ♦ Team cond -G:rit=ulna ♦ Team conclusion-Computed Figure C-30. Sensitivity curves for Cutthroat in modifiers littoral. ' a February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 45 Sculpins ' Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD _ g.aos = 0.05 0.05 w-0OS ._. __ m 0 m-0 05{. -- - -0.05 v! -0.05 _- - _- _._ .- 1 0.1 0.1 _ -01 -___..______......__.___......._.._-___...._.._............ 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 AttrlbYto rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating - ♦ Team concluswn�Compuletl ♦ Team conclusio -Compuletl ♦ Team conGuaon�ComWled ♦ Team conclusi -Campuletl n a - _ _-_.. Overwater structures Shore Vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 0.1 ____. _...._ � 0.11........ ..--------- _...._...__..._......_...... -- -_----- ---- �,' 7 0.05 --- ao.os 0.05 - ` = 0 e �......A._.._.........._........_.._._..._._.........-. i m-0.05 0.05 -0.05-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 I 0 1 2 3 4 � . 0 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating� AHribule rating . Teem tondusion-Computed ♦ Team tontlusion�Computetl ♦ Team contusion�ComWtetl W I I ♦ Team conUusion�ComDuletl ' - Dial water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 .05 ---- �'0.05 - a -. 0 - A r w o ° 0 ym i w N-0.05 _ -- -0.OS -0.05 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 i 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Agnbute rating or Team-dua--Computed ♦ Team conclusion-ComWtetl a, Team conclusion-Computed I Figure C-31. Sensitivity curves for Sculpin in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 46 Pikeminnow Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) ' Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.75 0.15 0.15 0.15 ..._....._... r 0.075 ------- -..j r 0.075 - - _._� �o.ms - 2.O.o7s - > o 0 m o — _ o m y W ` "-0.o7s y-o.o7s 75 0.075 -- -.--� -0.0 - -__ - _ -� ' -0.15 -_......._-....-..............--......-......_.._......._....._.__ -0.15 -0.15 ....... .............................._..........____._.l -0.15 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 AttriDW.rating Attribute rating AItrlDule rating Ntrd..sting ♦ T- onclusion—C-p.d em concl usion—Computed r♦-Team conclusbn—Cmnputed-�i ♦ Team conclusion Computed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives , 0.15 �_............................ � '..� 0.15 0.15� ........ _,---"_""�,�.---s 0.15 -....--- o. r 0.075 -- _ _ Z.0.075 -- - 075 r 0.075 - > r o _ a z 0. i .0.075 -0075 _ _ -__—_.._ w -0.075 -0.075 -0.15 -0.15 -OA5 : 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 -0.15 -- - _.__._...... 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rat g AHribue rebrg Ag b to nl nq_ Atlributr rabng ♦ Te I Sion CompNetl ♦ Team tontlusion�Computetl �♦ Team d sion�ComWletl ♦ T onclusron—CompWed'.. Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.15 0.15 _---- 0.15 r 0.07s _- -_ — r 0.07s 0.075 > _ '» 0 0 > ai : o ! m-0.075 -- ---- -0.075 _ -- -... - -____ -0.075 415 -0.15 0 1 2 3 4 i 0 1 2 3 4 -0.15 Abrib.tto ratio Attribute rating Adrlbute robng ♦ Team conclusion—Can tetl O Team concius on.�ComWted _-- W _ ♦ Team—du——Canputedl Figure C-32. Sensitivity curves for Pikeminnow in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 47 ' Rainbow Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD - - 0.1 0.1 ------ r o ._.._.__._._._-.__......�._........_- 0.1 _....._.._.__ ._......_._ .._------- ^ 0s y r o.os r 0.05 _.._-- _ I r0.05 - - - -0 0 0 -----T T---- - '' € 0 u -0.01 _ _ -0.05 i -0.1 -0.1 —-— A.1 -0.1 0 1 Attribute rating 3— 4 0 1 t 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 __ Attribute-alloy-- I Amibule-Ming AttrlWterating -- - -g pu ♦ Team contusion Computed ♦� Team conclusion�COmputeE� # Team condaeion�ComWtetl ♦ Team concluson�Com letl', --- Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives r o.os — — — r 0.os r o.os — - r 0.05 — - g§> to 01 -_ —_- m t - to-0.05 _—. —_ w-0.05 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute"! Attribute-Ming Attribute rating Attribute rating # Team condusi mpuletl # Team concl - __ —_ on�Co on�Compuled I ♦ Team clus on�ComWletll ♦ Team conclusion—Complaed Die[water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.1 .... 0.1 0.1 -- -- r 0.05 — - -----[ r 0.05 ---— - r 0.05 arm: o -0.1 ---- .0.1 ..._..........._._._..------__....._......__...._....._.._._.._...._......_. -0.1 ....._ .__...._._.......__ ...._ ................... 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating # Team condusion—Computed] Team condus-=Computed 6 Team conclusion—Compuled Figure C-33. Sensitivity curves for Rainbow in modifiers littoral. i 1 i February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 48 Crayfish Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.1 .__....____.............__. _.___-____.___.._ _...___..... _D 0.05 -- Z,0.05 __..___ 0.05 2 0.05 - i rfi.0.05 -- -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.1 L--------__ ._..____. ! -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d Attribute rating Attribute rating Alinbut.rating Attribute riding ♦ Team Team In—Computed ♦ Tam con I Ion� C_ � Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 -------- — 0.1 ----- 0.1 L0.05 -----__. _._._. ''. £0.05 — -- p 005 —. - '5 0.05 -- —+ .0.05 m -0.05 -0.05 — -- - -0.1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 Attribute rating 3 6 Attribute rating Attllb ub rating Attribute rating —__ _— ♦ Team conclusion—Computed ♦ Team candusion—Computed ♦ Team conclus on—Compuled ♦ Team conclusion—Computed' Dial water level variation Benthos Macrophytes p 0.01 --..___-_ _- _ -- D M5 --.._ — -- L 0.05 --— -. -- -- o o o i �'0.05 w 0 1 2 3 4 0. 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attributefrog_--Team Attributenrad=g�m ncon Computed rood m Computetl ♦ Team 1 puled T colusi ♦ T Figure C-34. Sensitivity curves for Crayfish in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 49 Bass Modifying effects(as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.1 0.1 ......................................................................................... a o.1 0.1 r 0.05 _ -- - -- - - r 0.05 --- r Om -- 0.05 - s — _ .0.05 _. _' n-0.05 .____.__-_ 1� 5 - - ie-0.05 0 , 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribubrdng A bun ntlng Attribute ngng AtWbute ra0n9 A Team c cn wn z- W-- ♦ Team condus-—CotWuted ♦ Team condusion 77�Compu-Ute0 I ♦ Team conclusion�Compub0 Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives r 0.1 ----- 0.1 - ----� 0.1 01 _.__. —.._..__.....- __...._ y 0.05 __ _— -! r 0.05. --____ 0.05 --- y 005 0 _� = g = � T Ng T -0.OS - —' _ —� q-0.OS -- - ------ - q-0.05 .0.005-0.1 ( -0., -0.1 -0.1 _......................._...._..--------_..._...............__.......... _. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 AtlrWuta ntlrg Attribute radng Atb bu Ming Albibuft ratrng ' c Team concl �Com� - -- a Team concluson�ComWled, i 4 Team cool sb �Campule0i ♦ Tee dusbn—CanPuted' Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.1 0.1 01 ................. _____._.._.__..._____..: r 0.05 -- r 005 - __ __ =0.05 0 = 0 0 rn-0.05 t _.-___-----_._ di A05 - w°-005 .0.1 i.._._......___. ..........__..._...._.__.... -0.1 -0.1 .........-......_._._____._.......__"_...__.._..._..._...i 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute nUng Attribute nUng AWIbub ngng 0 Team cond—CpmWtad i. Teamconciusion—Computed ♦ Team condusmn�Compu,etl Figures C-3. Sensitivity curves for Bass in modifiers littoral. r r r February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 50 Perch Modifying effects(as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD o -- --- 0.1 --- --- 0.1 0.1 r 005 -_-- - --- r 0.05 - - _r O.Os - li E 0.05 - --- - i 0 a 0 = 0 0 m-0 A 0.05 -0.05 .05 -.� -0 1 ............................................ .0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conclusion—Computed! ♦ Team conclusion—Computed computed ♦ Team roialution—Camputeo Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 r 0.05 - ------- -- r o.os — 0.05o.os -> 0 -- -- o r�-OM - - --1 m-0.05 rn-0.05 - -0.os ---- -0.1 Il -0.1 -0.1 .0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating �I _....-a Tea Tearn -conclusion Team concu-_-o —Computed F Team conduaion�C am pu_t_e-tl I r♦ Team cduson �Com red Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.1 OA _ -- - 0.1III y, 0.05 ----___._ --- _ 2 0.05 ----- '--- r 0.05 -j 0 - 0 _ 0 0.05 --- _- r--I m -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Atbibule rating ', Attribute sting ♦ Team con I.—.Com u d ♦ Team cond slon—Computed '�♦ Team conclusion—Computed Figure C-36. Sensitivity curves for Perch in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 51 ' Brown Bullhead Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD - i ,.,.,. 01 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1 D 0.05 _.. - — _.- _ -i D 0.05 —.m-.. .,..._.., ..�..�.-� L' 0.05 2' a.05 - > ; o 0 ° o c - --y o.os __. __.-- -. --; m`.o.os -0.os -- 1 -0.1 -0.1 i € -0.1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute raling Attribute sang Attrbute rating ♦ Team nclus:on—Computed ♦ Team conclusion—Computed • Team contusion Computed Fe Team conclusion—Computed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 _r o.os j.-- N ----'- -- a o.os ---- --- -_ -- -- >. 0.05 _..— _. __ = 0,05 �3 0 1 = 0 o rn-O.Os -- a-0.05 _- -'--- -0.05 N-0.05 -- — 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Mrib t tmg All b t rating Al ibute rating --a_ —__ 6 Team co ion ....tetl `.¢_ T contusion�Computetl i-♦ Team conclu �Computetl s Team cancl o �Comiwleol � � Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 01 0.1 -----------t o.1 y, 0.05 --— !sue l 005 --- j D 0.05 _- -0.05--_ - _- __—.. A 105 - -_. __--j �i-0.05 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ® Team condusion�(:anilule0 4 Team conclusion—Computed ♦ Team conGusi �Compuletl Figure C-37. Sensitivity curves for Brown bullhead in modifiers littoral. 1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 52 Residual Coho Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) , Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 2, 0.075 _.-- __. Z. 0.075 - _.__---..___.. 2' 0.075 l 0.075 > - > = 0 i -0.075 --..._- -.._.—� -0.075 A-0.075 -0.075 -- r-_ -0.15 .___....._._.... ...._.....-__€ -0.15 ----- -0.15 -0.15 ..._.�..) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Atlr1huta rating Attribute rating Team conclusion�Compuled 1 ♦ Team contlue �CAmpuletl ♦ Team conclusion F a7 Team conclusionComputed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.15 .. .._.. a15 0.15 0.15 - 0.07s _- -- ---- p 0.075 _---- 0.075 it 0.075 — -- o -- - ,� r9i-0.07s _ — q-0.075 _ —_ .__ N-0.075 —y q-0.075 -0.15 .0.15 -^ -0.15 -0.15 ^^^. ..-^--....--..•--.. Attribute rating Attribute Ming Attribute rat mg Attribute rating �- ♦ Tearn conclusion�Canputed �. '�. ♦ Team contusion Computed Teem concluGan Computed I ♦ Team conclusion�Camputed, Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.15 ._.,__.. _......_,..-e.,.._ 0 15 ._.,...__.._._.._._-....... .............................. 0,15 ;A 0075 - ---- - --- r 0.075 ------- L M75 0 0 gg a - 0 d-0.075 -- .0.075 h-0.075 ------ - -0.15+ ---- -0.15 -0.15 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attrbute rating Attribute rating -._..—- ____-_ ♦ Team conclusi —Computed � # Team canclusicn Computed ♦ Team conclusionComputed Figures C-3. Sensitivity curves for residual coho in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 53 ' Hatchery Coho Modifying effects(as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope � Deltas LWD 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 ---------`--". L•0.075 D 0.075 - --_ _.---.-___ D 0.075 g 0.075 0 0 -0.075 %-0.075 -— --- — m-0.075 -- -0.075 --- — 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conduaicn mputed Team cone � Co m d oTeam cone lusio Computed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.15 __,.,,......_ o.1s ' 0.15 �-�,. 0.15 �" 0.075 — 1 2. 0075 2. o.075 ---- ---- .--. m 0075 -- > > S C 0 0 m 0a 0 � c N -0.075 0.075 —__._—.___ m-0.075 ..—._ —__ -0.075 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 -..- ...Attribute nt n9 Attribute rating Attribute Ming Attribute r Dng e Team conclusion—Computed ♦ Team comiusim Computed I k Team conclusion—Computed ® Team conclusion Canputetl'. Dial water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.15 - ---^- 0,15 2, 0.075 --______ - ._- 2, 0.075 0.075 -0.075 ---? III "'-0.075 0-0.075 - - -0.15 i -a.1s -0.15 _......__......___._._........._.......__...._.__..__................_.__ 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 d 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Atrbute rating F1 Tee ndusa Gompulld F♦ Team conclu ion—Compuled F Team co dusionComputed Figures C-3. Sensitivity curves for hatchery coho in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 54 i Grebes Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.05 0.05 .---.._... : 0.05 --.,...__._....------_..._.___�__......_.__._� 0.0s r 0025 — - y 0.025 .0.025 i - 0.025 -- -- -> g o Y _. N -0.025 -0.025 --- -- - [ in-0.025 —--- yj-0.025 -0.OS .. -0.05 ___.._.._.............._.........._._..................... 0 1 2 3 4 -0.05 1 2 3 �— 4 -0.05 0 1 ""'2 "' 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Att'bute ling Attribute rellrg Attribute rating_- _ ♦ Team rAnclusion�ComWtetl —♦—Team cn s 'on�Compuled 4' Taam c cl uS o .- o Puteo ♦ 7 Donal son—Computed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.05 ._ 0.05 ._._""--'----..-..I 0.05 0.05 ___.. ..___._.... .. __.�.. ......... .. >0.025 -- _._.._. = 0.025 - ____ ___ .E �,0.025 _ —_ 0.025 i < < m _0.02s-0.025 w-0.025 __ —_ i m-0.025 - w - - ♦ _- -0.05 ._..— -0.05 -0.05 .. -0.05 ..._....__-------- . .._________.._..._.._�.._._... 0 1, 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conclusion—CamPuled ♦ Team conclusi_�ComPuted ♦ Team—luson�ComWted Team conclusion Computed Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.05 ----t o.os 0.05 r 0.025 __..— ---_..-- 2. 0.025 .--- --— --- r 0.025 1..•w..,�..,,,• ... _ a_ o - __. ------ N.0.025 ._- ui.0.025 .— .__ y♦1.025 -0.05 I -005 I _____.____( -0.05 _________................._.______....._...__.....`......'__€ 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Att'b to ratntg Attribute rating s Team oonclus =Com tea ♦ Team son�ComPuteo Team w on—Computed __ Pu co Figure C-40. Sensitivity curves for Grebes in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 55 r Cormorants Modifying effects(as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas_ LWD 0.025 0.025 - 0.025 0.025 I'I 0.0125 0.0125 -- -- L.0.0125 20.0125 - --- c c _ s_ 0 2 0 p 0 a 0.0125 --_ __ _-- w-0.0125 - _-- H-0.0125 0.0125 -- ` -0.025 -0.025 ............._........._......_......... ......... i -0.025 -0.025 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0' 1 2 3 4 0 i 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating -Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team—luson Computed ♦ Team Conclusion Computed r♦ Te9m can n�ComputlMl ♦ Team c.ndusion�Compuled Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives r0.025 1— 0.025. 0.025 ..._...__`____._..__.. 0.025 .......,..._. A. 0.0125 ---. --.._ ._ -- ._ 0.0125 '--_____ � L'0.0125 0.0125 __--- —; .� 0 � c c _ -0.0125 _ __ - - _ - i N 00125 .____._..- _ __- -_._ h-0.0125 -..- __. - _.-- N 00125 . .0.025 -0.025 -0.025 -- -' 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 -0.025 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team wnclum,—Compuled ♦ Tam concluaon�Canputed Team c nclusion�Computetl � ® Team conclusbn Computed Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.025 0.025 ._....... 0.025 _.. ......... _...__. - r 0.0125 - --_-_-_ 00125 0.012 5 r D 0 w ° a -0 012s �+ 0.0125 - --- rn-0.0 s - - - -0.025 L -0.025 -0.025 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 D 1 2 3 4 Att ibute tin. Attr but.rating Attr b to rating e Tee cl sion=Computed F Team conclus, Computed a Team—1 s —Computed r Figure C-41. Sensitivity curves for Cormorants in modifiers littoral. 1 r r r r r February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 56 Herons Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 01 ...,.._ ... 0.1 0.1 0.1 05 __-.--- 2, 0.05 0.05 •„�„m_.._•....-.--_.._-�_.�. L, 0.05 > 2 T 0 y 0 e 0 "a 0 -_- -0.05 --- { .0.05.OS II _ m-0.05 - .0.05- � -0.1 -' f -0.1 - .. 0 1 2 3 4 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 -0.1 -- -- - 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team 'n Computetl ♦ Team Conclusion-Computed ♦ Team Conclusion Linear(Team Concusion) i Team cantlusion�Campuled Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 O5 L' 0.08 -- ----- j 0.05 -- --------- 0.05 . . - _' o m 0 --_ --- 0 = o c e 'Y+ 0.05 m°-005 - - ..._.._ q-0.05 -0.1 .._. -0.1 �_ -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attr buts r t'ng Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rabn 9 ® Team tanclus o,--puted 6 Team concluson�Compute0 Team contusion-Computed ♦ Team conclusion Computetl Dial water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.1 .... .. 0.1 ._..., a.1 -- p 0.05 - -.____.__ -__..__ 'I D 0.05 -. --- ' D 0.05 u 0 m 0 w 0 c c c A-0.05 - ------------ aS-oos -- m-0.05 -0.1 01 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team Contusion�Compuletl 6 Team conclusion-Computed ♦ Team mndusion-Computetl Figure C-42. Sensitivity curves for Herons in modifiers littoral. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 57 ' r r Mergansers Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD 0.15 0.15 , 0.15 ''. 0.15 1 0.075 — --- - — 1 > 0.07s € D 0.075 D 0.075 0 . . rTi 1.075 -- — —{ rn -0.075 -0.075 s -o.a7s -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 7 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conclusion—Computed ♦ Team oorousion—Computed ♦ Team conclusion—Computed ♦ Team conclusion—Compuled Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.15 0�07s r D O.ms t—__-- _--- -- --- , D 0.075 ._... _.— -_-- ..__� 0.075 - -t c 0 - — - 0 _ _..._..................__..,T._._..I m 'n-o o7s _-.-. - ------ - �a oo7st _-- -- ---- EE w-a.o7s -o.o7s j f' ...._..... ._._t ......_....................._......_... -0.15 ____............._.. i -0.15 - 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 �'�,. 0 1 2 3 4 0 7 2 3 4 Atlnbute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Te dusi Computed ♦ T m onclusro �Computetl — ♦ Team conclusion—Computed i ♦ Team ronclusion Computed Die[water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 2. 0.075 - -- s: 0.075 --- -- �.0.075 i 0 o N-0.075 —... ' n-0.075 to-0.075 -0.15 ,_.._.__....__.._._�W____. ....._...�_...i -0.15 J -0.15 _-.._...__._........._...................... ....._...._.__,.....___.i 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute sting Attribute rating Attribute rating ♦ Team conclusion—Computed & Team conclus —Computed ♦ Team conclus —Computed Figure C-43. Sensitivity curves for Mergansers in modifiers littoral. r r t i 1 r February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 58 Gulls Modifying effects (as multiplicative factors) Effects associated with reference or standard conditions(effects assumed the same for all bank and substrate types) Temperature Bottom slope Deltas LWD o.os _______ o.os -------- 0.05 .._.._..............._ 0.0s 0.025 --- -- ---- �. 0.025 -- - - D 0.025 -- 0.025 - - 0 = 0 - 0 - 0 > c A > i e a i a e c c 1.025 --._...- - ._........ 0.025 --_.__—_- __— - rn-0.025 --_ - �'_0.025 -0.05 .........._..._.._......................."_.............,_,_._.....__. -0.05 ._.._J -0.05 0.05 4 i 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 -1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute reUng Attribute rating Attribute rating - ♦ Team conclusion—Computed Team wncluaion�ComWletl r♦ Team conGuwon�Campuletll • Team contusion—Computed Overwater structures Shoreline vegetation Turbidity Prey alternatives 0.05 0.05 0.05 ........._..................._..._..__........._.._._._.........._..__........_. 0.05 y, 0.025 - --. -- I 0.025 - - ---- �,0.025 --- Z, 0.025 - -- -_. 0 _ 0 .-_.--•_-_ w D - r-T-� - 0 d e c c e m e -0.025 _- __._- _-_--__-- m _. -.- ___ w.0.025 -0.025 - - i -0.05 -0 -0.05 -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 'OS 0 1 ---2--__3a-,�•.�., 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute ratio Attribute rating Attribute t n g AWibuta rebng _ 9 • Team clus On—Computed • Team wntuawn� I am conlu —Computed m Diel water level variation Benthos Macrophytes 0.05 0.05 -----------� 0,05 0.025 — 0.025 0.025 a = c In-0.025 -0.025 _-.... __.. -- ___-. to -0.025 -0.05 -0.05 - ..... .__... ___J -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Attribute rating Attribute ratirrg Attribute rating • T conclusion—Computed I • T m conclusion—Colnputetl .luSum—Computed Figure C-44. Sensitivity curves for Gulls in modifiers littoral. i 1 i February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 59 t LAKE UNION SYSTEM 1 SPILLWAY i t SALTWATER SMALL LARGE SMOLT FISH DRAIN LOCK LOCK FLUMES LADDER Culvert Intakes(2) Culvert Intakes U/L/F , Chambers "Old"Saltwater Drain Miter Gates Small Culverts Saltwater Drain Aux Fish Supply Miter Gates A, '1 INNER BAY OUTER BAY Figure C-45. Conceptual model of observed (solid lines) and possible (dashed lines)juvenile fish routes through the Ship Canal Locks. i 1 i i February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 60 i Chinook , 120 - - - --- - __ N 100 - - - - 2 L 0 .- 80 - W 60 L 'R s 40 " E 3 � I Z 20 q i 0 f-\'J J J V N N N V •J •J Date V V V V V V Coho , 600 • u> 500 - v 400 - 300 - L G 200 I_ Z 100 - - 0 rA 1 "I e 14P nj\ 0 e b�A' e 4P <-,\0 e Jar"e 41:1 e e e ��r�0 4A Date Figure C-46. Timing at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks for a representative group of life history trajectories generated by the Habitat Assessment Model. The diversity of life history patterns modeled for Chinook resulted in a broader period of outmigration at the Locks. February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 61 Table C-3. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); High Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume and large lock filling culverts. Large Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish ' Month Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder 02/26-03/04 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 03/05-03/11 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% March 03/12-03/18 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 03/19-03/25 95% 99% 95% • 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 03/26-04/01 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% ' 04/02-04/08 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 1 0% 99% 100% April 04/09-04/15 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% p 04/16-04/22 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% ' 04/23-04/29 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 04/30-05/06 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 05/07-05/13 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% ' May 05/14-05/20 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 05/21-05/27 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 1 0% 99% 100% 05/28-06/03 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 06/04-06/10 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% June 06/11-06/17 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 06/18-06/24 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 06/25-07/01 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 07/02-07/08 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% July 07/09-07/15 95% 99% 95% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 1 07/16-07/22 94% 99% 94% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 07/23-07/29 94% 99% 94% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 07/30-08/05 94% 99% 94% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 08/06-08/12 93% 99% 93% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% fAugust 08/13-08/19 93% 99% 93% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 08/20-08/26 93% 99% 93% 99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 08/27-09/02 1 93% 99% 93% 1 99% T 100% 0% 1 99% 1 100% February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 62 Table C-4. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); High Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume and large lock filling culverts. Large Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain RFGE Calculated Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish Sum All Spillway Filling Survival All Month Week Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder Routes Flumes Culverts Routes 02/26-03/04 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 03/05-03/11 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% March 03/12-03/18 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 03/19-03/25 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 99"?.'o 03/26-04/01 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 04/02-04/08 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 99,"_i� April 04/09-04/15 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% ¢:% 04/16-04/22 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% `91 04/23-04/29 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% ??" 04/30-05/06 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 99` 05/07-05/13 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% May 05/14-05/20 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 1 95% 5% 05/21-05/27 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 05/28-06/03 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 06/04-06/10 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% June 06/11-06/17 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% < ' 06/18-06/24 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100% 95% 5% 06/25-07/01 4.6% 40.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 50.0% 0.5% 100% 90% 10% 07/02-07/08 4.7% 66.0% 1.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 22.8% 0.5% 100% 80% 20% July 07/09-07/15 5.5% 75.0% 1.0% 3.0% 0.5% 0.5% 14.0% 0.5% 100% 70% 30% 07/16-07/22 5.0% 84.0% 1.0% 3.0% 0.5% 0.5% 5.5% 0.5% 100% 50% 50% 07/23-07/29 2.4% 88.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.1% 0.5% 100% 20% 80% 07/30-08/05 3.0% 88.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 100% 10% 90% 08/06-08/12 3.2% 88.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.3% 0.5% 100% 5% 95% August 08/13-08/19 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.006 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100% 0% 100% 't' o r008/20-08/26 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1 2.0% 0.0% 1 0.5% 100% 0% 100% 8/27-09/02 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100% 0% 100% February 25, 2005 MWIA MT CaMizat! M M on 63- r man m m m � m m r m � w M .M M M M M M Table C-5. