The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272969 y _�;�• :^. , ,. -.. r^ ��- ..r*•. �� 'ram I ,. F 714, y 1 _ / 4 zf .rM\ ... l � 11 I III I r iY r , LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR/SAMMAMISH WATERSHED (WRIA 8) NEAR-TERM ACTION AGENDA tiWAsNI,y� FOR SALMON HABITAT CONSERVATION x August 2002 q MIS" i LAttE WASHI 'NGTON / ( EDAR / SAMMAMISH WATERSHED ( WRIA 8 ) STEERING COMMITTEE � a A s August 2002 1 � The Lake Aii1I$� _L_ Washington/ Cedar/ . Bellevue Dear Salmon Conservation Partner: Sammamish 'Watershed Bothell Clyde Hill As Co—Chairs of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish(WRIA 8) Steering Committee, we are Issaquah pleased to present recommendations expected to help restore and protect habitat for chinook salmon, which were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act in March King County 1999. The attached Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation is the result of Kirkland more than a year of collaborative discussions among elected officials,jurisdictional staff, Maple valley business and environmental groups, scientists, and concerned citizens. The Action Agenda offers Mercer Island guidance to local governments, interested organizations, and citizens on interim measures that .Redmond can be undertaken while we work on a long-term conservation plan for our watershed. Renton The options offered in this document focus on the issue over which local governments have Sammamish authority: habitat. However, loss and degradation of habitat is only one of many factors Seattle contributing to the decline of salmon. Other factors, such as hatchery management and i Shoreline harvesting, are being addressed in other forums. Snohomish County The Action Agenda is based on our current scientific understanding of the watershed. However, • The Boeing Company our knowledge of the complex ecosystem upon which salmon rely is still evolving and will continue to progress over the next few years as we develop the long-term conservation plan. Cedar River Council Friends of Issaquah Please note that the Action Agenda provides guidance and is not law. Each jurisdiction or agency Salmon Hatchery can choose to adopt or implement any of the recommendations according to their normal Greater Maple valley processes, including providing additional opportunities for public input. Citizens, businesses, • Area council and non-profit organizations may undertake some of the actions. Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Much progress in salmon conservation is already under way in WRIA 8, such as the installment Mid-Sound Fisheries of smolt slides at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, preservation of the "best remaining places" for Enhancement Group chinook in the lower Cedar River and Bear Creek systems, protection and restoration of riparian . 'Northwest Marine habitat throughout the watershed, and completion of critical research that has improved our `Trade association understanding of how salmon utilize the watershed. However, much remains to be done. Save Lake Sammamish Salmon conservation requires a long-term commitment on the part of all residents of the Sustainable Fisheries watershed as well as leadership from local jurisdictions. Foundation Trout unlimited On behalf of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, we strongly encourage everyone interested in salmon conservation to take appropriate actions such as these recommended in the Action US Army Corps Agenda. • '` of Engineers Washington Department Sincerely, • of Ecology .Washington Department • of Fish and Wildlife 2iter Margar`et Pageler Councilm arry Phillips ;Washington Department' City of Seattle 6King Coun • of Natural Resources WRIA 8 Steering Committee Co-Chair WRIA 8 Steering Committee Co-Chair Washington Association of sewer and Financial support provided by the signers of the interlocal agreement to cost-share watershed planning in WRIA 8: • `Water Districts Beaux Arts Village,Bellevue,Bothell,Clyde Hill, Edmonds,Hunts Point,Issaquah,Kenmore,Kent, King County,Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, King Conservation Maple Valley,Medina,Mercer Island,Mill Creek,Mountlake Terrace,Mukilteo, Newcastle,Redmond, Renton,Sammamish,Seattle, • _ District Shoreline,Snohomish County, Woodinville and Yarrow Point 0207 W8 SteerinaCom Ltrn d.ai LP • LAKE WASHINGTON / CEDAR / SAMMAMISH WATERSHED ( WRIA 8 ) FORUM* 0AS44A,, • x r • 9P August 2002 The Lake • 4 S� � Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish • .,� � v Watershed Beaux Arts Village Dear Salmon Supporter: y Bellevue • Bothell On behalf of 27 local governments in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, I am pleased to share with you this Near-Term Action Agenda for Clyde Hill Salmon Conservation. The Action Agenda offers a menu of conservation Edmonds opportunities for jurisdictions, organizations, businesses, and citizens to consider as we continue to work together to protect and restore habitat for chinook and • Hunts Paint other salmon in our shared watershed. • .Issaquah Kenmore Early last year, 25 cities and 2 counties signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund a planning effort designed to conserve salmon habitat along our common r Kent waterways. Elected officials representing each of the participating jurisdictions King County have come together as a Forum that oversees this cooperative effort. Kirkland Scientists, citizens, agency representatives, businesses, environmental groups, Lake Forest Park political leaders, and jurisdictional staff have been working together for several Maple Valley years to further our collective knowledge to benefit chinook and other salmon. Through interjurisdictional efforts, we have already completed an inventory of Medina current conditions in the watershed. In this Action Agenda, we are proposing a set Mercer island of voluntary actions that can be taken to help salmon. It is up to each local • Mill Creek jurisdiction to determine whether to implement this guidance and how to do so. In addition, we have also included a variety of recommendations that interested • Mountlake Terrace organizations, businesses, and citizens may choose to undertake to benefit salmon. Mukilteo The next step in the salmon habitat conservation process is to develop a long-term • Newcastle plan that will incorporate the scientific and other data currently being collected Redmond and analyzed. This plan is expected to be finalized in 2005. Renton I look forward to working with you to continue our collaborative efforts to Sammamish improve the watershed shared by both salmon and our citizens. Seattle aMayor, Shoreline �Snohomish County Woodinville ngerYarrow Point ty irkland • Chair, Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) Forum • • • • 0207 LkWAced1WSJID • forumLTRl lD oa Quick Road Map Through This Document • i If You Want To: Check Here: Other Related Information: See how the document is organized This road map and the Table of Organization section at the end of Contents Chapter 1 Understand the WRIA 8 salmon Chapter 1: Introduction For more details on the conditions of habitat conservation process and Chapter 2:Near-Term Strategy salmon habitat in the watershed,see the purpose of and context for the Appendix C: Legal Drivers for the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Action Agenda Salmon Conservation Planning Limiting Factors Report for the in WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish Basin(Washington State Conservation Commission 2001) Obtain guidance for selecting, Chapter 3: General Action Action alternatives tables in Chapter 4; planning, and implementing salmon Guidance guiding principles and the near-term habitat conservation projects not strategy in Chapter 2 listed in the Action Agenda Choose a site-specific project to Chapter 4: Project and Research Criteria for selecting projects in protect,restore, or enhance salmon Recommendations Specific to Chapter 3;guiding principles in habitat Subareas Chapter 2 Review and update local land use Chapter 5: Regulatory and General action guidance in Chapter 3; policies and regulations to benefit Policy Recommendations resource list of example ordinances salmon and publications in Chapter 8 Carry out public education, Chapter 6: Education and Public Funding sources at the end of . outreach,and involvement Involvement Chapter 8 activities to raise awareness of salmon habitat conservation Conduct research and monitoring Chapter 7: Adaptive Specific research projects i and then modify actions based on Management,Monitoring,and recommended in Chapter 4 the results Research Review funding sources available Chapter 8: Implementation to implement the Action Agenda's Resources,Table 8-1 recommendations Find out how the Action Agenda Appendix A: Evolution of . relates to other salmon conservation WRIA 8 Watershed Planning efforts Appendix B: WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation: How It Fits in with Related Efforts • Learn the meaning of technical Chapter 11: Glossary terms found in the Action Agenda Review maps of the watershed and Chapter 1: Watershed maps are subareas located at the end of the chapter Chapter 4: Subarea maps are S located at the end of each . subarea section Review who participated in the Chapter 9: Acknowledgements Discussion of the planning process in development of the Action Agenda Chapter 1 Notes: The terms Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed and Water Resource Inventory Area . (WRIA)8 are used interchangeably in this document. . The website address for the watershed-based salmon conservation planning effort in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8. August 2002 i Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Contents • iQuick Road Map Through This Document.................................................................................i ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................... xi Chapter1. Introduction........................................................................................................1-1 Background........................................................................................................................... 1-1 ANote on Watershed Names...................................................................................... 1-2 Purpose of the Action Agenda.................................................................................... 1-2 The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed—History and Geography...... 1-3 History.................................................................................................................. 1-3 Geography............................................................................................................ 1-5 Watershed-Based Salmon Conservation Planning—Context and Process........................... 1-6 LegalContext.............................................................................................................. 1-6 . Planning Process ......................................................................................................... 1-6 i Organization of the Action Agenda...................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter2. Near-Term Strategy...........................................................................................2-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................2-1 . Scientific Basis of the Strategy.............................................................................................2-2 • Factors of Decline.......................................................................................................2-2 EcosystemObjectives .................................................................................................2-2 • Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................2-3 Identification of Core and Satellite Production Subareas and Migratory and Rearing Corridors for Chinook Salmon Populations..................................................................2-4 Categoriesof Actions ...........................................................................................................2-7 General Action Guidance............................................................................................2-7 • Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas...................................2-7 ! Regulatory and Policy Guidance.................................................................................2-8 40 Education and Public Involvement.............................................................................2-9 • Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management.....................................................2-9 Chapter3. General Action Guidance..................................................................................3-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................3-1 Howto Use This Guidance...................................................................................................3-1 General Guidance by Factor of Decline ............................................................................... 3-2 • Fish Passage................................................................................................................3-2 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................3-3 0 Sediment Transport.....................................................................................................3-3 • Hydromodification......................................................................................................3-4 41 August 2002 iii Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish S Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Table of Contents RiparianConditions ....................................................................................................3-4 WaterQuality..............................................................................................................3-5 . Non-Native Species.....................................................................................................3-6 Criteria for Choosing Early Actions.....................................................................................3-6 . Tier1 ...........................................................................................................................3-6 Tier2...........................................................................................................................3-7 Chapter 4. Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas.....................4-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................4-1 . Recommendation for Subarea Stewards .....................................................................4-2 How to Use the Project Recommendations ..........................................................................4-2 Role of Research in the Action Agenda ...............................................................................4-5 • Nearshore/Estuary................................................................................................................ 4-6 HiramM. Chittenden Locks...............................................................................................4-11 + ShipCanal/Lake Union.......................................................................................................4-14 Lake Washington 4-18 • ................................................................................................................ LakeSammamish................................................................................................................4-24 SammamishRiver...............................................................................................................4-29 • Cedar River and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries...................................................................4-37 • Bear Creek and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries....................................................................4-46 • Issaquah Creek and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries..............................................................4-51 • LittleBear Creek.................................................................................................................4-57 . NorthCreek ........................................................................................................................4-64 SwampCreek......................................................................................................................4-70 KelseyCreek.......................................................................................................................4-76 • Chapter5. Regulatory and Policy Recommendations.......................................................5-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................5-1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................5-2 • Clearingand Grading.................................................................................................. 5-2 • FishPassage Barriers ..................................................................................................5-3 , FloodplainAlterations.................................................................................................5-3 Land Use Retention of Large Woody Debris.............................................................................. 5-4 RoadMaintenance.......................................................................................................5-5 Shoreline Modifications..............................................................................................5-5 Stormwater..................................................................................................................5-6 • Variances and Reasonable-Use Exceptions................................................................ 5-6 Wetlands......................................................................................................................5-7 • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish iv August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda ! i Table of Contents AdditionalIssues to Address................................................................................................5-7 SChapter 6. Education and Public Involvement..................................................................6-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................6-1 The Public's Role in Salmon Conservation..........................................................................6-1 Organization of Recommendations ......................................................................................6-2 Guidance for Selecting Recommendations...........................................................................6-3 Incentive Programs to Reduce Impacts on Salmon Habitat .................................................6-4 Incentivesfor Citizens.................................................................................................6-4 Incentives for Landowners..........................................................................................6-5 Incentives for Developers ........................................................................................... 6-5 Public Outreach, Education, and Involvement Recommendations ......................................6-5 t Chapter 7. Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research........................................7-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................7-1 ResearchNeeds.....................................................................................................................7-1 MonitoringNeeds.................................................................................................................7-3 Adaptive Management Programs and Strategies.................................................................. 7-3 General........................................................................................................................ 7-5 RegulatoryPrograms................................................................................................... 7-5 Compliance or Implementation Monitoring................................................................7-6 Direct Effectiveness Monitoring.................................................................................7-6 Measurable Outcomes.................................................................................................7-6 Tracking Successes and Sharing Information Gained from Implementing the Action Agenda........................................................................................................................... 7-7 Chapter8. Implementation Resources................................................................................8-1 Background and Context of Chapter....................................................................................8-1 Resource List of Example Ordinances and Publications...................................................... 8-1 Clearingand Grading.................................................................................................. 8-2 Fish Passage Barriers .................................................................................................. 8-2 FloodplainAlterations................................................................................................. 8-3 LandUse ..................................................................................................................... 8-4 Retention of Large Woody Debris.............................................................................. 8-4 aShoreline Modification................................................................................................ 8-4 • Stormwater.................................................................................................................. 8-5 Wetlands...................................................................................................................... 8-6 OtherModels to Consider..................................................................................................... 8-6 PartnershipOpportunities..................................................................................................... 8-7 • Funding Sources ................................................................................................................... 8-7 August 2002 v Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish S Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Table of Contents S • Chapter9. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................9-1 Chapter10. Bibliography.....................................................................................................10-1 • Chapter11. Glossary............................................................................................................ 11-1 • Appendix A: Evolution of WRIA 8 Watershed-Based Planning.........................................A-1 Appendix B: WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Planning: How It Fits in with Related • Efforts..................................................................................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Legal Drivers for Salmon Conservation Planning in WRIA 8.....................C-1 M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish vi August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Table of Contents Tables Table 2-1. Factors of Decline in WRIA 8................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2. Chinook Salmon Core and Satellite Designations of WRIA 8 Subareas................2-6 Table 2-3. Migratory and Rearing Corridors in WRIA 8.........................................................2-6 Table 4-1. Nearshore/Estuary Action Alternatives ..................................................................4-7 Table 4-2. Nearshore/Estuary Potential Projects .....................................................................4-8 Table 4-3. Nearshore/Estuary Research ..................................................................................4-9 Table 4-4. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Action Alternatives.................................................4-12 Table 4-5. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Potential Projects ...................................................4-12 • Table 4-6. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Research .................................................................4-13 • Table 4-7. Ship Canal/Lake Union Action Alternatives ........................................................4-15 Table 4-8. Ship Canal/Lake Union Potential Projects............................................................4-15 Table 4-9. Ship Canal/Lake Union Research.........................................................................4-16 Table 4-10. Lake Washington Action Alternatives..................................................................4-19 Table 4-11. Lake Washington Potential Projects ....................................................................4-20 M • Table 4-12. Lake Washington Research ..................................................................................4-21 • Table 4-13. Lake Sammamish Action Alternatives ................................................................4-25 t Table 4-14. Lake Sammamish Potential Projects.....................................................................4-26 Table 4-15. Lake Sammamish Research..................................................................................4-26 Table 4-16. Sammamish River Action Alternatives ................................................................4-30 i Table 4-17. Sammamish River Potential Projects....................................................................4-32 • Table 4-18. Sammamish River Research.................................................................................4-34 Table 4-19. Cedar River Action Alternatives...........................................................................4-38 41 Table 4-20. Cedar River Potential Projects..............................................................................4-40 r Table 4-21. Cedar River Research ...........................................................................................4-42 Table 4-22. Bear Creek Action Alternatives............................................................................4-47 Table 4-23. Bear Creek Potential Projects ...............................................................................4-48 Table 4-24. Bear Creek Research 4-49 ............................................................................................ . Table 4-25. Issaquah Creek Action Alternatives......................................................................4-52 i August 2002 vii Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Table of Contents Table 4-26. Issaquah Creek Potential Projects.........................................................................4-54 Table 4-27. Issaquah Creek Research ......................................................................................4-55 Table 4-28. Little Bear Creek Action Alternatives ..................................................................4-58 r Table 4-29. Little Bear Creek Potential Projects......................................................................4-60 Table 4-30. Little Bear Creek Research...................................................................................4-62 • Table 4-31. North Creek Action Alternatives..........................................................................4-65 Table 4-32. North Creek Potential Projects..............................................................................4-66 Table 4-33. North Creek Research ..........................................................................................4-68 Table 4-34. Swamp Creek Action Alternatives........................................................................4-71 Table 4-35. Swamp Creek Potential Projects...........................................................................4-73 Table 4-36. Swamp Creek Research 4-74 ....................................................................................... Table 4-37. Kelsey Creek Action Alternatives ........................................................................4-77 • Table 4-38. Kelsey Creek Potential Projects ...........................................................................4-78 Table 4-39. Kelsey Creek Research ........................................................................................4-79 Table8-1. Funding Sources ..................................................................................................... 8-8 • M Figures Figure 1. Process to Develop the Action Agenda ................................................................. 1-7 • • • • i i • • • • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish viii August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Table of Contents • s Maps • a Map 1. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed..................................................... 1-11 Map 2. WRIA 8 Projects Funded Through Regional Process............................................... 1-13 • Map 3. WRIA 8 Subareas and Urban Growth Area................................................................4-3 • Map 4. Nearshore and Locks Subareas .................................................................................4-10 = Map 5. Ship Canal/Lake Union Subarea...............................................................................4-17 Map 6. Lake Washington Subarea ........................................................................................4-23 Map 7. Lake Sammamish Subarea........................................................................................4-28 Map 8. Sammamish River Subarea.......................................................................................4-36 • Map 9a. Cedar River Subarea—Lower...................................................................................4-44 • Map 9b. Cedar River Subarea—Upper...................................................................................4-45 Map10. Bear Creek Subarea...................................................................................................4-50 • Map 11. Issaquah Creek Subarea............................................................................................4-56 • Map 12. Little Bear Creek Subarea.........................................................................................4-63 Map13. North Creek Subarea.................................................................................................4-69 Map 14. Swamp Creek Subarea..............................................................................................4-75 • Map 15. Kelsey Creek Subarea...............................................................................................4-81 • • • • • • August 2002 ix Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda w U w w i i Executive Summary • Washington state law and policy encourage a multi jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder process at the watershed level to develop science-based actions to protect and restore salmon habitat. In addition, recognition is growing that working to conserve salmon is good not just for the fish,but also for the livelihood, health, and quality of life of people as well. In the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, 27 local jurisdictions, consisting of King and Snohomish counties and 25 cities in those counties, signed an interlocal agreement to fund a joint planning effort to conserve salmon habitat in their shared watershed. This collaborative process, as well as active participation by business and environmental groups, scientists, state agencies, and concerned citizens, has resulted in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8) Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation. The Action Agenda offers interim guidance to stem the decline of salmon habitat while local governments, other interested partners, scientists, and the public continue to work together on a longer-term plan for conservation of salmon habitat. A long-term view is necessary because although scientific knowledge is increasing about both the needs of salmon and how to aid in its conservation and recovery,this knowledge is nowhere + near complete. This means more scientific study and understanding are required before a long- term salmon conservation plan can be prepared. In the meantime,the Action Agenda has been created to help jurisdictions, interested organizations, and concerned citizens make informed decisions about what immediate actions to take. i It should be noted that the Action Agenda is neither mandatory law nor a full salmon recovery plan. The other causes for declining populations, such as hatchery management and harvest, must be addressed in other venues. The Action Agenda is intended to provide projects and guidance that can be undertaken to improve habitat conditions for salmon in the immediate future. There are four categories of recommendations: habitat protection and restoration . projects; regulatory and policy guidance; public education, incentives, and involvement; and . guidance for research, monitoring, and adaptive management. The purpose of the Action Agenda is to propose a range of activities within these four categories that can be undertaken quickly, usually within 2 to 5 years, and that do not require detailed analysis and planning. The strategy of the Action Agenda is based on and addresses the natural and human-caused factors contributing to the loss of chinook salmon habitat, referred to in the Action Agenda as factors of decline. This near-term strategy relies on a broad set of ecosystem objectives and a specific set of guiding principles that together characterize the types of actions needed for the i unique circumstances in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The near-term strategy pinpoints habitat subareas of the watershed most critical to chinook spawning, rearing, and migration. It also explains how the four categories of actions offer opportunities to address salmon habitat decline both in the key habitat subareas and around the watershed at large. The Action Agenda provides general guidance and criteria on proposing and implementing appropriate actions as well as a menu of recommendations that can be undertaken in the next 5 August 2002 xi Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Executive Summary 40 years. Included are 182 habitat protection, restoration, and research projects, 25 regulatory and policy guidance suggestions, and 44 public outreach action recommendations. In addition, the . Action Agenda offers guidance to help implementers incorporate a monitoring and adaptive management component into their projects and programs. This is a critical tool for gathering information needed to develop the long-term plan. To help ensure success, the Action Agenda also includes a directory of implementation resources, such as model ordinances, relevant 0 publications and websites, and a table of funding sources. ! The Action Agenda is not expected to be the final word on salmon conservation. Rather, it starts the dialogue by laying out numerous opportunities for local jurisdictions, interested •. organizations, and concerned citizens to take actions to conserve habitat in the watershed that • humans share with salmon. i r • • • • • • • • • • i • • • N • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish xii August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda . • • • i • s CHAPTER 1 • s • Introduction • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • Chapter 1. Introduction • Background The future of chinook and other salmon in the Puget Sound region is in question. Chinook salmon are far less abundant now than they were even in recent decades, and in March 1999, the species was listed by the federal government as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In many ways, salmon's decline is intertwined with humanity's way of life; its importance in tribal, commercial, and sport fishing affects both the economy and cultural traditions. The condition of fish habitat is linked to the quality of the environment and the benefits human inhabitants reap from it. The Washington State Legislature has recognized that recovering salmon is good not just for the fish, but for people too. Scientific research is demonstrating both how human activities have collided with salmon's needs and how people can aid in salmon conservation and recovery. A greater appreciation for salmon's status and decline is prompting citizens to refocus their personal and civic priorities. If salmon are to retain a central role in human culture rather than become a relic of the past, this knowledge and appreciation must lead to action. There are many causes for the decline in chinook and other salmon populations. These are generally referred to as the H's: harvest, hatcheries, hydropower, and habitat. Efforts are under way at many levels of government to improve management practices in all of these areas. Local governments have the most impact on habitat, particularly through protection, restoration, and land use policies in the watersheds. Harvest and hatchery management are being addressed by the state and the tribes, who are the legal co-managers of the fishery resource. In this watershed, dams are being addressed by local governments. (See Appendix B, WRIA 8 Salmon . Conservation Planning, for discussion of other efforts to benefit salmon.) r Just as impacts on the watershed did not occur overnight, so the successful conservation and recovery of naturally produced salmon will take decades to accomplish. It will require a long- term effort, guided by watershed assessment and strategic planning, that will need to be implemented in the field, in council chambers, and in boardrooms and living rooms across the watershed. In the meantime, action must begin, using the knowledge that is available now. Recognizing that a long-term plan to conserve habitat for chinook salmon will take additional knowledge and several years to develop, elected officials,jurisdictional staff, business and environmental groups, scientists, and concerned citizens have been working together in a voluntary effort to identify and carry out actions that will help salmon in the near term in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation is the result of that collaboration. (Please see Map 1 at the end of this chapter to view jurisdictions and watershed boundaries.) • August 2002 1-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 1 Introduction i A Note on Watershed Names The watershed is known by several names, depending on the context in which it is used. The formal name used in the multi jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder salmon conservation planning process is the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The area is also a state planning unit called Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. (The state's WRIA boundary was modified slightly to avoid splitting Elliott Bay, which is wholly included in WRIA 9 for local salmon conservation planning purposes.) Neighborhood stream signage uses the label "Greater S Lake Washington Watershed." State reports sometimes refer to the Cedar-Sammamish Basin. , To avoid confusion, only the two most commonly used names, the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed and WRIA 8, are used interchangeably in this document. Purpose of the Action Agenda • The Action Agenda provides immediate guidance on actions that are expected to begin benefiting chinook salmon while a long-term salmon conservation plan is being developed. The Action Agenda is intended to provide a range of opportunities, in the form of projects and guidance, that jurisdictions, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and interested citizens can undertake within 5 years to improve conditions for salmon. Because there is so much that should be done to recover salmon, it is important to distinguish what steps can be taken in the near-term time frame of the Action Agenda. Presented is a menu of actions that are appropriate to take now, given what is currently known. To do this, the Action Agenda strives to: ■ Offer a range of opportunities to improve salmon habitat in the watershed. ■ Include actions that can be started or implemented within 5 years. ■ Address the factors of decline for salmon habitat. ■ Propose actions considered of low risk to chinook salmon and other species. • ■ Provide policy and regulatory guidance to local governments by recommending outcomes rather than prescribing how to achieve the outcomes. • ■ Recommend monitored demonstration projects. ■ Include research actions that will provide information needed now for development of the long-term conservation plan. ■ Be adaptable to new information. ■ Include actions that can be implemented with the help of volunteers. ■ Recommend actions to improve public awareness of salmon needs and e encourage involvement in salmon conservation activities. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda . Chapter 1 Introduction ■ Offer guidance on resources to implement recommended actions. ■ Link to related actions outside of the WRIA 8 salmon conservation planning process (such as shoreline master planning, in-basin habitat conservation plans, and critical areas ordinance revisions). • The Action Agenda examines four categories of action: habitat protection and restoration projects; regulatory and policy guidance; public outreach and education; and guidance for research, monitoring, and adaptive management. The primary emphasis is on habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects and research. The Action Agenda focuses on chinook salmon and the areas that provide spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for them, although i other species of salmon and bull trout are also expected to benefit. r Salmon conservation in WRIA 8, over both the near and long terms, is grounded in and driven by science. The actions included in the Action Agenda are based on an initial assessment of the natural and human-caused factors contributing to the decline of chinook salmon habitat, referred to in the Action Agenda as factors of decline (see Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting S Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin, Washington State Conservation Commission, September 2001), along with the best professional judgment. Because more science is needed to i prepare the long-term salmon conservation plan,the Action Agenda fills a vital need to begin work now. In discussing the purpose of the Action Agenda, it is also important to understand what the Action Agenda is not intended to be. Although it takes a science-based approach, it is not a technical document,nor is it a salmon recovery plan. Although the actions included here are based on initial technical analysis, they are not ranked or prioritized, have not been evaluated for feasibility, and have not undergone design and construction planning. Also,the Action Agenda ! is not mandatory, nor is it to be taken as law. Rather, it offers guidance and recommendations • that can begin to stem the decline of salmon habitat in the watershed. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed—History and Geography History r The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed has been dramatically altered since the first non-native settlers arrived in the region 150 years ago. This transformation started with heavy logging of old-growth forest in the 19'b century. The transformation expanded at the turn of the 20t' century, when Seattle built the Landsburg Diversion Dam and tapped the Cedar River as its main source of water. • The most drastic change in the watershed occurred between 1910 and 1920, when the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks were built. The ecological consequences of these alterations were profound. The outlet of Lake Washington was redirected from its south end at the Black River to the north through Lake Union and the Locks. The result was a drop in Lake Washington's level of almost 9 feet, which drained wetlands along much of i its shoreline and dramatically changed the lake's confluences with its tributaries. The new outlet August 2002 1-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 1 Introduction i at the Locks and Salmon Bay had almost no features of a natural estuary, presenting an abrupt transition from freshwater to saltwater(and saltwater to freshwater) as well as a significant physical barrier to migrating salmon. • In a separate but likewise profound action during the same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from its normal path of flowing into the Black River(which in turn had fed the Duwamish River) and channelized to flow into Lake Washington to reduce flooding in the City of Renton. In addition,when the water surface level of Lake Washington was lowered,the water surface of Lake Sammamish was also lowered, and this drained the vast wetland complex that had made up the Sammamish River corridor between the two lakes. The drained land allowed a major expansion of farming in that corridor, which in turn led to the channelization and confinement of the Sammamish River in the early 1920s to a course very close to its current one. Thus the general hydrogeography of the present watershed was established within the first 20 years of the last century. In the ensuing years,the most important cause of physical change to the watershed has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In particular, development has altered the hydrology of the watershed,both through changes in land cover and through increased water withdrawals. Changes in land cover caused by urbanization affect salmon habitat primarily by altering flow levels,but these changes have also resulted in the degradation of riparian areas. The removal of forest cover for urban and suburban development dramatically increases the size and frequency of high flows from stormwater in lowland creeks. Clearing and paving tend to further reduce low flows in the summer and early fall,because cleared land and impervious • surfaces dramatically reduce groundwater recharge. Through the 1950s, increasing amounts of water were withdrawn from the Cedar River watershed to support a growing city. Since then, Seattle and the region have developed other • water sources, allowing Cedar River diversions to remain relatively stable. Major groundwater withdrawals in the watershed have been made from below the lower Cedar River, lower Issaquah Creek, lower Bear Creek, and Lower Rock Creek(a tributary to the Cedar River). Following significant floods in the 1950s, countywide flood control efforts in the 1960s led to a , dramatic expansion of levees on the Cedar River and local sponsorship of major dredging and levee construction on the Sammamish River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This in turn supported increased development of the floodplains of both rivers. Meanwhile, expanding urbanization led to heavy residential development of the shorelines of Lake Washington and • Lake Sammamish. Residential development also expanded along the bluffs above Puget Sound and along parts of its shoreline. In the early 20`h century, the marine nearshore was even more dramatically affected by the construction of a railroad line along most of its length. Bulkheads , and other protections for the railroad line and housing developments significantly curtailed natural beach-forming ecological processes of the Puget Sound nearshore. i Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1-4 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 1 a Introduction In addition to these changes in physical habitat, the introduction of non-native fauna and flora significantly changed the biology of the Lake Washington ecosystem. More than 40 non-native • fish have been introduced into the watershed; however, some of these introduced species have not survived. Today, there are 24 known non-native fish species in the watershed. Notably, these species include smallmouth and largemouth bass,which are significant predators of juvenile salmon. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. Because juvenile sockeye require a lake for a year or more of rearing,the Cedar River supported few if any sockeye prior to its connection with Lake Washington. However, the Cedar did support runs of pink and chum salmon prior to the river's . being redirected into Lake Washington; these runs are now extinct. The non-native Eurasian watermilfoil now dominates much of the shorelines of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Himalayan blackberry is common in riparian areas throughout the watershed, and Japanese knotweed and reed canarygrass are spreading. Geography . Approximately 85 percent of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed lies within the boundaries of King County, the most populous county in the state. Snohomish County encompasses the remaining 15 percent of the watershed, and this area consists of Bear Creek headwaters,the northern tributaries, and the adjacent nearshore drainage. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is composed of two major physiographic areas. The eastern portion of the watershed,which covers approximately 14 percent of the total area, lies in the Cascade Range while the western portion, which is the remaining 86 percent, occupies the Puget Sound lowland. Primarily because of its elevation, the eastern portion(the upper Cedar River and parts of upper Issaquah Creek) receives much more precipitation,up to 102 inches annually, compared to an average of 38 inches in the western portion of the watershed. The three basins in the watershed that produce the largest salmon populations, the Cedar River, i Issaquah Creek, and Bear Creek, have distinctly different geology,hydrology, and topography. Only the Cedar River, which originates in the relatively high mountain country of the Cascade . Range, develops a large annual snowpack. Issaquah Creek originates at the foot of the Cascades in bedrock hills that are too low to hold snow for sustained spring or summer runoff. Bear Creek is a lowland stream system, originating in a large area of forests and wetlands in south Snohomish and north King counties. All the watershed streams, with the exception of the Cedar • River, must rely primarily on groundwater to sustain base flows in the summer and early fall. Alterations to the two major lakes in the watershed, as well as its varied topography,have A resulted in ecological complexities not found in other watersheds. Stream environments for • salmon in the Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and Bear Creek are unique to each of these systems; therefore actions to address a particular stream's productivity issues are potentially independent of one another. Recovery goals will need to address these physical differences across the watershed, as well as genetics and production issues. i i August 2002 1-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 1 Introduction The lakes have their own complex ecological systems,which are not yet well understood,but which make salmon from WRIA 8 unusual in the Puget Sound region. Native salmon from Bear Creek and other tributaries of the original Lake Washington watershed would have co-evolved with lake habitats. However, the native salmon of the Cedar River evolved primarily in stream conditions. The long-term effect on Cedar River chinook salmon of migrating to and rearing in Lake Washington, rather than in the historic Cedar, Black, and Green/Duwamish River complex, . is not known. Most of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed lies within urban growth area boundaries. (See Map 3 in Chapter 4, Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Sub- areas, to view the urban growth area.) However, nearly all of the watershed's most productive salmon spawning habitats are outside this area. WRIA 8 has the largest human population in the state, approximately 1.4 million people (which is more than twice the human population of any other WRIA in the state), despite its being geographically smaller than most. Based on i projections by the Puget Sound Regional Council, this population is expected to increase more • than 20 percent over the next 2 decades,bringing it to more than 1.7 million in 2020. Watershed-Based Salmon Conservation Planning — Context and Process Legal Context Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act in March 1999. The ensuing 4(d)rule resulted in it being unlawful to , take the species, which includes killing, harming, harassing, or significantly altering its habitat. At the state level, the implementation of the Washington Salmon Recovery Act has led to establishment of multi jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder committees to recommend projects for • restoration and protection of salmon habitat. In the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, 27 local governments—consisting of King and Snohomish counties, Seattle, and 24 other cities in those counties—signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund a planning effort to conserve salmon habitat in the watershed. The historical evolution of and legal context for the WRIA 8 salmon conservation planning process, as well as its relationship to other salmon • conservation efforts, is described in more detail in Appendices A and B. Other laws, such as the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act, also need to be considered in conservation planning. Refer to Appendix C for a discussion of relevant laws and regulations. Planning Process A multi jurisdictional,multi-stakeholder process has been used to compile what is known about habitat conditions and to develop recommendations for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Figure 1 is an illustration of the planning process. A Steering Committee— composed of local elected leaders, concerned citizens, scientists, and representatives from the business and environmental communities, water and sewer districts, and state and federal agencies—oversees the development of the Action Agenda and the long-term conservation plan. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1-6 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Figure 1. Process to Develop the Action Agenda Staff Committee • Regulatory&Policy Guidance • Implementation Resources Technical Committee • Scientific Basis for Near-Term Strategy Public Outreach . Factors of Salmon Habitat Decline Committee • Habitat Projects and Research • Education and Involvement • Monitoring and Adaptive • Public Review Process Management x yF< �E z � i Synthesis Committee Integrated recommendations to form Action Agenda Public Input & Review • Steering Committee WRIA 8 Forum • 0209W8NTAA-Fig1Process.ai LPRE • 1-7 Chapter 1 Introduction The Steering Committee meets regularly and offers opportunities for public comment. The , Steering Committee set the scope and direction of the Action Agenda, which received significant • input and work from four other committees: Technical, Staff, Public Outreach, and Synthesis. • Individual jurisdictions and stakeholder groups provided staff and professional resources to each of these committees. The Technical Committee consists of science professionals who are working to provide the . technical foundation and documentation for both near-term and long-term planning efforts. This committee evaluates limiting factors assessments and recommends potential protection, restoration, research, and regulatory actions. The Staff Committee is composed primarily of jurisdiction staff with planning and policy responsibilities; committee members are responsible for developing the policy and regulatory guidance. The Public Outreach Committee is concerned both with developing the public outreach recommendations for the Action Agenda and promoting public involvement in the Action Agenda's review and implementation. Work products from each of the committees were integrated by the Synthesis Committee, which , consists of representatives from each of the other committees. Committee rosters are listed in Chapter 9,Acknowledgements. i The Steering Committee released a review draft of the Action Agenda to the public and held four • open houses around the watershed to seek oral and written input and feedback. The Steering • Committee then integrated the public comment into a final version that was presented to and accepted by the WRIA 8 Forum. The WRIA 8 Forum consists of elected officials representing the 27 local governments that signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund salmon conservation • planning in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Now the final Action Agenda is offered as recommended actions and guidance to governments, nonprofit organizations, the private sector, and interested citizens. Because nothing in the Action Agenda is mandatory, each local jurisdiction can choose to adopt or implement the recommendations in a manner consistent with their established procedures, including providing additional opportunities for public . outreach and input. The next step in the planning process to conserve salmon habitat is to conduct a strategic assessment. This assessment involves research and analysis to fill important information gaps, in particular those concerning the health of chinook salmon and bull trout. The strategic assessment will also analyze and synthesize what is currently known to construct a model of habitat conditions in the watershed. The assessment will be shaped by the issues that need to be addressed in the development of a long-term salmon conservation plan for WRIA 8 and will help provide the scientific foundation for the long-term plan. The Steering Committee will work • together with policymakers and the public to use what is learned in the strategic assessment to . develop the long-term salmon conservation plan. The WRIA 8 Forum will approve or remand the conservation plan before it is submitted to individual jurisdictions. It should also be noted that the multi jurisdictional, multi-stakeholder process has already overseen the funding and implementation of numerous projects to stem the decline of salmon e Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1-8 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Chapter 1 Introduction habitat in the watershed. See Map 2 for a list of these projects. In addition, many other such projects are being funded by individual jurisdictions and organizations. Organization of the Action Agenda i The Action Agenda consists of an executive summary, 11 chapters, and three appendices. Each of the following chapters begins with background and context sections for the information being presented. These sections provide an overview of the information in each chapter, explain why this information is needed and how it was developed, and offer suggestions on how it should be S used. The chapters of the Action Agenda (with the exception of this introduction) are organized as follows: Chapter 2 —Near-Term Strategy—Provides near-term strategy, guidance, and principles to ensure that near-term actions are scientifically based, will be consistent with ecosystem objectives, and lay the foundation for the long-term salmon conservation plan. Chapter 3—General Action Guidance—Contains guidance and criteria for jurisdictions and organizations interested in selecting, planning, and implementing habitat improvement projects or in modifying policies and regulations beyond the specific recommendations offered in the • Action Agenda. This chapter addresses conditions across a broad geographic area rather than identifying specific sites and is organized by factors of decline for salmon habitat in the watershed. Chapter 4—Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas—Provides an initial list of recommendations for site-specific habitat protection and restoration projects as well as research to address identified factors of decline for salmon habitat. The recommendations focus on those subareas that are used by chinook salmon at various life stages: core production subareas, migratory and rearing corridors, and satellite production subareas. Chapter 5—Regulatory and Policy Recommendations— Contains specific proposals designed to provide local governments with a starting point for evaluating, updating, or improving enforcement of policies and regulations that are linked to salmon conservation. Regulations and policies are a crucial piece of the salmon conservation puzzle because they can help prevent habitat loss. Chapter 6—Education and Public Involvement—Presents a broad set of education, outreach, and incentive opportunities for local governments, nonprofit organizations, citizen groups, and others to increase public awareness, acceptance, and involvement in the activities that will lead to salmon habitat conservation. Chapter 7—Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research—Discusses the development • of research, monitoring, and adaptive management components to assess how well the implementation of projects and programs achieves salmon habitat conservation goals. Use of t� these components will also allow for modifications as new information is learned. Immediate August 2002 1-9 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 1 Introduction development is necessary in order to funnel new knowledge into the long-term salmon conservation plan. Chapter 8—Implementation Resources— Suggests resources to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations, citizen groups, and others with implementing the recommendations of the Action Agenda. Resources include example ordinances and regulations, relevant publications and websites, partnership opportunities, and grants and funding sources. The last three chapters offer reference information related to the Action Agenda: Chapter 9—Acknowledgements—Acknowledges those participating in the Lake • Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed salmon conservation planning process. Chapter 10—Bibliography—Lists sources used to develop the Action Agenda. Chapter 11 —Glossary—Defines technical terms used in the Action Agenda. r The three appendices to the Action Agenda provide information on the history of regional planning in WRIA 8, related efforts to help recover salmon, and relevant laws and regulations for • the process. • Website The website address for the watershed-based salmon conservation planning effort in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed is http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8. r Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1-10 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda I • EVERETT MUKILTEO - , , ak �n LAKE 1 • CEDAR/ o i '� AMILLC SAMMAMISH WATERSHED MnrIM1O SNOHOMISH COUNTY EDMONDS LYNNWOOD ®, • • '•. >� Snohomish Watershed • -y` 3 R f _ KING COUNTY W ster shed 1 • 1 • •. 6 SLa�e Washington/ WOOD- MOUNTL KE BRIER ` Chi r/Sammami sh WAY TERRA s W er-s ed at,( ROTHE r_- _ • SHORELINE LAKE WOODIN LIE ___ FOREST ur' • H ',.PARKarY r Pf s� t Watershed Boundary KENMORE ERCE Duwami sh-Green % �� °�� °°c> CIO U N T Y Water shed River ej w Stream CFL'D MONO Major Road y K RKLAND — SEATTLE F ND ` Lake i i Y HUNT PRI T. P01 ' N CLYDE • HILL . SEATTLE ME _ BEL; VUE, � �8 BE q SAMMAMI,SH 0 2 4 6 Miles - C F Pfi�ni _ August 2002 MERCER i\ ISLAND Map designed/produced by: The DNRP GIS Unit and the WLR Visual - - r Communications & Web Unit, August 2002. N • ��-, �' � aTNEWATLE. ° i File me: is obAH 0208 W8NTAA-whsdClTY.ai WGC, MD, LP RENTON � Fi,y`' &wr rr�ir' x�eC �"I • ".,a .. wdastie"�JQF f .. ` ` vet .. � �. ester APLE ALLEY Z Morse , o Reservoirr ya air rf Re�riN � � clef • '� O King County V-71 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Divisions 4 • • Project Funding Sources Include: . . ,MUKIJ. : ✓,I North Creek/Twin Creeks • Salmon Recovery Funding Board • Recovery Project , • King Conservation District Little Bear Creek NE 205 Culvert Project • WaterWorks Forum Initiative • EEK Little Bear Creek Fish Passage Improvement • 132nd Ave NE LY WOOD - - Upper Bear Creek Additional efforts funded through E MONDs Conservation Area 2 McAleer Creek regional WRIA 8 process, but not Improvement ? mapped: • D- u L E BRIER. Upper Bear Creek Project W�lr ERAC 1,, BOTH L Conservation Area 1 ---- _A,,, _ _ 'SNOHGMISH CO. Stewardship/Education Programs: O WRIA 8 Projects REST j` KING CO. Lyon Creek RK BO EL• Little Bear Creek Acquisition • Sammamish Watershed Stewardship Waterfront Preserve RE ^I Watershed Boundary • Sammamish Program Coordination K NMORE ! s° Bear Creek Waterways Reach A Acquisition • Best Management Practices (BMP) River Workshops for Horse Owners i ` • Cedar River Naturalist Program Stream K R LA` Bear Creek/Cold Creek 3 Natural Area Acquisition • Sammamish ReLeaf Major Road SEA Ti r� t YARR 1 Studies: La ke • Ballard Locks HUNT P I Sammamish Redmond 74"Acquisition Smolt Passage Pat `, • Juvenile Salmon Use of Sammamish Improvements y n. River CLYDE SE TLE` y HILL `�J- o � • 11 fi ME + Sammamish River Tributary Habitat Surveys � Kelsey Creek Fish Passage Improvements y 3 BE L 3 ; %' • Kokanee Conservation Program Kelsey Creek Fish Ladder Johnson Property Habitat Enhancement • Cedar River Gravel Study BE Ev • Juanita Creek Habitat Assessment May Creek Canyon Issaquah Creek Habitat Enhancement N Restoration ( G � • WRIA 8 Strategic Assessment r • Differential Migratory Success of WRIA • 8 Juvenile Salmonids 0 4 6 Miles Rainbow Bend Home Flood Buyout 2 Cedar/Ricardi Reach Acquisition e�� y • Lake Washington Basin Chinook " Surveys August2002 .r, F Holder Creek Acquisition Buck's Curve Flood Buyout _. • PLEASE NOTE: Cedar/Jones Bend Acquisition Issaquah Creek/Carey Creek Acquisition This map does not include the many projects being funded by . ~'w local jurisdictions. Cedar/Dorre Don Reach Acquisition Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)8 is another name for the Cam'Carey Creek Acquisition Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed and also • 2 Rock Creek RM. 3 p,; m includes a portion of the Puget Sound Drainage. Jan Rd t Acquisition Lions Club Restoration Design Acquisition i--, q Cheste �` "$, Morse Data Sources: Cedar River—Taylor Creek cedar 9 Reservoir King County standard datasets:Whbdy,Wtrcrs,Drnbsn3co,Kcsnstrt. • Confluence Acquisitions "" ° Cities:WLRNT6/WLRGIS/city3co. q Project locations:WLRNT6/Vo12/work/02059/. • Rock Creek/Ravensdale Map Designed/Produced by: Retreat Acquisition The DNRP GIs Unit and the WLR Visual Communications&Web Unit,August 2002. • File Name: Rock Creek/Crow Marsh 0208 W8NTAA-KCD_SRFpr.i.ai WGC,SK,MD,LP Conservation Easement O King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Divisions • • • • • • • CHAPTER 2 • • • Near-Term Strategy • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 Chapter 2. Near-Term Strategy • • • Background and Context of Chapter • Given the status of many salmon populations in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 0 Watershed, it is essential that specific near-term actions be taken to slow or even halt their decline and to establish a pathway to their recovery. To do this,the strategy of the Action Agenda is to offer opportunities to address the factors of decline for chinook salmon habitat, • particularly in the subareas most critical to the course of the species' life history. The chinook salmon use these subareas to spawn,rear, and migrate to and from saltwater, so the protection • and restoration of habitat in these areas is important for their continued existence. The near-term strategy calls for a range of options—mainly protection, enhancement, restoration, • regulatory, and educational—that can be undertaken quickly, usually within 2 to 5 years, and that do not require detailed analysis and planning. The benefits of these actions are considered so obvious (and presumably, the risks to the salmon so low)that further analysis is sometimes viewed as an unnecessary delay to action. In addition, these early actions must be based in • sound scientific theory and practice, appropriate for the tasks involved in early conservation • planning. The actions also should be designed to provide opportunities for future conservation. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee, which is composed of scientists from across the watershed • (see Chapter 9, Acknowledgements, for a roster), developed the foundation for this near-term • strategy. Given scientists' somewhat limited knowledge of salmon life history needs in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, the strategy is to be conservative and cautious in recommending actions and guidance, selecting those that are reasonably certain to benefit salmon habitat. This conservative approach was also chosen as a way to maintain a direct link S between the near-term actions and the long-term conservation plan now in development. While . more information is being gathered and analyzed to guide development of a long-term salmon conservation plan, the near-term strategy is intended to preserve opportunities and provide consistent direction for salmon habitat conservation for the entire watershed and its individual subareas. The goal of this strategy is to provide guidance by which implementers can link near- 0 term actions to the long-term health of the ecosystem. The science-based strategy addresses the factors of decline for chinook salmon habitat in the watershed and presents ecosystem objectives and guiding principles for conservation efforts. In • addition, it identifies and defines core and satellite chinook production subareas as well as • migratory and rearing corridor subareas in which near-term projects should be focused. The strategy also offers general guidance for actions to take anywhere within WRIA 8 and provides explanations for why each of the categories of recommended actions is important in conserving salmon habitat. August 2002 2-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 9 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 2 . Near-Term Strategy Scientific Basis of the Strategy • Factors of Decline The near-term strategy for the Action Agenda is built on and addresses the factors of decline • contributing to the loss of chinook salmon habitat in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed. These factors have been identified in the report titled Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for Cedar-Sammamish Basin, developed by the Washington State . Conservation Commission and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. A summary of the factors of • decline is provided in Table 2-1, below. Table 2-1. Factors of Decline in WRIA 8 Factors of Decline in Rivers and Streams in WRIA 8 • The following factors of decline are common in rivers and streams throughout WRIA 8. These are not listed in order of priority: • ■ Fish access and passage barriers ■ Degradation of riparian conditions • ■ Altered hydrology and flow • ■ Poor water quality(temperature, other) ■ Loss of channel complexity and connectivity ■ Increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes. Factors of Decline for Unique Subareas of WRIA 8 • ■ Nearshore/Estuary: Loss of habitat in migratory and rearing corridor, alteration of habitat- forming processes,loss of riparian function,poor water quality,poor sediment quality, • introduction of non-native species ■ Hiram M.Chittenden Locks: Fish passage and access barriers,poor water quality(increased temperatures, freshwater/saltwater exchange),predation • ■ Ship Canal/Lake Union: Predation, degradation of riparian habitat conditions,poor water i quality(temperature, dissolved oxygen),poor sediment quality ■ Lake Washington: Altered trophic interactions(predation,competition),degradation of riparian shoreline conditions, altered hydrology,invasive exotic plants,poor water quality(phosphorus, • alkalinity,pH),poor sediment quality • ■ Lake Sammamish: Degraded riparian shoreline conditions,predation,poor water quality (temperature,nutrients),invasive plants,poor sediment quality, altered fish species composition, altered macrophyte conditions, altered sediment transport processes,fish passage and access • barriers. Ecosystem Objectives • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee members relied upon a series of ecosystem objectives and • guiding principles to inform their professional judgment in recommending general action • guidance, habitat protection and restoration projects, and research. The near-term strategy is not • based on extensive new scientific research or an assessment of the constraints within the watershed; however,this will be required for the development of the long-term salmon conservation plan. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 2-2 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 2 Near-Term Strategy The near-term strategy recognizes four ecosystem objectives for salmon habitat protection and • restoration. These ecosystem objectives are the basis for developing and selecting near-term • habitat actions and guidance that are responsive to the factors of decline. The objectives are to: ■ Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat • characteristics favorable to salmon. ■ Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and S maintain functional corridors linking these habitats. . 0 Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality refuge habitats to serve • as centers of population expansion. ■ Maintain connectivity between high-quality habitats to allow for population expansion into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover. Guiding Principles Knowledge of natural watershed processes can provide a design template for the implementation of conservation actions. However, highly altered environments throughout the Lake • Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed may require unique approaches that differ from • complete restoration of historic natural watershed processes. The following guiding principles characterize what should be done specifically in WRIA 8 to restore the altered environment in a way that is consistent with the ecosystem objectives; the guiding principles also serve to focus the near-term actions on factors of decline. • The WRIA 8 guiding principles are to: ■ Protect and restore natural physical, chemical, and biological processes • and the habitats they form that are necessary for the recovery and conservation of salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. • ■ Protect and maintain existing quality refuge habitats from which salmon populations may expand. ■ Maintain and restore the corridors that link habitats, including headwaters, • channel migration zones, floodplains, wetlands, lake shorelines, estuaries, • and marine nearshore habitats. ■ Maintain and reconnect salmon access to freshwater, saltwater, and • estuarine habitats. ■ Emphasize self-sustaining, abundant, diverse, and widely distributed runs of naturally produced salmon when developing protection and restoration • strategies. August 2002 2-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 2 • Near-Term Strategy ■ Approach the development of management actions in a scientifically rigorous manner, including the articulation of appropriate hypotheses. • ■ Employ scientifically rigorous adaptive management techniques, including implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring, to all elements of conservation activities. • ■ Identify, protect, and restore those areas that exhibit high existing salmon use, greatest production potential, or a high future conservation value for salmon. ■ Plan, develop, and implement management actions (for example, regulations, easements, incentives)to ensure protection of biologically important areas. ■ Conduct research and investigations necessary to further the understanding of watershed processes that are critical to the formation of habitat necessary for salmon conservation and survival. ■ Identify and implement appropriate action alternatives responsive to habitat-limiting factors and recovery goals for naturally produced salmon. Although the Action Agenda is not a prioritized list, the following three additional principles should help implementers to both prioritize the selection of actions and guide them in evaluating . their implementation: ■ Do no further harm to watershed processes, habitat structure, and aquatic . functions important for salmon production. • • Conserve the best remaining habitat that supports chinook salmon spawning. • ■ Conserve those areas that are understood to support high chinook salmon use and productivity, including rearing and migration corridors. Identification of Core and Satellite Production Subareas and Migratory and Rearing Corridors for Chinook Salmon Populations While factors of decline, ecosystem objectives, and guiding principles provide the scientific basis for action, knowledge of chinook salmon population distribution and how they use their habitat is important to determine where site-specific actions should be focused. Based on current knowledge, habitat protection and restoration projects and research have been recommended for • the following populations and the habitats where they are most abundant. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 2-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 2 Near-Term Strategy The near-term strategy recognizes three naturally produced populations of chinook salmon • currently thought to use the habitats of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed for • reproduction. ■ The Cedar River stock is confined to the mainstem Cedar River and • several of its tributaries that are all downstream of Landsburg Dam. This • stock is believed to be unique in and to WRIA 8 primarily because only limited numbers of hatchery fish have been released into the subarea. • ■ The north Lake Washington tributaries stock is found in tributaries such as • Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek,North Creek, and Swamp Creek. ■ The Issaquah Creek stock is the third naturally produced stock. The National Marine Fisheries Service published a public review draft in April 2001 that identifies only two populations or stocks of native or naturally produced chinook salmon: the Cedar River stock (Cedar River genetic origin) and the north Lake Washington tributaries stock, • primarily from the Bear Creek basin(Green River genetic origin). The National Marine . Fisheries Service also includes Issaquah Creek in its definition of the north Lake Washington tributaries' population. However,the WRIA 8 Technical Committee has chosen to identify three different populations (Cedar,north Lake Washington, and Issaquah) until additional • investigations confirming the genetic relationships are completed. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee has conducted an initial analysis of chinook salmon populations throughout WRIA 8. The analysis was designed to identify those areas, referred to as subareas,within the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed that are used by chinook • salmon for habitat at various life stages. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 provide the results of that analysis. The different subareas are defined below. (Maps depicting the WRIA 8 subareas are provided in Chapter 4, Projects and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas, at the end of each subarea section.) Core production subareas: Chinook salmon are present on an annual basis. This type of subarea represents the center of(highest) abundance for each population affiliation (for spawning,rearing, and migration areas). (See Table 2-2.) Satellite production subareas: Chinook salmon are present most years (more than half the w years of a typical 4- to 5-year life cycle), but are less abundant than in core areas. Records are more incomplete, efforts to gather population distribution data are inconsistent among potential • satellite areas, and methods of enumeration vary. (See Table 2-2.) Episodic use subareas: Chinook salmon are present infrequently and may not be present or observed during the typical 4-to 5-year life cycle. This indicates that when fish are observed, • they are strays from another production area and not necessarily the progeny of natural • production from the area in question. (See Table 2-2.) Migatory and rearing corridor subareas: Water bodies within WRIA 8 that most chinook • salmon must travel through and feed from during the course of their life cycle. (See Table 2-3.) August 2002 2-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 2 Near-Term Strategy Table 2-2. Chinook Salmon Core and Satellite Designations of WRIA 8 Subareas Chinook Salmon Population Subarea Type Cedar River Cedar River and Tributaries Core • Cedar River/North Lake Washington Tributaries Kelsey Creek' Satellite • North Lake Washington Tributaries Bear Creek Core • Little Bear Creek Satellite • Swamp Creek Satellite • North Creek Satellite Coal Creek Episodic May Creek Episodic Juanita Creek Episodic Thornton Creek Episodic McAleer Creek Episodic Issaquah Creek Issaquah Creek Core Lewis Creek Episodic Laughing Jacobs Creek Episodic Independent Pipers Creek Episodic a It is not known which genetic population the Kelsey Creek stock belongs to:the North Lake Washington tributaries stock or • the Cedar River stock. • Table 2-3. Migratory and Rearing Corridors in WRIA 8 Subarea Type Nearshore/Estuary Migratory and rearing corridor Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Partial migratory barrier • Ship Canal/Lake Union Migratory and possible rearing corridor Lake Washington Migratory and rearing corridor Lake Sammamish Migratory and possible rearing corridor w Sammamish River Migratory and possible rearing corridor i Two key additional points must be kept in mind about population and habitat information. First, • for the system to ultimately function naturally, all habitat should be considered important regardless of whether or not chinook salmon use it regularly or less frequently. Second, much more knowledge needs to be gained about the importance of habitat characterized as episodic to determine why salmon are using that type of habitat less frequently. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 2-6 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda 0 • Chapter 2 Near-Term Strategy The near-term strategy's basis in ecosystem objectives calls for actions to be taken across the • range of habitat uses. The migratory and rearing corridor subareas (listed in Table 2-3) through • which most chinook salmon must travel during the course of their life cycle also support population productivity and are likely problem areas for fish survival, given historic hydrologic changes, altered trophic interactions (feeding relationships), and extensive development. Therefore, the Nearshore/Estuary, Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, Ship Canal/Lake Union, Lake • Washington, Sammamish River, and Lake Sammamish are also high-priority areas for near-term actions. Categories of Actions General Action Guidance The central focus of the Action Agenda is to recommend actions to take now to address the identified factors of salmon habitat decline. The near-term strategy lays out ecosystem objectives and guiding principles to consider when taking action. However, in addition to • addressing the theoretical strategy and the recommendations for specific projects at specific • locations, there is a need for general guidance and criteria. e For example, as research is completed and results are analyzed, new projects not contemplated in the Action Agenda or that could occur outside the core and satellite production subareas may become relevant. In addition, because the watershed is an interconnected ecosystem, actions can be taken even in those areas where the benefits to salmon are not immediately apparent. The general action guidance offered in Chapter 3 is to be used in conjunction with the guiding principles to develop unlisted projects. This will ensure a consistency of purpose and facilitate • more beneficial actions in the near term. The general guidance will also be useful in identifying • additional regulatory and programmatic actions. Following the general guidance, tiered criteria are listed in Chapter 3 to help implementers i choose potential near-term actions, structure actions not covered in the Action Agenda, and set • priorities for taking action. . Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas The Action Agenda includes recommendations for an initial list of habitat protection and restoration projects and research that are designed to address factors of decline by subareas. • (Please see Chapter 4, Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas.) Based on the near-term strategy above, the following project types are appropriate to undertake in the next 2 to 5 years: ■ Habitat acquisition for protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of watershed(especially hydrologic), floodplain, and riparian/nearshore processes. (Acquisition primarily for in-stream habitat restoration, in the August 2002 2-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 2 • Near-Term Strategy absence of a strategic watershed assessment, is not supported at this time. Please see the third item in this list.) • ■ Reconnection or restoration of fish access to potentially productive stream reaches in the drainage network. For example, prioritized culvert/fishway removal, replacement, or repair. . ■ Reconnection, restoration, and/or enhancement of floodplain and nearshore habitats. For example, removal of channel or nearshore hydromodifications such as dikes, revetments, overwater structures, and • bulkheads. Bank stabilization in river environments, in principle, is not • supported, as the goal is to recover channel migration, floodplain, and riparian processes as well as habitat structure and functions. ■ Restoration of native riparian plant communities. • Special note: Proposed projects may provide additional habitat benefits by including additional structural enhancements, such as engineered logjams, constructed off-channel habitat, and others. Before adding these or other elements to a project, the following points should be • considered: ■ There is a documented need for the function provided by the structure. ■ All site-specific and stream reach and shoreline hydrogeomorphic analyses supporting the project design have been conducted and peer-reviewed for risk of failure. ■ Additional project prioritization criteria and project monitoring objectives • should be followed as outlined in Chapter 3, General Action Guidance, and Chapter 7, Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research. Regulatory and Policy Guidance Without regulations and policies that guide land use actions, habitat management alone can only slow the rate of species decline, not recover it. Regulatory and programmatic components of the Action Agenda are necessary tools for salmon habitat conservation because they are preventive— they can discourage the degradation of habitat before it starts. A key element of the near-term . strategy is to protect and preserve the best remaining habitat. This cannot be accomplished • through on-the-ground restoration alone. The Action Agenda includes guidance for specific regulatory and policy review. (Please see Chapter 5, Regulatory and Policy Recommendations.) These recommendations address many of • the factors of decline and reflect the best professional judgment for what can be accomplished at • this time. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 2-8 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 2 Near-Term Strategy Education and Public Involvement Salmon conservation has a better chance of succeeding if it is supported by the community. Changes in policy and commitment of restoration resources will be easier and more appropriate • if a significant portion of the public understands and supports the changes that scientific analysis • suggests are necessary. To generate awareness, encourage involvement, and engage support for salmon conservation over the long term, education and outreach programs must begin now. A base of knowledge and understanding needs to be built and maintained to elicit the active i involvement of citizens and elected officials in determining workable conservation actions and S their successful implementation. Therefore, ongoing communication with and education of the public are essential. Public involvement and education programs initiated under the Action Agenda(please see • Chapter 6, Education and Public Involvement) address at least one factor of decline and strive to be consistent with the Action Agenda's guiding principles. • Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Although there is excellent general information about chinook salmon and watershed conditions • in WRIA 8, detailed knowledge of the factors influencing salmon decline in the individual • subareas is lacking. This information will be obtained through research and analysis as part of a strategic assessment, in which the appropriate sequencing and scale of research questions will be defined. Questions for evaluating research options include: ■ How much is currently known about salmon and salmon habitat in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed? ■ How will filling the gaps in information improve the ability to develop • conservation efforts? Another form of research is the monitoring of salmon habitat, population, and restoration projects, which is a critical component of a successful adaptive management program (discussed below). Specific recommendations for research are provided in Chapter 4, Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas. General research guidance can be found in Chapter 7, Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research. • The science of salmon recovery is evolving, and actions taken through watershed planning and the Action Agenda may need to be modified over time. Most of the recommendations in the Action Agenda have not undergone rigorous scientific analysis to confirm their value. However, some uncertainty is acceptable if the actions can be modified and adjusted as they are i implemented. Monitoring and adaptive management should be fundamental components of every project. This approach allows actions to be taken using the most current information, August 2002 2-9 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 2 • Near-Term Strategy • • while maintaining the flexibility to adjust as implementation reveals results and analysis suggests course corrections. • In addition, it is important to monitor and assess how well implementation of conservation • programs supports salmon recovery goals. An adaptive management program calls for public and private entities to learn from their actions through rigorous evaluation. Adaptive • management is a systematic process for gathering and analyzing information to inform decision- • making and the implementation of actions. Specific recommendations for monitoring and adaptive management are provided in Chapter 7. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 2-10 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • i • • • CHAPTER 3 • • • • General Action Guidance i • • i • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 3. General Action Guidance • • Background and Context of Chapter • This chapter contains guidance for jurisdictions and organizations interested in selecting, planning, and implementing habitat improvement projects in order to address the common factors of salmon decline that have been identified in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The chapter offers general recommendations for actions that can be carried out anywhere in the watershed. These recommendations will also be useful in identifying potential regulatory and programmatic actions. Suggested criteria for choosing early actions are given at • the end of the chapter. • • The recommendations for general actions to address factors of decline were developed by the . interjurisdictional WRIA 8 Technical Committee (see Chapter 9, Acknowledgements, for com- mittee roster) and originate in the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the • Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Washington State Conservation Commission, September 2001). However, some recommendations from that report have been omitted from this chapter to avoid duplication of other parts of the Action Agenda. The suggested criteria for choosing early action projects were also developed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. Chapter 4, Project and • Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas, gives more site-specific project and research ` recommendations for the core production, migratory and rearing, and satellite production • subareas. Providing general guidance is useful for two reasons: • ■ The opportunity to participate in salmon conservation and habitat . improvement is not limited to those jurisdictions and geographic areas adjacent to riparian areas or shorelines, because activities well beyond the waterline affect salmon habitat. ■ Many of the habitat improvements address conditions that occur across a broad geographic area and are not identified with a specific site. • How to Use This Guidance Consistent with the preceding points,the general action recommendations listed below can guide jurisdictions and organizations interested in selecting,planning, and implementing salmon habitat conservation projects as well as taking regulatory and programmatic actions. . Implementers should follow sound scientific practices, as well as the guiding principles and additional guidance set forth in the near-term strategy (see Chapter 2), to tailor projects to fit on- the-ground circumstances. Implementers will find the suggested criteria for choosing early • actions, located at the end of this chapter, useful when deciding which near-term actions to August 2002 3-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • Chapter 3 General Action Guidance • pursue. In general, these recommendations can be applied to the mainstem rivers as well as tributaries, lakes, and nearshore areas in the watershed. • Entities seeking the endorsement of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee for actions not listed in the • Action Agenda but consistent with it may request a review of their proposal by appropriate committees involved in developing the Action Agenda. If the proposal is based on new i information, it can follow the adaptive management process recommended in Chapter 7. . • General Guidance by Factor of Decline • The general action recommendations given below are organized by the factor- of decline for • rivers and streams in WRIA 8: fish passage, hydrology, sediment transport, hydromodification, riparian conditions, water quality, and non-native species. Neither the factors of decline nor the recommendations are listed in order of priority. Portions of the recommendations may be addressed as part of other programs under development in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed. Other recommendations focus on the need for data collection and • analysis prior to taking additional actions. There are also action recommendations based on existing scientific information about salmon habitat conditions in the watershed. • • Fish Passage • Build on the fish distribution work undertaken as a part of the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin by conducting a comprehensive fish barrier and habitat assessment • of upstream habitat throughout WRIA 8. ■ Provide efficient fish passage through barriers that limit the number of • juvenile and adult salmon reaching productive historic or rehabilitated habitats in freshwater and nearshore environments to allow for natural migration rates, patterns, and timing. ■ Reconnect side channel habitats that have been isolated from the main channel of rivers and streams. • ■ Properly screen all water diversions to avoid fish stranding. • ■ Assess the impacts of groundwater and surface water withdrawals on fish passage and salmon habitats. • ■ Avoid construction or addition of nearshore fill, armoring, dikes, and overwater structures that would disrupt normal migration rates and • patterns or limit access to shallow feeding and refuge areas. • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 3-2 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • Chapter 3 General Action Guidance Hydrology ■ Investigate the impacts of surface water and groundwater withdrawals on tributary stream subbasins and mainstem hydrology; evaluate the effects on salmon. ■ Manage mainstem and tributary river flows to more closely emulate the natural flow regime that promotes habitat-forming processes (for example, creation and maintenance of side channels, pools, river meanders) and . long-term salmon survival (for example, incubation/fry emergence, flood refuge areas, migration). ■ Conduct a watershed-wide investigation of legal and illegal surface water and groundwater withdrawal. ■ Perform a regionally consistent baseline assessment of existing conditions • and current land use impacts on the natural stream hydrology. Studies should be carried out on a subarea or a smaller scale to help prioritize conservation efforts. A similar assessment is needed on an appropriate scale for the nearshore. ■ Protect the natural headwater areas of rivers and streams. • Protect and restore natural stream flow conditions sufficient for salmon ` spawning, incubation, rearing, and migration. ■ Determine areas where floodplain connectivity can be restored through the removal or modification of levees and dikes. ■ Avoid the establishment of hydrologic regimes that are detrimental to the survival of fish. w Identify and protect important areas of groundwater recharge that contribute to the maintenance of baseflow conditions. Sediment Transport ■ Identify the source of excessive fine sediment accumulation in streams and reduce or eliminate these accumulations. ■ As deemed appropriate, repair all culverts to allow the passage of adult and juvenile salmon, organic matter, and sediment. • 0 Eliminate or minimize increased sedimentation that can result from new construction and development. 40 ■ Continue Lake Sammamish's sediment control program and expand to the . rest of the watershed. August 2002 3-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 3 • General Action Guidance ■ Monitor streambed scour and deposition on a watershed-wide basis and take remedial actions where necessary. ■ Determine current and historic sediment sources, distribution patterns, and budgets in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, including the nearshore. Compare current and historic conditions to identify the extent to which sediment transport processes require restoration. Hydromodification ■ Reestablish and protect side channel habitat along the banks of rivers (for example, Cedar River) and streams as appropriate. ■ Encourage the natural channel migration of streams and rivers. ■ Remove or set back flood and erosion control facilities whenever feasible, to allow for the reestablishment of natural-habitat-producing stream and • estuarine shoreline processes. ■ Where levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set back due to infrastructure considerations, maintain and repair them using design • approaches that maximize the use of native vegetation and large woody i debris. Riparian Conditions ■ Conduct a regionally consistent, detailed assessment of current riparian conditions throughout the watershed to determine functional value and to • evaluate potential protection, enhancement, and restoration opportunities and constraints. ■ Establish, enhance, and protect appropriately sized riparian buffers around • rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and marine nearshore areas to protect salmon habitat and prevent the compromise of salmon conservation efforts; base these buffers on scientific data and principles of landscape ecology, and ecosystem and conservation biology, as well as long-term • feasibility. • ■ Protect riparian habitat and shorelines (streambanks, lakeshores, and nearshore) from degradation resulting from human activities. ■ Continue and enhance educational activities based on the WRIA 8 • technical reports; provide technical training, materials, and other Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 3-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Chapter 3 General Action Guidance assistance that encourage individual actions; teach skills necessary to . protect and restore salmon habitat. ■ Avoid the construction of roads within the floodplain and riparian areas. ■ Protect and preserve areas containing mid-to late-stage riparian habitat. ■ Replant existing degraded riparian habitats with an emphasis on native plant species that will contribute to bank stabilization and become a future source of large woody debris in stream, lake, and estuarine ecosystems. ■ Identify the appropriate conditions under which levee construction and vegetation maintenance programs, regulations, and guidelines will allow 40 the propagation of native riparian vegetation upon these structures to • provide shade and restore instream habitat processes. i Reexamine levee construction and vegetation maintenance programs, regulations, and guidelines to allow propagation of native riparian vegetation buffers. Water Quality ■ Protect or restore water temperature regimes that support all phases of salmon life history. i Protect significant source areas (especially connected and isolated . wetlands) of groundwater infiltration that contribute to stream water temperature control, especially during seasonal low-flow conditions. ■ Protect or restore significant groundwater to surface water interfaces. ! Replant mainstem, tributary, and nearshore riparian areas with native coniferous and deciduous plant communities to lower water temperature i through increased shading, to improve soil stability, and to increase • terrestrial insect production and input as necessary. ■ Reduce or eliminate sources of detrimental metals and organic and inorganic contaminants from all bodies of water in the watershed. • Reduce the discharge of pesticides and organic compounds into all surface 0 water within the watershed. 0 0 Reduce excess nutrient loading in areas that are sensitive to excessive 0 nutrient loading or excessive primary production (for example, Lake 0 Sammamish). 0 August 2002 3-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda 0 • Chapter 3 General Action Guidance • Non-Native Species ■ Prohibit introduction of non-native animal and terrestrial plant species that have a direct impact on salmon through predation, competition, and • potential genetic interactions. • ■ Remove or control non-native aquatic plants that have an adverse impact • on salmon survival. ■ Determine interactions of non-native fish species with salmon. • ■ Investigate the impacts of non-native aquatic vegetation and non-native • vegetation management activities on salmon growth and survival. , • Criteria for Choosing Early Actions • The following criteria are suggested for choosing actions from the Action Agenda or for proposing other early actions that may have value in salmon conservation in the Lake • Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The Action Agenda does not prioritize projects identified in Chapter 4, Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas; however, the criteria below can help to set priorities for early action. In general, these criteria can be applied to protection, reconnection, restoration, enhancement, programmatic, regulatory, and research actions. However, these criteria may not be the best to follow when deciding on public outreach actions, because outreach actions often have indirect rather than direct benefits for • salmon and their habitat. For example, many important public outreach actions raise public awareness and build long-term support for salmon conservation planning, but do not directly change habitat conditions for salmon. Please refer to Chapter 6, Education and Public , Involvement, for additional direction on this type of early action. • The early action criteria are in two tiers. The first tier is intended to be met by every project in order for the project to be considered. The Tier 2 criteria are simply accumulative; the more criteria the project meets, the more confidence there is in its usefulness for conservation. Tier 2 criteria are not ranked by importance. • Tier 1 ■ The action will benefit chinook salmon and is in a core or satellite production subarea or a migratory and rearing corridor subarea for • chinook salmon (as identified in Chapter 2,Near-Term Strategy). or ■ The action addresses a harmful activity or condition that poses an • immediate threat to an at-risk population or habitat, or will, if unattended, prevent recovery of that population of salmon or salmon habitat. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 3-6 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 3 General Action Guidance Tier 2 ■ The action addresses a factor of decline. • M The action addresses a critical information gap. ■ The action is necessary for other actions to proceed. r ■ The action is protective or preventive in nature. ■ The action does not depend on other actions for success. ■ The action can be carried out within 2 to 5 years. ■ Objectives of the action are clear. ■ The context of the action is clear(how it fits with conservation). i , There is confidence in the successful outcome of the action. ■ Results of the action will be observed within 2 to 5 years. ■ The action is consistent with the guidance described above and in the near- term strategy. (Please see Chapter 2.) S In addition, the following elements should be addressed in regard to on-the-ground restoration and enhancement projects: ■ Identify baseline data supporting the proposed design. ■ Design projects that are rooted in hydrogeomorphic analysis and allow for clear evaluation of the intended physical outcome. ■ Design the monitoring element to be hypothesis-based and rooted in experimental design that allows for clear evaluation of the intended physical and biological outcome. ■ Commit to long-term monitoring and evaluation. ■ Recognize that restoration projects are an experiment. • 0 Use adaptive management to recognize and apply knowledge gained from the results of experimental projects. August 2002 3-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • � CHAPTER 4 • • • Project and Research Recommendations � Specific to Subareas • • • • • • • • • • • • • i 1 • • • • • • • • a • • • Chapter 4. Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas M Background and Context of Chapter This chapter provides an initial list of recommendations for habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects and research that address identified factors of decline for salmon habitat. These project recommendations are for the core production subareas, migratory and rearing corridors, and satellite production subareas for chinook salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed. (Map 3 provides a comprehensive look at the WRIA 8 subareas.) As described in the near-term strategy in Chapter 2, the core production subareas are those river and creek systems that are the primary spawning grounds for core populations of chinook salmon; the migratory and rearing corridors are the water bodies through which most chinook salmon must i travel during the course of their life cycle; and the satellite creeks are those that support the core • production subareas. The core production subareas, migratory and rearing corridors, and satellite production subareas in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed are: 1. Nearshore/Estuary (migratory and rearing corridor) r 2. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (partial migratory barrier) 3. Ship Canal/Lake Union (migratory and possible rearing corridor) i • 4. Lake Washington (migratory and rearing corridor) 5. Lake Sammamish (migratory and possible rearing corridor) 6. Sammamish River(migratory and possible rearing corridor) 7. Cedar River and chinook-bearing tributaries: Rock Creek, Walsh Lake a Diversion, Peterson Creek, and Taylor Creek (core production subarea) 8. Bear Creek and chinook-bearing tributaries: Cottage Lake Creek, Cold Creek, and Evans Creek (core production subarea) 9. Issaquah Creek and chinook-bearing tributaries: North Fork Issaquah Creek, East Fork Issaquah Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, Carey Creek, and Holder Creek (core production subarea) 10. Little Bear Creek (satellite production subarea) 11. North Creek (satellite production subarea) August 2002 4-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 0 Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas 12. Swamp Creek (satellite production subarea) 13. Kelsey Creek (satellite production subarea). 0 The recommendations in this chapter were developed by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee (see 0 Chapter 9, Acknowledgments, for committee roster) and are a reflection of the committee's best professional judgment on how to address the identified factors of salmon habitat decline for each of these subareas. The factors of decline are documented in the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for Cedar-Sammamish Basin, which was developed by the Washington State Conservation Commission and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. It should be noted that the recommendations were developed with the guiding principles laid out in the near-term strategy in mind, but have not been through a rigorous technical review. The recommendations • listed are not comprehensive nor are they prioritized. However, the criteria for choosing early actions discussed at the end of Chapter 3, General Action Guidance, can help set priorities for near-term actions. Most of the listed actions still need feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and risk i analyses, as well as design work before implementation can begin. Recommendation for Subarea Stewards • To help implement actions that will build toward salmon habitat conservation,jurisdictions 40 should consider hiring or sharing subarea stewards. The key is to have a point person who is familiar with both the specific drainage basin conditions and the local community and who can work with jurisdictions, landowners, businesses, and organizations to get projects implemented on the ground. Model programs for this include the King County Basin Stewards, the City of , Seattle Urban Creeks Biologists, the Bellevue Stream Team, and others. How to Use the Project Recommendations • • Jurisdictions and interested parties in WRIA 8 should use the goals and objectives for each subarea to help understand the overall vision for each subarea. Recommendations in this section are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for the type of actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. For example, to address degraded riparian conditions one could look for • opportunities to replant riparian areas with native vegetation. Action alternatives are intended to help generate additional projects, recognizing that not all the potential technically sound projects are identified in the Action Agenda. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. If appropriate, implementers can pursue an identified potential project or use the action alternatives to help generate additional projects in the future, using the near-term strategy (see Chapter 2) and the criteria for choosing early actions (see the last section of Chapter 3, General Action Guidance). 0 0 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Whidbey j PLEASE NOTE: Llo�a EVERErr Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)8 is another SNOHOMISH name for the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed. MUKIVJO c N a 0 Miles o L� SULTAN 7 C Z� `.IFTH S MONROE OOtD CREEK UTME kyko Bs C August 2002 SUBAREA BEAR �' S , i, CREEK River SUBAREA ;NDEX NEAR ORE o SUBAREA SNOHOMISH COttNfY SHO INE p ELL KING COUNTY ISH RIVER LAKE UBA E -- ASHINGTON 3 SUBAREA c 3a BEAR �. CREEK __f�IRKLA D s SUBAREA S OC - SEATTL(E�//) -.SHIP C AL S UNION SS CARNAncN SUBAREA ! �d Elliott )Bay L,. _ BEUEVU LAKE . SAMMAMISH p. r SUBAREA \ s3 ERCE ` y 3. � SIAN } P`oe River SEATTLE w n,.!"� f SNOQUALMiE pDT ISSAQUAH G � LSD ,RE N NORTH, END ISSAQUAH CREEK L SUBAREA r Cedar fUK ILA �. 9 Vn I Isiah I S�uihF — Lake! RIVER giver arf Yrtungs SUBAREA- \ �� LOWER CEDAR RIVER �e p -- SUBAREA- r UPPER MAPLE Chester -�._., VALLEY Morse • Reservoir \ FEDERAL ) - WAY AUBURN I GTeen River KING COUNTY PIERCE COUNTY �y Major Road River County Boundary Urban Growth Area ^� Subarea Boundary Rural Area ^I Watershed Boundary D 0 • O King County Mw d-ign"-dPby., -. Department of Natural Resources and Parks DNRP GIS Unit and the WIR Vi.val Commoni<miom A Wab Unit,King Count' Water and Land Resources Division Pie Name:0208 WeNTAAsebuno i WGC,MD,LP • - • ' •- •• i Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas r Role of Research in the Action Agenda For some factors of decline, action alternatives have been listed, but no specific projects could be i identified at this time. Although the factors of decline have been documented, their role in each subarea and how to address them may not be completely understood yet by scientists. Research is required, particularly for the factors of decline with low certainty. Part of the strategy of the Action Agenda is to conduct research that will lead to additional science-based projects and a 40 better understanding of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Like the habitat recommendations, the research recommendations included here are not comprehensive nor are they prioritized. A more comprehensive research agenda for WRIA 8 will be developed as part of the strategic assessment that will provide the scientific foundation for the long-term salmon conservation plan. This chapter addresses only potential projects (that is, habitat acquisition, restoration, and S enhancement projects) and research. The identified factors of decline also need to be addressed i through regulatory and policy measures and public outreach programs. See chapters 5 and 6 for regulatory recommendations and public outreach recommendations. a 0 0 • August 2002 4-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda 0 Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Nearshore/Estuary Nearshore/Estuary • The Nearshore/Estuary subarea encompasses approximately 24 miles of shoreline. (See Map 4, Nearshore/Locks Subareas.) The northern boundary of the subarea is Elliot Point and the southern boundary is West Point. (The West Point boundary represents the planning boundary for WRIA 8 salmon conservation efforts and is not the true boundary as delineated by the State of Washington.) This subarea has been highly altered through human activities such as shoreline development, dredging, and shoreline hardening. One of the most imposing obstacles to restoring natural processes along the nearshore is the railroad grade that runs for most of its length. The estuary is artificial and limited to the Salmon Bay area immediately downstream of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. While the changes that have occurred in the Nearshore/Estuary are well documented, the effects of those changes on salmon growth and survival are not well known. The Nearshore/Estuary environment is used by both adult and juvenile salmon of all species,but particularly by chinook and chum. The following factors of decline were identified by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee for the Nearshore/Estuary: loss of habitat in the migratory and rearing corridor; loss of riparian functions; alteration of habitat-forming processes; poor water quality and sediment degradation; and introduction of non-native species. The primary goal for the Nearshore/Estuary subarea is to protect and restore habitat-forming • processes and habitat conditions that contribute to ecological requirements of adults and juvenile salmon, notably feeding, migration, physiological transitions, and refuge areas. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Protect existing undeveloped shoreline areas and maintain or restore ecosystem processes and functions that create habitat. ■ Protect and enhance marine riparian vegetation. ■ Restore shoreline and nearshore habitat complexity and provide access to • historically accessible habitats. ■ Investigate the possible impacts of water and sediment quality degradation • on juvenile salmon, forage fish production, and predator/prey dynamics. ■ Investigate the possible impacts of non-native plants and animals on the survival of salmon that utilize the Nearshore subarea. i Tables 4-1 through 4-3 present near-term recommendations for the Nearshore/Estuary subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives,potential projects, and research. Action , alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified • factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific r Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-6 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Nearshore/Estuary location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Table 4-1. Nearshore/Estuary Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Nearshore AA 1 40 Identify critical areas of Nearshore/Estuary subarea for Loss of habitat in the Nearshore 0 protection,restoration,and enhancement. migratory and rearing corridor P 1,2,3,4 Loss of riparian functions Alteration of habitat-forming processes Nearshore AA 2 iEvaluate existing riparian conditions throughout Loss of habitat in the Nearshore Nearshore/Estuary subarea in order to identify opportunities to migratory and rearing corridor P 5 protect and enhance riparian vegetation. Loss of riparian functions Alteration of habitat-forming processes Nearshore AA 3 Identify,protect,and reconnect existing refuge areas and create Loss of habitat in the Nearshore potential refuge areas. Projects should be carefully monitored migratory and rearing corridor P 1,2,3,4 for effectiveness and to ensure that predation is not increased by Loss of riparian functions providing refuge areas. Alteration of habitat-forming processes . Nearshore AA 4 Identify areas where it is feasible to remove nearshore bank Loss of habitat in the No projects armoring as a means of restoring shoreline processes and migratory and rearing corridor identified functions,such as sediment input and transport,and Loss of riparian functions at this time consequently rearing habitat quality and quantity. Alteration of habitat-forming processes Nearshore AA 5 Enhance the mouths of small stream tributaries entering Puget Loss of habitat in the No projects Sound in order to restore large woody debris recruitment, migratory and rearing corridor identified sediment transport,and freshwater/saltwater interface(for Loss of riparian functions at this time example,railroad bridge crossings at numerous Puget Sound Alteration of habitat-forming . stream mouths). processes Nearshore AA 6 Restore estuarine functions where possible. Loss of habitat in the No projects migratory and rearing corridor identified Loss of riparian functions at this time Alteration of habitat-forming processes August 2002 4-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Nearshore/Estuary Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Nearshore AA 7 Minimize or eliminate overwater structures. Loss of habitat in the No projects migratory and rearing corridor identified Loss of riparian functions at this time Alteration of habitat-forming processes Nearshore AA 8 Identify areas along the shoreline under public ownership or Loss of habitat in the No projects willing private ownership where shoreline could be modified to migratory and rearing corridor identified a more natural condition. Consider a demonstration project with Loss of riparian functions at this time soft erosion control. Alteration of habitat-forming processes • Nearshore AA 9 Identify properties for potential acquisition as a means of Loss of habitat in the No projects restoring dynamic sedimentation processes. migratory and rearing corridor identified Loss of riparian functions at this time Alteration of habitat-forming processes Potential projects for the Nearshore/Estuary subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 4. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers indicate the location of the projects. For example, a map point marked 2 refers to project 2. Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. Table 4-2. Nearshore/Estuary Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Nearshore P 1 Salmon Bay Natural Area Protection/Restoration Increase rearing/refuge area for millions of salmon smolts that migrate through and use this transition area • between freshwater and saltwater. As proposed,project goals would be to acquire the property,plant native shoreline vegetation,remove riprap,re-slope shoreline,and add gravel/sands where appropriate. The Salmon Bay Natural Area is downstream of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks on the north bank between Hiram's restaurant and the railroad bridge,and behind the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers' finger pier. Project partners include Groundswell Northwest,City of Seattle,and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Nearshore P 2 Seattle Street End Near Salmon Bay Restoration Increase rearing/refuge habitat for juvenile salmon by restoring the conditions at this site,which is located downstream of the Salmon Bay Natural Area. Alternative bank protection measures would be used to create a more gradual slope. In addition,riparian and emergent vegetation could be planted,and the substrate could be amended to restore nearshore habitat. Currently there is a failed bulkhead at this site. The adjacent property owner has applied for permits to rebuild the bulkhead. The property is publicly owned;therefore,funds would be needed for restoration,but not acquisition. Potential project partners include City of Seattle and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-8 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Nearshore/Estuary Project Name Type of Project Nearshore P 3 Commodore Park Restoration Restoration 40 Explore feasibility of habitat restoration at Commodore Park,located immediately downstream of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks on the south bank. Purpose of the project would be to increase the limited high-quality 40 rearing/refuge habitat for millions of salmon smolts that migrate through and use this area as a critical transition between freshwater and saltwater. Potential project partners include City of Seattle and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Nearshore P 4 City of Mukilteo Tideland and Shoreline Acquisitions(not mapped) Protection The City of Mukilteo is evaluating the nearshore within its jurisdiction for additional potential tideland and . shoreline habitat protection projects. Nearshore P 5 City of Mukilteo's Riparian Vegetation Enhancement(not mapped) Enhancement In its 2002 Draft Shoreline Plan,the City of Mukilteo will be identifying priority properties for a nearshore riparian revegetation enhancement program. Using volunteer labor,the City will be evaluating locations for riparian revegetation projects. Table 4-3. Nearshore/Estuary Research Research Factors of Decline No. Research Description Addressed Nearshore Investigate and understand the potential impacts of degradation of water Water quality and R I and sediment quality on juvenile salmon,production of forage fish,and sediment degradation predator/prey dynamics. ■ Evaluate exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. ■ Evaluate extent and impacts of pesticides(for example,Diazinon). ■ Expand evaluation of benthic community structure in watershed to more fully understand salmon prey base. ■ Evaluate Washington Department of Ecology's study of sediment quality in Salmon Bay. Nearshore Determine the abundance of non-native plants and animals present in Introduction of R 2 the nearshore environs and investigate the dynamics and interactions non-native species between non-native species and salmon in the nearshore environment. . ■ Survey existing non-native species and their abundance. . ■ Investigate the dynamics and interactions between non-native fish species and salmon in the nearshore environment. ■ Investigate the relationship between invasive plants and animals and the abundance of predators. Nearshore Evaluate impact of marine riparian vegetation loss on marine ecosystem Loss of habitat in the R 3 functions such as salmon prey production,organic input,shade,and migratory and rearing water quality,and how this loss of marine ecosystem affects salmon. corridor • Loss of riparian functions Alteration of habitat- forming processes Nearshore Investigate life history and behavioral ecology of chinook salmon Loss of habitat in R 4 (including timing,distribution,growth,movement and migration migratory and rearing patterns,prey distribution and selectivity,habitat characteristics and corridor selectivity,interspecific interactions,food web linkages,and impact of Loss of riparian functions; forage fish)in Nearshore subarea of WRIA 8. Alteration of habitat- forming processes August 2002 4-9 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish i Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda u •; 49 Whidbey Island . v EVERETT � .i: .; 7 ..; :• a :� S �e.. .;cx s..ss MUKILTEO F 10 Project Site & No. rF Stream a Major Road q City d Q :.: I GMQ La ke . .... 0 Nearshore and Locks _. Subareas LYNNWOOD N EDMONDS e t141. 2!J S n MOUNTLAKE ��4ile WOOD:' e TERRACE :'• July2002 WAY : .. Y t t i . �t .r. .�� • a i PLEASE NOTE: 1.These projects have not been SHORELINE f f prioritized or ranked. r Numbering is for ease of identification only. f 2. Numbers refer to tables of potential projects for these subareas. b Not 3. a ... ...... ............ h II projects are shown on "''-•" the maps.Only projects that � f are currently located at j specific sites are mapped. Data Sources: King County stondord dotasets:N trbdy, Wtrcrs,Drnbsn,Kcsrst. 1 C t:erWCRNTb/WLRGiS;CIiVSCq. i Project!ocotions- j WLRNTb/Va^/work,/020591;' Near$hore: Mapdesigned/produced by: The DNRP S Unit and the'.WLR Visual .'f f,2:. ,. SEAT LE p SEATTLE Co.mun cations&Web Unit. & 3'� Ballard File Name: W SNTAA Locks 6rCH1 nearat•—.i 'GC MD,iP j QO_ Ship Lake 5 1 I Canal . King County Lake Montlakf ^° Department of Locks: ' Union C., Natural ResourcesB Parks 1 a, 1 b & 1 c Waler a Land Resources Division 1 of - ' ' : ......�,it.x�`3>u.>u�xatf:<ttrua: 'a�iiR:.�azAz�a=.. • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Hiram M. Chittenden Locks • Hiram M. Chittenden Locks • The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (more commonly known as the Ballard Locks) are the outlet of • the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. (See Map 4,Nearshore and Locks Subareas.) The Locks are located on the Ship Canal at the entrance to Salmon Bay, which is 1.2 miles from Puget Sound. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Locks in 1916 in . order to maintain Lake Washington lake levels and to allow for navigation between Puget Sound and Lake Washington. The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks are a partial migratory barrier for salmon in WRIA 8, particularly for juvenile salmon migrating to saltwater and for adult salmon S in low-flow, high-temperature conditions. The following factors of decline were identified by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee for the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks: fish access and passage barriers, poor water quality (increased temperatures), freshwater/saltwater exchange (all these factors are also part of the fish passage 46 problem), and predation. 40 The primary goal for the Locks is to allow safe, unimpeded fish passage. 0 a The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Continue to identify and implement measures to allow safe, unimpeded 10 fish passage at the Locks. 6 • Investigate and understand the predator/prey dynamics as affected by 0 operation of the Locks facilities. Tables 4-4 through 4-6 present near-term recommendations for the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific ` location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how . to address them. i August 2002 4-11 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Table 4-4. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Action Alternatives s Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Locks AA 1 Modify and manipulate Locks facilities and operations to Fish access and passage Locks increase safe passage of adult and juvenile salmon. barriers P 1 Poor water quality(increased temperatures, freshwater/saltwater exchange) Potential projects for the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 4. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for • projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task (a, b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the projects and tasks. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. S Table 4-5. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Potential Projects s Project Name Type of Project Locks P 1 Modification of Locks to Increase Safe Passage of Salmon Fish Passage Improvements la Further reduce lockage speed for large locks to reduce smolt entrainment in filling culverts. lb Improve downstream entrance to the fish ladder with a telescoping weir and a horizontal gate. Close the slot M on the downstream end of the ladder to concentrate flow. 1 c Add fishway entrance lighting for the ladder. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-12 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Table 4-6. Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Research r Research Factors of Decline No. Research Description Addressed Locks Investigate further modification of Locks facilities for improved fish Fish access and passage R I passage. barriers ■ Evaluate means to increase the water available for fish passage, Poor water quality including reducing leaks at the locks,reducing the frequency of (increased temperatures, lockages,modifying or moving the entrance of the saltwater freshwater/saltwater drain,recycling of reclaimed wastewater,changing salinity exchange) management,and modifying lake elevation management. ■ Evaluate whether dissolved oxygen, salinity,and temperature are major fish barriers for migrating adults and juveniles,and establish ways to minimize.Evaluate optimal waterflow to the fish ladder,temperature,and the mixture of saltwater to freshwater. ■ Evaluate installation of a controllable gate at the north end of the fish ladder. Locks Investigate ways to reduce water temperatures and the abrupt Fish access and passage R 2 freshwater/saltwater transition at the Locks. barriers ■ Evaluate the feasibility of a multi-level intake for the fish ladder Poor water quality to provide cooler water for the fish ladder and reduce the abrupt (increased temperatures, >� freshwater/saltwater transition(depends on water temperature freshwater/saltwater stratification);determine whether the cooler water attraction exchange) flow would significantly improve fish passage/survival. ■ Experiment with cooling water temperatures upstream of the large locks by generating an upstream lockage every 4 hours, provided a normal lockage does not occur in that time and there is adequate water. ■ Evaluate success of smolt flume discharge to create freshwater lens downstream of the Locks that supports salmon growth and survival. ■ Evaluate the impact of smolt flume discharges on salmon food supply downstream of the Locks. Studies indicate freshwater from the flumes contains significant amounts of daphnia,which are stunned when they enter saltwater,becoming a source of food for juvenile salmon. Locks Examine predation rates and extent of predation upon juvenile Predation R 3 salmon passing through the Locks facilities. ■ Continue studies of upstream and downstream predator presence and dynamics. August 2002 4-13 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Ship Canal/Lake Union Ship Canal/Lake Union • M The Ship Canal/Lake Union subarea is defined as the area encompassing (from east to west) Montlake Cut, Portage Bay, Lake Union, Fremont Cut, and the Ship Canal up to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. (See Map 5, Ship Canal/Lake Union Subarea.) The construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal created a series of navigational channels connecting Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Puget Sound. In 1916, the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks were constructed at the mouth of the Salmon Bay waterway. Land use in the area is primarily composed of water- dependent commercial and industrial uses, including marinas, commercial shipyards, and dry- docks, with commercial and residential development bordering the shoreline of Lake Union. Relatively little is known about the natural history of salmon that utilize Lake Union for transportation and juvenile rearing. However, all the naturally produced ocean-migrating salmon • that reside in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed use Lake Union as a migratory passageway to and from Puget Sound. There is thought to be little if any successful spawning in Lake Union. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Ship Canal/Lake Union subarea: predation; degradation of riparian habitat conditions; poor water quality (increased temperatures, dissolved oxygen); and poor sediment quality. The primary goal for the Ship Canal/Lake Union subarea is to support successful migration of adult and juvenile salmon through the Ship Canal and Lake Union. s' The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Provide riparian function and refuge areas to ensure safe and successful migration of adult and juvenile salmon. ` ■ Investigate opportunities to reduce unnaturally high predation that has a potential impact on the successful migration of juveniles between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. . ■ Understand the impact of low dissolved oxygen and increased temperatures in the Ship Canal and Lake Union on migrating adult and juvenile salmon. ■ Understand the impact of degraded sediment quality in the Ship Canal and Lake Union on migrating adult and juvenile salmon. Tables 4-7 through 4-9 present near-term recommendations for the Ship Canal/Lake Union subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-14 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Ship Canal/Lake Union Table 4-7. Ship Canal/Lake Union Action Alternatives r Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Ship Canal AA 1 Identify opportunities to re-create habitat characteristics more Predation No projects favorable to salmon and less favorable to their non-native identified at predators. Modify or remove docks,replace nearshore this time sediments,enhance riparian conditions and functions,and remove invasive aquatic macrophytes. Ship Canal AA 2 Evaluate publicly owned property in Ship Canal and Lake Union Degradation of riparian Ship Canal (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers property, street ends,city parks, habitat condition P 1 University of Washington property,etc.)for additional restoration sites. Identify opportunities to re-vegetate the Ship Canal with native vegetation. Create a functional overhanging vegetation buffer along shoreline,which will enhance habitat for . juvenile salmon. i Potential projects for the Ship Canal/Lake Union subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 5. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.). On the map, the corresponding number indicates the location of the project. For example, a map point marked 2 . refers to project 2. Table 4-8. Ship Canal/Lake Union Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project iShip Canal P 1 Demonstration Project at Fremont Bridge Restoration Work with U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to construct a demonstration project on federal lands near the Fremont Bridge,where there is an area available for bank re-sloping,addition of native vegetation,and rock removal. Hypothetically,this would provide a refuge site for migrating juveniles. Consider impact of predators in site . design. 46 0 August 2002 4-15 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Ship Canal/Lake Union Table 4-9. Ship Canal/Lake Union Research Research Factors of Decline No. Research Description Addressed Ship Canal Investigate methods to reduce predation of juvenile salmon in the Ship Canal Predation R I and Lake Union. ■ Conduct controlled experiments in bass habitat minimization and reduction of bass populations in the Ship Canal and Lake Union. ■ Investigate life history and behavioral ecology of juvenile chinook 0 salmon in Lake Washington. 4& ■ Experiment with alternative dock designs(prisms,lollipop configurations,fencing off underwater portions of overwater structures to keep predators out). ■ Investigate possibility that invasive non-native plants in Lake Union, such as Eurasian watermilfoil,increase predation of juveniles by providing refuge and ambush sites for predators. Ship Canal Investigate ways to create refuge areas in Ship Canal and Lake Union Degraded riparian R 2 (monitor to ensure that predation does not increase within refuge areas). habitat conditions Ship Canal Investigate the impact of low dissolved oxygen and increased temperatures in Poor water quality R 3 the Ship Canal and Lake Union on migrating adult and juvenile salmon. (increased temperatures,low dissolved oxygen) Ship Canal ■ Investigate the impact of degraded sediment quality in the Ship Canal Poor sediment R 4 and Lake Union on migrating adult and juvenile salmon. quality ■ Study bioaccumulation of metals and organic compounds in dead juvenile chinook recovered downstream of the Locks(U.S.Army Corps of Engineers). ■ Evaluate sediment chemistry,toxicity,and benthic community structure s+ in Lake Union(King County). 0 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-16 August 2002 0 Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda 40 PLEASE NOTE: a I {, 1. These projects have not been prioritized or ranked. Numbering is i for ease of identification only. 2.Numbers refer to table of potential projects for this subarea. 3. Not all projects are shown on the maps.Only projects that are currently located at specific sites are mapped. F i hat SEATTLE [� l ` Ballard a ( a Locks 1 F a i Ship Q Canal F 1 ; Monttake Gut k 'S' 1 SEATTLE Ift J � t SEATTLE 4 KE. E r , n K IN, w u� aa.:r ..F� mitts. mom• � Q Project Sffe Or NC<. Data Sources: r n,,County srandard datasets Wt bdy,Wtrcrs,Drnbsr,kcsns?n. I � �J Stream Cities:WLRNT6/WLRGIS/ciN3co. ?' Projectlocot'ons 1/2 WLRNTb/Va12/work/020541! t� ,�+ f2P11ile Ma'or Read fr Map des ned/produced = ; i9 i+Y� July 2002 Lake The DNRP GIS Unit and the WLR , Visuol Communications&+Veb Unit, July 2002. Q Slip Canal/Lake . King County File Name: _ Union Subarea „' 1 x 0208 V`dBNTAA LkUnion.ai Department of Natural Resources 8 Parks x WGC,PAD,LP Water 8 Land Resources Division Chapter 4 Proje-t and Research Recommendations—Lake Washington i Lake Washington a Covering a surface area of 22,138 acres, Lake Washington is the second-largest natural lake in Washington state. (See Map 6, Lake Washington Subarea.) It is approximately 20 miles long and has more than 50 miles of shoreline. The main inflow to the lake is the Cedar River, from r the south. The Sammamish River also contributes to its surface flow, entering Lake Washington from the north. The lake drains to Puget Sound via the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Small streams that also drain into Lake Washington include Thornton Creek, Juanita Creek, Kelsey Creek, Lyon Creek, and May Creek. Lake Washington has experienced many physical changes over time. In 1916,the Black River, which was the lake's natural outlet, was blocked, and the outlet was changed to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. A few years earlier, the Cedar River was redirected into Lake Washington to reduce flooding in the City of Renton. These actions lowered and permanently regulated the lake's level and resulted in other changes to shorelines and wetlands. The majority of the shoreline is now in urban residential land use, except for a few commercial and industrial developments. All species of salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed migrate through, and rear in, Lake Washington. S� Research is being done to better understand how salmon use Lake Washington. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Lake Washington subarea: altered trophic interactions (predation, competition); degradation of . riparian shoreline conditions; altered hydrology; invasive exotic plants; poor water quality (phosphorus, alkalinity, pH); and poor sediment quality. The primary goals for the Lake Washington subarea are to: ■ Protect and restore habitat-forming processes and habitat conditions in the Lake Washington environment that contribute to the ecological requirements of adult and juvenile salmon, such as feeding, migration, . rearing, spawning, and refuge areas. ■ Protect and restore biological communities favorable to salmon recovery. . The following objectives will help achieve these goals: ■ Protect and restore natural lake shorelines and shallow water habitat. ■ Understand invasive aquatic plant/salmon interaction and minimize negative impacts. ■ Reduce water-quality impacts on salmon from stormwater entering Lake r Washington and the application of aquatic plant herbicides. ■ Determine how altered trophic interactions in the Lake Washington system have an impact on the survival and reproduction of salmon; identify options to alleviate the impacts. ■ Understand the ecological effect of altered lake levels on salmon viability. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-18 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Washington s �, ■ Determine if increased phosphorus, alkalinity, and pH affect viability of salmon in Lake Washington. ■ Determine if sediment quality is having an adverse impact on the survival and reproduction of salmon and the production of benthic food resources. Tables 4-10 through 4-12 present near-term recommendations for the Lake Washington subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives,potential projects, and research. Action >� alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been . identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how • to address them. Table 4-10. Lake Washington Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Projects Identified Lake Washington AA 1 . Identify areas where it will be feasible to protect and restore Degradation of Lake Washington natural lake shorelines and shallow water habitat and to remove riparian shoreline P 1,2,3,4,5 bank armoring and docks. Construct demonstration projects on conditions public lands at key locations in Lake Washington,such as Magnuson Park,Seward Park,and the mouths of the Sammamish and Cedar rivers. Between the mouth of the Cedar River and the Ship Canal,remove bulkheads,regrade shorelines, improve substrate,and plant overhanging vegetation in order to enhance rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile chinook. Monitor to determine predator use,juvenile preference for substrate size,etc. Based on results,construct additional areas. Lake Washington AA 2 Identify,protect,and restore tributary mouths entering the lake. Degradation of Lake Washington Studies show that juvenile chinook hold and feed near the riparian shoreline P 6 mouths of tributaries,even very small streams and drainages, conditions during rearing and migration. Construct demonstration restoration projects of tributary mouths and evaluate stability, sedimentation rates,and juvenile/adult use and predation. It will be important to consider contaminant issues in site selections: Lake Washington AA 3 Identify opportunities to preserve,enhance,or restore lakeshore Degradation of Lake Washington wetlands. riparian shoreline P 7,8,9 conditions Lake Washington AA 4 Identify opportunities to treat stormwater entering Lake Poor water quality Lake Washington Washington through biofiltration or other water quality (phosphorus, P 1 o techniques. Consider experimental projects. alkalinity,pH) 40 August 2002 4-19 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Washington Potential projects for the Lake Washington subarea are listed in the following table and can be 40 located on Map 6. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a,b, c, etc.). On the map, . corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. Table 4-11. Lake Washington Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Lake Washington P 1 Seward Park Shoreline Restoration Shoreline Restoration Restore approximately 2,000 feet of shoreline along Bailey Peninsula in Seward Bay by putting in finer substrate and overhanging vegetation(potential City of Seattle project). Demonstration project done in 2001 on east shore of Seward Park restoring 1,000 feet of shoreline. Lake Washington P 2 Denny Blaine Park Shoreline Restoration Implement the results of a feasibility study now under way to improve a failing seawall of concrete slabs. This S' would likely involve development of a new wall inland of the existing wall and a small beach cove at the north end of the shoreline(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 3 Lake Washington Boulevard Shoreline Restoration Remove concrete debris and blackberry bushes,regrade,and re-establish native trees and shrubs on the shoreline boulevard from East Pine Street to the Madrona Drive intersection(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 4 Lake Washington Boulevard South Shoreline Restoration 4a Control invasive weeds at several locations and re-establish native vegetation(potential City of Seattle project). 4b Remove debris along the water's edge in the north portion,from Mount Baker Park to Stan Sayres Park. Grade the shoreline,armor with beach gravels,and plant native riparian shrubs to return the shoreline to natural conditions(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 5 Magnuson Park Shoreline Shoreline Restoration Remove dumped material,concrete,and other unnecessary shoreline hardening measures,regrade,install ' appropriate beach gravels,and plant with native trees and shrubs in the south and north ends of the park . (potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 6 Mouth of Mapes Creek Restoration Restoration Restore mouth of Mapes Creek,which is currently in a culvert that empties into deep water in Lake Washington ' (potential City of Seattle project). Use as demonstration project and evaluate stability,sedimentation rates,and juvenile/adult use and predation. Lake Washington P 7 Be'er Sheva Park near Pritchard Island Restoration Restore wetlands at Be'er Sheva Park near Pritchard Island(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 8 Sammamish River Mouth Restoration Restore wetland at mouth of Sammamish River. • Lake Washington P 9 Sand Point Wetlands Restoration Remove the old Navy commissary and surrounding buildings and pavement,regrade and plant to re-create and restore a small lake and surrounding wetland(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington P 10 Be'er Sheva Experimental Stormwater Treatment Stormwater Treatment Develop the Be'er Sheva Park experimental stormwater treatment project(potential City of Seattle project). Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-20 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 i Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Washington Table 4-12. Lake Washington Research Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed Lake Washington Conduct a comprehensive inventory of remaining natural Degradation of riparian R 1 shoreline on Lake Washington to identify protection and shoreline conditions potential riparian shoreline restoration projects. Lake Washington Experiment with alternative dock design/mitigation packages Degradation of riparian R 2 that use bank softening to replace docks and bank armoring. shoreline conditions Lake Washington Evaluate mouths of tributaries and small drainages for adult Degradation of riparian R 3 migration access and juvenile rearing habitat. Identify shoreline conditions potential restoration sites. Lake Washington ■ Investigate the type of impacts altered trophic interactions Altered trophic • R 4 in the Lake Washington system have on salmon and interactions(predation, identify options to alleviate the impacts. competition) ■ Investigate life history and behavioral ecology of juvenile chinook salmon in Lake Washington. ■ Investigate potential problem of low food availability in Lake Washington at the time juvenile fish enter the lake and how this problem can be alleviated. (Low food supply is known to be a problem for sockeye;it should be determined if it is also a problem for chinook.) ■ Investigate life history species interactions,as well as habitat needs of juvenile salmon predators in Lake Washington,including bass,sculpin,and cutthroat trout. ■ Investigate ways to return predator/prey relationship to a more natural balance(for example,evaluate possible experimental changes in fish management,and construct habitat alteration pilot projects). • Conduct controlled experiments in bass habitat minimization and bass population reduction in Lake Washington. Lake Washington Investigate the ecological effect of altered lake levels on Altered hydrology R 5 salmon. Evaluate impact on tributary mouths,wetlands, navigation,floating bridges,etc.if lake elevation changes are adopted as a means of increasing water at the Locks for improved fish passage. (Planned by U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.) Lake Washington Investigate invasive aquatic plants/salmon interaction. Invasive exotic plants R6 Lake Washington Research invasive aquatic weed management techniques to Invasive exotic plants R 7 find those that are most effective and least harmful to aquatic animals. Lake Washington Identify critical areas of juvenile and adult chinook migration Invasive exotic plants R 8 for aquatic weeds management;control invasive aquatic weeds . in those parts of the lake. August 2002 4-21 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Washington • Factors of Decline • Research No. Research Description Addressed Lake Washington Investigate sources of alkalinity and pH increase and their Poor water quality R 9 possible effects on salmon in Lake Washington. Evaluate data (phosphorus,alkalinity, to identify any possible trends in alkalinity and pH increase pH) (for example, seasonal;if seasonal,may be related to productivity). Lake Washington Use the SR 520 floating bridge to obtain accurate data on Poor water quality R 10 runoff from traffic and roadways. Selected storm drains can be equipped with autosamplers to create a composite of sample storm events.Data can be used to generate estimates for the regional contribution of highway runoff pollution to individual watersheds(potential King County research project). Lake Washington Evaluate sediment quality in Lake Washington(ongoing King Poor sediment quality R 11 County work). • • • • i • • • • • • • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-22 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda i :q BOTHELL 4 , y ➢ ni ---• .:.... ..ti..n., '• ..: SNOHOMISH CO- KING CO. ".a •, .. - - :..` LAKE :'- FOREST 1.J WOODINVILLE PARK , PP . - �SHORELINE 5 '`�t •... � a j i. KENMORE = 10 Project Site & NO. ...... 1 � :.. _ Projec t Area & No. r t? ... �••• � �� Stream m Leah �, o .�a ® �, ..:• � ..., �° {Major Road Cr ( � Cr P, City Boundary © JI15 KIRKLAND REDMOND Lake • o SEATTLE go r Lake Washington Green Subarea Lake .. •'� A�®d( s, 410 YARROW HUNTS` POINT Q . P 0 1 N T u T;1 Y ` ' N,..es l �etCLYDE: am, 0 7 Is oL . i HILL :.. ( 2 0 July 2002 I ° MEDINA IliUtt PLEASE NOTE: BELLEVUE 1. These projects have not been prioritized or ranked.Numbering e Pflanrrnr is for ease of identification only. Lake 2. Numbers refer to table of 4b a- potential projects for this S MERCER ISLAND subarea. a � '` r3. Not all projects are shown on the maps. Only projects that are currently located at specific sites are mapped. • � . SEATTLE . • ` .......... ........ ta NEWCASTLE DaaCou�ntyentiardda sets.Wtbdy, I .•• r Bored — _ reSs r Kcsnsx•. SEATTLE` r �DLRNTb/WLRGiS/city3co. ©Lake Wt 10 ` g — rn w Project ratans • y _ W RN"b/Vol2;work/Q20591/ . z .. y•;, .::q 6 : Map designed/produced by: o a `y ... r rr o r;•• .. f Tie DNRP S Jni±ond the WLR Visuol �. ri_ Comrnunieat,ors&Web U¢eiF,July 2402. ` .... File Name:a:KVJ6,S:-al WGC•N5D•I.P } PPS z King County € RENTON P Department of : L� Natural Resources&Parks s Ovate TUKWILA ° r s Land Resources Division isssax ;<ts�...;t�t` .. ;. :.«,fix . -. T, � ".... ....sxy; ';:;:: .... I,,,;;.:,,,.��x'aaa ... •c� xT.:.....s. .�a-.::::a" � ' s Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Sammamish Lake Sammamish i Lake Sammamish is approximately 21.7 miles long and 3.3 miles wide. (See Map 7, Lake Sammamish Subarea.) The major tributary to the lake is Issaquah Creek, which enters at the , south end and contributes about 70 percent of the surface flow. Tibbets Creek to the south, and Pine Lake Creek to the east, also drain into Lake Sammamish. Discharge from Lake Sammamish is through the Sammamish River at the north end of the lake, where a flow control weir at Marymoor Park controls the discharge. Although Lake Sammamish serves as a i migration route for juvenile salmon traveling to the ocean and adult salmon returning to their spawning grounds, little is known about how these fish actually use the lake. Chinook, sockeye, coho, and kokanee salmon use Lake Sammamish. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Lake Sammamish subarea: predation; degradation of riparian shoreline conditions; poor water quality (temperature and nutrients); invasive exotic plants; degraded sediment quality; altered trophic interactions; altered macrophyte conditions; and fish access and passage barriers. The primary goals for the Lake Sammamish subarea are to: ■ Protect and restore habitat-forming processes and habitat conditions in the �. Lake Sammamish environment that contribute to the ecological requirements of adult and juvenile salmon, such as feeding, migration, rearing, spawning, and refuge areas. ■ Protect and restore biological communities favorable to salmon recovery. • The following objectives will help achieve these goals: ■ Project and restore natural lake shorelines and shallow water habitat. ■ Reduce sources of phosphorus entering Lake Sammamish. ■ Determine if alkalinity and pH affects viability of salmon in Lake S Sammamish. ■ Understand invasive aquatic plant/salmon interaction and minimize negative impacts. ■ Reduce water-quality impacts on salmon from stormwater entering Lake Sammamish and the application of aquatic plant herbicides. ■ Understand impact of degraded sediment quality on salmon in the Lake Sammamish system. ` Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-24 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda 40 Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Sammamish ■ Determine how altered trophic interactions in Lake Sammamish have an impact on the survival and reproduction of salmon; identify options to alleviate the impacts. i Determine if late season lake stratification conditions impede fish migration through Lake Sammamish. Tables 4-13 through 4-15 present near-term recommendations for the Lake Sammamish subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives,potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been i identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Table 4-13. Lake Sammamish Action Alternatives `' Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified 46 Lake Sammamish AA 1 Identify opportunities to protect and restore natural lake Degradation of riparian Lake Sammamish shorelines and shallow water habitat. shoreline conditions P 1 Lake Sammamish AA 2 Identify opportunities to remove bank armoring and docks and Degradation of riparian No projects to increase natural bank conditions. Construct demonstration shoreline conditions identified at this projects on public lands or willing homeowners'property to time remove bank armoring and construct soft erosion control systems. Lake Sammamish AA 3 Reduce water-quality impact of stormwater entering lake. Poor water quality No projects Identify opportunities to treat stormwater entering Lake (temperature and identified at this Sammamish through biofiltration or other water-quality nutrients) time techniques. Consider experimental projects. Lake Sammamish AA 4 Identify,protect,and restore tributary mouths entering Lake Degradation of riparian No projects Sammamish. Studies show that juvenile chinook hold and feed shoreline conditions identified at this near the mouths of tributaries,even very small streams and time drainages,during rearing and migration. In particular, state- owned land at the mouth of Issaquah Creek should be evaluated as a potential restoration site. . Potential projects for the Lake Sammamish subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 7. Each project has been assigned a number (P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task (a, b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a August 2002 4-25 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Sammamish map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped, because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. • Table 4-14. Lake Sammamish Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Lake Sammamish P 1 Natural Shoreline Protection Protection . The Lake Sammamish Natural Shoreline Survey,King County,Washington(The Watershed Company August 2000),identifies natural shoreline areas on Lake Sammamish that should be considered for protection,including: la Semi-natural shoreline north of Weber Point lb Semi-natural shoreline between Weber Point and Inglewood Hills Road I c Semi-natural shoreline between Weber Point and Inglewood Hills Road , Id Inglewood Hill shoreline at end of Inglewood Hills Road I e Mallard Cove parcel just north of Sammamish State Park. If not included in the Watershed Company report cited above,survey and map shoreline for high-value wetlands, tributary mouths,and potential restoration sites and target for protection and restoration. S Table 4-15. Lake Sammamish Research Factors of Decline Research Research Description Addressed Lake Sammamish Investigate natural history,behavioral ecology,and habitat preferences Degradation of R 1 of juvenile chinook salmon in Lake Sammamish to help identify and riparian shoreline evaluate habitat protection and restoration opportunities. conditions • Lake Sammamish Experiment with alternative dock design/mitigation packages that use Degradation of R 2 bank softening to replace docks and bank armoring. riparian shoreline conditions Lake Sammamish Evaluate mouths of tributaries and small drainages for migration Degradation of R 3 access for adults and rearing habitat for juveniles. Identify potential riparian shoreline sites for either protection or restoration of mouths of tributaries and conditions small drainages. Lake Sammamish Evaluate whether further erosion control projects are required on Poor water quality R 4 Issaquah Creek and Tibbets Creek to reduce the introduction of (temperature and phosphorus into the lake. In particular,the Interpace Mine site on nutrients) Tibbets Creek should be evaluated. If it is determined that further erosion control projects are needed,projects should be designed and S constructed. Lake Sammamish Study natural history,behavioral ecology,and habitat preferences of Altered trophic R 5 current fish populations in Lake Sammamish. Investigate how altered interactions trophic interactions in Lake Sammamish system have an impact on salmon and identify options to alleviate the impact. If predation is determined to be a factor of decline based on the research described above,conduct controlled experiments in bass • habitat minimization and reduction of bass populations in Lake Sammamish. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-26 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Lake Sammamish e Factors of Decline Research Research Description Addressed • Lake Sammamish Investigate invasive aquatic plants/salmon interaction. Invasive exotic R 6 plants Lake Sammamish Research invasive aquatic weed management techniques to determine Invasive exotic R 7 which methods are most effective and least harmful to aquatic animals. plants ' Lake Sammamish Identify areas critical to juvenile and adult chinook migration for Invasive exotic R 8 aquatic weed management;control invasive aquatic weeds in those plants parts of the lake. Lake Sammamish Investigate sources of phosphorus,alkalinity,and pH increase as well Poor water quality i R 9 as their possible effects on salmon in Lake Sammamish. Evaluate data to identify any possible trends in phosphorus,alkalinity,and pH increase(for example,seasonal;if seasonal,may be related to • productivity). Lake Sammamish Sample key locations in Lake Sammamish(mouths of tributaries, Poor sediment R 10 shallow water habitat)for sediment contaminants. Evaluate potential quality impact on adult and juvenile salmon(ongoing King County assessment). Lake Sammamish Investigate the constraints on adult migration caused by stratification Fish access and ` R 11 of temperature and dissolved oxygen in Lake Sammamish. Conduct passage barriers field study to evaluate fish abundance and distribution during late- season lake stratification. i • August 2002 4-27 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda �� PLEASE NOTE: Z a 1. These projects have not been e prioritized or ranked. Numbering is RED'MON DDD w „reek a for ease of identification only. . a 4 4 '�•... Eva,ts a c y. 2. Numbers refer to table of potential ea projects for this subarea. 4 Fs 3. Not all projects are shown on the maps.Only projects that are a• ® currently located at specific sites • are mapped. G z ' SAMMAMISH x ............................. a • 'BELLEVUE t .n \ riCOTBe� 9 j( Cr q. Q $ Y € ..... .... >?P a Phantom �•F Beaver 4 ®Lake Lake Pine .: Lake g a Vasa Creek > .............. s ' .. >,F $t448hi s { Aar �p s4 ' Q BELLEVUE ' I , . >> J ;.. ISSAQUAH ."%. s.Fu3M ,.... `a a 10 Project Site & No. Data sources: ` King County stondard datoset, Stream WtrBdy,Wtrcrs,DmBsn,kcsnst. Cities WLRNT6'iWLRGii/city3co. Project locot:enr ' Major road WLRNT6/Va12n N,orkf020591/. 0 1 2 Miles Map designed/produced by: City Boundary UN-'P ra•>:e�h'R r a eis .Cor.m n ca.ion;s Web Unit; July 2002 $aQty. Lake ,uy2a02 Q Lake Sammarllish nile,Name: Y O King County 208 Subarea WG.-- MD m Resources P Department of Natural &Parks ! Water&Wntl Resources Division 5 • s Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River t Sammamish River • The Sammamish River corridor originates at the north end of Lake Sammamish and ends at the river mouth at the northern tip of Lake Washington. (See Map 8, Sammamish River Subarea.) The river itself drains a watershed of about 240 square miles, of which 97 square miles are in the Lake Sammamish basin, 50 miles are in the Bear Creek basin, 67 miles are in the combined i basins of Little Bear Creek, Swamp Creek, and North Creek, and the remaining 26 miles are in small sidewall streams and the valley floor. The current river channel is 13.8 miles long. The Sammamish River has been significantly altered by human activities in the last 100 years, including the lowering of Lake Washington. In the 1960s, the river channel was deepened and straightened to increase its flood-flow capacity and to drain the surrounding wetlands for farming and development. The Sammamish River is primarily a migratory corridor for chinook, coho, sockeye, and kokanee salmon and steelhead trout that spawn in Issaquah Creek, Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, North Creek, and Swamp Creek. Limited rearing of juvenile salmon may occur in the river. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the MSammamish River subarea: poor water quality (increased temperature, low dissolved oxygen, and contaminants); fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; degradation of riparian conditions; altered hydrology and flow; and increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes. The primary goal for the Sammamish River subarea is to protect and restore habitat-forming processes in the Sammamish River that will contribute to salmon recovery, including habitat S conditions conducive to migration, rearing, and refuge areas. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Protect, restore, and create cold-water resources in the Sammamish River Sand its tributaries. ■ Investigate alternative methods to address the impacts on salmon of increased temperatures in the Sammamish River. ■ Improve fish access to the Sammamish River's tributaries. ■ Enhance channel complexity, floodplain connectivity, and riparian S conditions. ■ Decrease surface and groundwater withdrawals that reduce river flow and groundwater seeps; maintain a more natural hydrologic regime. • 0 Reduce runoff and fine sediments entering the river. August 2002 4-29 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River ■ Understand and reduce the impact of low dissolved oxygen and , contaminants on salmon in the Sammamish River. Tables 4-16 through 4-18 present near-term recommendations for the Sammamish River subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action + alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified . factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better r understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play, and how to address them. Table 4-16. Sammamish River Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Sammamish River AA 1 Identify opportunities to provide cool water refuge areas on the Poor water quality Sammamish River river,especially at tributary confluences and locations of (increased temperature) P 2, 3,4, 13 significant groundwater inflows. Loss of channel complexity and connectivity Sammamish River AA 2 Identify opportunities to slope back streambanks. Create flood Poor water quality Sammamish River benches at or below ordinary high-water mark of the river to (increased temperature) P 7, 12 increase shallow water habitats used by juvenile salmon. Loss of channel J♦ complexity and connectivity Degradation of riparian conditions Sammamish River AA 3 • Restore riparian areas throughout the entire Sammamish River Degradation of riparian Sammamish River corridor. Identify opportunities to plant early successional conditions P 5,6, 11 riparian vegetation to provide shade on the mainstem river, Poor water quality . particularly at the upper end of the river. (increased temperature) Sammamish River AA 4 Identify opportunities to improve fish access through the Fish access and passage Sammamish River . Sammamish River system,including access to the Sammamish barriers P 13 • River tributaries and at the weir. King County Road Maintenance is currently identifying and prioritizing fish • passage barriers in the road right-of-way in unincorporated King County. This may generate additional fish passage improvement projects in the Sammamish River system. Also see Action Alternative regarding the creation of cold-water refuges at tributary mouths. i • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-30 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River i Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Sammamish River AA 5 • Identify and evaluate opportunities to reconnect existing Loss of channel Sammamish River wetlands to old oxbows and side channels, and to create off- complexity and P 14, 15 channel,riparian wetland areas. A recent report funded by King connectivity county should help identify opportunities: Wetlands Functions Degradation of riparian Assessment Sammamish River Sub-basin(Shannon&Wilson, conditions Inc.March 2002). . Sammamish River AA 6 Identify opportunities to reduce contaminants and runoff Poor water quality(low Sammamish River entering river. dissolved oxygen, P 8 contaminants) Sammamish River AA 7 Identify opportunities to protect existing high-value habitats and Loss of channel Sammamish River areas that have a strong likelihood of restoration success. complexity/ P 9, 10 . connectivity Degradation of riparian conditions Sammamish River AA 8 Identify opportunities to create new pools and to enhance deeper Loss of channel Sammamish River areas in the river used by migrating adult salmon as holding or complexity/ P 2, 3,4, 7 staging areas. connectivity Sammamish River AA 9 a Identify opportunities to reduce surface water and groundwater Poor water quality Sammamish River withdrawals from tributaries to the river. (increased temperature) P 1 Sammamish River AA 10 Identify opportunities to maintain and enhance headwater Poor water quality No projects wetlands and forested hill slopes on all significant tributaries to (increased temperature) identified at this the river in order to protect the river's current thermal regime. Loss of channel time complexity and . connectivity Degradation of riparian i conditions Potential projects for the Sammamish River subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 8. Each project has been assigned a number (P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task (a, b, c, etc.). On the map, e corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped, because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. August 2002 4-31 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda s Chapter 4 �. Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River Table 4-17. Sammamish River Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Sammamish River P 1 Reclaimed Water Pilot Project(not mapped) Reduction of Water Withdrawals Work with Central Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum and King County reclaimed water program to allocate regional water supplies to replace surface and shallow groundwater withdrawals. Prioritize withdrawals in Sammamish tributaries and mainstem for reallocation discussions. Implement regional pilot for reclaimed water program in Sammamish Valley. Sammamish River P 2 Lower Bear Creek Floodplain and Channel Restoration Restoration As identified in Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan(Tetra Tech Inc.Infrastructure Services Group 2002), i restore lower 2/3 mile of Bear Creek to its confluence with the river. This process will include placement of large woody debris in the river upstream of the confluence to create a cold-water refuge pool and delay mixing of warm river water with much cooler water from Bear Creek. r•, Sammamish River P 3 Norway Hills Enhancement Restoration Evaluate creation of pools in the Norway Hill area of the river where some groundwater sources are piped to the • river as part of the stormwater system. Determine if groundwater inflows at Norway Hill are in need of special protection or mitigation. Sammamish River P 4 Creation and Enhancement of Pools as Cool Water Refuges Restoration for Migrating Adult Salmon(not mapped) Evaluate creation of new pools in areas where there are long gaps between pools. The Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan identifies the following locations:between RM 0.8 and 2.3,RM 3.9 and 5.6,RM 6.1 and 7.1,and RM 7.5 and 9.0. Evaluate the enhancement of existing deeper areas,particularly in the upper river. All pools should take advantage of cool-water sources wherever possible,including tributaries and groundwater inflows,using large woody debris to create areas of localized scour,inhibit mixing of cool water inputs with • warm river water,and provide cover. • Sammamish River P 5 Upper River Riparian Restoration(not mapped) Restoration Evaluate restoration of riparian area in the 11 miles of the river between Marymoor Park in Redmond and Blyth Park in Bothell. Property is all under public ownership,and future plans for a second trail near this section of river would provide good opportunities for riparian restoration. Sammamish River P 6 Revision of Levee Maintenance Practices(not mapped) Revegetation Work with U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to revise maintenance practices on Sammamish River banks and levees in order to improve and restore salmon habitat functions. 6a Apply results of Corps' consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service on maintenance of flood control structures. 6b Evaluate request for deactivation or de-authorization of Sammamish River flood control project so that restoration can occur without meeting Corps'levee requirements. In the event that the project is not deactivated or de-authorized,restoration projects should be designed to compensate for lost flood storage. Sammamish River P 7 Marvmoor Re-Meander Fish Passage Improvement Restore left meander of river downstream of Lake Sammamish weir,including creation of pools at meander bends and construction of overflow bench with wetland vegetation. Restoration will need to meet U.S.Army Corps of Engineers requirements for channel conveyance to minimize flood risks to lakeshore properties. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-32 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda + Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River i Project Name Type of Project Sammamish River P 8 Program to Implement Best Management Practices Best Management (not mapped) Practices Work with property owners along the river to implement best management practices that minimize the use of chemicals suspected of harming aquatic life. Initial focus of program could be on Wayne,Willows Run,and Inglewood Country Club golf courses,farms in the agricultural production district, and residential communities that abut the river. • Sammamish River P 9 Acquire Undeveloped Property at Mouth of Swamp Creek Protection Purchase parcel to the east of Swamp Creek Regional Park for inclusion in Project 15 Swamp Creek Regional Park Wetland and Stream Restoration. Sammamish River P 10 Acquire Former Channel Meander Across from Willows Protection Run Golf Course Acquire 80-acre parcel on right bank across from Willows Run Golf Course that is the site of a former channel meander,for floodplain and wetland restoration. Sammamish River P 11 Riparian Plantings(not mapped) Revegetation Continue and expand projects such as Sammamish Re-Leaf and Redmond Riverwalk to plant early successional riparian vegetation to provide shade. • Sammamish River P 12 Regrade Banks and Create Flood Benches(not mapped) Restoration The Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan describes opportunities to regrade banks, create flood benches at or below high-water mark,and plant banks and benches with native vegetation. Particular focus should be given to the upper river(RM 11 to RM 13.6)and downstream of the major tributaries. ` Sammamish River P 13 Enhance Tributary Confluences Restoration Enhance tributary confluences with Sammamish River,including correction of fish passage barriers,riparian restoration,placement of large woody debris,and creation of cool-water refuge areas. Locations identified in the Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan include: i 13a Tributary 0068 13b Tributary 0095 13c Tributary 0 10 1 13d Tributary 0104 13e Gold Creek 13f Woodin Creek 13g Derby Creek. It should be noted that all tributary confluences are candidates for improvements. Sammamish River P 14 Enhance and Reconnect Riparian Wetlands Restoration Enhance and reconnect riparian wetlands to river,as described in the Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan, including: • 14a Wildcliff Shores,across from Swamp Creek 14b Wetland and remnant side channels adjacent to 102 d Avenue bridge 14c Publicly owned historic wetland areas adjacent to I-405/SR 522 interchange 14d Historic wetland and meander area near Gold Creek 14e Wetlands in and across from Willows Run Golf Course. August 2002 4-33 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda i Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River Project Name Type of Project Sammamish River P 15 Swamp Creek Regional Park Wetland and Stream Restoration Restoration As identified in the Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan,restore large,publicly owned wetland complex at the confluence of Swamp Creek and the Sammamish River,creating a diversity of wetland elevations and habitats in the floodplain. i Table 4-18. Sammamish River Research Factors of Decline • Research Research Description Addressed Sammamish River Evaluate Cold Creek(tributary to Bear Creek)groundwater Poor water quality R 1 system and identify strategy to protect its cold-water resources. (increased temperature) Sammamish River Examine how altered temperatures in the Sammamish River Poor water quality R 2 affect the migration and reproductive success of adult salmon and (increased temperature) the use of habitat and mortality rates of juvenile salmon. Sammamish River Study how groundwater flows affect the temperature and Poor water quality R 3 hydrology of the river. Determine the location,volume,and (increased temperature) water quality of groundwater flows into the river,particularly • upstream of North Creek. Evaluate what the effect would be of eliminating some or all of the current groundwater withdrawals from the river,and of using reclaimed water to recharge aquifers (ongoing King County and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers study). Sammamish River Investigate ways to reduce water temperatures in the Sammamish Poor water quality R 4 River,including more experimental,engineered methods such as (increased temperature) pumping water from bottom of Lake Sammamish to the weir and installing cooling towers. Sammamish River Evaluate restoration sites on the river against baseline conditions Loss of channel R 5 and each other as well as for effects on juvenile rearing complexity and conditions and predation. Modify new site designs based on connectivity results. Degradation of riparian conditions Sammamish River Conduct predator studies of the Sammamish River and evaluate Loss of channel R 6 adult and juvenile salmon use of habitat to assist in identifying complexity and habitat restoration opportunities and improving design of habitat connectivity restoration projects(ongoing through King County and the U.S. Degradation of riparian Army Corps of Engineers). . conditions Sammamish River Examine water and sediment quality for conditions that could Poor water quality(low R 7 have sublethal effects on salmon(ongoing through King County). dissolved oxygen, • contaminants) Sammamish River In areas of measurable heating,collect temperature data at key Poor water quality R 8 locations of Swamp Creek,North Creek,Little Bear Creek,and (increased temperatures) Bear Creek. Identify alternatives for maintaining cooler • temperatures. i i Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-34 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Sammamish River • Factors of Decline . Research Research Description Addressed Sammamish River Update Sammamish River flood conveyance model to Loss of channel R 9 incorporate expected changes resulting from the implementation complexity and of projects along river corridor. Will be critical for designing connectivity • riparian and channel restoration projects. • Sammamish River Identify and prioritize removal of fish passage barriers,based on Fish passage barriers R 10 quality and area of habitat upstream, species likely to use habitat, • functions,and processes likely to be restored, cost,and other factors. • • • a • • • • • • • • i • • • • • August 2002 4-35 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • BOTHELL ,c PLEASE NOTE: 1. These projects have not been i SNOHOMISH COUNTY ' � eBE _. prioritized or ranked.Numbering is NTY KING COU ....... .... r. - 'N - - - for ease of identification only. p� 2.Numbers refer to table of potential 0 3A s j projects for this subarea. 3. Not all projects are shown on the maps.Only projects that are • KENMORE WOODINVILLE currently located at specific sites -. 14b are mapped 15 :........ ....... o :....... Cottage 13a..: ,.... :....... :,: 13f Lake 3 14d/ —13e i a . i 3b p ................ 3 . '10 13c REDMOND ' KIRKLAND € 13dJ <ee Bea +.. REDMOND �. � � •. _ .� vans GT ee E N 10 Project Site & No. Data Sources: <t -0. Kiny County s!o;:dard dotosets: StreamWtrBdy,Wtrcrs,Drnbsr,kcsrst Clties:W€.RNT6/'vVLRG:S/city3ca. Project locations: ••'��.° b ��:>: � �;' F E Major Road VJLRNT6/Vo12/work/020591/. G 1 2 Mlles Map designed/produced by: •�; - "3 CityBoundary The UNRF'C;S Jnit and•^.r,WLR Vis;oi Co.—unicotions&5 Web L nn, .July 2002 Lake iulv2002. File Name: Sa€fT3PT1ar1115�i River 0208 YVtN'i'AA$ommRi er.ai O King County SLJ f y rya VdUC, S,LP Department of Natural Resources&Parks ` 's Water&Land Resources Division R` €i • • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River • • Cedar River and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries The Cedar River is the largest tributary to Lake Washington and drains an elongated basin of 188 square miles that extends from the crest of the Cascade Mountains to the southern shore of Lake • Washington in the City of Renton. (See Maps 9a and 9b, Cedar River Subarea—Lower and • Upper.) The upper two-thirds of the subarea is owned and managed by the City of Seattle and supplies drinking water to two-thirds of Seattle and its regional customers. The Cedar River Municipal Watershed is almost entirely coniferous forest, and its management is governed by the • Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. The lower third of the Cedar River subarea below the Landsburg Diversion Dam includes 21 miles of mainstem river and 15 tributaries, and drains a 66-square-mile area. The lower Cedar River mainstem and four main fish-bearing tributaries provide the majority of the current spawning habitat for chinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout in the WRIA 8 system as well as significant spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and cutthroat trout. The following tributaries support chinook: Lower Rock Creek, Walsh Lake Diversion, Peterson Creek, and Taylor Creek. Of particular note: The Cedar River's chinook population is one of the native stocks that comprise the evolutionarily significant unit of Puget Sound chinook salmon, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Most of the lower Cedar River subarea is rural and forested, except for the cities of Renton and Maple Valley, where the subarea is urbanized. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Cedar River • and its chinook-bearing tributaries: ■ Mainstem factors of decline: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; degradation of riparian conditions; • increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes; and altered hydrology and flow ■ Chinook-bearing tributaries factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow (Lower Rock, Walsh, Taylor, Peterson), fish access and passage barriers (Lower Rock, Walsh, Taylor, Peterson); channel complexity and connectivity (Walsh, Taylor, Peterson); degraded riparian condition (Lower Rock, Taylor, Peterson); and increased sedimentation and altered • sediment transport processes (Walsh, Peterson). • Because of a unique stock of chinook in the Cedar River subarea, the primary goal for the subarea is to protect and restore the ecosystem processes and geomorphic conditions to which • this stock has naturally adapted. These habitat conditions allow spawning, rearing, refuge areas, and migration. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: • ■ Allow for unimpeded fish access to all potential spawning and rearing habitats. ■ Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing • high-quality habitat. August 2002 4-37 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River ■ Protect, reconnect and/or restore off-channel habitat and shallow, mainstem habitat. ■ Protect and, where feasible, restore floodplain connectivity throughout the Cedar River subarea. ■ Remove bank hardening and existing structures in the floodplain and prevent additional bank hardening. ■ Protect and restore in-stream channel complexity and functional riparian conditions. ■ Ensure the adequate and continual supply of suitable spawning substrate �} throughout the system. ■ Reduce forest road runoff and fine sediments entering the mainstem and its tributaries. ■ Protect and maintain flows in the mainstem and tributaries to provide suitable rearing, spawning, and migratory habitats for all salmon species. Tables 4-19 through 4-21 present near-term recommendations for the Cedar River subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of r decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Table 4-19. Cedar River Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects • Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Cedar River AA 1 Identify all physical,hydrological, chemical,and biological Fish access and passage Cedar River barriers to fish migration and provide access. King County barriers P 1,2,3 Road Maintenance is currently identifying and prioritizing fish passage barriers in the road right-of-way in unincorporated King County. This may generate additional fish passage improve- ment projects in the tributaries to the Cedar River. Cedar River AA 2 Identify and protect the best remaining habitat and prevent Loss of channel complexity Cedar River i degradation of existing high-quality habitat. and connectivity P 4, 5 • Degradation of riparian conditions Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-38 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River • Factors of Decline Projects • Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Cedar River AA 3 Retain forest cover in the Cedar River subarea to the greatest Altered hydrology and flow Cedar River • extent possible. The Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint P 6 Pollution Action Plan(King County July 1998)set a goal of retaining a minimum of 65 percent forest cover in the Lower Cedar River and rural salmon-bearing tributaries(Walsh Lake Diversion,Rock Creek,Peterson Creek,and Taylor Creek)to protect the hydrologic regime of the Cedar River. Identify opportunities to reduce impervious areas and convert grass areas to a forested landscape. Cedar River AA 4 iIdentify opportunities to reconnect potential or marginally Loss of channel complexity Cedar River functioning off-channel habitat or create new off-channel habitat and connectivity P 7 and shallow mainstem habitat. Degradation of riparian conditions Cedar River AA 5 Identify opportunities to remove bank hardening and existing Loss of channel complexity Cedar River structures in the floodplain. and connectivity P 8 Degradation of riparian conditions Cedar River AA 6 Maintain existing large woody debris and large woody debris Loss of channel complexity Cedar River complexes where possible. Identify opportunities to safely and connectivity P 9 increase large woody debris in the system. Re-establish natural Degradation of riparian i large woody debris recruitment processes. conditions Cedar River AA 7 Identify opportunities to restore riparian conditions on the Cedar Loss of channel complexity Cedar River River and its chinook-bearing tributaries,such as ongoing re- and connectivity; P 10 vegetation projects at Cavanaugh Pond and the Renton Lions Degradation of riparian Club property. Identify opportunities to remove non-native conditions invasive plants and replant native vegetation. Cedar River AA 8 Decommission or improve forest roads in the Cedar River Increased sedimentation and Cedar River Municipal Watershed in order to reduce runoff and prevent fine altered sediment transport P 11, 12 sediments from entering the Cedar River and its tributaries. For processes more details on forest roads to be decommissioned or improved, see the Final Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Seattle 2000). S Potential projects for the Cedar River subarea are listed in the following table and can be located • on Maps 9a and 9b (Cedar River—Lower and Cedar River—Upper). Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task (a, b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. August 2002 4-39 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River Table 4-20. Cedar River Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Cedar River P 1 Fish Ladder at Landsburg Fish Passage • The Landsburg Diversion Dam blocks fish access to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. The City of Seattle will complete construction of a fish ladder at Landsburg in 2003,which will open 12 miles of mainstem habitat and approximately 5 miles of tributary habitat to all salmon species except sockeye. Cedar River P 2 Lighting Decrease Near Mouth Fish Passage Reduce lighting near Cedar River mouth to reduce predation of juvenile salmon and improve their passage into Lake Washington. Cedar River P 3 Fish Passage Improvement on Forest Roads(not mapped) Fish Passage The Final Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan has identified structures at forest road stream • crossings in Seattle's Cedar River Municipal Watershed that impede fish passage(primarily culverts). Starting in 2001,these structures will be removed,upgraded,or replaced to restore passage for anadromous fish,bull trout, and other resident fish. Cedar River P 4 Habitat Reaches to Be Protected Protection Continue Cedar River Legacy habitat program to protect best remaining habitat through acquisition,easements, or tax breaks.The following mainstem reaches have been targeted for protection by the Cedar River Legacy Program: .� 4a Belmondo Reach 4b 218t'Place Side Channel Reach 4c Landsburg Reach 4d Lower Dorre Don Left Bank Meander Reach 4e Ricardi Reach 4f Dorre Don Meanders Reach 4g Lower Lions Stream Reach 4h Mouth of Lower Taylor Creek Reach 4i Jones Reach 4j Byers Reach. There are four chinook-bearing tributaries in the Lower Cedar River:Rock Creek,Walsh Lake Diversion, Peterson Creek,and Taylor Creek.The following tributary reaches have been targeted for protection by the Cedar River Legacy Program: 4k Rock Creek Natural Area Addition 41 Rock Creek Ravensdale Retreat 4m North Fork Taylor Creek—Upper Maxwell 4n Lower Peterson Creek. Cedar River P 5 Habitat Management Plans for Protected Properties Habitat Management (not mapped) Develop habitat-based management and use guidelines for properties that have been acquired for habitat protection. Cedar River P 6 Forest Protection in Municipal Watershed(not mapped) Forest Management Preserve all riparian and upland forest(including old growth)in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed in order to protect natural processes and habitat quality in the river,its tributaries,and its wetlands. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-40 August 2002 Watershed(WR1A 8) Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River i Project Name Type of Project Cedar River P 7 Projects to Restore/Enhance Off-Channel Habitat Restoration/Enhancement The following projects are examples of identified opportunities to create,enhance,or restore off-channel habitat. There are more potential projects to improve off-channel habitat identified in Appendix E of the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. This list represents King County staff recommendations for projects to pursue in the near term and are subject to change,depending on funding,landowner cooperation,and other feasibility factors. w 7a Buck's Curve buyout and restoration,and Jones Road levee setback 7b Groundwater-fed channel behind Herzman levee 7c Partial removal of Jan Road levee 7d Getchman levee setback and reconnection of natural channel 7e Reconnection of Wetland 69,an oxbow wetland,to the Cedar River S7f Lion's Club pond and channel project . 7g Byer's Reach side channel 7h 218"'Place side channel enhancement 7i Dorre Don Meanders side channel 7j Ricardi Reach restoration . 7k Identification of opportunities to restore or enhance off-channel habitat along initial mile of chinook-bearing tributary systems. Cedar River P 8 Projects to Maintain and Restore Floodplain Connectivity Restoration/Enhancement The following projects are examples of identified opportunities to remove existing structures in the floodplain • and increase floodplain connectivity. There are more potential projects identified in the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action. This list represents King County staff recommendations for projects to pursue in the near term and could change depending on funding,landowner cooperation and other feasibility factors. There is some overlap with projects listed above to restore off-channel habitat because the projects meet both objectives. Mainstem projects: 8a Ricardi levee removal(previous flood buyout) 8b Getchman levee setback and reconnection of natural channel 8c Cedar Grove Road full levee removal(previous flood buyout and partial removal already occurred) 8d Buck's Curve flood buyout,road setback,and levee removal 8e Pursuit of additional buyouts near McDonald levee 8f Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park flood buyout and levee removal • 8g Rutledge Johnson downstream end levee removal 8h Cedar Mountain revetment removal 8i Cedar Grove road junkyard buyout s8j Dorre Don area flood buyouts 8k River Bend Mobile Home Park buyout 81 Identification of opportunities,such as ongoing Taylor Creek project,to remove bank hardening and t+ structures in the floodplain along initial mile of chinook-bearing tributaries. (not mapped) Cedar River P 9 Passage of Large Woody Debris Over Landsburg Dam Increase Large Woody Debris Request that the City of Seattle consider passing large woody debris over Landsburg Dam as appropriate. Cedar River P 10 Riparian Forest Restoration in Upper Watershed Forest Restoration (not mapped) Starting in 2001,identify,prioritize,and accelerate natural restoration of about 45 acres per year of degraded riparian forest in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. August 2002 4-41 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River • Project Name Type of Project S Cedar River P 11 Road Decommissioning in Upper Watershed(not mapped) Forest Road Removal Starting in 2001,decommission about 10 miles of forest roads per year in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. Cedar River P 12 Forest Road Drainage Improvements(not mapped) Forest Road • Improvements Starting in 2001,improve drainage(to adjacent forest floor)on approximately 7 miles of existing forest roads per year in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. Cedar River P 13 Projects to Restore Riparian Conditions Restoration • Restore riparian conditions in Rock Creek Cemetery Reach through removal of non-native species and planting • of native vegetation. Table 4-21. Cedar River Research Research Factors of Decline No. Research Description Addressed • Cedar River Update Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Fish access and passage • R 1 Plan inventory of fish access barriers on Cedar River tributaries and barriers prioritize barrier removals for implementation. In particular, consider feasibility of fish passage improvements on chinook- bearing tributaries where potential fish barriers have been identified (Rock,Taylor,Walsh,Peterson). Cedar River Conduct feasibility studies of potential projects to create,reconnect, Loss of channel complexity M R 2 or restore off-channel habitat on the Cedar River mainstem and and connectivity • chinook-bearing tributaries utilizing Appendix E of Lower Cedar Degradation of riparian River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. conditions • Cedar River Investigate opportunities to increase riparian vegetation,shallow Loss of channel complexity • R 3 water,and off-channel habitat in the lowest reach of the Cedar River and connectivity • through Renton,at the mouth,and on south Lake Washington Degradation of riparian adjacent to the mouth. conditions Cedar River Identify and map hardening of privately owned riverfront property in Loss of channel complexity R 4 the Cedar River subarea in order to identify opportunities to soften and connectivity o or remove additional bank hardening. Degradation of riparian conditions • Cedar River Monitor existing restoration projects incorporating large woody Loss of channel complexity R 5 debris and natural large woody debris functions in Cedar River to and connectivity • improve future restoration project designs. Degradation of riparian conditions Cedar River Evaluate gravel quality,quantity,and transport on the Cedar River Increased sedimentation and R 6 mainstem,including the effect of bank armoring,to determine if altered sediment transport gravel supply is limiting to salmon spawning. (Ongoing study by processes U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,cities of Seattle and Renton,and • King County.) If gravel supply is determined to limit spawning, identify locations where natural bank erosion and gravel recruitment could be enhanced or reestablished and,if needed,initiate gravel supplementation project. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-42 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Cedar River Research Factors of Decline • No. Research Description Addressed • Cedar River Work with City of Kent to investigate ways to increase Lower Rock Altered hydrology and flow R 7 Creek instream flows,including,but not limited to,replacing lost • water supply. City of Kent flow studies should be helpful in this • investigation. Cedar River Investigate influence of altered flow regime for impacts on salmon Altered hydrology and flow R 8 habitat and survival. Work to be done jointly between the Flow • Subcommittee of the WRIA 8 Technical Committee and the Cedar River Instream Flow Commission to evaluate benefits and impacts • of managed flow regimes on salmon habitat and survival in the • Cedar River. Cedar River Conduct comprehensive study of the ecological benefits to salmon of Altered hydrology and flow R 9 reconnecting the Walsh Lake Diversion to its historical conjunction Fish access and passage • with Upper Rock Creek vs. enhancing of the current Walsh Lake barriers Diversion. • Loss of channel complexity • and connectivity Increased sedimentation and • altered sediment transport • processes Cedar River Evaluate the impact of predation on the survival of juvenile chinook Altered hydrology and flow R 10 salmon. Fish access and passage • barriers • Loss of channel complexity and connectivity Increased sedimentation and • altered sediment transport processes Cedar River Continue ongoing juvenile salmon out-migration studies for the Altered hydrology and flow R 11 Cedar River. Fish access and passage barriers • Loss of channel complexity and connectivity • Increased sedimentation and • altered sediment transport processes August 2002 4-43 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda :-. I d FT C..' t.. .... Is Is �. EASE NOTE: 1. These projects have not been zr _ prioritized or ranked. Numbering is • for ease of identification only. NEWCASTLE 2 r Is subarea. tent al _..J 1SSAQUAH projects this efer to table potential a " 3.Not all projects are shown on the maps.Only projects that are • currently located at specific sites • are mapped. • 8k RENTON Is 7 /8 E, a/4e ---- 7b 4i t... 8h 8d/ 4a N99uRh c'ep4 7a Cedar ,Pr L• 8e 4 4j _ t8f 9 7f.. 7k �8c 4h/4b 7d/sb - .r... 8i 79 Is 7h Is Lake _ .�o. 89 .,r^`-` :• -- Youngs �^ -- • t 7 4 n �/8j r� -version Cedar _. cap, • 7e , KENT .. > 4c CO'YING TO a 4 9 _ N MAPLE "'A.. VALLEY _ `4L' • AUBURN G reeyr Riser • P� '•. • BLACK r Ri er E DIAMOND ; N 10 Project Site & No. 1 Data sources: ProjectArea & Na. King County standard datasets: Wtrbtly,W-rcrs,Drnbsn,Kcsnstrt. Stream Goes WLRNThlVILRIS/city3co d t 2 Mlles Proectlocations: a F''ttSaior Road WLRNT6/Vc12 work/02059'/. — - ---- a $ _} Map designed/produced by: July 2002 • ! Boundary The DNRP G' .is o::d d:e W:R City 'T Visuol Communications&Weo Unii, QmZ y?(?C2. Lake July O King County ' File Name: Department of - (� 0206 4"J6N-AACeor;r,ow.c: Natural Resources&Parks '�f,m ' "'� a '•�.a" Cedar River Subarea-Lower WGC,M Water a Land Resources Dlvlslon , , .�c., .W�ttl .YQ>.�'�:- xF.�f:3?»-'>iY:- �:. ':?%77;$. .. :.. :..2... • PLEASE NOTE: No projects are mapped for this l'•�, { 4�-. portion of the Cedar River Subarea. — SNOQUALMIE '- - • • �, d t g NORTH �? BEND ° " � o Cedar 4 Chester Morse KING Beservo_ir COUNTY' KITTITAS Grp" COUNTY • "U .T� <w<..:.oa'�,.w.a"5,r`. ERiFFFa>:u�::A3" `c. S .. N • ��J Stream Map Source: King County standard dotosefs: s • -3 Wirldy,Vdtrrr, Drnhsn,Kcsns". . Molar Road Cities:WLR',,T6/WLRGiS/city3co. { Project locutions $Al WLRNT6/Vo12/wort,/020591j. 0 d A Miles • City Boundary ice:... .-®-.rr.aaj Map designed/produced by: • The DNRP GiS i_n:°and the WI.R 7 LakeVFsuo:Cornmur.Fcot:ons is Web,Jnif, July 7�d"' SJuly 2002. ?. Cedar River FIIstName: O King County 0208 W8N1AA-C'edarUp.ai Department of Natural Resources&Parks Subarea-Upper WGC,MD,LP Water&Land Resources Division �• 8.. "ab"&3ffi3fRY- .�"..M.\'iL,�2T.:ul&�.'tia�Va�,. �.� .,,6,.a•s�"`.�.'.�' • • • Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Bear Creek • Bear Creek and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries • The Bear Creek subarea covers approximately 32,100 acres or 50 square miles. (See Map 10, • Bear Creek Subarea.) The subarea is located in southern Snohomish County and northern King County and is composed of three main tributaries: Bear Creek, Cottage Lake Creek, and Evans • Creek. Bear Creek empties into the Sammamish River in the City of Redmond. Both Bear Creek and Cottage Lake Creek provide excellent spawning and rearing habitat for chinook, coho, • sockeye, and kokanee salmon and steelhead trout. • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Bear Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; altered • hydrology and flow; increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes; poor • water quality (increased temperature and nutrients); and degradation of riparian condition. • The primary goal for the Bear Creek subarea is to protect and restore salmon habitat and habitat- • forming processes in Bear Creek that contribute to the life cycle requirements of adult and • juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. • The following objectives will help achieve this goal: • ■ Allow for unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing • habitats for all life stages of salmon throughout the Bear Creek subarea. ■ Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing • high-quality habitat. • ■ Protect and restore channel complexity and floodplain connectivity. • ■ Protect and maintain flows and hydrologic regime in Bear Creek and its • tributaries. • ■ Identify, protect, and restore cold-water resources in Bear Creek and its • tributaries. • ■ Protect and restore riparian conditions. ■ Reduce runoff and fine sediments entering Bear Creek. • • ■ Understand and reduce impact of elevated nutrients in Bear Creek. • Tables 4-22 through 4-24 present near-term recommendations for the Bear Creek subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of • decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific • location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how • to address them. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-46 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Bear Creek Table 4-22. Bear Creek Action Alternatives • Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Alternative Addressed Identified Bear Creek AA 1 Restore fish access at identified fish access and passage barriers. Fish access and passage Bear Creek • King County Road Maintenance is currently identifying and barriers P 1,2 prioritizing fish passage barriers in the road right-of-way in • unincorporated King County. This may generate additional fish • passage improvement projects in the Bear Creek subarea. • Bear Creek AA 2 Identify opportunities to increase channel complexity and Loss of channel complexity Bear Creek connectivity. and connectivity P 3,4, 5 Bear Creek AA 3 Identify opportunities to protect and maintain flows and Altered hydrology and flow Bear Creek • hydrologic regime in Bear Creek and its tributaries,such as P 6 acquiring water rights and pursuing agreements to change water withdrawal timing to reduce impacts on salmon. • Bear Creek AA 4 • Retain forest cover in the Bear Creek subarea to the extent Altered hydrology and flow Bear Creek possible. The Bear Creek Basin Plan(King County 1990)sets a P 7 goal of retaining a minimum of 65 percent forest cover to • protect the hydrologic regime.Identify opportunities to reduce effective impervious areas and convert grass areas to a forested • landscape. . Bear Creek AA 5 • Identify opportunities to reduce runoff and fine sediments Increased sedimentation and No projects entering Bear Creek. altered sediment transport identified • processes at this time iBear Creek AA 6 • Identify and protect best remaining habitat and prevent Degradation of riparian Bear Creek • degradation of existing high-quality habitat. condition P 8 • Bear Creek AA 7 Identify opportunities to restore riparian conditions by planting Degraded riparian conditions Bear Creek native coniferous trees and removing invasive non-native plants Poor water quality(increased P 9 • in the riparian zones throughout the subarea. First priority for temperatures) riparian restoration should be the mainstems of Bear Creek and • Cottage Lake Creek. Reduce invasive non-native plants in • reaches used by Chinook salmon(particularly reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife in lower Evans Creek). Bear Creek AA 8 Identify opportunities to retrofit old(pre-1998)stormwater Altered hydrology and flow No projects • retention/detention facilities to better retain,release,treat,and Poor water quality identified infiltrate stormwater. at this time August 2002 4-47 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Bear Creek Potential projects for the Bear Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 10. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that • include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a, b, c, etc.). On the map, . corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2,task a.Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. Table 4-23. Bear Creek Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Bear Creek P 1 Fish Passage Project Benefiting All Species(Including Chinook) Fish Passage Assess and propose project(s)to deal with potential biological access barrier for chinook salmon caused by • choking reed canarygrass in Evans Creek(08-0106)a from RM 1.25 to 5.25. • Bear Creek P 2 Fish Passage Projects Benefiting Other Species Fish Passage • Restore fish passage to benefit coho and kokanee salmon and cutthroat and steelhead trout,in order of priority based on habitat made available by the elimination of barriers: • 2a Passage over Welcome Lake Dam on Colin Creek(08-0132) • 2b Passage over dam on Siedel Creek(08-0129)in Redmond Watershed Preserve • 2c Passage under Union Hill Road NE on tributary(08-0108) 2d Passage through culvert on Rutherford Creek(08-0110)at NE 60`"Street 2e Passage over private dam on Rutherford Creek(08-0110)on the north side of Union Hill Road NE • 2f Passage over private dam on tributary(08-0122A)just west of Avondale Road NE at about NE 144`h Street • 2g Passage under 216t'Avenue NE on Struve Creek(08-0131) 2h Passage under NE 145t'Street on unmapped tributary of Bear Creek just west of Bear Creek and just upstream of Bear Creek confluence . 2i Passage under private driveway downstream of and under 238"'Avenue NE on tributary to Evans Creek • (08-0106)near NE 70'h Street 2j Passage under private driveway on tributary(08-0111 A)of Evans Creek near NE 3 1"Street • 2k Improvement of passage under Woodinville Duvall Road NE on tributary(08-0127)at Cottage Lake County • Park 21 Passage over private dam on tributary(08-0120)just upstream of confluence with Bear Creek 2m Passage over private dam on tributary(08-0119)north of NE I I6 h Street at about 177t'Avenue NE • 2n Passage over private dam on tributary(08-0119)north of NE 116"'Street at about 177"'Avenue NE. • Bear Creek P 3 Addition of Large Woody Debris to Cottage Lake and Bear Restoration • Creeks Install large woody debris in Cottage Lake Creek from the confluence with Bear Creek upstream to NE 165th Street and in Bear Creek where needed from Woodinville-Duvall Road downstream to the Sammamish River. • Bear Creek P 4 Lower Bear Creek Restoration Restoration • Provide an enhanced channel alternative to the ditched and leveed lower 3,000 feet of Bear Creek,including a • new refuge confluence with the Sammamish River. Bear Creek P 5 Evans/Bear Creek Restoration Restoration In-channel restoration is needed in Bear Creek and Evans Creek through the former dairy farm at the confluence; • RM 1.5 to RM 2.5 on Bear Creek and RM 1.2 to RM 4.6 on Evans Creek. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-48 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda , • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Bear Creek Project Name Type of Project Bear Creek P 6 Cold Creek Protection Protection • Determine the source of,and properly protect,the aquifer for the Cold Creek groundwater springs in Cottage • Lake Creek. • Bear Creek P 7 Forest Cover Protection Protection Acquire forest property,development rights/conservation easements,and provide enhanced incentives to retain • and plant forest area environments. In particular,acquire fee interests or conservation easements in Snohomish • County on forested headwaters of Cottage Lake Creek and Bear Creek(700 acres in four ownerships). • Bear Creek P 8 Bear Creek Waterways Protection Continue the Waterways 2000 protection and restoration program in the Bear Creek subarea. 8a Cottage Lake Creek at the 40-acre parcel at RM 1.25 (both protection and restoration) • 8b Cold Creek headwaters area • 8c Bear Creek Waterways reaches A,B,and D • Expand the original program into Snohomish County. 8d Snohomish County Bear Creek headwaters in Paradise Valley Protect creek buffers that meet Waterways 2000 criteria but are located outside the original designated reaches. • 8e Riparian forested buffers along Bear Creek,Cottage Lake Creek,and other salmonid tributaries(for • example,the Stensland/Tharp parcel). Bear Creek P 9 Bear and Evan Creeks Greenway Project Protection/Restoration Continue Bear and Evans Creeks Greenway project to protect and restore key riparian lands,particularly the • former dairy farm at the confluence of Bear and Evans creeks(City of Redmond project). • a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stream designation Table 4-24. Bear Creek Research • Research Factors of Decline . No. Research Description Addressed Bear Creek Understand flows and hydrologic regime in Bear Creek subarea,and Altered hydrology and R 1 identify ways to protect and maintain them. Identify critical ground flow . and surface water withdrawal locations and volumes in the subarea,as well as their impact on salmon,in-stream habitat,and habitat-forming processes. Bear Creek Understand and reduce impact of elevated nutrients in Bear Creek. Poor water quality • R 2 (nutrients) Bear Creek Continue ongoing juvenile salmon out-migration studies for Bear Altered hydrology and R 3 Creek. flow • Fish access and passage barriers Loss of channel . complexity and connectivity Increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes August 2002 4-49 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda "`" nosh s� c �' • p f' • '- 8d h � P .• tom.. •�� ,. �� M •fit g 08d a •. 7 Crystal IF ' ° • Lake _ 8c _ _ _SNOHOMISH COUNTY 10 Project Site & No. KING COUNTY 'I • Project Area & No. • WOODINVILLE 8c Stream 8b . g 2k Major Road Cottage F Lake 8C r City Boundary �• 8b0 4- �` : 1 �. Lake 2 ' 9s �L Bear Creek Subarea • 2f 2h DUVALL 3— 8a. 2a © .. e •Welcome . s•<C� Lake $C C 2m 2b: .....�. 0 1 2 -_ Mtles REDMOND: —� 2n July 2002 'r PLEASE NOTE: J1. These projects have not been 9 prioritized or ranked.Numbering is for ease of identification only. 2.Numbers refer to table of potential . projects for this subarea. 5 2c 21 21 3. Not all projects are shown on the REDMOND 1 2e a maps.Only projects that are current located at specific sites currently a s e . j 2d L are mapped. Evan R`" Data sou s: § to Kuq Ccun stondard datasets:Wtrbdy,Wirrrs, ' C Drnos^,Kcsns? Cities.WLRNT6,WLRGiS/city3co. -„ Project locations �tm 2i WLR1N'T6/Vol2/Naork102059l r . r �... j $A M M A M I$H) 8 Mapdesigned/produced by: ' The D4RP GIS d l an Unit he WL p.Visual �, Communications&Web Unit.July 2002. •-- File Name: V ;... BELLEVUE ozes 4VFNTAA sear.ai ........ WGC,MD,LP a: ( L `: GeorSe days Cree k� O King County � iE1 X Department of - Natural Resources&Parks ? y Water&Land Resources Division • �xr.�:.u«ar�HF..:�aea:�<.��.ur..� .'�'i�a.?�.�us�:.: �:�=aa: �ma`��\/�/ ::ww::�. . .:e �a ,�•� xa��eMyarfs.::au�:.aca, � ;�eca �a: °see:�;.aa.�.a¢�a. .. • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Issaquah Creek i Issaquah Creek and Chinook-Bearing Tributaries • The Issaquah Creek subarea encompasses approximately 61 square miles of King County. The creek's headwaters flow from the steep slopes of Cougar, Squak, Tiger, and Taylor mountains into Lake Sammamish. (See Map 11, Issaquah Creek Subarea.) The subarea includes Issaquah Creek and its tributaries: Holder Creek, Carey Creek, Fifteenmile Creek, and McDonald Creek. . It also includes the north and east forks of Issaquah Creek and Tibbets Creek. (Tibbets Creek is • not actually a tributary to Issaquah Creek, but it shares a common floodplain with the mainstem during large flood events.) The Issaquah Creek subarea supports chinook, coho, and kokanee salmon and steelhead trout. It may also support bull trout. The middle and upper sections of Issaquah Creek have exceptional fish habitat; Carey Creek and Holder Creek, in particular, provide excellent habitat for salmon. The Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, which is managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, currently produces chinook and coho salmon, as well as Lake Washington steelhead trout. All fish not needed for production are allowed to spawn in Issaquah Creek. In 2000, the hatchery began mass-marking all chinook and coho • juveniles leaving the hatchery as a means of distinguishing returning hatchery adults from • naturally produced fish. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Issaquah Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; • degradation of riparian condition; altered hydrology and flow; poor water quality(nutrients, chemical contamination, increased temperatures); and increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes. The primary goals for Issaquah Creek are to: i ■ Protect and restore salmon habitat and habitat-forming processes in the Issaquah Creek subarea that contribute to the life cycle requirements of • adult and juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. ■ Protect and maintain critical forest cover. i The following objectives will help achieve these goals: • 0 Allow unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life stages of salmon throughout the Issaquah Creek subarea. ■ • Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing • high-quality habitat. ■ Protect, enhance, and restore channel complexity, floodplain connectivity, • and riparian conditions. * N Protect, maintain, and restore the flows and hydrologic regime. August 2002 4-51 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Issaquah Creek ■ Eliminate impacts of increased nutrients and chemical contamination on salmon survival. • ■ Understand impacts of increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes in Issaquah Creek on salmon viability; identify • opportunities to reduce impacts. . ■ Identify opportunities to protect and restore the temperature regime in Issaquah Creek. • Tables 4-25 through 4-27 present near-term recommendations for the Issaquah Creek subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified • factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been • identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how • to address them. • Table 4-25. Issaquah Creek Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Issaquah Creek AA 1 Provide access and passage at all physical,chemical, and Fish access and passage Issaquah Creek . biological blockages to fish migration. King County Road barriers P 1 Maintenance is currently identifying and prioritizing fish passage barriers in the road right-of-way in unincorporated King County. This may generate additional fish passage improvement projects in the Issaquah Creek subarea. • Issaquah Creek AA 2 Identify and protect the best remaining habitat and prevent Loss of channel Issaquah Creek • degradation of existing high-quality habitat. complexity and P 2 connectivity • Degradation of riparian • condition Altered hydrology and flow Increased sedimentation • and altered sediment transport processes • Poor water quality • Issaquah Creek AA 3 • Retain forest cover in the Issaquah Creek subarea to the extent Altered hydrology and Issaquah Creek possible.The Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Pollution flow P 3 • Action Plan(King County 1994) set goal of retaining a . minimum of 65 percent forest cover to protect hydrologic regime. Identify opportunities to reduce effective impervious areas and convert grass areas to a forested landscape. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-52 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Issaquah Creek Factors of Decline Projects • Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified • Issaquah Creek AA 4 Design and implement habitat restoration projects to increase Loss of channel Issaquah Creek • channel complexity and connectivity. Identify opportunities to complexity and P 4,5 install large woody debris,especially in mainstem Issaquah connectivity Creek,Carey Creek,and Holder Creek where needed. Identify opportunities to reconnect potential or marginally functioning off-channel habitat or create new off-channel habitat and shallow mainstem habitat. Issaquah Creek AA 5 Identify opportunities to remove bank hardening and existing Loss of channel Issaquah Creek structures in the floodplain and/or soften hardened banks by complexity and P 6,7 using bioengineering techniques. Priority areas are Issaquah connectivity Creek mainstem,Carey Creek,and Holder Creek. Degradation of riparian condition • Issaquah Creek AA 6 Identify opportunities for streambank bioengineering restoration Increased sedimentation No projects i projects in King County,City of Issaquah,and Tiger Mountain and altered sediment identified at this State Forest to help the hydrologic network return to a natural transport processes time erosion-sediment transport rate. Issaquah Creek AA 7 • Protect existing forested riparian buffers and identify Degraded riparian No projects opportunities to plant native coniferous trees in the riparian conditions identified at this zones throughout the subarea. First priority should be the Loss of channel time • mainstems of Issaquah Creek,Carey Creek,and Holder Creek. complexity and connectivity Poor water quality (increased temperature) • Issaquah Creek AA 8 • Identify and retrofit old(pre-1998)stormwater Altered hydrology and Issaquah Creek retention/detention facilities to better retain,release,treat,and flow P 8 infiltrate stormwater. Poor water quality (nutrients,chemical contamination) • Issaquah Creek AA 9 Identify opportunities to reduce phosphorus,runoff,and fine Poor water quality Issaquah Creek • sediments entering Issaquah Creek. (nutrients,chemical P 9 contamination) Increased sedimentation • and altered sediment transport processes Altered hydrology and . flow • Potential projects for the Issaquah Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 11. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a,b, c, etc.). On the August 2002 4-53 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Issaquah Creek map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because • some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in • the table. Table 4-26. Issaquah Creek Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project Issaquah Creek P 1 Issaquah Salmon Hatchery Fish Passage Fish Passage • Work with Issaquah Salmon Hatchery to evaluate and amend its management protocol on passing species of salmon over the hatchery weir. Design and implement project to improve fish passage at Issaquah Salmon Hatchery Intake Dam. • Issaquah Creek P 2 Habitat Protection Protection 2a Mainstem Issaquah Creek RM 8.4-10(155 acres) 2b Holder Creek(inholding on Taylor and Tiger mountains) 2c Carey Creek RM 0-Highway 18 2d Carey Creek Highway 18 to Issaquah-Hobart Road • 2e Issaquah Mainstem(SE 156d'Street to 252nd Avenue SE) • 2f Holder Creek(confluence with Carey Creek to Highway 18) 2g Issaquah Mainstem(252°d Avenue SE to Carey/Holder confluence) 2h Mainstem Issaquah Creek/Log Cabin Reach(RM 8.4-10, 155 acres). • Continue and fund Issaquah Creek Waterways Program to identify and protect floodplain habitat along Issaquah • Creek,Carey Creek,and Holder Creek. Protection of riparian habitat helps to preserve channel migration zones and allow for recruitment of large woody debris and gravel,and other habitat-forming processes. . Issaquah Creek P 3 Forest Cover Protection Protection • 3a Protect existing natural flow regime in the headwaters areas of Carey and Holder creeks,which are in the • Tiger Mountain State Forest and Taylor Mountain County Forest vicinity,by acquiring forest property, development rights/conservation easements.Also,provide enhanced incentives to retain and plant forest • area environments.(Supported by the WRIA 8 Flow Subcommittee's report on changes in hydrology in • WRIA 8 that highlighted Upper Issaquah Creek as having minimal impact from land cover change,water withdrawal,and sewers.The report is included in the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors • Report for Cedar-Sammamish Basin in the chapter that discusses change in hydrologic regime.) 3b Acquire additional forested areas along Fifteenmile Creek,East Fork,and McDonald Creek. Issaquah Creek P 4 Squak Valley Restoration Project Restoration The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Issaquah are designing off-channel habitat for salmon rearing • and refuge along Issaquah Creek approximately 4 1/2 miles upstream of Lake Sammamish. Site is • approximately 7 acres;design consists of removing portions of an existing levee to allow winter flow through a meandered channel,providing large woody debris,and planting riparian vegetation. Construction is scheduled • to start in spring of 2002. Issaquah Creek P 5 Addition of Large Woody Debris to Issaquah Creek Restoration • Consider adding large woody debris to Issaquah Creek between RM 8.4 and RM 10. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-54 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Issaquah Creek Project Name Type of Project Issaquah Creek P 6 Potential Sites for Removal of Bank Hardening Streambank Restoration • 6a Confluence of Issaquah Creek and Fifteenmile Creek 6b Issaquah Creek at RM 7.5 6c Hang Glider Creek at RM 0.3 • 6d Issaquah Creek between RM 7.4 and RM 7.7 6e Four Creek subdivision . 6f Issaquah Creek confluence with McDonald Creek. Issaquah Creek P 7 City of Issaquah Floodway Restoration Program(not mapped) Restoration • Continue City of Issaquah's floodway restoration program,which improves chinook habitat on Issaquah Creek Swithin the city by bioengineering streambanks to meet multiple objectives,including fish habitat. Issaquah Creek P 8 I-90 Stormwater Improvements(not mapped) Improved Stormwater Facilities I-90 has few water-quality treatment facilities or water retention/detention facilities for the hundreds of acres of iimpervious surfaces that flow directly into the East Fork,North Fork,and mainstem of Issaquah Creek. Work with Washington Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Transportation to provide improvements and spill containment system. Issaquah Creek P 9 Implementation of Lake Sammamish Water Quality Plan Water Quality Plan (not mapped) Implement the Lake Sammamish Water Quality Management Plan(Entranco December 1996). This plan focuses on reducing phosphorus inputs to Lake Sammamish. The Issaquah Creek subarea is a potential major . source because it provides 70 percent of the volume of surface water input to Lake Sammamish. Table 4-27. Issaquah Creek Research a • Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed Issaquah Understand flows and hydrologic regime in Issaquah Creek subarea. Altered hydrology and . Creek R 1 Identify critical groundwater and surface water withdrawal locations flow and volumes in the subarea,their impact on salmon,in-stream habitat, and habitat-forming processes. Identify ways to protect and maintain • existing flow regime and restore a more natural flow regime. . Issaquah In particular,analyze hydrology and flows in North Fork Issaquah Altered hydrology and Creek R 2 Creek,East Fork Issaquah Creek,and the lower mainstem of Issaquah flow Creek that were identified by the WRIA 8 Flow Subcommittee as having low flow problems. (See Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for Cedar-Sammamish Basin, Change in • Hydrologic Regime,p.450) Evaluate necessity of corrective water management actions. i August 2002 4-55 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Beaver c Lake ;3 Lake b i...... SAMMAMISH x �� tw z E : • �o ivy 4� ..._ 4 t f i t :•..•. t, V:. �.. ISSAQUAH 10 Project Site & No. .......::: QS East Fork 155PgaPh cf Project Area & No• MIX Stream OC�Majora I ' .. 4 3b: t City Boundary ........ ...... - GmQ Lake 1 6c �` =F 0 Issaquah Creek - Subarea Nr 6b � 3b �— - - 3b � 6a _ 0 2 Mae> — - $ir _ July 2002 i Lake Lake Kathleen L 2a McDonald C 3a Data Sources: ' 5 _ King'-oun'y stondard datosets: C 2e --- - - Wtrbdy Wtrcrc,Drnbsn,kcsnstrt, 2h WLRNT6/WI RGIS city3co. "IS Map des igned/produced by: ti I' 8Q_ S- �1 the DNR. GiS Un t and die:} 2g Visuoi Corrmni LR © ' I; 9U4�" ucations&Wed _ Unit,King County 2 f File Name: Spring Webster 1 ,bake p _ Lake 2c _� holder C{ez Francis s. Lake Peterson ;.; Lake 2d��.�<,�.,, creek PLEASE NOTE: 1. These projects have not been prioritized or ranked. Numbering is for ease of identification only. 38 2. Numbers refer to table of potential projects for this subarea. 3. Not all projects are shown on the — O King County Department of maps.Only projects that are b Natural Resources 8 Parks currently located at specific sites -- Water&Land Resources Division are mapped. o , ' ..A33� . '.' :"•�3,..n'�.'�`F.M Ju3'3.h;.,:Adii.ACb Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek Little Bear Creek • Little Bear Creek, which encompasses a drainage area of approximately 15 square miles, begins in Snohomish County, flows southward into King County, and empties into the Sammamish River. (See Map 12, Little Bear Creek Subarea.) Approximately 80 percent of the Little Bear Creek subarea is located within Snohomish County. Anadromous salmon and trout access almost all of this system, though there are some significant passage barriers to adults at low-flow periods and to juveniles during high flows. Little Bear Creek is currently the least developed of the three main north tributaries to the Sammamish River, and it has the least degraded habitat. Little Bear Creek supports runs of chinook, sockeye, kokanee, and coho salmon. • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Little Bear S Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; altered hydrology and flow; increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes; degradation of riparian condition; poor water quality (increased temperature, poor water quality, . and other conditions). The primary goal for the Little Bear Creek subarea is to protect and restore salmon habitat and . habitat-forming processes in Little Bear Creek that contribute to the life cycle requirements of • adult and juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Provide unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life stages of salmon. ■ Protect and restore channel complexity and floodplain connectivity. ■ Protect and maintain a more natural hydrologic regime in Little Bear Creek and its tributaries. ■ Reduce runoff and fine sediments entering Little Bear Creek. ■ Reduce accelerated streambank erosion. ■ Maintain and restore a more natural thermal regime in Little Bear Creek. S ' E Protect and restore riparian conditions. ■ Reduce nutrient loading and the impact of elevated nutrients on salmon viability. • Tables 4-28 through 4-30 present near-term recommendations for the Little Bear Creek satellite subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been • identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific August 2002 4-57 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how • to address them. Table 4-28. Little Bear Creek Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Little Bear Creek AA I Restore fish access at identified fish passage barriers(as Fish access and passage Little Bear Creek • identified by Snohomish County,Washington Department of barriers P 1,2 • Fish and Wildlife,or Adopt-A-Stream Foundation and other assessments based on Washington Department of Fish and • Wildlife standard fish passage barrier protocols and prioritization). Little Bear Creek AA 2 • Preserve and restore upland forest cover throughout Little Bear Altered hydrology and Little Bear Creek • Creek subarea. Identify opportunities to reduce levels of flow P 3 subarea-wide percent effective impervious area and increase pervious land cover by converting grass and shrub/scrub land • cover to native forest. Little Bear Creek AA 3 Protect best remaining riparian habitat and high-quality intact Lack of channel Little Bear Creek riparian forest cover. complexity and P 4,5,6,7 connectivity Degraded riparian condition • Altered hydrology and flow Little Bear Creek AA 4 Identify opportunities to restore riparian conditions. Plant native Lack of channel No projects • coniferous trees in the riparian zones throughout the subarea, complexity and identified at this especially in tributary and headwater streams and south of connectivity time • Maltby Road. Reduce invasive non-native plants(particularly Degraded riparian • reed canarygrass and Japanese knotweed)in chinook-bearing condition stream segments by recovering natural riparian communities, especially south of Maltby Road. Vigorously protect riparian habitats north of Maltby Road to prevent further dispersal of • non-native vegetation. • Little Bear Creek AA 5 Identify opportunities to buy out frequently flood-damaged Lack of channel No projects homes or property and restore floodplain and riparian complexity and identified at this • conditions. connectivity time • Degraded riparian condition • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-58 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek S Factors of Decline Projects • Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Little Bear Creek AA 6 Identify opportunities to increase channel complexity and Lack of channel Little Bear Creek floodplain connectivity. Identify opportunities to reconnect off- complexity and P 8 • channel rearing and refuge habitats,especially those that may connectivity exist in proximity to tributary confluences and that currently are Degraded riparian partially or totally isolated by floodplain modifications. condition • Little Bear Creek AA 7 . Identify and preserve headwater,tributary,and floodplain Altered hydrology and No projects wetlands in the Little Bear Creek subarea. flow identified at this time Little Bear Creek AA 8 Identify opportunities to retrofit stormwater retention/detention Altered hydrology and Little Bear Creek facilities and outfall locations to current standards to better flow P 9 Sretain,release,treat,and infiltrate storm water. Apply measures Poor water quality to control stormwater heating, consistent with revised adopted (temperature,other) standards(for example,Washington Department of Ecology, • King County Surface Water Design Manual[King County September 19981). Little Bear Creek AA 9 Identify opportunities to address increased sedimentation and Increased sedimentation Little Bear Creek altered sediment transport processes in Little Bear Creek by: and altered sediment P 10 • Reducing construction runoff and fine sediments transport processes ■ Reducing erosion and sedimentation from livestock or trail access to streams ■ Reducing accelerated streambank erosion, especially south of Maltby Road. Little Bear Creek AA 10 Identify opportunities to reduce nutrient loading and the impact Poor water quality No projects of elevated nutrients in Little Bear Creek. (other) identified at this time Potential projects for the Little Bear Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 12. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects • that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a, b, c, etc.). On the i map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. i August 2002 4-59 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek Table 4-29. Little Bear Creek Potential Projects i Project Name Type of Project Little Bear Creek P 1 Fish Passage Project Benefiting All Species(Including Fish Passage Chinook) The following projects are based on Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 1999 Level A analysis and repair required or fishway conversion recommendations per Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife inventory and assessment protocols: Mainstem of Little Bear Creek: 1 a 132°d Avenue NE,RM.45,City of Woodinville lb 134th Avenue NE(three cement pipes,broken),RM 0.5,City of Woodinville • I c NE 195 h Street,degraded vortex weir,RM 1.8,City of Woodinville Id NE 205th Street,RM 1.9,City of Woodinville i le 5 1"Avenue NE,RM 6.5,Snohomish County Public Works 1 f 180th Street SE,RM 7.2,Snohomish County Public Works • Great Dane Creek: • I Private drive at SR 524(Maltby Road),RM 0.28,Private lh SR 524(Maltby Road),RM 0.28,Washington State Department of Transportation. Little Bear Creek P 2 Fish Passage Projects Benefiting Other Species Fish Passage • Other projects principally benefiting coho salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout. The following projects are . based on Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 1999 Level A analysis and repair required or fishway conversion recommendations per Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife inventory and assessment protocols: e Great Dane Creek: 2a Private drive at SR 9,RM 0.69,BPA right-of-way(two culverts) Cutthroat Creek: 2b Private drive at Highway 9,RM 0.01 2c SR 9,RM 0.18,Washington State Department of Transportation • 2d Private drive,Marwood Place,RM 0.86 • 2e Private drive,at 78th Avenue SE,RM 1.1 Trout stream: 2f 65th Avenue SE,RM 1.17,private 2g 65th Avenue SE,RM 1.21, Snohomish County Public Works. Little Bear Creek P 3 Forest Cover Protection Protection 3a Little Bear Creek Headwater Forest: Site 1 (88 acres of mature second-growth forest on right bank of Little Bear Creek) 3b Merwin property and adjacent forested parcels(23 acres of hydrologically mature forest cover and wetland i area) • 3c Maltby Road property,five parcels totaling 35 acres of mature second-growth upland forest,without critical areas protection . 3d Cutthroat Creek corridor property,3,000 feet of creek frontage and riparian forest,identified in Little Bear Creek Reconnaissance Report(Snohomish County 1993)(not mapped) 3e Trout Stream corridor property(57`h Avenue SE to 65th Avenue SE),identified in Little Bear Creek Reconnaissance Report 3f Acquisition of additional upland forested areas as identified in Snohomish County's Endangered Species Act Priority Land Acquisition Program(not mapped) 3g Funding of Snohomish County's Urban Growth Area Greenspaces program to include non-urban growth • areas in Little Bear Creek in order to identify potential riparian and upland acquisition sites(not mapped) • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-60 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda S s Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek Project Name Type of Project . 3h Acquisition of several acres of forest cover in the City of Woodinville adjacent to Woodinville High School (not mapped) 3i Acquisition of additional upland forested areas as identified in the Little Bear Creek Corridor Habitat Assessment(David Evans and Associates 2002). (not mapped) • Little Bear Creek P 4 Streamside Properties Protection(not mapped) Protection Identify potential streamside properties to acquire that would qualify for development through the variance process because of their size or configuration,within otherwise protected stream or riparian wetland buffer areas. Query Tri-County database of vacant and development-constrained parcels to identify potential acquisitions. • Little Bear Creek P 5 Intact Riparian Forest Protection(not mapped) Protection • Acquire up to 300-foot conservation easements on riparian corridors in chinook-bearing and non-chinook salmon-bearing streams and stream segments that otherwise would not receive the highest levels of regulatory iprotection. Non-chinook salmon-bearing streams to be protected would include Trout Stream,Cutthroat Creek, Great Dane Creek,Little Bear Creek north of 51 s`Avenue SE(south crossing),Rowlands Creek,and other minor tributaries that act to regulate the thermal regime of Little Bear Creek. Little Bear Creek P 6 Riparian Easements South of Maltby Road(not mapped) Protection iAcquire conservation easements in order to conduct riparian habitat restoration(in conjunction with floodplain restoration projects),especially south of Maltby Road. Little Bear Creek P 7 Snohomish County Greenspaces Program(not mapped) Protection Fund Snohomish County's Urban Growth Area Greenspaces program to include Little Bear Creek in order to • foster community-based open space protection. Coordinate with City of Woodinville and King County. Little Bear Creek P 8 Places to Increase Channel Complexity and Floodplain Restoration Connectivity 8a Enhance large woody debris recruitment and frequency between 180"'Street SE and Maltby Road—a stream segment dominated by mixed forest riparian conditions and high canopy cover but lacking an instream abundance of large woody debris. 8b Reduce streambank scouring and restore floodplain connectivity,especially south of Maltby Road where streambank armoring and riparian encroachment are more prevalent. Reference local assessment efforts to identify potential priorities.(not mapped) Little Bear Creek P 9 Stormwater Improvements at 156th Street SE Stormwater Improvement Mitigate heated stormwater effluent at 156"'Street SE. Little Bear Creek P 10 Implementation of Livestock Best Management Practices Restoration (not mapped) • Work with subarea farm owners to ensure that livestock access and water crossing areas are restabilized and limited,and that streambanks are bioengineered and replanted to recover riparian functions. August 2002 4-61 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Little Bear Creek Table 4-30. Little Bear Creek Research i Research Factors of Decline No. Research Description Addressed Little Bear Conduct additional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife—based Fish access and passage • Creek R 1 Level B analysis on unknown barriers as identified by Level A analysis; barriers develop priority index values for individual passage barriers based on . upstream habitat availability and quality. Little Bear Conduct drainage inventory to identify poorly constructed stormwater Altered hydrology/flow • Creek R 2 outfall areas that contribute to drainage problems, streambank erosion, Poor water quality . fine sediment accumulation,and water-quality problems. Identify (temperature,other) opportunities and needs for regional detention. • Little Bear Investigate observed variability in temperature throughout the Little Bear Poor water quality i Creek R 3 Creek subarea and identify contributing factors(natural or (temperature) anthropogenic)to higher water temperature by screening surface water outfalls. Identify cold-water resources from groundwater. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-62 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda 5 C N. MILL 9 i CREEK 36 i . . 3e......... e 2f - 10 Project Site & No. 40 1 Project Area & No. ago ° 29 , Stream 1f ° Major Road F g p 3a y City Boundary i y - 1e PQUO, Lake r Little Bear Creak Subarea 8a N �N ...i 3c1.r 0 `:/2 1 Mile 2a 0 1 g 1 h ° July 2002 BOTHELL p 2b 2C v2d 2e PLEASE NOTE: • 1. These projects have not been . prioritized or ranked.Numbering is for ease of identification only. 2. Numbers refer to table of potential projects for this $ --' subarea. 3. Not all projects are shown on the o maps.Only projects that are S! a currently located at specific sites are mapped. 171 F 1d _........................... .....,SNOHOMJSH CO Data Sources� t • King County standard aatasets'Wtrbdy, KING CO Wtrcus,Drnbsn,Kcsnstr, Cities:WLRNT6/WLRG'S/aty3cc, ? Project locations: WLRNT6/Vol2/work/020591 f WOODINVILLE Map designed/produced by: b the DNRP GS r U om!the WLR Visual . BOTHELL e �; Communications&We;,Uni'•,July 2002. ...... r` File Name: 02,08`,�iEtNTAA:6-r.ai WGC,MD,LP lb * �A+atei32R,tUltr •, la . King County i t: Department of :........... - --•• ?� Natural Resources&Parks ' Water&Land Resources Division Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—North Creek North Creek North Creek begins in the City of Everett, in Snohomish County, and flows southward into King County, where it empties into the Sammamish River. (See Map 13, North Creek Subarea.) The subarea contains approximately 117 miles of stream; major lakes include Silver Lake, Ruggs Lake, and Thomas Lake. Approximately 49 percent of the subarea, including the lakes, is covered by impervious surface (paved surfaces, buildings, etc.); more than 98 percent lies within the urban growth boundary. North Creek supports runs of chinook, sockeye, kokanee, and coho salmon and steelhead trout. s The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the North • Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; altered hydrology and flow; increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes; degradation of riparian condition; and poor water quality (increased temperature, other). The primary goal for the North Creek subarea is to protect and restore salmon habitat and s habitat-forming processes in North Creek that contribute to the life cycle requirements of adult and juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: • ■ Provide unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life stages of salmon. i ■ Protect and restore channel complexity and floodplain connectivity. ■ Protect and restore a more natural hydrologic regime. ■ Reduce runoff and fine sediments. • ■ Reduce accelerated streambank erosion, especially south of SE 164th • Street. • ■ Maintain and restore a more natural temperature regime. ■ Protect and restore riparian habitats. ■ Reduce nutrient and chemical pollutant loading and the resulting impacts on salmon. . Tables 4-31 through 4-33 present near-term recommendations for the North Creek satellite subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how . to address them. . Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-64 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 S Project and Research Recommendations—North Creek a Table 4-31. North Creek Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified North Creek AA 1 Restore fish access at identified fish passage barriers(as Fish access and passage North Creek identified by Snohomish County,Washington Department of barriers P 1,2 Fish and Wildlife,or Adopt-A-Stream Foundation and other assessments based on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife standard fish passage barrier protocols and prioritization). North Creek AA 2 Preserve and restore upland forest cover. Identify opportunities Altered hydrology/flow North Creek to reduce levels of subarea-wide percent effective impervious P 3 area and increase pervious land cover by converting grass and . shrub/scrub land cover to native forest. North Creek AA 3 Protect best remaining riparian habitat and high-quality intact Lack of channel complexity/ North Creek riparian forest cover. connectivity P 4,5,6,7, . Degraded riparian condition 8 . Altered hydrology/flow North Creek AA 4 Identify opportunities to restore riparian conditions. Plant native Lack of channel North Creek iconiferous trees in the riparian zones throughout the subarea, complexity/connectivity P 8 especially in tributary and headwater streams and south of SE Degraded riparian condition 164 h Street. Reduce invasive non-native plants(particularly reed canarygrass and Japanese knotweed)in chinook-bearing stream segments by recovering natural riparian communities, especially south of SE 164"'Street. Protect riparian habitats north of SE 164t'Street and south of SE 1284 Street to prevent further dispersal of non-native vegetation. 40 North Creek AA 5 Identify opportunities to buy out frequently flood-damaged Lack of channel complexity/ No projects homes or property and restore floodplain and riparian connectivity identified at conditions. Degraded riparian condition this time North Creek AA 6 Identify opportunities to increase channel complexity and Lack of channel complexity/ North Creek floodplain connectivity. Identify opportunities to reconnect off- connectivity P 9 channel rearing and refuge habitats,especially those that may Degraded riparian condition exist in proximity to tributary confluences and that are partially or totally isolated by floodplain modifications at this time. North Creek AA 7 aPreserve headwater,tributary,and floodplain wetlands in the Altered hydrology/flow No projects North Creek subarea. identified at this time August 2002 4-65 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish i Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda i Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—North Creek Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified • North Creek AA 8 Identify opportunities to retrofit stormwater retention/detention Altered hydrology/flow No projects facilities and outfall locations to current standards to better Poor water quality identified at retain,release,treat,and infiltrate stormwater. Apply measures (temperature,other) this time to control stormwater heating,consistent with revised adopted standards(for example,Washington Department of Ecology, King County Surface Water Design Manual). Specifically, investigate opportunities to control stormwater heating in lower Silver Creek and Tambark Creek. North Creek AA 9 Identify opportunities to address increased sedimentation and Increased sedimentation and No projects altered sediment transport processes in North Creek by: altered sediment transport identified at ■ Reducing construction runoff and fine sediments processes this time ■ Reducing erosion and sedimentation from livestock or trail • access to streams ■ Reducing accelerated streambank erosion,especially south of SE 164"'Street. . North Creek AA 10 . Identify opportunities to reduce nutrient loadings and chemical Poor water quality(other) North Creek pollutants in North Creek and reduce impact of elevated P 10 nutrients and chemical pollutants. • Potential projects for the North Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 13. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a, b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because some are • not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. Table 4-32. North Creek Potential Projects Project Name Type of Project North Creek P 1 Fish Passage Project Benefiting All Species(Including Chinook) Fish Passage The following projects are based on Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 1999-2001 Level A analysis and repair required or fishway conversion recommendations per Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife inventory and assessment protocols: Penny Creek: • la Ninth Avenue,RM 0.05,City of Mill Creek • lb Two culverts along Mill Creek Community Trail,RM 1.00, are degrading and represent fish passage barriers due to slope conditions or imminent failure. Tambark Creek: 1 c Two culverts on 22nd Avenue SE,RM 0.17,private. Both culverts are undersized and act as partial barriers. 1 d 35d'Avenue SE,RM 1.3,Snohomish County. The culvert is undersized,and the bed material fills with sand. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-66 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda S 0 Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—North Creek Project Name Type of Project North Creek P 2 Fish Passage Projects Benefiting Other Species(not mapped) Fish Passage Implement other fish passage projects as identified(by Snohomish County Surface Water Management Drainage Needs program). North Creek P 3 Upland Forest Cover Protection Protection 3a Acquire North Creek Hillslope Forest Site(53 acres of mature second-growth forest/wetlands on right bank of North Creek). 3b Acquire additional high-quality riparian/wetland and upland forested areas as identified in Snohomish County's Endangered Species Act Priority Land Acquisition Program,particularly between SE 164t"Street and SR 524. Acquisition of open space would fulfill a key component of the North Creek Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan(CH2M Hill 1997). 3c Implement habitat enhancement projects identified by Snohomish County Surface Water Management Drainage Needs program. (not mapped) North Creek P 4 Streamside Properties Protection(not mapped) Protection Identify potential streamside properties to acquire that would allow development through the variance process because of their size or configuration,within otherwise protected stream or riparian wetland buffer areas. Acquire streamside properties,especially those that are contiguous to high-quality forested or wetland upland habitats. Focus particularly on habitats between SR 524 and SE 128"'Street,including tributary streams. Query • Tri-County database of vacant and development constrained parcels to identify potential acquisitions. . North Creek P 5 Intact Riparian Forest Protection(not mapped) Protection Acquire up to 300-foot conservation easements on riparian corridors in chinook-bearing streams and non- chinook salmon-bearing streams and stream segments that otherwise would not receive the highest levels of regulatory protection. The non-chinook salmon-bearing streams to be protected would include Tambark Creek, Penny Creek,Mill Creek(Smokehouse Creek),Nickel Creek,Filbert Creek,and Sulfur Spring Creek,as well as minor tributaries. ' North Creek P 6 Snohomish County Greenspaces Program(not mapped) Protection Fund implementation of Snohomish County's Urban Growth Area Greenspaces program to acquire high-quality riparian habitats and open space protection. North Creek P 7 Snohomish County Endangered Species Act Priority Land Protection Acquisition(not mapped) Acquire other high-quality riparian habitats identified under Snohomish County's Endangered Species Act 40 Priority Land Acquisition Program and Snohomish County Surface Water Management Drainage Needs program. North Creek P 8 Acquisition of Conservation Easements for Future Restoration Protection/ Projects(not mapped) Restoration Acquire conservation easements in order to conduct riparian habitat restoration(in conjunction with floodplain restoration projects)especially south of SE 160 Street(contiguous to already publicly owned lands)and south of SR 524,as well as in Silver Creek,Tambark Creek,Penny Creek,Mill Creek,Filbert Creek,and other tributaries. North Creek P 9 Opportunities to Increase Channel Complexity and Connectivity Restoration 9a Enhance large woody debris recruitment and frequency between 164`h Street SE and SR 524 on North Creek—a stream segment dominated by shrub/scrub and mixed forest riparian conditions,and notably lacking an instream abundance of large woody debris. 9b Reduce streambank scouring and restore floodplain connectivity,especially south of SE 164"'Street to SR 527 on North Creek,which historically was channelized and where riparian encroachment is more prevalent. North Creek P 10 Water Quality Plan(not mapped) Plan Implementation 1 Oa Implement projects specified in the North Creek Watershed Management Plan(Snohomish County Works Surface Water Management 1994). 1 Ob Implement North Creek total maximum daily load and support priority implementation actions. August 2002 4-67 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WR1A 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—North Creek Table 4-33. North Creek Research Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed North Creek Conduct additional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife—based Fish access and R 1 Level B analysis on unknown barriers as identified by Level A analysis; passage barriers develop priority index values for individual passage barriers based on upstream habitat availability and quality. North Creek Conduct drainage inventory to identify poorly constructed stormwater Altered R 2 outfall areas that contribute to drainage problems, streambank erosion,fine hydrology/flow sediment accumulation,and water-quality problems. Identify opportunities Poor water quality and needs for regional detention. (temperature,other) North Creek Investigate observed variability in temperature throughout the North Creek Poor water quality R 3 subarea and identify contributing factors(natural or anthropogenic)to (temperature) . higher water temperature. Identify cold-water resources from groundwater. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-68 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda S S EVERETT - .............. i ads o 1 Q Project Site & No. Project Area & No. • Lake r ,. stickney �� Stream Major Road . °° City Boundary SmS M Lake ILL i CREEK 0 North Creek Subarea • 1be Martha Lake 1 a: • 9a .. N � 3a a LYNNWOOD. U 1d . a hP 0 1�/2'1 Mile 3 b 1 C July 2002 96: 1 c PLEASE NOTE: o 1. These projects have not been 40 prioritized or ranked. � t identification only.se of Numbering 2.Numbers refer to table of potential projects for this BRIER subarea. ® : 3.Not all projects are shown on the maps.Only projects that are currently located at specific / sites are mapped. j .... Data Sources: p ° King Count'standard datasets.W?rbdy; S N O H O M I S H CO B OT H E LL c Wtrcrs,Dmbsr•.,Kcsnst. Cities:WLRNT6;WLRGIS%ciy3co. . KING `:CO. Project locations. WLRNT6/Vol2/wo--V02C691/ Map designed/produced by: 1� 'he DNR'GIS Urrt a A the WLR Visual Communications&Web Unit,Ring Coun . LAKE y,a FOREST J::!y 2002. PARK - BOTHELL File Name: FA 02D8 VvR'.�'FJ:Nonh.ai WGC,M :P s.. �. . - ,.a .ut�•8�' - � WOODINVILLE i mar,• King County E ' 7ts,<t wer •' -' Department of ?� ,- "^• +B !e •• Natural Resources&Parks • �th KENMORE a;•• Water&Land Resources Division i Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Swamp Creek S Swamp Creek • r Swamp Creek begins in Snohomish County and flows southward into King County, where it empties into the Sammamish River. (See Map 14, Swamp Creek Subarea.) This subarea contains Scriber Lake, Martha Lake, Lake Stickney, and 98 miles of stream channels. It drains portions of Lynnwood, Everett, Brier, Bothell, Mountlake Terrace, Kenmore, and unincorporated Snohomish County. It is estimated that 52 percent of the subarea is impervious surface (paved surfaces, buildings, etc.). All of the subarea is located within the urban growth areas of Snohomish and King counties and incorporated areas. Swamp Creek supports runs of chinook, sockeye, kokanee, and coho salmon and steelhead trout. The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Swamp Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; loss of channel complexity and connectivity; altered hydrology and flow; increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes; degradation of riparian condition; and poor water quality (increased temperature, other). The primary goal for the Swamp Creek subarea is to protect and restore salmon habitat and habitat-forming processes in Swamp Creek that contribute to the life cycle requirements of adult and juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: . ■ Provide unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life stages of salmon. ■ Protect and restore channel complexity and floodplain connectivity. ■ Protect and restore a more natural hydrologic regime. ■ Protect and restore riparian habitats. ■ Reduce runoff and fine sediments. ■ Reduce accelerated streambank erosion, especially south of confluence with Scriber Creek. . ■ Maintain and restore a more natural temperature regime. ■ Restore normal dissolved oxygen levels particularly in lower Swamp • Creek. ■ Reduce nutrient and chemical pollutant loading and their impacts on salmon. . i • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-70 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda S Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Swamp Creek Tables 4-34 through 4-36 present near-term recommendations for the Swamp Creek satellite subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified S factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Table 4-34. Swamp Creek Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Swamp Creek AA 1 • Restore fish access at identified fish passage barriers(as Fish access and passage Swamp Creek identified by Snohomish County,Washington Department of barriers P 1,2 Fish and Wildlife,or Adopt-A-Stream Foundation and other assessments based on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife standard fish passage barrier protocols and prioritization). • Swamp Creek AA 2 Preserve and restore upland forest cover. Protect flood Altered hydrology and flow Swamp Creek attenuation functions also provided by numerous lakes and P 3 associated wetlands. Identify opportunities to reduce levels of subarea-wide percent effective impervious area and increase pervious land cover by converting grass and shrub/scrub land cover to native forest. Swamp Creek AA 3 • Protect best remaining riparian habitat and high-quality intact Lack of channel complexity Swamp Creek riparian forest cover. and connectivity P 4 Degraded riparian condition Altered hydrology and flow • Swamp Creek AA 4 Identify opportunities to restore riparian conditions. Plant Lack of channel complexity Swamp Creek native coniferous trees in the riparian zones throughout the and connectivity P 5,6 subarea,especially in tributary and headwater streams and Degraded riparian condition isouth of SR 524. Reduce invasive non-native plants (particularly reed canarygrass and Japanese knotweed)in chinook-bearing stream segments by recovering natural riparian communities,especially south of SR 524. • Swamp Creek AA 5 Identify opportunities to buy out frequently flood-damaged Lack of channel complexity No projects homes or property and restore floodplain and riparian and connectivity identified at . conditions. Degraded riparian condition this time August 2002 4-71 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 40 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda 0 Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Swamp Creek Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Swamp Creek AA 6 Identify opportunities to increase channel complexity and Lack of channel complexity Swamp Creek floodplain connectivity. Identify opportunities to reconnect and connectivity P 7,8 off-channel rearing and refuge habitats,especially those that Degraded riparian condition S may exist in proximity to tributary confluences(for example, Poor water quality(increased Locust Creek)and that currently are partially or totally isolated temperature) by floodplain modifications. Swamp Creek AA 7 • Preserve headwater,tributary,and floodplain wetlands in the Altered hydrology and flow Swamp Creek • Swamp Creek subarea. P 9 Swamp Creek AA 8 • Identify opportunities to retrofit stormwater retention/detention Altered hydrology and flow No projects facilities and outfall locations to current standards to better Poor water quality identified at retain,release,treat,and infiltrate stormwater. Apply measures (temperature,other) this time to control stormwater heating,consistent with revised adopted standards(for example,Washington Department of Ecology, King County Surface Water Design Manual). In particular, investigate opportunities to control stormwater heating in upper Swamp Creek. Swamp Creek AA 9 • Identify opportunities to address increased sedimentation and Increased sedimentation and No projects altered sediment transport processes in Swamp Creek by: altered sediment transport identified at ■ Reducing construction runoff and fine sediments processes this time . ■ Reducing erosion and sedimentation from livestock and trail access to streams ■ Reducing accelerated streambank erosion,especially south of confluence with Scriber Creek. . Swamp Creek AA 10 Identify opportunities to restore dissolved oxygen levels; Poor water quality(other) Swamp Creek reduce nutrient loadings and chemical pollutants in Swamp P 10 M Creek;and reduce impact of low dissolved oxygen,elevated i nutrients,and chemical pollutants. Potential projects for the Swamp Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 14. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a,b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For . example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped, because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. r Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-72 August 2002 Watershed(WR/A 8) Action Agenda s Chapter 4 i Project and Research Recommendations—Swamp Creek Table 4-35. Swamp Creek Potential Projects r Project Name Type of Project Swamp Creek P 1 Fish Passage Project Benefiting All Species(Including Chinook) Fish Passage la Repair and/or retrofit culverts under I-405 and I-5 on Swamp Creek. Conduct additional assessment as needed. lb Inventory and assess fish passage barriers on Locust Creek. 1 c Repair or replace culvert on Golde Creek,RM 0.75,private. (not mapped) . ld Replace culvert on Little Swamp Creek,King County,RM 0.27,NE 192"d Street,Kenmore Public Works. Swamp Creek P 2 Fish Passage Projects Benefiting Other Species(not mapped) Fish Passage Implement other fish passage projects identified by Snohomish County Surface Water Management Drainage Needs program. Swamp Creek P 3 Upland Forest Cover Protection Protection 3a Acquire Lake Stickney shoreline wetlands and upland habitats. i 3b Acquire Locust Way property south of 234`h Pl. SW. 3c Acquire numerous wetlands in Scriber Creek north of Larch Way and east of 44" Avenue W. 3d Acquire additional high-quality riparian and upland forested areas as identified in Snohomish County's iEndangered Species Act Priority Land Acquisition Program. (not mapped) • Swamp Creek P 4 Streamside Properties Protection(not mapped) Protection 4a Identify potential streamside properties to acquire,especially those within the floodplain,which because of their size or configuration,would allow development through the variance process within otherwise protected stream or riparian wetland buffer areas. Acquire streamside properties especially that are • contiguous to high-quality forested or wetland upland habitats. Focus particularly on habitats south of SR 524 and south of 44th Avenue W on Scriber Creek. Query Tri-County database of vacant and development constrained parcels to identify potential acquisitions. 4b Acquire up to 300-foot conservation easements on riparian corridors in chinook-bearing and non-chinook salmon-bearing streams and stream segments that otherwise would not receive the highest levels of regulatory protection. 4c Fund implementation of Snohomish County's Urban Growth Area Greenspaces program to acquire high- quality riparian habitats and open space protection. 4d Acquire other high-quality riparian habitats identified under Snohomish County's Endangered Species Act Priority Land Acquisition Program. . Swamp Creek P 5 Implementation of Surface Water Management Drainage Needs Protection/ Program(not mapped) Restoration Implement habitat enhancement projects identified by Snohomish County Surface Water Management Drainage Needs program. Swamp Creek P 6 Acquisition of Conservation Easements for Future Restoration Protection Projects(not mapped) Acquire conservation easements in order to conduct riparian habitat restoration(in conjunction with floodplain restoration projects),especially south of SR 524 and south of the confluence with Locust Creek. August 2002 4-73 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Swamp Creek Project Name Type of Project Swamp Creek P 7 Opportunities to Increase Channel Complexity and Connectivity Restoration 7a Enhance large woody debris recruitment and frequency between SR 524 and the confluence with Scriber Creek—a stream segment dominated by shrub/scrub and mixed forest riparian conditions and notably lacking an instream abundance of large woody debris. 7b Reduce streambank scouring and restore floodplain connectivity,especially south of the confluence with Scriber Creek,where riparian encroachment and streambank armoring are more prevalent. Acquire Locust . Way property south of 234`h Place SW. (not mapped) Swamp Creek P 8 Wallace Swamp Creek Park Sediment Pond Removal Restoration Remove or modify sediment pond at Wallace Swamp Creek Park and restore channel complexity in stream reach. Project should also help to address elevated water temperatures in stream reach. Upstream sources of sedimentation will have to be studied and addressed. Swamp Creek P 9 Scriber Creek Wetlands (not mapped) Protection • Acquire largest wetland areas remaining in Scriber Creek basin(to protect flood attenuation functions)that are not currently protected by ordinance,held in public ownerships,or in a protective tract status. • Swamp Creek P 10 Total Maximum Daily Load Plan(not mapped) Plan i Implementation Consider development and implementation of total maximum daily load plan for low dissolved oxygen,elevated nutrients,and fecal coliform. Swamp Creek P 11 Opportunities for Flood Buyout and Floodplain Restoration Flood Buyout/ (not mapped) Restoration Implement potential projects identified in the Swamp Creek Flood Reduction Study(Kato&Warren,2001)and by Swamp Creek Technical Committee. Table 4-36. Swamp Creek Research Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed Swamp Creek Conduct additional Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-based Fish access and R 1 Level B analysis on unknown barriers as identified by Level A analysis; passage barriers develop priority index values for individual passage barriers based on upstream habitat availability and quality. • Swamp Creek Conduct drainage inventory to identify poorly constructed stormwater Altered hydrology R 2 outfall areas that contribute to drainage problems,streambank erosion, and flow fine sediment accumulation,and water-quality problems. Identify Poor water quality i opportunities and needs for regional detention. (temperature,other) Swamp Creek Investigate observed variability in temperature throughout the Swamp Poor water quality R 3 Creek subarea and identify contributing factors(natural or (temperature) anthropogenic)to higher water temperature. Identify cold-water resources from groundwater. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-74 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • 0 EVER ETT ..- V. " MUKILTEO ��` �i i.: r • . 3a 10 Project Project,area & No. Lake u Stickney u Strea o MILL Major Road o ® CREEK City Boundary 4 ....: n e L 0 Swamp Creek Marthadill Subarea •`m Lake -, EDMONDS• e : £ ' N LYNNWOOD 1a ' ��.,_ • U / 0 1/2 1 Mile ` •0-,:..w,..,,,., s� / Cr July 2002 .ice• ..,. F -3c ' PLEASE NOTE: 1These projects have not been 7a prioritized or ranked. Numbering 2 is ease identification o y;... �6er reek ;..: ore ofonly. Numbers refer to table of potential projects for this ......! BRIER ? BOTHELL subarea. 3. he MOU NTLAKE �., Not all projects are shown on t TERRACE 1 b maps.Only projects that are r currently located at specific sites a are mapped. r � • � 3b BOTHELL Data sources: e King County standard datasets:Wtrbdy. • *� SNOHOiNtS'H ..,CO. v Wtas,Dmo Kcsn+rt --�-. Cities-WLR`J6/WLRGIS/clty3ca. • KING CO. f i _.- Project locations: i W.RNT6/Vol2/work/020591/. 1 d i. BOTHELL Map designed/produced by; ;" �- 'The DNRP G!S Unit and file WLR Visual b. ) LAKE \ 8 :.x. is FOREST \ Communications&Web Unit,Kmg County, PARK July 2002 i� File Name: { Y 0206 W8WAA 5—m...o• WGC,MD,LP f SHORELINE Samna mir O King County '•...; ` h River Department of �i � '•- Natural Resources&Parks 4 KENM'ORE , Water B Land Resources Division • Chapter 4 • Project and Research Recommendations—Kelsey Creek Kelsey Creek • i The Kelsey Creek subarea is composed of several streams, all of which drain to the west before entering the east channel of Lake Washington at Interstate 90. (See Map 15, Kelsey Creek Subarea.) The subarea contains more than 19 miles of stream, including Mercer Slough, Sturtevant Creek, Kelsey Creek, Valley Creek, the West Tributary, Goff Creek, Richards Creek, East Creek, and Sunset Creek. The mainstem Kelsey Creek begins in the Phantom Lake and . Larsen Lake wetlands, located in the City of Bellevue. The total subarea area encompasses approximately 10,870 acres. Adult chinook salmon have been sighted at the headwaters of the mainstem Kelsey Creek, upstream of Larsen Lake. Chinook salmon are known to occur in portions of Valley Creek, the West Tributary, Goff Creek, and Richards Creek. Kelsey Creek also supports runs of coho and sockeye salmon. • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee identified the following factors of decline for the Kelsey Creek subarea: fish access and passage barriers; increased sedimentation/altered sediment transport processes; poor water quality (increased temperature, other); loss of channel . complexity and connectivity ; altered hydrology and flow; and degradation of riparian condition. The primary goal for the Kelsey Creek subarea is to protect and restore salmon habitat and habitat-forming processes in Kelsey Creek that contribute to the life cycle requirements of adult and juvenile salmon for spawning, rearing, and migration. The following objectives will help achieve this goal: ■ Allow for unimpeded access to all potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life stages of chinook salmon in Kelsey Creek and Richards Creek. ■ Provide instream conditions that promote stable natural spawning, hydraulic refuge areas, rearing, and unimpeded migration in currently productive salmon distribution areas. ■ Restore more natural hydrology, especially peak flows, to protect stream channel complexity, reduce fine sediments, maintain stable spawning beds, and reduce sedimentation. ■ Return the erosion and sediment transport processes in the subarea to a more natural equilibrium, which would provide clean spawning gravel, channel stability, and natural phosphorus-loading levels. ■ Provide forested buffers that protect ecosystem functions of water • temperature regulation, organic inputs, and channel connectivity. ■ Identify water-quality parameters affecting salmon survival; reduce • pollutant loadings and their impact on salmon. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-76 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Kelsey Creek Tables 4-16 through 4-18 present near-term recommendations for the Kelsey Creek satellite subarea. The tables are organized by action alternatives, potential projects, and research. Action alternatives are general recommendations for actions that should be taken to address an identified factor of decline. Potential projects are more specific on-the-ground opportunities that have been identified for applying an action alternative, such as replanting riparian vegetation at a specific location in a subarea. Research activities are designed to help scientists gain a better understanding of a subarea's factors of decline and to learn what roles the factors play and how to address them. Table 4-37. Kelsey Creek Action Alternatives Factors of Decline Projects Action Alternative No./Action Alternative Addressed Identified Kelsey Creek AA 1 . Identify projects that would allow unimpeded access to all Fish access and passage Kelsey Creek potential natural spawning and rearing habitats for all life barriers P 1 stages of chinook salmon in Kelsey Creek and Richards Creek. Kelsey Creek AA 2 Identify opportunities to protect and maintain existing channel Lack of channel complexity Kelsey Creek complexity and connectivity. Identify opportunities to restore and connectivity P 2,3,4 channel complexity and connectivity where necessary. Kelsey Creek AA 3 Identify opportunities to protect existing hydrology and to Altered hydrology and flow Kelsey Creek restore more natural hydrology,especially peak flows,in order P 5 • to protect stream channel complexity,reduce fine sediments, maintain stable spawning beds,and reduce sedimentation. Reduce effective impervious areas by converting grass areas to a forest landscape through incentive programs. Kelsey Creek AA 4 Identify opportunities to retrofit stormwater retention/detention Altered hydrology and flow No projects facilities to better retain,release,treat,and infiltrate stormwater poor water quality(other) identified at at public and private facilities. this time Kelsey Creek AA 5 Identify opportunities to return the erosion and sediment Increased sedimentation and Kelsey Creek transport processes in the subarea to a more natural altered sediment transport P 6 equilibrium,which would provide clean spawning gravel, processes channel stability,and natural phosphorus-loading levels. Kelsey Creek AA 6 Identify opportunities to maintain existing water temperatures Poor water quality No projects • and restore cool temperatures where possible. (temperature) identified at this time Kelsey Creek AA 7 Identify opportunities to protect existing forested riparian Poor water quality Kelsey Creek . buffers and to restore non-forested,degraded riparian areas. (temperature) P 7, 8 Degraded riparian condition Loss of channel complexity • and connectivity August 2002 4-77 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda i 0 Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Kelsey Creek Potential projects for the Kelsey Creek subarea are listed in the following table and can be located on Map 15. Each project has been assigned a number(P 1, P 2, etc.), and for projects that include more than one task, a letter has been assigned to each task(a,b, c, etc.). On the map, corresponding numbers and letters indicate the location of the project and task. For example, a map point marked 2a refers to project 2, task a. Not all projects are mapped,because some are not being conducted in a specific location. Projects that are not mapped are noted in the table. i Table 4-38. Kelsey Creek Potential Projects 40 Project Name Type of Project Kelsey Creek P 1 Fish Passage Project Benefiting All Species(Including Chinook) Fish Passage Replace culverts that are barriers: . la Obtain permits and rebuild Kelsey Creek Fish Ladder at Mercer Slough. lb Obtain permits and build new culvert at Bannerwood on Richards Creek. 1 c Obtain permits and build new culvert at SE 26"'Street on East Creek. Id Improve fish passage at Washington State Department of Transportation culverts beneath 1-405,1-90,and i Highway 520 in the Kelsey Creek subarea. le Design,obtain permits,and build new culvert at SE 30"'Street on Richards Creek. If Design,obtain permits,and build new culvert at NE First Street on West Tributary. 1 g Determine opportunities for fish passage enhancement and culvert replacement at four partial barriers on private property in the mainstem Kelsey and Richards creek systems. (not mapped) Modify existing culverts that are partial barriers by placing low-flow deflectors on multichannel box culverts to increase depth of low-flow channel: , 1 h 121 s`Avenue SE li Lake Hills Connector(not mapped) lj Richards Road. Replace other culverts as identified in culvert assessment report and database. Kelsey Creek P 2 Implementation of Greenways Program(not mapped) Protection , Acquire parcels or conservation easements along Kelsey Creek,as identified in the proposed Greenways Program,that are not protected by regulations to preserve remaining wetlands,especially those that would allow enhanced peak flow attenuation and off-channel rearing habitat. Kelsey Creek P 3 Installation of Large Woody Debris Restoration Until peak hydrology can be restored to more natural conditions,design and install large woody debris to provide hydraulic refuge areas during peak flows in the following stream segments: . 3a Stream segments 76-03a through 76-08 of Kelsey Creek 3b Stream segments 77-02 through 77-03 of Richards Creek 3c Stream segment 79-01 of Sunset Creek S 3d Stream segments 80-01 through 80-02 in the West Tributary 3e Stream segments 82-01 through 82-05 of Valley Creek 3f Stream segment 83-01 of Sears Creek. Kelsey Creek P 4 Wetland Restoration Restoration • Restore and enhance degraded wetlands to restore off-channel and riparian wetland habitats along stream segment 76-05 of Kelsey Creek,which experienced the impact of a landslide as a result of the Nisqually • earthquake. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-78 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Kelsey Creek Project Name Type of Project Kelsey Creek P 5 Protection of Existing Hydrology(not mapped) Protection Maintain or increase Bellevue's Native Growth Protection Area Program to acquire lands from private property and homeowners' associations and actively manage areas to maintain ecosystem functions. Kelsey Creek P 6 Stream Channel Projects Restoration 6a Restore original stream channel of the West Tributary through Kelsey Creek Farm,segment 80-01. 6b Restore stream channel through Kelsey Creek segments 76-03 through 76-05. • Kelsey Creek P 7 Protection of Forested Buffers Protection Purchase riparian forested buffers or conservation easements in the following stream segments: 7a Stream segments 76-08 and 76-09 of Kelsey Creek 7b Stream segments 81-01 of Goff Creek 7c Stream segments 77-01 through 77-03 of Richards Creek. Kelsey Creek P 8 Restoration of Riparian Areas Restoration 8a Identify and implement opportunities to plant native coniferous trees in the riparian zones throughout the subarea. First priority should be the mainstem of Kelsey Creek.(not mapped) 8b Reduce invasive non-native plants in high chinook usage reaches(reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife in segments 76-03 through 76-05 in Kelsey Creek,segments 80-01 through 80-02 in the West Tributary,and segments 77-01 through 77-02 in Richards Creek). City of Bellevue stream segment numbering system,based on state protocols defined by Washington Department of Natural Resources(Pleus and Schuett-Hames 1998)and adopted by the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory Assessment Program Table 4-39. Kelsey Creek Research Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed Kelsey Creek Evaluate the requirements for stream channels in equilibrium(stable) Loss of channel ' R 1 based on existing peak and base flows in Kelsey Creek. complexity and • connectivity Kelsey Creek Evaluate existing stream hydraulic conditions in relation to stream Altered hydrology and R 2 channel configuration,flow gauging information,and stormwater facility flow operations. Kelsey Creek Evaluate capacity for reducing peak flows to mid-1970 levels through Altered hydrology and R 3 modifications of existing stormwater drainage facilities. flow Kelsey Creek Install monitoring equipment for the proposed green roof at Mercer Altered hydrology and R 4 Slough Environmental Education Center as a combined educational and flow technical research study to determine the value of green roofs for stormwater retention and water-quality mitigation. Kelsey Creek Investigate use of cisterns,permeable pavements,rainwater harvesting, Altered hydrology and R 5 downspout disconnection programs,detention tanks under parking lots, flow and other on-site and off-site best management practices for reducing peak flows. Kelsey Creek Evaluate existing flow information and install additional flow gauging Altered hydrology and R 6 stations as needed to analyze stream flows and impacts on stream flow stability. August 2002 4-79 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 4 Project and Research Recommendations—Kelsey Creek Factors of Decline Research No. Research Description Addressed Kelsey Creek Investigate water temperature conditions during summer low flow Poor water quality R 7 conditions and during salmon migration and spawning;in particular,note (temperature) the size of buffer widths necessary to affect a change in temperature. Kelsey Creek Work with Washington Department of Ecology to investigate 303(d) Poor water quality R 8 pesticide listing for headwaters of Kelsey Creek near Larsen Lake. (other) Kelsey Creek Analyze pollutant spill response records to identify areas of highest Poor water quality R 9 incidence or common pollution issues to develop focused education, (other) inspection,and enforcement programs. Kelsey Creek Develop and implement a monitoring program for Mercer Slough to Poor water quality R 10 determine baseline conditions for sedimentation,water temperature, (other) pesticides,and other water-quality parameters.These baselines will be . used in an adaptive management program to maintain ecosystem functions. Kelsey Creek Analyze historical private retention/detention facility inspection data to Altered hydrology and R 11 determine effectiveness of existing inspection schedule and make flow recommendations for source control,facility maintenance frequency,and poor water quality code revisions. (other) Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 4-80 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • .•e, a d+ ...... .....�..........:... KIRKLAND ... g s .. . , REDMOND J1 10 Project Site & No. 1 £ Project Area & No. ye, rea m ..BELLEVUE Major Road 1 d 1 City Boundary 3f GMS Lake 7a tM 7b 0 Kelsey Creek Subarea G 3a 1 f � . 1d 3d/8b-- 4 6a �A C: r 1h :x �r July 2002 a1d 11 • PLEASE NOTE: 6b 1.These projects have not been • 8b1 b prioritized or ranked.Numbering F is for ease of identification only. 2. Numbers refer to table of potential �—3b Phargm projects for this subarea. Lake ......... so 1 C 3. Not all projects are shown on the BEAUX 3C maps.Only projects that are ARTS,_.. 1 e BELLEVUE a currently located at specific sites are mapped. 1 d s Data Sources: .................................... Kin. Countystandard datosets:Wtrbd Wtrcrs, ✓rnbsn,Kcsnst. x' Cities: WLRtdT6/W-,RGIS/City3co. ;••• roiec•locations: . YY1 RN b;"Jol2/work/020j91/ 1 Map designed/produced by: °• l.e DNk?v S J.o onu rWLR Visual ••• Communications&Wea tlit 1ofy?002 C url eP Pile Name .18N?p.t':c-y.o WGC.MD, �i BELLEVUE O King County Department of • i �-�, Natural Resources&Parks Water&Land Resources Division ...m a 3.sfra.��kF�" • • • M CHAPTER 5 • 0 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations • • • r • • • • • • • s • • • a • • • • • i • • • • • • Chapter 5. Regulatory and Policy Recommendations Background and Context of Chapter This chapter contains 25 regulatory and policy recommendations designed to provide local governments with a starting point for evaluating,updating, or improving enforcement of policies and regulations that are linked to salmon conservation. As guidance, these recommendations can i be used by local governments to prioritize what components of each jurisdiction's overall regulatory and policy framework may need to be assessed and modified. This list has been created to apply to a broad range of regulations and policies in most jurisdictions and still be consistent with the factors of decline for salmon habitat in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed. For a list of example ordinances, reference documents, and other resources to assist in implementing these recommendations, please see Chapter 8, Implementation Resources. While on-the-ground projects and outreach recommendations found elsewhere in the Action Agenda are important components of the region's salmon conservation efforts,they are only some of the pieces of a much larger salmon conservation puzzle. Evaluating, updating, and consistently enforcing existing regulations and policies is another crucial piece of this puzzle, because effective laws and policies help prevent habitat loss. Utility, surface water management, and land use staff from many of the jurisdictions in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(see Chapter 9, Acknowledgements, for the WRIA 8 Staff Committee roster)worked together to refine the majority of these recommendations from an original list of 144 possible suggestions for regulatory and policy guidance. The original list was assembled from two main sources: (1)recommendations from the inter urisdictional WRIA 8 Technical Committee and(2)the Regulatory Recommendations section of WRIA 7's Draft Snohomish River Basin Chinook Salmon Near-Term Action Agenda (Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum 2001). Some of the recommendations from the original list were eliminated because they were redundant, while others were determined not to be regulatory or policy guidance. The remaining alternatives were assessed according to their ability to address the following factors: ■ The WRIA 8 Steering Committee's scope for the Action Agenda ■ The purposes listed in the Introduction (Chapter 1) ■ The ability to be implemented in the 5-year time frame i ■ Compatibility and coordination with existing efforts such as the Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act, and other broad policy • regulations that affect salmon conservation. August 2002 5-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 5 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations Some recommendations were also included in response to comments made during the public review process. • There are 10 categories of regulations in the Action Agenda. In alphabetical order, they are: 1. Clearing and grading 2. Fish passage barriers 3. Floodplain alterations 4. Land use i 5. Retention of large woody debris 6. Road maintenance . 7. Shoreline modifications 8. Stormwater 9. Variances and reasonable use exceptions 10. Wetlands. Additional time, analysis, and discussion will be needed to address three other categories: channel migration zones, groundwater, and infrastructure. i Recommendations r The 25 recommendations below offer guidance for local governments to consider as they review their regulations and policies for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. In addition, jurisdictions need to review their current regulations to determine if they are enforced in a i manner adequate for salmon conservation. If regulations are not sufficiently enforced, jurisdictions should endeavor to do so. Clearing and Grading ` Clearing and grading activities have a negative impact on salmon habitat in a variety of ways, including altering hydrology, increasing sediment runoff into streams and rivers, and removing • necessary vegetation from riparian areas. These recommendations assist in addressing the • following factors of decline identified by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee: altered hydrology and flow, poor water quality, and increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 5-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 5 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations 1. Adopt a clearing and grading ordinance or site alterations ordinance. These ordinances should set seasonal clearing restrictions that severely limit clearing and grading activities from October to April. Critical areas, including sloped and riparian areas, should not be exposed during this time. 2. Support forest retention and impervious surface restrictions for rural areas in order to maintain hydrologic function. 3. Implement forest retention and restoration mechanisms from other environmental protection codes (such as critical areas ordinances and development regulations for open space retention). 4. Reduce excess nutrient loading in areas that are sensitive to excessive nutrient loading or excessive primary production. 5. Minimize alterations to nearshore processes and functions. J • Fish Passage Barriers • Barriers to fish passage— such as culverts, dams, and weirs—prohibit fish from reaching historical spawning grounds. The Washington Department of Ecology estimates that 3,000 miles of salmon spawning habitat in Washington state are blocked by culverts alone. This recommendation assists in addressing the following factor of decline: fish access and passage barriers. 1. Ensure that all proposed projects allow for fish passage at all stages of the salmon life cycle as well as support stream flows and transport of sediment and organic matter at stream crossings. Temporary structures, t such as fish collection weirs, should be evaluated in the permitting process ' on a case-by-case basis. Floodplain Alterations Flood control efforts, bank stabilization projects, and other development activities in floodplains can affect salmon by altering hydrologic regimes. The following recommendations assist in • addressing these factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow, poor water quality, loss of channel complexity and connectivity, and fish access and passage barriers. 1. Incorporate bioengineering techniques (including the placement of large . woody debris) that protect and enhance salmon habitat into flood control and bank stabilization measures undertaken by local governments and other parties. August 2002 5-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish i Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 5 • Regulatory and Policy Recommendations 2. Permit new development in the floodplain only when it has been demonstrated that the new development will not: • ■ Increase flood elevations ■ Decrease storage capacity ■ Restrict the natural erosion and accretion processes associated with channel migration r ■ Impair natural channel condition i ■ Restrict adult or juvenile access to habitat at any flow level. In addition, it should be demonstrated that no feasible alternative to development 0 activity exists. If development is allowed in the floodplain, restoration and 0 enhancement may be necessary. 0 Land Use Land use and development patterns have contributed to the degradation of salmon habitat in numerous ways, including affecting the timing, quantity, and quality of runoff, causing increased sediment loading into streams and rivers; and removing important vegetation from riparian areas. These recommendations assist in addressing the following factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow, poor water quality, and increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport . processes. 16 1. Before finalizing comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning, , evaluate the probable cumulative habitat impacts of new roads and infrastructure needed to serve areas if built out under different zoning scenarios. , 2. Minimize the amount of new impervious surface and reduce existing impervious surface in redevelopment when feasible. 3. Avoid the creation of high-density residential developments or commercial centers outside established urban growth areas. 4. Do not expand urban growth areas into floodplains. 5. Minimize alterations to nearshore processes and functions. Retention of Large Woody Debris Large woody debris in streams, rivers, and nearshore areas performs a number of functions . important to salmon and the aquatic habitats on which they depend. These include regulating • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 5-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 5 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations sediment and stream flow; supplying nutrients necessary to the ecosystem; providing habitat for insects upon which salmon prey; and forming critical complex habitats, such as pools and refuge areas for juvenile salmon. This recommendation assists in addressing the following factors of decline: poor water quality and loss of channel complexity and connectivity. 1. Prohibit the removal of in-channel large woody debris as well as large woody debris on adjacent banks, except in situations where public health and safety or significant infrastructure are threatened. In these cases, relocate large woody debris to sites (preferably within the same subarea) where it can provide similar benefits. Road Maintenance Road maintenance activities can have an impact on salmon habitat in numerous ways, including blocking upstream passage, disconnecting floodplains, limiting channel migration capability, and increasing runoff and sedimentation in streams,rivers, and lakes. The following recommendation will assist in addressing these factors of decline: fish access and passage barriers, loss of channel complexity and connectivity, increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes, and poor water quality. �! 1. Roads should be maintained in accordance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program guidelines. Shoreline Modifications Natural marine and freshwater shorelines provide essential rearing and migration habitat for ' salmon by supplying organic inputs, keeping water temperatures cool,preventing non-point source pollution from entering waterways, and offering refuge. These recommendations assist in addressing the following factors of decline: poor water quality, loss of channel complexity and connectivity, increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes, and degradation of riparian conditions. 1. Avoid new bank-hardening projects in locations where natural bank conditions currently exist. Where and when opportunities allow, remove existing hardened bank stabilization projects or retrofit them with softer, more environmentally compatible bank treatments to increase riparian functional values. Minimize construction, fill, armoring, dikes, and overwater structures that would either disrupt normal migration rates and patterns or limit access to shallow feeding and refuge areas. 2. In areas of new development or redevelopment, establish, enhance, restore, or protect appropriately sized riparian buffers around rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and nearshore areas, to ensure that salmon ! conservation is not compromised. Base these buffers on scientific data, August 2002 5-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda Chapter 5 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations principles of landscape ecology, principles of ecosystem and conservation biology, and long-term feasibility. Require riparian buffers to be reestablished and replanted during redevelopment of streamside properties. 3. Ensure that any variances and reasonable-use exceptions issued do not • undermine the ecological functions and values that regulations are trying to protect. Monitor variances and reasonable-use exceptions for cumulative effects on achieving ecological objectives. If necessary, provide funds to purchase property or development rights to ensure protection of the land. 4. Strive to maintain the existing natural shorelines of rivers, lakes, and nearshore areas by evaluating the adequacy of existing policies and regulations (and enforcement) in protecting these areas and shallow water habitats used by juvenile salmon. Adopt critical area regulations and shoreline management master plans. Stormwater Stormwater runoff can negatively affect salmon by transporting contaminants into river, stream, and nearshore systems, and by altering natural hydrologic flows. These recommendations can , assist in addressing the following factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow and poor water quality. 1. In areas of new development or redevelopment, manage stormwater to i preserve natural hydrographs through reduced-impact development standards, such as best management practices and site design requirements that incorporate active stormwater management. 2. Develop and implement stormwater management programs that more • closely emulate natural hydrologic processes and protect water quality. a Such programs should outline development activity standards for both construction and post-construction phases, including management of stormwater runoff and maintenance of stormwater facilities. Variances and Reasonable-Use Exceptions Variances and reasonable-use exceptions can decrease protection of salmon habitat intended by 40 jurisdictional regulations and policies. When multiple applications are granted in particular areas, the negative cumulative impacts multiply geometrically. The following recommendation , can assist in addressing these factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow, poor water quality, increased sedimentation and altered sediment transport processes, loss of channel complexity and connectivity, and degradation of riparian conditions. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 5-6 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda a a Chapter 5 Regulatory and Policy Recommendations S 1. Ensure that any variances and reasonable-use exceptions issued do not undermine the ecological functions and values that regulations are trying to protect. Monitor variances and reasonable-use exceptions for cumulative effects on achieving ecological objectives. If necessary, i provide funds to purchase property or development rights to ensure • protection of the land. Wetlands Wetlands perform a variety of functions that are essential to salmon, including water-quality enhancement and food production. These recommendations can assist in addressing the following factors of decline: altered hydrology and flow and poor water quality. 1. Protect existing wetlands and their buffers. The goal should be no net loss of function and acreage. i . 2. When feasible, enhance or restore riparian areas surrounding wetlands where functions have been lost or compromised. 3. Wetland mitigation should be considered only after it has been demonstrated that local government cannot legally prohibit alteration to a wetland. In these cases, the state's mitigation sequencing approach should be used, which starts with avoidance and minimization of impacts on all functions for the long term. Mitigation should occur in the same subbasin. Additional Issues to Address As previously mentioned, additional time, analysis, and discussion will be needed to address at least three other regulatory categories: channel migration zones, groundwater, and infrastructure. Land use variances and reasonable-use exceptions, though discussed in this document, need more attention. Many jurisdictions have ordinances for setbacks, buffers, and critical area designations, as well as other policies and regulations that effectively benefit salmon. However, land use variances and reasonable-use exceptions have allowed encroachment into habitat and cumulatively can negate the original intention of the ordinances and regulations. More work ' needs to be done to identify why and when variances and exceptions are allowed, what the . barriers are to restricting them, and how to improve the current system to better protect the resources as the ordinances and regulations are intended to do. a August 2002 5-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • i • • ! CHAPTER 6 • ! • • Education and Public Involvement s • • • • • • • s • • • • i • • • • • • i • • r • • • i s • • • Chapter 6. Education and Public Involvement • • • Background and Context of Chapter S This chapter contains a broad set of education, outreach, and involvement recommendations designed to: • ;• Ensure that in the near-term, the community is aware of salmon conservation needs and is ready to take personal action to contribute to salmon habitat conservation. • ■ Provide a menu of options to local governments, nonprofit organizations, citizen groups, and area businesses as they proceed with salmon conservation efforts in the watershed. ■ Educate and mobilize the community on behalf of salmon conservation on a regional and local scale. Make a clear connection between the factors of decline affecting salmon • habitat and the actions and choices that people make in their daily lives. A The recommendations are intended to supplement existing efforts and extend programs that benefit salmon conservation to larger geographic areas and to expand upon and enhance the work of the multi-jurisdictional WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee. (See Chapter 9, Acknowledgements, for a committee roster.) This committee is working on a regional scale to involve citizens in salmon conservation planning efforts. The WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee developed the recommendations in this chapter based • on the factors of decline for salmon habitat, guiding principles, and additional guidance from the near-term strategy (see Chapter 2). Two sets were developed concurrently and then combined in this chapter: (1) recommendations that address identified factors of decline in the watershed and • (2) recommendations that have watershed-wide impacts. They are designed to be undertaken within the next 5 years to help ensure that no further harm is done to salmon habitat and to lay the groundwork for the long-term salmon conservation plan. • • The Public's Role in Salmon Conservation Salmon conservation and recovery will only succeed through the cumulative actions, both great • and small, of all residents in the watershed. While governments are an important source of action through their efforts to conduct research, adopt regulations, and protect and restore habitat, salmon will not be recovered in the watershed through the actions of government alone. Because every individual in the watershed can help salmon to either recover or continue to • August 2002 6-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • s Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement decline, a successful conservation effort must involve commitment and conscientious action by all individuals. There are numerous ways that individuals and businesses can contribute to salmon conservation efforts. Here are three very effective ways: 1. Individuals can make adjustments to their daily living habits, such as S conserving water, choosing less toxic cleaning products, and adopting salmon-friendly gardening practices. 2. The actions of private owners of shoreline property directly affect a large area of salmon habitat. The decisions that individual and business landowners make about landscaping their properties, managing stormwater, and treating waste all have potential impacts on factors of salmon habitat decline in the watershed. 3. Individuals and businesses can contribute their energy and time to salmon habitat improvement projects. Removing invasive species in shoreline • areas, replanting native trees and plants, and gathering monitoring data to track key indicators of ecosystem health are some of the activities that are well suited to volunteers. The cumulative benefit of individual commitments clearly points to the necessity for well- designed, well-organized public education and outreach throughout the watershed. Such efforts can help foster more salmon awareness as well as a citizenry knowledgeable about what it can do personally to help restore salmon populations. Building commitment to salmon conservation among citizens in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ ` Sammamish Watershed will be a long-term endeavor. Public outreach and education is a process of creating awareness and understanding and encouraging responsibility and action. It took years of persistent outreach efforts to get citizens in this region to recycle, and it will take years to build a salmon conservation ethic that results in choices and behaviors that benefit salmon. The recommendations in this chapter can help launch such an effort now. Organization of Recommendations Unlike recommendations and guidance found elsewhere in the Action Agenda, which are connected more directly to factors of decline for salmon habitat, these recommendations for public involvement are structured according to anticipated outcomes. Each outcome is based on one or more of the following principles from the near-term strategy in Chapter 2: ■ Do no harm. ■ Conserve areas of existing use. ■ Conserve best remaining habitat. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement The seven anticipated outcomes are: • 1. Citizen impacts on salmon habitat are reduced throughout the watershed; the public learns ways to contribute to salmon conservation. • 2. Shoreline landowners throughout the watershed are educated about their i particular impacts on salmon habitat; an increased number of shoreline landowners participates in salmon conservation efforts. i 3. Youth throughout the watershed learn about humans' role in salmon habitat degradation; youth participation in on-the-ground conservation efforts increases. 4. Community participation in salmon conservation activities increases. 5. Livestock management impacts on salmon habitat and water quality are reduced. • 6. The impacts of new development on salmon are reduced. 7. The impacts of WRIA 8 businesses on salmon are reduced. i r Public outreach and involvement are intended to lay the groundwork for long-term conservation and may have a less immediate and obvious benefit to salmon habitat than recommendations • found elsewhere in this document. Whereas projects and regulatory guidance offer the satisfaction of addressing and rectifying specific factors of decline, public actions are rewarded with broad, far-reaching outcomes. Therefore, recommendations are organized according to expected outcomes, not by factors of decline. Guidance for Selecting Recommendations Because of limited resources, it is necessary to make choices in salmon conservation. Local i jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, and partnerships of interested stakeholders should consider undertaking outreach and education programs that complement and cohere with other programs. Entities choosing a public education or outreach recommendation from this chapter—or that may be developing one of their own— should find the following guidelines helpful: ■ Study any available survey data on community and area residents to i determine their level of knowledge as well as their current behaviors, particularly those that affect salmon habitat. ■ Make use of any technical assessment that will help determine the most serious factors of decline in a particular geographic area. The multi- jurisdictional WRIA 8 Technical Committee may be of assistance. August 2002 6-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 6 • Education and Public Involvement ■ If shoreline property owners have a stake in the land area of interest, consider focusing on recommendations that target that particular audience. • While the actions of all watershed residents have impacts on salmon runs, those of shoreline property owners have the most direct and immediate impacts. ■ Evaluate existing funds and resources and consider those recommendations that best leverage these assets. ■ Determine if recommendations will help build a foundation for conducting i long-term public outreach. Incentive Programs to Reduce Impacts on Salmon Habitat i Because so much of the watershed's land area is in private holdings or affected by citizens' activities, it makes sense to encourage citizens, landowners, and developers to adopt land- and resource-management measures that benefit salmon and work in concert with the Action Agenda. Many of these actions could be implemented immediately; the question is, what are appropriate incentives for fostering such conservation measures? The following programs are recommended to motivate citizens, landowners, and developers to make their activities and properties more salmon friendly. Incentives for Citizens ■ Extend availability of water conservation incentive programs (such as rebates for efficient toilets and clothes washers or free indoor conservation kits)beyond public utility boundaries as a means of decreasing household water consumption throughout the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. • Target audience: General public and high-end water users ■ Target high-end water users for individual landscape/household assessments, water conservation recommendations, and money savings programs. Target audience: High-end water users Models to consider: Smart and Healthy Landscape (Seattle Public Utilities and others) and Water Cents (cities of Redmond and Woodinville) ■ Increase the number of development sites where native plant salvages • occur. Integrate these salvage opportunities into naturescaping classes; class participants can take home native plants for immediate use both within and surrounding sensitive areas. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 6 a Education and Public Involvement Target audience: General public, especially shoreline property owners ' Models to consider: King County Native Plant Salvage Program Incentives for Landowners ■ Adapt existing landowner financial incentive programs to appeal to small property owners whose parcels include high-quality salmon habitat or have high restoration potential. Such incentives would encourage small property owners to forgo development. Target audience: Shoreline property owners Models to consider: Public Benefits Rating System (King County) ■ Promote existing programs that create financial incentives to conserve salmon A habitat, such as King County's Public Benefit Rating System. Increase technical resources to assist landowners in securing these incentives. Target audience: Shoreline property owners Models to consider: Public Benefits Rating System (King County) Incentives for Developers Create and implement financial incentives to encourage developers to M participate in green building programs, such as the Association of Home to Builders' Green Program (Built Green) and Evergreen Builders Guide (Port Blakely Communities and City of Issaquah). Target audience: Construction industry Public Outreach, Education, and Involvement Recommendations The following recommendations are numbered for reference, not priority. Actions and recommendations contained in this chapter are targeted for the general public unless otherwise noted. Outcome 1: Citizen impacts on salmon habitat are reduced throughout the watershed; the public learns ways to contribute to salmon conservation. A. Development/distribution/promotion of educational materials 1. Reprint, update, and promote existing salmon education materials. (Examples include Chinook Book, The Watershed Waltz and The Sammamish Swing, Streamside Savvy, Seattle Public Utilities' Salmon Friendly Gardens materials.) Distribute as appropriate. August 2002 6-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda i i Chapter 6 S Education and Public Involvement 2. Develop an organized resource list containing brief descriptions of existing salmon education materials targeting both youth and adults i (including teachers). This resource list should include curricula, brochures, videos, kits, and other education materials. Distribute to jurisdictions, non-government organizations, and educators. Target audience: Educators (including jurisdictions and non-government • organizations) 3. Create displays for salmon-friendly gardening and landscaping practices and exhibit at events such as the Home Show and the Northwest Flower and Garden Show. 4. In coordination with the appropriate group or agency, prepare summaries of the latest scientific and technical findings identified by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee as critical issues to salmon. Distribute to educators (non-government organizations, trainers, community involvement staff, teachers, etc.) through fact sheets, web pages, etc. An example of information to share is the latest findings on how toxics in aquatic areas affect the ability of fish to find their natal streams. i 5. Make existing educational materials available in public venues, such as malls, libraries, and town halls. These materials should also be distributed at public events, including large regional events such as Issaquah Salmon Days as well as smaller events that draw audiences from a more limited geographic area (for example, town festivals, salmon habitat restoration events). s 6. Create local informational TV spots that could run on Salmon Information Television (SITV) and other local cable channels. These broadcasts would educate citizens about factors of salmon habitat decline that they could address through landscape design and management, as well as personal practices. The series could feature, for example, most wanted lists of non-native species, impacts of docks on salmon and alternative dock practices, impacts of hardened shores on salmon and soft engineering alternatives, and the role of salmon habitat restoration areas, including 40 guidelines for people visiting the areas. 