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); Normal Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume and large lock filling culverts. Large Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain RFGE Calculated Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish Sum all Spillway Filling Survival all Month Week Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder Routes Flumes Culverts Routes 02/26-03/04 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 1 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/05-03/11 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% March 03/12-03/18 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/19-03/25 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/26-04/01 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/02-04/08 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/09-04/15 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% April o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/16-04/22 5.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 94.5/0 0.5/0 100.0/0 95.0/0 5.0/0 98.8/o 04/23-04/29 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/30-05/06 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/07-05/13 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% May 05/14-05/20 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/21-05/27 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/28-06/03 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 06/04-06/10 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% June 06/11-06/17 4.6% 40.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 50.0% 0.5% 100.0% 90.0% 10.0% 97.8% 06/18-06/24 4.3% 60.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 30.2% 0.5% 100.0% 85.0% 15.0% 97.8% 06/25-07/01 4.9% 66.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 23.6% 0.5% 100.0% 80.0% 20.0% 97.8% 07/02-07/08 3.9% 75.0% 1.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 14.6% 0.5% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 97.8% July 07/09-07/15 3.9% 75.0% 1.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 14.6% 0.5% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 97.8% 07/16-07/22 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/23-07/29 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/30-08/05 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/06-08/12 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% August 08/13-08/19 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/20-08/26 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/27-09/02 0.5% 1 90.0% 1 1.0% 1 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1 0.5% 1 100.0% 1 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 97.0% February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 64 Table C-6. Chinook and coho migration route (% fish using each route); Low Water Yr. Last column shows overall survival across all routes for each week. Bold columns are calculated cells based on RFGE assumptions for the spillway flume and large lock filling culverts. Large Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain RFGE Calculated Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish Sum all Spillway Filling Survival all Month Week Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder Routes Flumes Culverts Routes 02/26-03/04 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/05-03/11 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% March 03/12-03/18 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/19-03/25 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 03/26-04/01 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/02-04/08 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/09-04/15 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% April o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/16-04/22 5.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 0.0/0 94.5/0 0.5/0 100.0/0 95.0/0 5.0/0 98.8/o 04/23-04/29 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 04/30-05/06 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/07-05/13 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% May 05/14-05/20 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/21-05/27 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 05/28-06/03 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% 06/04-06/10 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.5% 0.5% 100.0% 95.0% 5.0% 98.8% June 06/11-06/17 4.6% 40.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 50.0% 0.5% 100.0% 90.0% 10.0% 97.8% 06/18-06/24 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 06/25-07/01 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/02-07/08 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/09-07/15 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% July 07/16-07/22 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/23-07/29 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 07/30-08/05 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/06-08/12 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% August 08/13-08/19 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/20-08/26 0.5% 90.0% 1.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 97.0% 08/27-09/02 0.5% 1 90.0% 1 1.0% 1 4.0% 1 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1 97.0% February 25, 2005 _ UWIA MT CaMizal= M r dn &W 65 M ` r Table C-7. Level of Proof codes used to characterize data quality for survival and % fish utilization by route at the Locks. Level Proof 1 Throughly established, generally accepted, good peer-reviewed empirical evidence in its favor 2 Strong weight of evidence in support but not fully conclusive 3 Theoretical support with some evidence from experiments or observations 4 Speculative, little emperical support Table C-8. Level of proof ratings for survival assumption by migration route and % fish utilizing each route. Survival Assumptions Lar e Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish Time Period Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder March -June 2 �_3 3-4 3-4 4 4 3-4 3-4 ' July-August 4 4 3-4 3-4 4 4 3-4 3-4 Juvenile Migration Route Lar e Lock Small Lock Saltwater Drain Filling Miter Filling Miter Old Saltwater- Spillway Fish Time Period Culverts Gates Culverts Gates Drain Fish Ladder Flumes Ladder ' March -June 2-3 3-4 3-4 3-4 4 4 3-4 3-4 July-August 4 4 4 4 4 4 3-4 3-4 r i February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 66 Table C-9. Tidal Habitat Model (WRIA 8 EDT modification). Shaded questions address long-term process features and were excluded from the analysis. Question 35 was added to address the input of Dahnia to the Lake Washington estuary from lakes. Date Surveyors On Site or Off Site? Circle M-migration, O-osmoregulatory, P-predator avoidance Functions AU # Supplement w/Aerials? Date and Type? Y/N CHIN COHO Addressed Comments Hydrology F, M, O 1 AU has vernal or perennial freshwater stream or spring 3 3 F, O 2a AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action)over 25%of littoral area 2 2 F 2b AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action)over 50% of littoral area 3 3 F 3 AU has refuge from high velocities(e.g., during max. ebb) 3 3 M, P 4a AU contains a natural tidal channel wetted at MLLW X1.5 X1.3 F, P 4b AU contains tidal channel wetted at MSL (i.e., shallow drainage) 2 2 F, P 5 Tidal channel is dendritic or highly sinuous 3 3 F, P Water Quality 6a Oligohaline to Mesohaline (sal. variable: often 0.5 to 5 ppt, but can range to 18 ppt) 3 3 F, O 6b Polyhaline (sal. typically 18 to 30 ppt) 1 1 F, O 7a Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health during major use periods 2 2 H 7b Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health at all times 3 3 H Physical Features Vascularplant/mud or sand flat boundary ve etated/unve etated boundary) Shoreline complexity 8a Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW>3(include islands) 3 3 F, P 8b Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW 1,2 to 3 (include islands) 2 2 F, P 8c Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW<1.2 (include islands) 1 1 F, P Exposure 9 AU is sheltered from waves 2 2 F February 25, 2005 Page 67 rr rr rr rr �r rr r r� r r� r rr rr r� r r r r r Date Surveyors On Site or Off Site? Circle M-migration, O-osmoregulatory, P-predator avoidance Functions AU # Supplement w/Aerials? Date and Type? Y/N CHIN COHO Addressed Comments Slope 10a Slope of substrate in littoral zone>10h:1v (i.e., low gradient) 3 3 F, P 10b Slope of substrate in littoral zone <10h:1v but>5h:1v (i.e., moderate) 2 2 F, P 10c Slope of substrate in littoral zone<5h:1v but>2h:1v (i.e., steeper) 1 1 F, P Range of Depths 11a >10%of AU is littoral (MHHW to-10 ft; use OHW if marsh veg. above MHHW) 1 1 F, P 11 b >25%of AU is littoral (MHHW to-10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 2 2 F, P 11c >50% of AU is littoral (MHHW to-10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 3 3 F, P Sediments surficial only) 12 Substrate in littoral zone-silty sand >25%of area 1 1 F 13 Substrate in littoral zone-mud or mixed fine 25-50%of area 2 2 F 14 Substrate in littoral zone-mud or mixed fine>50%of area 3 3 F 15 Upper intertidal zone contains potential forage fish spawning habitat 3 3 F Long term process question Vegetated Edge Below OHW 16a Buffer: marsh edge >10 ft wide over 50%of shoreline 3 3 F, P 16b Marsh edge>5 ft wide over 50%of shoreline; or>10 ft wide over 25-50%of shoreline 2 2 F, P 16c Marsh edge exists but<5 ft wide, or less than 25% (but>5%)of shoreline 1 1 F, P 16d Marsh of native species occupies more than 25%of total AU X 2 X 2 F Above OHW(riparian zone 17a Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft wide over 10 to 24% of shoreline 1 1 F, P 17b Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft wide over 25 to 50% of shoreline 2 2 F, P 17c Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft over 50% of shoreline 3 3 F, P February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 68 Date Surveyors On Site or Off Site? Circle M-migration, O-osmoregulatory, P-predator avoidance Functions AU# Supplement w/Aerials? Date and Type? Y/N CHIN COHO Addressed Comments 18 Riparian vegetation is dominated by native species 1 1 F 19 Riparian zone provides significant source of LWD recruitment X15 X1.5 Fr P Long term process question Landscape Special Habitat Features LWD Density LWD must be in the IT zone below MHHW 21 a 1.0 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or/100 m2 of AU whichever is greater 3 3 P 21 b 0.5 piece/channel width,/30 m of shoreline, or/100 m2 of AU whichever is greater 2 2 P 21 c 0.2 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or/100 m2 of AU whichever is greater 1 1 P Submerged Vegetation note provisions with regard to impacts to macrove etation 22 Algal cover over 10%of littoral area (during springtime) 1 1 F, P 23a Eelgrass or kelp(laminarians)is present along 5- 10%of low tide line of AU 1 1 F, P 23b Eelgrass or kelp(laminarians)is present along 10-25% of low tide line of AU 2 2 F, P 23c Eelgrass is or kelp (laminarians)present along more than 25%of low tide line of AU 3 3 F, P 23d Eelgrass or kelp(laminarians)occupies more than 25%of total area of AU X 2 X 2 F, P 24 Do functioning feeder bluffs provide a significant source of sediment to the AU? X 2 X 2 F' Lang tern'process questfoil 35 X 2 X 2 F Applicable to locks area only Stressors 25a Immigration/emigration restricted 25 to 50% of the time X 0.8 X 0.8 M 25b Immigration/emigration restricted 50 to 75% of the time X 0.5 X 0.5 M 25c Immigration/emigration restricted 75 to 90%of the time X 0.3 X 0.3 M 29a Sediment chemical contam. (exceeds applicable threshold over more than 25%of AU) X 0.8 X 0.8 F, H 29b Sediment chemical contam. present(>CSL over more than 25% of AU) X 0.6 X 0.6 F, H 30a Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW for 10-50%of shore X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 69 Date Surveyors On Site or Off Site?Circle M-migration, O-osmoregulatory, P-predator avoidance Functions AU # Supplement w/Aerials? Date and Type? Y/N CHIN COHO Addressed Comments 30b Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW along >50%of shore X 0.7 X 0.8 P,M,F 31 Majority of riprapped or bulkheaded shoreline extends below MSL(+6 ft MLLW) X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F 32a Finger pier or dock>8 ft wide X 0.9 — P 32b Two or more finger piers or docks >8 ft wide; or single pier or dock>25 ft wide X 0.8 X 0.9 P 33a Overwater structures cover 10 to 30%of littoral area in AU X 0.9 — P,M,F 33b Overwater structures cover 30 to 50% of littoral area in AU X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F 33c Overwater structures cover 50 to 75%of littoral area in AU X 0.7 X 0.8 P,M,F 33d Overwater structures cover>75% of littoral area in AU X 0.6 X 0.7 P,M,F 34 Littoral benthic habitat routinely disturbed by prop wash, chronic oil spills, or dredging X 0.9 X 0.9 H, F 12592-01 WRIA 8 EDT filed sheet 1/11/03 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 70 Table C-10. Nearshore Reaches (average scores rounded to nearest integer). 0 Age Transient Chinook 1 Age Coho Smolts and 1 Age chinook Current Condition Template Condition Current Condition Template Condition Ecological Management Unit Description THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury EMU 8 Elliot Point to Picnic Point 12.0 0.64 45.0 0.96 15.0 0.74 44.0 0.94 EMU 9 Picnic Point to Edwards Point 22.0 0.79 47.0 0.96 26.0 0.86 45.0 0.97 EMU 10A Edwards Point to Meadow Point 16.0 0.71 44.0 0.93 19.0 0.80 43.0 0.94 EMU 10B Meadow Point to Shilshole 9.0 0.57 31.0 0.86 11.0 0.69 31.0 0.89 EMU 12 Shilshole to West Point 13.0 0.64 44.0 0.93 14.0 0.75 44.0 0.94 Table C-11. Estuarine Reaches (average scores are rounded to nearest integer). 0 Age Transient Chinook 1 Age Coho Smolts and 1 Age chinook Current Condition Template Condition Current Condition Template Condition Estuarine Reach Description AU# THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury THM Relative Sury Lake Washington Ship Canal Face of Ballard locks to Shilshole 11.01 -11.08 15.0 0.61 72.0 0.93 19.0 0.69 68.0 0.94 Piper Creek Pipers Cr estuary and adjacent nearshore 10.12 34.0 0.71 78.0 0.96 33.0 0.77 68.0 0.94 Shellberger Cr estuary, marsh and adjacent Shellberger Creek nearshore 9.14/9.15 23.0 0.64 101.0 1.00 22.0 0.71 88.0 1.00 Shell Creek Shell Cr estuary and adjacent nearshore 9.08 34.0 0.71 78.0 0.96 38.0 0.80 68.0 0.94 Perrinville Creek Perrinville Creek estuary and adjacent nearshore 9.06 12.0 0.57 78.0 0.96 16.0 0.69 68.0 0.94 Lund's Gulch Creek Lund's Gulch Cr estuary and adjacent nearshore 9.04 26.0 0.68 78.0 0.96 26.0 0.74 68.0 0.94 Norma Creek Norma Creek Estuary and adjacent nearshore 9.02 23.0 0.64 78.0 0.96 33.0 0.77 68.0 0.94 Picnic Pt Creek Picnic Pt Cr estuary and adjacent nearshore 8.09 22.0 0.64 78.0 0.96 25.0 0.74 68.0 0.94 Big Gulch Creek Big Gulch Cr estuary and adjacent nearshore 8.05 13.0 0.57 78.0 0.96 17.0 0.69 68.0 0.94 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 71 r (■r ri �r r�r rr r rr rr r r r r r rr r r r r ' Table C-12. Assignment of Relative Survival (Productivity) values to THM scores. These are based on an assumption about the distribution of the THM score for each juvenile life stage, then interpolated between all intermediate scores with a relative survival of 1.0 for THM scores >85 for estuarine areas and >50 for nearshore units. ' As Applied to Estuarine Assessment units Transient rear 0 age chinook Age-1 migrant(coho smolts THM Score Rel Survival THM Score Rel Survival ' >85 1.00 >85 1.00 75- 84 0.96 75 - 84 0.97 65 - 74 0.93 65 - 74 0.94 ' 55 -64 0.89 55- 64 0.91 50 - 54 0.86 50 - 54 0.89 45 -49 0.82 45-49 0.86 40 -44 0.79 40 -44 0.83 35- 39 0.75 35 - 39 0.80 30 -34 0.71 30 - 34 0.77 25 -29 0.68 25 - 29 0.74 20 -24 0.64 20 -24 0.71 15 - 19 0.61 15- 19 0.69 10 - 14 0.57 10 - 14 0.66 5- 9 0.54 5 - 9 0.63 < 5 0.50 < 5 0.60 ' As Applied to Nearshore Assessment units Transient rear 0 age chinook Age-1 mi rant (coho smolts t THM Score Rel Survival THM Score Rel Survival >50 1.00 >50 1.00 45-49 0.96 45 -49 0.97 40 -44 0.93 40 -44 0.94 35 - 39 0.89 35 - 39 0.91 30 -34 0.86 30 - 34 0.89 ' 25 -29 0.82 25- 29 0.86 20 -24 0.79 20 - 24 0.83 18- 19 0.75 18 - 19 0.80 16 - 17 0.71 16 - 17 0.77 14 - 15 0.68 14 - 15 0.74 12 - 13 0.64 12 - 13 0.71 10 - 11 0.61 10 - 11 0.69 8 - 9 0.57 8- 9 0.66 6 - 7 0.54 6 -7 0.63 ' < 6 0.50 < 6 0.60 February 25, 2005 ' WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 72 Table C-13. Estimates of estuarine area for WRIA 8 streams. , Estuary Scenario Length m Width m Area m 2 , Lake Washington Template 1,290 210 270,900 Current 1,290 210 270,900 Pipers Creek Template 160 5 800 ' Current 160 1 4 640 Shellberger Creek Template 225 20 4,500 Current 225 10 2,250 Shell Creek Template 50 5 250 Current 50 4 200 Perrinville Creek Template 50 4 200 ' Current 50 3 150 Lund's Creek Tem late 64 5 320 Current 64 4 256 ' Norma Creek Template 15 5 75 Current 15 3 45 Picnic Creek Template 97 5 485 ' Current 97 4 388 Big Gulch Creek Template 30 5 150 Current 30 4 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 February 25, 2005 WRIA 8 EDT Customization Page 73 , IIIIIIIIN M Appendix C-5: WRIA 8 Habitat and Hatchery Scenarios: Potential Implications of Alternative Population Structures for Chinook Conservation and Recovery in WRIA 8 Genetically Distinct Potential Implications for WRIA 8 Habitat Strategy to Potential Hatchery-Related Issues Populations: "What Meet Steering Committee's Viable Chinook If" Scenarios Population Objectives Scenario A (Current • Broadest ramifications for habitat actions requiring most • "Segregated" current definition of hatchery WRIA Plan): comprehensive protection and restoration actions of all operations (main objective is to minimize n 1. Cedar (presumed to scenarios (as proposed in 11/04 Draft Plan) interactions with wild fish) :3 have greatest genetic • Different strategies suited to different populations: • Current habitat productivity may be so low 3 independence) 1. Initial overall focus on Cedar, emphasizing that reduction in contribution rates could 0 2. North Lake improvements to productivity and diversity; increase extinction risk. If so, hatchery m Washington (closely 2. North Lake Washington actions emphasize both support may be necessary to rebuild the 0- related to Issaquah productivity and spatial distribution (i.e., North, Little population 0 Hatchery population, Bear, Kelsey and Evans, as well as Bear/Cottage Risk that high stray contributions to but potentially Creek); naturally spawning populations may reduce n maintaining some 3. Issaquah the third priority for restoration ( protection, potential to maintain genetically diverse CD independent land use and outreach actions remain equal), because populations and local adaptations. :3 characteristics) of hatchery influence, population has lowest risk of . To meet HSRG goals for a low contribution v o• 3. Issaquah (heavily extinction, best overall existing habitat rate and minimizing the risk of extinction for U) influenced by naturally spawning Chinook (NOR), natural CT hatchery) production would need to be increased. ' l- Scenario B (Current Changes and narrows focus of protection and restoration Either Integrated or Segregated Hatchery CD TRT Position): actions, vs. Scenario A: designation. 0 1. Cedar (presumed to 1. Increased emphasis on Cedar population overall, because Under an integrated program, hatchery Fn have greatest genetic of hatchery influence and lower risk for Sammamish broodstock from each population would be independence) 2. Reduced emphasis on spatial distribution in Little Bear, managed separately from one another to cn 2. Sammamish North, Kelsey and Evans, as population includes Issaquah maintain two genetically distinct v (hatchery-influenced, and is not as constrained as Scenario A. populations. =3 a combination of 3. Increased emphasis on restoration in Issaquah Creek and OIssaquah and North Bear/Cottage Creeks, to support increased natural 0- Lake Washington) roduction and increased genetic fitness m Scenario C: Habitat actions may narrow to target those areas that have • "Integrated" hatchery management would cn 1. WRIA 8 (Cedar, the most potential to protect or restore habitat capacity be applicable under this scenario. m North Lake and productivity. For example, protection actions could • To meet HSRG goals for a low stray (n Washington, target existing sources of productivity, while restoration contribution rate and minimize the risk of Q Issaquah are all actions might focus on migratory and rearing corridors. diminished fitness of the naturally spawning heavily hatchery- Habitat actions might be less geographically diverse under Chinook, habitat improvements to increase influenced this scenario. natural production would be necessary. populations ppendix C-5 February 25, 2005 Appendix C-5: WRIA 8 Habitat and Hatchery Scenarios: Potential Implications of Alternative Population Structures for Chinook Conservation and Recovery in WRIA 8 Appendix C-5 February 25, 2005 I• M I• ' Technical Appendix C-6: WRIA 8 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Habitat Model Stream Reach Description for Chinook Tier 1 and Tier 2 Sub-Areas This appendix includes stream reach descriptions for Chinook streams modeled using EDT. The maps that accompany these descriptions are available at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/8/wria8 longterm plan.htm Reaches for the following streams are described in this Appendix: ' . Bear Creek, Cottage Creek, and Evans Creek • Cedar River and Chinook-bearing tributaries Issaquah Creek and Chinook-bearing tributaries Kelsey Creek and Chinook-bearing tributaries ' . Little Bear Creek and Chinook-bearing tributaries • North Creek and Chinook-bearing tributaries ' • Sammamish River Appendix C-6 February 25, 2005 ' EDT Stream Reaches 1 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12Ih Public Review Draft Bear Creek Revised - Fall Chinook Length Geographic Reach Len ' Reach No Stream9 code area location/description (meter s Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Mouth to upper extent sh-1 A 1 River template delta (68th St 628 Bridge Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Upper extent template sh-1 B 2 River delta (68th St Bridge)to 3,395 96th St Bride ' Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-2 96th St Bridge to North sh-2 3 River Creek Confluence 3,218 Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-3 North Creek Confluence to ' sh-3A 4 River 175th St(downstream end 2,381 of agriculture area Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-3 175th St(downstream end sh-3B 5 River of agriculture area)to 9,783 145th (agriculture area Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-4 145th to 116th St sh-4A 6 River (Redmond City Boundary) 3,427 ' Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-4 116th St (Redmond City sh-4B 7 River Boundary)to lower end 6,613 City of Redmond urban ' area Willow Golf Course Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-5 Lower end City of sh-5 8 River Redmond urban area (top 4,827 of Willow Golf Course)to ' confluence Bear Creek Bear-1 Bear Creek Bear-1 Bear Creek from mouth to 9 bottom of restoration reach 1,014 ' Bear-2 Bear Creek Bear-2 Bear Creek from bottom of 10 restoration reach to RR 386 tracks WDFW trap) ' Bear-3 Bear Creek Bear-3 Bear Creek from RR tracks 11 (WDFW trap)to Avondale 821 Rd Crossing (potential , restoration reach Bear-4 Bear Creek Bear-4 Bear Creek from Avondale 12 Rd Crossing (potential 1,142 restoration reach)to Evan Cr confluence Bear-5 Bear Creek Bear-5 Bear Creek from Evans Cr 13 confluence to Trailer Park 595 ' Keller Farm reach Bear-6 Bear Creek Bear-6 Bear Creek from Trailer 14 Park (top Keller Farm 4,972 reach)to Cottage Lake ' Creek Bear-7 Bear Creek Bear-7 Bear Creek from Cottage 15 Lake Creek to 133rd St 1,931 , Appendix C-6 November 12`h, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 2 , ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12" Public Review Draft (King County gage site) Bear-8 Bear Creek Bear-8 Bear Creek from 133rd St 16 (King County gage site)to 1,448 141st crossing ' Bear-9 Bear Creek Bear-9 Bear Creek from 141 St 17 crossing to top end of 563 beaver pond complex Bear-10 Bear Creek Bear-10 Bear Creek from top end 18 of beaver pond complex to 547 confluence with Struve Creek Bear-11 Bear Creek Bear-1 Bear Creek from 19 confluence with Struve 1,142 Creek to 158th Crossing Bear-12 Bear Creek Bear-12 Bear Creek from 158th 20 Crossing to 160th crossing 274 (lower end beaver pond complex) ' Bear-13 Bear Creek Bear-13 Bear Creek from 160th 21 crossing (lower end beaver 1,464 pond complex)to top of beaver pond complex ' Bear-14 Bear Creek Bear-14 Bear Creek from top of 22 beaver pond complex to 1,110 upper extent coho in Bear ' Creek (0.5 miles upstream of Woodinville-Duvall Rd Evans-1 Evans Creek Evans-1 Mouth to 188th Street 23 306 Evans-2 Evans Creek Evans-2 188th Street to Union Hill 24 Rd Crossing 998 Evans-3 Evans Creek Evans-3 Union Hill Rd Crossing to 25 196th St Crossing 161 Evans-4 Evans Creek Evans-4 196th St Crossing to 196th ' 26 St Crossing - Redmond 2,156 Fall City Rd Evans-5 Evans Creek Evans-5 196th St Crossing & ' 27 Redmond Fall City Rd to 1,175 Redmond-Fall City Rd Crossing (downstream of 208th ' Evans-6 Evans Creek Evans-6 Redmond-Fall City Rd 28 Crossing (downstream of 257 208th)to Redmond-Fall ' City Rd Crossing (upstream of 208th Evans-7 Evans Creek Evans-7 Redmond-Fall City Rd 29 Crossing (upstream of 2,462 208th)to 224th St Rd Crossing Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 ' EDT Stream Reaches 3 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12`h Public Review Draft ' Cottage-1 Cottage Lake Cottage-1 Cottage Creek from mouth ' 30 Creek to Avondale Way crossing 821 Cottage-2 Cottage Lake Cottage-2 Cottage Creek from ' 31 Creek Avondale Way to 1,287 beginning of good quality habitat ' Cottage-3 Cottage Lake Cottage-3 Cottage Creek from 32 Creek beginning of good quality 1,706 habitat to 2nd Avondale Wa crossin ' Cottage-4 Cottage Lake Cottage-4 Cottage Creek from 2nd 33 Creek Avondale Way crossing to 1,625 begin wetland below lake (upper extent Chinook Cottage-5 Cottage Lake Cottage-5 Cottage Creek from begin 34 Creek wetland below lake (upper 354 extent chinook)to ' confluence with Cold Creek Appendix C-6 November 12`h, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 4 ' ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12Ih Public Review Draft Cedar River - Fall Chinook 1 Reach No Stream Geographic Reach Length code area location/description (meter ' s Cedar-1 Cedar River Cedar-1 Cedar River from mouth to 1 Logan St Bridge (RM 1.0) 1,609 ' Cedar-2 Cedar River Cedar-2 Cedar River from Logan St 2 Bridge (RM 1.0)to 1-405 965 RM 1.6 Cedar-3 Cedar River Cedar-3 Cedar River from 1-405 3 (RM 1.6)to SR 169 Bridge 4,183 RM 4.2 ' Cedar-4 Cedar River Cedar-4 Cedar River from SR 169 4 Bridge (RM 4.2)to 805 upstream of Landslide (RM 4.7 Cedar-5 Cedar River Cedar-5 Cedar River from 5 upstream of Landslide (RM 1,770 4.7)to RM 5.8 ' Cedar-6 Cedar River Cedar-6 Cedar River from RM 5.8 6 to RM 7.3 2,414 Cedar-7 Cedar River Cedar-7 Cedar River from RM 7.3 ' 7 to RM 8.2 1,448 Cedar-8 Cedar River Cedar-8 Cedar River from RM 8.2 8 to Cedar Mt Rd (RM 9.4) 1,931 ' Cedar-9 Cedar River Cedar-9 Cedar River from Cedar Mt 9 Rd (RM 9.4)to RM 10.2 1,287 Cedar-10 Cedar River Cedar-10 Cedar River from RM 10.2 10 to just downstream of 4,023 Taylor Cr RM 12.7 Cedar-11 Cedar River Cedar-1 Cedar River from just ' 11 downstream of Taylor Cr 1,770 RM 12.7 to RM 13.8 Cedar-12 Cedar River Cedar-12 Cedar River from RM 13.8 12 to RM 14.3 805 ' Cedar-13 Cedar River Cedar-13 Cedar River from RM 14.3 13 to RM 15.0 1,126 Cedar-14 Cedar River Cedar-14 Cedar River from RM 15.0 14 to RR Trail Crossing at RM 1,609 16.0 Cedar-15 Cedar River Cedar-15 Cedar River from RR Trail ' 15 Crossing at RM 16.0 to RR 1,609 Trail Crossing at RM 17.0 Cedar-16 Cedar River Cedar-16 Cedar River from RR Trail 16 Crossing at RM 17 to 3,218 Arcadia RM 19.0 Cedar-17 Cedar River Cedar-17 Cedar River from Arcadia 17 (RM 19.0)to RR Trail 965 Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 5 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12`h Public Review Draft ' Crossing at RM 19.6 Cedar-18 Cedar River Cedar-18 Cedar River from RR Trail ' 18 Crossing at RM 19.6 to 1,770 Landsburg Dam RM 21.7 Cedar R Cedar River Cedar R Landsburg Dam on the ' Landsburg 19 Landsburg Dam Cedar River(RM 21.7) 0 Dam Cedar-19 Cedar River Cedar-19 Cedar River from 20 Landsburg Dam (RM 853 ' 21.7)to RM 22.2 Cedar-20 Cedar River Cedar-20 Cedar River from RM 22.2 21 to RM 23.9 2,800 Cedar-21 Cedar River Cedar-21 Cedar River from RM 23.9 22 to Barneston Bridge (RM 8,608 29.3 - just downstream of ' Taylor Creek Cedar-22 Cedar River Cedar-22 Cedar River from 23 Barneston Bridge (RM 3,379 29.3 -just downstream of Taylor Creek)to RM 31.4 Cedar-23 Cedar River Cedar-23 Cedar River from RM 31.4 24 to RM 31.5 177 ' Cedar-24 Cedar River Cedar-24 Cedar River from RM 31.5 25 to RM 32.9 2,317 Cedar-25 Cedar River Cedar-25 Cedar River from RM 32.9 , 26 to RM 33.2 386 Cedar-26 Cedar River Cedar-26 Cedar River from RM 33.2 ' 27 to Cedar Falls 821 Powerhouse RM 33.7 Cedar-27 Cedar River Cedar-27 Cedar River from Cedar 28 Falls Powerhouse (RM 756 33.7)to RM 34.1 Cedar-28 Cedar River Cedar-28 Cedar River from RM 34.1 29 to Lower Cedar Falls (RM 193 ' 34.3 Peterson-1 Peterson Creek Peterson Cr Peterson Creek from 30 mouth to RM 0.5; stream 805 begins to steepen, enters , ravine Rock-1 Rock Creek Rock Cr(low Rock Creek from mouth to 31 basin) foot bridge over creek (RM 97 , 0,06). Rock-2 Rock Creek Rock Cr(low Rock Creek from foot 32 basin) bridge at RM 0.06 to box 241 culvert under SE 248th St t ' RM 0.15 Rock-3 Rock Creek Rock Cr (low Rock Creek from SE 248th 33 basin) St Culvert (RM 0.15)to 434 ' culvert under Cedar River Pipeline RM 0.27 Appendix C-6 November 12`h, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 6 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12`h Public Review Draft ' Rock-4A Rock Creek Rock Cr (low Rock Creek from culvert 34 basin) under Cedar River Pipeline 80 RM 0.27 to RM 0.32 Rock-4B Rock Creek Rock Cr(low Rock Creek from RM 0.32 35 basin) to RM 0.43 177 Rock-5 Rock Creek Rock Cr(low Rock Creek from RM 0.43 36 basin) to RM 0.65 354 Rock Rock Creek Rock Cr(up Rock Creek from mouth to (upper 37 (upper basin) basin) 40/18 Rd junction (RM 1.6 2,639 basin)-1 Walsh Ditch diversion Taylor Taylor Creek Taylor Cr(up Taylor Creek (upper basin (upper 38 (upper basin) basin) tributary)from mouth to 48 basin)-1 RR grade/Bridge (RM 0.03 Appendix C-6 November 12Ih, 2004 ' EDT Stream Reaches 7 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft ' Cedar River Tribs - Fall Chinook Length Stream Geographic Reach Len t Reach No9 code area location/description (meter s ' Peterson-1 Peterson Creek Peterson-1 Peterson Creek from 1 mouth to RM 0.5; stream 805 begins to steepen, enters ' ravine Taylor/Do Taylor/Downs Taylor/Downs-1 Taylor/Downs Creek from wns-1 2 Creek mouth to Maxwell Rd 563 ' Crossing RM 0.4 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-1 Lower Rock Creek from Rock-1 3 Creek mouth to foot bridge over 97 creek RM 0.06). ' Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-2 Lower Rock Creek from Rock-2 4 Creek foot bridge at RM 0.06 to 241 box culvert under SE ' 248th St t RM 0.15 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-3 Lower Rock Creek from Rock-3 5 Creek SE 248th St Culvert (RM 434 0.15)to culvert under , Cedar River Pipeline (RM 0.27 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-4A Lower Rock Creek from ' Rock-4A 6 Creek culvert under Cedar River 80 Pipeline (RM 0.27)to RM 0.32 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-4B Lower Rock Creek from Rock-4B 7 Creek RM 0.32 to RM 0.43 177 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock-5 Lower Rock Creek from ' Rock-5 8 Creek RM 0.43 to RM 0.65 354 Lower Lower Rock Lower Rock Lower Rock Creek from Rock 9 Creek (upper (upper basin)-1 mouth to 40/18 Rd junction 2,639 ' (upper basin) (RM 1.6 Walsh Ditch basin)-1 diversion Taylor Taylor Creek Taylor(upper Taylor Creek(upper basin (upper 10 (upper basin) basin)-1 tributary)from mouth to 48 , basin)-1 RR grade/Bridge (RM 0.03 Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 8 ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft Issaquah Creek - Fall Chinook 1 Reach No Stream Geographic Reach Length code area location/description (meter s Issaquah-1 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-1 Issaquah Creek from 1 mouth to confluence with 3,057 ' NF Issaquah Creek Issaquah-2 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-2 Issaquah Creek from 2 confluence with NF 853 ' Issaquah Creek to 1-90 Bridge Issaquah-3 Issaquah Creek Issaquah 3-5 Issaquah Creek from to I- 3 (City) 90 Bridge to Juniper St 708 ' (City of Issaquah Issaquah-4 Issaquah Creek Issaquah 3-5 Issaquah Creek from 4 (City) Juniper St (City of 611 Issaquah)to confluence with EF Issaquah Creek Issaquah-5 Issaquah Creek Issaquah 3-5 Issaquah Creek from 5 (City) confluence with EF 1,191 Issaquah Creek to Fish Hatchery Weir Issaquah Issaquah Creek Issaquah-6 Issaquah Creek Fish ' Fish Hatch 6 Hatchery Weir 0 Weir Issaquah-6 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-6 Issaquah Creek from Fish ' 7 Hatchery Weir to Hatchery 1,191 Water Intake Fish Ladder Hatchery Issaquah Creek Issaquah Hatch Issaquah Creek Fish Intake Fish 8 Diversion Hatchery Water Intake 0 ' Ladder I Fish Ladder Issaquah-7 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-7 Issaquah Creek from 9 Hatchery Water Intake 1,496 ' Fish Ladder to confluence with Trib 0199 Issaquah-8 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-8 Issaquah Creek from 10 confluence with Trib 0199 1,352 to power line crossing near city boundary Issaquah-9 Issaquah Creek Issaquah-9 Issaquah Creek from 11 power line crossing near 2,848 city boundary to confluence with 15 Mile Creek ' Issaquah- Issaquah Creek Issaquah-10 Issaquah Creek from 10 12 confluence with 15 Mile 998 Creek to confluence with ' McDonald Creek Issaquah- Issaquah Creek Issaquah-11 Issaquah Creek from 11 13 confluence with McDonald 3,138 Creek to Cedar Grove Rd Appendix C-6 November 121h, 2004 ' EDT Stream Reaches 9 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft ' Issaquah- Issaquah Creek Issaquah-12 Issaquah Creek from 12 14 Cedar Grove Rd to 4,521 confluence with Holder ' and Carey creeks NF NF Issaquah Lower NF NF Issaquah from mouth Issaquah-1 15 Creek Issaquah to 64th St culvert 1,287 NF NF Issaquah Lower NF NF Issaquah from 64th St ' Issaquah-2 16 Creek Issaquah culvert to 66th St 531 (beginning ravine NF NF Issaquah Upper NF NF Issaquah from 66th St Issaquah-3 17 Creek Issaquah (beginning ravine)to 386 bottom of ravine EF EF Issaquah EF Issaquah 1 & EF Issaquah Creek from ' Issaquah-1 18 Creek 2 (City) mouth to Front St Bridge 322 EF EF Issaquah EF Issaquah 1 & EF Issaquah Creek from Issaquah-2 19 Creek 2 (City) Front St Bridge to 1-90 1,834 ' crossing (beginning confined reach EF EF Issaquah Mid EF Issaquah EF Issaquah Creek from I- Issaquah-3 20 Creek 90 crossing (beginning 3,749 confined reach)to High Point 15Mile-1 Fifteen mile Lower 15 Mile Cr Fifteen mile Creek from ' 21 Creek mouth to Issaquah-Hobart 660 Rd crossing 15Mile-2 Fifteen mile Upper 15 Mile Cr Fifteen mile Creek from ' 22 Creek Issaquah-Hobart Rd 1,046 crossinq to 240th St McDonald- McDonald Creek Lower McDonald McDonald Creek from 1 23 mouth to confluence with 1,062 , trib 0212A Holder-1 Holder Creek Lower Holder Holder Creek from mouth 24 to 276th St crossing (start 2,156 ' forested Holder-2 Holder Creek Mid Holder Holder Creek from 276th 25 St crossing (start forested) 1,866 to change gradient ' Holder-3 Holder Creek Mid Holder Holder Creek from change 26 gradient to SR 18 crossing 1,014 (described as partial barrier Carey-1 Carey Creek Lower Carey Carey Creek from mouth 27 to 276th St Crossing 3,298 (culvert looks like juv ' barrier Carey Carey Creek Mid Carey Carey Creek 276th St 276th 28 Crossing (culvert looks like 0 ' Culvert Juv barrier Carey-2 Carey Creek Mid Carey Carey Creek from 276th St 29 Crossing (culvert looks like 1,303 juv barrier)to 204th ' crossing (passible culvert Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 10 ' WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft Carey-3 Carey Creek Mid Carey Carey Creek from 204th 30 crossing (passible culvert) 2,092 to Taylor Ditch confluence Carey-4 Carey Creek Upper Carey Carey Creek from Taylor 31 Ditch confluence to falls 563 1 Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 11 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft Kelsey Creek Revised - Fall Chinook Length Reach No Stream Geographic Reach Len g code area location/description (meter ' s Kelsey-1 Kelsey Creek Lower Kelsey Kelsey Creek from mouth (Mercer 1 to 1-405 culvert (Mercer 3,218 Slough) Slough). 76-01 Kelsy I- Kelsey Creek Lower Kelsey Kelsey Creek 1-405 405 2 obstruction culvert 0 Culvert ' Kelsey I- Kelsey Creek Lower Kelsey Kelsey Creek stream 405 3 under 1-405. (76-02) 209 stream reach Kelsey-2 Kelsey Creek Lower Kelsey Kelsy Creek from 1-405 4 culvert to confluence with 644 Richards Creek and Lk ' Hills culvert 76 03 Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey Park Kelsey Creek Lake Hills Lake Hills 5 Connector Culvert(also 0 Culvert confluence of Richards Cr. Kelsey-3 Kelsey Creek Kelsey Park Kelsey Creek from 6 Richards Creek (Lk Hills 531 ' culvert)to confluence with West Trib 76-04 Kelsey-4 Kelsey Creek Kelsey Park Kelsey Creek from 7 confluence with West Trib 1,352 to Glenndale Golf Course 76 05 Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey Golf Kelsey Creek Grade Golf 8 Course control obstruction at 0 course Glendale Golf Course control from Kit Kelsey-5 Kelsey Creek Kelsey Golf Kelsey Creek from bottom 9 Course of Glenndale Golf Course 1,255 to NE 8th Street- Golf course reach 76 06 Kelsey 8th Kelsey Creek Kelsey Golf Kelsey Creek culvert at Culvert 10 Course NE 8th Street 0 Kelsey-6 Kelsey Creek Kelsey Golf Kelsey Creek from NE 8th 11 Course Street to Olympic pipeline 901 structure. 76-07 Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey blw Valley Kelsey Creek grade Olympic 12 Cr control structure for 0 Olympic pipeline Kelsey-7 Kelsey Creek Kelsey blw Valley Kelsey Creek from 13 Cr Olympic pipeline 611 obstruction to confluence with Valley Creek (creek adjacent to Bel-Red Rd Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 12 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft (76-07) ' Kelsey-8 Kelsey Creek Kelsey abv Kelsey Creek from 14 Valley Cr confluence with Valley 981 Creek to 148th Ave. NE. 76-08 Kelsey-9 Kelsey Creek Kelsey abv Kelsey Creek from 148th 15 Valley Cr Ave. NE to Main Street 1,239 76-09 Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey Kelsey Creek long culvert Main St 16 Headwaters under Main Street and 0 Culvert I shopping center. Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey Kelsey Creek stream Main St 17 Headwaters reach under Main Street 225 stream and shopping center to reach Larson Lake 76 10 Kelsey Kelsey Creek Kelsey Kelsey Creek from Larson Larson 18 Headwaters outlet to 156th Ave. SE 1,335 Lake 76-11 Kelsey-10 Kelsey Creek Kelsey Kelsey Creek from 156th 19 Headwaters Ave. SE to headwaters 1,545 76 12 Kelsey Richards Creek Richards Cr Richards Creek from Richards-1 20 mouth to Bannerwood 1,512 Park culvert Kelsey Richards Creek Richards Cr Richards Creek Richards 21 Bannerwood Park culvert 0 Culvert Kelsey Richards Creek Richards Cr Richards Creek from Richards-2 22 Bannerwood Park culvert 1,931 to SE 32nd St Valley-1 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from mouth 23 to confluence Sear's Ditch 579 downstream of SR 520 Valley-2 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from 24 confluence Sear's Ditch 80 (downstream of SR 520)to SR 520 Valley Sr Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek Culverts (?) 520 25 under SR 520 0 Valley-3 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from SR 520 26 to 1st LB Tributary 80 u stream of SR 520 Valley-4 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from 1 st LB 27 Tributary to 2nd LB 129 tributary upstream of SR ' 520 Valley-5 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from 2nd LB 28 tributary upstream of SR 338 520 to NE 27th St Valley NE Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek NE 27th St 27th 29 Culvert (barrier?) 0 Culvert Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 13 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft Valley-6 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from NE 27th 30 St to change riparian 1,529 downsteam of Bellevue ' Municipal Golf Course (riparian improves upstream this reach Valley-7 Valley Creek Valley Creek Valley Creek from change 31 riparian downsteam of 740 Bellevue Municipal Golf Course (riparian improves this reach)to Bellevue Municipal Golf Course West Trib- West Trib West Trib West Trib from mouth 1 32 (Kelsey Cr)to top end of 1,432 Glendale Golf Course West Trib- West Trib West Trib West Trib from top end of 2 33 Glendale Golf Course to 418 NE 3rd St West Trib West Trib West Trib West Trib NE 3rd St NE 3rd 34 Culvert (barrier?) 0 Culvert West Trib- West Trib West Trib West Trib from NE 3rd St 3 35 Culvert (barrier?)to 740 confluence RB trib just upstream of NE 8th St West Trib- West Trib West Trib West Trib from confluence 4 36 RB trib just upstream of 274 NE 8th St to confluence Goff Creek West Trib- West Trib West Trib West Trib from confluence 5 37 Goff Creek to Bellevue- 386 Redmond Rd (upper extent cohopotential) Goff-1 Goff Creek Goff Creek Goff Creek from mouth 38 (West Trib)to 1 st RB 901 tributary at— 130th Ave NE Goff-2 Goff Creek Goff Creek Goff Creek from 1 st RB 39 tributary at-- 130th Ave NE 338 to Bellevue Redmond Rd (upper extent coho potential) Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 14 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft Little Bear Creek Revised - Fall Chinook 1 Reach No Stream Geographic Reach Length code area location/description (meter Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Mouth to upper extent sh-1A 1 River template delta (68th St 628 Bridge) Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Upper extent template sh-1 B 2 River delta (68th St Bridge)to 3,395 96th St Bridge Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-2 96th St Bridge to North sh-2 3 River Creek Confluence 3,218 Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-3 North Creek Confluence to sh-3A 4 River 175th St (downstream end 2,381 of agriculture area Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear mouth to Little Bear from mouth to 1 5 Hwy 522 132nd St Crossing (City of 434 Woodinville Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear mouth to Little Bear 132nd St 132nd 6 Hwy 522 Crossing (City of 0 Culvert Woodinville Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear mouth to Little Bear from 132nd St 2 7 Hwy 522 Crossing (City of 1,287 Woodinville)to Hwy 522 Crossing Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear Hwy 522 Little Bear Hwy 522 522 Hwy 8 to County line Crossing 0 Culvert Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear Hwy 522 Little Bear from Hwy 522 3 9 to County line Crossing to confluence 1,818 with Rowlins Creek Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear County Little Bear from confluence 4 10 line to 228th with Rowlins Creek to 531 begin industrial reach Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear County Little Bear from begin 5 11 line to 228th industrial reach (Alpine 1,126 Rocky Industrial)to confluence Howell Creek top of industrial area Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear County Little Bear from confluence 6 12 line to 228th Howell Creek (top of 692 industrial area)to Canyon Park Culvert (potential Bri htwater site Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear 228th St Little Bear Canyon Park Canyon Pk 13 to Grt Dane Cr Culvert 0 Culvert Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear 228th St Little Bear from Canyon 7 14 to Grt Dane Cr Park Culvert (upstream 1,014 end of potential Bri htwater site)to Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 15 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12`h Public Review Draft confluence with Cutthroat Creek (RB trib) Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear 228th St Little Bear from confluence 8 15 to Grt Dane Cr with Cutthroat Creek (LB 708 trib)to confluence with Great Dane Creek LB trib Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear Grt Dane Little Bear from confluence 9 16 Cr to 51 st with Great Dane Creek (LB 1,448 trib)to Little Bear Rd culvert Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear Grt Dane Little Bear Little Bear Rd Rd Culvert 17 Cr to 51 st culvert(barrier?) 0 Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear Grt Dane Little Bear from Little Bear 10 18 Cr to 51 st Rd culvert to 51 st St 2,414 culvert Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear 51 st to Little Bear 51 st St culvert 51 st 19 headwaters 0 Culvert Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear 51 st to Little Bear from 51 st St 11 20 headwaters culvert to 180th SE Culvert 837 Little Bear Little Bear Creek L Bear 51 st to Little Bear 180th SE 180th 21 headwaters Culvert 0 Culvert Little Bear- Little Bear Creek L Bear 51 st to Little Bear from 180th SE 12 22 headwaters Culvert to upper extent 2,832 coho potential (nr Silver Firs Subdivision Great Great Dane Great Dane Great Dane Creek from Dane-1 23 Creek Creek mouth to SR 524 crossing 579 Great Great Dane Great Dane Great Dane Creek SR 524 Dane SR 24 Creek Creek crossing 0 524 Culvert Great Great Dane Great Dane Great Dane Creek from Dane-2 25 Creek Creek SR 524 crossing to upper 451 extent coho potential (0.25 miles Appendix C-6 November 12Ih, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 16 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12`h Public Review Draft North Creek Revised - Fall Chinook Reach No Stream Geographic Reach Length code area location/description (meter s Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Mouth to upper extent sh-1A 1 River template delta (68th St 628 Bridge) Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-1 Upper extent template sh-1 B 2 River delta (68th St Bridge)to 3,395 96th St Bridge Sammami Sammamish Sammamish-2 96th St Bridge to North sh-2 3 River Creek Confluence 3,218 North-1 North Creek North Cascadia North Creek from mouth to 4 Reach top of Cascadia 1,335 Restoration project North-2 North Creek North 2 North Creek from top of 5 (Business Prk) Cascadia Restoration 2,333 project to upstream end of business park North-3 North Creek North 3 North Creek from 6 upstream end of business 1,899 park to 228th SE Canyon Park Rd Crossing North-4 North Creek North 4 &5 North Creek from 228th 7 (Canyon Park) SE Canyon Park Rd 3,186 Crossing to 208th St Culvert North North Creek North 4 &5 North Creek 208th St 208th 8 (Canyon Park) Culvert 0 Culvert North-5 North Creek North 4 &5 North Creek from 208th St 9 (Canyon Park) Culvert to 196th St culvert 1,512 North North Creek North 6 &7 North Creek 196th St 196th 10 (North Cr culvert 0 Culvert Re ional Prk North-6 North Creek North 6 &7 North Creek from 196th St 1 11 (North Cr culvert to confluence 2,220 Regional Prk) Nickel Creek and North Creek Regional Park bounds John Bailey Rd North-7 North Creek North 6 &7 North Creek from 12 (North Cr confluence Nickel Creek to 1,802 Regional Prk) confluence Penny Creek (begin Mill Creek development around 164th North-8 North Creek North 8 (Mill Cr) North Creek from 13 confluence Penny Creek 1,110 (begin Mill Creek development area -164th) to top end of Mill Creek Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 17 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan: November 12th Public Review Draft development area (approx 156th) North-9 North Creek North 9 & 10 North Creek from upper 14 (McCollum Park) end of Mill Creek 2,784 development area (approx 156th)to just downstream of McCollum Park North-10 North Creek North 9 & 10 North Creek from just 15 (McCollum Park) downstream of McCollum 644 Park to 128th Crossing Silver-1 Silver Creek Silver 1 Silver Creek from mouth to 16 196th Culvert 1,625 Penny-1 Penny Creek Penny 1 (to pond Penny Creek from mouth 17 outlet) to Retention pond 853 i t I 1 I i Appendix C-6 November 12th, 2004 EDT Stream Reaches 18 � APPENDIX o. ACTIONS APPENDIX D-PART 1 ' Criteria to Develop the Action Lists in the WRIA 8 Draft Chinook Plan Approved by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, July 28, 2004 Criteria for Comprehensive Action Lists • For each of the three Chinook populations, separate comprehensive lists of land use recommendations, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach actions will be included in the draft plan for Tier 1 subareas and migratory corridors and for Tier 2 subareas. Watershed-wide or basinwide land use and public outreach actions will address Tier 3 subareas. • For the public review draft, there will be no site-specific habitat projects in Tier 3 subareas, although the Steering Committee and the Forum could decide to address these in the future by directing development of actions for coho and kokanee. • Within each comprehensive list, actions are prioritized or evaluated using similar criteria: • Conservation strategy (benefits to Chinook) • Collaborative process by area experts and stakeholders • Feasibility/implementability (technical, community/local support) • These factors vary somewhat according to the type of action Criteria for Action Start-Lists • Land use, site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects, and public outreach are integrated into a single strategic start list to focus watershed priorities. Start lists ' should consist of approximately 50 actions for each of the three Chinook populations. Actions for the nearshore and migratory corridors will be included as part of the start list. • With the exception of the four actions added by the Steering Committee in response to the public review process, as provided for below, the start list was generated from the comprehensive lists for each action type and subarea that have been developed collaboratively with area experts and stakeholders. The intent is to include the highest priority actions but the driver is to have a manageable number. • The specific needs of each population and area should drive the mix of actions. • Beyond being included on the start list, actions will not be further ranked for each population, across populations, by type of action, nor across types of action. • The start list needs to include actions at the landscape scale as well as the reach scale to ensure geographic equity and opportunities for implementation by all jurisdictions. • Actions that are high priority but challenging to implement need to be included as well as high priority actions that are easier to implement or ready to go. • Up to five actions may be added to the start list through the public review process. Recommendations will be brought back to the Steering Committee to consider. • The Steering Committee directed that up to five actions be included in the Start List for Tier 2 subareas. • Development of these lists, particularly the start list, is to be an iterative process. • Cost estimates will be done only for actions on the integrated start list. Where readily available, cost estimates will be included for actions on the comprehensive lists. To develop the initial start-lists, the following criteria beyond the comprehensive lists are used for each action type: Land Use Actions (includes incentive, regulatory, and programmatic recommendations) Apply technical hierarchy from WRIA 8 Technical Committee Appendix D, Part-1: Criteria for Start-list and Comprehensive Lists February 25, 2005 Page 1 • Include actions where explicitly referenced by Steering Committee goals • Include actions that are most developed, specific, and directive Site-Specific Protection and Restoration Actions ' • Did not include "non-projects" (recommendations that do not require new actions, e.g., protecting St. Edwards State Park) or projects with "uncertain benefit" • Used logical combining of projects • Protection based on EDT reach rank (closest to template conditions) and existing science-based habitat protection programs such as Waterways and Cedar River Legacy ' • Projects are sorted by reach rank; within reach, by benefits to Chinook • Included all projects in A reaches that were ranked high and high-medium benefit to Chinook, regardless of feasibility • Screened projects in B reaches for feasibility: included only projects ranked high and high-medium benefit to Chinook that should be easier to implement • For Tier 2 subareas, where Start List actions were limited by the Steering Committee's direction to only 5 actions, actions were selected based on worst factor of decline as well as EDT prioritization of reaches and subarea experts' rating of projects' Benefits to Chinook and Feasibility. Public Outreach Actions • Focus on actions with regional application • Identify what is needed to support land use and site-specific actions i ! 