7. At habitat restoration or refuge area access points, place signs and distribute brochures that explain the role of these sites in salmon recovery and ways visitors can limit their impact. Models to consider: Storm Drain Stenciling Project(King County) r Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-6 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda S • • Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement • 8. Provide leaflets to fish stores to distribute to their customers. These • leaflets would address the negative impacts of releasing non-native fish • and aquatic plants into local natural areas. Target audience: Pet fish owners • 9. Publicize a most wanted list of non-native plants and animals in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Contact the King County Noxious Weed Control Board for a list of plants. i 10. Design and implement educational programs that encourage the use of compost in urban and rural landscapes. i i B. Media outreach/community recognition i 1. Hold media briefings on significant events in the salmon recovery process i in WRIA 8 as they occur. i Target audience: Media and general public • 2. Develop a Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed award that • recognizes the outstanding achievements of individuals, organizations, i businesses, and government agencies on behalf of salmon. Have an awards ceremony to which the media are invited. • 3. Develop an outreach/marketing campaign in coordination with other • groups involved in regional salmon recovery efforts (such the Puget Sound Shared Salmon Strategy Forum and other water resource inventory area i groups) to create and foster salmon consciousness messages through the i use of billboards, bumper stickers, public service announcements, articles, • and op-eds in the media. i Models to consider: WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee key salmon recovery messages. C. Presentations • • 1. Identify specific groups to involve in salmon recovery efforts (for ! example, sportfishing groups, churches, service organizations). Give presentations and distribute educational materials to these groups. Presentations could focus on factors of decline for salmon habitat in the Lake Washington/ Cedar/Sammamish Watershed and on near-term • actions. WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee plans to create a presentation that will be available for loan in 2003. Target audience: Specified groups i August 2002 6-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish i Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement Models to consider: King County's Endangered Species Act Speakers Bureau • D. Workshops/events/tours/involvement 1. Hold community education sessions or open houses (Salmon Evenings or • annual events) to cover specific topics designed to raise watershed awareness and to educate citizens about the positive and negative effects individual behaviors can have on salmon recovery. Topics could include: ■ The natural and historical functions of WRIA 8 • ■ Water connections ■ Salmon-limiting factors, such as toxics and household chemicals • and non-native species of concern ■ The role of restoration areas in salmon recovery. Models to consider: Snohomish County Confluences Workshop, • proposed watershed summit by WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee 2. Identify and organize tours of private and public gardens that showcase ways residents can have a positive impact on salmon recovery (for • example, use of rainwater collection systems, minimally toxic landscapes, • use of pervious surfaces). Target audience: Homeowners 3. Start a sensitive-area ranger program that places a trained volunteer or staff member at restoration sites. This person would educate visitors about how to lessen their impact on sensitive areas and would also document and cite continuing harmful practices. • Models to consider: King County Beach Naturalist Program, Cedar River Naturalist Program (multiple organizations; contact Community Stewardship Program at King County Department of Natural Resources • and Parks for more information) 4. Educate residents and fishers about the effects of non-native sport fish on salmon. Target audience: Fishers • w Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-8 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • • • Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement • 5. Stencil stormdrains and track the locations and dates in a Lake • Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed database. Models to consider: Several isolated efforts throughout the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Contact King County Storm • Drain Stenciling Program. Outcome 2: Shoreline landowners throughout the watershed are educated about their s particular impacts on salmon habitat; an increased number of shoreline landowners participates in salmon conservation efforts. • A. Development/distribution/promotion of educational materials • 1. Distribute information to shoreline property owners on household and • landscape best management practices, as well as information about community involvement opportunities. The WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee plans to develop a WRIA 8-wide shoreline property owner list. • • Target audience: Shoreline property owners • Models to consider: Shoreline Property Guidebook, published by Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team • 2. Develop a resource guide that lists the ecological and design experts who • focus on salmon-friendly landscaping and shoreline treatments. Target audience: Shoreline property owners • 3. Assess the availability of public information materials on the subject of • repairing and/or replacing bulkheads. If such materials are available through a public agency, find out if those materials can be modified to s emphasize the value of bioengineering for habitat. If no such public information materials exist, create a bulkhead repair/replacement brochure • that could be distributed. Target audience: Bulkhead owners • • B. Assessment 1. Assess non-native species along shorelines and provide resources and/or assistance to private landowners to eradicate the infestations on their property. Work with both King County and Snohomish County noxious • weed control boards on survey, education, and enforcement efforts. s Target audience: Shoreline property owners with non-native weeds Models to consider: King County and Snohomish County noxious weed • control boards s August 2002 6-9 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda s Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement C. Program development 1. Develop and implement a septic system education and incentive program in lakeside communities. Target audience: Septic system owners . Models to consider: City of Issaquah Septic Education Program (2001) D. Demonstration project l. Locate prominent property owner (or public agency) willing to remove dock and/or bulkhead and replace it with a more ecologically friendly design. Publicize this effort through various means. The demonstration dock/bulkhead should contain elements that can be done by average • shoreline property owners (within expected financial means and on the • scale of an average residence). Provide information on costs and advantages of alternative dock/bulkhead efforts. Target audience: Shoreline property owners • E. Technical assistance 1. Provide training, financial incentives, and technical support to existing • companies to develop a sound strategy for encouraging the use of salmon- • friendly dock and/or bulkhead construction materials and designs, as well as salmon-friendly maintenance practices, by their clients. Provide information that describes the benefits of alternative dockibulkhead • practices. • Target audience: Dock and bulkhead construction companies Outcome 3: Youth throughout the watershed learn about humans' role in salmon habitat • degradation; youth participation in on-the-ground conservation efforts increases. • A. Development/distribution/promotion of educational materials 1. Develop an organized resource list containing brief descriptions of • existing salmon education materials targeting both youth and adults (including teachers). This resource list should include curricula, brochures, videos, kits, and other education materials. Distribute to jurisdictions, non-government organizations, and educators. • Target audience: Educators (including jurisdictions and non-government organizations) Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-10 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • s • Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement 2. Draw on existing salmon education materials and work with science • curriculum coordinators throughout schools in the watershed to develop • methods for implementing appropriate curricula and/or incorporating new projects/programs into existing curricula. • Target audience: Youth 3. Adapt the merit badge system of scout troops to reflect different levels of salmon conservation and extend beyond scout troops to schools, clubs, etc. • Target audience: Youth Models to consider: Girl and Boy Scout Troop World Conservation Badges • 4. Identify and support existing service learning programs aimed at • integrating high school class education with needed stewardship activities (monitoring, restoration, education) through tours, organized programs, etc. Expand existing programs into new schools. • Target audience: Youth Models to consider: Water Tenders Festival (Gwenn Maxfield), North Shore Utility Tour, Mercer Slough Interns Program • 5. Sponsor or support a program that offers students outdoor salmon- or watershed-related educational experiences at a site near their homes or schools. Target audience: Youth • Models to consider: Discovery Park Environmental Center, Carkeek Park Environmental Center, Mercer Slough Environmental Center, Puget Sound Environmental Learning Center • Outcome 4: Community participation in salmon conservation activities increases. A. New programs/increased involvement in existing programs 1. Citizens have a wealth of skills and experience to contribute to salmon conservation efforts, including data gathering. Create and implement opportunities for citizens to monitor lakes, streams, restoration sites, the nearshore, and wetlands. Such efforts would fill existing data needs while increasing environmental literacy and fostering community ownership of natural resources. Models to consider: Spartina Watch (Puget Soundkeepers Alliance), King County and Washington State Lakes Monitoring Program, Rapid August 2002 6-11 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 6 • Education and Public Involvement Shoreline Inventory (People for Puget Sound), Bellevue and Issaquah Stream Teams, Sammamish Restoration Stewardship Program • 2. Expand the King County or Washington State Lakes Monitoring Program to include other high-priority lakes. 3. On one day in August each year, involve families and groups in • widespread temperature monitoring to assess water temperatures in many local streams. This effort is currently organized by the Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. Models to consider: Center for Streamside Studies' existing temperature study B. Promotion and expansion of existing programs • 1. Extend shoreline monitoring programs, such as the Rapid Shoreline Inventory (People for Puget Sound) and the Beach Naturalist Program (King and Island counties), along WRIA 8 Puget Sound shorelines. • 2. Expand the reach of King County's and Snohomish County's Salmon Watcher programs to heighten knowledge of salmon distribution. 3. Promote existing environmental leadership courses and expand the • number of course offerings and locations. Adapt existing programs to create a steward program that is focused on salmon recovery issues and activities. Models to consider: Washington Native Plant Society's Native Plant • Stewardship Program, Washington State University/King County Land/Water Steward, and Snohomish County watershed tours C. Education tools • 1. Identify existing salmon-related classes and volunteer opportunities (for example, naturescaping classes, docent programs)throughout the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Promote these opportunities . through websites such as the Salmon Information Center, paper calendars, • and other means. D. Assessment 1. Expand assessment of fish passage barriers in areas containing salmon r habitat, and involve community members in the effort. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-12 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement Models to consider: Adopt-a-Stream program and Urban Creeks Legacy Program(City of Seattle) 2. Publicize statistics about the percentage of the shoreline that is armored and the percentage that is protected from erosion by more natural methods. • Track the changes in these statistics over time, using, for example, a . WRIA-scale Geographic Information Systems database. E. Involvement 1. Train and deploy a contingent of community volunteers to mechanically remove invasive aquatic species such as purple loosestrife, yellow iris, and • milfoil. Outcome 5: Livestock management impacts on salmon habitat and water quality are reduced. • A. Technical assistance 1. Provide classes, tours, and assistance in implementing livestock operation • best management practices. Target audience: Livestock owners Models to consider: Horses for Clean Water and the King Conservation • District Programs Outcome 6: The impacts of new development on salmon are reduced. A. Outreach campaign 1. In order to show developers that a market exists, create a campaign that tracks the demand among community residents for purchasing green homes and remodeling with green building strategies. For example, develop a web-based pledge to buy a green home. The Green Car program of the Union of Concerned Scientists did something similar to promote environmentally friendly cars and could be used as a reference. • Outcome 7: The impacts of WRIA 8 businesses on salmon are reduced. A. Assessment • 1. Identify businesses or industries in the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed that have significant stormwater impacts. Organize a prioritized watershed-wide technical assistance program to • improve stormwater management practices. Provide training to local r August 2002 6-13 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 6 Education and Public Involvement jurisdictions and non-government organizations on how to run a Businesses for Clean Water program. • Target audience: Businesses Models to consider: Businesses for Clean Water Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 6-14 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • • • • • CHAPTER 7 • • • • Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and • Research • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 7. Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research • • • Background and Context of Chapter • • There is still much to be learned about the conservation of salmon habitat, but its uncertain future requires immediate action to stem its decline. As part of the implementation of this Action Agenda, research will be conducted to increase knowledge. Actions will be monitored to • determine whether they are successful and why. Research and monitoring results will need to be • applied as appropriate to future recommendations in the long-term salmon conservation plan. • Therefore, it is critical to create and use a formalized system of adaptive management. Adaptive management is an approach that incorporates research and monitoring to allow actions to be • undertaken based on existing information and then modified as needed when new information becomes available. Adaptive management is the means by which those involved can learn from and build on the knowledge and experience gained from implementing projects and from • conducting research recommended in the Action Agenda. ! The main content of this chapter was modified from the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program of the Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal(Snohomish, King, and Pierce • Counties 2001). Some of the research questions come from the Watershed-Based Salmon Conservation Planning Program of the Tri-County Proposal. A more complete proposal for • adaptive management, monitoring, and research will be developed as part of the strategic • assessment and long-term conservation plan. • • Research Needs • While the Action Agenda sets a pace for starting salmon conservation activities, there is an urgent need to learn more about the factors of salmon habitat decline and their roles and • relationships in salmon conservation over the long term. Initial reconnaissance assessments and • habitat-limiting factors reports have been completed, but the next step is to incorporate critical • details through a strategic watershed and population assessment. This will provide a more • complete scientific foundation on which to build the long-term salmon conservation plan. • Research will be needed to further address questions about the conditions of the watershed and • salmon populations. For example, potential research questions may include (but are not limited • to) the following: Watershed Assessment • ■ What are the causes of habitat loss and degradation? • • • August 2002 7-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 7 • Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research ■ What are the watershed process, structure, and function links within the ecosystem for hydrology, sediment budgets, and stream habitat complexity? ■ What are the impacts of land use on system processes, habitat, and functions from historic or reference conditions? What and where are the . largest losses? • ■ What are the current and anticipated land uses in the watershed? ■ Where are the locations of refuge areas within the watershed? • ■ What is the availability and quality of freshwater and nearshore salmon habitats and what is their connectivity? ■ What are the habitat-forming processes and characteristics that have the • most influence over salmon sustainability now? What will they be in the future? ■ Which habitats appear to be limiting abundance and survival of salmon populations? Population Assessment ■ How might habitat changes have altered the abundance, diversity, spatial • structure, survival, and productivity of individual populations? ■ What is the relationship of habitat quality, quantity, and connectivity to fish abundance? S ■ What are the estimated current and historic juvenile and adult capacities? ■ What is the relationship between habitat quality/quantity and fish • productivity? ■ What are independent populations, and what is the genetic relationship between populations? ■ What is the abundance and distribution of freshwater and marine habitats, • and what is the seasonal use of these habitats by adult and juvenile salmon? ■ What is the natural history and behavioral ecology of chinook salmon in • the highly altered and unique environment of the Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed? Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 7-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 7 • Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research ■ What are the rates and causes of mortality at each life history stage? ■ What are the environmental and habitat requirements for each life history stage? • ■ What are the impacts of species interactions on salmon populations, • particularly by non-native species? • E What are the effects and consequences of interactions between hatchery stock and wild stock? ■ What are the consequences of harvest management decisions? • E What are the population relationships to the evolutionarily significant unit? In addition, Chapter 4, Project and Research Recommendations Specific to Subareas, • includes specific recommendations for research specific to subareas. Monitoring Needs Monitoring is necessary to assess the success of actions in conserving salmon habitat. To do this, monitoring is required at multiple levels: ■ Compliance or implementation monitoring, done project by project. (Did proponents do what they said they would?) • Effectiveness monitoring, done project by project as well as cumulatively • across the watershed. (Are the actions improving habitat conditions?) • Validation monitoring, done as part of the Puget Sound region's recovery . effort. (Do all the actions taken together support the overall recovery of chinook salmon?) • Monitoring also will ensure that actions remain true to the objectives and guiding principles of the near-term strategy. The data gathered and analyzed through monitoring will need to be applied through an adaptive management system. The monitoring results should be shared with all conservation participants in the watershed so that everyone can benefit from the experience • and information gained. Recommendations for tracking progress toward implementing the • Action Agenda and sharing information with others are provided at the end of this chapter. • Adaptive Management Programs and Strategies As a starting point, the Action Agenda endorses the concepts and principles articulated in the • Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program of the Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response • August 2002 7-3 Lake Washington/CedariSammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 7 . Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research • Proposal(see http://www.salmoninfo.org/tricounty/vol3/chpt6o5l8.doc). Effective adaptive management programs should be designed to produce the following outcomes: ■ Knowledge of ecosystem processes and functions is increased. • ■ Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and predictable and can be . understood by managers as well as stakeholders. . ■ Relevant information is gathered, using appropriate quality controls, and is s coordinated to evaluate management decisions and actions at the local, watershed, and regional levels. ■ Institutional course corrections are made at predetermined milestones to ensure continual progress toward specific, measurable species recovery goals and habitat objectives. ■ Institutional environments are improved as necessary, and ecosystem functions and processes are protected and restored. s S In developing adaptive management components for Action Agenda recommendations, the following principles from the Tri-County program should be considered: ■ Precautionary principle. In the absence of certainty, an environmentally protective approach should be taken. ■ Ecosystem understanding. Management decisions should be consistent with current understanding of ecosystem processes and functions. s ■ Flexibility. Management systems should be dynamic and flexible enough . to respond effectively to changes in the natural systems. • ■ Stakeholder investment. The adaptive management approach should gain essential stakeholder participation, agreement, and commitment. • Stakeholders need to make a long-term commitment to the process, • recognizing that salmon recovery is a long-term undertaking. • Key concepts of the Tri-County program guide implementation of a regional adaptive management program. The Tri-County program suggests that government institutions as well as • biological systems need to be monitored for compliance. In order to protect natural resources . and make efficient use of financial resources, the adaptive management program should guide local jurisdictions to intervene strategically to correct actions as necessary. Recommendations selected as part of the Action Agenda will need to be considered hypotheses that can be measured, evaluated, and modified as needed over time. s • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 7-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • Chapter 7 Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research The Tri-County program was designed to provide guidance for long-term salmon conservation • plans. Application of a monitoring and adaptive management program for the time frame of the Action Agenda must be scaled in scope and purpose to effectively examine the progress of actions implemented. Specific regional and watershed-wide processes and mechanisms addressing adaptive management have yet to be developed. • In the meantime, actions (particularly habitat restoration and improvement projects as well as S revisions to policies and regulations) undertaken as part of the Action Agenda need to include the following monitoring and adaptive management components: ■ Effectiveness and appropriateness of habitat improvement projects ■ Funding and resource commitments to conduct monitoring • 0 Time frame for return of information ■ Ability to respond to new information ■ Goals, objectives, and hypotheses that are clearly articulated ■ Indicators and variables to be measured ■ Sampling protocols that can be standardized to allow comparison ■ Procedures to ensure quality assurance and quality control of all data used ■ Data management systems and databases. • In addition, implementers should consider the following guidelines for implementation of monitoring and adaptive management as modified from the Tri-County program: i • General ■ For each stage of the adaptive management strategy, describe the timelines, processes, and intermediate product descriptions for the work to • be performed. Regulatory Programs ■ Restate the critical actions in each program as hypotheses in order to set • the stage for direct effectiveness monitoring. ■ Establish the parameters to be measured for direct effectiveness i monitoring and cumulative effectiveness monitoring. August 2002 7-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 7 • Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research ■ Determine the intervals for measuring those parameters. ■ Describe the process for reporting the results. ■ Establish the timetable for sharing those results with third parties (federal, . state, tribal, and local governments and other interested parties) at • specified intervals for purposes of cumulative effectiveness monitoring. ■ Describe the process for analyzing the results of such monitoring. ■ Describe the process that will be used to determine whether those results will trigger course corrections. ■ Once a course correction is made,begin the adaptive management cycle again, providing the information described above. • Compliance or Implementation Monitoring . ■ Describe the process that will be used to monitor institutional compliance. ■ Specify the parameters to be measured. ■ Specify the intervals at which those measurements will be made. Direct Effectiveness Monitoring ■ Describe the hypotheses that are to be tested. ■ Determine which parameters will be monitored. . ■ Determine the intervals for measuring the parameters. ■ Describe the process for reporting the results. • ■ Describe how those results will be used to inform and shape a new set of hypotheses at the end of the first adaptive management cycle. ■ State who will construct the new set of hypotheses. • ■ Describe the objectives of this new round of monitoring. Measurable Outcomes The Action Agenda encourages the commitment of real dollars to real projects, but it does not measure progress toward a specific goal or quantify the results. Since the Action Agenda is a Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 7-6 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 7 Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Research menu of options that does not prescribe implementation methods or specific restoration goals, a • suitable method of measuring outcomes does not yet exist. As funding is sought and political • support is cultivated for actions locally, the ability to quantify progress toward the larger goal of salmon recovery will become necessary. ! Tracking Successes and Sharing Information Gained from ! Implementing the Action Agenda While the Action Agenda does not provide a schedule for implementation or specific restoration • goals whose progress can be measured, there is still a need to track successes and share information as the Action Agenda is implemented. The work of each jurisdiction and organization in implementing projects, programs, and research, along with the information gained from monitoring these actions, will provide a firm foundation for the long-term salmon conservation plan. The following process is recommended to track successes, increase coordination, and allow jurisdictions and organizations to build on the experience and information gained by others. • Local governments should assign a point person to be responsible for tracking progress and a successes within their own jurisdiction. As part of the meetings of the interjurisdictional WRIA 8 Staff Committee or other relevant group,jurisdictions should share their successes and lessons learned. This information can then be submitted to the WRIA 8 Steering Committee and . WRIA 8 Forum. As appropriate, such information may be disseminated by the Public Outreach Committee through press releases, newsletters, and other tools to share these successes and lessons with the public. This process would continue until the conservation plan is completed. • • • • • ! August 2002 7-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • i • CHAPTER 8 • • Implementation Resources • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • A • • • • • • • i i • Chapter 8. Implementation Resources i • Background and Context of Chapter This chapter suggests resources to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations, citizens groups, and others interested in implementing recommendations in the Action Agenda. Four types of resources are listed: ■ Ordinances, regulations, and publications 0 Other relevant model programs r ■ Partnership opportunities ■ Grants and funding opportunities. 0 The Action Agenda contains projects and guidance to be applied toward salmon habitat conservation over the next 5 years, but it is not an exhaustive list. There may be questions as to why certain actions were not included. The direct answer is that the Action Agenda is intended to be as simple and straightforward to implement as possible. For example, there are many more regulatory elements that were omitted because they are too complex to implement in the time frame or are controversial in terms of their scientific validity. Some projects were omitted • because of an incomplete understanding of the biology supporting the action. Jurisdictions and communities will make progress toward resolving these complexities and uncertainties through studies and analysis undertaken in the strategic assessment as well as in watershed-wide discussions that will lead to the long-term conservation plan. Through adaptive management, new knowledge will guide the development and implementation of new actions. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, the Action Agenda is meant to offer guidance and choices rather than set forth requirements and obligations. As actions in the agenda are . implemented and more knowledge about salmon conservation is gained, governments, organizations, businesses, and interested citizens in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed will work together to develop commitments to a long-term plan to conserve salmon habitat in the watershed. Resource List of Example Ordinances and Publications The interjurisdictional WRIA 8 Staff Committee (see Chapter 9, Acknowledgements, for committee roster) has developed this section to provide local governments with a reference list of example ordinances and regulations that have been or are in the process of being developed and that are considered to be beneficial to salmon habitat. However, the examples have not been • specifically reviewed against the factors of salmon habitat decline for WRIA 8. The list is not August 2002 8-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 8 Implementation Resources meant to be exhaustive; rather, it offers samples. Local governments are not required to adopt these ordinances; they are being provided for information purposes only. Clearing and Grading Models to consider: 1. Clearing and Grading Ordinance, City of Redmond . 2. Steep Slopes Ordinance (Vegetative Retention Section), City of Mukilteo 3. Revegetation Guidelines for Steep Slopes, City of Seattle 4. Stormwater, Clearing, and Grading Ordinance, Title 22.800, City of i Seattle. Publications: • 1. Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners. 1993. Manashe, El. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication 93-31 41 2. Puget Sound Shoreline Stewardship Guidebook. 1999. Broadhurst, G. (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Publication). Copies available at http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Publications/Requests.htm 3. Technical Requirements Manual. Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code. City of Seattle. Fish Passage Barriers • Publications: ' 1. Fish Passage at Culverts. Aquatic Habitats Guidelines Project (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Transportation, U.S. Army . Corps of Engineers). Summer 2002. Available at • http://www.wa.gov/wdfwihab/ahg/culverts.htm 2. Fishways—Design, Operation and Evaluation. Aquatic Habitats Guidelines Project(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of . Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Guideline subject to Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 8-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 8 Implementation Resources future funding. Please check • http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/fishways.htm 3. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. May 2001; Overwater Structures: Freshwater Issues. May 2001. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife white papers. http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/overwatr.htm 4. Guidance for Project Implementation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/guidelin.htm . 5. Priority Index. Washington State Department of Transportation. Technical assistance: i 1. Fish Passage Barrier Technical Assistance website. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/weblinks.htm. Floodplain Alterations Models to consider: 1. Flood Hazard Ordinance, Federal Emergency Management Agency 2. Zero Rise Floodplain Principles and Programs, King County • 3. Zero Rise Floodplain Principles and Programs, City of Bellevue. Publications: 1. Floodplain Management—Higher Regulatory Standards: Floodplain Development, Fish Habitat Protection, Stormwater Management. 1 st Edition, July 2001. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 10. • Bothell, Washington • 2. FEMA Model Ordinance for Flood Loss Reduction and Fish Habitat Protection. Revised November 6, 2001. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 10. Bothell, Washington. August 2002 8-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 8 Implementation Resources Land Use Models to consider: 1. Reduced Street Standards and Reduced Impervious Surfaces, City of Olympia 2. Steep Slopes Ordinance, City of Seattle 3. Steep Slopes Ordinance, City of Mukilteo 4. Tri-County Management Zone. i Retention of Large Woody Debris Models to consider: • 1. King County Flood Hazard Reduction Program (includes policies for how large woody debris can be incorporated/retained during flood hazard reduction efforts) 2. King County Capitol Improvement Projects Program (has guidance on retaining large woody debris). Shoreline Modification 40 Models to consider: • 1. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm • 2. Tri-County Management Zone proposal. http://www.salmoninfo.org/tricounty/mzone/zoneToC.htm. Publications: • 1. Puget Sound Shoreline Stewardship Guidebook(Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Publication). Request a copy at http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Publications/Requests.htm 2. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. Chapter 1, Integrated Streambank Protection. Aquatic Habitats Guidelines Project (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of . Engineers). http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/ispgchl.pdf • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 8-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Chapter 8 Implementation Resources 3. Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines. May 2000. Zelo, Ian, Hugh Shipman, and Jim Brennan. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Ecology Publication 00-06-012. Olympia, Washington 4. Strategy and Recommended Action List for Protection and Restoration of Marine Life in the Inland Waters of Washington State. 1999. Mills, M. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. 38 pp. 5. Protection and Restoration of Marine Life in the Inland Waters of i Washington State. 1997. West, J.E. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force Report Series: Number 6. 144 pp. 0 6. Alternatives to Bulkheads in the Puget Sound Region: What Is Soft Shore 0 Protection? What Is Not? 2000. Johannessen, Jim. From proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Coastal Society. Portland, Oregon i 7. Draft Model Critical Area Ordinance, Washington State Office of Community Development 8. Model Wetland Ordinance, 1990, Washington Department of Ecology 9. Shoreline Regulations (SMA), Washington Department of Ecology 10. Best Available Science Role—WAC 195 —Growth Management Act Requirement, Washington State Office of Community Development 0 11. Mitigation Sequencing Approach, Washington Department of Ecology. Stormwater Models to consider: i 1. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Washington Department of Ecology 40 2. Tri-County Stormwater Guidance . 3. King County Surface Water Design Manual, King County. r August 2002 8-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 8 Implementation Resources Publications: 1. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Schueler, Thomas R. Center for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org. Stormwater Manager's Resource Center website: http://www.stonnwatercenter.net s 2. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. s Wetlands • Models to consider: S 1. Best Available Science Model for Sensitive Areas. Washington State Office of Community Development. (Under development.) s Publications: 1. Wetlands and Urbanization —Implications for the Future. Horner, Richard R. and Amanda Zool Azous. Lewis Publishers. 338 pp. s s s Other Models to Consider 1. Tri-County Model 4(d) Rule Response Proposal, http://www.salmoninfo.org/tricounty/bioreview.htm s 2. Integrated Pest Management. City of Seattle and King County. Information available at http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/ipm/ • 3. Integrated Pest Management. City of Portland Parks Department 4. Forests and Fish Report. Washington State Forest Practices. Information available from Washington Department of Natural Resources • 5. Seattle's Urban Blueprint for Habitat Protection and Restoration. June 2001. City of Seattle . 6. Built Area Option for Land Use Management (best suited for jurisdictions whose landscapes are dominated by built systems that may interfere with natural habitat-forming processes). Appendix 2-G to Tri-County Model . 4(d) Rule Response Proposal. Available at • http://www.salmoninfo.org/tricounty/tcplan.htm s 0 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 8-6 August 2002 40 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 8 Implementation Resources 7. Soos Creek District Environmental Protection Plan. November 2000. (Includes appendix titled Best Management Practices Framework for Maintenance and Repair of Water and Sewer Utilities in and Near Wetlands and Streams.) Developed by Associated Earth Sciences, Law Office of Thomas J. Mortimer, and Roth Hill Engineering Partners • 8. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest: i Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publication). M Available at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/sshiap/dataptcl.htm 9. Low Impact Development Resources, http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Programs/lid_cd/LID_resources.htm w 10. Monitoring protocols from Washington State's Independent Science Panel. Partnership Opportunities • Here is an initial list of partners for funding actions, particularly for protection of habitat. Others exist that are not listed. r Cascade Land Conservancy • 0 Groundswell Northwest ■ The Nature Conservancy Trust for Public Lands. » Funding Sources The following table was compiled to provide information on funding sources to those interested in implementing recommendations contained in this document. This list is not all inclusive. Website addresses with additional funding information related to salmon conservation can be r found at the end of this section. August 2002 8-7 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 8 Implementation Resources Table 8-1. Funding Sources Type Title Sponsor Brief Description Contact Info Acquisition Washington Washington Funding available for 360-902-3000 or • Wildlife Interagency acquisition and development http://www.wa.gov/iac Recreation Committee for of recreation and . Program Outdoor conservation lands Recreation ! Acquisition Aquatic Lands Washington Funding available for the 360-902-1000 or ` Enhancement Department of acquisition of aquatic lands http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdoes/ . Account(ALEA) Natural in order to restore,enhance, aqr/alea Grants Resources and protect aquatic habitats • and ecosystems,as well as projects that provide non- ! motorized public access to . shorelines or interpretation Acquisition Conservation King County Funding available for local 206-296-7775 Futures Department of governments to acquire open Natural space Resources and ! Parks • Aquatic Washington Washington Funding available for 360-407-6562 or weeds Department of Department of technical assistance and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/ control Ecology Water Ecology Water public education to help wq/plants/grants/index.html Quality Grants Quality Program control noxious weeds Education/ Environmental U.S. Funding available for berger.diane@epa.gov or involvement Education Grants Environmental environmental education http://www.epa.gov/enviroed Program Protection projects 40 Agency Education/ Public Puget Sound Support for public 1-800-54-SOUND or • involvement Involvement and Water Quality involvement and education http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound Education Fund Action Team projects aimed at protecting Puget Sound's water quality Education/ National National Grants or technical 360-902-2260 involvement Environmental Environmental assistance for fisheries Education and Education and education,habitat,and Training Training production-related projects ! Foundation Foundation • Education/ Magic Apple Washington Funding available to teachers 360-407-6408 involvement Grants Department of who promote knowledge and Ecology stewardship of clean water , Farming best Livestock Cost- King County Funding available to assist in 206-296-1471 or management Sharing Program Department of implementation of farming http://www.metrokc.gov practices Natural best management practices Resources and Parks Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 8-8 August 2002 ! Watershed(WR1A 8) Action Agenda Chapter 8 Implementation Resources ! Type Title Sponsor Brief Description Contact Info General Centennial Clean Washington Grants and loans available 360407-6429 or Water Fund Department of for point and non-point http://www.ecy.wa.gov Ecology source projects,including • treatment facilities,stream and salmon habitat ! restoration,and water-quality monitoring General Forestry Washington Funding for projects such as 360-825-1631 or Assistance Grants Department of tree planting,program http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/rp/ • Natural development,education,and urban/urban.htm Resources maintenance Habitat Partnerships for U.S.Fish and For wildlife conservation and 703-358-2201 or protection— Wildlife Wildlife Service appreciation projects to http://www.fws.gov general conserve the diverse array of fish and wildlife species in the United States Habitat National Oceanic National Oceanic Projects must result in on- 301-713-0174 or restoration and Atmospheric and Atmospheric the-ground habitat http://www.noaa.gov Administration's Administration restoration with benefits to Fisheries marine,estuarine,or Community- anadromous fisheries _ Based Restoration resources Program Habitat Stewardship Washington Funding for projects restoration Incentive Department of including forest,soil and Program Natural water,riparian and wetland Resources protection and enhancement, fisheries and wildlife enhancement,and others Habitat Volunteer and Washington Funds available for projects 360-902-2806 or restoration— Cooperative Department of that benefit fish and wildlife http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/ fish and Projects Program Fish and Wildlife wildlife Grants Habitat Urban King County Supports projects to reforest 206-296-8265 or restoration— Reforestation and Department of urban areas,remove invasive http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/lands/hr general Habitat Natural species,and provide wildlife hrdesc.htm Restoration Resources and habitats Grants Parks Habitat Natural Resource King County Assists urban forestry and 206-296-8042 or restoration— Stewardship Department of watershed stewardship http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/pi/ general Network Natural projects nrsn.htm Resources and Parks Habitat Waterworks King County Funding available for 206-296-8265 or restoration— grants Department of projects that protect and http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres general Natural improve watersheds,rivers, /wsf/wsfinfo.htm Resources and lakes,wetlands,and Parks tidewaters Habitat American Forests American Forests Funding available for tree 202-955-4500 ext. 204 restoration— planting projects revegetation August 2002 8-9 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 8 Implementation Resources Type Title Sponsor Brief Description Contact Info Marine/ Coastal Zone Washington Grants for projects that http://www.ecy.wa.gov nearshore Management Department of benefit the state's marine protection Grant Ecology resources Marine/ Washington Sea University of Funding for research and 206-543-6600 or nearshore Grant Program Washington, related technology transfer http://www.washington.edu protection Office of Marine activities Environmental and Resource Programs Point and Centennial Clean Washington Funds available for 360-407-6429 or non-point Water Fund,State Department of point/non-point source http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/w source Revolving Loan Ecology projects,including treatment q/links/funding.html pollution Fund facilities,stream and salmon control habitat restoration and water- quality monitoring Salmon Pacific Grassroots National Fish and Grants for salmon habitat 415-778-0999 or protection— Salmon Initiative Wildlife protection and restoration http://www.nfwf.org • general Federation project(including planning, management,and public outreach) Salmon Small Change for King County Supports salmon and 206-296-8494 or recovery— a Big Difference Department of watershed education, http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/pi/ general Natural enhancement,protection,and grants.htm • Resources and restoration Parks Salmon Mid-Sound Mid-Sound Funding available for 206-529-9467 or recovery— Fisheries Fisheries projects related to salmon midsound@nwlink.com general Enhancement Enhancement enhancement and Group Group preservation Salmon Salmon Habitat Washington Funding available for habitat 360-902-2636 or • recovery— Recovery Grant Salmon Recovery protection and restoration http://www.wa.gov/iac/ general Funding Board projects salmongrants.html Salmon Community King County and Grants available for projects 206-691-0700,206-296-8265,or recovery— Salmon Fund the National Fish that improve or protect http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres habitat and Wildlife salmon habitat on private /salmon-fund/ protection Foundation property in King and • Snohomish counties Salmon Salmon Habitat Washington Funding for salmon habitat 360-902-2636 or recovery— Recovery Grant Salmon Recovery protection and restoration http://www.wa.gov/iac habitat Funding Board projects protection Salmon Washington State National Fish and Funding for Pacific salmon 202-857-0166 or recovery— Salmon Wildlife restoration projects in http://www.nfwf.org habitat Restoration Grant Foundation Washington protection Program , Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 8-10 August 2002 40 Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 8 • Implementation Resources • Type Title Sponsor Brief Description Contact Info • Wetland Five Star U.S. Supports community-based 206-857-0166 or restoration Restoration Environmental wetland and riparian http://www.nfwf.org Challenge Grants Protection restoration projects Agency and National Fish and • Wildlife Foundation Wetland U.S. Fish and U.S. Fish and Funding available for 360-753-9440 or restoration Wildlife Service's Wildlife Service wetland projects http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAW Small Grants CA/smgrants.html Program • For additional information regarding funding opportunities for salmon recovery, please visit the following websites: • http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/PI/Fundsres.htm http://salmoninfo.org/fundinginfo.htm • • • • • • • • • • i • • August 2002 8-11 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish . Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • O� V� W 4.) ��.I w U 4.) 