1 Appendix D, Part-1: Criteria for Start-list and Comprehensive Lists February 25, 2005 Page 2 ' APPENDIX D, PART 2 Process and Criteria for Identifying and Prioritizing Potential Site-Specific Projects Potential site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects were identified by ad hoc groups of subarea experts and members of the WRIA 8 Technical Committee for each Tier I and II subarea in the watershed during a series of meetings in 2003 and 2004. The potential projects were based on the Technical Committee's technical hypotheses for the protection and restoration for each subarea. The site-specific projects are listed by Chinook population in two ways in Chapter 10: in priority order by subarea with shortened project descriptions and in comprehensive lists by subarea in geographic order from downstream to upstream. Site-specific projects have also prioritized in the "Short List" for each Chinook population. How Site-Specific Protection and Restoration Projects Were Prioritized ' Protection and Restoration projects were prioritized using the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy (Chapter 4), the Ecosystem Diagnostic 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. They were also prioritized using similar, but different criteria. tThe 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, and • How the proposed habitat protection projects are rated by subarea experts and WRIA 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, and • How the proposed projects are rated by subarea experts and WRIA 8 Technical Committee members on their benefit to Chinook and feasibility or ease of implementation. How EDT Modeling Results were Used to Help Prioritize Potential Site-Specific Projects EDT Modeling for Restoration The criteria and use of the EDT Modeling results differs somewhat between protection ' and restoration projects. For restoration projects, EDT's Restoration Benefit Rank was applied directly in prioritizing reaches for restoration. This rank is a measure of the benefit to Chinook of restoring each reach to "template" or ideal conditions. For restoration, some of the reaches with similar restoration potential have been grouped together. For example, the Lower Cedar River reaches are broken out into A Reaches (Reaches 2, 3), B Reaches (Reaches 5, 7, 10, 4, 6) and C reaches (Reaches 11, 1, 8, 9). So although reaches are listed in priority order within these grouping there is not a Appendix D, Part 2 February 25, 2005 Process for prioritizing site specific projects Page 3 large difference in the restoration potential between the reaches in the same grouping. However, there is a significant difference in restoration potential between the groupings. A Reaches have significantly higher restoration benefit than B Reaches. , EDT Modeling for Protection The EDT Protection Benefit Rank is not as straight forward as the Restoration Benefit Rank to apply in prioritizing site-specific habitat protection projects. The EDT habitat model evaluates the protection potential of river reaches by evaluating the exposure of fish in all their life stages to in-stream habitat conditions (e.g. pools, large woody debris, spawning areas). The EDT Protection Benefit Rank prioritizes which reaches if fully degraded would most harm Chinook. However, what you do to protect instream-habitat conditions in a reach should not be limited to taking actions within the reach to protect habitat. Much of what needs to be done to protect instream-habitat in a reach must be done upstream in other reaches or subarea-wide. For example, if there are pools and large woody debris in Reach 3 of the Cedar River it is in part because there was a source of large woody debris upstream. If egg incubation of Chinook benefits from the , lack of sedimentation and high water quality in a reach, it is because there are not sediment sources or inputs of pollutants upstream. Also, habitat protection projects should consider things such as landscape conditions and habitat-forming processes in addition to fish use and instream-habitat conditions. Therefore, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee used the Habitat Diversity Index results from the EDT model to prioritize reaches for their protection potential rather than the Protection Benefit Rank. The Habitat Diversity Index is a measure of how close reaches are to "template" or ideal conditions for numbers of pieces of large woody debris, riparian , function and channel connectivity. Basically this is an indication of which reaches are in the best condition. See example below from the WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy from Chapter 4 for the Cedar River. Table 4-2: Cedar Tier 1 Reach-Level Protection Recommendations (Middle Cedar and Lower Cedar) Reaches are listed in order of Relative Protection Priority Tier 1 Critical Chinook Life LWD, Riparian Function, and Channel Subarea: Stages for Protection: Connectivity should be protected in the following reaches: Middle Pre-Spawning Migrant; 16, (tie 17 & 18), 15, 14, 12, 13 Cedar Fry Colonization (Reaches 12-18) Lower Pre-Spawning Migrant; 4, 8, 9, 3, (tie 5 & 6 & 11), 7, 10, 1, 2 Cedar(1- Fry Colonization 11) Recognizing Existing Habitat Protection Programs ' There are several strong, science-based habitat protection programs in place in WRIA 8, including but not limited to: Bear Creek Waterways, Cedar River Legacy, and Issaquah Creek and Lake Sammamish Waterways. Recognizing the strength of these programs and their greater landscape focus, the WRIA 8 Technical Committee recommended (and the WRIA 8 Steering Committee approved) using the priorities identified by these Appendix D, Part 2 February 25, 2005 Process for prioritizing site specific projects Page 4 programs in additions to the EDT modeling results in prioritizing site-specific habitat protection projects. In the prioritized lists of site-specific protection projects in Chapter 10, existing priority protection projects from science-based habitat protection programs have been shaded. ' Criteria used by Subarea Experts to Evaluate Potential Protection Projects Within the subarea reaches that have been prioritized for their protection potential using ' the EDT Model, identified projects are further prioritized using the expert opinion of subarea experts about each potential projects' benefits to Chinook and feasibility or ease of implementation. Here are the criteria the subarea experts used in evaluating the potential protection projects. ' Technical Criteria: Benefits of Project to Chinook High — Expected to have high benefit to Chinook. ' Medium — Expected to have moderate benefit to Chinook. Low— Expected to have low benefit to Chinook. In making determination of H, M, L, consider the following: Extent to which habitat is connected to other high quality habitats and already protected areas Extent to which property has intact riparian conditions, forest cover ➢ Extent to which project would protect habitat-forming processes (e.g. includes headwater areas, confluences, unarmored banks, gravel erosion and deposition areas, woody debris recruitment sources, springs or groundwater upwelling) Policy Criteria: Feasibility of Project ' High - Potential project is highly feasible. Medium — Potential project is moderately feasible. Low— Potential project has low feasibility. In making determination of H, M, L, consider the following: Community/jurisdictional support ➢ Cost/fundability of project y Likelihood that habitat is threatened by future changes in land use (or extent to which habitat is protected by regulations) Degree to which project is ready to go (Is there a sponsor? A willing landowner? A partnership or matching opportunity?) Criteria used by Subarea Experts to Evaluate Potential Restoration Projects Within the subarea reaches that have been prioritized for their restoration potential using the EDT Model, identified projects are further prioritized using the expert opinion of ' subarea experts about each potential projects' benefits to Chinook and feasibility or ease of implementation. Here are the criteria the subarea experts used in evaluating the potential restoration projects. Technical Criteria: Benefits of Project to Chinook High — Expected to have high benefit to Chinook. Medium — Expected to have moderate benefit to Chinook. Appendix D, Part 2 February 25, 2005 Process for prioritizing site specific projects Page 5 Low— Expected to have low benefit to Chinook. In making determination of H, M, L, consider following criteria: ' y Degree to which project addresses factors of decline in reach and relative importance of the factors of decline Type and scale of project and how well it fits with technical hypothesis for ' reach y Project method and how well it has been proven successful in other projects , Policy Criteria: Feasibility of Project High - Potential project is highly feasible. Medium — Potential project is moderately feasible. , Low— Potential project has low feasibility. In making determination of H, M, L, consider the following: ➢ Community/jurisdictional support Cost/fundability of project Degree to which project is ready to go (Is there a sponsor? Is there a design? Is there landowner willingness?) ➢ Complexity of the project Appendix D, Part 2 February 25, 2005 Process for prioritizing site specific projects Page 6 r APPENDIX D, PART 3 ' Preliminary Cost Estimates for WRIA 8's Action Start List - Methodology An overview of the cost estimate methodology is provided in Chapter 9, Preliminary Cost Estimate of Site Specific Projects and Programmatic Actions section. This Appendix section provides further details on the methodology and cost estimate charts (Tables D-3-1 — D-34) for the three Chinook populations: r Cedar River, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah, and migratory and rearing areas. Cost estimates were prepared for two main groups of actions: site specific projects and programmatic actions, which include land use actions, public outreach, and studies. ' Site Specific Projects: Cost estimates for site specific projects were formed from three main sources: (1) pre-design cost estimates, (2) the Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Washington/Ship Canal General Investigation Study, or (3)A Primer on Habitat Project Costs (Primer, Evergreen 2003). The Primer provides estimates for various components of different types of projects. These components were formed into groups to correspond to the conditions in the WRIA 8 watersheds. Many of the components were consistent ' across the Cedar, North Lake Washington, and Issaquah population areas. Some of the components varied, such as acquisition values, or size of waterway, which is based on the mean flow given in cubic feet per second (cfs). Permitting, initial (2 year) monitoring, and maintenance costs are factored into the cost range provided by the Primer. The values are given as planning level tools, and therefore cost estimates at this level are for decision ' makers to use in preliminary planning of overall costs. The high and low range of costs varied either due to the multiplier value (high and low values) or due to variations in the scoping of the project site (e.g. range of stream miles or acreage). A few projects tended to bring the average project cost up within each of the four cost estimate charts. For example, Dorre Don Area Flood Buyouts and Floodplain Restoration in the Cedar River, adds about $10 million into the overall "high" total costs. If this outlying value is not accounted for then the values ' would be closer to the "low" cost estimates. In the North Lake Washington and Issaquah Action Start-list, single projects identified large areas for acquisition that are typically acquired as multiple projects occurring over many years. These areas were divided into multiple projects to reflect more realistically the cost and to not skew the average cost per project. For example, completing the acquisitions identified in the Waterways 2000 program would be approximately 250 acres for North Lake Washington. This one, $25 million, Start-list action was divided into 17 individual projects at an average cost of$1.5 million, which is a more typically project cost. Acquisition: For acquisition planning, the cost estimate per acre multiplier value was $35,000 to $55,000. Property values may vary more widely within the rural areas; however, these values are for planning purposes only. These values also should not be used to value a specific site or parcel. The following components were selected from the Primer to reflect the characteristics of the Chinook population areas: y Cost range $24,000 - $60,000 per acre, Medium development potential and amenity value, ➢ Rural residential zoning, v Moderate percent sensitive areas (50-80 percent not developable), ➢ Average site access, and ➢ Moderate distance from major city Restoration: For restoration project cost estimates four groups of components from the Primerwere formed; (1) riparian enhancement, (2) stream bank improvements, (3) large woody debris placement, ' and (4) floodplain restoration. Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 Page 7 . r (1) Riverine riparian enhancement includes projects that remove invasive plant species and restore native plant species. These projects can restore the existing buffers or recreate a buffer. The cost , estimate used a multiplier value of $15,000 per acre. The selected Primer components are as follows: Cost range $10,000 to $15,000 per acre, ➢ Somewhat complex riparian enhancement: • Medium: size plants, mulch, slope, clearing & grubbing, ➢ 50 foot buffer width, ➢ Site accessible by vehicle, and r ➢ Average labor costs and maintenance (2) Stream bank improvements include projects that involve reshaping of the stream bank area through ' rip-rap removal, grading, and then restoration of the riparian vegetation. The earthmoving and size of the waterway components are the primary determinants of the cost. Some of the waterways mean flow was near the cut-off of 100 cfs for the small verses medium waterway. More weight was thus given to the , earthmoving cost component and a cost of$200 per lineal foot was used as the multiplier value. The selected Primer components are as follows: ➢ Cost range: $150 - $250 lineal foot ➢ Moderate earthmoving - some rip-rap removal, Medium waterway (100-2,000 cfs; e.g., the Cedar River is 675 csf.) ➢ No reconnection to the floodplain, Average permitting costs, ➢ Medium material use • 2 gallon trees and shrubs, rocks, some logs and rootwads. (3) Large Woody Debris placement projects restore wood to the stream channel either by placing logs ' on the stream bank or by forming piles of logs as a log jam structure. The size of the waterway, materials and transportation cost components are the primary cost factors. The projects in the Start List have a slightly higher number of pieces of large woody debris specified than the Primer components below, thus the cost estimate multiplier used was on the high end of the range. For small waterways the multiplier value per mile was $50,000 and for medium waterways the value was $45,000. , Small waterway cost range: $20,000 - $50,000 per mile, Medium waterway cost range: $15,000 - $45,000 per mile, ➢ Average transportation cost, Medium material use, 0-12" diameter logs for small waterway, and 13-24" diameter for medium waterway, ➢ Risk— minimal. (4) Floodplain restoration projects reconnect the river with its floodplain through levee removal or side- r channel creation. These types of projects are quite variable and can be estimated with the Primer only to a fair degree. The energy of the waterway and the amount of earthmoving are the key variables that affect cost. The cost range used for multiplier values was $20,000 to $30,000 per acre. The selected Primer components are as follows for a side-channel re-connection: Cost range: $20,000 - $30,000 per acre, Energy of waterway— low, Minimal earthmoving, ➢ Access - near, ➢ Moderate material use. Programmatic Actions: Programmatic actions include land use actions, public outreach actions, and studies. The cost estimates were developed by the WRIA 8 Service Provider Team's Action Leads for land use and public outreach. The estimates are considered a rough, first-cut budget estimate, with the full time equivalent (FTE) staff , estimates based on existing, or similar, programs and actions. The FTE staff estimate for the Action Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 Page 8 ' r Start-list is an additional level of effort to the staff identified in Chapter 2. There was limited consultation ' with local jurisdictions to tailor costs and identify efficiencies that may be obtained through collaboration. Each action was evaluated as to whether the existing level of effort was adequate or whether an additional level of effort was needed. A number of assumptions were made for this preliminary effort. If a zero appears under the low range of cost then the action was covered under existing jurisdictional responsibilities and the level of funding was assumed to be adequate. Eleven programmatic actions r were given zero values because the actions were considered fully funded by all jurisdictions at this time or had no additional cost element. If the FTE range has values of 0.03 to 0.6 then there is a need for collaborative work with a range of level of effort needed. For example, research and training on Low r Impact Development (LID) techniques already occurs within some jurisdictions. The additional level of effort may involve coordination to expand the existing programs or additional research to apply the information to more situations. After an FTE value was developed, the Primer value of$100, 000 per ' FTE was used as the multiplier to estimate costs. 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 r Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 ' Page 9 r Table D-3-1 WRIA 8 Action Start-List - "Ballpark" Cost ' Estimates Cedar River Chinook Population 1 Site - Specific Projects Tier I - Within UGA $4.4M $4.6M , 6 Projects Tier I - Outside UGA $16.51M $30.2M 9 Projects Sub-total Cost - Tier I $20.9M $34.9M Tier II - 2 Projects $1.4M $1.4M r Average Cost $1.3M $2.1 M , per project (17) Total Cost - Site Specific $22.3M $36.3M Tier I and Tier II Programmatic Actions ' Tier I - Basinwide $169,000 $345,000 16 Actions ' Tier I - Within UGA $0 $40,000 1 Actions Tier I - Outside UGA $0 $80,000 , 2 Actions Tier II - 2 projects $10,000 $30,000 Annual number of FTEs / Staff 1.79 4.95 ' Annual Cost for 21 Actions $179,000 $495,000 ' Average Annual Cost $8,523 $23,571 per action (21) One Upper Cedar $941,000 $941,000 River Study r Total Cost - Programmatic $2.7M $5.9M includes study above r 1 1 Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 Page 10 ' ' Table D-3-2 WRIA 8 Action Start-List "Ballpark" Cost Estimates North Lake Washington Chinook Population Site Specific Projects Low High Tier I - Within UGA $34M $36M 14 Projects ' Tier I - Outside UGA $36M $37.61M 31 Projects Sub-total Cost Tier I $70.6M $73.8M Tier II - 6 Projects $18.3M $22AM Tier I -Average Cost $1.5M $1.6M per project (45) Tier II -Average Cost per project $3.1 M $3.7M (6 Acquisitions - over 323 acres) Total Cost - Site Specific $88.3M $96.2M Tier I and Tier II Programmatic Actions Low High Tier I - Basinwide $142,000 $387,000 ' 20 Actions Tier I - Within UGA $20,000 $60,000 4 Actions Tier I - Outside UGA $30,000 $100,000 3 Actions Tier 11 - 3 Actions $0 $40,000 Annual number of FTEs / Staff 1.92 5.87 Annual Cost for 30 action s $192,000 $587,000 ' Average Cost $6,400 $18,900 per action (30) One Basinwide Study $645,000 $645,000 Total Cost - Programmatic $2.6M $6.5M ' includes study above Note: M = million Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 Page 11 Table D-3-3: WRIA 8 Action Start-List - "Ballpark" Cost ' Estimates for Issaquah Chinook Population Site Specific Projects Low High , Tier I - Within UGA $9.2M $10.3M 8 Projects Tier I - Outside UGA $17.5M $19.8M , 10 Projects Average Cost — $1.5M $1.7M per project (18) Total Cost - Site Specific $26.7M $30.1 M Programmatic Actions Low High ' Tier I - Basinwide $143,000 $364,000 18 Actions Tier I - Within UGA $0 $0 , (4 Actions not included in average) Tier I - Outside UGA $20,000 $70,000 2 Actions Annual number of FTEs / Staff 1.63 4.29 Annual Cost for 20 actions $163,000 $429,000 Average Annual Cost $8,100 $21,700 ' per action (20) Total Cost - Programmatic $1.6M $4.3M Note: M = million Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 Page 12 ' i ' Table D-3-4 _WRIA 8 Action Start-List - "Ballpark" Cost Estimates - Migratory Areas Site Specific Projects ' Low High ' 6 Projects $5.1 M $7.1 M Average Cost per project 6 $857,000 $1.21VI ' Total Cost - Site Specific $5.1 M $7.1 M Programmatic Actions Low High Annual Number of FTEs / Staff 2.51 5.90 Annual Cost - 29 Actions $251,000 $590,000 ' Average Annual Cost per Action 29 $8,655 $20,344 Total Cost - Programmatic $2.51VI $5.91VI Notes: 1) Migratory Areas include Lakes Washington and Sammamish, Ship Canal, Locks, and Estuary/ Nearshore; 2 M = million Appendix D, Part 3: Cost Estimates for Startlist February 25, 2005 ' Page 13 PART 4: KING/SNOHOMISH COUNTY WRIA 8 20-YEAR POPULATION ESTIMATES 2002 2022 additional Total population Jurisdiction population population target in 2022 estimate target King County - inside UGA ' Beaux Arts 295 7 302 Bellevue 117,000 24,078 141,078 Bellevue PAA 4,650 424 5,074 Bothell- King County 16,330 4,167 20,497 Bothell PAAs Kin Co.) 4,000 1,390 5,390 Clyde Hill 2,895 50 2,945 Hunts Point 455 2 457 Issaquah 13,790 9,503 23,293 Issaquah PAAs 15,150 1,909 17,059 Kenmore 19,180 5,534 24,714 Kent water supply only in WRIA 8 Kirkland 45,790 13,042 58,832 ' Kirkland PAA 32,400 1,778 34,178 Lake Forest Park 12,860 1,108 13,968 Maple Valley 1,504 500 2,004 ' Medina 3,010 74 3,084 Mercer Island 21,955 3,420 25,375 Newcastle 8,205 2,054 10,259 Redmond 46,040 21,618 67,658 Redmond PAAs 3,200 928 4,128 Redmond Ridge UPD 1,000 9,756 10,756 ' Renton 37,688 10,803 48,491 Renton PAAs 3 below East Renton PAA 7,600 1,476 9,076 ' Fairwood PAA 21,708 1,859 23,567 West Hill PAA 10,082 400 10,482 Sammamish 34,660 9,144 43,804 Seattle 399,560 53,055 452,615 Shoreline 53,250 5,461 58,711 Woodinville 9,215 4,448 13,663 Yarrow Point 1,010 67 1,077 misc. unincorporated King County 2,000 most in PAAs 2,000 Total inside UGA 946,482 188,055 1,134,537 King Count - outside UGA Unincorporated King Co 50,000 6,000 56,000 Total King County in WRIA 8 996,482 194,055 1,190,537 ' Total Snohomish County in WRIA 8 (details next page) 306,717 118,3821 425,099 Total King & Snohomish in WRIA 8 1,303,199 312,4371 1,615,636 February 25, 2005 Appendix D, Part 4: Population Estimates 14 PART 4: KING/SNOHOMISH COUNTY WRIA 8 20-YEAR POPULATION ESTIMATES 2002 2022 Jurisdiction population additional Total population population target in 2022 estimate target Snohomish County inside UGA ' Bothell-SnoCo 14490 6,530 21,020 , Bothell-SnoCo MUGA 16,457 10,372 26,829 Brier 6,445 1,170 7,615 Brier MUGA 2,186 964 3,150 ' Edmonds 39,460 4,713 44,173 Edmonds MUGA 3,537 372 3,909 Everett-WRIA8 30,598 13,548 44,146 ' Everett-WRIA8 MUGA 27,104 19,626 46,730 Lynnwood 33,990 3,930 37,920 Lynnwood MUGA 22,821 13,508 36,329 ' Mill Creek 12,055 3,508 15,563 Mill Creek MUGA 30,588 22,284 52,872 Mountlake Terrace 20,4701 1,727 22,197 Mountlake Terrace MUGA 82 20 102 Mukilteo 18,600 3,440 22,040 Mukilteo MUGA 10,310 4,100 14,410 Woodway 990 157 1,147 Silver Firs 3,682 1,115 4,797 Total inside UGA 293,865 111,084 404,949 ' Snohomish Co. - Outside UGA Unincorporated Snohomish County 12,852 7,298 20,150 Total SnoCo in WRIA8 306,717 118,382 425,099 , Total King & Sno County Combined 1,303,1991 312,437 1,615.636 NOTES: ' All population estimates are for the portion of the jurisdiction inside WRIA 8 only. For King County: 2002 estimates from 2002 King County Annual Growth Report (based on OFM), with estimates of areas within WRIA 8 by Chandler Felt, King Co. demographer; 2022 estimates from Growth Management Planning Council household growth targets approved Sept. 2002. Maple Valley ' estimates are from city staff. For Snohomish County: ' Incorporated areas for 2002 from Washington OFM estimates 2022 targets are mathematically interpolated from 2025 targets in "Draft Initial Population Growth Target Ranges - Cities, UGAs and the Rural Resource Areas" (9/03) for incorporated areas, and , in "Draft Initial Population Growth Target Ranges - MUGA Analysis Zones" (9/03) for unincorporated area February 25, 2005 ' Appendix D, Part 4: Population Estimates 15 ' APPENDIX D, PARTS 5 and 6 - Introduction ' Purpose of Menu of Land Use Actions (Part 5) The WRIA 8 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. Actions for Tier 1, 2, and 3 subareas are part of the comprehensive lists (and start-list) found in Chapters 9 ' through 15. The menu in this appendix lists land use tools by the scientific outcome which they address, and describes actions by implementation and feasibility criteria. Examples are given of where certain tools are being used, and comments from jurisdictions and other stakeholders on action feasibility are incorporated. The actions in ' this menu are not mandatory, jurisdictions can choose to implement them or not. Purpose of References (Part 6) 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, 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. aAppendix D, Part 5 February 25, 2005 Page 16 Appendix D, Part 5 February 25, 2005 Page 17 Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ' Proposed Action Desired Community Support (public, government, others) Implementability (and other considerations) Scientific Uncertainties Outcomes (none identified if left blank) ' PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF FOREST COVER AND CRITICAL AREAS (riparian buffers, shorelines, wetlands, flood lains Require adequate riparian and wetland Protect riparian Support varies by jurisdiction. WRIA 8 Conservation Strategy should be used as one of a number of The WRIA 8 Technical Committee buffers through critical areas ordinances forest cover; Mukilteo is developing prescriptive standards for what should resources in developing a jurisdiction's best available science (BAS), (W8TC) has not provided specific ' (CAOs)or other regulations, including Protect wetlands be included in buffer(e.g., type, amount of vegetation); this on which to base current and future CAO and other policy and guidance on buffer size. However, see zoning codes and Shoreline Master may help gain support by making enforcement easier and more regulatory updates. Appendix D, Part 6 for references on Programs (SMPs). educational. Allowing other uses (e.g., trails, stormwater facilities) in buffers limits critical areas. ' Explaining other buffer functions can improve public effective buffer function; these other uses could be prohibited or acceptability of buffers; other functions include water quality, required to be sited in the landward side of the buffer. REGULATION flood hazard reduction, habitat for species in addition to fish. In Tier 1 subareas in urban areas, Protect riparian Example: King Co. CAO applies rural aquatic buffers in urban WRIA8 watershed evaluation which establishes tiers is consistent with require or encourage larger riparian forest cover areas designated as"special urban waters", based on premise KC analysis of subareas for special urban waters protection. buffers than for other urban subareas that regulations should vary based on differences in, Note that other jurisdictions have used overlay zones to impose which are not Tier 1. environmental conditions and biological value in subarea. certain standards in areas which are considered of greater value in ' Some developers/jurisdictions oppose concept because they terms of salmon habitat or other natural resources. say if development must occur inside UGA, shouldn't also have REGULATION to have strong sensitive area protections there. In rural areas, protect 65%forest cover, Protect forest Example: King Co. CAO applies clearing restrictions in rural Can implement through clearing and grading regulations, and There are technical uncertainties ' limit effective impervious area to 10% on cover; areas, 35% or 50% clearing allowed depending on lot size. stormwater regulations. regarding the effect of such a standard a parcel-by-parcel basis (often referred Limit impervious This standard has raised questions from private property rights Some jurisdictions consider this a goal that may not be achieved (applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis) on to as 65-10 rule). area; advocates and rural property owners. Some property owners through regulation alone, but should be pursued on a subarea or hydrologic function, particularly where Manage and developers believe that this concept has not been watershed-wide level through regulation, acquisition, and incentives. forest cover in a subarea is already stormwater sufficiently proven in the field, and that this one-size-fits-all Some jurisdictions lack scientific staff to effectively apply and enforce significantly degraded. approach is not scientifically based. such a standard. Where 65% forest retention standard is Some environmentalists believe that even such a standard does not applied, it should take into account ' achieve 65% forest protection; strict enforcement and accompanying substrate, topography, type of public education are essential to insure that such a standard is vegetation, etc. which affect retention REGULATION effective. and infiltration. ' In urban areas, protect remaining trees Protect and Note that in urban areas, some forest protection is also Examples include: and forests and restore forest cover restore forest achieved through open space acquisition, zoning, buffers, LID Redmond's tree protection ordinance where developers are required through street tree programs, tree cover stormwater regulations; these approaches have varying to save a minimum of 35% of significant trees (6"+ DBH) on site. retention/replacement programs, and degrees of public and government support. Incentives are offered for higher levels of tree protection. For each urban reforestation programs. Where reforestation programs are support by grants and significant tree removed one needs to be replaced. If replacement technical assistance, they are likely to have greater public can't occur on site, developers pay $250/tree into a Tree Replacement support. Fund. Seattle and King County's urban forest programs. ' REGULATION/INCENTIVE OI m ia's tree protection ordinance. Prohibit or limit new bulkheads along Protect Considerable interest among shoreline jurisdictions in Developing similar specifications for bulkheads is more difficult and lake shorelines and the nearshore; shoreline specifications for overwater piers that NOAA Fisheries and controversial. Building several demonstration projects on public land require or encourage that new docks connectivity other federal/state agencies have developed, and proposed for where shoreline landowners,jurisdictions, and contractors can see ' meet NOAA Fisheries standards for streamlined permitting. how they really work is next crucial step, prior to regulatory overwater structures. Adopt and approaches. enforce through CAOs, SMPs, and steep ' slope ordinances. REGULATION Limit future development/ Protect Support may vary by incorporated vs. unincorporated areas. Note that FEMA allows some types of development and redevelopment in floodplains and floodplain Could also have health and safety benefits by reducing flooding redevelopment within floodplains and CMZs; local jurisdictions can channel migration zones (CMZs)through connectivity and hazards. adopt stricter standards. One challenge is areas which were platted in CAOs and flood regulations. complexity Need to coordinate with boater concerns about LWD. the past; property takings issues could arise. Should coordinate with flood hazard planning efforts underway by REGULATION jurisdictions. Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 Page 18 Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ' Proposed Action Desired Community Support (public, government, others) Implementability (and other considerations) Scientific Uncertainties Outcomes (none identified if left blank) ' In urban areas, many existing structures Restore riparian This is a significant challenge with both landowners and local A sliding scale could be applied (e.g., based on redevelopment along creeks, shorelines, etc. encroach forest cover politicians uncomfortable with reversing the direction of earlier thresholds), where the greater the degree of redevelopment, the into buffers and are nonconforming with development. Tradeoff is between encouraging economic greater the expectation that the development come into compliance. development and environmental development(which would allow more unconstrained ' regulations. Over the long term (e.g., 50 redevelopment of nonconforming uses) and environmental years),jurisdictions should encourage or protection which would limit continued development of a require that major redevelopment shoreline area. Some compromise is possible through projects come into conformity. restricted redevelopment incorporating LID and other ' environmentally sensitive features. REGULATION/REG. FLEXIBILITY Allow flexible approaches to meeting Protect forest Many landowners and governments prefer flexibility. Example: Flexibility can require more training and time by local staff and ' riparian and wetland buffers and 65-10 and riparian KC CAO includes rural stewardship plan because public asked applicant to do site specific analysis; process and materials provided forest protection rule, e.g., farm plans, cover; Protect for greater flexibility; can serve to educate property owners as for flexible approach must be kept relatively simple and inexpensive or stewardship plans, cluster development. wetlands; well. they become disincentive to applicant. ' Limit impervious Clustering is opposed by some rural property owners because Design guidelines or templates are needed to help jurisdiction staff area; they feel it opens the way for future urbanization of rural areas. and landowners when negotiating flexible development permits (note Manage work on BMPs that King County is doing for CAO implementation). stormwater Clustering has possible regulatory constraints and must be done very ' deliberately to balance environmental protection and lifestyle/aesthetic REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY considerations. If forest cover cannot be protected, Protect forest See actions in stormwater section below. ' maintain hydrologic functions through cover; stormwater regulations, programs, and Limit impervious BMPs. area; Manage ' REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY stormwater During redevelopment, allow flexibility in Protect/restore High local jurisdiction support—has been suggested by Jurisdictions that have offered a range of buffer sizes recommend W8TC cautions that the more flexibility meeting development standards and riparian forest numerous local staff. against this approach because smallest buffer will always be allowed in buffer widths (e.g., buffer CAO requirements, so that there is no cover; Flexibility can be offered, e.g., through: implemented. averaging)the more uncertainty that net loss to ecological function and to Limit impervious . Buffer averaging or decreasing buffer in one place in Dept. of Ecology recommends against buffer averaging. buffer functions will actually be encourage some improvement such as area; exchange for buffer enhancement in another portion of buffer; City of Issaquah cautions against flexibility in prescriptive buffer widths protected; need for monitoring and enhancement of riparian buffers, Manage . Increased density or clustering; in exchange for buffer enhancement, because for Issaquah Creek, enforcement is increased with ' minimizing floodplain development, and stormwater; 0 Flexibility in bulk standards, setbacks, siting and orientation encroachment into floodplain and channel confinement are significant increased administrative flexibility. removal of impervious surfaces. Restore that focuses active areas (e.g., driveways)away from critical issues, and revegetation does not improve this riparian function. Wild Salmonid Policy opposes flexible floodplain areas. Certain forms of flexibility, e.g. clustering, should only be considered buffers because they are too easily REG. FLEXIBILITY/INCENTIVE connectivity for certain sizes of projects. compromised. ' During new or redevelopment, allow Protect/restore Allows flexibility to jurisdiction and developer while restoring For large projects, EDT could be used to evaluate impact of restoring Where can/should the offsite mitigation mitigation through restoration and riparian forest and protecting critical habitat within the watershed. site(s) upstream and how much would need to be done to achieve be allowed —within the subarea, within protection of offsite habitat, e.g., wetland cover; King County CAO includes mitigation reserves, whereby King equivalent of restoring onsite. the Chinook population area, within the and habitat banking, as long as direct Protect/restore County would own or manage wetland or aquatic areas where Some jurisdictions think local ordinances will need to be modified to WRIA, to achieve functional impacts to Tier 1 salmon habitat are forest cover; restoration is a priority (would use WRIA plans to set these allow project mitigation to occur outside of the project's jurisdiction. equivalence of restoring onsite? mitigated onsite. Protect/restore priorities), and these areas could be used for mitigation. wetlands Habitat Bank and other private companies are working on REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY banking concept in WRIAs 7, 8, and 9. Offer incentives and regulatory flexibility Restore Considerable interest among shoreline jurisdictions in Developing similar specifications for bulkheads is more difficult and Need additional data on how effective to encourage shoreline restoration shoreline specifications for overwater piers that NOAA Fisheries and controversial. Building demonstration projects on public land where these types of restoration projects are in through salmon friendly bulkhead and connectivity and other federal/state agencies have developed, and proposed for shoreline landowners,jurisdictions, and contractors can see how they reducing predation on juvenile Chinook. dock design, and restoration of sloping riparian cover streamlined permitting. really work is next crucial step, prior to regulatory approaches. There beaches and shoreline vegetation. is a possible disincentive in the Shoreline Management Act to shoreline restoration projects as the OHWM can be moved landward REG. FLEXIBILITY/ INCENTIVE as a result of bulkhead removal; see Appendix D, Part 6. Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 Page 19 Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ' Proposed Action Desired Community Support (public, government, others) Implementability (and other considerations) Scientific Uncertainties Outcomes (none identified if left blank) ' Offer incentives for protecting existing Protect forest Incentives have public support because they reward property Lots of examples locally and nationally which could be examined for forest cover beyond required levels, e.g., cover; owners who are willing to be stewards; can be less costly to what works best, including: King County's Public Benefit Rating current use taxation, conservation Limit impervious local government than outright acquisition, although can be System (PBRS)and Timberland Program for current use taxation. easements, transferable development area; more costly than regulation. Issue of long-term maintenance of parcels protected through ' rights (see next action). Manage Some property owners oppose current use taxation because incentives or through acquisition must be addressed and recognized stormwater they believe it reduces the rural tax base, and other rural as a real cost. Maintenance, stewardship, monitoring, adaptive landowners must pick up the difference. monitoring of protected parcels can be through government, private ' associations, non-governmental organizations (see, e.g., Cascade INCENTIVE Land Conservancy stewardship of wetlands in Redmond Ridge UPD). Promote transferable development rights Protect forest A number of jurisdictions are trying this. King and Snohomish One of biggest challenges is in assuring there will be receiving sites (TDRs) programs to shift development cover; Cos. and Black Diamond have TDR ordinances; Seattle has for the density credits. This is affected by development market in ' away from critical habitat areas to areas Limit impervious designated Denny Triangle as receiving site. King County general, where strong development market will increase the demand where existing infrastructure can support area; program has lots of applicants; note recent Snoqualmie Tree for density credits. Unfortunately, most cities already have sufficient additional growth. Manage Farm action. density and buildings are not using available zoned density. One ' stormwater; Land in rural area is easier to acquire to protect once the option is for urban areas to downzone certain areas, so that there is a Protect riparian development rights are purchased, because it is cheaper. greater need for developers to buy the density credits to achieve the forest cover TDR programs should include provision to give the urban densities they would like. receiving site certain amenities (e.g., pocket park, additional What are tradeoffs and feasibility of rural to rural TDRs? ' green space) so that they have an incentive to take the INCENTIVE additional density; this will increase public support for such programs. Offer incentives to encourage Restore forest Incentives have public support because they reward property Incentives can be less costly to local governments than outright To what extent can environmental t revegetation of degraded riparian buffers and riparian owners who are willing to be stewards. acquisition, but can be more costly than regulations. function be improved over time through and deforested areas, and removal of forest cover; It's difficult to require property owners to restore environmental The effort by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies which offers these incremental improvements? impervious areas, e.g., reduced permit Limit impervious conditions without incentives. streamlined permitting to applicants which meet specifications for fees, streamlined permit process, area; Bellevue has Stream Team fee waiver where clearing and overwater structures provides example of mechanism that is in place technical assistance, etc. Manage grading fee is waived for stream revegetation projects. If fish to encourage voluntary retrofits of docks to include salmon-friendly stormwater habitat project is applied for through JARPA, fee is waived. features. NOAA Fisheries et al example on dock permit streamlining if Could use GIS maps to identify areas for reforestation which were ' INCENTIVE meet salmon friendly standards. former forested wetlands or uplands. Adopt salmon-friendly standards for Protect forest Shows that local jurisdictions can set good example as Would require development of guidelines/standards. maintenance of public lands (e.g., and riparian stewards, and that they put their money where their mouth is. Local parks departments would need to weigh salmon friendly ' irrigation, drought resistant plantings, cover; Limit Some jurisdictions are already doing integrated pest standards with other considerations such as liability, cost- pesticide use, road construction and impervious area; management, e.g., Seattle, Renton, King Co. effectiveness, public safety, recreational uses, etc. maintenance) Manage ' stormwater VOLUNTARY PROGRAM Develop and implement landscape Protect forest Rewards landscape firms that are good stewards. Would require development of guidelines/standards and training. certification programs for private and riparian Could start with education program, and find out what barriers t contractors. cover; exist to using environmentally sound landscape practices. Manage Note this action is also recommended by Public Outreach VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION stormwater Committee. Acquire critical habitat areas Protect forest Cost to buy land can be high, and long term maintenance costs Provides greatest certainty of protection, when regulations and EDT model provides some guidance on and riparian must be considered. Public ownership also takes the land out incentives may not provide enough protection. which stream reaches are highest cover; Limit of tax base, and some citizens oppose this. Depends on funding availability. priority to protect through acquisition; impervious area Can offer other public benefits, including open space, passive Requires long term maintenance (as discussed see above). however, there is less guidance on recreation, education opportunities. relative importance of protecting ACQUISITION headwater and upland parcels. 1 Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 ' Page 20 Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions 1 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT FOR WATER QUAIL TYAND QUANTIT Phase 2 jurisdictions should adopt Manage Some jurisdictions believe the political and economic impacts It is not yet known if the Phase 2 permit will include adoption of the W8TC or other local experts could comprehensive stormwater management stormwater to of applying Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management Manual state's 2001 manual or equivalent; however, it is likely that many revisit the adequacy of specific programs consistent with Ecology's reduce quantity/ for Puget Sound in areas that are highly urbanized would be Phase 2 jurisdictions will adopt all or part of the manual on their own— stormwater control standards (in terms ' NPDES Phase 2 permit. quality impacts difficult and result in high cost with relatively small benefit. it is too soon to say. of salmon habitat)once Phase 2 permit from past, is published. present, &future ' REGULATION development. Phase 2 jurisdictions could go beyond Manage These elements are part of Phase 1 and Tri-County stormwater Could provide opportunities for multi-jurisdiction planning to analyze Ecology's minimum standards, for stormwater to program, so expertise exists; some Phase 2 jurisdictions stormwater problems, and shared construction of capital projects on example, they could add stormwater reduce quantity already have capital improvement programs to address voluntary basis. ' planning and capital improvement and quality flooding, water quality, and habitat needs. Could provide opportunity for jurisdictions to prevent further projects to their stormwater programs impacts However, other jurisdictions may not be willing to exceed degradation in urban areas and restore in rural areas through Ecology minimum standard. stormwater planning on subbasin or broader level (see WRIA-wide REG, OR VOLUNTARY PROGRAM approach below ' Phase 1 jurisdictions should update their Manage Phase 1 permit will likely not increase requirements until Phase King Co. manual will have more flow control BMPs (also referred to as comprehensive stormwater management stormwater to 2 programs are increased after first permit term. LID BMPs)—See Appendix D, Part 6. Seattle has initiated an effort to programs consistent with Ecology's next reduce quantity coordinate with other jurisdictions on revisions to their stormwater, Phase 1 permit, including 2001 manual and quality grading, and drainage codes. They have also completed an initial or equivalent impacts "Restore Our Waters" strategy, which coordinates across city departments to establish priorities for restoration of water quality, REGULATION flows, and critical habitat. Implement Total Maximum Daily Loads Manage Ecology is required under the Clean Water Act and a lawsuit Affected jurisdictions should participate with Ecology in developing (TMDLs). stormwater to settlement to complete all TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters within TMDLs to increase the likelihood that the implementation plan is reduce quantity approximately 10 years. Implementation of TMDLs will be effective and practicable. Ecology is working closely with local and quality incorporated into NPDES permit conditions. Centennial Clean jurisdictions and other stakeholders on TMDL development and impacts Water Fund should help fund TMDL implementation. implementation in Issaquah Creek, North Creek, and Little Bear Creek REGULATION all for bacteria . Address agricultural impacts on water Manage Education is an important element of making these combined Highest priority are those farm areas which are most susceptible due ' quality, flows, as well as on riparian stormwater; approaches effective. There are many stewardship programs to fine soils. buffers, through adoption and Protect and to coordinate with, e.g., Horses for Clean Water. implementation of livestock ordinances, restore forest WRIA planners need to be sensitive to economic demands of ' adoption and implementation of farm and riparian agriculture when developing and implementing actions, and to plans, and other mechanisms. cover; protect involve farmers in development of appropriate actions. and restore ' REGULATION/REGULATORY flows FLEXIBILITY/INCENTIVE Require or encourage low impact Manage There is growing interest in LID among local jurisdictions, There are many tools to encourage or require LID, including development(LID)through education, stormwater; developers, and landowners as it offers a potential approach to stormwater regulations and manuals, revising ordinances to better ' training, regulation, and demonstration Protect forest accommodate growth while providing long term, sustainable allow and promote LID BMPs, offering training, offering regulatory projects (see demonstration actions cover; protect approach to managing stormwater through improved retention flexibility. See Appendix D, Part 6 for numerous resources and below). and restore and infiltration. examples. flows A few examples include: City of Sammamish is working on an ' REGULATION/REGULATORY LID ordinance; Snohomish Co. has adopted a voluntary FLEXIBILITY/INCENTIVE Reduced Drainage Discharge Demonstration Program. Retrofit existing neighborhoods with Manage Hands-on examples can develop knowledge and support Seattle's Natural Drainage System Program includes numerous ' natural drainage systems. Plan and stormwater among local staff, elected officials, homeowners, and examples of retrofit and new construction at different scales including: build new developments to include LID developers. SEA Streets, Broadview Neighborhood and High Point features. Projects develop important data on costs and marketing as well Redevelopment. Additional examples exist in King County, Issaquah, as technical effectiveness and challenges. Snohomish Co., and others (see Appendix D, Part 6). ' DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Feasibility will vary by density, underlying geology/soils, etc. Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 ' Page 21 ' Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ' Phase 1 and 2 jurisdictions could Manage By working together, smaller jurisdictions could benefit from WRIA-wide planning structure already exists through ILA for salmon develop and adopt a WRIA-wide stormwater to expertise and resources of larger jurisdictions; regional conservation planning. stormwater management program and reduce quantity stormwater facilities could be planned, cost shared, and built More aggressive stormwater checklist was developed for Tri-Co. —this ' work with Ecology to use it as the basis and quality where local facilities would not have been cost-effective. could be used as starting point for WRIA wide stormwater program; of a WRIA-wide municipal permit impacts Would be more efficient and effective use of public funds. Would require support and cooperation from Dept. of Ecology. ISP Some jurisdictions oppose this concept, as they believe there review of state manual encouraged this kind of watershed-level ' VOLUNTARY COLLABORATION may not be benefits to them and it could raise legal issues. planning. Plan and build regional stormwater Manage Des Moines Creek regional stormwater detention pond Lots of existing development doesn't meet stormwater regulations; facilities to address stormwater problems stormwater to example shows how fees from new development can help regulations would only apply if redevelopment occurs, so this is in developed areas which predate reduce quantity support facilities like this, and help pay for habitat restoration, voluntary approach (note it requires stormwater planning to find these t stormwater regulations. and quality opportunities); implementation could be expensive and physically impacts challenging in urbanized areas, so must weigh costs and benefits. VOLUNTARY COLLABORATION PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS Improve data about and enforcement of Protect/restore Water rights and their enforcement are controversial, and some Includes illegal withdrawals, allowed withdrawals that exceed limits, Considerable uncertainties exist about water rights for surface and groundwater adequate flows local jurisdictions believe that they have no influence over what and municipal withdrawals. what exactly is causing low flow withdrawals. Ecology (and the State Legislature) decides to do about water Need to coordinate with Ecology, local health departments, water conditions in particular basins and how withdrawals. Other jurisdictions and environmentalists believe suppliers, local permitting agencies. See, e.g., RCW 90.54.060, to correct it. REGULATION/REGULATORY that this issue must be pursued because it has such important RCW 90.54.090, RCW 90.54.130. ' COORDINATION impacts on salmon habitat. Restrict or eliminate use of exempt wells Protect/restore Local jurisdictions have greater authority over exempt wells Local jurisdictions should work with Dept. of Ecology to more where those wells directly affect stream- adequate flows through local health department and construction department effectively monitor and enforce the limit to '/z acre of irrigated land per ' flows or groundwater recharge. policies, regulations, and site reviews. These exempt wells exempt well. Jurisdictions could place more restrictions on use of include wells serving multiple residences but not exceeding exempt wells; e.g., proposed revisions to KC Comprehensive Plan 5000 gallons a day (also referred to as 6-packs, or not more include policies that would limit 6 packs (e.g., no more than one than 6 homes on one well), watering of a lawn or garden not exempt well per development), and encourage users to hookup to ' REGULATION/COORDINATION exceeding '/2 acre. existing water systems. Protect critical aquifer recharge areas Protect/restore Examples include King Co.'s and Issaquah's proposed CAOs. While this addresses aquifers which are used for domestic water use, through CAOs and zoning designations adequate flows it does not protect groundwater recharge areas which benefit salmon, ' e.g., Cold Creek headwaters. Jurisdictions should consider this REGULATION additional application. Adopt/enforce stormwater regulations Protect/restore See discussion above under COMPREHENSIVE and BMPs to address high and low adequate flows STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ' flows, including forest retention, low impact development, infiltration standards, and redevelopment opportunities to redesign and retrofit stormwater facilities. REGULATION/INCENTIVE ' Regulate lawn size or frequency and Protect/restore Likely very low support from public; most jurisdictions are May be more effective if utilities promote on voluntary basis first amount of watering during summer adequate flows uncomfortable with this regulatory approach. through education (e.g., expand natural yard care