0 U ! Chapter 9. Acknowledgements • The Action Agenda is the result of a collaborative effort among participants in the salmon • conservation planning process for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). Included are elected officials and staff from King and Snohomish counties and 25 cities as well as representatives from business and environmental interests,water and sewer districts, scientists, concerned citizens, and federal and state agencies. The planning effort is composed of numerous committees and subcommittees, each of which contributed significantly to the Action Agenda. Committee rosters below list generally in alphabetical order active participants as of April 2001 (when the Steering Committee approved the Action Agenda). The WRIA 8 Synthesis Committee, in conjunction with the WRIA 8 Service Provider Team and consultant, facilitated the integration of the Action Agenda. WRIA 8 Synthesis Committee members: Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah Scott Brewer, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks i� joan burlingame, Friends of Rock Creek Valley Representative, Cedar River Council . Rika Cecil, City of Shoreline Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Will Hall, Snohomish County Surface Water Management Keith Kurko, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Sarah McKearnan, Seattle Public Utilities Michael Paine, City of Bellevue Department of Planning and Community Development Kristi Silver, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ron Straka, City of Renton Surface Water Utility The WRIA 8 Service Provider Team comes from the King County Department of • Natural Resources and Parks, which was hired to provide watershed-based salmon conservation planning services under the interlocal cost-sharing agreement. • WRIA 8 Service Provider Team and consultant: Hilary Culverwell, WRIA 8 Issues/Outreach Coordinator Linda Grob, WRIA 8 Administrative Support Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator S Brad Shinn,Norton-Arnold& Company (August-December, 2001) Jean White, WRIA 8 Early Action Project Coordinator Cyrilla Cook, WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Manager DJ Sessner, WRIA 8 Special Projects (from Snohomish County Surface Water • Management) August 2002 9-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 9 Acknowledgements • Production staff: Megann Devine, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wendy Gable Collins, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Sandy Kraus, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Marcia McNulty, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Laurel Preston, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks p Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. • The WRIA 8 Technical Committee contributed to the overall Action Agenda and provided the scientific foundation upon which recommendations were based as well as many of the specific habitat project and research recommendations. • WRIA 8 Technical Committee members: Scott Brewer, Co-Chair, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks • Frank Leonetti, Co-Chair, Snohomish County Surface Water Management Eric Bixler, Seattle Public Utilities Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Margaret Glowacki, City of Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use Ray Heller, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks John Kerwin, Washington State Conservation Commission, Former Co-Chair (left September 2001) Keith Kurko, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Deborah Lester, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Andy Loch, City of Shoreline • Mike McDowell, MCS Environmental, Inc. Brian Murray, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Utilities Environment Division, Former Co-Chair Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Margaret Norton-Arnold,Norton-Arnold& Company, Facilitator The WRIA 8 Staff Committee contributed to all sections of the report and focused particularly on Chapter 5, Regulatory and Policy Recommendations. WRIA 8 Staff Committee members: 3 • Alison Bennett, City of Bellevue Utilities Environment Division Mary Beth Binns, City of Seattle Department of Design, Construction, and . Land Use Bruce Blackburn, Bothell Planning Department S Duane Bowman, City of Edmonds , Carl Burris, Medina Public Works Debra Crawford, City of Woodinville Jenny Gaus, Kirkland Surface Water Management • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 9-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • Chapter 9 Acknowledgements Margaret Glowacki, City of Seattle Department of Design, Construction, and A Land Use Will Hall, Snohomish County Surface Water Management Richard Hart, Mercer Island Planning Department Pam Henderson, Consultant to Medina Public Works Department �. Deborah Knight, City of Woodinville Keith Kurko, City of Seattle Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pat Lambert, Bellevue Parks Heather McCartney, City of Mukilteo Planning Department Ed Mulhern, City of Shoreline Surface Water Management Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue Utilities Environment Division Ann Root, Consultant to City of Kenmore Kerry Ritland, Issaquah Surface Water Management Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kristi Silver, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Jon Spangler, City of Redmond Natural Resources Division Ron Straka, City of Renton Surface Water Utility Patrice Tovar, City of Kirkland Planning and Community Development The WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee provided information for numerous sections of the report and developed Chapter 6, Education and Public Involvement. • WRIA 8 Public Outreach Committee members: Sally Armbrecht, Environmental Education Volunteer Chrys Bertolotto, City of Issaquah Rika Cecil, City of Shoreline Scott Gonsar, City of Kirkland Peter Holte, City of Redmond Peter Maule, City of Kirkland Sarah McKearnan, Seattle Public Utilities Dave Ward, Snohomish County The WRIA 8 Steering Committee, which is composed of elected officials, representatives from business and environmental interests, water and sewer districts, concerned citizens, scientists, • and federal and state agencies, is overseeing the salmon conservation planning effort in WRIA 8. WRIA 8 Steering Committee members: Councilmember Margaret Pageler, Committee Co-Chair, City of Seattle Councilmember Larry Phillips, Committee Co-Chair, Metropolitan King County Steve Bell, Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery • Joanna Buehler, Save Lake Sammamish joan burlingame, Friends of Rock Creek Valley Representative, Cedar River Council August 2002 9-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 9 • Acknowledgements Walt Canter, Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts Geoff Clayton, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Councilmember Randy Corman, City of Renton (beginning September 2002) Councilmember Barbara Cothern, Snohomish County (through December 2001) Councilmember Don Davidson, City of Bellevue (beginning February 2002) Kevin Fitzpatrick, Washington Department of Ecology (through 2001) i Mayor Ava Frisinger, City of Issaquah Councilmember Dave Gossett, Snohomish County (beginning January 2002) Councilmember Rich Gustafson, City of Shoreline David Garland, Washington Department of Ecology (beginning May 2002) Mayor Rosemarie Ives, City of Redmond s Kirk Lakey, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Terry Lavender Ron Little, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District (ending mid-2001) Doug McClelland, Washington Department of Natural Resources Mayor Chuck Mosher, City of Bellevue (through February 2001) Willy O'Neil, Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Ray Power, The Boeing Company Max Prinsen, King Conservation District Linda Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cleve Steward, Sustainable Fisheries Foundation Mayor Jesse Tanner, City of Renton (through August 2001) Frank Urabeck,Northwest Marine Trade Association and Trout Unlimited Alternates: Mayor Bob Bandarra, City of Bothell (beginning January 2002); Richard Bonewits, Greater Maple Valley Area Council; Councilmember Judy Clibborn, City of Mercer Island(through December 2001); Bob Everitt, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Councilmember Pat Hawkins, City of Clyde Hill; Councilmember Kathleen Huckabay, City of Sammamish; Mayor Laure Iddings, City of Maple Valley; Mayor Mike Noblet, City of Bothell (through December 2001); Mayor Larry Springer, City of Kirkland The WRIA 8 Forum consists of elected officials representing each of the 27 local governments that signed an interlocal agreement to jointly fund salmon conservation planning in the Lake i Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. WRIA 8 Forum members: • Mayor Larry Springer, City of Kirkland, Committee Chair Mayor Bob Bandarra, City of Bothell (beginning January 2002) • Mayor Jeanne Berry, Town of Yarrow Point • Councilmember Tim Clark, City of Kent Councilmember Judy Clibborn, City of Mercer Island (through December 2001) Councilmember Barbara Cothern, Snohomish County (through December 2001) ` Councilmember Don Davidson, City of Bellevue (beginning February 2002) Councilmember Paul Demitriades, City of Medina Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 9-4 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • s Chapter 9 Acknowledgements Mayor Donald Doran, City of Mukilteo Councilmember Tika Esler, City of Kenmore Councilmember Ted Frantz, Town of Hunts Point Mayor Ava Frisinger, City of Issaquah Councilmember Jean Garber, City of Newcastle Councilmember Dave Gossett, Snohomish County (beginning January 2002) Councilmember Jamie Gravelle, City of Mountlake Terrace Councilmember Gareth Grube, City of Woodinville Councilmember Rich Gustafson, City of Shoreline Councilmember Pat Hawkins, City of Clyde Hill Councilmember Kathleen Huckabay, City of Sammamish Mayor Laure Iddings, City of Maple Valley Mayor Rosemarie Ives, City of Redmond Mayor Charles Lowry, Town of Beaux Arts Village Councilmember Chuck Mosher, City of Bellevue (through February 2002) Mayor Mike Noblet, City of Bothell (through December 2001) Councilmember Roger Olstad, City of Lake Forest Park Councilmember Margaret Pageler, City of Seattle Councilmember King Parker, City of Renton (beginning September 2001) Councilmember Lora Petso, City of Edmonds Councilmember Larry Phillips, King County Mayor Jesse Tanner, City of Renton (through August 2001) Alternates: Councilmember Carolyn Armanini, Lake Forest Park; Councilmember David Asher, Kirkland; Councilmember Don Davidson, Bellevue; Councilmember Betty Heckendorn, Beaux Arts Village; Councilmember David Irons, King County; Councilmember Stuart Liddle, Newcastle; Councilmember Richard Marin, Edmonds; Councilmember Greg Misenar, Redmond; Councilmember Bob Ranson, Shoreline; Councilmember Marcia Schwendiman, Kenmore; Councilmember Dave Somers, Snohomish 0 County (through December 2001) 16 0 Cover photo: Ray Heller, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Cottage • Lake Creek. r 40 i s 0 August 2002 9-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda • • • • • • CHAPTER 10 • ! • Bibliography • • s s s • • • s • • • • • • • • ! • • • ! • ! • • w • Chapter 10. Bibliography • • CH2M Hill. 1997. North Creek Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Prepared for • Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. • Entranco. December 1996. Lake Sammamish Water Quality Management Plan. Prepared for King 0 County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. • David Evans and Associates. 2002. Little Bear Creek Corridor Habitat Assessment. Prepared for 0 the City of Woodinville by David Evans and Associates,Woodinville,WA. • • Kato & Warren. 2001. Swamp Creek Flood Reduction Study. Prepared for the City of Kenmore • by Kato &Warren Consultants, 2001 Western Avenue, Seattle,WA. 0 King County. July 1990. Bear Creek Basin Plan. King County Surface Water Management • Division. Seattle,WA. w King County. September 1994. Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. King • County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. Seattle,WA. 0 • King County. September 1998. King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County 0 Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. 0 King County. July 1998. Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. King • County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. 0 King County. May 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem. 0 King County Department of Natural Resources,Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. 0 • National Marine Fisheries Service. April 2001. Draft Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound. Seattle,WA. Pleus and Schuett-Hames. 1998. TFW Monitoring Program Method Manual for Stream Segment • Identification. Washington Department of Natural Resources under Timber,Fish, and Wildlife 0 Agreement. Olympia, WA. • Seattle, City of. April 2000. Final Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Seattle 0' Public Utilities. Seattle, WA. • Shannon&Wilson, Inc. March 2002. Wetlands Functions Assessment Sammamish River Sub- 0 basin. Seattle, WA. • • Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. 2001. Draft Snohomish River Basin Chinook Salmon 0 Near-Term Action Agenda, August 2, 2001. Snohomish County Surface Water Management w Division. Everett, WA. • August 2002 10-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 0 Watershed (WRIA 8) Action Agenda 0 • • Chapter 10 Bibliography • • Snohomish County. 1993. Little Bear Creek Watershed Reconnaissance Report No. 2. Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. • Snohomish County. 1994. North Creek Watershed Management Plan and Technical Support. • Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management Division. Everett,WA. • Snohomish,King, and Pierce Counties. May 2001. Tri-County Model 4(d)Rule Response • Proposal: A Salmon Conservation Program. Seattle,WA. • Tetra Tech Inc. Infrastructure Services Group. 2002. Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Tetra Tech Inc. Infrastructure Services Group, Portland, OR. • Washington State Conservation Commission. September 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat • Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Ecology. August 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Lacey, WA. • • Watershed Company. August 2000. Lake Sammamish Natural Shoreline Survey. Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. • WRIA 8 Technical Committee. March 2001. Draft Reconnaissance Assessment—Habitat Factors That Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids WRIA 8. • A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 10-2 August 2002 • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • w V� U • • • • • Chapter 11. Glossary • • Adaptive management: Monitoring or assessing the progress in achieving specific objectives • and incorporating what is learned into future management plans. • Altered trophic interactions: Any change, either natural or unnatural, that results in a change in • the feeding relationship of species in a community. • Anadromous fish: Species that hatch in freshwater, mature in saltwater, and return to freshwater • to spawn. • • Bank armoring or hardening: The addition of material to a shoreline that is not natural to the • site. Bank armoring or hardening structures range from vertical walls to sloped rock rubble, and • are put in place to prevent the loss of property landward . • Baseflow: That component of streamflow derived from groundwater inflow or discharge. Can • be presented in a variety of measurement units including cubic feet per second(cfs) and inches (in). Basin: The area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common point • along a stream channel. Benthic: Of, or pertaining to, animals and plants living on or within the substrate of a water • body. • • Best management practices: Methods, measures, and practices selected to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants from diffuse sources into receiving waters. • Bioengineering: Combining structural, biological, and ecological concepts to construct living • structures for erosion, sediment, or flood control. • Biofiltration: A method by which water pollutants are naturally filtered out before they can enter • water bodies. • • Biological diversity (biodiversity): Variety and variability among living organisms and the • ecological complexes in which they occur; encompasses different ecosystems, species, and genes. • • Buffer: An area of intact vegetation maintained between human activities and a particular • natural feature, such as a stream. The buffer reduces potential negative impacts by providing an area around the feature that is unaffected by this activity. • Channel migration zone: Those areas subject to risk due to stream bank destabilization, rapid • stream incision, stream bank erosion, and shifts in location of the channel. • • August 2002 11-1 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda • Chapter 11 • Glossary Channelization: Straightening the meanders of a river; often accompanied by placing riprap or concrete along banks to stabilize the system. • Channelized stream: A stream that has been straightened, runs through pipes or revetments, or is otherwise artificially altered from its natural meandering course. Connectivity: Unbroken linkages in a landscape, typified by streams and riparian areas. • Conservation easement: A legal agreement between a landowner and a qualified conservation organization that permanently limits a property's uses in order to protect its conservation values. Core production subarea: Subarea where chinook salmon are present on an annual basis. The core production subarea represents the center of(highest) abundance for each population affiliation (for spawning, rearing, and migration areas). Degradation: The lowering of the streambed or widening of the stream channel by erosion. The • breakdown and removal of soil, rock and organic debris. Diversity:Variation that occurs in plant and animal taxa(i.e., species composition), habitats, or ecosystems. • Effective impervious surface: A surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development; and/or a surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present • under natural conditions. • Endocrine: Refers to the system of glands that secrete hormones directly into the bloodstream. These hormones regulate many body processes. i Episodic: Chinook salmon are present infrequently and may not be present or observed during the typical 4- to 5-year life cycle. This indicates that when fish are observed, they are strays from another production area and not necessarily the progeny of natural production from the area in question. Evolutionarily significant unit(ESU): The geographic scale used by the National Marine Fisheries Service to distinguish salmon populations that share similar genetic, ecological, and life history traits,but differ in important ways from salmon in other ESUs. Factor of decline:Natural and anthropogenic factors that contribute to the decline of salmonids. These not only include climate and ocean conditions and natural predation but also the factors that are more commonly thought to be within human control such as habitat modification, harvest, hatchery practices, and introduction of non-native species. Flow regime: Characteristics of stream discharge over time. Natural flow regime is the regime that occurred historically. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 11-2 August 2002 Watershed(WRIA 8) Action Agenda • Chapter 11 Glossary Geomorphology: Study of the form and origins of surface features of the Earth. Hydrograph: Chart of water levels over time. Hydrology: Study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the Earth's surface, • subsurface, and atmosphere. Hydromodification: The channelization and armoring of natural banks to prevent flooding or to protect stream-adjacent property and structures from erosion; navigation activities (ditching, dredging, and channel straightening); anthropogenic alterations in channel morphology i (planform, cross-sectional area, bed and bank configuration); and anthropogenic changes in the amount of in-channel large woody debris. Impervious surface: Any surface that does not allow water to percolate naturally into the ground. Large woody debris: Large woody material that has fallen to the ground or into a stream. An important part of the structural diversity of streams. LWD is also referred to as coarse woody debris (CWD). Either term usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches (51 cm) in diameter. Limiting factor: Single factor that limits a system or population from reaching its highest potential. • mg/L: milligrams per liter. For dissolved oxygen concentrations in water it may also be • expressed as parts per million (ppm). Migratory corridors: Any area through which fish migrate on their way upstream or downstream. Native: Occurring naturally in a habitat or region; not introduced by humans. Nearshore marine zone: Habitats that lie between the lower limit of the photic zone (approximately at minus 30 meters mean lower low water) and the upland-aquatic interface. Non-native species: A species that does not occur naturally in a habitat or region. w Non point source pollution: Polluted runoff from sources that cannot be defined as discrete points, such as areas of timber harvesting, surface mining, agriculture, and livestock grazing. Noxious weeds: Non-native plants that have been introduced accidentally or as ornamentals that spread quickly, displace desirable plant species, and are extremely difficult to control. • Physiological transitions: See transition zone. Refuge areas: Areas that provide protection to a species from predators. August 2002 11-3 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8)Action Agenda Chapter 11 • Glossary Resident fish: Fish species that complete their entire life cycle in freshwater. Retention detention facilities: A type of drainage facility designed either to hold water for a considerable length of time and then release it by evaporation, plant transpiration, and/or infiltration into the ground, or to hold surface water and stormwater runoff for a short period of time and then release it to the surface water and stormwater conveyance system. . Riparian: Type of wetland transition zone between aquatic habitats and upland areas. Typically, an area on or by land bordering a stream, lake,tidewater, or other body of water. Riprap: A facing layer or protective mound of stones placed to prevent erosion or sloughing of a • structure or embankment due to the flow of surface water and stormwater runoff. Salmon: Includes all species of the salmonid family. Salmonid: Fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, char, and bull trout. • Satellite streams: Chinook salmon are present most years (more than half the years of a typical 4- to 5-year life cycle) but are less abundant than in core areas. Records are more incomplete, conservation efforts are inconsistent among potential satellite areas, and methods of enumeration • vary. Sediment: Material carried in suspension by water, which will eventually settle to the bottom. Side channel: A portion of an active channel that does not carry the bulk of stream flow. Side • channels may carry water only during high flows, but are still considered part of the total active channel. Shoreline softening: A nonstructural approach to preventing loss of upland property. Usually . refers to the placement of beach material or vegetation management at the shore. • Smolt: Juvenile salmon migrating seaward; a young anadromous trout, salmon, or char undergoing physiological changes that will allow it to change from life in freshwater to life in the sea. The smolt state follows the parr state. • Stock: Group of fish that is genetically self-sustaining and isolated geographically or temporally during reproduction. Generally, a local population of fish. More specifically, a local population w especially that of salmon, steelhead (rainbow trout), or other anadromous fish—that originates from specific watersheds as juveniles and generally returns to its birth streams to spawn as • adults. Substrate: Refers to the class or type of material (for example, sand, gravel cobble)beneath the • water column. • Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish 1 l-4 August 2002 Watershed (WRIA S)Action Agenda • Chapter 11 Glossary Temperature stratification: Refers to the stratification of lakes and reservoirs into layers of water with different temperatures and densities. Usually occurs in spring and early summer • when the combination of solar heating and mixing of near-surface water layers by the wind brings about the warming of the upper portion of the lake water column. . Transition zone: Refers to an area in which species migrating between ecological zones undergo • biological changes in order to adapt to another ecosystem. For Northwest salmon, the nearshore zone is known as a transition zone as salmon acclimate to more saline waters (if out-migrating) or non-saline waters (if in-migrating). Urban growth area: A political boundary in which urban growth is encouraged and concentrated ~ via management plans. Watershed: Entire area that contributes both surface water and underground water to a particular • lake or river. Watershed rehabilitation: Used primarily to indicate improvement of watershed condition or certain habitats within the watershed. Compare watershed restoration. • Watershed restoration: Reestablishing the structure and function of an ecosystem, including its natural diversity; a comprehensive, long-term program to return watershed health, riparian ecosystems, and fish habitats to a close approximation of their condition prior to human disturbance. • Weir: Device across a stream to divert fish into a trap or to raise the water level or divert its flow. Also a notch or depression in a dam or other water barrier through which the flow of water is measured or regulated. r • Wild stock: A stock that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat • regardless of origin. August 2002 11-5 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish • Watershed (WRIA 8)Action Agenda • • • • • • APPENDIX A • • • Evolution of WRIA 8 Watershed-Based • Planning • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EVOLUTION OF WRIA 8 WATERSHED-BASED PLANNING + �+ A 91973 March 9, 1999 Jan. 8, 2001 W Endangered Chinook salmon + NMFS issued listed as = June 10, 1999 chinook salmon Species Act "threatened" Bull trout listed as 4(d) rule uy (ESA) enacted under ESA "threatened" under ESA "+ 1971 Governor's Salmon \ r a Office created Water ; May 1997 Resources Act ;a �� Watershed a enacted" + 1999 H a Planning Act min (RCW 90.82/ — 1998 mmm Salmon Recovery Funding s Board (SRFB) created H Water .� 2514) enacted Salmon m Resources Recovery Act Inventory Areas (RCW77.85/ �"'� Multi-stakehol�establishe er Steerrn RIAs desi �• mmm ( g) (W ) g 2496/5595 D Hated by Ecology ��.,, ) Committees d ® ri in A Feb. 2, 2001 1995 mmm min mmm Nov. 1997 Interlocal Agreement effective Q Regional Needs Regional Water �"�"�" King date for WRIA 8 (combined Z g Assessment Quality Regional Conservation Cedar/Lake Washington,O Committee Funding District(KCD) Sammamish, and part of CPS 0 (RNA) process (RWQC) Task Force Assessment Forums into WRIA 8 Forum) LU started formed reauthorized ®Oct. 16, 1998 Tri-county ESA g Response Strategy ��!�� Jan 19, 2001 CPS F �"�" adopted by Tri-County Interlocal Agreement effective V fifim October fifim Central Pu et Sound June O 1995 (CPS) orum mmm 1998 Executive Committee date for WRIA 9 (combined Steering Watershed min Cedar/Lake Committees Green/Duwamish and most of Forums created mmm Washin ton Forum Central Puget Sound Forums KC Motion •created Watershed-based into WRIA 9 Forum) 3 ( WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation KEY 9681) Sammamish Forum • WRIA 9 mjm Planning i o recommended as ��!�� Jan. 1, 2001 N M Law/Legal Action min Green/Duwamish Forum one of six programs Interlocal Agreement effective = min mmm of this strategy date for King County portion mmm Group of WRIA 7 (formalized Processor Snoqualmie Forum Snoqualmie Watershed Forum) o C' 0 1970s/1980s 1995 1997 1998 2001 • • EXPLANATION OF TERMS: LOCAL • • TERM DESCRIPTION • Interlocal In 2000,local jurisdictions agreed to cost-share services to conduct WRIA-based salmon • Agreement (ILA) conservation planning in the three major watershed resource inventory areas (WRIAs)in • King County: WRIA 8,Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish;WRIA 9, the Green/Duwamish; and the King County portion of WRIA 7,the Snoqualmie. ILAs became , effective for all three watersheds in early 2001. This shared interjurisdictional effort is • focused on responding to Endangered Species Act needs. • King Conservation The KCD assessment was reauthorized at$5/parcel in November 1997 by the King County District (KCD) Council,which adopted the regional funding recommendations of the Regional Task Force • (described below).Three dollars of the$5/parcel assessment is allocated to watershed projects having regional benefits. Most King County cities and all of unincorporated King County are members of the King Conservation District. Initially,the KCD provided • conservation funds to each of the five original King County watershed forums. Funding now goes to the more recently established WRIA 8,WRIA 9, and Snoqualmie Watershed forums, which resulted from consolidating the original five. (See description below.) • Regional Needs In 1995,King County,Seattle, and suburban cities agreed that,because watershed problems-- • Assessment(RNA) including flooding,water quality and fish habitat--cross jurisdictional boundaries,they could better be addressed in a regional process using regional funding. As a means to accomplish this,the RNA was created. RNA was a process to develop a regional plan for the protection • and improvement of watersheds. • Regional Task The Regional Water Quality Committee (described below)formed a Regional Task Force • Force composed of elected officials from Seattle, suburban cities, and King County. Their charge was to develop regional funding principles. Reauthorization of the King Conservation District assessment was one of the recommendations of this effort. • Regional Water In 1995,the RWQC was established to provide oversight for the Regional Needs Assessment Quality Committee effort, specifically,to identify and prioritize regional surface water needs and funding. (RWQC) Steering As a result of the state's Salmon Recovery Act,multi-stakeholder advisory committees were • Committees authorized in each WRIA. Under the Act, their primary role is to recommend priorities for • habitat restoration projects to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. (See description on next page.) • Tri-County The Tri-County ESA Response Strategy has been a collaborative approach to develop a , Endangered proposal for near-and long-term salmon conservation and recovery actions on a WRIA-scale Species Act (ESA) in King,Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Response Strategy • Watershed Forums The watershed forums were first established as a result of KC Motion 9681 in October 1995, 3 • which resulted from the Regional Needs Assessment process.Watershed forums are multi- o jurisdictional watershed-based planning efforts.They were originally established for the N Central Puget Sound drainages (including Vashon/Maury Island)and four watersheds: Cedar/Lake Washington, Sammamish, Green/Duwamish, and Snoqualmie. These forums • were later consolidated as a result of the interlocal agreements signed in early 2001 to jointly Z fund salmon conservation planning. The new forums are the WRIA 8 Forum,the WRIA 9 3 • Forum, and the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum. o • • A-2 0 i • EXPLANATION OF TERMS: STATE • TERM DESCRIPTION • • Governor's Created by the State Legislature through the Salmon Recovery Planning Act,the Salmon Recovery Salmon Office's role is to coordinate and produce a statewide salmon strategy,assist Office in the development of regional salmon recovery plans,and submit the strategy and plans to the federal government. The office also provides a Biennial State of the Salmon Report to the Legislature. Salmon Recovery Passed by the State Legislature in advance of the federal Endangered Species Act Act (RCW 77.85, listing of chinook salmon,this Act authorized creation of multi-stakeholder steering • also referred to as committees and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. 2496 or 5595) • Salmon Recovery Established as a result of the Salmon Recovery Act,the SRFB guides the spending Funding Board of funds targeted for recovery activities and projects. The SRFB's mission is to (SRFB) support salmon recovery by funding habitat protection and restoration projects and . related programs and activities that produce sustainable and measurable benefit for fish and their habitat. The SRFB bases its funding decisions on technically reviewed recommendations of WRIA-level multi-stakeholder steering committees. • Water Resources This Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 to address wastewater issues • Act on a watershed scale. Water resource inventory areas (WRIAs)were first established by this Act for the purpose of creating a watershed approach to water quality management, specifically,wastewater management. Watershed Passed by the State Legislature in May 1997,this Act calls for four main elements • Planning Act to be addressed through planning at the watershed level. These elements are water • (RCW 90.82, also quantity,in-stream flows, fish habitat,and water quality. • referred to as 3 2514) • • Water Resource Water resource inventory areas(WRIAs)were designated by the Washington Inventory Area Department of Ecology as a result of the 1971 Water Resources Act to address • (WRIA) wastewater issues on a watershed scale. More recently,WRIAs were recognized by 11 • Z the state as the appropriate geographic scale at which to conduct salmon 3 conservation efforts. N 0 • • • • • • • i • • • A-3 • • • • • • APPENDIX B • • • WRIA 8 Salmon Conservation Planning: • How It Fits in with Related Efforts • • M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • i • • • WRIA 8 SALMON CONSERVATION: HOW IT FITS IN WITH RELATED EFFORTS ENTITY/ DESCRIPTION/ COMPLETED EXPECTED PROCESS GOALS PARTICIPANTS LEGAL BASIS WORK PRODUCTS WORK PRODUCTS WRIA 8 A coalition of governments and •2 counties(King Multi-jurisdictional,multi- Published: --Conservation Plan. Salmon stakeholder groups working together and Snohomish) stakeholder Steering --Draft Reconnaissance --Strategic Conservation to craft a salmon conservation plan •25 cities Committee convened under Assessment--Habitat Factors Assessment. Planning (one for the Lake Washington/Cedar/ •Business and RCW 77.85. Interlocal that Contribute to the Decline of six Sammamish Watershed(WRIA 8). environmental agreement signed by of Salmonids in the Greater elements of interests participating county and city Lake Washington Watershed the Tri-County •Water/sewer governments commits those WRIA 8Area. effort, districts entities to jointly fund salmon --Salmon and Steelhead Habitat described •State agencies conservation planning efforts. Limiting Factors Report of the below) Participation is voluntary. Cedar-Sammamish Basin. --Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Conservation in the Lake Washington/ Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. to L Tri-County A voluntary assembly of local •King,Pierce,and No legal authority per se. Published: Salmon governments,tribes,and business Snohomish Cooperating with National --Return of the Kings. Conservation and environmental coalitions in counties Marine Fisheries Service to --Draft Urban Issues ESA Study. Coalition King,Pierce,and Snohomish •Seattle,Bellevue, address the listing of chinook --Draft Tri-County Model 4(d) counties that has worked together to Everett,Tacoma, salmon. Rule Response Proposal, respond to the Endangered Species and Suburban which includes: Act(ESA)listing of chinook Cities Association •Stormwater Management salmon. The goal is to recover Puget •Nisqually Tribe •Road Maintenance Sound chinook salmon without •Tulalip Tribe •Land Use undermining the economy in the •Business and •Watershed planning metropolitan area. The strategy has environmental (outlined above) a long-range and a short-range interests •Monitoring and w component. The short-range •State agencies Adaptive Management component includes identifying and •Habitat Acquisition and 3 implementing early actions that Restoration. benefit salmon habitat. The long- --Regional Road Maintenance X range component involves ESA Program Guidelines. developing science-based plans for --Biological Review of Draft the conservation and restoration of Tri-County Model 4(d)Rule z habitat systems in each of the Response Proposal. 3 co o region's WRIAs. WRIA 8 SALMON CONSERVATION: HOW IT FITS IN WITH RELATED EFFORTS (continued) ENTITY/ DESCRIPTION/ COMPLETED EXPECTED PROCESS GOALS PARTICIPANTS LEGAL BASIS WORK PRODUCTS WORK PRODUCTS Puget Sound The group's goal is to develop a •Watershed-based The strategy will be the platform Published: --Final Shared Shared unifying strategy for the Puget Sound planning groups for integrating work across the --Draft Shared Strategy for Strategy document. Strategy region,ensuring that local,watershed, •Local,state, 4Hs(harvest,habitat,hatcheries, Recovery of Salmon. --Recovery plan and regional efforts add up to federal,and tribal and hydroelectric)and all Puget Strategy is designed to link outline,including recovery. The strategy will include a governments Sound region WRIAs. National local planning processes chapters for comprehensive and collaborative •Business and Marine Fisheries Service and with state and tribal efforts. individual framework for salmon recovery environmental U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service --Draft Recovery Plan watersheds. throughout all of the Puget Sound interests have chosen to meet their outline. --Interim Recovery region. •Non-governmental recovery planning legal mandate Goals developed by groups (Section 4(f)of the ESA)in a the co-managers of N collaborative manner through the the resource(i.e.,the Shared Strategy.All other state and tribes). participants take part voluntarily and retain all of their legal authorities as participants. >_ Governor's Established to coordinate and produce •Governor's staff RCW 77.85 (commonly referred Published: --Salmon conservation W Salmon a statewide salmon strategy,assist in to as 2496/5595),the Salmon --Extinction Is Not an Option. planning guidelines. Recovery the development of regional salmon Recovery Act,established --Guidance on Watershed --Other guidance Office recovery plans,and submit the strategy Governor's Salmon Office to Assessment for Salmon. documents. 3 Z and plans to the federal government. coordinate and produce a --Salmon Recovery O Three-part effort to recover salmon statewide strategy. Scorecard. X includes: development of Statewide --Biennial State of the Salmon HSalmon Recovery Strategy,state and Report(presented to the LU federal budget proposals,and a State Legislature). z H 3 comprehensive legislative package. 0 0 0 • • • • • • 00 • 000000000000000 • 0 • • • 000000000 • 0000 WRIA 8 SALMON CONSERVATION: HOW IT FITS IN WITH RELATED EFFORTS (continued) ENTITY/ DESCRIPTION/ COMPLETED EXPECTED PROCESS GOALS PARTICIPANTS LEGAL BASIS WORK PRODUCTS WORK PRODUCTS Joint Serves as the formal and ongoing Composed of: Formed in May 1997 by Natural institutional framework to promote •Heads of state memorandum of understanding Resources interagency communication, agencies signed by Governor Locke and Cabinet coordination,and policy direction on •Power planning 13 state agency heads. (JNRC) environmental and natural resource councils issues.This body works closely with •Tulalip Tribe LU Salmon Office to develop State's Recovery Strategy. N Z Government Established to provide a wider forum Includes Council on to assist with the review and representatives from: HNatural development of the state's three-part •JNRC Lu Resources effort to recover salmon(outlined •State Legislature W above). •Some tribes N •Local and federal government agencies •Ports v Technical Committee of scientists assigned to Includes scientists Under the Endangered Species --Recovery goals. Recovery develop biological delisting criteria for from federal,state, Act,the National Marine --Delisting criteria. W Team chinook salmon in the Puget Sound and local Fisheries Service is responsible tN W evolutionarily significant unit. governments and for listing and developing W I tribes. recovery plans for threatened _ and endangered marine species U.H including anadromous fish. W 3 Z g� o L c5 x J 2 Q Z 0 z F� co Q Z O O • • • • • APPENDIX C • • • Legal Drivers for Salmon Conservation • Planning in WRIA 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r DIRECT DRIVERS FOR SALMON CONSERVATION PLANNING IN WRIA 8 STATUTE AND DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENTS/AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 40 0 WRIA 8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT In 2000,local jurisdictions throughout the Lake King and Snohomish •Parties to the agreement are * Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed agreed to counties committed to jointly funding to cost-share services to conduct WRIA-based salmon salmon conservation planning conservation planning. This shared 25 cities efforts. Participation is interjurisdictional effort is focused on responding to voluntary. Endangered Species Act needs. FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) Provides significant protection for species of insects, National Marine •Responsible for listing and animals, and plants in the United States that are Fisheries Service protecting marine species, listed as needing protection. When a species is listed (NMFS) including anadromous fish. under the ESA,"critical habitat",or habitat containing physical or biological features essential to U.S. Fish and Wildlife •Responsible for listing and the species'conservation,is designated. Federal Service protecting freshwater and agencies are prohibited from authorizing (through terrestrial species. i permits, licenses,easements,or contracts),funding, or carrying out any action that will result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In WRIA 8,chinook salmon and bull trout A are both listed as"threatened"under the ESA. WASHINGTON STATE SALMON RECOVERY ACT (RCW 77.85, also referred to as 2496 or 5595) Governor's Salmon •The WRIA 8 Steering Passed by the State Legislature in advance of the Recovery Office Committee is charged with ESA listing of chinook salmon. Multi-stakeholder recommending habitat project steering committees and the Salmon Recovery Steering committees lists to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board were created as a result of this Funding Board(SRFB). legislation. Business and Steering committees are environmental interests responsible for submitting S prioritized lists of habitat i Water/sewer districts protection and restoration projects to the SRFB based on State agencies limiting factors analysis. TRIBAL AGREEMENTS AND RELATED CASE LAW Salmon and steelhead fisheries are managed State of Washington •The state and the tribes are cooperatively by the State of Washington and Indian (primarily Washington charged with overseeing 3 ` tribes whose rights were established in treaties Department of Fish and management of harvest and signed with the federal government in the 1850s. Wildlife) hatcheries for the state's A 1974 federal court case(known as the Boldt fisheries. As such,they have a idecision)re-affirmed the tribes'rights to harvest Federally recognized been working with federal w salmon and steelhead and established tribes as Indian tribes in agencies to develop appropriate co-managers of Washington fisheries. Washington state scientific tools to quantify co harvestable salmon populations. 01 0 0 . C-1 • OTHER RELEVANT LAWS STATUTE AND DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENTS/AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES s STATE LAWS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) The Washington State Legislature found that City and county •Directed to implement and • uncoordinated and unplanned growth threatened the governments develop mechanisms to meet environment and sustainable economic the GMA's goals. development. It therefore established a process for •Most counties have adopted citizens,local government, and the private sector to development regulations that cooperate in and coordinate comprehensive land use require permits for activities in planning and zoning. The GMA establishes goals or near critical areas,one of the and policy direction on a wide range of issues, designated land use areas. including environmental protection and shoreline Critical areas include Fish and management. Wildlife Habitat Conservation • Areas. • SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) Designed to manage and protect the shorelines of Washington • Serves in a support and review g the state by regulating development in the shoreline Department of capacity to assist and ensure area. A major goal of the act is"to prevent the Ecology that local governments 3 • inherent harm of an uncoordinated and piecemeal implement the Act via N development of the state's shorelines." The SMA Shoreline Master Programs also states that shorelines should be managed to (SMPs). Ecology must approve a foster all reasonable and appropriate uses and to SMPs. w ensure uses are designed and conducted in a manner • that minimizes damage to the ecology and Local governments •Must develop SMPs and O environment. administer shoreline permits. a N • O • • • • • • i • M C • OTHER RELEVANT LAWS (continued) STATUTE AND DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENTS/AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 40 0 STATE LAWS (continued) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) i Establishes a policy for state agencies to use all All state,county, and •An environmental impact • practicable means and measures to create and city agencies statement(EIS)is required for maintain conditions under which people and nature all non-exempt developments. can exist in productive harmony. Requires that Elements of the EIS include S state agencies analyze the environmental impacts of water,plants and animals, proposed projects. This analysis is intended to unique species, shoreline uses, coordinate with permit reviews,including those and habitat. required for activities in nearshore and riparian •Department of Ecology and habitats. local governments have programs for monitoring, Amendments made to SEPA regulations in compliance, and enforcement. November 1997 integrated SEPA requirements with those of the Growth Management Act. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION ACT Established the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Puget Sound Water •Brings together federal, state, Team and a nine-member Puget Sound Council to Quality Action Team local and tribal representatives take the lead on water quality protection efforts for to lead and coordinate efforts to Puget Sound. protect Puget Sound. t •Responsible for developing a The Act directs state and local agencies to biennial Puget Sound Water coordinate with each other in order to produce a Quality Work Plan that ' biennial work plan that clearly delineates state and identifies actions necessary to . local actions necessary to protect and restore the correct regional water quality biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. problems. S AQUATIC LANDS ACT In 1982,the Washington State Legislature Washington Department •Any activity that interferes with acknowledged that state-owned tidelands are a of Natural Resources the public's use of state-owned finite resource of great value. This Act states that (WDNR) tideland area requires WDNR W aquatic lands are to be used to provide a balance of authorization. g public benefits for all the state's citizens,including •WDNR focuses management of 3 encouraging direct public use and access and tidelands on protecting areas of ensuring environmental protection. statewide significance, meaning A areas with statewide implications and/or benefits. a The primary means used by WDNR to identify significant • tidelands is through the Z 3 Shoreline Management Act. o 0 i C-3 • • OTHER RELEVANT LAWS (continued) i • STATUTE AND DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENTS/AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES STATE LAWS (continued) WATER RESOURCES ACT (RCW 90.54) Outlines water resource policies and provides State and local governments guidance to local governments in comprehensive i water resource planning. The statute emphasizes cooperation and coordination among local governments,the state,and federally recognized ! Indian tribes. Local governments are directed to explore all possible measures for the protection of groundwater aquifers that are the sole source of • drinking water within a jurisdiction. Policy • guidelines in the statute are largely advisory. WATERSHED PLANNING ACT (RCW 90.82, also referred to as 2514) State and local governments Enables counties,cities,and water utilities, in cooperation with Indian tribes with reservation lands in the management area,to form WRIA (water resource inventory area)planning units and to receive state assistance for watershed planning. Watershed planning performed under the authority • of RCW 90.82 must address water quantity,which includes an estimate of water resources present, existing and claimed water rights, and underground . resources.This statute restricts watershed planning . from conflicting with existing state statutes,federal laws,or tribal treaty rights or from impairing existing water rights. i • FEDERAL LAWS CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) The primary federal law that protects the nation's Environmental Charged with implementing most • waters,including coastal areas. Among its purposes Protection Agency of the CWA, including: is"the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, (some authorities • § 303 (water quality standards 3� and wildlife." delegated to the and TMDLs) N� The two fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act Washington Department • § 402 (NPDES permitting). are to: of Ecology) a •Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the A nation's waters U.S.Army Corps of Charged with implementing: •Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and Engineers • § 404(dredge and fill Z swimmable. permitting). 0 • • C-4 i i OTHER RELEVANT LAWS (continued) • • STATUTE AND DESCRIPTION GOVERNMENTS/AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FEDERAL LAWS (continued) ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into National Marine Fisheries Service cooperative agreements with the states and other non-federal interests for the conservation, development, and enhancement of the nation's U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service anadromous fishery resources that are subject to depletion from water resource developments and other causes. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT All federal agencies (NEPA) Designed to"encourage productive and enjoyable The White House Council on Environmental Quality was harmony between man and his environment; established as a result of this legislation;it is responsible for promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to reviewing and appraising all federal agencies'programs and the environment and biosphere; and enrich the activities and for determining whether the objectives of the understanding of the ecological systems and natural policy are being achieved. It is also responsible for docu- resources important to the nation." menting and defining changes in the natural environment. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT Adopted to encourage and assist the states in Department of Commerce •The Secretary of Commerce developing and implementing management has the authority to make 3 programs that preserve,protect, and,where grants to any coastal state, possible,restore or enhance the resources of the including grants for up to nation's coastal zone.This covers all marine 80 percent of the shorelines,including Puget Sound(and shorelines administrative cost of the • along the Great Lakes). Requires that federal programs agencies or licensees carry out their activities to 11 co !� conform with each state's coastal zone management program. o 0 i • i i • • • • • C • • • *AS11Nc • s � w� • 9 111AMISK� • • Financial support for the coordination and development of the Near-Term Action Agenda was provided • by the following local governments in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed: � I • 10N, F A BE< "ter rr 1 • ] I 7 0^ `�� = �= Clyde / \; Town of Town of Hunts Point Beaux Arts gSMING�� ° � • Village OF Klgk • CITY OF U �G A ISSA-QAH . King County 9 .o KENT SMING In' of • MAPLE VALLEY (.O fALL 1 • 9 'RK < _ • LAKE FOREST PARK Cfry c: � • 3 CITI OF = N1LIK11.TEO �Z 7.. �� p MOUNTLAKE 7 TERRACE -- I47�_y: - - vl,� VCAS 4SHING�° • Ca7n�rT CRY OF • ANT° C� City of Seattle SHORELINE Town of Snohomish County yarrow Point wooDINvILL6 v • • Visual ComLayout/Produmunications This material will be provided • Visual Communications and Web Services unit, Water&Land Resources Division, in alternative formats for King Count-Department of Natural Resources • File Name:0208 WSNTAA Report/ individuals with disabilities • upon request. � Additional copies of this document are • available from: King County Department of Natural Resources Voice: 206-296-6519 • Water and Land Resources Division TTY: 1-800-833-6388 201 South Jackson Street#600 • Seattle,WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-6519 • •