programs)or water rate structures. ' REGULATION Promote water conservation programs Protect/restore Numerous education and incentive programs exist; can they be While conservation is important year-round, summer low flows are for residential and commercial customers adequate flows more effectively promoted? especially critical to salmon, so actions to address summer uses such through land development and water A number of jurisdictions have or are planning water as residential and commercial landscaping are particularly important. hook-up permit processes, e.g. by conservation demonstration gardens, to relate the message of Water conservation efforts will become even more critical as human providing education materials to permit water conservation to salmon recovery. Examples include populations continue to growth in the WRIA. applicant. Woodinville Water, Issaquah, and Redmond. ' INCENTIVE/EDUCATION Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 ' i Page 22 ' Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ' Water suppliers should look into working Protect/restore Examples of where this could be useful include Sammamish Part of the argument for putting new rural development on public water Any proposal for interbasin transfer together to shift supply from one source adequate flows River and Rock Creek. systems is that the water is brought into a basin and then that water must consider instream flow impacts to to another to protect instream flows Central Puget Sound Water Supplier's Forum looked into this recharges local groundwater through onsite septic systems. Septic Chinook and other salmonids in all crucial to salmon in a particular area. concept with Regional Integrated Management Area. systems must be operating correctly, so this involves local and state systems. Could promote new development to go Any approach like this will require Dept. of Ecology health departments. on existing public water systems. cooperation/support. VOLUNTARY PROGRAM Establish standards for onsite irrigation Protect/restore Depends on whether standards are mandatory or voluntary; Should incorporate in landscape certification program. Issues of where irrigation water is (could apply to public and private adequate flows generally educational and incentive approaches have higher Could use standards in development review process to give option fcr drawn from (e.g., local well, Seattle's ' properties); could apply these as public support. use of drought tolerant native vegetation that does not require water supply, etc.), where it is incentive (e.g., reduction of fees), Some jurisdictions will want to develop their own standards, installation of irrigation systems for development. recharging, and impact on base flows education, or mandatory. while others will prefer to collaborate. need to explored. ' VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION Promote use of reclaimed water for Protect/restore Example: King Co. is working towards reclaimed water Need to involve Dept. of Health. certain projects (e.g., parks, golf adequate flows projects. Education is needed; KC Water Reclamation Project Opportunities may be expensive. ' courses, recreation areas, industrial along the Sammamish Valley has met with some resistance. Are LEED standards (from Green Building Council)for gray water use areas). Some jurisdictions have concerns abut using reclaimed water applicable here? for parks/golf courses due to potential for heavy metals, ' VOLUNTARY PROGRAM increase in algae and nitrogen, and human health risk. Work with local groundwater protection Protect/restore Most of the local groundwater committees have diverse local KC Groundwater Protection Program offers opportunity to coordinate committees, and King County's adequate flows jurisdiction and stakeholder support. Where this support does with another cross-jurisdictional program and work toward common Groundwater Protection Program not exist, it can cause problems for the substance and process goals. ' of the planning and implementation effort. A few jurisdictions VOLUNTARY COLLABORATION question the value of this approach. ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Encourage most growth inside UGA Addresses most While this is a very broad action, it is important to recognize it This is consistent with the Growth Management Act. (with no net loss to critical area function), outcomes as a significant contribution by urban areas to protecting high Note that some cities have regionally designated Urban Centers where ' and protect rural resources outside of quality habitat in rural areas. Public support may vary by how residences and jobs are targeted at higher concentrations than in UGA. Emphasize low impact strictly growth management is imposed, and whether or not other areas, which can create additional challenges for protecting and development wherever feasible. costs and benefits to rural and urban areas are perceived as restoring salmon habitat. equitable. LID features can help accommodate growth while ' REGULATION better protecting natural resources. Limit new roads and road crossings in Limit impervious Numerous road projects underway in WRIA 8, e.g. 1-405, SR Could encourage standards for new roads, e.g., to minimize runoff, proximity to aquatic areas in Tier 1 and surfaces; 520, etc. use native vegetation, require bridges to span floodplain rather than Tier 2 subareas. Minimize road encroach, prohibit floodplain fill, etc. crossings REGULATION Retrofit roads to address water quality Limit impervious Many jurisdictions have already adopted the maintenance Retrofit of roads can be very expensive, and technically difficult given and flow issues as part of major surfaces; standards formally or informally; the standards have been space requirements. Regional funding could help cover costs. maintenance, expansion, or upgrade Minimize road approved by NOAA Fisheries. projects. Adopt and implement Regional crossings; ' Road Maintenance Endangered Species Manage Act Program Guidelines (i.e., Tri-County stormwater standards)for road maintenance. ' VOLUNTARY PROGRAM Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 ' Page 23 ' Part 5: Menu of Land Use Actions ENFORCEMENT, VARIANCES, REASONABLE USE EXCEPTIONS ' Strengthen enforcement of existing Addresses most It is difficult to garner support from environmentalist and Enforcement is complaint driven. Buffers are often in backyards or regulations, and in the future if revised outcomes landowners for stricter environmental regulations, when current behind fences and are difficult to see. Many jurisdictions lack adequate regulations are adopted levels of regulation are poorly enforced. Many local planners enforcement staff, and sometimes fines are not a sufficient and environmentalists point out need for increased disincentive to stop a landowner from taking an illegal action. Citizen enforcement of existing laws and policies. watchdog groups, e.g., Water Tenders, can play an important role in Education about why regulations exist, and incentives to go alerting local governments to buffer encroachment. Contacting beyond regulations increases public acceptability of multiple agencies about an infringement can increase likelihood ' regulations. something will be done to stop it. Focus on site design issues that can be addressed during permit stage REGULATION rather than become enforcement issues? ' Adopt policies and procedures which Protect forest Tri-County has a useful reasonable use provision. Note that Snohomish Co. designed study of buffer encroachment and limit cumulative impacts on critical areas and riparian See KC policy in CAO; it more clearly defines reasonable use how it varies by land cover, etc. from variances and reasonable use cover; protect when evaluating a variance proposal. exceptions (e.g., see next actions) wetlands It may be necessary to create of fund to buy out property ' owners who are denied "reasonable use" of their properties as REGULATION/POLICY a result of prohibiting an exemption or a variance. Prohibit or minimize any variances into a Protect forest Wash. Dept. of Ecology is recommending no variances from The more flexible approach allows developer to have flexibility to build ' sensitive area, or require that permit staff and riparian buffers. larger home, yet reduces impacts to natural resource. Redmond uses consult with scientific staff and salmon cover; protect this flexible concept to promote greater tree protection and higher plan before granting a variance into a wetlands quality designs. Des Moines has used this approach in their CAO for ' sensitive area. A more flexible approach years. would be to require that variances be granted from front and side yard setbacks before allowing a variance to encroach into an aquatic buffer. REGULATION/REG. FLEXIBILITY Continue to enforce Native Growth Protect forest Challenge is to protect NGPEs from encroachment, even Possible solutions include: signage, platting the NGPE as a separate ' Protection Easements (NGPE) and riparian though many were negotiated some time ago as part of plat, fencing. Redmond uses signage, fencing, and requires the cover; protect subdivision approvals; enforcement is relatively low priority for NGPE to be recorded with the plat development, and the city then wetlands jurisdictions, yet encroachments are common. tracks the recorded NGPE in a GIS database. However, this does not REGULATION/VOLUNTARY assure enforcement. As noted earlier, maintenance of these lands is PROGRAM another issue. Re-organize enforcement staff to Addresses most A number of jurisdictions expressed interest in some way to Options include: Increase connection between scientific staff who improve the effectiveness of outcomes consolidate and better train staff who are in charge of develop codes and code-implementing staff(whoever is implementing environmental regulations. environmental regulations. Another concern frequently salmon-related regulations). Could train "green" permit staff and expressed, especially among medium and smaller jurisdictions, separate them from regular building and other code staff. Could is the lack of scientific staff to support planners who process provide a circuit rider scientist to serve multiple smaller jurisdictions on VOLUNTARY PROGRAM/TRAINING development proposals. a consultinq basis. ' NOTES: Actions in the menu apply to rural and urban areas unless specified. See also references in Appendix D, Part 6 re: critical areas, stormwater, low impact development, shoreline management. ' Note that all actions require education and enforcement to be effective. Timing for current land use revisions includes: ✓ Critical areas ordinances are being revised by most jurisdictions by Dec. 04, based on review of best available science. ✓ Shoreline Master Programs are being updated by many jurisdictions between 2004 and 2009. ' ✓ NPDES Phase 1 and Phase 2 municipal stormwater permits are being updated during 2004 and 2005. Appendix D, Part 5: Menu of land use actions February 25, 2005 ' Page 24 Part 6: References for WRIA 8 Land Use Actions Note: This list of references was requested by WRIA 8 stakeholders. The references are for informational purposes only; they do not provide mandatory standards for WRIA 8 jurisdictions. The list is not inclusive of all information resources; those items which were readily available at the time the report went to the printer were included. Outline 1. Critical Areas Streams Puget Sound Action Team WA Department of Fish and Wildlife WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition ' Local Jurisdiction Resources Non-governmental Organization Resources Wetlands Puget Sound Action Team WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ' 2. Stormwater Standards and General Programmatic Elements ' WA Department of Ecology Puget Sound Action Team Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition ' 3. Low Impact Development General LID Concepts LID Online Information Resources LID Publications and Fact Sheets LID Sample Projects Around Puget Sound LID Sample Ordinances and Regulations 4. Shoreline Management ' WA Department of Ecology WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Handbook Puget Sound Action Team ' Other References ' 5. References ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 25 1. CRITICAL AREAS ' Streams , Note: The following resources are just a few of those available on critical areas "best available ' science" and the regulations based on this BAS. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has not systematically reviewed these references or links. The Committee did, however, recommend that buffer sizes should reflect the desired function, such as LWD recruitment, shade, bank ' stabilization, nutrient sources, etc. (WRIA 8 TC meeting minutes, 5/12/04). Puget Sound Action Team. PSAT published guidance for critical areas regulations in Growth ' Management Updates (March 2004)—available at www.psat.wa.gov. The following guidance is included for fish and wildlife habitat areas. • Designate marine riparian areas and nearshore habitats (surf smelt and sand lance spawning ' areas, eelgrass and kelp beds)as critical fish and wildlife habitat areas. • Designate feeder bluffs not only as geologically hazardous (eroding, slide-prone)bluffs,but also as areas critical for maintaining forage fish spawning habitat where sediment from the ' feeder bluffs nourishes such habitat. • Designate shell fish beds as critical fish and wildlife habitat areas. • Require consistence of habitat protection plans with recommendations in WDFW Aquatic ' Habitat guidelines for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (www.wa..gov/NN,dfw/hab/ahg). WA Department of Fish and Wildlife. See WDFW-Tribal Wild Salmonid Policy (WDFW, 1997). WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. See critical ' areas handbook at: http•//www cted wa gov/Desktopmodules/Docuinents/ViewDocument.aspx?Documeil tID=1034 Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. The Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal (May 2001)proposed management zones to protect fish habitat. ' Aquatic Area Definition Rural Buffer Urban Buffer ' Type Requirement Requirement (inner mgt. (inner mgt. zone/outer mgt.zone) zone/outer mgt.zone Type S Shorelines of the state (rivers 150 feet/50 feet 115 feet/85 feet , over 20 cfs,marine shorelines and lakes over. 20 acres) ' Type F All non-shorelines of the state, 150 feet/50 feet 115 feet/85 feet streams, lakes and ponds that have fish or fish habitat ' Type F All non-shorelines of the state, Greater of 100 feet Greater of 100 feet (steep ravine) streams, lakes and ponds that or 25 feet from top or 25 feet from top have fish or fish habitat of bank of bank ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 26 Aquatic Area Definition,cont. Rural Buffer Urban Buffer Type,Cont. Requirement Requirement (inner mgt. (inner mgt. zone/outer mgt.zone) zone/outer mgt.zone) Type N Other natural waters connected to 115 feet/0 feet 115 feet/0 feet ' (within %4 mi. Type S or F waters upstream of Type S or F Type N Other natural waters connected to 65 feet/0 feet 65 feet/0 feet ' (more than '/4 mi. Type S or F waters upstream of Type S or F ' Additional Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal program elements include: • Buffer averaging ' • Land use restrictions and allowed uses in each management zone • Seasonal clearing restrictions • Flexibility in buffer widths if Habitat Evaluation completed Local Jurisdictions in WRIA 8: Due to time limitations, it was not possible to obtain best available science documents or buffer examples from many WRIA 8 jurisdictions. Therefore, examples are presented from the largest jurisdictions and those which requested that their information be included. Other jurisdictions' tbest available science documents and buffer standards can be found at their websites. City of Seattle. The City of Seattle's proposed critical areas update is described at ' http:/hvww.ci.seattle.wa.us/dnd/news/20031216a.asp City of Renton. The City of Renton's proposed critical areas update is described at thttp://www.cl.renton.wa.us/ednsp/cao.htm City of Bellevue. The City of Bellevue's proposed critical areas update is described at ' http://www.cl.bellevue.wa.us/pai,,e.asp?view=-'13557 and http:/i www.cityofbellevue.org/page.asp?vi.ew-7615 ' Snohomish County. Snohomish County is currently developing their best available science and proposed critical areas regulations. Contact Larry Adamson, Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services, (425) 388-3311. King County. King County's recently adopted critical areas regulations include new protection regulations for aquatic areas (streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and marine shorelines). ' Details are available at http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/`cao. King County's Best Available Science Analysis includes buffer information completed through the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition biological review process. The following is excerpted from King Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 27 County's best available science document (Best Available Science, Volume I: A Review of Science Literature [February 2004]). This document and full references cited are available at liqp://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/cao. ' The dynamic nature of aquatic habitats notwithstanding, the most common method for aquatic habitat protection has been the use of fixed riparian buffers (Haberstock et al. 2000). These are ' intended to protect a footprint of sufficient size to provide shade and temperature regulation, flood conveyance, water quality protection and pollutant removal, nutrient cycling, sediment transport and woody debris recruitment. In addition, buffers are thought to be essential in ' protecting aquatic habitat from excessive or unnatural development-related disturbance and other detrimental impacts (Spence et al. 1996; IMST 2001). A variety of technical reports summarize and synthesize the scientific literature on buffer ' functions and make recommendations for buffer widths. Tables X, Y and Z, summarizing three such reports, are excerpted from the Biological Review of the Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule , Response Program(Parametrix 2002). Others include Castelle et al. (1992), Castelle and Johnson (2000), Desbonnet et al. (1994), Johnson and Ryba (1992) and Portland Metro (1999). These reports summarize the findings of multiple studies on buffer width effectiveness and synthesize those findings into recommendations for various buffer functions. , Table X. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified b May (2000) pY 3 Range of Effective Minimum ' Function Buffer Widths Recommended Notes On Function Sediment 26- 600 ft(8— 183 m) 98 ft(30 m) For 80% sediment removal Removal/Erosion , Control Pollutant 13 - 860 ft(4- 262 m) 98 ft(30 m) For 80%nutrient removal Removal ' Large Woody 33-328 ft(10—100 m) 262 ft(80 m) 1 SPTH based on long-term Debris natural levels Recruitment ' Water 36 - 141 ft(I I —43 m) 98 ft(30 m) Based on adequate shade Temperature Protection , Wildlife Habitat 33 - 656 ft(10—200 m) 328 ft(100 m) Coverage not inclusive Microclimate' 148 -656 ft(45—200 m) 328 ft(100 m) Optimum long-term support Protection ' Microclimate is the local climate(humidity,wind,and air temperature)within the stream-riparian ecosystem that is primarily affected by the quality and extent of riparian vegetation in a buffer. ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 28 ' Table Y. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef (1997) ' Range Of Effective Buffer Function Widths (Ft) Water Temperature Protection 35 - 151 Pollutant Removal 13 - 600 Large Woody Debris Recruitment 100 -200 Erosion Control too- 125 ' Wildlife Habitat 25 - 984 Sediment filtration 26 - 300 ' Microclimate 200 - 525 Table Z. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT (1993) Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft)Based on SPTH of ' 200 Ft. Shade 0.75 150 ' Microclimate up to 3 up to 600 Large Woody 1.0 200 Debris ' Organic Litter 0.5 100 Sediment Control 1.0 200 Bank Stabilization 0.5 100 Wildlife Habitat - 98—600 ' In addition to the fixed buffer width approach, some variable width buffer approaches have been proposed (e.g. see Forman 1995). Haberstock et al. (2000) provides recommendations for a variable width two-zone approach for the protection of endangered Atlantic salmon habitat. In their approach, Zone 1 is a fixed 35-ft width closest to the water in which no disturbance should occur. Zone 2 is a variable-width area wherein limited low-impact uses (recreation, low-impact forestry) that do not compromise the desired functions of the buffer could be allowed. Total buffer widths (Zone 1 plus Zone 2) range from a minimum of 70 ft to 400 ft, with a maximum of 1,000-ft in rare cases, such along streams that are flanked by extensive steep (> 25%) slopes. Adjustments in Zone 2 width can be made for the presence of surface and groundwater seepage features, forest floor roughness, sand and gravel aquifers, wetlands, floodplains, very steep ' slopes, and stream order. All but one of the adjustment factors (the degree of forest floor surface roughness) causes Zone 2 to increase. These authors note that buffer widths are expected to vary regionally as a function of buffer conditions, management objectives and instream habitat ' characteristics. They also note that theirs is a conceptual model and potentially subject to change as studies and scientific literature provide new data that better indicate the relationships between buffer characteristics and buffer effectiveness. Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 29 There is no consensus in the scientific literature regarding single buffer widths for particular functions, or to accommodate all functions. However, neither does the literature indicate that buffers are not needed, nor do they recommend buffers beyond the equivalent of several site ' potential tree heights (SPTHs). One SPTH, the maximum height a tree will attain given the existing geology, soils, and other site conditions, ranges from 50 to 250 feet, depending on species, for a tree at least 300 years old in western Washington forests. A buffer width equal to , one SPTH would provide for a broad range of riparian functions important for sustaining salmonids. The effects of human activities in and near buffers are a factor not often assessed in reviews of ' buffer widths, but such activity can definitely impact buffers. As the number of people and development intensity near a waterbody increases, it is reasonable to assume that wider buffers and restrictions such as building setbacks are needed to prevent damage to the buffer. ' Conversely, narrower buffers may suffice in areas of low-intensity land-use and where the surrounding landscape is native forest. A wider buffer may be needed to protect streams from impacts resulting from the day-to-day impacts of people, such as trail construction, recreation, ' pets,garbage, and tree removal. There is also no clear consensus in the scientific literature on whether fixed or variable width ' buffers are most effective. Fixed-width buffers are more widely applied and easier to implement (Chase et al. 1997 as cited in Haberstock 2000). Variable width buffers have been described as being more ecologically sound, however, because they have the potential to reflect the true ' complexity of the environment and management goals (Haberstock et al. 2000; IMST 2001). Todd(2000 as cited in May 2000) suggests that variable width buffers provide the best protection while respecting property rights. While variable-width buffers may be more ecologically sound ' and theoretically allow landowners more flexibility, there are no generally accepted criteria for the establishment of variable-width buffers. To ensure success in the face of uncertainty about specific site conditions, and to be effective under a worst-case scenario, May (2000) and Haberstock (2000) suggest that fixed-width buffers should be designed conservatively, i.e., larger ' than the bare minimum needed for protection. Non governmental Organizations: , Several other resources are available from non-governmental organizations; two examples follow. Again, these have not been reviewed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee, but are presented for informational purposes ' Washington Environmental Council. "Habitat Protection Took Kit, A Guide to Habitat Conservation Planning Under Washington's Growth Management and Shoreline Management Acts,"WEC, June 2004. Copies are at littp://www.wecL)i-otects.org/habitat.-"dOCLIMe.ntSi2004TKfpdf Sustainable Fisheries Foundation. "The Role of Critical Area Regulations in ' Recovering Puget Sound Salmon: A Checklist for Advocates," SFF, Jan. 2005. Available online: ht:tp://www.sff.bc.ca/ ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 30 t Wetlands Puget Sound Action Team. PSAT published guidance for critical areas regulations in Growth Management Updates (March 2004)—available at www.psat.wa.gov. The following guidance (not developed directly for purposes of fish habitat protection) is included for wetlands: ' • Recommend WA Department of Ecology's draft Best Available Science for Freshwater Wetlands (available at www.ecy.wa.izov/programs/sea/bas) • Revise wetland buffers to be consistent with the Department of Ecology publication Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness (Publication#92-10) • Adopt mitigation policies for wetlands consistent with the state Alternative Mitigation Policy Guidance for Aquatic Permitting (available at NvtvNv.wa.,(),ov/wdfw/hab/ah ) • Recommend WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's Aquatic Habitat Guidelines at wdfvN,,.wa.gov/hab/ahiz/mamrsrc WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. See handbook at: critical areas handbook: t http•//www cted wa gov/DesktopModules,'Documents;ViewDocument.aspx?Documen tlD=1034 ' 2. STORMWATER ' Standards and General Programmatic Elements WA Dept of Ecology. The Phase II NPDES municipal permit program to be administered by ' DOE includes multiple program elements for local stormwater management. The minimum required program elements will likely include: ' • Public education • Public involvement/outreach • Illicit discharge detection and elimination ' • Construction site stormwater runoff control (erosion and sedimentation control) • Post-construction stormwater management (flow control and WQ treatment requirements) • Stormwater pollution prevention (municipal operations and maintenance) These required elements, plus monitoring and capital improvement requirements, currently apply to Phase I jurisdictions including King County and Seattle. Ecology's 2001 Stormwater ' Management Manual for Western Washington provides standards to address construction and post-construction stormwater management. A brief summary of some of these requirements follows: ' • Drainage review required for any development proposal greater than 2,000 square feet of impervious surface or 7,000 square feet of land disturbing activity • Drainage requirements: flow control facility or BMPs for projects with greater than 2,000 ' square feet of impervious surface; flow control facility or BMPs for projects with greater than 35,000 square feet of land clearing or alteration Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 31 • Water quality control requirements for projects with greater than 5,000 square feet of ' q tY q p J g q pollution-generating impervious surface or 35,000 square feet of land clearing or alteration • Flow control facilities designed to match flow durations from 50% of 2-year through 50-year , event assuming forested condition • Construction erosion and sediment control • Pollution source control required ' For additional information: http:/,/www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wd/stonnwater/index.html. Puget Sound Action Team. ' The comprehensive stormwater program of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (PSMP SW-1.1) is adopted by the state as the goal for all Puget Sound jurisdictions (see www.psat.wa. ov). The comprehensive program provides guidance for protection of public and ' private property and sensitive natural areas from the adverse effects of stormwater runoff from development. PSAT recommends that Comprehensive Plans include a policy to adopt the comprehensive stormwater program elements not yet incorporated into the jurisdiction's program, including adoption of the 2001 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound or an equivalent manual. Program elements include: • Stormwater controls for new development and redevelopment ' • Site plan review • Inspection of construction sites • Maintenance of permanent facilities , • Source control • Illicit discharges and water quality response • Identification and ranking of problems ' • Public education and involvement • Low Impact development practices • Watershed or basin planning , • Local funding capacity • Monitoring program • Schedule for implementation , Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. The Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal (May 2001)proposed a stormwater program to protect fish habitat. The full proposal is ' available at http://vA,,v,,,w.salmoninfo.or€,/tricounty/tcdocunients. Program elements (and standards if relevant) include: • Land use regulations, including: ' ✓ Protection of 65 percent of a development site for the purpose of retaining forest cover and protecting wetlands and stream corridors ✓ Minimization of total effective impervious surface to less than 10 percent of the ' development site and fully disperse runoff to the maximum extent practicable ✓ Low impact development pilot projects • Technical standards, including: ' ✓ Meet the 1992 Ecology Manual design, performance, source control and implementation standards ✓ Duration control standard to match the discharge durations for peak discharge rates ' ranging from 50 percent of the 2-year rate to 100 percent of the 50-year rate for the site condition that existing prior to any development in the Puget Sound region Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 ' Page 52 • Inspection and enforcement programs • Maintenance standards and programs ' • Illicit discharge reduction programs • Public education • Public involvement/outreach ' • Intergovernment/intragovernment coordination • Monitoring • Stormwater planning • Capital improvement program • Habitat enhancement/rehabilitation • Habitat acquisition ' 3. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) OVERVIEW This section provides a brief overview of Low Impact Development(LID)approaches to stormwater management,and their use throughout the Puget Sound Region. Much of the following information was drawn from the Puget Sound Action Team website at: http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/LID.htm This section is organized into five sub-sections: A. General LID Concepts B. LID Online Information Resources C. LID Publications and Fact Sheets ' D. LID Sample Projects Around Puget Sound E. LID Sample Ordinances and Regulations ' General Low Impact Development Concepts The main objective of low impact development is to help protect aquatic resources, water quality, and the natural hydrology of a watershed as development takes place. Rather than collecting and conveying stormwater runoff through storm drains,pipes, or other conveyances to a centralized stormwater facility, LID-designed sites use natural vegetation and small-scale treatment systems to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff close to where it originates. Reducing the amount of impervious surfaces reduces the ' amount of stormwater runoff generated in the first place. The following are low impact development (LID) strategies from the National Association of Home Builders Research Center at http://www.nahbrc.org/tertiaryR.asp?TracklD—&Doc LtinentID=2007&Cate2oulD=107l: ' Low Impact Design Strategies: The strategies fall under the two broad categories of practices and site design. The most common concepts are summarized below by the National Association of Home Builders Research Center at http://www.nalibre.orc/tertiaryR.asp'?I'racklD—&DocLi inentfD-2007&CategoilID=1071: Practices: ' Basic LID strategy for handling runoff is to: 1)reduce the volume of runoff and 2)decentralize flows. This is usually best accomplished by creating a series of smaller retention/detention areas that allow localized filtration rather than carrying runoff to a remote collection area. Common methods include: ' • Bio-retention cells typically consist of grass buffers, sand beds,a ponding area for excess runoff storage, organic layers,planting soil and vegetation. Their purpose is to provide a storage area, away from buildings and roadways, where stormwater collects and filters into the soil. Permanent ponds can be incorporated into the cell design as landscaping features. Temporary storage areas ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 33 without-ponds may be called detention cells. Bioretention areas have also been called rain gardens since they are typically landscaped with native plants and grasses, selected according to their moisture requirements and ability to tolerate pollutants. Annual maintenance of bioretention , cells must be planned in order to replace mulching materials, remove accumulated silt,or revitalize soils as required. • Grass Swales function as alternatives to curb and gutter systems,usually along residential streets ' or highways. They use grasses or other vegetation to reduce runoff velocity and allow filtration, while high volume flows are channeled away safely. Features like plantings and checkdams may be incorporated to further reduce water velocity and encourage filtration. Walkways are either ' separated from roadways by swales, or relocated to other areas. In areas where salts are commonly used for winter de-icing, careful attention must be paid to selecting plant species which are salt tolerant. • Filter strips can be designed as landscape features within parking lots or other areas,to collect flow from large impervious surfaces. They may direct water into vegetated detention areas or special sand filters that capture pollutants and gradually discharge water over a period of time. • Disconnected Impervious Areas direct water flows collected from structures,driveways, or , street sections, into separate localized detention cells instead of combining it in drainpipes with other runoff. Disconnecting the flow limits the velocity and overall amount of conveyed water that must be handled by end-of-pipe facilities. ' • Cistern Collection Systems can be designed to store rainwater for dry-period irrigation,rather than channeling it to streams. Smaller tanks that collect residential roof drainage are often called "rain barrels" and may be installed by individual homeowners. Some collection systems are ' designed to be installed directly under permeable pavement areas, allowing maximum water storage capacity while eliminating the need for gravel beds. Other innovative systems incorporate graywater collection for additional water conservation(see separate PATH Technology ' Inventory article on Graywater Reuse). Site Design: Decreasing Impervious Surfaces can be a simple strategy to avoid problems from stormwater runoff and , water table depletion,by reducing surfaces that prevent natural filtration. Methods may include: • Reducing Roadway Surfaces can retain more permeable land area. In some cases,planners have reduced pavement needs by up to 40%by using longer,undulating roads that create more available lot frontage, instead of wide shorter streets with more intersections. Other options may include shared driveways, "flag" lots with reduced street frontage, landscaped detention islands within cul-de-sacs, or alternate designs for turn-around areas. • Permeable Pavement Surfaces can be constructed from a variety of materials, including ' traditional asphalt and concrete, gravel or pavers. Permeable roadway or parking areas allow water to flow through, replenishing soil areas directly beneath. However,the subbase underneath permeable pavements must be engineered to accommodate temporary water storage and filtration. In many cases,permeable surfaces can reduce or eliminate the need for traditional stormwater structures. Further information is available in a separate PATH Technology Inventory article titled"Permeable Pavement." ' • Vegetative Roof Systems create a lightweight,permeable vegetative surface on an impervious roof area. Moss, grass,herbs,wildflowers, and native plants can be used, creating an aesthetically pleasing roof landscape. The systems start with a high strength rubber membrane placed over the ' base roof structure. Various layers above the rubber may contain insulation, filter and drainage media, separation fabrics, lightweight growth media,vegetation, and wind erosion fabric. Some systems even incorporate rainbarrel runoff collection,pumping, and irrigation equipment. These ' systems are more costly than standard roofs,and have not been used on a large scale for residential development in the U.S. Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 34 ' • Planning site layout and grading to natural land contours can minimize grading costs and retain a greater percentage of the land's natural hydrology. Contours which function as filtration basins can be retained or enhanced, and incorporated into the landscaping design. • Natural Resource Preservation and Xeriscaping can be used to minimize the need for irrigation systems and enhance property values. Riparian,or stream bank,areas are particularly ' crucial to water quality, and in most areas,subject to Federal or State regulations. Preserving existing wooded areas,mature trees,and natural terrain,can give new developments a premium "mature landscape" appearance and provide residents with additional recreational amenities. Both of these features can improve marketability. Xeriscaping refers to landscaping with plants native to area climate and soil conditions. These plants thrive naturally,requiring less maintenance and irrigation than most hybrid or imported varieties. For more information,refer to the separate ' PATH Technology Inventory article on this subject. • Clustering Homes on smaller lot areas can allow more preserved open space to be used for recreation,visual aesthetics,and wildlife habitat. Clustering can reduce infrastructure costs to the builder, since fewer feet of pipe, cable, and pavement are needed, and maintenance costs are ' reduced for homeowners. Builders in many areas have been able to charge a premium price for "view lots" facing undisturbed natural vistas,or pond areas that also function as bioretention cells. ' Low Impact Development Online Information Resources This section includes links to key organizations that are involved in LID research and outreach. National Low Impact Development Center: http://Iowi=actdevelol2ment.ora/ Low Impact Development(LID)Urban Design Tools: http://wwNv.lid-stormwater.net/ Center for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.or / Puget Sound Action Team: http://www.psat.wa.jzov/Programs/LID.htm University of British Columbia's James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments: http:Hwww sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca/about.html National Association of Home Builders Research Center(includes cost comparisons between LID and conventionally designed projects): http•//www nahbrc or /tg_ertiarvR asp?TracklD=&DocumentlD=2007&CategorvID=1071 Low Impact Development Publications and Fact Sheets Low Impact Development Technical Materials The Puget Sound Action Team contracted with CH2M Hill to develop technical information on the ' applicability of low impact development techniques in Puget Sound. CH2M Hill released three technical memoranda for this project on January 16,2004: 1. Review of Low-Impact Development Techniques- http•//www psat wa ovg /Programs/LID/PSAT TechMemol.pdf (PDF 1,906k) 2. Analysis and Recommendations for the use of LID Techniques in Puget Sound- http/,`www psat wa og v�grams/LID/PSAT TechMemo2.1)df (PDF 4,303k) Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 35 3. Suggested Adaptations to BMPs in the Department of Ecology's 2001 Stormwater Management ' Manual for Western Washington to Include the Benefits of LID Techniques - http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/LID/PSAT TechMemo3.pdf (PDF 1,468k) ' Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management: LID in Puget Sound An informative book offering innovative techniques for builders and developers, local planners, engineers ' and others to better protect Puget Sound from the harmful effects of development. Published in March 2003. http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID studies/LID approaches.htm Case studies from around Puget Sound include: amended soils and bioretention,permeable pavement, , rooftop rainwater harvesting, innovative foundations,green roofs, new and redevelopment projects. National Resources Defense Council publication on innovative stormwater strategies May 1999 report from the NRDC documents effective strategies, including LID,being employed by ' communities around the country to control stormwater runoff. Published May 1999. http•/-'www nrdc org water-'pollutiolv'ston.W. stoinx asp Bioretention Applications ' A fact sheet by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Low Impact Development Center,Inc., on bioretention,or rain gardens. Two case studies(in Largo,Maryland, and Tampa,Florida) demonstrate the potential to use low impact development practices in parking facilities. Includes monitoring data. Published October 2000. http:Hwww.psat.wa.gov/Proizrains/LID/lid cd/pdf does/`LID BIO.PDF Conservation Design for Stormwater Management A conservation design manual that provides guidance on protecting and incorporating natural site features into a site's land development process and stormwater management plan. Contains guidance on site assessment; design principles,procedures and practices; and case studies. Produced by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Environmental Management Center of the Brandywine Conservancy. Published September 1997. http•//www.psat wa rot, v/Programs/LID/lid cd/pdf docs/DEL MA.N.PDF ' Field Evaluation of Permeable Pavements for Stormwater Management A fact sheet by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Low Impact Development Center, Inc., ' illustrating a case study conducted by the City of Olympia on permeable and other alternative pavement surfaces. The study demonstrates the potential of alternative pavement systems to reduce stormwater runoff and provide water quality and cost savings benefits. Published October 2000. ht!p://www.psat.wa.2ov/Programs/LID/lid cd/pdf does/LID PAVE.PDF Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach The national low impact development manual produced by Prince George's County,Maryland, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presents goals and principles for this technology, and guidance on site planning, design practices, erosion and sediment control considerations, maintenance needs, and techniques for public outreach. Published June 1999. http://www psat wa �ov� /Programs/LID/lid cd/pdf does/LID NATLYDF Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis ' The hydrology supplement to the national low impact development manual provides information on hydrologic analysis procedures for this technology. Published July 1999. http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/LIDilid cd/pdf docs/LID HYDR.PDF Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 36 Low Impact Development(LID): A Literature Review A literature review of studies on the effectiveness of low impact development techniques conducted by ' the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Low Impact Development Center,Inc.,a non-profit organization located in Maryland. Published October 2000. http://'www.12sat.wa.gov/'.Programs/LID/lid cd/pdf does/EFFECT.PDF Low Impact Development Demonstration Projects Around Puget Sound SKing County LID Demonstration Projects King County currently has three low impact demonstration projects that are being reviewed under a demonstration ordinance passed by the county council. The are a 14-lot single-family residential subdivision on a forested site, a I I8-lot subdivision on a cleared site and a 1000 unit redevelopment of an existing 550 home subdivision. Each of these projects proposes to include LID to a varying extent. For more information,contact Steve Foley,King County,Water and Land Resources Division, at steve.foley0d;metrokc.gov or 206-296-1973. • Hope VI Park Lake Homes,located in White Center-This mixed income housing development by King County Housing Authority (KCHA)will provide over 900 units of new single family and multi- family housing units. This project proposes narrower roads and open swale conveyance. KCHA Executive Director Stephen Norman notes, "This ordinance allows the Authority the flexibility to develop environmentally friendly alternatives and implement solutions that will provide an ' ecologically sustainable future for the White Center Park Lake Homes community." • Camwest's Shamrock,located east of Renton-This development will create approximately 100 single family housing units. This project includes bioretention, soil amendment,partial downspout infiltration and alternative street design with open swales. Camwest President Eric Campbell noted, "We look forward to implementing development practices which better utilize clean rainwater as a resource. I am hopeful that practical, cost effective solutions benefiting the environment will be a direct outcome of this demonstration ordinance." . • Vashon Household's Sunflower development-Located on Vashon Island,this development provides for 14 single family homes. This project includes over 50%forest retention, small footprint houses,pervious pavements and bioretention. Executive Director, Sam Hendricks,noted, "There is a perception that low-impact, green design is something only the wealthy can afford. The Sunflower development will show that sustainable,environmentally-friendly development is a realistic and economically viable option." NOTE: There is additional enthusiasm building on Vashon about LID as a tool to increase groundwater recharge. There are not additional projects identified at this time, but motivated citizens are working with the County to begin considering options. Seattle's Natural Drainage Systems Program Seattle's drainage capital improvement program has conducted a number of demonstration projects using LID techniques in street right-of-ways. Techniques include: infiltration and slowing of stormwater flow; ' filtering and bio-remediation of pollutants by soils and plants; reduced impervious surface;porous paving; increased vegetation; and related pedestrian amenities. More information is available at: http:Hwww.seattle.gov/util/'About SPU/Drainage & Sewer SystemrNatural Drainage Systems/Natural Drainage Overview/index.asp. If you have questions after reviewing the site,contact Sylvia Cavazos at sylvia.cavazos(i,seattle.gov. • SEA Streets -Located in northwest Seattle,an alternative street design called Street Edge Alternative,or"SEA Streets,"has successfully shown that streets can be redesigned to achieve both community and creek protection goals. SEA Street takes an innovative approach to street design, with narrow,curved streets, open drainage swales,and an abundance of diverse plants and trees. Residents along SEA Street maintain city infrastructure in the form of street"gardens" in front of Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 37 their homes. In this case,Natural Drainage Systems united the community visually, environmentally, and social -- something traditional piped systems simply can't do. More Information: ht!p://www.ci.seattle.wa.us,/'util/About SPU/Drainage & Sewer System/Natural Drainage Systems! ' Street Edge Alteniatives/index.asp. A hydrologic monitoring report is available for this project and the earlier"Viewlands Cascade"project at: http•/'/www seattle gov/util/stellent/grouts/public/(i�spit rzesb/(&,dwwsweng/documents/spu project/h �d� rologic 2004061809040172df • 110th Cascade- 11 Oth Cascade,also located in northwest Seattle,was built in response to the success of the Viewlands Cascade project,due to a flooding problem at Third Avenue Northwest, and because it was in a priority watershed(Pipers Creek). The project was altered to a natural system approach. A creek-like cascade now intercepts, infiltrates, slows and filters over 21 acres of stormwater draining through the project. More Information: http://www.cl.seattle.wa.us/Litll/'Abotit SPU/Drainage & Sewer System/Natural Drainage Systems/ , 110th Cascade Project/index.asp • High Point Project- Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)is partnering with Seattle Housing Authority (SHA)to integrate a natural drainage system(NDS) into the High Point project-- a 129 acre mixed- income housing redevelopment located in the Longfellow Creek Watershed in West Seattle. The natural system design proposes to integrate 22,000 lineal feet of vegetated and grassy swales throughout the development within the planting strip of the street right-of-way. These swales include sub-surface engineered soil to provide storage and infiltration opportunities. Each Swale is designed to treat the runoff from the road and housing of the adjacent block. At a system scale,natural drainage systems will provide water quality treatment for the 6-month storm and ease the 2-year, 24-hour storm to pre-developed pasture conditions,which will better protect Longfellow Creek. This distributed block-scale system provides much greater opportunity to cleanse, cool and infiltrate stormwater runoff than the traditional piped and centralized management approach. The design team has developed a block-scale continuous hydrologic model to refine the design performance and predict how the system will perform under different storm events. Seattle Public Utilities will be working with the University of Washington to monitor the performance of the system at the block and sub-basin scale. More Information at: http://www.cl.seattle.wa.us/util/About SPU/Drainage & Sewer System,-'Natural Drainage S sty High Point Project/index.asp • Broadview Green Grid Project- The Broadview Green Grid Project, involving 15 city blocks, is Seattle's most ambitious natural drainage system project to date. This natural infrastructure will manage stormwater flow from approximately 32 acres,and is almost an entire sub-basin of the Pipers Creek watershed. Seattle Public Utilities is partnering with Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT)to provide neighborhood improvements to integrate landscaping,traffic calming, and a sidewalk on each north-south street into the natural drainage system design. Common natural drainage features include swales, stormwater cascades, small wetland ponds, larger landscaped areas and smaller paved areas. These features help reduce the quantity and speed of the runoff water. This helps Pipers Creek by reducing the occurrence of large, fast flows of water that can damage the creek channel and habitat. Construction began in late August 2003. The project area includes a "Cascade" system planned for North 107th Street, from Fourth Avenue North to Phinney Avenue North, similar to the cascade constructed along North 110th Street in 2002. More information: http://www.cl.scattle.wa.us/utiliAbout SPU/Drainage & Sewer System/Natural Drainage Systems/ Broadview Green Grid Project%index.asp • Pinehurst Green Grid Project SPU will be constructing an integrated natural drainage system project in the Pinehurst neighborhood late next spring(2005). This is a needed improvement to the City's drainage infrastructure and will enhance drainage service in the Pinehurst area. The project will ' combine neighborhood enhancements with a new stormwater system that will decrease the amount and improve the quality of the runoff to Thornton Creek. The project will be constructed on: Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 , Page 38 19thAvenue NE between NE 115th and NE 117th Streets , 20th Avenue NE between NE 113th and NE 117th Streets, 23rd Avenue NE between NE 113th and NE 117th Streets, 117th from 16th ' Avenue NE to 23rd Avenue NE,NE I I3th Street between 20th Avenue NE and 23rd Avenue NE. Integrated natural drainage systems lessen the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. These improvements will benefit the habitat for wildlife in Thornton Creek. The project will also benefit the neighborhood by including enhancements for pedestrians and drivers, and landscaping in the right-of-way area. More Information at: hqp://www.seattle.gov/Litil/About SPU/Drainaee & Sewer Svstem/Natural Drainage Systems/Pinehurst Proi ecttindex.asp.If you have questions regarding the project goals,design and impacts,please contact the Project Manager,Keith Ward at(206)615-0734 or by email at keith.wardCseattle.gov Issaquah Highlands The Issaquah Highlands development incorporated a number of LID techniques mixed in with a larger suite of"sustainability"goals. Although low impact stormwater design was not the highest priority,the site was required to achieve 100%on-site infiltration,which was achieved by routing stormwater to large infiltration galleries for aquifer recharge. Some effort was made to separate clean stormwater from roofs from that from streets and driveways that needed treatment before infiltration. Other LID techniques included narrower streets and shared driveways to minimize impervious area and a high soil amendment standard. Additional information about the development is available from: http://"w,,vw.issaquahhiglil.aDds.com. Additional site design features include: Conservation of Water/Preserving Water Quality Site Design: • Structured land so stormwater infiltrates naturally to help protect Issaquah drinking water, aquifer and streams • Preserved over 120-acres of wetlands • Limited the amount of impervious surface(hard surfaces)throughout the community by using narrower streets and shared driveways. • Prevented road pollutants from entering Lake Sammamish, streams and wetlands by creating vegetated pond areas to filter vehicle oils • Conserve and recycle water for irrigating landscaping • Established a water budget for landscaping to limit overall use of water During Construction: • Minimized erosion during winter months by clearing site during other seasons • Limited any potential damage to groundwater and streams by enacting a thorough spill/containment program • Monitor water quality continuously to assure project design is protecting quality Other "Green"Community Attributes: • Preserved over 1,500 acres as permanent open space and habitat for local wildlife such as birds,rabbits,deer and many other animals • Protected community from unauthorized pesticide/herbicide use by homeowners • Created local"Adopt a Wetland"Program to educate community volunteers to maintain environmental quality • Educate homeowners on Best Management Practices for green living ' Published a handbook on green development for contractors and homeowners • Planted thousands of trees as part of Master Tree Plan Camp Creek Landslide: On January 30,2004 a small landslide occurred at the Issaquah Highlands site that was the result of the stormwater infiltration system. Preliminary analysis had underestimated the infiltration and aquifer recharge capacity of the site. A White Paper was developed by technical experts representing the City;the Issaquah Highlands Master Developer;Microsoft(as an interested landowner); Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 39 the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT);the Department of Ecology (Ecology); and interested parties. This report includes data on the stormwater infiltration systems,the stormwater systems' compliance with the applicable development requirements; slope stability; turbidity discharges; stormwater quality compliance; and particularly the cause of the events leading up to the January 30, 2004 Camp Creek Landslide. Parties are currently reevaluating the infiltration system at the site and devising alternative strategies to meet the 100%infiltration goal. The report is available at: http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Page.asp?NavlD=696 For more information about site design standards at Issaquah Highlands contact the City of Issaquah, Major Development Review Team(MDRT)at http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Sectlonlndex.asp?SectionlD=18. Or contact, Keith Niven, MDRT Program Manager,425-837-3430. Education-Focused LID Demonstration Projects: Carkeek Park Environmental Learning Center The Carkeek Park Environmental Learning Center(ELC) has been built to provide additional space for environmental education and stewardship activities and to create additional community gathering/meeting space. Sustainable building features include: • rooftop rainwater harvest for flushing toilets and managing storm water • salmon-friendly landscaping-drought tolerant,native species and increased storm water infiltration • energy-efficient features -highly-insulated building envelope, intelligent lighting,natural ventilation • solar electric (photovoltaic)panels provided by City Light's Green Power program ' • 80%recycling or salvaging of demolition and construction waste • paints/coatings,adhesives, sealants,wood composites and carpeting which protect indoor air quality • recycled content products -concrete,backfill, wood composite casework, insulation, and flooring • salvaged materials include peeler logs from a naval building in South Lake Union • regional materials which support our regional economy and reduce the energy,waste, and pollution associated with transportation. For more information visit: http•//wzvw ci!yofseattle net/parks/parkspaces/CarkeekPark/ELC.htm. Or contact the Environmental Learning Center at(206) 684-0877. Pickering Farm Community Teaching Garden The Pickering Farm Community Teaching Garden is a living classroom that educates residents and Farm visitors on landscaping techniques that save water, improve water quality, improve natural habitat and reduce the amount of garbage Issaquah generates. Features include: • Rooftop rainwater harvesting for irrigation • Seasonal stream from rooftop runoff. • Soil Amendment • Green Roof demonstration kiosks. ' For more information visit: lattp://www.ci.issaquali.wa.us/Page_asp?NavlD=665. Or contact Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah, for details at(425) 837-3442 or chrYsb(a),ci.issquah.wa.us. BUILT GREEN Guidelines BUILT GREEN homes are designed to provide homeowners with comfortable,durable, environmentally friendly homes that are cost-effective to own and operate. BUILT GREEN is a program of the Master ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 40 Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties,developed in partnership with King County, Snohomish County,and other agencies in Washington State. The BUILT GREEN program certifies ' homes with one to three stars based upon points accrued for various elements of site and building design. Although the major focus of the program is on energy conservation and other elements of green architecture,there are several points available for various site design features. I More information about BUILT GREEN is available at http://w",.builtgreen.net or at(425)451-7920. Many large local developers are participating in the program. Issaquah Highlands,Redmond Ridge, Talus, Snoqualmie Ridge and many other large local developments include BUILT GREEN certified homes. A list of participating businesses is available at: ihttp://www.built%zreen.net/members.html#builders. See additional projects listed at Review of Low-Impact Development Techniques,available from the Puget 1 Sound Action Team at: bttv://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs,,"LID/PSAT TechMemol.pdf Low Impact Development Sample Ordinances and Regulations ' Island County Stormwater Code-Low Impact Development Requirements In December 1998,Island County adopted a stormwater ordinance that provides developers with the option of using low impact development practices. The design standards are based on Low Impact Development Design Strategies An Integrated Design Approach, prepared by Prince Georges County, Maryland,January 2000. The Island County Stormwater and Surface Water Ordinance provides special performance requirements that developers must meet for their development proposals to qualify as LID. The ordinance allows applicants who propose to use LID practices for development approvals a choice. Applicants of small development projects may accept permit conditions that fulfill the best management practices for LID surface water rate control in lieu of submitting a drainage narrative.For major development activities and engineered grading projects, applicants who propose to use LID drainage controls may submit a drainage narrative instead of a preliminary drainage plan. The ordinance does not require a downstream analysis when the project design includes and is approved for using LID standards. To date, LID practices have been partially applied in developments such as Bayview Corner,but no major developments have used LID technologies in Island County. Contact: Phil Cohen, Surface Water Management Division,Island County Public Works,Phone: (360) 679-7331 extension 7440,FAX: (360)678-4550,philcCco.island.wa.us City of Issaquah- Stormwater Management Policy for Low Impact Development In 2000,the city of Issaquah adopted an update to the stormwater code(Title 13.28.055)that provides a process and criteria for evaluating low impact development proposals. The municipal code authorizes the Director of Public Works to authorize deviations from stormwater design standards to achieve"low ' impervious surface development."The director also has the option of requiring evaluation and monitoring of project elements. The code language is on the Municipal Research Services Center website (www.mrsc.org). Go to"Legal Resources,"then"City and County Codes,"then"City Codes"to Issaquah City Code Title 13.28.055. The Issaquah Municipal Code(Title 13.30)also provides an incentive for projects that infiltrate stormwater. Projects that infiltrate 100 percent of the stormwater can receive up to a 50 percent reduction in the stormwater utility fee. On other fronts,the city is considering a more comprehensive sustainable development program, including incentives. Some of these provisions relate directly to LID, such as green streets, green roofs,and pervious pavers. Contact: Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah, (425) 837-3410 or kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us City of Olympia - Low Impact Development Strategy for Green Cove Basin In 1998,Olympia undertook a process to"define the balance between human activities and protecting habitat'in its streams and watersheds.After reviewing all city watersheds,the city council decided to Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 41 focus on the 2,600-acre Green Cove Creek watershed in west Olympia. In October 2001 the Olympia City , Council adopted a unique set of mandatory low impact development regulations to prevent further damage to aquatic habitat from urban development in the Green Cove Basin. The Olympia City Council , completed a comprehensive policy revision covering development density, impervious surface coverage, lot size, open space/tree retention, street design, street width, block sizes,parking, sidewalks, and stormwater management requirements. Key policy changes for the Green Cove Basin were adopted ' through comprehensive plan amendments, municipal code amendments, development guidelines and public works standards, and a drainage design and erosion control manual. Since part of the Green Cove Basin is in Thurston County,the county adopted policy and regulatory changes to complement Olympia's program. This included changes to the county's comprehensive plan, zoning,and open space program. Unlike LID ordinances in Lacey and Tumwater that are voluntary,Olympia's Green Cove regulations are mandatory. As of October 2002,the city has received two subdivision projects for development under the new policies. , Contact: Andy Haub, City of Olympia Public Works , (360) 753-8475, ahaub(iuci.olympia.wa.us For a more detailed case study and a CD-ROM containing project reports and ordinances,contact the City of Olympia. htip://www.psat.wa.t7ov/Programs/LID/Green Cove.pdf City of Lacey- Zero Effect Drainage Discharge Ordinance Zero Effect(or Impact)Development(ZID)refers to a project that adheres to a 60/0 development standard and is constrained by characteristics of a healthy watershed as described in the Salmon in the City Conference Abstracts. "60/0"means 60 percent forest cover preserved/zero effective impervious surface. In 1999,the Lacey city council enacted a"Zero Effect Drainage Discharge"ordinance. The goal of Lacey's ordinance is to retain the critical functions of a forest including evapotranspiration and infiltration after site development such that near zero effective impervious surface is achieved. The , ordinance is flexible and establishes performance standards for development rather than specific design criteria. A committee of Lacey staff has the authority to grant administrative variances from traditional standards to achieve the ordinance's goal. Projects must preserve 60 percent natural habitat area and achieve "near zero effective impervious surface." Contact: Eric Hiclema, City of Lacey, (360)438-2686, ehielema(&ci.lace v Website for Chapter 14.31 Zero Effect Ordinance: http://www.ei.lacev.wa.us/Imc/laic main pa(_,,e.html City of Tumwater-Zero Effect Development Ordinance In 2000, Tumwater enacted the Zero Effect Drainage Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.22). The city found that typical site development hinders stormwater retention,that stormwater discharges offsite adversely affect stream habitat,and that retaining forest canopy aids evapotranspiration and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The ordinance provides developers with the option of using zero impact development practices in residential and commercial projects. A set of performance guidelines indicates the ' characteristics of an acceptable project. A committee reviews project proposals and can approve variances to the city's development code to accommodate nontraditional construction techniques. Projects approved under the ordinance must preserve 65 percent of forest area on the development site. Runoff must not be collected or discharged to surface water(thus achieving zero effective impervious area). The guidelines encourage looped one-way streets; narrow pervious driveways; small, pervious garage aprons; and small home footprints. Roof runoff must be infiltrated or mitigated. To compensate for narrower roads and reduced access for emergency vehicles, structures are required to meet more rigorous fire standards. Full Text of the ordinance is available at: http•:/www ci tumwater wa us/Departments/Planninl4°'�20&%20Facilities/Zero%2OEffect%2ODrairia e% ' 20Dischars4e%20Develot)ncnts%200rdinance.htm Contact: Michael Matlock, City of Tumwater, (360) 754-4210 Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 , Page 42 Website: httn://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/Follow the link to City Departments,then Planning and Facilities. ' King County Stormwater Management —Surface Water Design Manual Update During 2004,King County is updating its 1998 Surface Water Design Manual to: • Achieve compliance with Endangered Species Act(ESA)goals, and • Achieve equivalency with the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. The revised manual will give developers the option to choose from a number of LID approaches to achieve stormwater management requirements. LID techniques are included under flow control BMPs which must be applied to new and/or existing impervious surfaces. Where full dispersion or full infiltration of impervious area runoff is not feasible or applicable,or will cause flooding or erosion impacts, one or more of the following BMPs must be applied to(or used to mitigate for) impervious area: r • Partial Infiltration • Basic Dispersion • Rain Garden • Permeable Pavement • Rainwater Harvesting • Vegetated Roof • Reduced Impervious Surface Credit • Native Growth Retention Credit Draft Table 1.2.3.0 below lists the proposed sizing credits for various LID techniques. ABLE 1.2.3.0 FLOW CONTROL BMP FACILITY SIZING CREDITS Flow Control BMP Type Facility Sizing Credit Full dispersion Model fully dispersed surface as forest Full infiltration Subtract impervious area that is ftilly infiltrated Partial infiltration Model tributary impervious surface as 50%impervious,50%grass Basic dispersion Model dispersed impervious surface as 50%impervious,50%grass Rain garden Model tributary impervious surface as 50%impervious,50%grass Permeable pavement(non-grassed) Model permeable pavement area as 50%impervious,50%grass Grassed modular grid pavement Model permeable pavement as all grass Rainwater harvesting Subtract roof area that is ftilly controlled Vegetated roof Model vegetated roof area as 50%impervious, 50%grass Reduced impervious surface credit Model reduced footprint rather than standard assumed footprint Native growth retention credit No facility sizing credit,only a credit toward meeting BMP requirement erforated pipe connection o facility sizing credit rThe draft King County Surface Water Design Manual includes specific design specifications for LID stormwater management techniques. These may be found in Appendix C at httD://dnr.l,i,ietrokc.gov/wlr/dss/N4anual-Draft.htm WA State Dept. of Transportation -LID in the Highway Runoff Manual The Washington State Department of Transportation is revising its 1995 Highway Runoff Manual. As part of this revision,the department will develop and reference three low impact development elements in the revised manual: 1. Permeable paving at park and rides,pedestrian paths,and lower speed roadways. 2. Bioretention along roadways. 3. Constructed wetlands for stormwater treatment. The LID portion of the revised manual includes plans, specifications,methodology for estimating costs, ' and a hydraulic design process. Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 43 Contacts: Rick Johnson,Washington State Department of Transportation, (260)440-4642, j ohn sorCa:wsdot.wa. Larry Schaffner,Washington State Department of Transportation, (360) 570-6657, ' schaffl(iuwsdot.wa.gov Website: http•/i'www wsdot wa Azov/fasc/En ing eeringPublications.`Manuals/HighwayRunoff2004.pdf 4. Shoreline Management WA .r Ecology.Department o . Shoreline Master Program Guidelines at: P b'.1' g http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/index.html men Trade and Economic Development Guidance from WA Department of Community, p critical areas handbook: http•//www cted wa gov/DesktopModules/Documents/ViewDocument.aspx?Documen t1D=1034 Puget Sound Action Team. Growth Management Updates guidance at: http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/GMA/GMA checklist 2004.pdf Other References. For a discussion of possible disincentives created by the Shoreline Management Act for shoreline restoration projects, see: • Eric Laschever, Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP. 2003. The Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction and Incentives for Shoreline Restoration Projects. Project Manager, Miles Mayhew, City of Seattle. Guidelines for marine overwater structures: • Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory et al. May 2001. Reconnaissance assessment of the state of the nearshore ecosystem: eastern shore of Central Puget Sound, including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Prepared for King Co. Dept. of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA(pg. 12-9). • Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. May 2001. White paper, overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, WA Dept. of Ecology, and WA Dept. of Transportation. Seattle, University of Washington, Wetland Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fishery Science (pg. 92-103). Guidelines for marine dredging: • Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. July 2001. White paper, dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, WA Dept. of Ecology, and WA Dept. of Transportation. Seattle, University of Washington, Wetland Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fishery Science (pg. 77-91). , i Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 ' Page 44 i 5. References rBattelle Marine Sciences Laboratory et al. May 2001. Reconnaissance assessment of the state of the nearshore ecosystem: eastern shore of Central Puget Sound, including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Prepared for King Co. Dept. of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA(pg. 12-9). Laschever, Eric, Preston Gates& Ellis,LLP. 2003. The Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction and Incentives for Shoreline Restoration Projects. Project Manager,Miles Mayhew, City of Seattle. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. May 2001. White paper, overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife,WA Dept. of Ecology, and WA Dept. of Transportation. Seattle,University of Washington,Wetland Ecosystem Team, ' School of Aquatic and Fishery Science(pg. 92-103). Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. July 2001. White paper, dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, WA Dept. of Ecology, and WA ' Dept. of Transportation. Seattle, University of Washington, Wetland Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fishery Science(pg. 77-91). Parametrix, Inc. 2002. Biological Review Tri-County Model 4(d)Rule Response Proposal. Prepared for Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. 2001. Tri-County Model 4(d)Rule Response Proposal: A Salmon Conservation Program, Volumes I-III. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,Department of Development and Environmental Services, Department of Transportation. 2004. Best Available Science Volume 1: A Review of Scientific Literature. King County Executive Report; Critical Areas, Stormwater and Clearing and Grading Proposed Ordinances. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Department of Development and Environmental Services, Department of Transportation. 2004. Best Available Science Volume 2: ' Assessment of Proposed Ordinances. King County Executive Report; Critical Areas, Stormwater and Clearing and Grading Proposed Ordinances. Puget Sound Action Team. 2004. Growth Management Updates. WA Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. 2003. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and ' Western Washington Treaty Tribes Concerning Wild Salmonids. Adopted by Wash. Fish and Wildlife Commission, 12/5/97. WA Department of Ecology. 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. ' Appendix D-6: Land use references February 25, 2005 Page 45 APPENDIX E: ASSURANCES 4- Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits take (killing or injuring or significantly altering the habitat) of species listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered. To avoid prosecution for take, the ESA allows the following three alternatives to seek authorization for incidental take that might occur in the course of otherwise lawful activities. ESA Section 4(d)— Includes Limits on Take Prohibitions This section prohibits take of listed species without specific written authorization. It also sets limits on (exceptions to) take prohibitions. Limits are for programs or activities (or criteria for future programs or activities) for which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will not apply the take prohibitions because NMFS has determined that these programs or activities minimize impacts on threatened salmon enough that additional protections are not needed. For Puget Sound Chinook salmon, NMFS offered 13 limits. The following are most relevant to the watershed-based salmon habitat planning that WRIA 8 is undertaking. Limit No. 8 — Habitat Restoration Limits Habitat restoration is defined as an activity whose primary purpose is to restore natural aquatic or riparian habitat processes or conditions and that would not be undertaken but for its restoration purpose. Projects should be based on watershed-scale analysis and conservation plan and, where practicable, a sub-basin or basin-scale analysis and plan. The state must certify in writing that the watershed conservation plan has been formulated in ' accordance with state guidelines that have been approved by NMFS. The guidelines are generally similar to what is required of a proponent of a habitat conservation plan under Section 10. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has developed an outline for regional salmon recovery plans. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board has adopted guidance for lead entity strategies for salmon habitat restoration and protection priorities. However, at this time, the state has not submitted either of these or any other proposal to NMFS for approval as state guidelines. Nor has the state indicated it will take on the responsibility and liability of certifying plans. Limit No. 10 — Routine Road Maintenance The Tri-County Road Maintenance program has been approved by NMFS under this limit. Many (27?) local governments have submitted formal applications to NMFS to qualify. Many others (15?) are looking to implement the program without formal application. ' Limit No. 12 — Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development and Redevelopment (MRCI) Individual cities, counties, and regional governments can seek written review and agreement from NMFS that ordinances or plans governing MRCI development and redevelopment will conserve listed species. NMFS has 12 considerations that evaluate whether the ordinance ' or plan will: 1) Avoid development on constrained sites such as unstable slopes and wetlands; 2) Prevent stormwater discharge impacts on water quality and quantity and stream flow; 3) Protect riparian areas well enough to attain or maintain properly functioning conditions ' 4) Avoid stream crossing wherever possible and where crossings must be provided, minimize impacts; 5) Protect historic stream meander patterns and channel migration zones; avoid hardening stream banks and shorelines; Appendix E February 25, 2005 Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act Page 1 6) Protect wetlands, wetland buffers, and wetland functions; 7) Preserve the ability of permanent and intermittent streams to pass peak flows; 8) Stress landscaping using native vegetation to reduce the need to water and.to apply ' herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer; 9) Prevent erosion and sediment run-off; 10)Ensure that demands on water supply can be met without affecting flows needed by ' salmon; 11)Provide mechanisms for monitoring, enforcing, funding, reporting, and implementing program; ' 12)Comply with other state and federal environmental and natural resource laws and permits. ESA Section 7— Consultation on Federal Permits and Federally Funded Activities ' Activities conducted or authorized by federal agencies or that receive federal funding need to be reviewed by NMFS through a consultation process that will limit liability for take provided the activities are conducted according to the terms and conditions of the written incidental take statement. Generally this is done project by project, although work has been ' undertaken to develop programmatic consultations by project type. ESA Section 10— Incidental Take Permit and Agreement with Federal Government ' Permits may be issued for research, activities that enhance a species' survival, or to authorize incidental take occurring in the course of an otherwise lawful activity. Habitat conservation plans are developed that describe activities and how the proponent will minimize and mitigate for any incidental take. The proponent and NMFS negotiate and sign an agreement for a specified length of time that sets forth what activities are covered under ' the incidental take permit. Multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plans have been negotiated, but more study will be needed to determine if any have actually been successfully implemented. Bob Lohn, NMFS Region Manager, has mentioned the possibility ' of a short-term (five years) habitat conservation plan, but no program for this proposal has yet been circulated or approved. t Appendix E February 25, 2005 Assurances Available Under the Endangered Species Act Page 2 ' S �ti �AMISB 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: A I OF^BF p4 CITY OF ;,,o` Town of sativ,Boa.BedJena Beaux orris 44Z,' Hunts Point Village I 61�. �xyo ' OF wA CITY c OF ISS Kin � a H KENIr O 9 County 'atirN0 Wye n,NOion MAP LEY �of Mfp�y o4.,ga Eg,� CIT 9 a °aI« F LAKE FOREST PARK o , 81p0 41 OF AF CITY v. O A W p ' CITY OF — MOKILTEO f v rr� AKE TERRACE TERRACE 1'THIN6t0 SuP A ��Y ��'N OF City of Seattle 3HOREUM Town of ' Snohomish County yarrow Point woo ■sue r.t■ LayouttProduction by: Y Visual Communications and Web Unit, ' Water&Land Resources Division, King County Department of Natural Resources File Name:0507WRIA8BackCover.eps . 1202M Additional copies of this document Alternate Formats Available are available from: King County Department of Natural Resources 206-296-6519 or 711 TTY Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street#600 Seattle,WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-6519